Circumcision

[Scott Lloyd]

35 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Fair enough.  Generally, far be it from me to question most any of the CDC's expertise or wisdom.  However, I'd like to know what the incidence of any of any of these conditions is and how directly traceable non-circumcision is to any of them (a correlation is not a cause): The less prevalent they are, and/or the less directly traceable any of them is to non-circumcision, the more the law of diminishing returns applies.  Is circumcision the equivalent of swatting a fly with a sledgehammer?

I don't have it in me today to rebut each and every item on that laundry list, but I've done some reading in the past, and, suffice it to say, your suspicions are well grounded in reality.

Furthermore, on this matter the CDC and the AAP (from which the CDC took its lead) find themselves at odds with comparable public health and medical associations in Europe, the UK and Australia. As Hamba has intimated, this appears to be more attributable to cultural bias than solid science.

Edited November 15, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[clarkgoble]

16 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Why is it an American tradition? Is there a religious reason for this? I assume there is, since circumcision was the sign of the covenant for Jews, but I'm not sure how protestants (the American religion) understand or apply that.

Is there or has there been a Mormon position on circumcision?

In Europe, it is almost unheard of, which I think relates to Europe's background as a Catholic area.

It's common in the United States. I'm not sure the historical origins but I've never heard of a religious reason. There's certainly a "well I want my son to be like me" aspect I suspect. However typically I think most people who do it tend to do it to help avoid infection. Once you've known someone who had a kid with an infected penis you quickly decide even if it's a relatively low risk doing something about it is worthwhile. In that regard it's somewhat like vaccines. You're not apt to really ever encounter most of the vaccined diseases yet there's enough of a chance you should vaccine your kids.

I know some argue that's a poor argument because if you clean regularly there's not much of a risk for infection. To this I can only say you can teach your kids until you're blue in the face. Yet they often will say they've brushed their teeth well, cleaned well and so forth. And at a certain age you don't exactly want to be checking there the way you might do with teeth. Yet kids, especially boys, seem quite regularly to not do what they are suppose to in hygiene. The question then becomes whether, if they are among those who don't clean well, you think an infected penis is a valid consequence when you could have prevented that until they're more mature. Even if it's just a 1-2% chance but one you can eliminate, why not do it?

I'm not criticizing any who choose differently. (Much as I am not apt to criticize those who individually choose not to vaccinate even if I think it a poor choice) I'm just explaining my own thinking and the thinking of many I've encountered.

Edited November 15, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Hamba Tuhan]

24 minutes ago, rongo said:

In addition to the specifics she gave, it just makes general sense to me that lack of a foreskin means that pathogens and larger objects can't be trapped under it.

 

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

And at a certain age you don't exactly want to be checking there the way you might do with teeth.

For what it's worth, there is no space 'under' (or inside) a foreskin when a boy is born. The flesh is actually fused to the glans in the exact same way that a fingernail is fused to the nail bed. It stays that way, by design, until around the time of puberty. That means that the only way that 'pathogens and larger objects' can get inside is if someone has been ripping the skin back to check under, thereby creating a space. Imagine the infections a boy could get under his fingernails if his parents kept pulling them back to check for cleanliness! I've looked at the data. In nations where doctors/parents understand the nature of foreskins and leave them alone, infections just don't occur. Ironically, parents and others who worry about infection and insist on looking/cleaning where no space naturally exists thereby create the opportunity for infection.

[Scott Lloyd]

34 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

 

For what it's worth, there is no space 'under' (or inside) a foreskin when a boy is born. The flesh is actually fused to the glans in the exact same way that a fingernail is fused to the nail bed. It stays that way, by design, until around the time of puberty. That means that the only way that 'pathogens and larger objects' can get inside is if someone has been ripping the skin back to check under, thereby creating a space. Imagine the infections a boy could get under his fingernails if his parents kept pulling them back to check for cleanliness! I've looked at the data. In nations where doctors/parents understand the nature of foreskins and leave them alone, infections just don't occur. Ironically, parents and others who worry about infection and insist on looking/cleaning where no space naturally exists thereby create the opportunity for infection.

That said, by the time a normal boy reaches adolescence, the foreskin is easily retracted and cleaning underneath it becomes a two-second procedure undertaken in the bath or shower, by comparison with which, brushing one's teeth is a highly complicated and onerous undertaking.

I've asked facetiously how likely those who want to circumcise their boys for the sake of "cleanliness" would be to have all of their children's teeth pulled and have them fitted with dentures so as to obviate the need for brushing and dental care.

Edited November 15, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Daniel2]

12 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

 

For what it's worth, there is no space 'under' (or inside) a foreskin when a boy is born. The flesh is actually fused to the glans in the exact same way that a fingernail is fused to the nail bed. It stays that way, by design, until around the time of puberty. That means that the only way that 'pathogens and larger objects' can get inside is if someone has been ripping the skin back to check under, thereby creating a space. Imagine the infections a boy could get under his fingernails if his parents kept pulling them back to check for cleanliness! I've looked at the data. In nations where doctors/parents understand the nature of foreskins and leave them alone, infections just don't occur. Ironically, parents and others who worry about infection and insist on looking/cleaning where no space naturally exists thereby create the opportunity for infection.

Wow.  Learn something new every day!  I had no idea the skin was fused to the glans until puberty--and that's even though we decided not to circumcise my own son (I never looked THAT close at him), even if he ended up not looking like me.  Decided it was time to be the transitional character to break the cultural cycle.

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Wow.  Learn something new every day!  I had no idea the skin was fused to the glans until puberty--and that's even though we decided not to circumcise my own son (I never looked THAT close at him), even if he ended up not looking like me.  Decided it was time to be the transitional character to break the cultural cycle.

In any event, how likely is it for an average father to expose himself to his sons so that they have a basis for comparison? Seems to me some conventions of privacy ought to be upheld even in a home and family milieu.

[rongo]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In any event, how likely is it for an average father to expose himself to his sons so that they have a basis for comparison? Seems to me some conventions of privacy ought to be upheld even in a home and family milieu.

There is also locker room exposure (or was, when kids used to shower at school).

My uncle was teased mercilessly on the basketball team because he wasn't circumcised (his other brothers were; he was unable to be due to doctor inavailability). 

This thread has been interesting to me. I didn't think non-circumcision was a thing among North American Mormons. While there is no religious imperative for it, culturally I thought it was something everybody does. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

48 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That said, by the time a normal boy reaches adolescence, the foreskin is easily retracted and cleaning underneath it becomes a two-second procedure undertaken in the bath or shower...

Yep, and based on personal experience, I highly doubt any normal boy would need encouragement to do that.

Quote

I've asked facetiously how likely those who want to circumcise their boys for the sake of "cleanliness" would be to have all of their children's teeth pulled and have them fitted with dentures so as to obviate the need for brushing and dental care.

A more apt analogy would be to cut off his lips, thus drying out the mouth and making it more difficult for bacteria to grow, but yeah.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I've often thought that if one was inclined towards routine circumcision, spending time around these boys post-surgery would almost certainly cure that. Infants, like dead men, tell no tales, but the young men in our ward often complain for years of the extreme discomfort they experience from having internal, nerve-rich, erogenous tissue turned into external tissue that rubs against clothing and towels, is exposed to heat and cold, etc. The complaints only subside as their bodies compensate by turning what was once mucus membrane into a thick layer of skin in order to dull sensation, but at least one of my former young men, now in his 20s, says that he still finds his condition physically irritating -- though he's glad he hasn't at least lost all sensation.

-----

*Ironically, if they did the same thing for their daughters, they would face criminal charges upon returning.

I'm not sure I understand, was the boy circumcised later in life?  All three of my sons were circumcised before leaving the hospital and it was a pretty simple thing and none of them have yet to complain about any discomfort, ever (they are currently 4, almost 13, and 15).  If a boy is having extreme discomfort for years, then something in the procedure or healing went wrong.  That's not a normal thing for someone who was circumcised as an infant.

Now,  I know that being circumcised later can be difficult to heal from, depending on the age, but that still seems extreme, even if they were circumcised as a boy.

[Hamba Tuhan]

58 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In any event, how likely is it for an average father to expose himself to his sons so that they have a basis for comparison? Seems to me some conventions of privacy ought to be upheld even in a home and family milieu.

'Expose himself'? We clearly grew up in two very different family cultures. Eight of us in a two-bedroom house. One bathroom. I showered with my dad till there was no longer room for the both of us in the shower. Even then, 'privacy' was something that happened in public.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

'Expose himself'? We clearly grew up in two very different family cultures. Eight of us in a two-bedroom house. One bathroom. I showered with my dad till there was no longer room for the both of us in the shower. Even then, 'privacy' was something that happened in public.

It's fairly common in the states too for parents, especially same-sex parents, to feel comfortable being naked in front of their kids for years after they leave babyhood.  There has yet to come a time when my mother feels uncomfortable in front of my naked, for example.  

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

On 11/16/2017 at 10:00 AM, bluebell said:

 If a boy is having extreme discomfort for years, then something in the procedure or healing went wrong.

I don't know how else to say this, but I suspect that you don't understand much about the normal, intact male body. This is not about the the healing of the actual incision. You're right; that should heal rather quickly. But the complete removal of the foreskin takes an internal body part and turns it into an external body part. This particular body part is comprised of mucous membrane, similar to the inside of the eyelids or the inside of the mouth. This means that it is very thin, unlike skin. And because of the intended role of this body part, it is nerve-rich. I believe the only other object that has a greater concentration of nerves is the eyeball. And also because of the intended role of this body part, the nerves are specifically very sensitive to touch. They include receptors that respond to very light touch, to pressure, to temperature, and so forth. This is what makes it erogenous tissue.

In its normal state, this tissue is protected from contact with the 'outside world' almost all of the time. Circumcision however brings this structure into permanent contact with the outside. It's an imperfect comparison because the mix of touch receptors is different, but try to imagine what it would be like to have your eyelids permanently turned inside-out so that, for example, drying your face would bring the inside of your eyelids into contact with a towel. Now imagine that your face wears clothes.

The discomfort is not about the wound. It's about what happens when something designed to be on the inside of a body finds itself on the outside of a body and in almost perpetual contact with things that touch it, rub against it, etc. The body's response to this is to slowly keratinise the mucous membrane, changing it from a thin, moist tissue into a thick, dry tissue more like skin. Until this process is complete, the sensation of constant contact with the outside world, though erogenous in certain controlled and gentle contexts, is overwhelming. The end result is discomfort. Again, imagine the tissue  inside your mouth or inside your eyelids being exposed to constant friction.

There are only two outcomes to this situation. The organ becomes so dull in sensation that the discomfort goes away, or the discomfort persists. For most of the boys in our ward who've experienced this, it takes only a couple of years for them to lose enough sensation that they no longer notice. As I mentioned, one of my former young men insists he hasn't really got there yet despite nearly 12 years since he lost his protective foreskin.

Quote

That's not a normal thing for someone who was circumcised as an infant.

With all due respect, an infant has at best a few hours or a few days of experience with any other state and in any case is incapable of much expression. Both in Indonesia and in my current location, I've been around a lot of men who've been circumcised when they were old enough to understand the difference and talk about it. What I've just described is completely normal.

Edited November 29, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[Scott Lloyd]

15 hours ago, rongo said:

There is also locker room exposure (or was, when kids used to shower at school).

My uncle was teased mercilessly on the basketball team because he wasn't circumcised (his other brothers were; he was unable to be due to doctor inavailability). 

 

This is not an issue these days. Circumcision is far less common than it used to be (down below 60 percent in the United States, last I heard) and the one who is apt to be teased and tormented is the one who makes a spectacle of himself in public noticing and commenting on others' genitalia.

Furthermore, my observation is that public schools these days don't require boys to shower in the presence of their classmates as they did when I was in school.

Quote

This thread has been interesting to me. I didn't think non-circumcision was a thing among North American Mormons. While there is no religious imperative for it, culturally I thought it was something everybody does. 

As I called it earlier, "the inertia of custom and tradition."

"Because everybody else does it" or "because that's what  has always been done" has never been recognized among our people as being, all by itself, a sufficient reason for doing a thing. How many times have we been admonished not to be pressured into something just because peers do it?

Edited November 16, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

'Expose himself'? We clearly grew up in two very different family cultures. Eight of us in a two-bedroom house. One bathroom. I showered with my dad till there was no longer room for the both of us in the shower. Even then, 'privacy' was something that happened in public.

Point taken.

Be that as it may, where conditions allow for it, I do believe a wholesome and reasonable modesty and respect for privacy, even in a family setting, is something to be fostered.

But this is a side issue I don't wish to get into here.

[bluebell]

57 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I don't know how else to say this, but I suspect that you don't understand much about the normal, intact male body. This is not about the the healing of the actual incision. You're right; that should heal rather quickly. But the complete removal of the foreskin takes an internal body part and turns it into an external body part. This particular body part is comprised of mucus membrane, similar to the inside of the eyelids or the inside of the mouth. This means that it is very thin, unlike skin. And because of the intended role of this body part, it is nerve-rich. I believe the only other object that has a greater concentration of nerves is the eyeball. And also because of the intended role of this body part, the nerves are specifically very sensitive to touch. They include receptors that respond to very light touch, to pressure, to temperature, and so forth. This is what makes it erogenous tissue.

In its normal state, this tissue is protected from contact with the 'outside world' almost all of the time. Circumcision however brings this structure into permanent contact with the outside. It's an imperfect comparison because the mix of touch receptors is different, but try to imagine what it would be like to have your eyelids permanently turned inside-out so that, for example, drying your face would bring the inside of your eyelids into contact with a towel. Now imagine that your face wears clothes.

The discomfort is not about the wound. It's about what happens when something designed to be on the inside of a body finds itself on the outside of a body and in almost perpetual contact with things that touch it, rub against it, etc. The body's response to this is to slowly keratinise the mucus membrane, changing it from a thin, moist tissue into a thick, dry tissue more like skin. Until this process is complete, the sensations of constant contact with the outside world, though erogenous in certain controlled and gentle contexts, is overwhelming. The end result is discomfort. Again, imagine the tissue  inside your mouth or inside your eyelids being exposed to constant friction.

There are only two outcomes to this situation. The organ becomes so dull in sensation that the discomfort goes away, or the discomfort persists. For most of the boys in our ward who've experienced this, it takes only a couple of years for them to lose enough sensation that they no longer notice. As I mentioned, one of my former young men insists he hasn't really got there yet despite nearly 12 years since he lost his protective foreskin.

With all due respect, an infant has at best a few hours or a few days of experience with any other state and in any case is incapable of much expression. Both in Indonesia and in my current location, I've been around a lot of men who've been circumcised when they were old enough to understand the difference and talk about it. What I've just described is completely normal.

I have no doubt that it's normal for someone who was circumcised later.  Like i said, my mother was a home health nurse to some older men who had to be circumcised for health reasons and their recovery was brutal.  I was just expressing that those side effects are not really an issue when the procedure is done at birth.  The same can be said for getting your tonsils out so it makes sense.  What is an outpatient procedure on a toddler is a week long hospital stay on an older person.  

Your statement of "I've often thought that if one was inclined towards routine circumcision, spending time around these boys post-surgery would almost certainly cure that" was confusing to me because i've spent my life around boys and men who were circumcised and, like the majority of people in the U.S., it hasn't cured my acceptance of routine circumcision.  

But I'm guessing the difference is that in the U.S. circumcision is almost always done at birth, so even though I have a personal experience with circumcised males, our experiences are different.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I was just expressing that those side effects are not really an issue when the procedure is done at birth.

With all due respect, how would you know this? Have you interviewed an infant before and then after circumcision? Besides, a baby circumcised at or near birth would find the explosion of sensation just one more new and startling phenomenon he had to get used to, like loud noises and bright lights.

The fact that men and boys circumcised as infants clearly don't feel the intense sensations that intact males do makes me sad.

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I have no doubt that it's normal for someone who was circumcised later.  Like i said, my mother was a home health nurse to some older men who had to be circumcised for health reasons and their recovery was brutal.  I was just expressing that those side effects are not really an issue when the procedure is done at birth.  The same can be said for getting your tonsils out so it makes sense.  What is an outpatient procedure on a toddler is a week long hospital stay on an older person.  

Your statement of "I've often thought that if one was inclined towards routine circumcision, spending time around these boys post-surgery would almost certainly cure that" was confusing to me because i've spent my life around boys and men who were circumcised and, like the majority of people in the U.S., it hasn't cured my acceptance of routine circumcision.  

But I'm guessing the difference is that in the U.S. circumcision is almost always done at birth, so even though I have a personal experience with circumcised males, our experiences are different.  

It may, as you say, be a matter of different experiences, but I think it worth noting there is an organization and website of "Nurses against Circumcision" who are motivated by their experiences of having observed and assisted with neonatal circumcisions.

[RevTestament]

9 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

So it sounds like there is a cultural aspect to it in Utah, but nothing official from the LDS church.

As Scott has said there is no official position on it. I've never heard the first word through any official channel. Our last son was delivered by a midwife in Utah, and I don't recall her even asking about it - she may have made a suggestion if we wanted it done, but that was it I think.

Quote

The Catholic Church teaches that there is no religious reason for circumcision.

As Scott has said, the BoM makes it clear that the requirement of circumcision was done away. It was a token of the Abrahamic covenant, which was replaced through the circumcision of Christ for us. Baptism and sacrament/bread took its place as a token of the covenant. 

Quote

There is a strong anti-circumcision stance among some Catholics based on some teachings about non-medically necessary bodily mutilations, but the Church itself has not really made an official statement in 600 years.

Well, being circumcised, I don't feel I was mutilated - if they had slipped..... 

I may(read would) feel differently. I don't feel I missed too much, but of course have nothing to judge against. We chose not to circumcise any of our three sons. One or two got an infection. I think my wife tried to teach them to retract, but in retrospect, I would have just applied a little antibiotic ointment, coconut oil, or other, and gone from there. I have not heard anything about it since they reached puberty. Assuming proper hygiene is pursued which is so easy in this modern day, I don't see a medical reason to perform it. Back "in the good ol' days" when people didn't have daily showers, baths, etc, it may have been medically advisable.

I am in total agreement with the Catholic Church, that it is not an issue.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

With all due respect, how would you know this? Have you interviewed an infant before and then after circumcision? Besides, a baby circumcised at or near birth would find the explosion of sensation just one more new and startling phenomenon he had to get used to, like loud noises and bright lights.

 

Some excuse the pain associated with circumcision on the pretext that newborns are not old enough to remember the experience. One nurse commented that, based on that reasoning, one could operate on Alzheimer's patients without the use of anesthesia.

 

[bluebell]

Just now, Hamba Tuhan said:

With all due respect, how would you know this? Have you interviewed an infant before and then after circumcision? Besides, a baby circumcised at or near birth would find the explosion of sensation just one more new and startling phenomenon he had to get used to, like loud noises and bright lights.

The fact that men and boys circumcised as infants clearly don't feel the intense sensations that intact males do makes me sad.

Because i've been around mostly circumcised males my whole life, and am raising three of them myself.  None of the males that I am personally familiar with (husband and sons) experienced extreme discomfort for years (none experienced any discomfort after the first couple of days).  And from what i've heard from others, that's the norm.  I've also done research, and experiencing extreme discomfort for years after circumcision at birth is not normal.  

I think it's interesting that you feel sad about something that so many circumcised men are fine with.  I respect your perspective, but we obviously disagree.

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It may, as you say, be a matter of different experiences, but I think it worth noting there is an organization and website of "Nurses against Circumcision" who are motivated by their experiences of having observed and assisted with neonatal circumcisions.

And yet, there are nurses who have also observed and assisted with neonatal circumcisions who still support it.  Is that worth noting?

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And yet, there are nurses who have also observed and assisted with neonatal circumcisions who still support it.  Is that worth noting?

Of course.

I thought the default assumption was that all of them did. I'm merely pointing out that assumption is false.

It may be an emperor-has-no-clothes kind of thing.

 

Edited November 16, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Of course.

I thought the default assumption was that all of them did. I'm merely pointing out that assumption is false.

It may be an emperor-has-no-clothes kind of thing.

 

From all the study that i've done on it, other than the medical establishment and the CDC, there doesn't seem to be any consensus on the subject.  Slightly more parents of boys are for circumcision in the U.S. than are against it but that difference is practically negligible.  

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, bluebell said:

From all the study that i've done on it, other than the medical establishment and the CDC, there doesn't seem to be any consensus on the subject.  Slightly more parents of boys are for circumcision in the U.S. than are against it but that difference is practically negligible.  

It used to be 90 percent or more. That's how it was back in the 1960s. The remarkable thing is that the preferences have changed to the extent they have.

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It used to be 90 percent or more. That's how it was back in the 1960s. The remarkable thing is that the preferences have changed to the extent they have.

From what i've read, it was in the 90% about a decade ago, the change has happened fast.  It makes sense to me though.  

Millennials are more wary of the 'establishment' (for lack of a better term) and there is a similar movement against circumcision in some circles as there is against vaccines.  Right now it's trendy not to circumcise, which is probably as influential as the popularity of getting your boys circumcised used to be  (and I don't mean that as an insult to those parents who don't circumcise but just that what popular culture says is the right thing to do has an effect and right now, popular culture supports not circumcising).   

And plus, not a lot of insurance (including medicaid) covers the procedure.