The King of Pointland

Removing your pancreas reduces the risk of pancreatic cancer. That is to say, there may be a greater infection with uncircumsized men, but the prepuce served a purpose!

End genital mutilation!!

So if it does turn out that the study is correct, that removing the foreskin reduces ones risk of contracting AIDS by a factor of seven, you think it better to leave it attached, because the benefits of the foreskin outweigh the increased risk of contracting AIDS?

From what I've read - and keep in mind that I am not a man and have neither been with or without a foreskin - that is indeed the case.

This has some interesting stuff: And it's medically sound as far as I know.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/wreckingboy/318545.html

"Fact: A natural male and a natural female are both at the same risk for yeast infection (as is any moist, dark place on the human body such as these). A natural male and a female both possess an odor to their genitalia, from the presence of mucosa and daily accumluation of natural fluids.

Thoughts: I wonder if part of the drive, on some level, to circumcise the male is an effort to further distinguish the male from the female. She smells, he does not. She deals with that messy stuff like yeast infections. He doesn't need to worry about it. She is wet and smelly. He is not. If we stopped circumcising, we would have to deal with the idea that we are not so different. That in these ways, we are no different; not above. Might our relationships/outlooks/comparisons/treatments change? After all, what is the first way we determine our difference?

Additionally, I wonder if we are attempting to, once again, separate ourselves from the rest of the animal kingdom. We like to feel superior to all living creatures. Every glans in Mother Nature's domain is an internal organ, emerging fully only for penetration. We have seen to it that we can no longer be compared. "

Basically, the benefits of the foreskin that I can garner from that post are: increased sexual pleasure. And if you consider the absence of harm a benefit, they also include: the pain that babies won't experience, from not having the operation; and avoiding the possibility of a poorly done operation.

As to the first: I feel a great deal of sexual pleasure. Perhaps if I could experience what it's like to have a foreskin, I'd be like, "I gotta get me some of that!" But I can't know that.

As to the second: I don't remember my circumcision at all, and I don't think anybody does. He does say: "Thought: What effect does such violence play upon the brain and psyche of a new being? How does this echo? Do we plant the seed of violence and aggression in males to any degree? Some say we do. I don't know. To me it seems a strange thing to even have to argue. Regardless, I do know that the new life coming from the safety and security and loving hold of the womb surely must be quite disturbed at the vicious greeting." Notice that there's no evidence here at all, just questions. For example, a controlled study that demonstrated that circumcised men are more violent and aggressive than uncircumcised men would be evidence.

As to the possibility of a botched circucision: I don't know how often this occurs. It's a valid question, though. I suppose one must decide if the benefits outweigh the risks. Those benefits, even by this individual's admission, include decreased risk of infection, and, if that study is correct -- it may not be -- a sevenfold decrease in the risk of contracting AIDS. Of course, if you're using circumcision as your only defense against AIDS, you're in trouble anyway.

The big theme of the post seems to be: it's wrong to modify our bodies. I don't think it is, in and of itself. You have to look at the costs and benefits. We have surgery to remove our wisdom teeth. Animals don't do this. It's not natural. So what? We put holes all over our bodies (including our sexual organs) for asthetic and other purposes. Sometimes this involves infection. This is something we do.

We used to remove our tonsils. It's my understanding this wasn't beneficial, or, if it was, the limited benefits didn't justify the risks.

It's possible that circumcision will fall out of fashion. I will certainly admit that a significant factor is a cultural one. But there do seem to be real benefits, and the costs do not seem that significant, based on the evidence presented.

End genital mutilation!!
Posted by Brooke

Keep your ideologies off my body!

I think it's wrong to make irreversible decisions that are ethically arguable to those who cannot offer an opinion. If you want to be circumsized, you can have it done at any age. To make the decision for a baby is, I think, not fair.

It's a sticky wicket, though. I can see my kid having this discussion with me when he's 18: "So, let me get this straight, dad: you knew circumcision would greatly limit my risk of infection, increase cleanliness, reduce odor, and reduce my chances of getting STDs. There was hard evidence (pardon the pun, dad) to back this up. And you knew, from personal experience, that I wouldn't remember the pain I experienced 8 days after birth. But you decided, just to be safe, you'd let me decide. Gee, dad, thanks. You're the best. I hate you. Now could you please get me some more analgesic??? The doctor says I shouldn't move around too much for the next week. Oh, the robot says you're a dumbass, too. No wonder mom left you."

I think the point is NOT that it is wrong to modify our bodies. If you read the post thoroughly, the thesis is that it is wrong to modify another's body without their consent, in the absence of a life-threatening need for same. That seems clear to me. As well as perfectly rational.

Thank you Jose! That is exactly the point. It seems a lot of people miss that. The post does not purport that body mod is wrong by any means. The post submits that the human body is sovereign, and that without dire need, it should not be irreversibly altered without the owner's consent. Thank you for reading carefully.

Additionally, David (above), please research thoroughly the "benefits" you claim circumcision carries. And what is so terrible about a natural human odor, I wonder? What is so wrong with one's natural smells that part of their body would require surgery to prevent it? It seems such a drastic cure. I happen to like my body, with all its terrain and all its natural scents and its strange, unexplainable behaviors and parts. it feels good to like yourself the way you are, eh?