Following my two posts on male circumcision I have received a fair amount of feedback from which I have learned some new things. The commentators have pointed out where I have been wrong about things and they have also provided some great links that I would like to share with my readers here.After my first entry on the subject I received one comment from anonymous with a link to a blog which is entirely dedicated to male circumcision. Here you can among other things, see pictures of the surgical procedure, and read about the similarities between male and female circumcision. I always thought that female circumcision was quite a bit worse, but it seems that this is not necessarily the case...
When I wrote my second entry I also received some very nice feedback. The first comment really makes the general point well. Beanie's Appa, who wrote the comment has got his own blog which you will find here. This is what he wrote (I agree completely with what he says).
"Wonderful post. Thank you for your words of wisdom. I'm one of those men who was cut as a baby, but I wish they hadn't done that to me. For me, there's no choice. My parents and the doctor took that from me. But for someone who wasn't cut at birth and wishes he was, he can do that stupid thing any time he feels like it."
A few days later I received a comment from TLC tugger who is in the business of helping circumcised men get back their foreskin, an honorable business indeed. You can listen to his podcast here. Apparently it is possible to restore your foreskin following circumcision using TLC's product, which amazingly does not require surgical interventions. (I am wondering whether this approach will give you back some of your sensitivity to the foreskin). TLC, having restored his own foreskin also pointed out that sex is a great deal more pleasant with the foreskin. Furthermore, TLC pointed out that only very rarely (1 case in 10,000) is there a medical reason for doing circumcision. For most problems, there are less invasive techniques available. For instance, if you have a tight foreskin, you can simply stretch it using a balloon. I am actually quite confused about peoples' readiness to pick up the knife whenever there is a problem with the penis. Surgical procedures are usually avoided until there are no other options, and for good reasons...
Concerning the supposedly positive health effects associated with male circumcision I read somewhere (I cannot remember where I read this) that the correlation between circumcision and a lower incidence of HIV would not occur even if we circumcised all males in Africa. The reason why not is really quite obvious (at least if you have ever been to an African hospital, which I have). A lot of people in Africa get HIV because a procedure is not done in sterile environments, that is, they are infected with the virus during the procedure. Furthermore, many circumcisions in Africa are not even done at a hospital. Sometimes the procedure is done with dirty and not so sharp knives (see picture), out in the nature. Man I would not want to be that baby... Maybe more sterile environments could be achieved, but I suspect that in Africa today a mass circumcision campaign would have greater costs than benefits.
Finally, just earlier today I received an email from Frank. He gave me a table with STD (sexually transmitted diseases) statistics for circumcised and non-circumcised men respectively. I found the original study in which it is shown that there are no significant differences (differences that are unlikely to be caused by chance alone) in the occurrence of sexually transmitted diseases for circumcised and non-circumcised men. In other words, to circumcise a baby will not reduce the overall risk of STDs in the future. In the study they conclude that parents should be informed about the costs and benefits associated with circumcision prior to the intervention. I agree.
Of course I am still very interested in what all of you have to say, both people who agree as well as my critics, so keep sending me comments...
Hi Anders, thanks for mentioning me in your post.
SvaraRaderaOne thing to note about the foreskin restoration methods like TLCTugger's is that you would only get the skin back, not the original nerve endings and inner mucous membrane lining or any other structures associated with the foreskin. That being said, the sensitivity should still increase (even if not to 100% natural) because the glans (head) of the penis gets its protective covering back. The head should be smooth, but in circumcised guys it gets rough, dry, and desensitized from years upon years of rubbing against their clothing. After getting a new covering from foreskin restoration, the glans can go back into its natural state.
I've been meaning to buy some of TLCTugger's products, I've used another method which seems to have stalled giving me a nice bit of slack. I used to have skin so tight that during my teen years the skin would sometimes break (and I thought it was normal growing pains!) and my erections have an unnatural curve. That's something most parents don't realize when weighing the pros and cons of circumcision - that the doctor has no idea how big the baby will grow - the doctor can easily cut too much skin, causing problems that don't manifest themselves until puberty and adulthood, and so don't get counted in studies or cost/benefit analysis regarding infant circumcision. In papers that measure the incidents of circumcision complications, I would show up as a baby that was fine, but when I realized my circumcision was my problem, I was pretty pissed off - not fine!
One thing I think America needs more of is men from non-cutting cultures like yourself showing our circumcisers your point of view.
In answer to the scaremongering over the risks of circumcision, I post the following study:
SvaraRaderahttp://tinyurl.com/2mleqv
It is not usual for a neuroscientist to give such a general explanation of the function of nerves. Anders the anti-circumcision argument is about sexual function and nothing else. You as a neuroscientist should be aware that the fine touch receptors 'switch off' if subjected to continuous stimulation and that 'fine touch' as defined in neurology is not what plays any role in insertive sex. This therefore is a carefully constructed myth by anti-circumcision fanatics.
Try this test. Apply your fingertips to yours lips in the lightest stroking motion. It tingles, it is pleasant. Now increase the pressure of the contact between the fingertips and the lips. What happens? The tingling goes away and there is now longer any pleasant sensation. The tingling sensation goes away before the approximate pressure as experienced during intercourse is reached and a deceitfull myth is exposed.
Two of the recent RCTs relating to male circumcision and HIV infection found that 98.5% and 99.5% were 'very satisfied' with the result of their circumcisions. Now if the foreskin had meant so much to them why did they agree to get circumcised at all?
The study I referenced to is about to be published in the british journal of urology, a highly respected, peer reviewed journal.
SvaraRaderaSo go ahead and fool yourself all you want, but don't go and wave away every argument by claiming that it is biased (unlike all your own references of course).
The fact is that you have not once actually met any of the arguments. You have not had a single concrete complaint about how the studies were conducted, which is the way we normally do science...