Althouse: How good is circumcision?

July 6, 2005

How good is circumcision?

This good.

14 comments:

P_J said...: Wow. I don't have WSJ subscription, so I have some questions about the study. Do we know:

Are the reported sexual behaviors the same among the test groups?
Were the participants circumcised as part of the study, or already circumcised?
Do we see anything like this kind of difference elsewhere (e.g., the USA, Europe)? Is there really a disproportionate rate of HIV among the uncircumcised?

I have no strong feelings about circumcision per se. It would be great news if true and repeatable, but this just doesn't seem to make sense on the face of it. It will be interesting to see the results of the parallel studies.; 7/6/05, 5:36 PM
jeff said...: Of course, keeping it in your pants is 100% effective...; 7/6/05, 6:30 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: I will disagree that circumcism is done for no medical reason. Rather, this seems to be a continuing debate in the medical community between essentially male pediatricians and female ob/gyns.

I remember my ex's ob/gyn about 15 years ago on a rant on this subject. In her experience, and that of many of her co-workers, female partners of uncircumcized males had significantly higher fertility problems - supposedly caused by increased transmission of diseases that have no ill effect on men.

But then you talk to male pediatricians, and they concentrate on the pain caused by the operation (if done in the hospital, as it is done in a significant majority of cases).

I suspect that this may be the deep seated cause of many of my problems, though I have no memory of the operation, as I was less than a day old when it was done to me.; 7/7/05, 8:53 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: John Henry points out that female to male transmission is rare in the U.S. However, a majority of HIV transmission today in this country is male-male, and if this is accurate, may indicate an increased avenue of infection.; 7/7/05, 8:56 AM
Ann Althouse said...: Diane: The foreskin isn't "ripped" off. It's cut off with a scalpel. A clean cut with an exceedingly sharp knife is not all that painful. I've seen more than one baby circumcised at a bris. It's done openly and in front of crowds of people every day, and it's just not as bad as you're making it out to be. As for the parents making the decision for the baby, ask men who have been circumcised if they are glad their parents made that decision. I think you'll hear a lot of "yes." A man who is left to make his own decision will have to have the procedure when he understands what's being done, which is going to be what makes it hurt. I know there are some men out there who regret being circumcised. I saw that Penn & Teller show about circumcision. But, really, I think the vast majority of circumcised men are glad their parents had it done. And it really does cut down on disease. A lot. And -- face it -- it looks a lot better!; 7/7/05, 4:20 PM
P_J said...: I don't have any strong feelings about circumcision, so I don't understand the anti-circumcision hysteria. It's nothing like cutting off a person's left hand - that's a ridiculous argument.

I don't see how infants have any "right" to decide what elective procedures are done to their bodies. Parents have the right to make those decisions unless and until they demosntrate that they are bad parents. Circumcision has not been shown to fall into that category.

Should we let kids decide if they want tetanaus or measles shots? I had my appendix out in 2nd grade - and I am grateful my parents made the decision for me, as I wasn't competent to do so at age 8.

No, I can't feel passionately about circumcision. I can feel passionately about reducing a horrible, wasting disease that ruins lives, destroys economies, and kills millions of the poorest, most desperate people on the planet every year. Circumcision isn't exactly the leading cause of death in sub-Saharan Africa.; 7/8/05, 12:20 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: Ann points out that the operation, as done, at a Bris, is as painless as possible. Though, not Jewish, I concur. The babies' outcry is quite a bit less than you hear for many other things that happen to them throughout their infancy - including innoculations.

Not Jewish, mine was done at birth by the attending pediatrician. They, being physicians, also typically use the most painless method available to them.

I jokingly suggested above that most of my personal problems probably resulted from my circumcism almost 55 years ago. But, of course, this is nonsensical, as I had just survived the birthing process, and any additional indignity at that point would have been de minimis.; 7/8/05, 2:00 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: I also concur with Ann that most circumcized men I know, including myself, are not the least bit resentful of having had it done, but, in many of us, happy.

Diane also, I would suggest, ignores other potential health benefits from circumcism.

Above and beyond male infection, the basic problem is that it is significantly more difficult to effectively clean an uncircumcized penis. Yes, if a man is consciencious, this is typically no problem. But many are not. Fact of life. A number of Ob/Gyn believe that this is the primary reason that their patients who have uncricumcized partners have a significantly higher incidence of infertility - resulting from infections that could have been prevented by better hygene.; 7/8/05, 2:10 AM
siriusblackp said...: g_thomson has got to be a hoax! These silly faux didactic stories are made by men who haven't the slightest clue what a foreskin is. All of gthomson's experience with his foreskin was discovered on a web site somewhere, and now he's mourning his missing foreskin, lost at birth, by telling us how great his cut penis is. The next post by Dave is even worse: he hauls out these medical terms he got out of some book, claims he had 'em all, but now he's cut and so glad. Come on guys: quit mourning your missing foreskins and leave the rest of us - and your childredn - alone!; 4/4/07, 5:52 PM
baggins said...: I was circumcised when I was 24 for purely cosmetic reasons. This might not be a popular reason for being circumcised, but I always preferred the look of a circumcised penis and one day saw an add from a clinic offering a host of different procedures, one of which was circumcision. The price was quite reasonable and for the first time I seriousely considered getting it done. A few months later I came across the add again and decided to go for it. I hadn't researched the benifits or drawbacks of circumcision - it didn't occur to me that there would be a big debate about it!
I have had sexual experiences both before and after the operation (which was ten years ago now).

My experience is that intercourse is much better now - my glans, including the corona and frenulum area are constantly exposed and stimulated and I find that very pleasurable - much more pleasurable than when the head just slid around in the foreskin, only poking out at the end of each "stroke"! I also find the tight feeling of the skin pleasurable (I am quite tightly circumcised). The one draw back with circumcision is that masturbation is not as easy as it was.

In terms of sensativity my glans is not very sensative when I am not aroused, but becomes very sensative when I am. After ejaculation it is too sensative to stroke. This is the case whether the head was touched reaching ejaculation or not (and occasionally, if I don't have lubrication around, if I masturbate I do so without touching the glans). Within a few minutes the glans starts to return to normal sensativity. This is not just a "brain" thing - there must be a release of chemicals on arousal which makes the penis more sensative.

I also have to agree with other posters about the smell of an un-circumcised penis. It is very distinctive and difficult to keep away even if you are very clean. I have alwasy showered very morning but still noticed the smell quite regularly. Circumcision is the only way to stop the smell returning.

I have never had much interest in circumsision, other than prefering the look of it. I would now say it was the right choice for both asthetic and functional reasons.; 5/7/07, 4:15 PM
Vince said...: I was circumcised when I was 6 months old. My Mom is very proud of it. I was told that I did not cry during circumcision and they did not put any diapers either (only bandage on the penis). My Mom frequently used to examine my penis and loved to undress me to inspect it. When my Mom's sisters and their daughters were around I felt embarrassed because they were curious to see me. Otherwise I am happy with my circumcision status. My parents thought leaving me undressed will help to overcome my shyness.; 7/13/07, 6:41 PM
Richard Whole said...: Diane: You did not have to apologize for the use of the term "ripped." You were being accused of saying the foreskin was "ripped" off. You said nothing of the sort. You said the foreskin was still attached to the glans in infants such that it had to be ripped from the glans before being cut off. I think that's an accurate description.; 10/27/07, 5:15 AM
cutin69 said...: Siriusblackp said "g_thomson has got to be a hoax" I don't think so! as my experience is almost exactly the same. I spent 27 years of my life uncircumcised, the latter two years as a married man.
Now with respect to all the ladies out there, and all those circumcised in infancy also the uncircumcised. You opinion can't relay count as you have only experienced one side of the wall, not both sides, you can only assume what its like.

The anticirc's fall into A class of their own, as they seem to pick out the bits to suit their cause & twist the truth.
If something is posted that is pro circumcision, then you get bombarded with 10 different guys attacking your pro circ post, all their postings coming from the same IP address, written by the same person.

I remember a debate at school over this subject, 60% of the class was circumcised the remainder was not. When asked, If we could turn back the clock and have it over again what would we choose.
The result was only one in the class of 35 that chose to have a foreskin, the rest chose circumcision and those who had been cut were happy with their status.
When the uncut were asked, if they had the opportunity to have a circumcision now! most chickened out, the general feeling was it would be too painful. Or, I wish it had been done when I was small.
(we were 15/16 year old's at the time)

What changed my mind were the same reasons as that of g_thomson.
Hot African summer, working as a rep. driving most of the day, popping in to see the girl after work, aware of the smell in your pants! No thanks!
Now 37 Yrs down the line.....If it grew again over night, I would still choose to have the smelly appendage cut off tomorrow,it dose not improve sex, most of the time it just got in the way at the wrong time.
Most of the guys that have had themselves circumcised, and had it both ways, all seem say: I wish I had been done as a kid, or I should have had it done years ago.
It is a big morel boost and improves self confidence.
By the way I still have mind blowing orgasm's. It takes a bit longer than it did 30 Yrs ago, but it still works just the same.

We had our son circumcised in infancy, the circ. rate where we now live is +-5% He has had many uncut friends,undoubtedly gone threw the experimental stage with them and has gathered experience with the uncut boys. He has often stated that he is glad that he is cut & that it was done when he was small & didn't remember it.

DO YOUR SON A BIG FAVOR AND HAVE IT DONE WHILE HE IS STILL SMALL.; 12/24/07, 12:26 PM
Unknown said...: Yes Ann, the foreskin is torn from the glans. As medicalized in the U.S., the foreskin is first torn with a blunt probe from the glans. Then the foreskin is pulled forward and crushed over a bell or through the jaws of a clamp, and amputated (the word used by the American Academy of Pediatrics in their medical description of circumcsion.)

It's more obvious in a Jewish circumcsion - the way my foreskin was amputated without my consent. First the skin is pulled forward, then a shield is slipped over the skin, and the entire prepuce and a good deal of shaft skin is amputated in front of the shield with a sharp knife. This leaves the inner foreskin skin fused to the glans. The second part is to tear the foreskin off the glans to the coronal groove, and cut it off there, usually with a sharp fingernail. In particular, the CHABAD manual states:

"One must exert one's utmost influence to ensure that the mucous membrane is torn[20] as a separate operation [from cutting the foreskin]"

The third part is to suck the blood. It's still done frequently, and the NYT reported on a couple of boys who died from neonatal herpes, and another with acute renal failure. Modern Jews suck the blood through a tube.

There. It is torn, whether with a blunt probe, or just the good old fashioned way. Circumcised men and their female proxies don't want to admit it, because it sounds as bad as it really is.

The exact same operation can be carried out on a female, where only the prepuce of the clitoris is removed, as is universally done in Islamic Indonesia. The benefits, according to Indonesian doctors, are the same: better hygiene, fewer infections, men like it, and no loss of sensation, and it certainly looks better.

The circumcision "hysteria" is created entirely by those who keep insisting that they have the right to amputate sexual tissue from other people. Get circumcised. Hell, get circumcised twice! Just make sure you are doing it to your own penis or clitoris.; 9/14/08, 5:35 PM