Reasons Not to Circumcise Your Baby

I think this article is clearly one sided, as it fails to mention the religious aspect that leads some parents to circumsized and the benefits, yes even the associations against circumsion admit they exist, of circumcision. It isnt unethical to break a bone in an infant so it can reset correctly or even administer eye surgery, so why would this procedure be any less ethical?

The article is entitled "Reasons Not to Circumcise Your Baby". Why would you expect it to provide reasons *to* circumcise?

Setting a bone or administering eye surgery in an infant are ethical because they correct things that are wrong with the body. The foreskin is neither an injury, a disease nor a birth defect: it is a normal body part. A better analogy for most circumcisions (non-religious, culturally based RIC as it occurs in the USA) would be parents reshaping an infant's nose because they found it unattractive, using a painful procedure which ensured the baby's sense of smell or ability to breathe was permanently and irreparably compromised. Just like the analogy, circumcision interferes with the biological function of the organ. It is destructive, not constructive as the resetting of a bone is; it is designed to take the organ away from its natural state, not restore it to its natural state.

excellent article! now im 75% against circumsizing my baby after reading this article I will read the pro side next and make a final decision in whether or not to circumsize my son. Thank you for this very informative article

Great article, Sarah! I hope that "guest" is able to see that many of the pro-circ reasonings are based in myth and old studies. We should always be wary of advise given to us by those that stand to profit from it. I don't accuse doctors of always encouracing circ for profit reasons, but I think that it it can drive a person to be willfully ignorant of the facts. Unfortunately it is our little boys who suffer the consequences (one of mine included). There is a reason that even the AAP does not recommend RIC...and that one study in particular was ended early because of severe trauma to the infants undergoing circumcision. Again, thank you!

A more accurate analogy is to remove all ten finger tips as this is the amount of touch receptors removed in male circumcision. RIC routine infant circumcision is not surgery as it is done to healthy children, not diseased.

"Not just a flap of skin" see Gary Burlingame's Lost List.

The foreskin EQUALLY protects the glans AND the inner mucosa. Structures protected ranked in importance are:
#1 - Ridged Band (>65% sexual receptors, always removed)
#2 - Frenulum (<20% sexual receptors, partially to all removed)
#3 - Glans (15% sexual receptors and is mostly pain receptors detecting hot and cold not fine touch sexual receptors)
Note the male that has his frenulum removed too will say and rightly so that his glans is the most sensitive, even too sensitive as the pain receptors can get in the way of enjoyment. So when a man says his glans is too sensitive, that he would die of a heart attack if he felt more being intact, you know that he has had his frenulum also removed.

Arguably keratinization more important than the glans lessons sensation of the frenulum remnant if any left along with the sensitive mucosa. Arguably the glans will have to overcome the restrictive nature of keratinization to inflate. Here also RIC creates scar thickening from the cut up to include the glans tip caused by tearing the foreskin away from the glans. The average 45 y.o. man will have keratinization on the order of 1-2 condoms thick.

Intercourse- it is known the circumcised penis takes 10x the pressure for vaginal entry. That's 10 x 100% over intact males. How does this equate with pleasure?

Note circumcision kills parts of the brain. Brain cells that no longer receive neural impulses atrophy and die. Then adjacent cells grow into this dead space chaotically.
Also see Dr. Tinari MRI that shows the brain does not go back to baseline and the medical resistance to change.

PAIN- The great majority of Infant male circumcisions are not done with anesthesia (last San Francisco convention of ACOG or OB/GYN). What adults done without pain relief say:
Nelson Mandela said his circumcision was blinding white light of electrical fire that burned throughout his veins.
A recent Zulu said "I never even saw the knife. You just black out."
3,928 island villagers males & females all ages forced circ'd into Islam by Muslim clerics.
Note:
"Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1 transmission by Langerhans cells"
'Circumcision can lead to mental illness' by Melanie Peters 2008

The foreskin is a surrogate vagina that teaches the boy how to best his performance and pleasure. The circumcised learn with sexual intercourse.

The intact male can orgasm by thought with kegal. Common to intact males, especially by those that are taught not to masturbate, orgasm is achieved hands free by thought to erection and then using thought and kegal exercise inflate slightly the glans at each clench thereby naturally retracting a bit the foreskin. Through these rhythmic retractions orgasm is reached. Another hands free method is docking.

The penis grows into the foreskin during puberty taking up the slack. Infant circumcision doesn't take this into account and so a tight to too tight a fit is the result.

Read Dr. John Taylor's Frenulum Delta to understands the function of the dartos muscle which allows all actions on the erect intact penis to be acting on the ridged band and frenulum. There is no shaft action wasted. If circumcised, shaft action is wasted on these erogenous structures and must be directly acting on the frenulum remnant if any left.

Circumcision is an attack on the male temple of identity and love.
It is all about power over others.

@ Guest :
Interesting read from Glick's "Marked in Your Flesh": "that the Lord's covenant and his two definitive promises (prodigious reproduction success and a lavish land grant (all of Canaanite land) appears first in Genesis 15, an earlier J text but with one crucial difference, there is no mention of circumcision." "To seal this covenant the only requirement is that Abram offer several sacrificial animals- a heifer, goat, ram, dove, and one other bird. Here we find no mention of circumcision, no change of name, no mention of Isaac or Ishmael." "Like a number of their neighbors, the ancient Israelites had practiced circumcision, but not as a mandatory rite and probable seldom on infants; nor did they associate it with the idea of covenant."

It was the Judean Priests who wrote Genesis 17 (P text) 13 centuries after Abraham's putative lifetime that called for male circumcision of infants. A initiation rite not so much for the infant but of the father who must circumcise his son himself for he is cognizant of the event whereas the infant is not. These type of circ.s were the cutting off the acroposthion (the part that hangs past the glans). No damage of tearing the foreskin from the glans (thus results scarring from the cut up to the tip of the glans) and no amputating the part covering the glans. The radical circ., also medically known as penile reduction, as we do happens centuries later. The Torah says not to mark the body, the original Covenant jives with the earliest Judea.

This article is way one sided and not very helpful in making a decision. The writer seems to be trying to scare people to their opinion. At least present the pros as well as the cons. I myself am circumsized and as i have gotten older have lost no sexual sensations. Another thing this writer might consider is alot of girl find an untrimmed penis wierd.

Again, the article is entitled "Reasons Not to Circumcise Your Baby" - it makes no claims to be anything other than one-sided. As for the "pros" of circumcision, most of the oft-cited pros are based on shoddy and outdated research or rather disturbing sociological prejudices. I'm happy to interact with any reasons for circumcision you can offer.

As a circumcised male, how can you say you have not lost sexual sensation? You may have perfectly satisfying sensations, but that is not the same thing as saying you have the same sensations you would have if you had 20,000 extra specialised nerve endings and the gliding action of the foreskin. The loss is objectively real. A colour-blind person may be perfectly happy with the way he perceives colour, but he is still objectively lacking certain sensory data.

It is indeed, sadly, possible that some women in the US might find an intact penis unusual. This is changing as circumcision rates drop, and has never been an issue in Europe or indeed most of the world where intact is the norm. However, positing this as a reason to circumcise is downright bizarre. I do not mutilate my daughter's genitals on the grounds that she may end up with a partner from a culture where FGM is the norm and intact labia are seen as repulsive. No more would I mutilate my son's genitals on the grounds a future sexual partner might find the normal male penis unattractive. That would be a sign of her sexual dysfunction, not his. (Foot-binding is another example of this - there were no doubt a lot of men who found unaltered feet on women sexually unattractive, but ultimately the fact that foot-binding damages feet was considered more important an issue.)

It's important to state both sides of any discussion. A biased one-sided article is really not helpful.
There is discomfort with circumcision. There is the risk of bleeding and infection as well. But there are significant medical benefits to having a boy circumcised. Not giving this information gives your readers only biased, one sided information.
The risk of urinary tract infections are significantly higher in males the first year of life if they are uncircumcised.
Phimosis (foreskin that cannot be retracted) and paraphimosis (a medical emergency when the foreskin is forcibly retracted and cuts of bloodflow to the glans) are conditions in uncircumcised males.
The risk of sexually transmitted diseases are dramatically higher in uncircumcised males. Many of these STDs (HIV, HPV, herpes) are typically lifelong infections. That is a significant downside to not circumcising a boy.
The official statement from the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) is that it is a personal choice, and the AAP doesn't take a stand either way. There has been more and more discussion over the past 10 years to change that statement and to officially recommend circumcision from a medical standpoint.
When people are making a medical decision on their son, they should have as much information as possible, not a biased one sided view either for or against.

The thing is, once you get past the "circumcision is a violation of human rights and an irreversible sexual mutilation", the thought of a "balanced" article becomes rather obscene. Would you like to see a "balanced" article on female genital mutilation? Of course not; you recognise (I hope!) that it simply should not be done for ethical reasons. Any medical benefits pale next to that fact.

As for your comment, it itself extremely biased in favour of circumcision being seen as an ethical/reasonable choice. Your wording confirms this. Circumcision does not cause "discomfort" - it causes agony. The pain of circumcision causes infants to have bonding and breastfeeding issues, which is why La Leche League International has spoken out against the practice. Long-term pain response differences have been observed in circumcised newborns in one study; in another, all the types of pain relief used for neonatal circumcision were tested for efficacy and found wanting. Circumcision involves tearing, crushing and cutting one of the most exquisitively sensitive parts of the Body without adequate pain relief on a non-consenting infant. A large number of babies slip into a semi-coma from the shock, only to have their parents fondly report "Oh, he slept through it". "Discomfort"?

The UTI angle is similarly ridiculous as a "benefit". For one thing, UTIs are easily treatable; for another, circumcision is no guarantee of preventing them (and one study has shown no improvement in UTI rates). For another, UTIs are ten times more common in girls, and circumcising girls would have a similar effect on UTIs - but it is not seen as necessary to cut *their* genitals. So I do not believe it would be "unbiased" of me to tout reduced instances of UTIs as a benefit of circ, any more than I would recommend amputating a finger to prevent ingrown toenails. The fact that it is considered a viable reason to remove a functional, protective, sexual body part betrays a much stronger bias - that of the foreskin as dispensable and useless, almost a birth defect.

(Continued in next comment)

Phimosis is often misdiagnosed by doctors who are ignorant about foreskins. A non-retractable foreskin in an infant or child is NORMAL. True phimosis, ironically, can actually be caused by circumcision when remnants of the wounded foreskin readhere to the shaft.

As for problems due to forcible retraction, this calls for education, not amputation! The foreskin need never be forcibly retracted. Forcible retraction of the fingernails would similarly cause issues, but we don't pre-emptively amputate fingers because of the incompetence of doctors... we choose doctors who know not to retract fingernails. (Incidentally, the foreskin is attached to the glans and shaft with adhesions similar to the way a fingernail is attached to a finger, so this is not an empty analogy. There's a reason babies scream when forcibly retracted.)

As for STDs, I suggest you look up the ethics and methodology of the studies which came to those conclusions. "Flawed" is an understatement. For example, in one oft-cited AIDS study in Africa, the circumcised males were not only physically unable to have sex while healing (thus lessening their chance of infection), but they were educated about condom use while the control (intact) group was not. Further, the results of the study do not apply neatly to situations in the First World. Further, circumcising your boy assumes some rather specific things about his future behavior. Why not educate him about condom use, risky sex and so on instead of taking away the most sensitive parts of his penis on the assumption that he will engage in risky or unprotected sex? Whether circumcised or not, he will still need to wear a condom to protect against STDs and he will still run the risk of contracting and transmitting those diseases. There are also studies which demonstrate a protective effect of cells in the foreskin (it is, after all, a protective organ); and studies which show circumcised males are more likely to indulge in risky sexual practices. This was posited in the study as compensating for the reduced sexual sensation occasioned by circumcision.

The AAP still has a neutral stance on circumcision, as you say. This should not be changed to a pro-circ stance on faulty grounds, such as the quasi-medical reasons you cite. More to the point, the ethics argument should come first. If circumcision is indeed a violation of human rights and a permanent sexual assault on boys, then discussion slight medical benefits becomes moot. There are medical benefits to removing baby girls' breasts at birth - think how common breast cancer is! There are medical benefits to Type 1 female circumcision that exactly parallel those posited for male circumcision (as well as identical social benefits argued by pro-circers, which might give one pause for thought). Neither procedure would be seriously considered by the AAP, but simply because it is steeped in a culture where male circumcision has gained such cultural and sexual importance, the atrocity cannot be seen and the flimsiest of justifications can be used to support the practice. A practice, incidentally, without which billions of men do quite well - do Americans believe that European men spend their lives in agony from UTIs, become infected with HIV at the drop of a hat, suffer the scorn of women, get sand under their foreskins, and the myriad of other deadly ills for which the foreskin in America is allegedly responsible?

Your view point is again quite one-sided. Parents should make a decision based on good information, not based on a biased statement either for or against. If circumcision is "a violation of human rights and irreversible sexual mutilation", don't you find it a bit curious that the AAP has not taken a stance against it? Do you feel the American Academy of Pediatrics is for violating human rights and for sexual mutilation? If you answer yes to that, you really need to question how rational of an individual you are.
UTIs are actually more common in boys the first year of life, this changes dramatically to being more common in females after one year of age. UTIs are not simple infections that are easily treated in the first year of life. A UTI in an infant will typically require hospitalization, IV antibiotics, and further imaging studies (renal ultrasound and VCUG). A VCUG itself is a very uncomfortable procedure for a baby to endure as well. UTIs can rapidly lead to kidney infections in infants, which can result in renal scarring and permenent damage to renal function. UTIs are significantly more common in uncircumcised boys. Are you saying that a boy being hospitalized, put on IV antibiotics, and undergoing a VCUG is all a simple process? UTIs in babies the first three months of life also can rapidly progress to pyelonephritis, sepsis, and meningitis. Are these simple to treat as well?
You don't mention your medical training anywhere in your article either. I'm curious as to how you have become an expert. As a pediatrician, I have worked with roughly 50-60 physicians in my area, none of whom share your one-sided viewpoint. Please let me know what kind of medical training you have received to know more than every pediatrician, Ob/Gyn, and Urologist that I have worked with.
Paraphimosis occurs in uncircumcised males, is a medical emergency, and can lead to necrosis of the penis. Again, you didn't bother to mention that complication and risk in your article.
The risk of STDs in the uncircumcised male is higher. Period. There have been numerous studies supporting this. You need to selectively choose which studies to read to determine otherwise, which you have clearly done. To say that being uncircumcised does not increase your risk of an STD has no scientific credibility. Again, you are clearly biased and choosing to only hear what supports your conclusions. The consequences of aquiring HIV are certainly not trivial, not to mention the high percentage of our population that have genital warts and herpes that they are forced to live with daily.
Circumcision has numerous benefits, and it does have risks as well(pain, bleeding, infection). All risks and benefits should be weighed, and the final decision should be made in an educated manner by the parents. The family should hear both sides, hear the risks and benefits, and make an educated decision.

On the STD angle, I'll also add (and should have mentioned earlier) the rather obvious fact that newborns do not have sex. By waiting until the possessor of the penis is capable of informed consent, a whole host of ethical and medical issues are avoided. The adult size of the penis will be determined, so the risk of removing "too much" foreskin with resultant tight erections will be diminished. The patient will be able to undergo general anaesthesia, thereby reducing the pain associated with the procedure. The patient will not be exposing the open wound to urine and feces in a nappy, as he will be able to toilet himself. Pain from the procedure will not interfere with mother-baby bonding or breastfeeding. And, perhaps more to the point, the patient will be able to make this decision about his own genitals, weighing up the pros and cons himself. He will know at 18 better than his parents did at his birth whether he is likely to engage in risky sexual activity, whether he is reliable enough to use a condom, whether he finds the sexual satisfaction provided by his foreskin worthwhile or not, and so on. The principles of bodily autonomy are thus preserved, and both the doctor (as long as he truly informs his patient about the procedure) and parents are ethically in the clear.

The AAP has clearly stated that circumcision has risks and has benefits, and parents should make educated decisions. Maybe you feel that as a freelance writer with no medical training that you know better than the AAP. I'll just have to disagree with you on that one. And yes, you are certainly irrational if you believe the AAP is out to mutilate babies for their own personal gain.
The risk of UTIs are significantly higher in uncircumcised males. There are numerous potential complications from a UTI or kidney infection in a neonate. The risk is 10 fold higher in an uncircumcised male.
The risks of STDs are much higher in the uncircumcised male. There are numerous studies supporting this fact. Educating people on condom use and safe sex is certainly wise. But, if your stance is that we can just have the whole world practice safe sex to eliminate STDs, then I'm afraid you're being a bit unrealistic. If you can stop the people of this world from having unprotected sex, they you need to be President of the World Health Organization, not blogging about haircare. Uncircumcised males are more likely to contract HIV, herpes, genital warts, and other STDs. They are then more likely to pass these diseases on to their partners. This has been repeatedly shown in numerous studies, and you clearly seem to ignore any evidence contradicts your one sided view. Do you feel that HIV, warts, or herpes are not a significant medical issue?
Paraphimosis is one of the few true urological emergencies. Once a paraphimosis occurs, the swelling of the penis leads to difficulty reducing the obstruction. Your statement that this is easily treatable at home shows a clear lack of medical knowledge. Telling parents to simply fix the problem at home themselves is dangerous advise to say the least. Yes, some may be reduced by the parent before necrosis occurs. Some certainly won't though.
I wasn't aware of the "large numer of men in the US attempting to repair their foreskins". We have roughly 150,000,000 males in the US, the majority of which are circumcised. What is this "large numer"? 50 million? 100 million?
People need to make educated decisions on the care of their newborns. The AAP has made a clear statement on circumcisions that you have gone against. You have ignored all evidence that contradicts your onesided view. Circumicisions certainly do have potential risks. They clearly have medical benefits as well (unless you choose to ignore the data, which does truly give you no scientific credibility). Maybe your training as an English Major or your blogging on Disneyland or haircare have given you some medical insight the AAP is unaware of. Somehow I doubt it though.

Ah. So because I also write about haircare and Disneyland, I am incapable of assimilating information from peer-reviewed scientific studies on the subject of circumcision? Good to see that med schools are producing such impeccably logical graduates.

You are not engaging with the arguments I have put forth or the studies I have cited, and you have misinterpreted my words. I am happy to discuss the medical and ethical issues surrounding circumcision in the interests of informed consent; I am not interested in a typical Internet mudslinging contest. And I happen to moderate the combox, so behave. :p

It is not as simple as “the AAP is out to mutilate babies for their own personal gain”, and I made no such claim. What I said was “The cultural factors surrounding circumcision are extremely pervasive and complex”. There is plenty of literature on the web about the psychology of circumcision and its cultural significance; I suggest you look it up.

“if your stance is that we can just have the whole world practice safe sex to eliminate STDs” - no, that is not my stance. I doubt the world is suddenly going to recognise the importance of safe sex. However, parents are not responsible for the world but for their children, and I do believe it is possible at an individual level to educate one’s sons about STD risks and safe sex (which includes, in most circumstances, a condom regardless of intact/circumcised status). I also feel it more ethical to teach one’s son about the risks of sex than to assume he will be risky and amputate the most sexually sensitive parts of his genitalia pre-emptively.

In many cases it is, indeed, possible to treat paraphimosis at home (although you will note that again, I did not “tell parents to simply fix the problem at home themselves”, as you state). The American Family Physician has published a pamphlet describing how to correct paraphimosis oneself using a variety of techniques.

As for your statements about STDs and UTIs, you are again not engaging with my statements. I have not ignored the studies which demonstrate the positions you mention; I have questioned their methodology and their significance in the light of other facts about circumcision, and I have presented studies which provide opposing evidence. Are you planning to refute or critique those studies, or simply reiterate your mantra of “circumcision prevents STDs”?

If you are not aware of the foreskin restoration movement, I suggest you educate yourself. Your unfamiliarity with the procedure raises into question the superior knowledge of medical professionals.

“Circumcisions certainly do have potential risks. They clearly have medical benefits as well”. - The trouble with this statement is that all the benefits of circumcision are potential benefits only. Any individual circumcision MAY prevent a newborn from getting a UTI. It MAY allow a teenager to have more acts of risky, unprotected sex before contracting an STD. It MAY protect a baby from an incidence of paraphimosis in the future. However, it is statistically unlikely to do any of those things. In contrast, circumcision WILL definitely result in some rather major damage, including keratinisation of the glans, altered sexual mechanics, pain and trauma to the newborn, and the loss of the most sexually sensitive parts of the penis. Additionally, circumcision has its potential risks – meatal stenosis (a high risk), curvature of the shaft, tight erections, haemmorhage and so on, ranging to the rather extreme cases such as severed glans, necrotising of the penis and death.

There’s also the issue you have repeatedly ignored, which is that circumcision is subject to ethical as well as purely medical criteria. Some procedures are considered morally wrong, so that doctors do not even think to weigh up the medical minutiae. Many of the benefits of male circumcision apply with equal force to female circumcision, yet the practice is illegal in the USA. Would you rather the AAP investigated the potential UTI-reducing benefits of FGM in order to let parents make their own choice? How about weighing the pros and cons of removing a baby’s little finger? It isn’t strictly necessary for life; it eliminates the risk the baby will later contract cancer in that finger; it similarly eliminates the risk of hangnails, and hygiene issues associated with cleaning under the fingernails. Yet doctors don’t impartially weigh up the pros and cons – they operate rather from ethical principles such as bodily autonomy, informed consent and even the famed “First do no harm”. Removing a newborn’s finger is the removal of a normal, healthy body part with a function, and a violation of the baby’s rights. Similarly, circumcision is the removal of a normal, healthy body part with a function, and a violation of the baby’s rights – and worse, it involves altering a baby’s sexual organs, which affects him in the most deeply personal way. Viewed in this light, potential medical benefits become a lot less compelling.

I will continue to trust the AAP on the care of a newborn over your 'expertise'. :)

"Parents should make a decision based on good information, not based on a biased statement either for or against."

Parents don't need to make a decision at all. In most of the English-speaking world today, circumcision isn't offered. Only in the US, where parents are often pressured to circumcise (See http://www.circumstitions.com/coerce.html).

"If circumcision is "a violation of human rights and irreversible sexual mutilation", don't you find it a bit curious that the AAP has not taken a stance against it?"

Curious? I think it's absolutely incredible that the AAP is still adjusting the position of its bottom on the fence. It should have come out against it decades ago. But this is at least partially comprehensible by the peculiar hydra-headed nature of circumcision, and the terrible legal fix they would be in if they admitted they had been endorsing the performance of an unethical mutilation on hundreds of millions of living men. It would make the tobacco lobby's issues look relatively trivial.

"Do you feel the American Academy of Pediatrics is for violating human rights and for sexual mutilation?"
Apparently so, but not consciously.

"If you answer yes to that, you really need to question how rational of an individual you are."
All the time, and my answer is "very rational, in an irrational world."

"Maybe you feel that as a freelance writer with no medical training that you know better than the AAP."

This is called the Fallacy of Appeal to Authority. Other medical bodies of equal authority to the AAP, in Canada, the UK and Australia and New Zealand, are much less enthusiastic about circumcision.

Hugh Young
www.circumstitions.com

Circumcision carries risks. Circumcision has medical benefits. This is quite clear and has been shown in numerous studies. Parents should make an informed decision for their child. Parents need not be pressured either for or against. This has been the stance of the AAP for years and years.
And yes, if you feel that the AAP is plotting to mutilate babies for their own personal gains, you do have to question your rationality. Sorry.
Your information is biased and one sided. Circumcisions have clearly been shown to decrease the risk of HIV, herpes, genital warts, and other STDs. Numerous studies have consistently found this association. Yet you choose to only quote a flawed study and ignore other data. You select to hear only what supports your one sided view.
You have shown that you really don't grasp the implications of a a UTI in a neonate or a paraphimosis. You feel that UTIs in neonates are "simple to treat" and you clearly fail to grasp that a paraphimosis is a medical emergency. That shouldn't be suprising as you have no medical training and haven't cared for patients in either of these situations. The American Academy of Pediatrics makes statements based on current studies and evidence and from input from experts within their fields. It is certainly up to parents if they wish to listen to an English Major with no medical experience or training who blogs on haircare and Disneyland for their medical advise or if they wish to listen to the American Academy of Pediatrics. Fortunately, for rational individuals, it's an easy choice.

There are many men who are unhappy about being circumcised. Some thousands, mainly in the USA, are carrying out non-surgical foreskin restoration. This involves gradually stretching the remaining shaft skin in order to form a false foreskin. The commonest reason these men give for doing this is to gain glans sensitivity, even though 39% had not noticed any loss before starting.
We know that circumcision removes about 20,000 plus Meissner's corpuscles in the foreskin's ridged band which detect fine touch and movement. Unsurprisingly, restored men say that sensitivity has improved (because of the rejuvenation of the M. corpuscles in the glans corona, they do not have to use artificial lubricants any more (because of the gliding action of the new skin) and, surprisingly they report having whole body orgasms, sometimes for the first time in their lives.
It is sad that the medical profession in the USA continues continues to justify male genital mutilation for financial gain and to deny that any harm has been done.

To the guest with the religious comment: We all have the right to choose our OWN religions. This does not mean that a parent has the right to choose their children's (more specifically here, SON'S) religion. Also, you mentioned two procedures that actually help the child. If you knew anything about circumcision damage and what it does to the functionality and sexual reception of the penis, you would know that it does NOT help. Cosmetic surgery on infants is unethical. Baby boys are not born sick, simply because they have a normal, healthy body part that American society has been forced to see as odd. Look around the world. America is the odd one, mutilating their baby boys for trivial and debunked reasons. Yes it's mutilation. If its mutilation when you do it to a girl (by law, it is) then its mutilation when you do it to a boy. "One sided". Yeah, let's keep it at the gender equality side and leave out your sick tendency to harm infant boys.

Thank you for writing this, Sarah. The mutilation rates are dropping because of the awareness that people like you are spreading. And its great.

Great article! I am one of those men circumcised at birth who is restoring his foreskin. I wish my parents had left my penis alone so that I could have enjoyed my whole body for my whole life. Instead, I have suffered from having less than my whole penis, with the problems that it has caused. Fortunately, foreskin restoration is improving things, but I should never have to do this and I will never be whole.

@Guest asks where are the pros to circumcision. There are no pros to circumcision. Sure, removal of tissue removes the possibility of certain conditions. But no one says a pro of castration is the elmination of penile cancer.

Ok... Let's talk about this "Guest" guy who likes to pull out his doctor card. Being a doctor doesn't mean that you will always know what's best. One of my sister's friends circed their two month old because a respected urologist told her that her infant had phimosis. You also say that since I was circed, i'm protected against HIV and STD's. Let's see... through responsible sexual practices, i have not come in contact with an infected woman. So...... what have I been protected from? And do I not have a right, as an adult, to determine for myself if loss of sensation is worth the risk of contracting an STD that I can avoid with sound judgment?

I wish my parents had read this before chopping off the end of one of my most treasured body parts. I have partially restored what was taken, and can say that already there is a huge improvement for both me and my wife. Why a parent would want to do something that will reduce the pleasure for their son and their partner bewilders me. Thank you for putting forward such a well written argument against this bizzare practice.

It is a decision for parents to make. People should stop trying to meddle in everyone else's business.

Thank you Sarah Tennant.This may educate a few and save some babys.
As a mutilated 42 year old who endures pain rather than pleasure more than 50 percent of the time when I'm with a woman I thank you on behalf of the children who will not suffer my fate.
The pro cutting people always say mishaps are rare but when you are one of those "mishaps",thats no consolation.

"I will continue to trust the AAP on the care of a newborn over your 'expertise'." - Very well, but as the AAP neither makes a statement for or against RIC you *can't* use them as a basis for your decision. You have to either choose to circumcise or not. And if you desire an informed opinion, you will have to do what every parent, lay or medical, should do and examine the data. As in peer-reviewed scientific studies. So bringing up the AAP is irrelevant - they don't even support your position!

"Yet you choose to only quote a flawed study" - how is this study flawed? Why have you not responded to my criticisms of the studies you keep assuring me are definitive? Where are your specifics?

I will not continue to publish your comments if you will not engage with my arguments. That does not mean simply parroting arguments of your own which I have already addressed. If you want to discuss the ethical and/or medical issues surrounding circumcision, please do so respectfully. Perhaps you could offer your reasoning behind your opinion that the small possibility of preventing a UTI is warrant for causing permanent sexual dysfunction on a non-consenting minor? Perhaps you could explain why the possibility of paraphimosis (which, in an extreme and untreated case, could potentially lead to the loss of part of the penis) should be prevented by a procedure that by definition involves the loss of part of the penis?

And for the record, I'm not asking anyone to listen to my opinions on the strength of my English degree or my other blogging topics, so they are irrelevant to this issue. I also sew - does that further impact my credibility in the collating of peer-reviewed studies? Is there some rule of which I am unaware that states a person must be ignorant of natural haircare in order to be knowledgeable about circumcision? I will host comments that critique the studies I cite or my interpretations of them, but I'm not interested in sponsoring comments which attack me personally, especially in so illogical a fashion.

"It is a decision for parents to make. People should stop trying to meddle in everyone else's business." [different poster] - Surely a decision about the function and sexual sensitivity of a penis should be for the owner of that penis? Intactivists would be perfectly happy to leave parents alone, if parents were not mutilating their children. Do you also feel parents who make the decision to circumcise their girls, cut off their children's ears or bind their babies' feet should be left alone - or is it only the mutilation of the penis that should get a free pass? What would you say to the posters on this thread who regret their circumcisions, and would clearly have been happier had someone stepped in to prevent them?

I think Sarah is spot on. Too long has this butchery been not only going on, but sanctioned by the educated and those we trust. Shame on them.
As a 40+ year old male, I didn't know what I lost until "restoration”, which though not complete, and NEVER will be as good as what was taken from me as a helpless baby, but the 5 cm of skin I have regrown is a gift from nature.
The medical profession only get away with this barbaric practice because they are either circumcised themselves and don't know what they are missing or because the aren't circumcised and don't know what the babies are handicapped by once the reach sexual maturity.
It's a real circle of ignorance as all the former babies in their care grow up not knowing what they have lost also.
All the above comments criticising Sarah’s comments for being one sided; geez Louise, it’s written about anti-circumcision! Where are these ignorant soles when pro-circumcision is being discussed in the last 10,000 articles supporting this barbaric and witless act?
Religious reasons! Give me a break. Do you support these religious zealots blowing themselves up and others for their religious beliefs? No? Then pro-circumcision is just as barbaric as a child killed in a church by a suicide bomber.
Anyone who supports circumcision needs to realise that there is a lot of information that you have been denied and brainwashed about your whole life.
Good job Sarah.

Great article Ms Tennant, well stated. The key in making an informed decision is to weigh the benefits against the negatives. If the benefits do not outweigh the negative consequences, then the decison logically should be to not circumcise. Many of the responders who seem pro RIC seem to fail to recognize this as they seem to be focuse only on single befits, ignoring the many negatives that outweigh those limited benefits.

RIC violoate human rights to bodily integrity. This right is well established in our culture, both philosophically and by law. Doctors also have their own guideline to do nor harm, to act in the best interest of the patient, not the parent or religious leaders. RIC violates these if there is no mendical condition compelling enough to justify it. And the law has indeed prevented parents from doing harm to their children in the name of religious freedom.

RIC amputates the most important part of the penis for sexual function and feeling. For both the man and his partner(s). While many argue that this is uncertain, uncertainty does not negate the potential value of the foreskin. Decision Analysis has tool for dealing with risk and uncertainty. But there is mounting evidence that this is true and signficant. One must factor in the potential value of the foreskin in a balanced discussion/decision and weighing of positives and negatives.

RIC causes pain and carries risks. Risk from immediate complications as well as risk of sexual problems due to too much foreskin being removed for comfortable erections, as well as "artifacts" like adhesions, skin bridges, etc. Frequently these long term complications are not considered. And there is mounting evidence that the pain has long lasting effects on the individual. Again, uncertainty exists, but that does not mean it can not be used in decision making.

I am glad you wrote the article as a piece against RIC. I have read a great deal about RIC, and have not yet found any compelling argument that the advantages outweight the negative consequences. Not even close.

Thanks again Ms Tennant

I will continue to support the AAP stance that circumcision has medical risks and medical benefits. Parents should weigh the risk/benefit and make an educated decision. So the AAP does support my position, as it is one and the same. :)
You don't have any medical training as you have stated, and you appear not to grasp the risks or treatment of many of the medical conditions that you have discussed here in your article. You feel UTIs in neonates are "simple to treat" and you clearly fail to grasp that paraphimosis is a medical emergency with serious complications. People reading your article need to be aware that you have never cared for a child medically or are trained in this area. The AAP Policy Statement on circumcision was made by medical experts in their field. Maybe you know more than the experts while having no medical experience or training yourself. But people should know that following your advise is going against the AAP Policy Statement.
You have quoted only studies that support your view. You were the one stating that a study looking at circumcision and STDs was flawed. Those aren't my words, those are yours. People should make an informed decision, and that involves hearing more than one sided arguements. There are numerus well controlled studies showing a decrease in STDs and UTIs with circumcision. There are also risks and complications to circumcision. That is why parents should weigh the information and come to an informed decision.
Doctors certainly don't always know best. The AAP makes policy statements based on the best current scientific evidence avaiable. Many policies have changed with time as more data and studies become available. You need to be aware that the medical experts who have reviewed all the current evidence available do not agree with your view. And while physicians certainly are not always correct, if your view is that the AAP is plotting to mutilate babies for their own personal gain, then I do find your view odd to say the least.
You may certainly choose not to post my response once again. But if you're open only to view points and research that support your view while ignoring or deleting the rest, you probably need to ask yourself why.

Adding the word "potential" to "benefits" to reflect the reality of circumcision's benefits - which, even at their most optimistic, are only risk reduction - and the AAP supports my view as well. You and I simply differ on what constitutes an informed decision - I believe it involves looking at studies which support both sides of the argument, examining them for flaws and bias, and applying principles of bioethics to the conclusions. I'm sure the AAP would agree in theory - although again, I find it amusing that you consider the AAP a more authoritative source than medical establishments throughout Europe and Britain, which do not recommend circumcision. Why such confidence in the AAP over those organisations? The USA doesn't exactly lead the world in health care... the WHO ranks it between Costa Rica and Slovenia, 37th worldwide (and after several non-circumcising places such as Australia and the UK).

The study most commonly used to establish a link between STDs and intactness is indeed flawed; but what leads you to the conclusion that it is the only one I've looked at? Three of the four largest studies conducted on the link between intactness and STDs - by the National Health and Social Life survey in 1992, the British National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles in 2000 and the Australian Study of Health and Relationships in 2001-2002, found no significant differences between rates of STIs in circed vs intact men. The fourth largest study, by Christchurch Health and Development in New Zealand, claimed circumcision reduced STD transmission by half; but the study has since been criticised for its dubious handling of statistics and an overemphasis on self-reporting. Two years later, another New Zealand study again found no statistically significant difference between intact and circumcised men in terms of STDs.

An article by P M Fleiss, F M Hodges and R S Van Howe argues that the foreskin has protective immunological properties - this research cites several studies which show circumcised men are at equal or even greater risk of STD infection than intact.

This literature review of studies examining the relationship between STDs and circumcision is worth a read: http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/vanhowe6/ It addresses many of the most frequently-cited studies by the pro-circ side.

I notice you have yet to refer to ANY specific studies that support your view. Simply saying there are "numerous well-controlled studies" is hardly helpful. Perhaps you could name them so we can discuss them?

I also notice you declined to address the questions I asked in my last post. Why the reluctance to discuss the bioethical aspects of circumcision? Do you feel human rights and bodily autonomy are irrelevant in the medical field?

Read more at Suite101: Comments http://www.suite101.com/pages/comments.cfm#ixzz0iqdwUMBR

It's pretty depressing that people need an article to tell them that it's wrong to mutilate a newborn. It's illegal to mutilate a girls genitals, why would anyone even think that it's okay to mutilate a boys genitals? Either way, it's a good sign that people are coming out and talking about how wrong it is. Good on you standing up for newborns and their rights to genital integrity.

Ha! Ha! We're finally going to agree on something. The healthcare system in the US is certainly a mess, and is in desperate need of repair. I don't think I'd blame the AAP for our mess, but our insurance system and tort system and methods of reimbursement are certainly a disaster. But do give us credit for at least trying to fix the numerous problems in 2010.
Here's the AAP Policy Statement :Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision. However, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances where there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child.
I have stated that circumcisions has risks and benefits, and parents should make an informed decision after looking at both sides of the discussion. You have stated that circumcision is irreversible genital mutilation and has no medical justification. So, you have taken the extreme view on one side that is NOT supported by the AAP. Please don't try and say that your stance is backed by the AAP.
Do you really need me to list studies for you? This information is certainly available online. You list studies, but you curiously list studies that only support your view. The majority of studies actually show a link with uncircumcised males being at a much higher risk of STDs. Many of these studies looked at HIV, not a trivial STD by any means. You really need to take an objective approach when looking at the literature, and accept what supports and doesn't support your view.
Here's some of the studies for you.
- HIV and Male Circumcision : A systematic review with the assessment of the quality of studies - Siegfried et al. Lancet Infectious Disease, March 2005. Reviewed 37 studies, the majority showing a decrease in HIV with circumcision. But not all studies, so you can selectively pick out only the studies that support your view if you so choose (which you seem to have done).
- Role of Male Behavior in Cervical Carcinogenesis and Women with One Lifetime Sexual Partner. Agarwal et al. Sept 1993. Study showed a four fold increase in cervical cancer in women if male not circumcised. (Cervical cancer is caused by the HPV virus)
- Randomized, Controlled Intervention Trial of Male Circumcision for Reduction of HIV Infection Risk. Aupert et al. 2005. The study showed a 60% decrease in HIV in circumcised males (p<0.001)
-Male Circumcision for HIV Prevention in Young Men in Kisuona, Kenya. Bailey et al. Lancet, Feb 2007. Circumcised males 53% less likely to aquire HIV.
-Male Circumcision for HIV Prevention in Men in Rakai, Uganda. Grey et al. Lancet, Feb 2007. Circumcised males 51% less likely to aquire HIV.
-Male Circumcision and Risk of Syphilis, Chanchroid, and Genital Herpes. Weiss et all. 2006. Meta-analysis of 26 studies. Circumcision led to a substantial decrease in risk of Syphilis, borderline decrease in risk of herpes. Six of seven studies showed a decreased risk of Chanchroid.
I'm going to get a cramp if I continue to list studies, so let me just direct you to a few well known resources. You mention the World Health Organization in your last message, so you can start at their website. www.who.int/en/. I'll quote the World Health Organization " There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually aquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%". You can peruse the studies listed on the WHO website which support their statement.
The UNAIDS (Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDs). UNAIDS is a joint venture of the United Nations formed to help prevent new HIV infections. Their stance, along with the WHO, is that there is compelling evidence that circumcision is effective in decreasing the transmission of HIV. Again, you can peruse their studies and research that support their statement.
The Center for Disease Control offers more input as well. You can visit their site at www.cdc.gov. The CDC website states that male circumcision has been associated with a lower risk of HIV infection (although there is no evidence to date on a decreased risk with male-male sex). The CDC website gives study after study after study that you can review and enjoy.
The HIV epidemic has currently infected over 33 million people worldwide. Over 25 million have died. There are over 2 million new cases every year. The World Health Organization has again stated that the risk of infection is 60% less in circumcised males (excluding homosexual relations which there hasn't been a clear link shown). Think about those numbers. That's a lot of people who are going to live or die. And certainly safe sex practices need to be taught in all countries. And condom use is more effective than circumcision alone. But relying on all people throughout the world to practice safe sex just isn't realistic either.
The consistent message from the American Academy of Pediatrics, the World Health Organization, UNAIDS, and the CDC is that circumcision has been shown to decrease HIV and multiple other STDs. Just keep in mind that as you blog that circumcision has only risks and no benefits, you are standing against not only the AAP, but the WHO, UNAIDS, and the CDC. If you feel you have a better knowledge of the current scientific data than the AAP, WHO, UNAIDS, and CDC combined, please do explain why you feel this way.
In closing, I will again state that I support the AAP stance (along with the WHO, UNAIDS, and the CDC). There are risks to circumcision, there are benefits. Parents need to weigh these, and make an informed decision. If you continue to selectively list only studies that support your view, you are not truly being honest with your readers.

OK, so the AAP does list them as potential benefits. That's good. If you agree with their stance, why then do you refer to circumcision as having benefits, not potential benefits? There are certainly conditions whose risks of contraction are reduced by circumcision (although this is controversial, as different studies have shown different results); but given that no-one can prophecy that a particular newborn WILL acquire a UTI, HPV etc, the most that can be said is that circumcision has potential benefits.

In the case of STDs, the risks are even more theoretical, as STDs are behaviorally preventable (in this context, at least - circumcision status obviously doesn't prevent a baby contracting HIV through an infected mother's breastmilk, for instance). Strong statements like "Circumcision reduces the risk of STD transmission" should really be "Circumcision reduces the risk of STD transmission among people engaging in risky sexual practices" - an interpretation which might give parents more pause for thought, especially if they a) plan to bring their child up with religious or secular ethics that teach monogamy, or b) recognise that their child could make the decision to circumcise later in life based on his own risk-benefit assessment.

I couldn't find much discussion of the cervical cancer study you cite, but I did find another which came to similar conclusions. However, the discussion revealed that the issue wasn't as cut-and-dried (no pun intended!) as widely reported: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3421602b.html Did the study you cite take the discussion factors into consideration?

The Aupert study only demonstrates a protective effect of circumcision in the short term. The authors of the study also admit that the results may not be applicable across all cultures. Another study in South Africa found that the protective effect of circumcision was negligible in the Black population, and yet another survey found no statistically significant protective effect of circs in South Africa in 2002.

The Uganda study you cite does not support a pro-circ position, as it found "Circumcision of HIV-infected men did not reduce HIV transmission to female partners over 24 months; longer-term effects could not be assessed".

In the Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, Tanzania and Swaziland, circumcised men are more likely than non-circumcised men to be HIV-positive. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2007 Aug 1;45(4):371-9. reports a study showing that traditional circumcisions had no statistically significant correlation to HIV incidence.

I could list many more studies - the issue is not nearly as one-way as you claim. And if it comes to that, a study has shown that circumcising *women* is associated with a lower HIV risk. Would you recommend the AAP tell parents that FGM has potential benefits and potential risks, and encourage parents to make up their own minds? If not (and I sincerely hope you wouldn't), then you must concede that ethical issues can override slight potential benefits. So why is it wrong to pursue the line of thought that mutilating women's genitals can have health benefits, but OK to pursue the line of thought that mutilating baby boys' genitals can have health benefits?

I notice you have yet to address the ethical issues surrounding circumcision. Why is this? Telling parents to examine medical evidence in a vacuum only reveals your own bias - that circumcision is morally OK. How do you defend that position, particularly in light of the commenters on this article who was shared their anger and sadness about being non-consentingly mutilated?

Really? You find the Grey et al study in Uganda as evidence that circumcision doesn't decrease the risk of HIV? The study with almost 5,000 men that showed over a 50% decrease in HIV rates with circumcision?? I will quote the INTERPRETATION of the study for you word for word "Male circumcision reduced HIV incidence in men without behavioral disinhibition. Circumcision can be recommended for HIV prevention in men." If you want to cite that study as one showing no medical benefit, good luck. :)
The ethical issues come down to looking at risk vs benefit of the procedure. You weigh the risk of complications vs the potential medical benefits. How many people will die from HIV before you say preventing it is ethical? Why are you so moved by someone wanting their foreskin replaced, but it doesn't bother you when someone dies from HIV? Curious, isn't it? Your view is rather ethically questionable when you look at the millions of people acquiring HIV each year.
I don't understand your issue with a procedure having only "potential benefit" because you don't know who was going to die from HIV or aquire cervical cancer until it actually happens. Preventative care by definition has a "potential benefit". Is it healthy for people to smoke 4 packs a day and weigh 400 pounds? After all, living a healthy lifestyle instead only offers "potential benefits".
Your views and opinions are not consistent with the conclusions from the CDC, World Health Organization, and UNAIDS. You stand against the Policy Statement of the AAP. All the above mentioned groups have looked at the current body of medical evidence and concluded that circumcision is effective in reducing HIV and many STDs. You have the same body of evidence to look at, yet you've chosen to come to the opposite conclusion. You've taken an extremist stance that there is no benefit, and you're clearly going to hold that ground no matter what against the conclusions of the CDC, WHO, UNAIDS, and AAP. For some reason, I find your 'expertise' a little less convincing than theirs.
If you are blind to the evidence based conclusions of the CDC, WHO, and AAP, I certainly don't think I can shed any more light on the subject that they have already.

The CDC, World Health Organization, and UNAIDS all disagree with you based on the current body of evidence. And letting people contract and die from HIV while you deny the current evidence is certainly ethically questionable. There are studies that have shown benefit from circumcision and studies that have not. But the CDC, WHO, and UNAIDS who have all reviewed the data and stated that the evidence shows that circumcision decreases the risk of contracting HIV and other diseases. According to the CDC, WHO, and UNAIDS, your stance involves letting millions of people contract and die of HIV. And, yes, that does make your stance very ethically questionable.
If you ignore the conclusions of the CDC, WHO, and UNAIDS, that is certainly your decision. Maybe you do know better than all these organizations. But I do feel more confident trusting the conclusions of these organizations than your blogging.

You really do make me take a step back and say wow Sarah. You somehow try to claim that anything you look at is evidence that supports your view. You initially claimed the Uganda study showed no benefit. When I called you on that, you admitted the study showed benefit, but has been heavily criticised. Let's take a deeper look back at the Uganda study. This was a randomized study of almost 5,000 men. The men were randomly selected to be circumcised or not, and were then followed at intervals for up to 24 months. The risk of aquiring HIV was decreased by roughly 50% in men who were circumcised. There was overwhelming statistical significance to the study (p<0.003).
The World Health Organization (WHO) and Center for Disease Control (CDC) both quote this study as evidence that circumcision decreases the risk of HIV. They do not heavily criticise the study as you claim. The National Institute of Health also quotes this study as strong evidence that circumcision reduces the risk of aquiring HIV in heterosexual males. They also do not heavily criticise the study as you claim. The NIH Director of the Department of infectious disease is Dr Anthony S Fauci. I'll give you his exact quote in discussing the Uganda and Kenya study. "Many studies have suggested that male circumcision plays a role in protection against HIV acquisition. We now have confirmation - from large, carefully controlled, randomized clinical trials - showing definately that medically performed circumcision can significantly lower the risk of adult males contracting HIV through heterosexual intercourse". Again, I can point out to you that the NIAID Director does not heavily criticise this study as you claim. The United Nations (UNAIDS) also does not heavily criticise this study as you claim.
So no major medical organization I found "heavily criticised" this study, while the WHO, CDC, UNAIDS, and NIH all concur with it's conclusions. So why have you first stated that there was no benefit shown in the study (obviously not true), and then when called out on that, you claim that the study is "heavily criticised". Please provide me with the website or quote from the WHO, CDC, AAP, UNAIDS, or NIH that find this study to be false. If you have this information, please, please provide it.
Your "heavy criticism" comes not from a well respected medical organization such as any of the above, but from an anti-circumcision website. I did review the critism of the study on this website, and I found it interesting. Here's the points made by the anti-circumcision website.
1) The study was not double blinded. Huh??? No study on circumcision is double blinded. Men will know if they are circumcised, and EVERY study done on circumcision is not double blinded.
2) The study doesn't show protection in homosexual intercourse. True. And there very well may not be protection in homosexual intercourse with circumcision. As the study did not look at male to male transmission, I'm not sure why this is listed as a flaw of the study.
3) Condoms could be used instead. Again, huh??? Safe sex practices should be taught and encouraged whether foreskin is protective or detrimental. That is rather clear, and is well stated by the CDC, WHO, and NIH. Condoms should obviously be used, but I'm not sure how that makes this study flawed.
4) A 50% reduction in HIV transmission just isn't enough.
5) The study included only men who planned to stay near the study site. Again, huh? The men were randomized into the two groups, so this shows no selection bias as to why circumcised men had a dramatically lower rate of HIV in the study.
If that's how you're going to claim this study was flawed, you're going to have a tough time convincing people. Loks like you haven't convinced either the CDC, WHO, UNAIDS, NIH, or AAP so far. :)
Your views go against those of the AAP, CDC, UNAIDS, WHO, and NIH. All of these medical organizations have found a decreased risk of HIV and other STDs with circumcision. Why have all these medical organizations come to the same conclusion, while you continue to say the exact opposite? Are they all involved in a giant, worldwide conspiracy against you? You are certainly free to make any claim you want in your blogs, but I will continue to give more credit to any of the above organizations.

Did I say the WHO heavily criticised the study? No. Don't put words in my mouth. I said the study had been heavily criticised, and it has, as have the over-eager conclusions that have been drawn from it (comparing it to a vaccine, applying the results worldwide when other studies show the HIV-intactness link does not hold up, or that intactness is associated with a lower rate of HIV transmission, and using the study to justify circumcision of newborns, who do not have sex and cannot consent).

You haven't listed all the problems that author found with the study, I note. Did you miss the part where the researchers allowed men they knew were infected with HIV to go out and have sex, without telling them they were HIV-positive? What about the fact that the study did not account for how many condoms were used by how many men in how many sexual encounters in both groups? What about the fact that several scientists have considered the trial ended too early, wondering if the initial risk reduction might fade over time or simply be a statistical blip (as in some drug trials, whose initial promising results do not hold up over time)? What about the fact that the men in the study received safe-sex counselling and condoms, making their behavior potentially different from the behavior of circed or intact men in general society? What about the increase in sexual risk behaviors in the circumcised group?

More importantly, what about the contradictory studies? Your only answer for these is that the omniscient AAP must have examined them and found them wanting. That's remarkably trusting - do you feel they are infallible organisations? Have they presented their reasoning somewhere for critique? Have they conducted their own studies to determine the reason for the extreme disparity in results between studies? Have they appointed ethical committees to determine whether or not circumcision (particularly of newborns) is ethical in the first place?

I note that you have consistently refused to engage with any of the ethical analogies and arguments I have presented here, comparing circumcision to FGM and so on. Instead of parroting the same lines about the sanctity of the AAP compared to a blogger, why not answer those arguments? After all, it's putting the cart before the horse to discuss the efficacy of a procedure before determining its ethics, is it not? You cited risk/benefit analysis, but I have already shown how that does not apply to newborns in the case of STD prevention, as they do not have sex - and this article is called "Reasons Not to Circumcise Your Baby", not "Reasons Not to Circumcise Your South African Consenting Male Who Engages in Risky Sex".

You again paint a sob story of HIV-infected people, using this to imply I am somehow unethical for opposing circumcision. Again you ignore contradicting studies. Why don't the violins play just as loudly for the women in another Uganda study, who were shown to be twice as likely to contract HIV with circumcised partners? Or the circumcised men in the Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, Tanzania and Swaziland, who contract HIV at greater rates than their intact peers? Or the women infected with HIV by men who "didn't need" condoms because they were circumcised? If your compassion for these people is so boundless, why are you advocating lopping off part of their sexual anatomy when substantial research indicates that might INCREASE their risk of getting or transmitting HIV in some circumstances? Even supposing the Uganda study to be methodologically perfect and conclusive, you can't just sweep the other studies under the rug - yet for all your talk of informed consent and not ignoring evidence, you are yourself giving a very one-sided look at the evidence on the jingoistic grounds that the AAP MUST have looked at it fairly and impartially and come to the right conclusion.

Sara, I hope I never find myself on the other side of an argument with you. You provide very well researched, cogent responses to someone who apparently is fixated with cutting the sex organs of baby boys.

I often wonder what drives some people to be such strong advocates of genital cutting. Many seem to be fanatics about circumcision. I just don't understand the mindset that wants to do this to babies.

Circumcision is a personal decision. It is not up to my parents to make it for me because it permanently alters a part of my body, a part I would like to keep. Is there any man alive over the age of 20 who would let his parents decide he needed a second circumcision because he had "too much skin"? If he would not want it done as an adult, why do it as a baby?

OK, so I had a look at the CDC statement on circumcision. According to the doctor in the combox, this should be well-nigh invincible as it was written by a respected body of medical professionals who, as far as we know, don’t know anything about natural haircare.

The statement provides refutations to certain studies, so the CDC is clearly not anti-refutation (ie., not averse to mentioning studies it thinks are flawed). One wonders, then, why the statement leaves out so many studies whose findings refute the pro-circ slant of the statement. Either the CDC is not aware of them, which doesn’t speak well of its research; or it chooses to ignore them, which doesn’t speak well of its ethics.

Take the rather brief section on the risks of circumcision. The CDC statement mentions an extremely low complication rate, which is suspect as these rates do not include complications that do not manifest till adulthood (such as tight, painful erections, penoscrotal webbing and curved/hairy shaft). It does not mention studies that show RIC adversely impacts breastfeeding and mother-baby bonding. It does not mention studies that have shown long-term changes in pain response in newborns due to circumcision. It does not mention meatal stenosis, a very common complication of circumcision. It refers one moment to the “recently completed” African trials, then states that there were no “long-term sequelae” - given the recentness of the trials, these canot have been that long-term. Sexual dysfunction caused by the keratinisation of the glans happens over time, so one rather notable adverse effect may not be fully apparent for a couple of decades.

The next section, an even briefer one about circumcision and sexual function, fails to mention the study that links circumcision to female arousal disorder and the need for artificial lubrication. It also fails to recommend further studies on the anecdotal evidence of thousands of restoring US men, who claim that circumcision has significantly impacted their sexual lives. (Some men circumcised in adulthood compared it, in terms of sexual sensation, to going colour-blind.) The CDC document does not even menton the fact that circumcision fundamentally changes the mechanics of sex in a manner which can cause discomfort to both men and women.

And as for their section on ethics?

“Some persons have raised ethical objections to asking parents to make decisions about elective surgery during infancy, particularly when it is done primarily to protect against risks of HIV and STDs that don’t occur until young adulthood, but other ethicists have found it an appropriate parental proxy decision.”

That’s it. Seriously. That’s all the CDC has to say on the matter. No discussion of risk-benefit analysis, no arguments based on the bioethical principles of “first, do no harm”, bodily autonomy or informed consent. “Some people say it’s OK, some don’t” is hardly a well-reasoned argument here.

Nevertheless, despite these glaring deficiencies – and the fact that the statement doesn’t mention the studies which demonstrate a correlation between circumcision and HIV transmission in certain settings – the final summary is fairly conservative.

“As CDC proceeds with the development of public health recommendations for the United States, individual men may wish to consider circumcision as an additional HIV prevention measure, but they must recognize that circumcision 1) does carry risks and costs that must be considered in addition to potential benefits; 2) has only proven effective in reducing the risk of infection through insertive vaginal sex; and 3) confers only partial protection and should be considered only in conjunction with other proven prevention measures (abstinence, mutual monogamy, reduced number of sex partners, and correct and consistent condom use).”

This is not a recommendation for widespread neonatal circumcision. Intactivists have no problem with “individual men” wishing to consider circumcision, as long as the evidence presented is rather more balanced than that provided by the CDC. Heck, if I were a sexually-active man in Uganda with no access to condoms, I might consider the loss of some sexual function a fair price to pay for a somewhat decreased risk of HIV. The point is, it would be my choice to make for my body. Circumcising newborns deprives them of that choice.

Sarah. You stand against every medical organization we have discussed. Your views stand against the AAP, WHO, NIH, UNAIDS, and CDC. Each one of these groups has evaluated the research, and each one has found you conclusion wrong. Certainly, any medical organization could be fallable. But is your stance really that the AAP, WHO, NIH, UNAIDS, and CDC have all incorrectly interpreted the data, and only you have interpreted correctly? That's a rather arrogant view. An amazingly arrogant view actually.
And why haven't you stated which medical group has "heavily criticised" the Uganda study? I'm still patiently waiting for your answer. If it's not the WHO, then please let us know which medical group "heavily criticised" this study.
You have stated that people should receive sex education and practice safe sex. Yet you claim this is a flaw in the Uganda study that people in both sides wings of the study received sex education. Huh???? The Uganda study was stopped early as the evidence was overwhelming. The p value of the study was <0.003. It is ethically incorrect to continue a study once there is overwhelming evidence that one side of the trial is being harmed. As an "expert" on the topic, why don't you know that? Do you understand the p value in a study? Do you understand that a p value of <0.003 demonstrates that this is not a statistical blip? You claim to understand the data, but why do you call this a possible statistical blip if you really understand p values and power in studies?
According to the above mentioned medical groups, your approach will lead to the transmission of HIV and death of an untold number of people. Yes, I find you very ethically questionable. You go against the conclusion of each and every medical group mentioned, and you're willing to gamble people's lives on your theory that you know more than each of these medical organizations. Again, arrogant is the only word that comes to mind.
You state that circumcision will increase the risk of HIV and STDs. Please show me the WHO, NIH, CDC, or UNAIDs statement that supports this conclusion.
You ask if the AAP found the contradictory studies wanting? While that is true, please keep in mind that the World Health Organization also found them lacking as well. And the National Institute of Health. And the United Nations (UNAIDS). And of course the CDC has also found them wanting. If your studies are so compelling, and the Uganda and Kenya studies are so flawed, please, please explain why no major medical organization agrees with you.

“But is your stance really that the AAP, WHO, NIH, UNAIDS, and CDC have all incorrectly interpreted the data, and only you have interpreted correctly? That's a rather arrogant view. An a
mazingly arrogant view actually.”
First of all, there is nothing arrogant about pointing out the lack of data in a document, as I did above with the CDC. It wasn’t my hubris that swept onto the intarwebs and magicked away the relevant passages. Secondly, I’m hardly the only intactivist in existence. Need I remind you that the majority of the world does not recommend routine neonatal circumcision? I provided you early in this thread with a link to the Doctors Opposing Circumcision site. Additionally, the Canadian Paediatric Society states "Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed." The American Cancer Society has issued a statement to the AAP declaring that the alleged links between intactness and cervical and penile cancer were based on methodologically flawed studies, and recommended circumcision not be promoted on those grounds. The AMA does not recommend routine neonatal circumcision, and encourages parents to choose what is “in the best interests of the child”. The Australasian Association of Pediatric Surgeons considers routine circumcision “inappropriate and unnecesary” based on the current evidence. The Pediatrics and Child Health Division of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians likewise states there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision.I quote - “While there is some evidence, particularly from sub-Saharan Africa, that male circumcision reduces the risk of acquisition of HIV, evidence is conflicting and clearly this can not be seen as an argument in favour of universal neonatal circumcision in countries with a low prevalence of HIV.”

Given your faith in medical establishments, how do you account for the fact that these prestigious groups do not support circumcision? If the idea that medical establishments can interpret data incorrectly is so anathema, what is one to think when medical establishments disagree? HIV is far more rampant in circumcising America than in non-circumcising Australia, which comes ahead of the US on the WHO health care ranks – so why do you assume the AAP has interpreted the datacorrectly, with the implication that the AAPS has not?

“And why haven't you stated which medical group has "heavily criticised" the Uganda study? I'm still patiently waiting for your answer. If it's not the WHO, then please let us know which medical group "heavily criticised" this study.”
I notice you’re changing the goalposts. At the start of this discussion you were willing to invoke the anecdotal evidence of some pediatricians you knew; now a “medical group” is required? A valid criticism is a valid criticism, no matter who points it out. Moreover, the medical groups you consider so reliable have demonstrably failed to include evidence – see my previous post on the CDC statement. A representative of the WHO has failed to respond to letters from physicians questioning the ethics of circumcision. Nevertheless.... Mills J, Siegfried N. Cautious optimism for new HIV prevention strategies. Lancet 2006;368:1236.
is one example of respected medical professionals criticising the study; as is Dowsett GW, Couch M. Male circumcision and HIV prevention: is there really enough of the right kind of evidence? Reprod Health Matters 2007;15(29):33-44. This statement by Doctors Opposing Circumcision critiques the relevance and ethics of the study: http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html
And, as mentioned above, RACP is dubious about the results; as is the Terence Higgins Trust, an AIDS organisation. A number of these sources mention the possibility that the results were skewed due to early termination of the trial.

“You have stated that people should receive sex education and practice safe sex. Yet you claim this is a flaw in the Uganda study that people in both sides wings of the study received sex education. Huh????” - It is flawed in that it differentiates the studied group from the population at large, making it problematic to draw conclusions about the practical efficacy of the study. Sex ed in sub-Saharan Africa is notoriously lacking, and the fact that many men get circumcised and refuse to wear condoms afterwards, thinking their circumcision protects them, shows that even circumcision clinics are not adequately explaining how it all works. So results from an educated group may not be replicated in a non-educated group.

“According to the above mentioned medical groups, your approach will lead to the transmission of HIV and death of an untold number of people. Yes, I find you very ethically questionable. You go against the conclusion of each and every medical group mentioned, and you're willing to gamble people's lives on your theory that you know more than each of these medical organizations. Again, arrogant is the only word that comes to mind.”
But if the above-mentioned medical groups have not considered all the relevant studies, their opinion is clearly not 100% reliable. According to a number of studies, circumcision in a number of countries will lead to “the transmission of HIV and the death of an untold number of people”. And recommending NEONATAL circumcision will, by definition, lead to the sexual mutilation of thousands of non-consenting babies. Which could also be described as unethical and arrogant, don’t you think?

“You state that circumcision will increase the risk of HIV and STDs. Please show me the WHO, NIH, CDC, or UNAIDs statement that supports this conclusion.”
Again, an appeal to authority. I have already provided you with references to studies which support the conclusion that in some circumstances, STD transmission and circumcision are linked. Here are a few examples:

1. Barongo LR, Borgdorff W, Mosha FF, et al. The epidemiology of HIV-1 infection in rural areas, roadside settlements and rural villages in Mwanza Region, Tanzania. AIDS 1992;6:1521-8.
2. Grosskurth H, Mosha F, Todd J, et al. A community trial of the impact of improved sexually transmitted disease treatment on the HIV epidemic in rural Tanzania: 2. Baseline survey results. AIDS 1995;9:927-34.
3. Chao A, Bulterys M, Musanganire F, et al.Risk factors associated with prevalent HIV-1 infection among pregnant women in Rwanda. National University of Rwanda-Johns Hopkins University AIDS Research Team. Int J Epidemiol 1994;23:371-380.
4. Urassa M, Todd J, Boerra JT, et al. Male circumcision and susceptibility to HIV infection among men in Tanzania. AIDS 1997;11:73-80. [study 1]

All of the groups you listed do support my view, which is consistent with the AAP. I have already written the AAP Policy Statement for you, which you clearly disagree with. The AAP does not state that ALL newborns should be circumcised. Parents should weigh risks and benefits and make informed decisions.

It is certainly relevant that each and every major medical organization disagrees with your conclusions. You can make any claim you want online, but your statements go against the AAP, CDC, WHO, NIH, and UNAIDS. That's a lot of separate organizations, each made up of experts in there field, all coming to the same conclusion (which is opposite of yours).
Maybe the CDC really is unaware of all the research that you have, or they just can't interpret it as well as you. And Maybe the World Health Organization, National Institute of Health, United Nations (UNAIDS), and AAP have all failed to look at the data that you have, or they just don't know as much as you do. Certainly you can rectify this without much difficulty. Contact each of the above organizations, make sure they are aware of your groundbreaking studies that you have that they clearly have failed to look at, and lets see the policy changes.
Make sure they know how to interpret the studies as well as you have too. For example, you point out that the Christchurch Health and Development in New Zealand study (which doesn't support your view) shouldn't be counted because it relies on self reporting. Make sure they throw that study out. But the National Health and Social Life Survey in 1992 supports you view, so even though that study is all self reporting, make sure they include those results. The Uganda study clearly doesn't support your view. So you criticise that one because people didn't self report condom use or sexual encounters. So make sure they don't include that study because you feel self reporting is so important. Make sure you point out that the Urassa study in Tanzania supports your claims (as you just stated in your last post). But ask them not to look at the study results though, because the conclusion of that study was this "Male circumcision has a protective affect against HIV in this population".
All of these medical organizations are very easy to contact. And I don't see any reason they wouldn't change their stance or statements if your information is accurate. If there is any scientific validity to your claims, I will be looking forward to updated statements from the WHO, UNAIDS, CDC, NIH, and AAP in the next couple weeks.

OK, this is getting wearisome. I'm cutting you off. You are simply repeating an argument to authority, even though there is plenty of authority on both sides of the fence. I have shown numerous respected medical organisations which are anti-RIC, both for ethical reasons and lack of medical indication; I have also provided evidence that the CDC and WHO are resistant to the presentation of contrary evidence.

If there are inconsistencies in the studies I cite, that objection cuts both ways. Why do the organisations which you claim support your view (which is also my view, in terms of informed consent - not in terms of parents being able to make that choice for a newborn, which is clearly unethical - a claim you have not addressed) accept some studies and ignore - not rebut, ignore - others? Where conflicting evidence exists about a radical procedure, the sciemtific response is to mount a thorough investigation into confounding factors, but this has not been done. Instead several organisations have simply decided to believe some studies and ignore others, even when - as you point out - similar methodological issues crop up in each. (Although the self-reporting in the studies you mention is not the same in each case. The Uganda study needed self-reporting to record consistency in the results, while the other two studies were surveys and thus necessarily self-reported.)

You're right about the Ugassa study though. I've contacted the source for that study and informed him that it doesn't support the intactivist position. Sorry about that. Fact-checking is always a good thing!

In my very first response to you on this thread, I pointed out that the fact RIC violates human rights makes the concept of a "balanced" article on the subject obscene. No medical organisation without an emotional, religious, financial or psychological stake in the procedure would seriously consider the benefits of FGM, footbinding or some similarly unethical practice, particularly if the most touted potential benefit would only become significant once the patient reached an age at which he or she was capable of consent. So looking at studies in a vacuum is not a normal, ethically conscious way to approach the issue. Yet this is all you have shown yourself capable of doing. If a study supports your position (and there are undoubtedly some that link circumcision to reduced HIV transmission in certain circumstances) you immediately make the leap to generalising this trend worldwide, regardless of other studies which show an inverse correlation; more puzzlingly yet, to performing the procedure on non-consenting babies just out of the womb, when complications can include the loss of the breastfeeding relationship - something the AAP and WHO both consider very serious.

You have yet to provide any evidence that justifies this atrocity, or even to engage with the fact that it is one. Numerous commenters on this thread have indicated that they would rather have taken a very slight risk of contracting HIV (given that this circumstance would be largely up to their own behavior, not a foolish risk), UTIs or even the dreaded paraphimosis in order to have remained whole and wholly sexually functional. Neither you nor the organisations you support have adequately explored the role of the prepuce in sex, despite several studies demonstrating its importance. This is a serious flaw in your "informed consent" position - men have the right to know what they are giving up, and babies ought to have the right to decline the sacrifice.

As you seem utterly uninterested in engaging with the ethical issues surrounding this matter, and have largely been repeating the appeal to authority for the past several posts, I'm going to revoke your commenting privileges. Hopefully our exchange will make interesting reading for other parents, and provide a fuller insight into both the pro- and amti-circ positions.

Thank You for speaking up agianst circumsizing. Circumsizing is, in my book, next to castration. I feel an injustice is being commited by circumsizing non concinting individuals as well as others. People I've talked with are mostly ok having been circumsized, but, would not concider having it done again. If it's ok the first time, what's wrong with a little more. Most people would not have any thing cut off from them, but, once again, are ok with what they don't remember and will never know the difference having forskin would have had. Thank you. My email and name is "doyletim55@yahoo.com".

It's best done early and you never have the wrinkly excess skinlater in life to try to clean, the CDC is now recommendig the cut as many female problems can be saved from females being saved from uterine, cancers and others brought on by the penis excretions -not healthy

Several issues with that statement:

1. The skin is not "excess" - it was meant to be there and has a function.

2. "Try to clean"? Millions of intact men around the world maintain good personal hygiene.

3. If a man chooses circumcision later in life he can ensure that the "correct" amount of foreskin is amputated. Men circumcised in infancy often have too much foreskin removed, as doctors cannot predict the adult size of the penis, and consequent tight, painful erections - in some extreme cases, even splitting of the skin. So in fact, being circumcised as an adult allows for a much greater degree of control over the desired result, a tight or loose circumcision.

4. The CDC's statement on circumcision betrays an ignorance or dismissal of several complications of circumcision and ethical issues surrounding it, which discredits them as a reliable source.

5. Uterine cancer is not caused by "penis excretions".

Very great article Sarah. For over 100 years pro-circumcision doctors have been committing blatant medical fraud to support infant male circumcision. It is obvious doctors were lying to support circumcision 100 years ago, and it's obvious they are still lying to support it.

The WHO claims that in Africa nearly 100% of HIV infections are caused by heterosexual sex, and that it's been proven that circumcised males are about 60% less likely to get HIV heterosexually. But in at least 7 African countries circumcised males have a higher AIDS rate than uncircumcised males, which proves that those 2 claims by the WHO couldn't possibly be true, right?

According to the WHO near 0% of male HIV infections in Africa are caused by homosexual sex. How can anyone believe the WHO about that when in the U.S. according to the CDC about 70% of male HIV infections are caused by homosexual sex? If you look into things though it is obvious that pro-circumcision doctors and pro-circumcision medical organizations lie to support infant male circumcision.

With the CDC's fact sheet on male circumcision, that is filled with cherry-picked and misleading information. For example in that factsheet they state that besides those 3 controlled studies in Africa which show that circumcision reduces HIV risk, many observational studies also showed that circumcision reduces HIV risk. But they didn't mention that many of the observational studies also showed that circumcision increases HIV risk. Also in that factsheet they have a study that shows that the life time costs of not circumcising baby boys is higher than the lifetime costs of circumcising baby boys. But on the Canadian Paediatric Society website they have a study that shows that the life time costs are higher with circumcising baby boys than with not circumcising.

At Http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html they list 20 old studies that show male circumcision does not reduce HIV, 4 of those studies show that male circumcision increases HIV risk. Also many new studies show male circumcision does not reduce HIV risk, even to include a study by the CDC. So there are also strong evidences that male circumcision does not reduce HIV risk. With organizations that claim male circumcision reduces HIV risk, they are just cherry-picking evidences and misleading everyone.

So if you look into things it is obvious that pro-circumcision organizations like the U.S. controlled WHO, the CDC, and AAP are giving very biased, misleading, and even untrue information about male circumcision. I don't think people should believe a single word that the WHO, AAP, and CDC say about male circumcision and the foreskin. Most U.S. doctors don't even know that the foreskin should never be forcefully retracted on baby boys, even though the AAP states that the foreskin should never be forcefully retracted on little boys and doing so can do severe harm. Since most U.S. doctors don't even know the most important things about taking care of the foreskin, people shouldn't trust anything they have to say about circumcision and the foreskin.

To guest on Mar 29,
The CDC does not recommend male circumcision, and never has. Recently officials from both the CDC and AAP have stated that it is very unlikely that either organization will be recommending it.

Thanks for your response. In the interests of accuracy, one of the four studies mentioned on circumstitions as showing circ raises the risk of HIV is an error. It came up earlier in this thread. The study did show that circ was linked to an increase in a particular STD, but not to HIV. I contacted the guy who runs circumstitions to let him know about the error.

scary

I am an uncircumcised male and happy with it. I have never had problems with my penis. Of my sexual partners, a couple thought it was odd at first, but even they came to appreciate and enjoy the extra things you can do with a natural male organ and the more sensual sensations the gliding foreskin gives during intercourse. Only in America do people think nature must be surgically altered at birth, with no regard to what the child will grow to think. All the reasons to circumcise, from tradition to UTIs, are just lies and self-delusion. Circumcision is a billion dollar industry, and the tissue is often sold to medical companies to manufacture synthetic skin for wound coverings and things of that nature. I look forward to the day when we grow up as a culture and give boys the same right to genital integrity as girls. It is his body and his choice, not anyone elses. Mothers, protect your sons and give them the greatest gift it is possible for a mother to give her child: a whole body. I will always love and admire my mother for giving that very thing to me!

it has answered many questions i had some of which i was not sure of.

i feel it gives you enough info of the pros not to have your children circumsized. now i and enough knowledge to make a well inforned decision

Looking back on it I wish my parents hadn't decided to circumcise me, and with my wife currently pregnant if it is a boy I have made the decision that I won't put him through that.

Very informative. Thank you.

it was very imformative i didn't know all these things could happen now m wife says she won't circumcize our son's penis since there is such a high risk

I am an uncircumcised male 82 years old. Nonsense. Circumcision is a barbaric practice that should have gone the way of human sacrifice. All religion justified mutilations should have been outlawed long ago. The claimed minimal invasive claim should be a sure sign that it is harmful. I now extend the objection to all mutilations, such as breast enhancement, face lifting, foot binding, cosmetic surgery for other than restoration to normal function, tatooing, body piercing and various African body mutilations. Asian women do eye surgery to make them look European. A natural religion response would be: If God wanted me not to have a foreskin, he would have created me without one. I follow the Will of God. Glad my parents spared me. It is too late for my male children. They were circumcised on lousy advice of religiously biased physicians. (Too many Doctors are Jews and should not let their religion mar their professional judgement.) BTW: I also do not accept baptism by fire, animal feces, animal blood, swimming pools, flowing creeks, or sprinkled holy water. What harm aside from drowning in a botched baptism be? It is not the proof of physical harm, but harm to the mental capacity to reason that is induced by baptism, circumcision, and human sacrifice. Let us evolve into a super sapient being according to the Will of God. Truth is God, and God is Truth, let that be your mantra.

I wish every parent had the opportunity to read this article before making the choice for their voiceless son in regard to circumcision. Then if they still chose to go ahead with circumcision their selfishness would be blatant. I marvel in a negative way to the comment by one guest who sites their claim to circumcision on the grounds there are studies it "could" help in the prevention of STD's. That is by and large about the most gross of ignorance in a comment I have ever read. I mean really?! I have a really good, in fact proven way to prevent STD' s in both male and female; it's called abstinence followed by monogamy with a monogamous partner. Anything other behavior falls under natural consequences. To remove a child's foreskin on the grounds he might be sexually active with multiple partners later in life is about the most warped thinking I've heard in a long time. My son is 21 years old and is not circumcised. He has been healthy all of those 21 years and has had NO issues due to an uncircumcised penis. This is true of all 6 of my brothers, my father, many uncles, nephews and cousins. Granted by choosing to not circumcise there were that many less surgery's, thus lack of revenue for some surgeons. From what I read Circumcision was brought back into practice in this country during the time of the Puritans by a couple surgeons who figured out a way to get financial gain by putting the scare into mothers by assuring them their sons would not be fornicating if they were circumcised; due to less sexual sensation. IF circumcision were for prevention of UTI's and such, what will we do for all the females of this country; considering we women are prone to both UTI's as well a yeast infections. I hope that comment points out the absurdity of such a claim. And with all this we haven't begun to touch on the pain an innocent male baby suffers from this procedure. I read from a nurse it was horrifying and sickening. She refused to participate after the first one she experienced. As for any Christian who might suggest circumcision for religious reasons, my suggestion to you is to take a much closer look at your Bible. There is NO Christian reason to support circumcision. Thank you to the author for this excellent article. I pray all parents from this day forward will open their eyes, minds and hearts to the wrong of this practice and that we will see a quick end to it.

Great article. I have also extensively researched whether or not to circumcise for years before I even got pregnant. Along with discussing it with doctors, pediatricians, ob/gyns, and nurses, I spoke men who were not circumcised and their wives/girlfriends living in both the US and abroad. Every single one of the medical professionals stated that it is no longer considered a medically necessary procedure and that the risk for circumcising vastly outweighs the risks for not. Every single one of the non-circ'd men reported absolutely NO infections or complications. The wives/girlfriends all report it was no big deal. My son is now 16 months old and not one single problem has arisen from not being circumcised. In fact, I have several friends who did circumcise and have had issues/problems that needed medical attention. And I would have circ'd my son if my husband was adamant for it. He's circ'd. We had pressure from family and friends to do it. Not one since person told us not to do it. We made the educated decision not to do it. It made me nervous at first, but now I stand strongly by my position.

I've had boyfriends who were circumcised, some not, and one who had a botched circ. Guess who was the most hung up over his penis AND had erectile dysfunction? Yep, the botched one.

The truth of the matter is this: there are billions of men in this world who are not circumcised that are living full, healthy, and long sexual lives with very little thought into this matter. Its mostly an American debate. Most male mammals have some kind of foreskin. Its there for a reason. It serves a purpose. Period.

To the 'guest' who has made it his quest to argue against this article/author: you made your point. Several times. Its a one sided article because the author believes circumcision is wrong. Get over it. One day you will find that this is no longer practiced outside of religious sects because the risks of circumcision are just too great to justify doing it to newborn babies. Just to support that statement, here's a story: I went to the 'new mommies' class at the hospital after having my son. There were about 8 couples/babies there, 6 of which were male. Only ONE was circ'd.

Thank you for posting this article. I really hope those soon-to-be parents out there really think long and hard about whether to do this to their babies and make well-educated, thoughtful decisions. Do not let others (ie your parents, family and friends) try to make this decision for you. And remember, you can not reattach a foreskin....but you can circumcise at any time. Maybe you should let your son make his own decision when he is an adult. Just a thought.....good luck to all of you!

Great article. I have also extensively researched whether or not to circumcise for years before I even got pregnant. Along with discussing it with doctors, pediatricians, ob/gyns, and nurses, I spoke men who were not circumcised and their wives/girlfriends living in both the US and abroad. Every single one of the medical professionals stated that it is no longer considered a medically necessary procedure and that the risk for circumcising vastly outweighs the risks for not. Every single one of the non-circ'd men reported absolutely NO infections or complications. The wives/girlfriends all report it was no big deal. My son is now 16 months old and not one single problem has arisen from not being circumcised. In fact, I have several friends who did circumcise and have had issues/problems that needed medical attention. And I would have circ'd my son if my husband was adamant for it. He's circ'd. We had pressure from family and friends to do it. Not one since person told us not to do it. We made the educated decision not to do it. It made me nervous at first, but now I stand strongly by my position.

I've had boyfriends who were circumcised, some not, and one who had a botched circ. Guess who was the most hung up over his penis AND had erectile dysfunction? Yep, the botched one.

The truth of the matter is this: there are billions of men in this world who are not circumcised that are living full, healthy, and long sexual lives with very little thought into this matter. Its mostly an American debate. Most male mammals have some kind of foreskin. Its there for a reason. It serves a purpose. Period.

To the 'guest' who has made it his quest to argue against this article/author: you made your point. Several times. Its a one sided article because the author believes circumcision is wrong. Get over it. One day you will find that this is no longer practiced outside of religious sects because the risks of circumcision are just too great to justify doing it to newborn babies. Just to support that statement, here's a story: I went to the 'new mommies' class at the hospital after having my son. There were about 8 couples/babies there, 6 of which were male. Only ONE was circ'd.

Thank you for posting this article. I really hope those soon-to-be parents out there really think long and hard about whether to do this to their babies and make well-educated, thoughtful decisions. Do not let others (ie your parents, family and friends) try to make this decision for you. And remember, you can not reattach a foreskin....but you can circumcise at any time. Maybe you should let your son make his own decision when he is an adult. Just a thought.....good luck to all of you!

this article is retarded. It is impossible to have phimosis without a foreskin. Sarah Tennant you are dumb

Not exactly. Loose circumcisions, while they lower the risk of other complications such as tight erections in later life, sometimes result in the remnant of the foreskin attaching to the glans as it heals and fusing there. This is a more serious condition than what is often misdiagnosed as phimosis, the normal non-retractability of an infant's foreskin (although true phimosis can of course occur in older intact males).

Pathological phimosis can also occur from forced retraction of an infant's foreskin - again, when the foreskin fuses to the glans as it heals. This isn't specifically a circumcision issue, but in countries where circumcision is the norm the proper care of an intact penis is often not commonly known, leading to forced retractions (therefore, unfortunately, perpetuating the idea that being intact caused the phimosis, not being forcibly retracted).

I have never had a little boy, I only have three girls. I have been doing some personal research about male circumcision, and I have to say that I wouldn't be able to make that decision for my "future son"

“I’m circumcised and I’m fine.” What difference do you know anyway?

Statements of men cut as adults:
http://www.circumcisionquotes.com/loss.html

"The greatest disadvantage of circumcision… is the awful loss of sensitivity and function... I was deprived of my foreskin when I was 26; I had ample experience in the sexual area, and I was quite happy (delirious, in fact) with what pleasure I could experience… After my circumcision, that pleasure was utterly gone. Let me put it this way: On a scale of 10, the uncircumcised penis experiences pleasure that is at least 11 or 12; the circumcised penis is lucky to get to 3 ... If American men who were circumcised at birth could know the deprivation of pleasure they would experience, they would storm the hospitals and not permit their sons to undergo this unnecessary loss. But how can they know? You have to be circumcised as an adult, as I was, to realize what a terrible loss of pleasure results from this cruel operation."

“Now an orgasm is an achievement, and if I am not turned on experiencing it is sheer work...”
“The testimony of men who have experienced life with a foreskin and then lost it is perhaps the most damning of all arguments against circumcision. . . . For an adult male to be misled into circumcision is regrettable, but to inflict irreparable damage on a non-consenting infant who will carry the physical… scars all his life is tragic."

“I will eventually have about 90% less sensitivity than before. Startling as this might seem to most circumcised guys, it is quite true and should give them some idea of the intensity of sensations they have never known. I used to experience great pleasure…That pleasure no longer exists.”

“. . . the sensitivity in the glans had been reduced by at least 50%. There it is unprotected, constantly rubbing against the fabric of whatever I am wearing. In a sense, it had become calloused. Intercourse is now (as we used to say about the older, heavier condoms) like washing your hands with gloves on . . . I seem to have a relatively unresponsive stick where once I had a sexual organ.”

Circumcision is often compared to color blindness because many men who were circumcised as adults (and thus were able to experience sex both with and without a foreskin) describe sex after circumcision as "like watching a movie in black and white instead of color". Although they can still achieve orgasm after circumcision, much of the sensation and pleasure has been lost.

Men don’t seem to mind because they have no awareness of what has been done to them and have no accurate means of comparison. With no accurate means of comparison, the typical circumcised man does not know what he is missing. A man, colorblind from birth and thinking his sight is normal, might also never question his condition. If circumcised men really knew the difference they would all be protesting this practice on every street corner wearing a penis suit.

"Color blind from birth" refers to men who were circumcised at birth. That is, they have never had a full sexual experience (sex in "color") because they've never had sex with a foreskin.

Circumcised men have 75% less sexual sensitivity. Circumcision removes the MOST sexually sensitive parts of the organ. Foreskin is not just the wrapper, it's the candy. Not only that, it causes the remaining glans to become callused and desensitized.

Sexual Effects of Circumcision
http://www.coloradonocirc.org/sexual.php

“Men also experience many detrimental physical and sexual changes because of circumcision. The most serious change for men is a significant reduction in sexual pleasure. The foreskin, which is removed during circumcision, contains many thousands of erogenous nerve endings.”

Case against Circumcision
Paul M. Fleiss, MD
http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/fleiss.html

“Circumcision alters the appearance of the penis drastically. It permanently externalizes the glans, normally an internal organ. Circumcision leaves a large circumferential surgical scar on the penile shaft. Because circumcision usually necessitates tearing the foreskin from the glans, pieces of the glans may be torn off, too, leaving it pitted and scarred. Shreds of foreskin may adhere to the raw glans, forming tags and bridges of dangling, displaced skin.32 Depending on the amount of skin cut off and how the scar forms, the circumcised penis may be permanently twisted, or curve or bow during erection.33 The contraction of the scar tissue may pull the shaft into the abdomen, in effect shortening the penis or burying it completely.34 “

What is lost due to circumcision?
http://www.norm.org/lost.html

“The soft mucosa (inner foreskin) contains its own immunological defense system which produces plasma cells. These cells secrete immunoglobulin antibodies as well as antibacterial and antiviral proteins, including the pathogen killing enzyme lysozyme.”

Would you PLEASE answer this ONE question for me?

WHAT do parents think they are trying to achieve for their child by circumcising him that is worth risking killing him for? No one has answered this question for me.
It seems very easy to me. NOTHING that ANYONE is trying to achieve, for their son or for themselves or for anyone, is worth risking killing their child for, or even taking that risk so needlessly. That is EASY to see,isn’t it?

So if nothing anyone is trying to achieve by circumcising (whether it can be achieved by circumcising or not) is worth even risking killing the child for, let alone actually killing him, thenisn ’t the logical conclusion obvious? STOP! DON’T DO IT! The world won’t come to a screeching halt if we stop risking our children’s lives and killing some of them for nothing, will it? Let’s just cut EVERYTHING off and out of ALL babies. Then NOTHING CAN EVER GET SICK and the babies will live FOREVER.

It does not matter even if it did have benefits, it goes against our Constitution, and it goes against human rights we constantly preach to the rest of the world. It does not matter if it’s beneficial. It's not constitutional to protect girls and then cut up boys. There is nothing that circumcision has been claimed to do that cannot be obtained by less brutal, destructive, evasive, and intrusive means. It’s like this. We can get money by working hard or by robbing a bank. Which one are you going to do? What is the moral choice? The ends dont justify the means. That is what we should be debating regarding circumcision.

I think this is a piece of one-sided, biased, scare-mongering, which is a real shame.

There is not one sentence in your article that refers to statistics, or wide scale research supporting any of your claims, and certain statements such as "others have attributed qualities such as rage and misogyny to the practice" are purely speculative and very irresponsible. To suggest that men who have been circumcised grow up to hate women and the world in general is ridiculous.

By prefixing sentences with 'may', and associating speculative beliefs with 'others' who are unnamed, you are presenting a case with no solid foundations.

Sexual dysfunctions are extremely rare and you have included no studies or findings which state that sexual dysfunctions are more common in adults who were circumcised as a baby, than in adults who weren't.

And finally, by attaching a photograph of a baby in distress, in black and white and with fluids, mucus and blood on their head, you are making a mental association in the readers mind which is completely misleading. The picture is taken just after birth and not related to a circumcision at all, yet you are trying to associate the distressed expression on his face with the practice. This is also irresponsible.

I would urge any parents to do their own research, rather than make any decisions based on this unfortunate article.

Nov 3, 2010 1:15 PM: Firstly: I notice your own comment contains no references to wide-scale studies or statistics, so it seems you do not feel they are important in making an argument. Secondly: I have in fact referred, insofar as the rather specific structure of Suite articles allows, to several studies. Follow the links to my other articles for more detailed references and studies for various conditions.

Thirdly: I wonder where you get the impression that sexual dysfunction is "very rare"? Viagra and other sexual enhancement supplements sell rather well, I hear. Follow my link to the "loss of sensation" article for a medical explanation for gradual loss of sexual sensation due to keratinisation. Also, technically, *any* circumcised penis is sexually dysfunctional, as some of its functions (such as the gliding action of the foreskin) are lost. A penis which causes pain to the female partner could also be considered sexually dysfunctional, and I referenced a study which supports that.

Attributing misogyny to circumcision is indeed speculative, and was presented as such. I'm not too sure about the theory myself, but it seemed worth mentioning as it comes up in circumcision discussions quite a bit. Anne V. Pyterek's "Circumcision: The Root of Misogyny" is a typical take on the issue, available online. On a personal note, I have corresponded with a male intactivist who confesses his attitude to women *was* shaped - for the worse - by his infant circumcision. He blames women, largely, for the idea that circumcised penises are more attractive, leading to many circs for purely cosmetic reasons.

There is increasing research on the effects of neonatal experiences on brain development, and a growing consensus that poor attachment in early life leads to psychological issues later on. Circumcision is known to affect bonding and breastfeeding (which is why La Leche League is against it) - so it is not an "out there" thought that it may indeed have psychological repercussions.

Lastly, as for the photo: for obvious reasons, I could not put a photograph of an actual circumcision on the article. The photo is clearly labeled as a newborn baby, not a baby being circumcised. I did, however, mean to draw a comparison between infant distress and circumcision, for the blindingly obvious reason that circumcision is hellishly painful for a baby. Studies have shown that NO form of pain relief commonly used for infant circ are fully effective - general anaesthetic would be, at least for the procedure itself (not the post-op pain), but is not used for safety reasons. Some babies slip into a defensive coma-like state from the pain; others scream. All demonstrate severe pain response, and another study found that circumcised babies responded more strongly to the pain of vaccination several months later (!), meaning that it affected their pain response on a semi-long-term level at least. So as circumcision is in fact a painful, bloody procedure, I feel this was a very mild image to have attached to the article. Circumcision videos are available on YouTube - watch a few if you want to see the pain babies experience during the operation.

The author has a particular agenda and is therefore economical with the truth to better make her case.

She is disingenuous in stating "Recently a number of men have successfully sued for damages over their infant circumcisions." Not one single case has been won on human rights grounds. Every successful case has been fought either because valid consent was not obtained from the parents, or more usually because the doctor concerned made serious errors in doing the circumcision. Furthermore, the number of these cases can be counted in the tens as against the millions of happily circumcised men.

Extensive research has also shown that in general there is no loss of sensation (and certainly none of satisfaction) as a result of circumcision. The supposed loss of sensation is a figment of the imagination of those with a foreskin fetish (and hence anti-circumcision).

Again, "lack of recommendation by any national medical organisation" is not because any such organisation is against circumcision. It is just that they do not feel the need at present to positively promote it in the way that they, for example, recommend infant immunisations. However attitudes are changing in the light of overwhelming evidence of multiple medical benefits and we will shortly see several national medical organisations positively promoting male circumcision.

To date, none of the circumcision cases have been won on human rights grounds, but some were definitely fought on human rights grounds. Read the interviews. These men have no protection under the law, as circumcision is unconstitutionally permitted for baby boys but not baby girls; however, just because informed consent was (in one case I can recall) used as the defense doesn't mean the case wasn't about human rights. Plenty of boys have been circumcised with dodgy consent, but if they're suing in adulthood there's generally something else going on; and indeed, interviews with the plaintiff show that to be the case. Currently a class action lawsuit is in the works which may in fact go for the human rights angle.

It is ridiculous to say that the "tens" of men who have sued are outweighed by the "millions of happily circumcised men". In America, at any rate, most circumcised men aren't well-informed enough about circumcision to know if they should be happy or not about the procedure. The comparison needs to be between *informed* circumcised men. And intactivist groups are large and growing. Plus, of course, there are billions of happily uncircumcised men around the globe as well; they don't "count"?

I'd be VERY interested to see this "extensive research" which shows that the sexual function of the frenulum, the 20,000 specialised nerve endings in the foreskin and the gliding/lubricative effects of the foreskin are figments of the imagination of foreskin fetishists!

*If* any major medical organisations begin promoting circumcision, we can look at their data, biases and reasoning and go from there. As it is, they do not; and plenty of respected medical organisations specifically state that they do not recommend routine circumcision. Remember that Europe, Britain, New Zealand and Australia are largely "intact" countries - and have yet to suffer from debilitating outbreaks of foreskin-related doom and gloom. Apparently foreskins are only pathological in the USA.

Not convincing, sorry. Mostly it says about human rights...ok, fine. Otherwise there are things to go wrong with the procedure - but there are also lots of things to go wrong with the uncircumsized baby's penis (and other parts). Besides, speaking of sexual function - I am from the country where men were not customarily circumsized, just some of them, so I could compare without thinking just "weird". Guess what: circumsized men don't have any more erectile disfunctions or other problems than "whole" ones. rather the othert way around. And sex is much better with the former and there is less chance of premature ejaculation.
Just for the record: I am a mother of the boy and he is "whole" just because we didn't bother and it was not a standard procedure in the maternity clinics. But I am glad I have a partner that IS circumsized.

Very helpful. I was considering (very strongly) circumcising our son, however, my husband is uncircumcised. I am glad I came upon this article because my thoughts never once were about the side effects. I thought it was normal to have the circumcision done at birth. My parents could also benefit by reading this. It seemed odd to even consider not having our son circumcised but now i see a new positive side to not doing it.

It's not the parents decision. Wait until the child is 18 (or 13 at MINIMUM) before you mutilate him. Don't disfigure your boy because you are not sexually satisfied.

According to Ancient Greek scripts circumcision was an act of brutallity ,a violation of nature,and a symbol of barbarism. Ancient Egyptiants used to circumcice their slaves not themselves. So why you in US have addopted a primitive method for the last 100 years to turn "slaves" your male population? John from Europe

Circumcision may also result in an interrupted breastfeeding relationship.. Are you serious?! Did we ask the 8 month old males the feelings that they have reguarding their mothers breast and the lack of skin on their penis? What exactly are you trying to say with this statment?

Jan 7, 2011 6:25 PM: I'm curious to hear what research you have to back up your claims that circumcised men do not experience more erectile dysfunction than intact men; that they have lower rates of premature ejaculation, and that they provide "better" sex (which is surely a) rather subjective and b) dependent on a wider range of factors than circumcision status). It hardly seems like these are phenomena one can scientifically determine simply by living in a country with circumcised and intact men.