I think one of the issues with the US doctors is that they themselves were likely circumcised so the majority don’t really understand what it means/feels like to be left intact (for the man AND his future partner(s)!). Medical textbooks and photos will also show circumcised penises rather than intact penises, although I hope that’s improving!!

I wonder if they tend to spread misinformation because they were misinformed about their own personal experiences. I know they are supposed to let the parent’s have informed consent but are they really *informing*?

One of my personal concerns is that an newborn or infant can’t consent. If an intact adult chooses to have a circumcision performed that is absolutely their right but we don’t know which the infant wants. I would venture to guess the least uncomfortable ;) There is a reason for foreskin and I tend to side with evolution and natural selection in matters like this (yes, I majored in physical anthropology but loved my cultural anth and public health classes too, if anyone was wondering lol). With that said, I understand and respect parents for whatever *informed* choice they make and hope they are putting babies interests first.

My last point is related to STD’s. I understand that the discussion is related to what is *riskier* and being able to minimize that risk but I find the whole thing a little fruitless. You can get an STD if you are circumcised or intact, use a condom or not, have one partner or more than one partner. If you have sex, you can get an STD. Period. And you may not even know!!!

OK, maybe because of family and societal pressure some parents may regret not cutting their babies. Also, some parents may regret it because they do not know how to care for an intact penis and may forcibly retract it, causing later problems that require correction. I do not consider either of these to be valid reasons to regret circumcising a baby.

AWESOME freakin post by the way, thanks so much for sharing :-)

(2) Fleiss, Paul, M.D., “What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Circumcision” at xi, available in part at http://books.google.com/books?id=rQUqA-AftAQC&dq=fleiss+what+your+doctor+may+not+tell+you+about+circumcision&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=rXqG60HLo7&sig=6iNt8qLfkoOUuWylWWM51mLkO6M&hl=en&ei=oU7GSo2TBZLU8QbJqpBG&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

In your case, it just seems wrong to have had your son cut just in case he has unsafe sex with someone who has an STI. Using anesthesia and having a loose cut makes it not as bad, but I still think it should have been your son’s decision.

In Europe, almost no-one circumcises unless they’re Muslim or Jewish, and they have significantly lower rates of almost all STI’s including HIV. The longest study in a western country (the umm Dickson study in New Zealand) showed a very slightly higher rate of STI’s in the circumcised group.

Even in Africa, there are six countries where men are *more* likely to be HIV+ if they’ve been circumcised: Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, and Swaziland. Eg in Malawi, the HIV rate is 13.2% among circumcised men, but only 9.5% among intact men. In Rwanda, the HIV rate is 3.5% among circumcised men, but only 2.1% among intact men. If circumcision really worked against AIDS, this just wouldn’t happen. We now have people calling circumcision a “vaccine” or “invisible condom”, and viewing circumcision as an alternative to condoms.

The one study into male-to-female transmission showed a 54% higher rate in the group where the men had been circumcised btw.

ABC (Abstinence, Being faithful, Condoms) is the way forward. Promoting genital surgery will cost African lives, not save them.

Continue on with your excellent educating.

I will disagree with the rationale though: we plan on educating our son about how to avoid STDs: the key is to choose his sexual partners wisely and use a condom. Circ doesn’t PREVENT STDs. Condoms do.

The fact of the matter is, the US has the most circumcised males, and the highest rates of STDs – if circumcision really helped prevent STDs, don’t you think it would be reflected in the statistics?

And even if circumcision did help prevent STDs, I still wouldn’t permanently alter my child’s sexual organ. I would be PISSED if someone had taken away my clitoral hood in an effort to protect me from STDs. I get a lot of pleasure from that portion of my body. It is MINE.

Or what about breast cancer? The chance of a woman having invasive breast cancer some time during her life is a little less 1 in 8. One out of four Americans between ages 15 and 55 will catch at least one STD. (That statistic includes both women AND men, so let’s be unscientific, double that, and say one out of 8 men will get an STD). So if the rationale is “lop off the body part that may get an STD at a 1 in 8 risk,” then it also makes sense to say “well, let’s just remove our infant girl’s breast buds – same risk.”

But that thought is horrifying, isn’t it?

The third post in this series (that’s already written) is about STDs & the risks of being circ’d v. intact (among other things). I will have more there.

Thank you for having the courage to post. I don’t want anyone to be afraid to post a comment. I may disagree with you, but I will never try to attack you.