Male Circumcision
One of the things that baffle me is why are there parents who still want their baby boys to be circumcized?
I am not sure it is a necessary procedure. I think it is done in the name of tradition in the U.S., being a Jewish tradition that caught on. In Brazil boys are not circumsized, as in many parts of Europe. Pro-circumcision advocates say that it eliminates the chances of infection/diseases. I think that anyone with poor hygiene can have that problem. What about the fact that circumcized men are less sensitive in the area? I know men who are not circumcized and never had any problems at all with their foreskin. I am thinking of the pain a baby boy has to go through, and the added cost of the procedure in hospitals (hmm, I wonder who has this terrible job in hospitals, “decapitating” little baby penises)…
I recently saw statistics that only half of babies are now circumcized. That’s good. I just wish that the babies had a say in that, and not the parents, sometimes motivated by religion and ancient traditions. I sure do not know the medical aspects very well, but I see it as barbaric, almost as bad as the female circumcision. Thoughts?
Look at this blogger from www.benettontalk/2007/10/ comments on the subject:
Over the last century, circumcision has become very popular worldwide (actually that is not true, only in the Anglo and Muslim worlds). According to a National Opinion Research Center survey, in 1965 about 85 percent of all American baby boys were circumcised, not only amongst Jewish people. Many felt, and continue to think, that circumcision has many hygienic and health advantages for the patient. Then things began to change. First, there is an increased awareness of the risks (blood loss, infection etc.) involved. By 2004, the rate had fallen to about 57 percent in the US, while the Canadian Paediatric Society did “not recommend circumcision for newborn boys.”
“I don’t believe it’s medically necessary,” Ayal says. “If we’ve done it, it’s just for cultural reasons.” Male circumcision in Judaism is a positive and obligatory commandment, attesting to a special relationship with God. Ignoring it is often seen in active Jewish communities as a rejection of Jewish religious and cultural tradition. “Never mind what we actually decided to do, just us having doubts about it was a challenge to our community”.
“I think circumcision rates will generally decrease when performed just for medical reasons,” Ayal continues. “They will stay the same where they’re connected with cultural practices”. Meanwhile in the US an increasing number of Jewish people are becoming “Intactivists”, refusing to circumcise their sons, as some Jewish writers and doctors make statements against it.
“At the end, we’re still not sure,” Ayal admits. “I don’t really know what we would do if we had a second son.”
This is an old Jewish tradition that is based in religion. It is not as bad as the female circumcision, but there is also a reduced sensitivity in a man’s future sex life.
A baby boy cannot make a choice. Others are making it for him. The chances of having infection with the existence of the prepuce are fo those who have no hygiene. Why submit a baby to such pain, why engage hospital workers and resources to waste time with that?
Only the Anglo countries and Islamic countries still carry this barbaric procedure. South America and Europe do not inflict that in their newborns.
I know men who are circumcized and those who are not, and the uncircumcized ones have never had any problems with their extra “skin”. And the ones who are feel less sensation in the area. The foreskin is very similar to the clitoris skin, full of nerves.
Anyways, maybe it should be optional, when someone reaches adulthood?
Update 7/10/09: watch this video with Christopher Hitchens: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U93ZiR692l4
8 Comments »
Leave a comment
About
The Brazilian viewpoint in the US. This blog is a channel for Brazilians living in the US who want to share their opinions about living in this country. Americans with a Brazilian experience are welcome too!
About me: Sociologist with a MBA, living in the Washington D.C. suburbs, married, adult children.
Democrat, Atheist (which does not mean I don’t have morals-I do, a lot).
-For less interference of religion in governance
-For legalization and taxation of marijuana (although not an user and never been-think it’s a bad habit)
-For gay marriage-same rights to all couples
-For Universal Healthcare in the US for those who can’t pay for private care
Interested in relationships, politics, current events and health issues.
-
Archives
- September 2009 (1)
- August 2009 (3)
- July 2009 (8)
- June 2009 (6)
- May 2009 (6)
- April 2009 (15)
- March 2009 (14)
- February 2009 (10)
- January 2009 (8)
- December 2008 (11)
- November 2008 (6)
- October 2008 (12)
-
Categories
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
I agree with your post overall, but this sentence cracks me up: “And the ones who are feel less sensation in the area.” Less sensation as compared to what? And how did you measure it?
I’d venture to say most women in the US wouldn’t want to touch an uncircumsized penis. Of all the girlfriends I’ve had, none would go near a man without circumsizion.
Pete, that’s ignorant of them. That’s misinformation. A man who is healthy and clean and has his foreskin is no different from an uncirmcumsized man. I did not have male kids, but would not cut them.
I too am wondering where this “fact” that circumcised men are less sensitive comes from. Studies have yet to show any significant difference either in microscopic tissue appearance or in overall sexual function or satisfaction from circumcision; most studies, in fact, show the opposite.
What the hell is wrong with people?
The foreskin is there to PROTECT the head of the penis.
It’s a natural part of the body, why should it be just chopped off? If you wiki this topic, you’ll see that according to word-wide statistics, men with the procedure are LESS prevalent that men with it. It’s mostly practiced in Muslim countries and the US. Men in Latin America and Europe are almost 100% uncircumcised. I married a woman from Latin America, and once asked if any of her brothers/cousins, ales in the family had it done, she said it was barbaric and would had never even heard of such a thing done on a perfectly healthy male. I’m tired of watching Seinfeld (reruns), Caroline in the City(very old reruns), Friends, and other made in Hollywood crap with gives the perception that ALL men have had it done.
I can barely recall an episode where Jerry asks one of his friends if they had ever “seen one” (w/o the procedure).
I have my full intact foreskin, and most of the guys that I’ve talk to around here do so too. What the hell is so wrong with this culture when we think of the natural state of the penis as dirty and defective?
For all of you idiots wanting to do this on your child for the cleanliness issue, I have a tip for you:
1) SHOWER
2) GET HAND SOAPY
3) PULL FORESKIN BACK
4) WASH
Now… can we stop this NONSENSE??
Mike, you said it all. Great post!
hey!!!!
i think it should be done despite using a radox wash,hahahah,circumsising prevents infections and one is less likely to get a sexually transmitted disease.YOU made me laugh im sure parents do think in the best of intrest for the child,if something helps why not ,i think it should go ahead.Also its a fulfillment yo the major world religions too for those who believe.Everyones opinions huh.Anyhow good topic!!
There are some interesting studies claiming that circumcised men are less likely to give their women uterine cancer and STDs. (Sorry I couldn’t find any article in English. You probably can find more on this searching in Google)
http://www.aidsportugal.com/article.php?sid=1616
http://ultimosegundo.ig.com.br/bbc/2009/03/26/circuncisao+previne+herpes+e+hpv+diz+estudo+5087961.html
These aren’t conclusive though. Anyway, it should be up for the man to decide what to do.