E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSAn ultra-Orthodox Jewish circumcision practice in which the circumciser places his mouth on a newborn's newly circumcised penis and sucks blood away from the wound carries a risk of transmitting the herpes virus to the baby, sometimes fatally, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The report is based on researchers' investigation into the cases of 11 infants in New York City who were infected with the herpes virus after this procedure, known as metzitzah b’peh ("direct orogenital suction"), between November 2000 and December 2011. Ten of these infants were hospitalized, and two died.
Some of the infants’ parents were not aware this technique would be a part of their child’s circumcision, the researchers found. Parents should be aware of the risk of herpes in metzitzah b’peh, and should inquire in advance whether direct orogenital suction will be performed so the practice can be avoided, the CDC researchers said.
"Oral contact with a newborn’s open wound risks transmission of [ herpes simplex virus ] and other pathogens," the researches wrote in their report. "Circumcision is a surgical procedure that should be performed under sterile conditions."
The virus that was found in most of the infants, called herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) — which is typically associated with cold sores, but does not always cause any symptoms — is highly prevalent in the general adult population, the report said. A 2004 study showed that 73 percent of adults ages 20 and older in New York City carried the virus.
At least three of the infants, including one who died, were circumcised by the same person, the report said. The New York City Commissioner of Health has issued a directive ordering that person to stop performing direct orogenital suction during circumcisions.
At least three mohliem (circumcisers) performed the circumcisions of the 11 infected infants, and there may have been as many as eight mohliem, the CDC said. In some cases, parents refused to identify their child's circumciser to CDC officials.
The rate of newborn boys who undergo direct orogenital suction and contract herpes infections is 24.4 per 100,000, the report said. That's 3.4 times higher than the rate of herpes infections seen in the general newborn male population, which is 8 per 100,000. Other cases of herpes are typically transmitted from mother to infant during delivery.
Neonatal herpes infections is a potentially disabling, life-threatening infection, the report said.
Physicians should counsel parents considering out-of-hospital circumcisions about the risks of direct orogenital suction, and should consider herpes infection when evaluating a newborn male infant with a fever following Jewish ritual circumcision, and inquire about direct orogenital suction, the CDC said.
Mohelim should inform parents about whether they perform direct orogenital suction, and explain the risk of virus transmission, so that parents can choose not to have their newborns exposed, the report said.
Leave a Comment:
Circumcision is a decision best left to the parents, but, the idea that a man is going to suck blood out of a baby's penis is wrong on so many levels. I know it's tradition, but still...
Miss.
I completely agree with you. Circumcision is a parents decision, much like most parenting rights.
But this tradition is just something I CANNOT get on board with. Gross.
I agree with you that putting their mouth on a baby's penis is just wrong. That is nasty, and it's just plain weird.
However, I disagree that it should be the parents' decision. When the baby is born, it is a separate being from its mother, who cannot speak up for itself, therefore, parents should wait until their child is older, and THEN broach the subject of circumcision, and respect whatever decision their child makes it, be it yes or no.
I know so many men who were circumcised as babies, and wish their parents had not done that to them. It should be the individuals choice.
the only problem with that approach is the procedure is more painful and difficult as an adult
This is VERY uncommon
Even if it IS more painful as an adult, it should still be left up to the person, but it should never be performed on a helpless baby who has no say. All the baby knows is that the skin on his penis is gone, sliced off, with raw flesh underneath exposed.
Also, it is NOT uncommon. You obviously haven't researched circumcision, and I've come across websites that are putting techniques up to "restore" foreskin on their sites. I do not know if it works, but the fact that these websites exist is PROOF that many men wish they had not been circumcised. They didn't put these websites up for no reason, Eric.
Just because you or some guys out there have no problem with it, that does NOT make it uncommon!
It is a pointless, COSMETIC procedure. Has NOTHING to do with cleanliness. As long as the child is taught how to keep their penis clean under the foreskin, circumcision is NOT necessary. Also, when you cut off the foreskin, you are cutting off a LOT of nerve endings that make sexual activity, be it masturbation, or intercourse, VERY pleasurable.....you're basically robbing your child of the pleasure they can experience when they are older.
Generalizations go both ways...don't assume somebody regrets having it done to them because the vast majority probably never consider it as an issue either way. I do know several uncircumsized men who wish they had been circumsized at birth because they are embarassed by their foreskins. One of my cousins ended up having to get it done as an adult because he kept getting uti's. Urinary tract infections are more common than you think and cleaning isn't always going to prevent a problem, as it is impossible to keep the foreskin clean at all times especially in teenagers or young children who may not shower as diligently as they should. To say there are no health benefits whatsoever is arguable, I'm pretty sure my cousin would agree.
I disagree. We do lots of things to "helpless babies" in the name of their health (vaccines), and something that is relatively benign and possibly helpful such as circumcision, despite your rather overdramatic description, can be considered in the same vein
It IS uncommon. Its clear YOU DON"T know what you are talking about. But if youre so convinced, then put up or shut up. Post some of this so called "research"
It is also clear youve never had to take care of a patient with smegma. Why don't you google that word
There are websites that say Elvis is alive on mars--doesn't make it true. Have you ever been on the internet before?
Firstly, not true. Its done for religious reasons, as well as future reduced risk of penile cancer, as well as overall cleanliness
And if people always did what they were supposed to do, I'd be out of a job (cardiologist).
Isis, allow me to introduce you to reality. Clearly you two are strangers
Very difficult to prove. Also, talk to most guys in the US who are circumcised and you'll find no one who thinks sex doesn't feel good
What other (normal, healthy, functional, non-renewing) part of a baby's body is it even legal to cut off? It would be illegal to circumcise an adult, or a dog, or to genitally pierce or tattoo a baby. The most nearly corresponding part of a girl (the clitoral prepuce) gets Federal protection. Why is the infant male foreskin alone fair game?
And there is no evidence that adult circumcision is more risky or painful. An adult can monitor his own pain-relief and keep an eye out for any bleeding. A baby can afford to lose only 2 tablespoons of blood before he is in danger, and there is a small artery near the intended wound site. Any mistake on a baby is magnified when he grows up. The only reason it is done to babies is that they can't fight back.
tonsils, appendix, colon (in some cases).
Doubtful
because they are two completely and utterly different organs. Wow, just wow
Wrong.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2835667/?tool=pmcentrez
Hahahah...that's laughable--ive drawn blood of babies in excess of that and they did fine--what do you think happens when they're in the NICU and get daily blood draws?
Do you have any medical experience? Its clear you actually don't from your post
Nope. See my above link
No good studies have been done, but informal polls suggest men are MUCH more likely to be happy to be intact than happy to be circumcised. (More than 150 unsolicited first-person accounts are at http://www.circumstitions.com/Resent.html#other ) If anyone wishes he had been circumcised, he can always have it done. The reverse is not the case, but dozens of devices for foreskin restoration are on sale, and at least tens of thousands of US men have bought them. They can give a good aesthetic effect but never replace the >20,000 specialised nerve-endings.
Eric-2573068: Circumcision is nothing like a vaccine, which offers strong protection against deadly contagious diseases of children, now rare precisely because of vaccines. Circumcision offers debatable, slight protection against already-rare ailments of late onset that can be better prevented by other means or treated as they occur. The things it is supposed to be good for are constantly changing, a new disease arising as the last one is debunked. It is a "cure" looking for a disease. Penile cancer? By the circumcisionists' own figures, you'd circumcise 1000 babies in vain to prevent (perhaps) one case in an old man.
"A patient with smegma"? Very much the same as a patient with earwax. Women get more smegma than men - what do you propose to cut off them?
"you'll find no one who thinks sex doesn't feel good" Feel good? Is that all? I think phrases like that (and "still able to reach orgasm") are a giveaway that circumcised sex fails to deliver the transcendental ecstasies on the way that it does to intact people.
yeah, that sounds like a really unbiased source
No evidence that makes a difference
Agreed, but you're not making a strong case for NOT allowing it. If we argue against things that offer a slight protection, what would you say to a parent that feeds their kids mcdonalds, which has NO benefit...
1/1000 for penile cancer? Id take those odds
No. You have clearly never taken care of patients. smegma can cause inflammation and predispose to infection. Earwax generally doesn't
Plus, wax in the ear vs wax on the johnson are clearly just fundamentally different, for obvious reasons
I felt it best not to be explicit in a public forum. But youre entitled to your opinion. Most girls prefer cut men by the way
Eric I do NOT appreciate the remarks:
There are websites that say Elvis is alive on mars--doesn't make it true. Have you ever been on the internet before? Um, NO I've NEVER been on the internet before, it was the @!$%#ing fairy of darkness! She's typing this! *sarcasm*
Isis, let me introduce you to reality. Clearly you two are strangers. Just because I disagree with you, that gives you NO RIGHT to become hostile, and to attack me like that! I have reported user's ACCOUNTS to Newsvine before. And no that is not a threat, it is a FAIR WARNING.
Also, the early reasons for circumcision, was because they thought it prevented masturbation....oops, did I say masturbation, I mean "self abuse". Yeah, because bringing pleasure to yourself is "self destructive" and you're "abusing yourself". Riiiiiight. Yep, those were, and still are the "religious" reasons you speak of. "Overall cleanliness?" I do not care HOW old a boy is, as SOON as he is old enough to shower, there is NO excuse not to shower daily and to keep your privates clean!
Looks like Hugh has posted a lot of the things that I have read about, maybe not on the same site, but that is the SAME type of research I have done. Thanks, Hugh!
sorry, but youre a little to sensitive. Plus, you weren't very friendly in the tone of your post, so Im a little suprised youre offended
Relax...i didn't do anything to break the rules on this site. I didn't say that to be hostile, I said it because I found your comments to be naieve.
So? They used to put leeches on people to suck out bad humors, now we use them for true medicinal purposes
Agreed, but many don't
figured you were getting your info from the same garbage source
Normal? Healthy? I thought even routine tonsillectomy went out in the mid-20th century.
I specified the clitoral prepuce, the embryological homologue of the foreskin. Removing this was covered by Blue Cross Blue Shield until 1977. Now it is illegal, barring pressing medical need.
Thank you. A meta-analysis by three prominent circumcision-advocates (Halperin thinks he was "destined" to promote circumcision by his descent from a ritual circumciser) of an extraordinary variety of circumstances, from tribal to surgical, making serious comparison impossible.
They admit "There is a clear need to improve safety of male circumcision at all ages". Actually, there is a clear need to question the need for circumcision at any age.
I don't know how much blood Eric draws from babies. Maybe he puts them in more danger than he knows. What part of "a baby's body holds 350 ml of blood" and "a person can afford to lose only 10% of their blood before they are in danger" does he disagree with? Be that as it may, babies have died from haemorrhage from their circumcision wounds, modern gel-filled disposable diapers easily hiding their blood loss.
Yuck. I've been circumcised, and my son was circumcised too by way of the jewish ritual with Rabbi and everything, and THIS was definitely NOT done. It is not biblical nor necessary.
That said, we already have laws in place for this deal, we don't need more oppresive 'liberal' laws regarding this. Warn the parents of the dangers, if it happens anyways, then take legal action with the laws already on record.
We do not need more laws oppresing parents of their decisions regarding their own children. Until children are of age to make their own decisions, the decisions regarding their care, traditions, and religion should be 100% up to the parents.
Often the appendix is taken out in abdominal surgery as long as theyre in there
Still completely different organs. Just look at them
Doesn't make what theyre saying untrue. Plus a meta-analysis is a review of OTHER studies--so the author's bias really doesn't play a role. And he was a 3rd author--ive been a third author on papers I didn't even know were published--it means he had virtually no role in writing the article. I can post more if you want
Your unsubstantiated opinion
Chances are I know more than you. Not trying to offend, just stating a fact. Its my job. But if you doubt me, by all means, you are welcome to research a contrary opinion
At a rate of far less than 0.1%, which is exceeded by the small but real benefits of the procedure
Maybe I am being sensitive, but in my original post I was NOT trying to be unfriendly. I'm sorry if you took it that way....well, actually you DID take it that way, and then used YOUR feelings to become hostile. And I'M sensitive? I NEVER tried to be unfriendly. My opinions and arguements tend to come out blunt and harsh, and if that's percieved as "unfriendly" then.................*facepalms*.
Fact is, the way you spoke to me was uncalled for. Also, just because your OPINION says I'm being naive, you're still being rude. And if I'm "sensitive" for calling you out on it, so be it.
Sensitive? Well that's just me wanting to have a peaceful debate, but you obviously do not.
Further proof that you are UNWILLING to be civil:
figured you were getting your info from the same garbage source.
Looks like Hugh has posted a lot of the things that I have read about, maybe not on the same site, but that is the SAME type of research I have done. Thanks, Hugh!
My sources are NOT garbage, the people who post their accounts and different info on these websites, that is NOT garbage. You are a VERY insulting person.
Reading comprehension is not your strong suit. I said I did NOT get it from the same site, therefore, it is NOT the same source.
Probably the least sincere apology Ive ever seen/heard
No, you just can't expect to deal it without recieving some in return
Fact is, you were rude as well, and frankly, set the tone. You started in your first post to me. Let me copy an example:
Theres a milliion nicer ways to say this. "maybe you haven't come across this", or simply, "i disagree". Instead, you chose a rude and condescending phrase. Thats a fact
figured you were getting your info from the same garbage source.
I called the SOURCE garbage, not you. Jeez
Yeah, youre right. Im the rude one
Circumstitions.com doesn't claim to be unbiased, but the 150 unsolicited accounts from the men who hate being circumcised all link back to their sources.
No evidence >20,000 nerves make a difference? The clitoris has only 8000. One informal poll suggests more than half of intact men can reach orgasm using their foreskin alone.
I wasn't making a case for not allowing it just then. I was making a case for not doing it. It shouldn't be allowed because it's a human rights violation.
Say what you like against macdonands, it's food of a kind, and better than nothing. The same can not be said for circumcision. In fact its astonishing that Intactivists are on the receiving end of so much venom when we advocate doing NOTHING, just leaving children's genitals ALONE.
But they're not Eric's alone to take. He has to share them with the other 999 circumcised babies, with all their complications and downsides. And the evidence that circumcision has any effect on penile cancer (except on the foreskin itself, of course) is shonky in the extreme.
Only if it's neglected. So don't neglect it.
Only where most men are cut. If that. The Iowa study of 145 new mothers, only 24 of whom had any experience of intact men - the only remotely scientific study of the subject - has proved to be rigged. At least one woman was not invited to take part until after she expressed a preference.
I could find 150 who prefer it
There's no conclusive evidence. Sorry
Thats a mighty strong claim, and youve provided little or no evidence to classify it as such
debatable, and most parents in america aren't choosing between mcd's and nothing. Come on...
Same with evidence of complications. Fact is, the probable benefits are very small, and likely risks are small or smaller. Its basically a wash. So why do it? Religious reasons, or preference, but I think cleanliness is a huge issue, and puts it over the top for me. In addition, I do think, despite what I just said, that the benefits do outweigh the risks.
Again, how many people do what they are supposed to do? I think we both know the answer to that one
Disagree. Fact is, this part is all opinion
Pretty cold comfort to the parents of a dead baby. 0.1%? One in 1000? That would be more than 3 babies a day in the US!
Most men in the developed world enjoy whole penises and don't miss these "small but real benefits".
The benefits are far in excess of that for HIV prevention. Interestingly, that 0.1% is the same rate that you so easily dismissed with preventing penile cancer
Curious....
by the way, actual death rate for circumcision is way, way less than 0.1% in this country...i just picked that number off the top of my head, and turns out its a super-overestimate
Jews have been doing this for almost 4,000 years. Mind your own f***-ing business. Your 21st Century "values" are not the standard by which all other values are judged. Stupid Americans.
Eric, I give up. I am not going to edit my apology to your liking. Just because I offended you in my post, well two wrongs don't make a right. I have tried numerous times already to try and have a CIVIL debate, but you want nothing to do with it. I give up. Can't say I didn't try. I'm through responding to you.
@Shandril, I am SOOOOO sick of you bringing your religious fanaticism into articles. Just because they've been "doing this for almost 4,000 years" that does NOT make it any less unnecessary, and in my opinion, cruel.
Your 21st Century "values" are not the standard by which all other values are judged. You're right. @21st century values are NOT the same standard, because they are NOT primitive attempts to repress sexual urges and masturbation. Just because YOU come from a primitive, backward, ignorant religious mindset, that does NOT mean that 21st century Americans do, and that is why there are so many SMART values that are against masturbation.
Do you not see the inherent conflict in those two statements? If you can't, you should give up
Of course I see the conflict. But you know something, I apologized, and tried to move forward, and it was not good enough. I don't know what else I can do, because you keep coming back, and using PREVIOUS, PAST posts against me, and it's getting rather petty. It's a shame you can't move forward, like I'm trying to. Oh well.
Judging by the above, I sure as hell can
eric wrote "the only problem with that approach is the procedure is more painful "
Only because the infant's pain is overlooked. Until roughly age 6, the foreskin is fused to the glans penis. Circumcision involves forcible separation (peeling) of the skin before it is crushed in a clamp or snipped, all either zero or inadequate main management.
"by the way, actual death rate for circumcision is way, way less than 0.1% in this country"
It's estimated to be roughly 100 deaths per ~2 million male births, but that's too many for optional genital cosmetic surgery on infants that is not a treatment for anything. There are also permanent penile injuries including full or partial amputation of the penis, let along damage to the glans. The potential benefits are difficult to articulate, but the risks to the infant are not.
There are some that have a strong sexual response to penile sculpting, including watching videos of the procedure, called circumfetishists, and others that discriminate against men that have not had their penises surgically-altered. But that's no reason to campaign in favor of chopping an infant's genitalia without immediate medical justification.
Why is the penis the only body part not covered by mutilation laws? Is this body part the least worthy of protection?
it was the most bs apology ive ever seen. You apologized for the way I FELT, not for what you did, which is not a true apology, and YOU KNOW IT
by calling my reading comprehension into question? Really???? Id rather you just acted civilly instead of giving some bs apology
NOT imply that im an idiot...i don't know, that just strikes me as a good place to start...
you act like it was last year...it was literally 2 hours ago
by calling into question my reading comprehension? Please post anything I said that was that insulting. Oh poor you, youre such the victim....
putting....their......mouth.......... ok hang on, thats just nasty. I dont care how u slice it (pun intended) that should be illegal period. There is no reason under God, Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, or Darwin that u need to put a babys penis in your mouth. At all.
I apologize for anything I said that offended ANYBODY, HOWEVER, I stand by the FACT that I NEVER intended to offend you.
Please post anything I said that was that insulting. OKAY!!!!!!!!!!
Isis, let me introduce you to reality. Clearly you two are strangers.
AND:
There are websites that say Elvis is alive on mars--doesn't make it true. Have you ever been on the internet before?
You were talking to me as if I'm a moron who lives under a rock, and lives in some fantasy land, and doesn't bother to read or learn about anything online. I'm not the only one who would take that as an insult. How is that NOT insulting? Enlighten me.
The REASON I called your reading comprehension into question was NOT to call you an idiot. It is because you tried to say that I got my facts from the same source, when if that was the case, I WOULD HAVE @!$%#ING SAID SO! I NEVER NEVER NEVER SAID THAT I GOT THEM FROM THE SAME DAMN SOURCE! Where in my posts does it say that? NOWHERE!!!!!!!!! NOWHERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Of COURSE I'm gonna call your reading comprehension into question when you try to tell me what I said/didn't say. HELLO!! Think about it.
I have apologized, and I have tried to move on from this. I do NOT CARE if it was literally two hours ago, or if it was a goddamn century ago! Move on already!
But I'm wasting my breath. You will NOT move on. You are INCAPABLE of moving forward from this. You will NOT move on from this. I KNOW YOU WON'T.
isis: No offense intended here, but I think you are a bit naive. The reason I say that is because you seem to think that parents shouldn't have influence on kids until the kid is 18, and therefore old enough to make decisions himself. Look at all the other decisions parents make for their kids before they turn 18, or whatever the legal age of "manhood" is. Religion? Inoculations? Clothing to wear? Schools to attend? None of these can be changed either, once the kid turns 18. Also, I've never met a man who said they wished they hadn't been circumcised.
Oh, and you might want to read up on what circumcision is. No skin is actually cut off. All that is done is to cut a slice where the foreskin is held up on the penis. This does have the effect of drying up the head of the penis. And I've never heard any man say "you know, I sure wish I hadn't been circumcised because I KNOW that I'd enjoy sex more if I hadn't been. They all seem to enjoy it just fine now.
Just because you've never met men who don't feel that way does NOT mean they do not exist.
Second, I am NOT naive. When a boy has hit puberty, or is at LEAST 15 years old, his parents should discuss it with him. I think circumcision ought to be the EXCEPTION to this "my way or the highway" "my way is best, no decisions for you" attitude that parents have. At LEAST give your son autonomy over his penis, is what I'm saying.
100 out of 2M. Isn't that about the same order of magnitude as the numbers for reduction in HIV and other infections which can cause death in a small percent of cases? 100 in 2M deaths vs. 1/1000 penile cancer reductions. I always find forums hilarious to demonstrate people's inability to use math... At one point, someone will say that 1 in 1000 is such a small value but suddenly 100 or 150 out of millions is a cause for concern...
doggysaywhat wrote "100 out of 2M. Isn't that about the same order of magnitude as the numbers for reduction in HIV and other infections"
100 infants killed within the first week of life. If it's the same, let the children live so that 100 elderly men can be treated for penile cancer.
You overlook the value of a life between death as an infant and death from cancer as a an 75 year-old man. Penile cancer is so rare that almost no one dies from it. Are you using rare penile cancer as a reason to subject infants to painful penis sculpting?
A treatment for penile cancer often involves a circumcision. Cancer treatment isn't about cutting off testes or breast tissue of infants, adolescent and fertile beings.
witchrunner wrote "Oh, and you might want to read up on what circumcision is. No skin is actually cut off. All that is done is to cut a slice where the foreskin is held up on the penis. "
Are you a circumcised male or female? I'm an American male circumcised male and believe my long-term sexual health was harmed by a procedure with a sole purpose of reducing the sexual response of a penis. If women accuse men of "not being able to get it up", the removal of the most sensitive part of the penis certainly affects that.
You do not understand circumcision at all. A tool is used to separate fused genital skin from genital flesh, a pain that is probably similar to pulling fingernails. The skin is crushed in a clamp, then cut, most often with zero analgesia and in 10% of cases with some and inadequate pain relief. if you don't have sympathy with an infant, consider clamping your scrotum/labia minora with a pair of needle-nose pliers. In a few years, you won't remember the pain, right?
The studies on HIV infection were of men between young to middle ages. Also, median age for penile cancer is actually about 60, not 75. Additionally, if we're going to work with the numbers here it's 100/2M vs. 1/1000. 20 times higher for cancer. If we were to take say expected number of years of life after procedure, we can simplify it as 100 years for the infant and 40 years for the adult. One could make an argument that the years as an infant could be more important than years as an adult but you'd be hard pressed to find that it's 10 times more important. I think you're overlooking the value of lives of those at 60. Additionally, that's only for penile cancer and not for other possible effects such as various types of infections. Finally, you can easily use analgesics to prevent the pain.
Now, one could try to argue regarding the validity of the HIV study in Africa, one could also try to argue the validity of penile cancer prevention, one could also try to argue the validity of removal of the skin for hygiene. However, with such a small numbers of deaths from the procedure you have no where near enough evidence to state that the procedure causes significantly more harm than good which is the general requirement for banning it.
Most experts that have delved into this with statistical studies have found 1 of 3 things. They found small benefits/advantages, small risks/disadvantages, or no change in benefit from the procedure. When this happens, it's usually a good indication that the benefit to harm ratio is close to 1. When this type of thing happens in the medical world, the benefits or adverse effects are considered too small to really care about and the decision is left to the parent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision
Finally, when it comes to say cutting off testes and breast, they're in a far more extreme category than circumcision. For example, if you cut off the testes, now you're infertile. Circumcision has no such universal effect. Additionally, if you cut off the breast, you remove the ability for breast feeding and sexual attraction. You get no such universal effect with circumcision. This is shown in studies on the subject which have basically concluded what I mentioned before that there seems to be little to no real change from the procedure.
Additionally, while you may believe that your sexual health was affected by circumcision, there are numerous examples of individuals that don't believe this. Again we can see how anecdotal evidence for something is not really evidence at all because we can find just as many people that say the opposite...
Here are some good results for studies on the sexual effects of circumcision.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision
What you find in most of them is that one study says one thing, another study says the opposite, and many say there's no difference at all.
You could also do a pubmed search on the subject to get the most recent studies.
A parent does NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to mutilate a baby. This is criminal. The length of time, 'which may have been performed for 4000 years', does not justify a wrong and or its continuance. Evolution usually means keeping up with the times.
As for the procedure described in this article I think it to be simply disgusting and bordering pedophilia if not actual pedophilia and supported with religious arguments.
Again, arguments based upon emotional statements, anecdotal evidence or in caps (equivalent of pounding on a table) do not sway people in the scientific or medical community to your cause.... I'll tell you a little secret. We're kind of trained to ignore things like emotional appeal when making determinations on results of a study or which types of procedures should be allowed and which should be outlawed. We do this because we recognize the many different people have many different opinions and emotions on particular subjects. These opinions and emotions are usually not the same, so basing arguments on them as opposed to things like statistical studies isn't really proof to someone with a different set of emotions/opinions. What is proof enough for you regarding an emotional appeal is going to be different for someone else with a different set of values, beliefs or emotions. Hence, your appeal to have something changed must contain a demonstration that changing something results in a significantly higher benefit from that change. If you can't do this, then sitting there pounding your fist on the table is only ever going to convince someone that already agrees with you. Saying something like "NOT HAVE THE RIGHT" or trying to compare it to the connotation of mutilation (see breast and testes examples in other posts) is only meaningful to someone that already agrees with your point of view. It does nothing to convince the majority opinion in the scientific or medical community that this procedure carries some possible benefits/advantages and some risks/disadvantages both of which probably cancel out as shown in a meta-analysis of studies on the subject.
Incidentally, this is also why scientist and those in the medical field will often present material in a way that is not covered with colorful language or biased by emotional wording. We recognize that those disagreeing with us are smart enough to see through colorful language or different ways of describing things. As an example, you could describe the procedure as Vincent attempted to. You can even hear thundering music in the background as the ominous doctor tortures the baby. Or, you could present the material as the courageous doctor saving the baby from a lifetime of infection. Your belief in the stupidity of the second case is the same belief that others have for the first case. Hence, you leave it out in an argument because it doesn't actually sway those trained to ignore it or those that disagree with you. You focus on the facts of your argument. The facts of your argument are the number of individuals that are harmed from this procedure compared to the number of individuals helped, preferably accompanied by an analysis of how people are harmed (generally a good idea to propose a method by which this harm occurs backed up with citations). If you deviate from such things in your argument and switch to an emotional appeal, it's going to dismissed by those that disagree with you.
Eric,
I disagree with you that is it uncommon for adult men to wish their parents had not circumcised them when they were a baby. I am one of those men. I don't like the idea that I did not have a choice in the matter. I recognize there are potential medical benefits, but many of those same benefits are arrived at with adult circumcision. Likewise, being in a monogamous relationship goes a long way in curbing the spread of sexual diseases. I do not disagree that it would be more painful in adults, but it has only been in the last few years that finding less painful adult circumcision methods has been studied - one such device is called the Shangring which is being studied as a way to ramp up circumcision in adult males. It seems to be less painful and does not require stitches.
Yes, there are many things we do to babies for their health, but I do not view circumcision as necessary for health. In one of your replies you rebutted the statement that it was "a pointless, cosmetic surgery." I respect that many people have religious motives for circumcising their children and as for this debate I fully support their right to practice their religious beliefs. Yet there are many, many other parents I have spoken to who did not take the time to think about this issue and simply decide to circumcise because they want their sons to look like his dad or his brothers - this was my brother's reasoning. He acknowledged it was not necessary before his second son was born, so he reasoned they should both look alike. I find that to be a shallow reason. My sister in law came to the hospital to see our son and simply asked when is he being circumcised. It was as if it should be a done deal and understood thing and then we told her he wasn't.
I also believe that for many who have no religious conviction, it does seem to be cosmetic. Regardless of whether it is cosmetic or not, it is elective and not medically necessary, like an appendectomy or tonsillectomy. Even if the appendix is taken out while "they are already in there" they had a reason to be in there in the first place, though I'm still not sure I agree with removing a part of the body for that reason alone.
I find it hard to accept and believe that because there is "no evidence" of the loss of sensation or nerves with the removal of foreskin that it negates the argument. It is skin and it has nerves. I have no idea what I've lost because I have no point of reference, but from speaking to men who have been circumcised later in life and lament the loss they experience is more than just anecdotal. Just because there may not be scientific proof does not mean that it is not true.
I grew up and live in the south and it seems that circumcision was just done because that's what is done. There was no forethought. I asked five different doctors in different fields of medicine, three of them were women. None of of these doctors recommended circumcision or said it was necessary. I asked a pastor just to be certain there was no religious practice to be observed as a Christian, even though I already expected the answer to be "no." Finally, I spoke with other parents and was quite surprised to find that many are now choosing not to circumcise and many parents like me who put forth the effort to research the issue and discuss it with their spouse. I do not regret not circumcising my son. He can make that decision on his on and perhaps with the input of his future partner if she prefers cut men.
I am not for banning the practice of circumcision. I am simply stating that people need to do their own research, ask questions and make an informed rather than flippant decision.
Ah, finally, a well reasoned argument not based upon emotional state.
I would agree that many people's reasons for the procedure are cosmetic. However, I would also point out that it's up for debate if there is any real medical benefit or medical deficit to the procedure as most studies looking into such things have came up with conflicting results or no change. Since there is no real consensus regarding whether there is any real benefit, the parent will make a decision regarding such things. Unfortunately though, if many medical studies spanning over 15 years can't come to a consensus on whether there is a net gain or loss from circumcision, I don't think a parent taking a few hours on internet searching is going to generate more accurate results. The main problem being that when people do their own research they often focus on the presentation of particular result without considering the conflicting results in another study. So, the decision to circumcise or not due to personal research is probably no more accurate than a decision to circumcise based upon looks or a coin flip.
My husband is intact, and I have never had an issue with our sex life. I wouldnt be surprised if it was better than yours. I promise he can feel pleasure just fine, and he lasts a long time...
Also
My drs are trying to get me to have my appendix removed, "just in case" I have an issue with it... yet, they have no reason to actually believe I will ever have an issue with it...
Also, my tonsils were "routinely" removed (as well as my adenoids) in the LATE 20th century...
doggy, thanks for your input. I like you arguments and certainly you made me think and also re-evaluate my written opinion. Unfortunately, no scientific study will help a non-consensual child, the law can. If there is a medical NEED for this procedure then by all means.
Whether emotional or scientific, what is important is that it is being discussed, in the open, which may or may not result in higher benefit or change. Important is to not confuse opinion as an appeal for change.
That is where the hypocrisy of it all lies. For example, non-consensual sex can be considered rape and in some cases rape and pedophilia. How about mutilation. Shouldn't we reconsider the wants and needs of the child, which obviously is non-consensual, before we mutilate him because of 'ancient' dogma.
Was science consulted '4000 years' ago when this practice was initiated or was it merely an emotional decision at the time. Why should science be sited now in order to save a baby from this practice. Finally, for the babies it is not a scientific question but certainly an emotional one.
doggy and kevin,
great arguments from you two...how refreshing!
kev, I can't find fault with anything you say. You bring up valid points. It would be interesting to find a study of men who underwent circumcision as an adult to see if there was a difference in their sexual enjoyment. I'll do some research
Agreed the appendix example was probably reaching a bit
Agreed wholeheartedly
there was a danish study that reported greater sexual problems among circumcised men, but I think this kenyan study was better as it used men pre and post circumcisions so in essence they served as their own controls. It found, if anything, sex was more enjoyable after circumcision than before
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18761593
Peter here's the thing. You're trying to compare circumcision to things like rape and mutilation. This is not the same definition the majority of people give it in either the scientific community or in general language. You may see it as hypocrisy, but most will not because there is a very clear problem with doing things such as removing testes for example. This causes sterilization in 100% of cases which is a significant change from normal. Circumcision does not. Additionally, rape has been demonstrated in various psychological studies to be quite detrimental to the person being raped. Again, circumcision has no such association. So, while you may believe it's comparable, most will not because of the lack of such associations. Your emotions regarding the procedure are dictating your response to it and trying to argue based upon such things like comparing it to rape falls on deaf ears for someone that does not share your emotions on the subject. As an example, take a random person and ask them which of these 3 they would prefer. Have their testicles removed, be raped, or get circumcised. I'm willing to bet most people would pick option 3 thereby demonstrating that the 3 options are no where near comparable. I'd also be willing to bet that if we stuck a 4th option of lose $1k, a significant number of people would still pick option 3.
Also, parents having their children circumcised believe they are doing it for the future needs and wants of their child. Infants are unable to consent to medical procedures so it's left up to the parent to decide if a procedure should be performed on their child. This is done all the time with regards to such things as vaccinations, breast feeding, circumcision, etc. If you can't demonstrate a deficit from the procedure that outweighs the benefits then you are no more correct in your assertion that it causes harm then they are in their assertion that it has a benefit. Since the scientific consensus on this does not exist, that judgement is made by the parent. Also, without science to back up claims that it's harmful and that harm outweighs the benefit, the law will not intercede in this matter. The legal system is hesitant to intercede on matters of clear abuse so it will not intercede in something without any scientific backing as to the harm you believe it causes.
Finally, it doesn't matter if science was consulted 4k years ago, what matters is the scientific consensus today. That consensus is that the net effect is too small to be able to detect with any certainty, but if you want to have such a procedure performed, use an analgesic and have it done by a doctor.
For Eric, there are several studies that have been done over the past decade on the sexual health of circumcision. The Wikipedia article I posted above has a good summary for the results of many of such studies. Some report no change in sexual health, others report improvement, other report problems. This usually indicates that the results are far too small for the size of the studies done. You can follow such studies to their pubmed articles. There is probably a meta-analysis study that looked at all of the previous study results on the subject.
The rational defenders of circumcision here, like doggysaywhat, are treating it as if it were a medical procedure like any other, with the benefits and risks carefully weighed out in advance and a rational balance found before decidinng to do it.
Look at the history. It began as a stone-age magic/sex/blood ritual of some kind, somewere in Africa. It was sanctified in the ancient Middle East and remained a minority practice for thousands of years. In the late 19th century it was medicalised to "cure" - but more to punish - masturbation (J H Kellogg recommended circumcision for boys, carbolic acid for girls) and all the ills that were then believed to follow from it. As masturbation hysteria faded, STDs (following WW1) replaced it, then cancer, UTIs and inevitably HIV/AIDS. By now it was entrenched as a custom and "to look like his father" was seriously offered as a reason. It caught on more in the USA than the rest of the English-speaking world (perhaps because US doctors were doing it without asking) while it faded out in Britain and the Commonwealth. Now it is hard to find a doctor in the UK or New Zealand willing to do it, a generation has grown up looking unlike their fathers, and there have been no outbreaks of any of the diseases it was supposed to be good against. (Europe and Scandinavia have always done perfectly well without it.) New Zealand's HIV rate is one of the lowest in the world.
Non-therapeutic infant circumcision is not medicine. It is a hangover from a bygone era. If it were unknown and being proposed as a new procedure it would never get ethical approval.
That is exactly what it is. Again, as doggy astutely points out, when you take emotion out of the equation, it is a procedure that, like any other, needs to be judged on its merits and potential harms
Do you think any of what follows is relevant? I couldn't care less what the justification was 2000 years ago--what's more important is what do we know today.
In fact, following your line of logic,certain medicines and procedures should never be used today. foxglove was once used as a poison--now we know it as the cardiac medicine digoxin. Leeches were once used to suck out "evil humours" from patients. Today they are used to reduce swelling after certain surgical procedures. Treatments and procedures get reclassified all the time. circumcision is but one of many
Maybe that's true. Still, you'll find men that prefer it, and prefer it for their children for various reasons. And since we often use parent's decisions as a surrogate for their kids, I see no reason why this needs to be an exception
Disagreed--in fact, the push by the WHO is to promote circumcision across the world
http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/
what evidence do you have that it would not get ethical approval? (im not sure what that is anyway)
Hugh, in the medical and scientific field "ethical approval" is done through a measure of the costs vs. benefits of the procedure while taking into account consent. As a scientist we actually take quite a number of ethics related classes. Far more than the average individual so we do consider such things. Doctors are in the same boat. Here is something that ethics classes also teach that should really be taught all throughout high-school. Beliefs of individuals vary quite a bit. So, if your argument against something does not contain scientific data regarding the procedure, then you are placing your emotional state on another person and assuming that they will agree with your sensitivities, beliefs, and moral values for which you can't draw direct benefits.
Most people believe that they are being ethical when making decisions because they only consider the set of ethics that they hold. People often believe that someone else is being unethical because their actions violate the original person's ethics. However, people don't define their ethics based upon just a cost/benefit analysis and have various beliefs and thoughts about certain things that are not universally shared. When such beliefs and actions have no scientific backing as to their harm, then the person's beliefs regarding such an action are as valid as yours. Unfortunately, most people don't consider such things which is why you have hatred between particular groups due to a conflicting belief structure. You can use religious conflict as an example of this.
Trying to insert your belief structure onto another individual that has already developed their belief structure is extremely dangerous and can lead to very horrible results. This is why belief structures for which there is no backing for possible harm are left alone in science, medicine, law etc. because the objective measure of their harm is too small to measure or non-existent. So, if you restrict something based upon an unscientific belief, you are taking away another individuals right to make decisions. It has been established in the legal system that parents are surrogates for their children's decisions and dictate consent. This is especially true for infants which can't express any form of consent. So, by attempting to take away the parents right to make a decision for which no measurable harm occurs, you are infringing upon their rights. Before taking this step, you need backing that such decisions cause more harm than good. Science doesn't back you on this one.
Hugh, I think you're missing my point here. I'm not defending circumcision as a medical procedure where the cost vs. benefits are carefully weighed by people making such decisions for their kids. I'm pointing out that meta-analysis of this procedure can not establish that it's harmful. Therefore the decision on whether or not it's harmful is made based upon emotional beliefs regarding the procedure. Your belief that it's a bygone practice that causes harm is no more valid than another person's belief that it has medical benefits because the scientific consensus on the subject is that if there is a harm/benefit, it's too small to measure and is probably 0. Therefore, there is no scientific backing for having it performed or restricting it. Since infants are incapable of giving consent, then consent for the procedure is transferred to the adult and the reasoning they use to make a decision to have circumcision is as valid as your reasoning to make a decision to not have your child circumcised. You can't restrict such individuals decisions without scientific backing as to the harm of the procedure.
Incidentally, this is also why others characterizations of it as mutilation of a limb or the clitoris, comparing it to testicle removal, comparing it to breast removal etc. are invalid. Those types of procedure have been shown to cause severe harm to the individual and have significant scientific and medical backing as to their harm. Circumcision does not.
Eric, Hugh . . circumcision is fine. Hasn't the CDC and numerous other public health organizations determined that it has numerous public health benefits (and only a few drawbacks). Plus it has quite a cultural following.
However, this article is about a practice of Orthodox Jews in metro NY. Furthermore, the article indicates that this (creepy and unsanitary in my view) orogenital suction practice is responsible for 2 deaths, ostensibly due to the Herpes virus?? (The article states that 11 infants tested Positive for Herpes Simplex). That in itself, is of concern since I wasn't aware Herpes simplex could be lethal in infants .. what about kissing them or other modes of transmission??
This sounds like a public health problem due to an unsafe practice and I hope all parents in the Orthodox Jewish community will be made aware of this rist. And yes, gel diapers can hide a lot of blood loss. All doctors should be warning parents to monitor for blood loss after this procedure on their infant, but that is not what this article is about.
d, thanks for your well thought out and written explanation. Good conversation is refreshing and you offer that.
Truth&Logic: "circumcision is fine. Hasn't the CDC and numerous other public health organizations determined that it has numerous public health benefits (and only a few drawbacks)."
Actually no. The CDC hasn't issued a policy for the USA yet, only recommended it for ADULT VOLUNTEERS in HIGH PREVALNCE areas in Africa. No national medical association in the world recommends it and some such as the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) strongly condemn it:
"Plus it has quite a cultural following."
Many evils have a cultural following - until the culture comes to its senses.
Sorry Eric and Doggy, no time for a point by point rebuttal here, but infant circumcision is not like other surgery.
patient/family preference can count as an indication--you forgot about that
Im not sure what youre getting at here
The problem is its not "corresponding" at all. The surgeries are not remotely similiar. In addition, the consequences are diametrically opposite. There are NO benefits from female mutilation, and very many harms. The same, as pointed out earlier, cannot be said about circumcision. Don't get fooled by the similar names, that's a common misconception
See above
No, they weren't. Unless you think "sucking out evil humours" is a medical benefit...
Snipping foreskin hardly puts any stress at all on the body. If you disagree, by all means, provide some evidence to back up your point
The patient does not have decision making capacity--substitited judgement must be used. Waiting carries a higher complication rate (I posted this above)
Plus, if asked, many men, myself included, would prefer to have this done as a child
Thats a particular strong eurocentric viewpoint. Circumcision is strongly recommended in Africa by the WHO. Not to mention that your point is hardly evidence to disallow or condemn the procedure
No baby - he's the patient, remember - has ever expressed a preference for circumcision. You cannot say "patient/family" as if they were equivalent. "Family preference" is not an indication for any other surgery. As one man said, but more colourfully -
"My family doesn't [urinate] with my [penis], my family doesn't [masturbate] with my [penis] and my family doesn't [have sexual intercourse] with my [penis], so what business did my family have to go cutting part OFF of my [penis]?"
There is no other normal, healthy, functional non-renewable part about which parents are told "Here, we can cut that off him if you like."
I specifically said "the most nearly corresponding surgery" to mean clitoral prepucectomy, minora-labiectomy or as they are more commmonly called, "female circumcision" as distinct from any attack on the clitoris itself. This was covered by Blue Cross Blue Shield until 1977 and legal in the US until 1997. A US doctor called Rathman invented a device to do it, with a shield to protect the clitoris (http://www.circumstitions.com/methods.html#rathman - NSFW). In 2010 the AAP proposed to allow a token ritual nick to girls "much less extensive than neonatal male genital cutting" but was forced to back down in the face of a public backlash within a month. The distinction between MGC and FGC is a pure double standard. (Meanwhile scores of boys die every year from tribal circumcision in one province of South Africa alone. When you compare surgical with surgical, tribal with tribal, the distinction between male and female becomes trivial.) Probably if they searched for benefits of FGC as hard and they have for MGC they would find them. Egyptian doctors make many such claims. One study showed reduced HIV. But since you justify male genital cutting by "family preference" you may make no greater demand on female genital cutting. I don't think they do, but if a family said, "A girl should look like her mother" how would you gainsay them?
There was a hiatus between the ancient, bogus uses of digitalis and leeches and their modern scientific uses. Circumcision has been carried on without interruption in the US. (In the rest of the English-speaking world, they found it did no good and gave up doing it. Now in many places it's hard to find a doctor willing to do it - though most old men are circumcised.)
Nobody who has seen a circumcision performed should call it "snipping".
* With a Gomco, Winkelman or Mogen Clamp it's sliced - and a Mogen may take more than just the foreskin, which has led to successful claims worth millions and the Mogen company going out of business.
* With a Plastibell or PrePex it's crushed and allowed to die.
* With an Accu-circ it's chopped.
- but never "snipped". Watch any of the many videos online and see for yourself.
BS.
Porter et al. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/104/1/e13.full
""We had hypothesized that circumcision would be at the most invasive end of the spectrum, and this procedure did elicit the most vigorous physiologic and behavioral reactions of those we studied. Similarly, clinicians rated circumcision as the most painful of 12 clinical procedures. Thus, there was convergence in a hypothetical gradient of pain, a survey-based gradient of pain, and the infants' actual responses to one procedure, circumcision."
Howard et al. Pediatrics, April 1994
"this study confirmed that circumcision of the newborn causes severe and persistent pain."
Taddio et al. Lancet. 1997;349:599-603
"Circumcised infants showed a stronger pain response to subsequent routine vaccination than uncircumcised infants."
The need for any decision is purely artificial. What you call "substituted judgement" was the doctor's whim until the mid 20th century, giving way, by way of considerable coercion (http://www.circumstitions.com/coerce.html), to parents being offered circumcision as a checkbox on a form giving minimal information.
The study eric cites, by three circumcision enthusiasts, is a meta-analysis of various studies, none of which directly compares adult with infant circumcision, and they specifically cite the difficulty of comparing complication rates.
Actually it's an outside-the-USA-developed-world viewpoint. Europe, Scandinavia, South and Central America, China, Japan and most of South East Asia, have never circumcised. As above, the rest of the English-speaking world used to, but gave it up. You can too.
Voluntary adult circumcision is recommended in Africa (following an invitation-only meeting of unknown participants that seems to have been presented with a fait accompli - detailed guidelines came out suspiciously soon afterwards) precisely because of conditions in Africa that don't apply in the USA. The slide into infant circumcision in some African countries has no evidence whatever to back it.
Eric's viewpoint seems oblivious to the fact that cutting part of a person's genitals off is not trivial, not whimsical, and would be percieved as very strange indeed if it were not already in place. But it's commonness and familiarity are no recommendation whatsoever. Many evils were once as common and familiar.
Again Hugh, for every study that you cite that says there is a problem with circumcision, we find another study that says there is a benefit or there is no change. That's the point of meta-analysis. You look at the results of many many different studies as opposed to taking citations from a few that agree with your opinion. Also, when doing meta-analysis, you have to include benefits of being circumcised as an adult regardless of whether that circumcision was done as an infant or as an adult unless you can demonstrate that the benefits are solely a result of adult circumcision. Seeing as the literature on this subject is all over the place, you are unlikely to find consensus on this. Same thing holds for detriments.
Also, a point regarding consent. No infant consents to any procedure done to them. They usually scream like a banshee when anything is done to them. But, again, if the cost is a small amount of discomfort and the belief is an improvement in the child's future, then the pain portion is worth it. We see this in immunizations. A bit of pain and distress for something beneficial. You may claim that there is no real benefit and cite studies towards that end, but someone else can also cite studies which claim a benefit. (See above citations for a good summary on benefits/detriments studies and their conflicting results). The point though is that you can't really demonstrate a serious detriment because someone else can take another study and demonstrate a benefit. So, the assertion that there is a benefit is as valid as you're assertion that there is no benefit or that it's harmful. Hence, regardless of whether or not the infant enjoys it, it's justified if the parent believes that it provides a benefit. Finally, again, infants can't consent to anything so discussing if they would consent is rather pointless. You'd be better off getting opinions of individuals who have been circumcised and seeing if they would have preferred if their parents did or didn't have the procedure performed. Seeing as the rate is currently ~50% of US infants are circumcised I doubt quite heavily that you will find consensus that a majority of people are unhappy with either being cut or uncut demonstrating that most people like their penis the way it currently is. If there was severe emotional harm resulting from this procedure, then it would have been reflected in the studies that looked at possible psychological harm. They conflict in their results.
Finally, two additional points regarding pain. First, you can use an analgesic (See Wikipedia reference for circumcision in previous post and scroll down to the pain section). It's even recommended by medical boards if you're going to have your son circumcised. Second, analysis of the psycological effect on an adult from pain from not using an analgesic during infant circumcision show pretty much the same thing as just every other analysis with regards to health benefits, sexual benefits etc. There could be problems but we can't really find anything huge in studies. So, if a parent believes it provides a benefit for a bit pain early on, then it's worth it as studies looking at perceived harms can't really state that harm actually occurs.
So, if you can demonstrate from the consensus of scientific studies that there is no benefit or that the overall effect is harm, then pain costs, risks of problems, etc. would indicate that the procedure shouldn't be performed. However, if the meta-analysis of studies demonstrates that you can't form a consensus on the harm, then people are free to choose such a procedure from perceived religious, health, medical, sexual, etc. benefits. Also, when demonstrating consensus from scientific studies, you can't simply dismiss a study as "it's from a circumcision enthusiast so it's invalid" because that's your opinion on the study. You would need to dismiss it by determining something inherently wrong with their methodology. Can't really call WHO a circumcision enthusiast. Maybe you're referring to a different study? Also, for circumcision for adolescents and infants, WHO guidelines do actually cover this in the 2007 publication. Section 5.2
5.2 Where male circumcision is provided for minors (young boys and adolescents), there should be involvement of the child in the decision-making, and the child should be given the opportunity to provide assent or consent, according to his evolving capacity. Depending on the local laws, some mature minors may be able to give independent informed consent. Parents who are responsible for providing consent, including for the circumcision of male infants, should be given sufficient information regarding the benefits and risks of the procedure in order to determine what is in the best interests of the child.
The key points here being that consent should be given according to the capacity to give consent and for infants, consent is left to the adult to determine what is in the best interested of the child.
Finally, the distinction between infant circumcision vs. adult circumcision isn't really useful here. You're trying to associate the protection with having it done as an adult as opposed to having it done as an infant without showing the way by which these are different. It's reasonable to assume that similar protection is provided regardless of whether it was done as an adult or as an infant. It's also reasonable to assume that similar protection is not provided due to x, y, and z. Without a study on x, y, or z and their effects on adult/infant circumcision. All you can really do is theorize regarding how x, y, and z change things. But, proponents can just as easily theorize how the protection is the same due to A, B, and C. Without studies to back up xyz, their theorizing is as useful as yours.
Now, with regards to earlobe cutting. Bad example. Severing an earlobe would make the individual less attractive to other people as having one. Symmetry reasons, very rare, etc. With regards to circumcision and attractiveness, again opinion is small preference for one or the other, or no opinion at all. This is why arguments to the tune of "cut other body part off" are usually bad ones. The reason you wouldn't do such a thing is due to the drop in attractiveness from removing the body part. There is no measurable drop in attractiveness when comparing circumcision to non-circumcision because of it's commonness which is why the argument against it by comparing it to cutting off something uncommon do not hold well at all. In order to properly compare it, you would have to compare it to a procedure that was as common and resulted in a permanent change in the way something looks.
sure you can...we do it all the time, with infants and the elderly
I can't make this clearer...that surgery has nothing in common with circumcision. Using doggy's logic, the procedure on females has never shown any benefit, only harms. This makes it clearly wrong. This has never been shown in males
so what? Do you really think that's a significant difference? Your orignal point was that circumcision was done in the past for bogus reasons, so it should not be done today. I tried to counter that by saying dig and leeches were also used in the past for dubious reasons, and are now widely, if not universally accepted
Why should a hiatus make any difference with regards to the above?
Your mistake here is using "pain" and "stress" as synonyms. They are not the same, physiologically. Also, as doggy states, that pain can be minimized using adequate analgesia. Ive done things much more traumatic to a patient with local anesthesia and never heard a peep
Again, I couldn't care less what the case was 60 years ago
The idea that the possible benefits of circumcision are only evident when circumcision is performed as an adult is patently ridiculous. The same benefits would be expected when the procedure is performed as an infant
Same with the mechanisms of protection in africa compared to the US
If you disagree, please post a biologically plausible reason why the above is untrue
So far, youve done a poor job of proving it. Myself and the WHO continue to disagree
Is it just me or does anyone else have a problem with an adult putting their mouth on the penis of a newly circumcized infant? Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should this be allowed, tradition or not, no matter what religion you are. Fine, circumcize outside the hospital setting, whatever, but putting a germy adult mouth on the penis of a newborn and sucking the blood from the wound? I find it disturbing anyone would do such a thing, much less be ok with it. As a parent, I find this appalling.
I think I would vomit. Just the thought alone is nauseating to me. Why would someone want to suck blood out of a newborn's penis? *shudder*
It's disturbing to us because now a days in our society we believe/know that adults shouldn't be putting their mouths on childern's genitals. Nor should they be touching them
I think we need to prevail against this practice, even though it is tradition. We don't have to judge it because it comes from a time when it was not disgusting, while letting our current sensibilities as well as the real hygenic concern prevail.
In many cultures, today, mothers mastubate their infants to sleep or to distract them from crying. This strikes us in our culture as WRONG. The intent of the parent there, and the intent of the mohel with his mouth on the baby's penis is not perverted.
Still in the US in both cases it shouldn't be done. The mouth on penis is worse because of the risk of infect and that it is done by an outside party, not the parent, who probably has some sort of official city document or state liscence to circumcise babies. So we can control him and outlaw it.
how do you feel about people masturbating their infants (or someone elses) to calm them down?
I know, it's a stretch to accept the mouth on baby's penis and not sit in harsh disgust condemnation and judgement that you are, while still thinking it wrong and should be outlawed.
This is a different culture. No need to judge them. But by our societies standards it is WRONG and addtionally it leads to infection.
I think you and others are judging it as perverted as well on behalf of the doubt. The intent is not perverted. Doesn't mean we don't have visceral disgust because of our own sensitibities (as well as concern for hygiene)..but we can fight against judging other people as harshly as you are WHILE still knowing the practice is wrong for our society and bad for these babies.
how do you feel about people masturbating their infants (or someone elses) to calm them down?
I know, it's a stretch to accept the mouth on baby's penis and not sit in harsh disgust condemnation and judgement that you are, while still thinking it wrong and should be outlawed.
This is a different culture. No need to judge them. But by our societies standards it is WRONG and addtionally it leads to infection.
I think you and others are judging it as perverted as well on behalf of the doubt. The intent is not perverted. Doesn't mean we don't have visceral disgust because of our own sensitibities (as well as concern for hygiene)..but we can fight against judging other people as harshly as you are WHILE still knowing the practice is wrong for our society and bad for these babies.
@Laurali, it would NOT surprise me if these infants and toddlers that were "masturbated" to sleep remember it later on. I would be SICKENED if my mother did that to me. Masturbation is a SOLO act, there are other effective ways to get your child to go to sleep, molestation is not one of them. Call it "other cultures" all you want, but the fact is that these "cultures" are far behind and have a LOT of catching up to do.
@isis-2:
You clearly have unresolved issues from childhood. Whatever someone did to you when you were a little girl, it does not justify embarking on an irrational, reckless crusade to "save" children who are victims only in your own imagination. Take a deep breath, calm down, and find more productive ways to cope with your own past traumas, please.
Take a deep breath, calm down, and find more productive ways to cope with your own past traumas, please.
I have no "trauma" from my childhood. You have NO proof of this and are passing judgment, and that is NOT OKAY.
You clearly have unresolved issues from childhood. Whatever someone did to you when you were a little girl.
Hold it right there! Nobody EVER molested or hurt me as a child, and your DISGUSTING ASSUMPTION, and AUTOMATIC JUDGEMENT SICKENS ME!
Just because I consider it wrong to masturbate an infant, that does NOT mean I was molested or sexually abused, those are just my values, and no they do NOT stem from trauma. Good Lord!!!!!!!!!!!!! What is WRONG with you, that you would even CONSIDER typing something so terrible? Really, what compelled you to say such a thing?
That is a SICKENING, DISTURBING judgement to pass! How dare you. HOW DARE YOU.
So no, I don't "clearly have unresolved issues". You do NOT know that, you have simply CONJURED ME AS A VICTIM in YOUR @!$%#ed up little head. The fact that you would even THINK something like that says a LOT about you. I have NO trauma from sexual abuse, I think I would know my own damn life, sweetie.
I expect an apology for making such a disgusting assumption, because you crossed the line. You crossed the line BIG TIME. In all the years I've used Newsvine, people may be jackasses on here, but NOBODY has EVER said or assumed something so horrible about me.
You brought up masturabating an infant to help them sleep out of the blue...I admit, I thought that was weird too
I didn't bring it up "out of the blue" Laurali did. I merely gave my opinion on it, I said that I thought it was wrong, and was then labeled as an abuse "victim".
Just because I am against that, that does NOT mean I am projecting these issues that SHANDRIL has MADE UP ABOUT ME IN HER HEAD. How the @!$%# she came to that conclusion is beyond me, and THAT'S why I got so heated about it. That is FAR from the truth.
And even if it was true, if I was abused, I sure as hell wouldn't be calling myself "victim". We wonder why the SURVIORS are so screwed up, it's because they've been brainwashed with the "woe is me, I'm just a victim" mindset. A lot of people who were abused ARE strong enough to overcome it, so long as they don't let themselves fall into the victim mentality, rather they need to embrace a survivor mentality.
eric wrote "You brought up masturabating an infant to help them sleep out of the blue."
Anthrologist Ashley Montague reported this practice in his study of other cultures. Would it be stranger if these natives sliced the genitals of both girl and boy infants, followed by genital fondling?
As a circumcised male and father, I spared my son the indignity. The hospital stafftried its best to guilt and persuade me to circumcise my son, but not by making a case for its benefits.
I didn't see her posting here, so hence, its out of the blue..
Her posting wasnt here, BUT the following post by Laurali (the one mentioned by Isis) is obviously above Isis's post...
She then said...
And THEN Isis mentioned it (in response to the 2 above posts)
This post was obviously in response to Laurali, as figured out by reading the posts above hers, AND noting that she says "@laurali" which indicates that she is responding to someone...
So, NO, NOT out of the blue...
Thank you Becca, for the clarification.
And to Shandril and Eric, just because I said I disagree with that, it does not mean I was molested or abused. People are ALLOWED to discuss sexual abuse WITHOUT others accusing them of being victims.
wow, i didn't read every post on this 132 post thread...
jeez, you guys are intense...
Oh hell, enough with the exaggerating. All you had to do was pay attention to the comments that YOU commented or replied to, not the whole damn thread. So stop acting like we're forcing you to read EVERY one on here, because we are NOT.
And if you HAD paid attention to LAURALI'S comment, you would have known that SHE was the one who ORIGINALLY brought that up. I did NOT bring up anything "out of the blue", I merely replied.
will you stop YELLING already---its very annoying
That assumes I was reading top to bottom--I don't always--I also skim some posts and read others more closely
Just relax, its not really that big of a deal. If that's the worst thing that happened to you today, it was a pretty good day, right?
I'm not "yelling" if I were yelling then ALL of my words would be in caps lock, Eric. Don't like the way I type things on here? Tough @!$%#!
Nice keeping it together there Isis2, your Goddess would be proud of your unbuckling to some antagonist poster whom can't actually harm you or yours. The fact of this article is, another religion condones what is clearly a sexual act on a minor, I am circumed, I find it does not interfere with any pleasure so the idea of people complaining just shows how weak and needy for attention people can be. With that aside, oral activity on an infant is prosecutable in the United States, unless you do the molestation under the guise of religion, then child rape is okay? What a mass of degens, arrest them, remove the foolish laws that protect molesters because of religion, as well as the conartist fleecing they perform on poor people while paying no taxes or incurring no federal reprecussions. Churches are the mafia, using the same rules of extorting, money laundering and abuse of freedoms, yet unlike organized crime syndicates, they get to do all this legally. People do not kill Gods, religions and their masters do. I hope everyone is ready for the bloody revolution to come.
what a crazy, crazy post
Man this story gives me the heebie jeebies!
"Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities."
Call it what it really is - male genital mutilation performed by a vampiric pedophile.
OMG!! I have to agree with you on this one!!!!!! As a FORMER catholic, I thought that religion had the market cornered on pedophiles......how is this allowed?!?!?!?!? As a MOM, I am sick!!!!!!!
I 100% agree Skrekk.
Yup. Disgusting. Since when does pedophile c@ck$ucking qualify as "tradition?"
DISGUSTING and BARBARIC!
pedophilia is about intent
the intent is to stop the bleeding and repeat a tradition several thousand yrs old.
It's better to work hard not to harshly judge other cultures while at the same time in this case it is important to STOP the practice because it goes aganist our sensitibilties today, against what we believe to be ok for the child emotionally (not sure if one time stopping bleeding like that does emotional harm), but especially that it causes these horrible infections and deaths.
Sure it makes me squeemish it goes against all the stuff we learn in modern culture. This predates it. Again I don't think they should be doing it but I can say that without judging MOTIVES as you are.
Infant penis blood-sucking? The fountain of youth? That's quite a cult.
It's almost as bad as the cannibalistic Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, where they believe they're consuming the literal blood and flesh of a dead person in order to gain magical powers.
But it's not as bad as a rabbi cutting an infant's penis in a public ceremony and sucking the fountain of youth. What parents would tolerate such an indignity?
clearly gross, clearly needs to be stopped
But calling these rabbis pedophiles? A little far guys...
What do YOU call sucking an infant's penis?
I wonder why they (orthodox mohels) seem to enjoy their long careers so much?
It's flattery to call them merely pedophiles. How about perverts? Monsters? Sickoes. (let me know when I get it right)
What would you call an adult who puts their mouth on the penis of an infant?
If you saw this article but it didn't mention that it was part of a 'traditional religious ritual' what would you call the men who did this to male infants?
Take the time to listen to this clown make his points
one of which is "saliva is a GOOD thing!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oneN48zg5RI
bj and watch,
But that's the rub. Context is very important. A mouth on a nipple can be a sexual act, or breastfeeding, depending on the context
I don't think the moyels were deriving sexual pleasure from the act. Its something they believe is a religious event. Gross, and should not be allowed purely for health reasons
But unless you have PROOF that they were getting off on it, then youre making baseless claims
You haven't yet
@Eric, does NOT matter if they are pedophiles are not, it is INNAPROPRIATE and WRONG to put your mouth on an infant's penis.
The fact that you would even QUESTION this is disturbing.
isis,
Did you see how many times I said it was wrong? At least 3 by my count
Just arguing that there was no pedophilia involved
Jeez...
I agree Eric
The word Pedophile describes the adult and his motives. If people want to discuss sexual abuse of the infant, that would be a more fair discussion.
Instead they are labeling the mohel as a pedophile and that feels unfair/wrong to me because that is not his motive. His motive is to replicate what he thinks is millenium of religious tradition.
I think this mouth on baby penis act is a bad idea in so many ways the worst being infection and the fact babies died. But I need not label the mohel as having ILL MOTIVES toward the baby.
There is a way using the mouth on the penis is similar to female circumcisoin in Muslim countries and elsewhere in terms of the moral/cultural issues and the blaming motive. It is in fact mutilation as it has no physical purpose (nor does the mouth on the penis since gauze can be used). The girls are held down against their will and the ability to feel pleasure stolen from them...it's done in very unsantiary ways and many die, more get infections. Childbirth and sex can be physically disasterous.
Calling the people who do this to girls...the circumcizer and the parents who hire him...sadists who hate women, gets us no where. They are following "tradition".
Of course, the risk of infection and death with using the mouth on the penis and in female circumcision overall is much much smaller and since the girls are so much older and fight and scream and get no anesthesia and take weeks to be able to walk (they have their legs bound togeather) my bet it is much more traumatizing to them then to the infant with one time haviing adult mouth on his penis. So I am not comparing them in that way.
Just in the judgemental response. I am sure these Western parents, though, in finding out that Herpes is spread by the mouth, are less likely to allow it and my bet is the city or state will outlaw it now that it's come to the attention of authorities.
OMG GRACIE!
your religion has the market cornered on pedophiles if that's what you are calling this.
get over your judgement of other's religions and your glee, it's unbecoming to say the least.
the mouth on penis thing is wrong and must be stopped. That said the motive is not pedophillia guess you are projecting that motive on all religion's men because you are an exCatholic. IT's miguided tradition. No place in the modern world, but not ill motivated like the pedophiles we have seen in the Catholic church and elsewhere.
Not that very vast majority of cicumcisers use their mouth. I am talking like a handful in thousands. Every Jew I asked never heard of it, for example.
again, it must be stopped it's motive is tradition not sexual pleasure (it's a brief moment when it's done, itstead of daubing with gauze to staunch the blood I suppose...and it's in front of a crowd of people. How someone could get off on that is perplexing even if they were a pedophile). If you want to argue that it's abusive to children, that's relevant. But it's unknowing abuse (was unknowing until the infections came out)
Pedophiles? If you bathe your infant, then that makes you a pervert, too.
Your haughty attitude is laughable. I am an educated woman, from an educated family that is multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, and practices multiple "religions", or no "religion" at all....don't ASSUME that you are the authority on this issue! Your posts come across as ignorant while trying to be "smart", as well as naive. Did you ever think that perhaps these mohels enter this "profession"(if that's what you call it), because they are indeed already pedophiles? Apparently you are not a parent, because if you were I cannot imagine you would be making these asinine comments.
@gracie-384979:
"Did you ever think that perhaps these mohels enter this "profession"(if that's what you call it), because they are indeed already pedophiles?"
Paranoid Personality Disorder (Diagnostic Code 301.0, DSM-IV)
@Shandril, bathing is NOT the same as sucking on an infant's penis or "masturbating" them to sleep. Completey different.
Bathing your infant is appropriate. Sucking on their privates and touching them to make them tired is not.
No, @Shandril, I'm far from paranoid. And far from stupid. And far from naive. And if you have children, I feel for them. If you do not, then your comments are less ignorant perhaps than they appear, but I do question your humanity. Scary.
Why all the hostility? The reason for this vine is for people to share their opinions and knowledge of the subject of the article. You are attacking a religious custom and each other instead of offering your views. Everyone take a chill pill. Grow up! All people are entitled to their opinion without hatred for some one whose may be different. That's what's wrong with the world today. No one has any respect for anyone. The reason, among others, why the United States is the way it is, is because of all of our freedoms. Stop shooting the messengers! Let everyone say what they have to say without attacking them for what they believe.
ok.... people really need to use proper definitions...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia
You can't call everything that you dislike pedophilia. It may be disgusting, it may be detrimental, it may be a horrible idea, but calling it pedophilia is incorrect usage. Scroll down to the section on misuse of the term for examples. Calling it pedophilia is like calling someone you're arguing with Hitler. When you do such things, all it does is demonstrate that you don't fully understand your argument and must resort to a label or a catchphrase.
Okay, this is just sick. How much longer must we endure having to read about this kind of crap? That children are being subjected to this and no one is stepping in to stop it says a lot about our society. The ONLY reason people get away with committing crimes like this is because it's A RELIGION! Tax free child abuse. If you want to commit a crime just claim it's a religious practice and you're good to go. Nobody will every say anything.
That is simply nasty.
How on earth is this even legal?? Just the thought of it makes me sick to my stomach.
my thought is it is not. It's not normally done in the vast majority of circumcisions even in people's homes. That I do know
WHAAAAT ?????????????
"An ultra-Orthodox Jewish circumcision practice in which the circumciser places his mouth on a newborn's newly circumcised penis and sucks blood away from the wound"
WHAAAAAT ???????????????????????????????????????
What in the world is wrong with these people?????????????????? I mean, really???? What sane parent would let this happen??????? That's just sick!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hello ultra-orthodox Jews, welcome to the 21st century!!!!!!!!!!!
sad thing is some parents when they hired the mohel said they didn't even know he'd do that.
I wonder if that was some of the parents of babies that died
how incredibly sad that is
Parents are separated from their children for spanking, or even the accusation of spanking, particularly during divorce. You have to wonder why mohels aren't jailed for cutting infant penises and, in some cases, sucking on them and transmitting lethal herpes. Herpes infection for an infant is devastating.
So weird. I never knew this was a part of the ritual. It just doesn't jibe with the Mosaic Law. The law states to circumcise on the 8th day, which we now know is when the blot cotting is naturally higher, but the laws about abstaining from ingesting blood from animals has got to also carry over to ingesting human blood.
ITS NOT PART OF THE RITUAL FOR MOST JEWS
just this tiny teeny subset
be sure you know this.
most Jews never even heard that this subsect of Jews have this done!
Why aren't these creepy rabbi's arrested?
What part about this ritual is not sexual abuse on a child? these rabbi's are pedophiles who engage in this activity.
what a judgemental comment!
Pedophilia is a word use to describe motive and intent. If you read the article, the intent is to stop the bleeding and the motive is to replicate what has been done for millenium as part of this ritual.
The way this tiny subset of super orthodox mohel do this is wrong, doesn't work in modern society, and is unsanitary and needs to be stopped.
but labeling them pedophiles goes FAR to far. To say it's sexually abusive to the baby is perhaps a discussion, but not the motive of the mohel.
Here in America... The Doctor Gets $200 and The Hospital get another $400.. Nothing wrong with this as long as someone is Making a FEW $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ .
You did not mention the cosmetics industry that purchases infant foreskins. People shudder at cats or rabbits forced into testing for female cosmetic product. But less sympathy is offered to infant boys that have their penises cut. The foreskins are not thrown into the trash. They are sold by hospitals.
Pedophiles is the wrong word. They only do it because it's their tradition. Parents usually know what they're getting into, and knowingly hire the guy. I found this essay that explains it - it's a little long. But informative about the practice.
it's unsantitary and bad for the baby so of course it needs to be stopped. But when the tradition was started millenia ago they did not know it was bad for the baby.
Perversion and pedophilia are words that label the MOTIVES of these people and are unjust to use in this case. The judgement here disturbs me a lot
I wonder how many people think all Jewish ritual cicumcision does this? I don't think everyone read the article. This is only done amongst a very small subset of the Orthodox and it said that some parents did not know in advance it would be done.
Normally a bit of gauze is used, in most citcumcisions...not someone's mouth!
Perversion and pedophilia may have been the motive for the practice, or at least the institutionalization of the infant penis cutting as a group ritual. Yes, the Kellogg named below is the breakfast cereal guy.
"...with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is... the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible...
The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision...
...violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened." ~Rabbi Moses Maimonides
"A remedy [for masturbation] which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision...The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind... In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement." ~Dr. John Harvey Kellogg
It doesn't let me post the link. Replace the "dot"s with a period and get rid of the spaces.
mohelinsouthflorida dot com /2012/03/metzitzah-explanation-for-non-jews-in dot html
These people should be jailed as pederasts. Just like the Catholics, pederasts hiding behind their religion.
Agreed. Sucking infants penises is child abuse in the US. I don't understand why circumcision is the only form of child abuse that is sanctioned by law. imagine a public ceremony in which your infant or young daughter's legs are spread and cut without her consent. Then, imagine everyone moving to the other room to eat cheese and tortes.
Disgusting. I've never heard of this practice before and can't believe this isn't an article on The Onion or something. Throw these perverts in prison. There's no reason why anyone should be sucking on the genitals of a baby.
Is there any reason anyone should be peeling genital flesh from skin, then crushing it in a screw clamp for 10+ minutes, followed by a cut? This is functional erogenous skin. Should anyone be cutting the genitals of a baby?
If the people that practice this ritual want to do it fine. I just think the male being circumcised should be old enough to make the decision for himself. Then lets see who wants to such the blood off.
THE WORD PEDOPHILE IS USED TO DESCRIBE THE MOTIVES OF THE ADULT, NOT THE RESULT ON THE CHILD. SO PLEASE STOP CALLING THESE MISGUIDED RELIGIOUS PEOPLE PEDOPHILES.
if you want to talk about it as sexually or physically abusive that is entirely another thing and possibly valid.
mislabeling misguided people with severe judgement of conciously wanting to do things to hurt children, will never get a dialogue going and makes change much harder.
How else would you describe a mohel with a sole profession of cutting infant penises? Do you have less tolerance for a man or woman that fondles infant or child genitals?
I have heard of some odd religious rituals, but this one is possibly rates as the oddest I have heard of. But supposing these parents are of the same faith as the mohleim, it is strange that they were unaware of the exact procedure or that it was not explained to them. Given that circumcision IS surgery, putting one's mouth on an open wound is very unsanitary for lots of reasons. My dog's mouth is probably cleaner than mine, but that doesn't mean I am going to let him lick any wound I get.
This ritual gets a big EW-W-W-W-W from me.
im jewish and had a bris (ritual circumcision) and never heard of this
As with my circumcision, yours was removal of infant genital tissue without medication justification. That's why it is called ritual.
The procedure of metzitzah b’peh can be done with a piece of lab glass ware and a gauze pad inside it so as to avoid direct oral contact with the wound. This is very common practice even among the most orthodox and i have seen the procedure done many times all to no ill effect to the child. This way the circumcision can still be done to the most stringent level of orthodox belief and at no risk Good Mohels are very fast and very accurate and skilled - and if they do it properly are at the highest levels of hygiene as well.
Cute. What do you think of partial or complete removal of female infant genital tissue? Is is better when performed in a hospital? Muslim women of Singapore abound discussing the specifics of their Sunnat= girl circumcisions.
"...with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is... the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible...
The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision...
...violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened." ~Rabbi Moses Maimonides
comment removed
Sucking on a child's penis ! is that sexual abuse
Parent are separated from their children for spanking. Why is anyone placing their lips on a child's genitals, their child or not, spared a jail sentence? Why are religious groups that make a spectacle of cutting infant genitals among spectators not jailed, either?
WTF!!!
These people are so brainwashed by their religion they let a grown man give their baby a BJ?!?!
I always said religion is garbage but this is a f*ing crazy world!
The "ritual" of male circumcision is rooted in Jewish and Muslim faiths. This is where it began.
It became a common procedure in the US during the Victorian period as a method to stop male children from masturbating, as that was considered "improper". Need a reference? Look it up, it's readily available.
Over the past few decades more and more research has been done into the efficacy of male circumcision and to see if there are any benefits. The American Medical Association and American Pediatric Association DO NOT recommend routine circumcision as there are NO verifiable health benefits.
Source:
Also, over the same decades there has been push back from some in the medical community attempting to cite health benefits, but there is no supporting evidence for it.
The cleanliness issue has a natural and simple solution and procedure, as nature already provides for it. Young intact males don't need to do anything to their penis's. As they get older and the skin begins to retract, then they need to be taught how to retract the skin and wash their penis. This is akin to teaching your child how to bathe themselves, brush their teeth, clean their ears, clip their toe nails, etc... Using the "cleanliness" point is hyperbole, because keeping it clean is quite easy. We don't extract toe nails because it's easier to keep them clean. We don't cut external ear parts to make it easier to keep them clean. The cleanliness aspect is a strawman argument, brought about by some in the medical field who want to keep that revenue stream coming.
There have been posters on here who claim to be medical PROFESSIONALS who ask for reference on this issue. First, as a medical "professional" you should already know that the professional position on circumcision is to NOT do it. It is only a procedure that may be needed in certain medical instances, just like the necessity to remove teeth, or other surgical procedure IF and only if there is a medical need for it. One example is a conditions known as phimosis. This is a condition where the foreskin is too tight and can not be retracted normally. It can cause the male child or adult pain and sexual disfunction. In this medical case, circumcision may be warranted, but first the condition needs to be assessed by a medical professional as there may be alternatives to surgery.
The biggest issue with circumcision in healthy male babies is the destruction of sexually sensitive tissue, that once removed its' gone. Nature provides for sexual function and pleasure in males, in full intact presence. Circumcision does not improve performance or function in healthy males, and does lead to desensitized sexual pleasure. It's has been studied and verified, and the results have been repeated in multiple tests. Sexual health is one of the most important aspects to overall health as recognized by medical and psychological professionals. Destruction of pleasurable tissue in an otherwise healthy male baby is mutilation. That is not hyperbole, as it is now medical fact.
Someone mentioned that this parental decision is similar to giving vaccines to their children. No, these two things are not comparable in the least. Vaccination has proven efficacy. Through modern vaccination children are protected, their general health and lives are protected by vaccinating them at the times recommended by the medical community. Vaccines HAVE a medical benefit and serve to protect health. Circumcision is nothing of the kind. It has no general health benefit, and does not serve to protect male children. Circumcision is only needed in the low percentage of cases where young males or young adults have an actual medical need to have this surgery performed. In other words, circumcisions benefit only benefits the individual who may have a complication. This is comparable to the removal of tonsils and adenoids. We could remove these tissues in every child so that they don't later suffer painful sore throats after contracting a bad cold. But that would be pointless to remove those tissues in every child. These tissues are ONLY removed in children and adults who suffer from a medical need that may require the removal of those tissues. Circumcision is comparable to that issue/question. It is NOTHING like the need for vaccination.
The issue that brings this discussion is regarding circumcision performed for religious reasons, not health concerns. However, because of this religious ritual, there have been cases of male babies suffering greatly due to the very unsterile and unsafe practice of sucking the blood away from the wound created by the circumcision. Don't kid yourself, circumcision is a wound created for no good medical reason. The baby does suffer and suffers greatly. Nurses and doctors who perform this procedure will tell you how much the baby may SCREAM in pain with ultra high blood pressure rise with subsequent rise in heart rate, all in response to the SEVERE pain of a procedure that directly cuts and destroys one of THE MOST sensitive parts of the human body. If that's not brutality towards children, I don't know what else to call it. To help the babies deal with this, literal, unnerving pain, the babies are given pain medication. Yes, potentially dangerous pain medication has to be given to help these babies, because they must endure such a painful and VERY unnecessary "medical procedure".