BlogHer - Circumcision: Is It More than a Convenant with God? - Comments

Circumcision may help

mays5 — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 07:40:20 -0500

Circumcision may help prevent some other genital cancers and infections. However, there is no guarantee. I chose to circumcise both of my boys. There's a great debate about this issue at www.opposingviews.com/questions/should-boys-be-circumcised. It's really worth checking out. Both sides of the issue are represented and given an opportunity to provide rebuttals to the other side's arguments.

circumcision is more than a covenant

black — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 21:48:24 -0500

By any measure, there are thousands of men in the U.S. alone whose botched "circumcisions" are plainly genital mutilation, and are just as debilitating as FGM. Statements - especially from women - dismissing circumcision as essentially harmless are especially appalling for men who have partly missing glans; scar tissue in lieu of skin; horrendous skin bridges; insufficient skin for erection; urethral lacerations, and worse.

I did not choose this operation: I was strapped down, without my consent, and perfectly normal sexual tissue was amputated from my body. At puberty, I would cry from the pain, not knowing what was happening. My father took me to a "doctor", who just smiled and shook his head. Mission Accomplished.

The medical excuses are simply the latest shifting explanations to justify this form of genital mutilation. But the same excuses given for male circumcision can be applied just as easily to female genitals. Vulvar cancer is just as common as penile cancer, and it could be treated the same way in the neonate, when the surgery is safe and quick. Maybe one day parents with get to make the decision to snip that little flap of skin.

Anybody who has diapered baby girls knows that their external genitals are especially hard to keep clean compared to little boys: one runny poop can really make a mess up in those folds and crevices. As Nordette says, "Nevertheless, it seems any fold of skin would make keeping the area where its located more troublesome to clean." Clearly vulvectomy would solve those hygiene problems. And according to millions of people in a faraway continent - men and women - it looks better, it's cleaner, and sex is better.

Neonatal mastectomy would eliminate breast cancer, mastitis, and many other maladies, and it would be a quick and safe operation with modern medical technology when performed on the neonate - with informed consent of the parents, of course. You don't need breasts to live, and a whole generation of Americans were brought up on formula, when breast feeding - and breasts - were considered disgusting, unclean, and primitive.

Women in the U.S. recoil in horror at these suggestions - although some of these are familiar and accepted arguments in other parts of the world.

Well Suzanne, I recoil in horror with statements like "I'd have my boy circumcised if I had one." Maybe you would like to see my medically withered penis and reconsider.

In the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave, minors by law have special protections, and are not fully responsible for their actions. Suzanne, Terri, and millions of other nice people have turned this idea on its head, and have decided it really means that they can do things to minors that would be illegal to do to an adult. Like strapping them down to tables and cutting off sexual tissue.

no BS

intact — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:01:06 -0500

I hope this will be read and without preconceived bias.
I am a fully intact male, as are all the men in my family and there is absolutely ZERO history of medical issues as a result of having a fully intact penis. I would like to state that the "easier to clean" argument is a weak one, because an uncircumcised man can roll back his foreskin for cleaning with one finger and that takes less than a second.
There is no issue whatsoever in extra care for a young child's uncut penis because the foreskin is attached to the head until a child is about four years of age. This protects them from diaper rash due to exposure to fecal matter and urine on the head of the penis. It is there or a reason and circumcised babies experience more irriatation of the glans.
I can argree that female "circumcision" is not exactly the same when it means the full removal of the clitorus. However, if only the clitoral hood was removed it would be EXACTLY the same thing. Before sex is apparent in a fetus, the clitoral hood comes from the exact same genetic tissue as the foreskin. Most women in a civilized society would agree that it would be wrong to remove the hood of the clitorus in a baby girl.
People make the arguement that the foreskin provides opportunity for disease because the increased surface area of moist skin is a good environment for bacteria and viruses to grow if the person does not bathe. However, the point is completely relevant that a woman's vagina has a much larger surface area of moist internal tissue that is even more vulerable to bacterial infection and STD's are more prevalent and likely to exist in the female sex organs. This does not keep civilized people from being completely disgusted by the idea of female genital mutilation, and rightfully so.
Male genital mutilation is just as wrong and should not be justified in the name of psuedo-scientific studies that are funded by people wanting certain results, expecting to proliferate a tradition of cruelty. To remove a viable part of a baby's body for preventative reason's is flat-out wrong, no matter how you justify it. We do not remove a newborn's appendix to prevent appendisitus or their eardrums to prevent ear infections. When disease strikes, we do what we can to cure it, but amputation of a part of the body in case it is infected is complete insanity. To prevent all infection and cancer in all people we would all have to have our complete bodies destroyed.
~food for thought~
~Peter, a happy intact and healthy man~

food for thought

sixtwoguy — Fri, 18 May 2007 01:21:07 -0500

Some very interesting posts here. Normally I would not comment, however some posts in my opinion are exceptionally thoughtful and well researched. I feel compelled to comment.

I am a 51 years old male who is considering having a circumcision. Not for any medical reason. My penis functions just fine. I could go into more details if called upon to do so, but this is not my reason for posting.

As a male considering the procedure I can tell you the decision is not taken lightly. And I tell you this as a very rational man. This will sound like a contradiction, but I am thankful I was not circumcised. The choice has been left up to me.
When researching the whole topic. I am surprised how many men secretly feel violated have been circumcised neonatal. It is an intensely personal issue. The very basis of our medical system and to some extent our society is based on our autonomy. We have a right to make decisions regarding our bodies. This is part of the very fabric our society is based on. We defend this ideology with out lives.

Parents strive to make the very best decisions for their children based on their knowledge base and beliefs. Certainly social pressures influence us all. This in my opinion is an important social function. Although cruel at time, it must have something to do with our survival. Some conformity was necessary to maintain a cohesive tribe. However this does not excurse thoughtlessness. When it comes to social issues we tend to only see what we want to see. And we tend to seek the opinions of others who share our beliefs that help reinforce our beliefs. This can be a dangerous thing.

I did not have my son circumcised. This is a decision I am still very comfortable with.

So young parents listen to this advise. Donâ€™t do it. Leave you son intact. Let him decide. There is no possible way you can know what he wants.

We have all seen the images in the media. When faced with certain death, some people make the decision to jump off buildings to there death. This ultimate final decision demonstrates how powerful this autonomy is.

Think.

Cake eating cirumcisiors revisited.

John Galt — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 08:52:37 -0600

A few links for your reading pleasure.

http://allafrica.com/stories/200701120720.html

"Hygiene is presented as the biggest issue. Many women argue that they prefer a circumcised man because "they are cleaner"so a number of men are undergoing the knife for the sake of thier relationships.

"From my experience, I feel that an uncircumcised man is not as clean and this could increase the chances of catching a sexually transmitted infection," 26-year-old Fatuma Nansubuga says.

31 year old Solomon Ochen who was recently reveals that these days, it is the women who insist on male circumcision. "Many of us are doing it because of pressure from our wives or girlfriends. My girlfriend is neither a Mugisu nor a Moslem but she pressured me to get circumcised. She says a man needs it to be clean.

It is barely days and I am just recovering from the ordeal," he says . John Mugisha, 27, whose girlfriend is a Mugisu as well as a Moslem has a similar experience. "The requirement for circumcision is even higher here. Although, I don't plan to convert to Islam, I recently had to go to Kibuli for the circumcision and get it over and done with, before it became a big issue in the relationship," he says. "The foreskin is a medium for many infections because it harbours a lot of dirt," explains Dr. El Gazar. Unless it is thoroughly cleaned,it can emit a foul smell."

Other than all of us reading this knowing that forskin does not cause AIDS and all us reading this knowing that circumcising men will not prevent the spread of AIDS, I think that if you replaced the word "male" with "female" you would find this statement as offensive as men should.

At least some civilized persons get it.

http://news.scotsman.com/health.cfm?id=65692007

If you think that this is a male only issue, the you cannot expect men to understand female issues. And these same excuses used for male circ are the same faux excuses used to promote female circ in places like Eygpt and New York city. (read the adds in the back of New York magazine.)

John

Cop out G

John Galt — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 21:57:08 -0600

You are trying to distract this debate from being about your lack of knowledge of the subject as a whole to being about how I am picking on you.

You made assertions about how circumcision has minimal risk compared to the benefits. You have not produced one valid benefit and you know nothing of the risk. You don't even know the function of anatomy. You owe every body reading this thread the truth that you do not know these facts. You absolutley cannot debate the risk without knowing them.

I have never used the word female mutilation, nor have I used the word male mutilation. I have only stated that the same benefits that you claim will benefit males from circumcision will benefit women.

Quit using debate techniques and debate the facts.

I do not know the details of

gelliot — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 19:48:12 -0600

I do not know the details of what happened to you, but the conditions that you describe, in terms of an almost total lack of sensitivity in your genitals are beyond extremely rare in circumcisions performed in hospitals in industrialized nations. I find your characterization of mutilation, chopping, and dicing to be extreme. I have never seen any study indicate that circumcision reduces condom usage, and since that link would require a higher level of education than is being assumed in cases where people don't understand how HIV is spread, I do not see the logic in believing those with more education are less likely to exercise appropriate precautions. Every medical procedure carries risks, and every parent has to choice what is right for their child.

Insult, Hostility, Accusation, and Repeat

gelliot — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 19:47:51 -0600

John,
You have been hostile and insulting to me in virtually every post that you have made. I believe that I have provided factual information, while you have consistently made assertions contradicted by overwhelming evidence, the most absurd of which is your assertion that there is no biological difference between male circumcision and female genital mutliation. In that light, I find your claim that I am debating risks without knowing them to be absurd. I owe you nothing. If you provide a fact, I will consider it and provide my response. Until then, I have no need to go and respond to your scattershot of unfounded questions.
Regards,
GE

Let them Eat Cake?

gelliot — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 19:47:46 -0600

I enjoy reading the "Darwin Awards", but I struggle with the notion that people with bad judgement just deserve to die. Even in the industrialized world, there are so many people whose lives have been ruined by one mistake. I think assuming that any woman with HIV is a slut is neither fair nor constructive. I know the stereotype is that men think with their genitals; there are other things that matter too.

There are studies that suggest that vaccinations cause autism, which I would argue to be a far more serious consequence than reduced sexual pleasure. I do not find those studies compelling, particularly when compared to the benefits of vaccination, but that does not make a vaccination the "no brainer" you imply it to be when rejecting the comparison.

Everything is a matter of degree. They don't call them difficult decisions for nothing.

The difference is,

PhilWelch — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 14:42:18 -0600

The difference is, vaccination doesn't remove part of your sexual organs. I mean, we could stop the spread of HIV altogether by just chopping off people's cocks and telling them "if you want kids, artificial insemination's the way to go"...but there's quality of life issues here. From the evidence I've read, sex generally works better if you have a foreskin to provide for gliding action. I'm sure you don't understand or appreciate that if you don't have a foreskin (or in your case, even a cock), which is why women and circumcised men never really appreciate what's lost in circumcision. Would I give up gliding action to not get HIV? Well, I'd probably be quicker to give up fucking HIV-infected sluts, but as you point out, that's not a viable option for some people. The good news is, once you're old enough to be fucking HIV-infected sluts, you're old enough to decide for yourself what parts of your cock you want or don't want.

And as I've also argued beforeâ€”relying on circumcision to protect you when you fuck HIV-infected sluts without a condom is like worrying about the safest seat during an airplane crash. Let's face it, even if you shift the odds a little in your favor, fucking people with HIV is not really a safe thing to be doing.

You mention that HIV has "burned like wildefire" (I assume you mean "spread like wildfire") "through certain parts of the world". Yesâ€”certain impoverished, uneducated parts of the world, where they believe silly things like "fucking a virgin will cure you of HIV'. You also notice that it HASN'T spread like wildfire in educated, prosperous parts of the world. As far as epidemics go, HIV is a relatively easy one to prevent. It certainly doesn't necessitate (at least in our civilization) extreme measures like chopping off parts of people's cocks.

Another study

Terri987 — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 11:54:03 -0600

I have stayed out of this conversation, up to this point, because I have already stated where I am on this issue, and it's not necessary to say the same thing over and over in a slightly different way.

Today in my paper I read:
Craig Timeberg
The Washington Post

"Two major stuides released Wednesday confirmed that circumcision can dramatically slow the spread of HIV among African men, suggesting that widely offering the procedure could prevent millions of deaths in countries most seriously affected by AIDS".....
The studies, in Kenya and Uganda, found that circumcised men are about 50% less likely to contract HIV than those who are not, a result that echoed similar research last year from South Africa."

and

"In each study, thousands of men were recruited, and half were circumcised. Both groups were counseled, urged to use condoms and routinely tested for HIV. No significant difference was found between the two groups, yet they contracted HIV at sharply different rates."

"In all three studies, the results were so persuasive that researchers stopped their experiments several months early and offered circumcisions to all of the subjects, deeming it unethical to withhold a procedure that might prevent an often-fatal disease."

Every year we give infants multiple vaccinations in an effort to prevent them from developing diseases, some with which they may never come into contact. The vast majority of them do not react to them; others develop serious disabilities, and a few die. Vaccinating children carries a risk....and; yet, it would be foolish not to vaccinate them.

All the rhetoric spewed out does nothing but antagonize and overdramatize the issue. When Suzanne blogged about the new HPV vaccination that can prevent cervical cancer due to HPV, I didn't see one single person against it. Why not? After all, HPV can be prevented by education and condom use, can't it? Yes, it can, but people don't always consistently use the education they have. They make foolish choices and bring things back to their partners.

It is the same in this case. Yes, you don't need to be circumcised to prevent catching HIV; but, in a world where people lie about their sexual history, cheat on their partners, or just aren't consistent in their use of condoms, a little extra precaution could prevent the spread of a deadly disease that has burned like wildefire through certain parts of the world.

And now, I will creep back into my silence on this subject.

Terri

Wheat Among Tares

UTI, Penile Cancer not valid reason for Male Genital Mutilation

norstar78 — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 10:37:48 -0600

And men should not be able to make their own decisions regarding their own body? Also the incidence of UTI, penile cancer is very rare. Girls have a 5 to 50 times higher chance of getting UTI than boys, and penile cancer occurs in less than 0.1%, usually elderly, men. And circumcised men can get penile cancer. These are not valid reasons to amputate the most sensitive healthy part of mens bodies, no more than would it be to amputate healthy girls breasts to acheive a 100% reduction in breast cancer, breast cancer affects 20% of women. It is always wrong to cut off healthy parts of childrens bodies that have nothing wrong with them. The foreskin is a healthy and normal part of the body, it is not a birth defect and does not need to be routinely amputated from helpless childrens bodies. If an adult wants to have amputations of normal body parts of their own body, that is their choice. But it is wrong to force this on helpless and easily coerced children. Everyone has a right to a whole body, and children deserve protections from having normal parts of their body, like the foreskin, mutilated. Yes, boys are as much entitled to this protection as girls. MGM is a severe violation of human rights and needs to be made illegal as FGM has.

The AIDS argument is even more ridiculous. You want to mutilate and destroy parts of childrens bodies, cut up their healthy genitals, something which usually qualifies as a sexual assault and mutilation, for a disease which can be easily prevented through education, condoms, and simple lifestyle choices? You want to do WHAT? And the fact is, THOUSANDS of people will still get AIDS and die even if helpless children had the most sensitive parts of their bodies destroyed as they suffer in pain. AIDS can be passed by the passage of bodily fluids between partners, and no MGM can stop this from happening, a condom could, however. Condoms are our best defence, and ironically, MGM may actually discourage condom use as I will discuss below. The best way to stop AIDS is to educate people and provide condoms. When people know better they do better, and if people know how AIDS is passed, they can choose not to have sex with many partners they dont know well. Another solution is to provide free AIDS testing to every person. Then the people who have AIDS are prohibited from having any sex, and they will know they can pass it on to others. This would go much further in stopping AIDS than mutilating and cutting up little boys penises ever could. Perhaps African countries should pass laws against polygamy and encourage fidel relationships and AIDS testing for parners. This is not nearly as great of an imposition as violating the bodies of little boys by destroying their most sensitive part of their penis. MGM may also give men a false sense of security, since they think they now have been MGMed, they can continue with their same behaviours which transmit the AIDS virus as before, and the virus keeps getting passed around people keep on dying. It is clear that education and behaviour changes are the key here, Mutilating and dicing up the penises of children is just a sick distraction from what really need to be done, education, condoms. You can mutilated and have no foreskin, have sex with an infected women, and you can still get AIDS. Condoms are more effective against AIDS than slicing up boys penises. In fact, MGM may discourage men from using condoms. Men lose most of their sexual sensitivity from MGM. Mutilated men may be less likely to use condoms since they reduce the sensitivity yet further, these men have already lost most sensitivity from MGM, and using the condom will reduce it to perhaps unbearably dull levels. Intact men have stretch receptors on their foreskins (the most sensitive part of the penis) which are activated regardless of the condom, and they can still enjoy significant pleasure with a condom. Since MGM also gives men a false sense of security, it may cause them to think they do not need to use a condom. When they realise that they need to use a condom anyway, or not have sex at all, to truly be protected, we ask ourselves, why not just do things instead of MGM and keep our whole bodies as which is our right? MGM also devastates the fulfillment from masturbation, which ironically could be one of the best tools against AIDS, since it provides us with a safe alternative to sex. MGM reduces penile sensitivity by 90% or more, and most negatively effects masturbation, since it does not involve any stimulation of any other body parts. The lack of fulfillment from the desensitisation of MGM may actually increase urges for actual sex, and reduces the usefulness of this tool as a sex alternative.

It is also worth noting that the rate of AIDS in Europe, where there is very little MGM, less than 1%, where most men are intact, is HALF that of the US, where around 70% of men are mutilated.

If the person whose body it is decides they want amputation as an adult, that is their choice, but children who are easily coerced and manipulated deserve protection from removals of their body parts for disease which dont even exist. Basically, it is wrong to cut off parts of childrens bodies which they are born with and that truly have no present medical condition, or where the condition can be treated less invasively. The only case where circumcision may be necessary is penile cancer or gangrene, and this almost never occurs on childrens bodies. Gangrene can actually be a dangerous complication of infections caused BY MGM. Every year several children die from infections from MGM, which leaves an open raw wound on the poor childs penis that is exposed to feces and urine. The foreskin is there to protect the glans from urine and feces.

If an adult man wants it done, thats their choice. It is actually far less painful to do it to an adult. Infants DO feel pain much more severely than adults do. Adults can be more safely given a general anesthetic making the procedure more painless and safer for adults than children. An adult can also ask for more pain releif if they need it, an infant is less able to. No, the infant being a boy does not mean we can torture and mutilate its body. boys deserve equal protections from genital mutilation. Male Genital Mutilation is a severe breach of human rights that deprives men of the most sensitive and pleasurable part of their bodies for life, like FGM, it destroys significant functionality and violates the sovereignty and rights of child to a whole body. All types of FGM is illegal, including the smallest snip from girls genitals. MGM removes over 50% of the boys penile skin, including nearly all its sensitivity. There are types of MGM and FGM which are equivalent, types of MGM equivalent to types of FGM are legal, but the equivalent type of FGM is illegal. It is time for boys to have equal protection as girls to a right to a whole intact body.

I am talking from the view of a man who has been mutilated. When I found out, at age 11, that part of my body had been stolen from me, that someone, when I was helpless infant, had destroyed a part of my most private and intimate body parts, I felt mutilated, violated and raped. I cannot describe the sadness and hurt that I felt, to realise that there was a part of my body that I will never know, that has forever been stolen from me. I have always wished that I had been spared this terrible pain and sadness, that I still had my whole body and could experience these pleasures and beauties that have been forever denied to me. MGM is like removing a persons taste buds, it permenantly deprives them of a vast range of sensations they will never know and never appreciate. MGM destroys a part of our lives, it denies a normal and healthy part of our lives from us. What connects us to this world and our lives in it is our body. It is what allows us to feel, touch, smell taste and hear this world. If we cut off part of the body, we are basically cutting off part of ourselves from this world and our lives within it. The body is sort of like a software program like your web browser, your web browser allows your computer to see web pages on the internet. If you delete a part of the web browser that displays images, you will not be able to see images and a whole wonderful part of the internet will be denied to you. You will not be able to see a part of the internet everyone else can. This is how I feel, there is a part of my life, a range of experiences, that have been permenantly stolen from me, that I have been deprived of and denied. I know several men who are intact, and I envy them. There descriptions of their pleasure is far greater than anything I have experienced. They are all very healthy and have never had a problem with their penis, and are VERY glad to all be intact and whole. They feel very sorry for me because they know what I am missing, they know that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis and that I have nearly no pleasure or functionality left. I know this too and I always have known it, long before I knew what MGM was, I knew something was VERY wrong and because very frustrated and confused, I knew something was missing that should be there. There is something missing from my life because of this, and Ive known that before I knew about MGM. I have almost no sensitivity at all. Even removing a part of a mans pleasure agaisnt his will is wrong and a terrible crime. Genital mutilation is wrong for boys or girls and everyone deserves to be protected from this barbaric, cruel, and depraved acts.

Fun to be dumb

John Galt — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 05:50:03 -0600

"That doesn't mean that there is a causal relationship between female "circumcision" and any of those health harms."

Same theory applies to men. Circumcision does not prevent STDs, cancer, infections in men.

"You ask me a laundry list of questions. Are there any particular facts that you believe support your position? If so, please share them. I am not going to Answer a long series of questions without a foundation."

You mean you don't know the awnsers. You are debating risks without knowing them. You are the one claiming to be educated on the subject, it is your burden to provide the proof that circumcision of males is as safe as you claim.

Questions or Facts

gelliot — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 23:24:16 -0600

"But women can get genital cancers, infections, spread S.T.D.s etc...just like men, but that does not justify circumcising them."

That doesn't mean that there is a causal relationship between female "circumcision" and any of those health harms.

You ask me a laundry list of questions. Are there any particular facts that you believe support your position? If so, please share them. I am not going to Answer a long series of questions without a foundation.

AAP

gelliot — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 23:24:05 -0600

"I believe that the AAP is in a situation right now that prevents them from being truthful about the harm of circumcision because they have already circumcised millions of men. If they were to come out with (and I don't mean discover- I mean- "name it") information which for example- simply explained the structure of the foreskin and how it functions mechanically in the act of intercourse (so that this could be factored into the "informed consent process" even by people who have never personally known this function) Putting it in writing would spotlight the permanent sexual change to individual males their card carrying circumcisers are doing without medical need or consent."

My belief in the openness of the AAP is based on the fact that they have changed their recommendation on circumcision at least once and appear to be on the brink of doing so again based on further study. There current position is hardly staunchly pro-circumcision, but rather provides information on a lot of the conflicting evidence that makes it difficult to have an absolute position either way.

Questions 1-2

I don't understand why the policy statement would be expected to provide guidance on how to perform surgery or how to care for the penis generally. The purpose of the document is to provide guidance on the implications of the decision as to whether or not to circumcise. I don't see anything in the policy statement that suggests that cleaning a circumcised penis is difficult.

Question 3

I am not familiar with much incdence of serious consequences from circumcisions performed my medical professionals in the USA. I don't agree that consequences are being minimized by the AAP.

The study on meatal stenosis was published 7 years after the AAP policy statement. I don't see a discrepancy.

Question 3-4

I also don't generally believe it is easy for any layperson to assess the risks and benefits of any surgery or medical procedure. I don't know any way to address that with any treatment.

Question 5

"What protection is guarenteed the infant male if his parent does not acquire accurate and unbiased information or if the doctor does not heed the AAP admonision "Parents should not be coerced by medical professionals to make this choice."? (I met a woman who circumcised her baby because she heard that men were not able to have children unless they were circumcised, apparently the circumciser she hired was OK with that reason.)"

That is not unique to circumcision, but rather is a concern around any medical procedure. The fact that there are unethical and dishonest medical professionals doesn't dejustify an individual procedure. Doctors who behave that way should be punished for it. It is not an inherent flaw of circumcision.

One of the challenges around circumcision is that there is evidence of certain complications and evidence of certain helath benefits. There is no easy magical formula to make unambiguous decisions around whether to have circumcision, which forces anyone delivering a recommendation to acknowledge the role of other factors that impact the decision.

Circumcision: Is It More than a Convenant with God?

Suzanne Reisman — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 18:25:12 -0600

Several friends of mine who are having babies mentioned to me in passing that they if they have a boy, they probably wonâ€™t circumcise him, as there is no conclusive evidence regarding the procedure's health benefits. So I was particularly interested when I walked by a copy of todayâ€™s New York Times that my husband left open on the table after he left for work, and noticed a blurb out of the corner of my eye regarding a new study on circumcision:

Men who are circumcised may have a significantly reduced risk of acquiring a sexually transmitted disease compared with those who are not, a New Zealand study has found.

...After statistically adjusting for family education, socioeconomic status, number of partners and self-reported unprotected sex, researchers concluded that the odds of acquiring a subsequent S.T.D. were 3.19 times higher for men who were uncircumcised. The study was published this month in Pediatrics.

...Dr. Fergusson [the lead author of the study and a professor of medical psychology at Christchurch School of Medicine] declined to offer advice to parents. â€œDecisions to circumcise children should not be made on the basis of one study,â€ he said. â€œThey should be based on all the evidence. There is certainly evidence of benefit, but the complicated decision parents face is weighing the benefits against the risks of a surgical procedure. Even if we assumed all the evidence favored circumcision, most children wouldnâ€™t benefit from it. We estimate that you would have to circumcise 20 boys to prevent one case of sexually transmitted disease.â€

Since the numbers make a difference in understand the scope of these studies, it is important to note that 510 boys born in 1977 took part in the study. Not all were circumcised at birth, which I found interesting; the Times noted that 30% of them were circumcised â€œby age 15.â€ Ouch.

In other circumcision news, two preliminary studies in Kenya and Uganda may indicate that circumcision may reduce the rate of HIV infection. The World Health Organization sensibly warns that it does not provide full protection against HIV/AIDS, and that if the procedure is performed in non-sterile environments, the potential harm may outweigh the benefits.

Suzanne more often blogs about female genitals at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants