Under what circumstances (no pun intended) is circumcision acceptable?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SlowwHand


If that's your best pickup line, you better count on some lonely nights.

You don't know gay men very well.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
You don't know gay men very well.

[SlowwHand]

I can't tell you how glad I am you took it in the manner I meant it.
I appreciate that.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Eli
As long as it's performed by certified doctors, I dont care.

Currently in Israel most of the circumcisions are performed by Rabbies. The are trained for this, but still.

here we have some doctors who are also trained as mohelim. General impression is that mohelim have at least as good success rate as docs, since this is their specialty, they do it all the time, but i have no stats on this.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Stuie
And for the record, I feel that circumcision of newborns is unwarranted mutilation of the genitals. None of my sons has been circumcized; if that is a choice they make later in life so be it. I feel that my parents made a completely uninformed decision when they had my foreskin lopped off.

The medical benefit to male circumcision no longer exists in areas of the world where biologically safe water supplies for washing are available.

In areas of the world where the biological water quality is questionable, studies still indicate a reduced level of foreskin and urethral infection.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Besides, you may have gotten laid more than you would have otherwise, because of the common prejudice against the uncut.

Right on

In many parts of the US, it is 'wierd' to be uncut, and many women (if that is your preference) think it is nasty.

If your society does it, I don't see what is so wrong with it? It is unnecessary and causes as much pain as cutting off the umbilical cord or getting an earring (later on in life).

I was cut, and I ain't missing anything.

[Asher]

It's an unnecessary surgery, and it's gotten to the point where one of the main reasons it's done is cosmetics (even though it looks worse after ) but because everyone is "used" to it in a region...

If a woman think uncuts are nasty, I'd demand they go get breast implants. Although, most women think they're nasty because they've probably never really experienced one before. From the gay men I've talked to, that's usually the case. Fear of the unknown, in a way.

And I think it's shameful to mutilate children on the basis of some girls thinking cut looks better. They're wrong, anyway.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's an unnecessary surgery, and it's gotten to the point where one of the main reasons it's done is cosmetics

So? Getting an earing is an unnessary mutilation of your earlobes for cosmetics (as is any type of piercing). Tatoos is unnessary mutiliation for cosmetics.

Are you going to ban them too?

[Guynemer]

Circumcision reduces the risk of penile cancer, and may also reduce the risk of certain STDs.

It most certainly provides health benefits.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So? Getting an earing is an unnessary mutilation of your earlobes for cosmetics (as is any type of piercing). Tatoos is unnessary mutiliation for cosmetics.

Exactly, Imran.
So by the same token, I don't think we should be giving newborns tatoos and getting their ears pierced...

If they want either of those, they can get them later in life.

Are you going to ban them too?

Who said anything about banning?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Circumcision reduces the risk of penile cancer, and may also reduce the risk of certain STDs.

It most certainly provides health benefits.

Not to contradict a med student, but: http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/

The alleged relationship between "lack of circumcision" and genital cancers formerly implicated smegma or smegma-borne pathogens as the causative agent. Only two histologic studies of human smegma ever have been conducted, both of which found it to be perfectly harmless. Smegma is composed of secretions of ectopic sebaceous glands in the prepuce mixed with secretions of the prostate, seminal vesicles, mucin from the urethral glands, and desquamated epithelial cells.10,12

The hypothesis that human male smegma is carcinogenic was first formulated in 1932 by circumcision promoter Abraham L. Wolbarst, M.D.1. Wolbarst also believed that circumcision prevented epilepsy. (In the early part of the 20th Century, the paroxysm of masturbation in children was often misidentified as an epileptic seizure.) Wolbarst wrote: "[Circumcision] diminishes the tendency to masturbation, convulsions and other reflex phenomena of local irritation." Wolbarst's beliefs about circumcision were shared by other writers, such as Peter Remondino and Abraham Ravich.

No laboratory or clinical research had been done on the subject at the time. Regardless, Wolbarst's hypothesis about smegma and cancer found its way into early medical textbooks. In the 1950s a few experiments were done to test the hypothesis by injecting horse smegma into wounds made in the backs of mice. There were clinical studies that attempted to induce cancer by introducing smegma subcutaneously and intravaginally: No carcinomas could be induced.

The smegma hypothesis was finally disproven by an exhaustive study by Reddy2 in 1963. His results were: "The conviction that human smegma is a carcinogen could not be substantiated."

And what's more:

Post-circumcision cancer may occur at the circumcision scar.13,19 The cause is unknown. One may hypothesize that the circumcision scar tissue is less resistant to penetration of HPV which then transfers DNA to the human cell and starting the growth of the neoplasm. More research is needed to determine the etiology of post-circumcision cancer.

and

American Cancer Society. The American Cancer Society issued a five part advisory statement on penile cancer in June 1999. Circumcision is not considered to be beneficial in preventing or reducing the risk of penile cancer.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So? Getting an earing is an unnessary mutilation of your earlobes for cosmetics (as is any type of piercing). Tatoos is unnessary mutiliation for cosmetics.

I believe most people get earrings and tattoos voluntarily.

[Guynemer]

All that proves is that smegma doesn't cause cancer. Whoop-de-doo.

According to every urologist I've talked to, circumcision still reduces the risk.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Guynemer
All that proves is that smegma doesn't cause cancer. Whoop-de-doo.

According to every urologist I've talked to, circumcision still reduces the risk.

Well...
The American Cancer Society disagrees.

American Cancer Society. The American Cancer Society issued a five part advisory statement on penile cancer in June 1999. Circumcision is not considered to be beneficial in preventing or reducing the risk of penile cancer. The ACS indentifies HPV, smoking, and phimosis as risk factors. Sexually active adult males with a non-retractable foreskin should have the phimotic condition treated. (See phimosis for conservative treatment options. Circumcision is outmoded as a treatment for phimosis.)

The ACS states that penile cancer is extremely rare in Europe and North America. The cancer only occurs in 1 in 100,000 men. Penile cancer usually occurs well beyond age 50, although it can occur earlier.

[Guynemer]

Fair enough; different medical groups often disagree on these things, I wasn't aware of the ACS's stance.

Let me clarify my position--it (possibly) reduces the risk of penile cancer. However, penile cancer is so rare that it is rather a moot point. On the other hand, there is no significant damage as a result of circumcision. (Anecdotally, if being uncut makes everything even more sensitive and whatnot, frankly, I'd never get anything useful done--the damn thing is too dangerous as it is.) So, really, it boils down to--who cares?

Female "circumcision", on the other hand...