Comments on: What is the REAL effect of circumcising men?

By: David VanPelt

David VanPelt — Sun, 25 Apr 2021 17:32:07 +0000

Circumcision of boys is involuntary genital mutilation. If someone wants to get cut or mutilate their own genitals they can do this as an adult by their choice.

Circumcision does not protect against HIV and STI transmission and infection. If this were true the USA would not have high rates of HIV and STIs, and three generations of bisexual and gay men, 99% who were all cut would not have died from HIV/AIDS. They did not all get it from anal intercourse either.

By: Jean-Christophe Lurenbaum

Jean-Christophe Lurenbaum — Fri, 28 Dec 2018 18:11:47 +0000

Pour la qualité de la prise de décision, notamment des pouvoirs publics ou des grandes organisations philanthropiques qui promeuvent et financent la campagne de circoncision massive recommandée par l’OMS en Afrique depuis 2007, et alors que les acteurs de « l’effective altruism » peuvent jouer un important rôle de prescripteur, il est souhaitable qu’une réédition de cet article distingue clairement 2 cas de figure / 2 tableaux d’arguments : la circoncision des bébés (ou des jeunes enfants) et la circoncision d’adultes.

Au cas des bébés (ou des jeunes enfants), la conclusion rationnelle, basée sur des preuves, est que la circoncision n’est jamais justifiée pour des raisons médicales (HIV…) : elle ne devrait jamais être promue par des institutions de santé comme l’OMS ou financée par des organisations philanthropiques.

Pourtant, l’OMS recommande en Afrique la circoncision néo-natale dans le cadre d’une campagne de circoncision censée être « volontaire » : “7.3 Since neonatal circumcision is a less complicated and risky procedure than circumcision performed in young boys, adolescents or adults, such countries should consider how to promote neonatal circumcision” in New Data on Male Circumcision and HIV Prevention: Policy and Programme Implications, WHO/UNAIDS, Montreux, 2007 (http://data.unaids.org/pub/report/2007/mc_recommendations_en.pdf)

Par ailleurs, un argument en terme de « risque » n’est pas pris en compte dans le raisonnement alors qu’il est décisif pour une prise de décision librement consentie et parfaitement éclairée : le fait, admis par toutes les parties au débat, que la circoncision « peut engendrer des SOUFFRANCES LOURDES, POUR LA VIE ENTIÈRE, même si toute circoncision n’entraîne pas forcément de souffrance » (voir http://www.droitaucorps.com/argumentaire-circoncision). Cet argument renforce considérablement la conclusion qu’il n’y a pas de justification à circoncire les bébés (ou les jeunes enfants) en dehors des motivations religieuses / ancestrales.

By: Marilyn Milos, RN

Marilyn Milos, RN — Sat, 29 Mar 2014 19:52:05 +0000

Since the majority of the world’s men are intact and live without the dire consequences American doctors claim will occur, it seems evident that we should, at least, let a male reach the age of majority so that he can decide whether or not he is capable of washing himself (retract, rinse, and replace), have safe sex, and determine for himself the body parts he wants to keep. Circumcision of infants interferes with the maternal/infant bond, disrupts breastfeeding and normal sleep patterns, and undermines the baby’s first developmental task of establishing trust. It is where sex and violence meet for the first time and leaves both physical and psychological scars. Circumcision affects the wholeness of the hydraulic genital system of the male (see http://research.cirp.org, click on “function”) and the way the penis functions during intercourse, also affecting the partner in adverse ways. The foreskin is a normal body part that belongs to the baby. A consent form is a construct of adults to allow a violation of the rights of the baby to his own body. It is our job as parents to protect our children until they are old enough to defend and protect themselves. Circumcision is not a medical issue, it is a human rights issue. His body, his choice!

By: Hugh7

Hugh7 — Thu, 27 Mar 2014 21:15:54 +0000

The table is interesting, but it has an inherent cultural bias. From a Martian perspective, or just from outside the USA, we would look first not at circumcision, but at the structure and functions of the foreskin. For example:
http://www.circumstitions.com/Anatomy.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/Works.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/Functions.html
Only after they were well understood would we look at any alleged benefits of cutting it off, and the detriments. We might look also into the cultural history of circumcision, including its endless search for a new jusitification as old ones are debunked, and the steady drizzle of vilification of the foreskin that rains down from US media.
http://www.circumstitions.com/tv-thatthing.html
From that point of view, circumcision gets much shorter shrift.

By: Francelle

Francelle — Thu, 27 Mar 2014 14:20:21 +0000

Hi Spencer. I appreciate this write-up. Just a couple quick points to add. 1) It is not just Europeans who are shocked to learn that the majority of Americans routinely circumcise. With regard to circumcision, the USA is an outlier among all the western nations. 2) To this point: “When experts disagree we’re in a bind.” Given that your blog posts are frequently to do with how to improve ones ability to detect bias, I was surprised that you made no mention of the fact that the American experts feverishly churning out posts in favor of circumcision are almost certainly engaging in motivated reasoning. While circumcision rates have fallen over the past few decades, the majority of doctors currently practicing were born at a time when the national average was much higher. Most American male doctors are circumcised and American doctors of either gender would have had their sons circumcised. Most pediatricians and obgyns would have performed circumcisions hundreds or thousands of times over. So these people have a very vested interest in NOT arriving at the conclusion that they were wrong about past actions which are both harmful and irreversible. For a country so familiar with the concept of “conflict of interest” as it relates to legal matters, it is astounding to me that circumcision is discussed among Americans as though no one has a dog in the fight, when in fact virtually everyone does.

By: Spencer

Spencer — Thu, 27 Mar 2014 14:08:35 +0000

In reply to James Loewen. You are of course correct that they do not receive the procedure as men, and of course that is not what I meant to imply. I will edit the post to say "In the U.S., where the majority of men have had the procedure performed on them"

By: James Loewen

James Loewen — Thu, 27 Mar 2014 13:47:47 +0000

Spencer Greenberg’s statement, “In the U.S., where the majority of men get the procedure” is inaccurate. In the US the foreskin amputation is forced upon infants, the men they become have no say in whether they get the “procedure.” Circumcision obviously harmful in a myriad of ways. Cultures that force genital cutting on children have endless excuses to try to justify this.