Strollerderby : circumcision

Partly Private: The Long Journey to a Short Cut

editors — Fri, 01 May 2009 13:00:00 GMT

Photo: Philip Touitou

Reviewed by Emily Frost

In Partly Private: The Long Journey to a Short Cut, we join what quickly becomes Director Danae Elon’s personal quest to convince her husband not to circumcise their second son. In one scene, the couple lies together, sandwiching their already circumcised one-year-old, when Danae, pregnant again, begins to weep over their impending decision: whether to do the same thing again.

In the course of her documentary, Elon finds the very first circumcision knives in Israel (sharp stone shards!) and applies an anti-wrinkle cream whose main ingredient is foreskin(!). She travels to Turkey, where circumcision is done at kindergarten-age. In a decorated banquet hall, we see flocks of dressed-up families celebrating — with clowns — a communal ceremony. The little boys, dressed in expensive white bedazzled princely outfits, ride together on a toy caboose while their parents cheer, and when their name is called rush center stage to the circumcision chair.

These fascinating moments feel ancillary to the director’s main mission, to portray the ways culture and family history map onto her family’s circumcision decision. But, spending too little time fully exploring the issue and too much time in a domestic tussle means Elon has to rely heavily on narration, telling us what’s happening, instead of letting life unfold. The high stakes and intense emotion of the family’s decision are eclipsed by the over-scripted plot’s continually calling attention to itself. Nonetheless, the film succeeds in challenging us to take another look (literally) at this American norm.
Trailer courtesy of Filmoption International

Partly Private is part of the Tribeca Film Festival and will be screened on Friday, May 1, 2009 at 8:30 PM at AMC Village VII 2 in New York City.

Find more information here.

Parents Forego Circumcision to Save Money

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 22:00:00 GMT

Foreskin may be making a comeback. In these dire economic times, more and more parents are choosing to opt out of the costly and medically unnecessary procedure.

According to a UCLA report, circumcisions are down by 24 percent in the 16 states where foreskin removal is not covered by Medicaid. The average cost of circumcision is 300 bucks, more than enough money to dissuade parents who are having trouble scraping up the rent.

Although studies have linked circumcision to a lower risk of contracting certain STDs, no medical professional would argue that foreskin absolutely must go. According to Dr. Andrew Freedman, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, “The $300 is a luxury.”

For some, like those who recently marched on Washington in honor of Genital Integrity Awareness Week, that $300 is less of a luxury and more of an abomination. Perhaps anti-circumcision activists will not have to yell quite so loudly so long as the economy continues to plummet.

They Say: Circumcision May Lower STD Risk

Marching on Washington for the Rights of His "Junk"

Family Awarded Millions for Circumcision Mistake

Family Awarded Millions For Circumcision Mistake

Brett Singer — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 14:00:00 GMT

I know there are lots of people out there who regularly scream about how trial lawyers are destroying the world through lawsuits. And doctors are having trouble keeping up with their malpractice insurance payments. But here's a case where I think you'll agree the award isn't enough.

Four years ago, a boy had part of his penis cut off during a circumcision. The part could have been reattached if his pediatrician had acted quickly enough to do so, according to the plaintiff. A Georgia jury agreed and awarded $1.8 million to the boy and $500,000 to his mother. Their names are being kept private, but the doctors' names aren't. They are "Haiba Sonyika, the obstetrician who performed the circumcision, and Cheryl J. Kendall, the pediatrician who treated the child later." The hospital was not found to be at fault.

See, this is a big screw-up, especially the part about the pediatrician not doing enough to re-attach the, um, piece. This is assuming that the jury's verdict is accurate; I don't know the specifics of the case, so I'm going by the article I read.

I'm always curious how a jury comes up with an amount of money in cases like this. This time, the mother received $500,000 for psychotherapy, and the $1.8 million for the boy "was based on a per-day formula for the child's life expectancy."

The attorney for the plaintiffs, David J. Llewellyn, "has been representing victims of wrongful circumcision and genital injury since 1995." So calling him "some dickhead lawyer" isn't an insult. (Sorry. But sometimes they make it so easy.)

Also interesting was the defense team's strategy of loading the jury with women. Another attorney for the plaintiff, Craig T. Jones, thought this wasn't going to work. "I figured if you have one man on the jury, he can explain to the women -- if they don't know -- how important a penis is to a man's self-image." Yeah, even if they don't, I would say cutting off anything that you weren't supposed to during an operation is a bad idea.

Source: Law.com

Image: SXC

Texas School Accused Of Student Cage Fighting

Abortion Ads On Television?

Parents Forgo Circumcision to Save Money

Marching on Washington for the Rights of His "Junk"

JeanneSager — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:57:00 GMT

Penis protectors unite!

That's right - you read that right. A march on Washington this week was all about the rights of man . . .hood.

In honor of Genital Integrity Awareness Week (yes, you read that right too), a group of fifty protestors made their presence known on the national mall to fight to keep newborn baby boys from having their little foreskins removed. Joining the fray was a guy who mass-produces machines he claims will help circumcised men grow back their foreskins, plus the only guy to ever sue a doctor (and win) for his newborn snippage.

The inactivists (don't dare call them activists - that cuts, man), griped that their numbers were down a little for the sixteenth annual march because of the economy. I'm glad to hear it. Not because I'm an especial fan of circumcision (although, honestly, after reading Kate's post the other day about the proven link to STD reductions, I'm leaning more and more in that direction!). I'm just not sure a march on Washington is really in order in this economic climate to protect foreskins.

Little flaps of flesh. Eensy, weensy bits of weenie wrap.

No matter where you stand on circumcision - pro, anti - would you be marching on Washington about this?

Image: SFGate

They Say: Circumcision Tied to Lower Rates of STDs

Kate Tuttle — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:02:00 GMT

A new study seems to confirm earlier findings that circumcision may offer men protection against some sexually transmitted diseases. The research is far from clear, though, and will likely not clear up any of the confusion facing parents deciding whether or not to circumcize their newborn sons (once performed at rates approaching 90% in the United States, routine infant circumsicion is hitting all-time lows, with something like half of all boys born in the Western US avoiding the procedure).

The study, published this week in the New England Journal of Medicine, did not look at infant circumcision in the United States. Doctors followed a group of 3,000 uncircumcized Ugandan men, none of whom were infected with herpes (specifically HSV2, the strain that causes genital lesions). Half were immediately circumsized, while men in the other group underwent the procedure two years later. At the end of the survey, according to the New York Times, "the researchers estimated that circumcised men had a 25 percent reduced risk of infection." A smaller subgroup was also evaluated for HPV, the human papilloma virus that causes genital warts and is a leading cause of cervical cancer in women. In that group, the risk for circumsized men was calculated to be 35% lower.

Critics will doubtless point out that studies of adult men in Africa may not signify equivalent results when looking at children born and raised in the United States. And the trend for the past decade or so has seen a rise in advocacy groups who argue that the procedure is an unnecessary surgery that may be harmful to a baby boy's future sexual life. Partly as a result of this movement, fewer doctors push for the procedure, and now Medicaid does not cover it in 16 states. If studies like this do turn out to apply across the board, then perhaps that pendulum will swing the other way. For parents expecting a baby boy, the decision will always be a tough one; here's hoping that some scientific consensus will emerge to help guide the way.

More by this author:

Late-Term Abortion Provider on Trial in Kansas

Boomer Grandmothers: Out Of Control?

Move Over, Booties! Here Come Knitted Boobies

Think Your Baby's Car Seat Is Safe? Think Again

Parents Forgo Circumcision to Save Money

Is Circumcision Wrong?

KeriF — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 00:57:00 GMT

Over at Momversation, the discussion got heated when the topic of snipping came up. One mother went so far as to compare circumcision to female genital mutilation.

When it came time to decide if our son was going to be circumcised, my husband and I definitely went through a lot of soul searching and Googling. We were ripe for argument on this issue--he's from Ireland, and uncircumcised (sorry, honey, TMI!), and I'm Jewish (uncircumcised too, for the record).

I was actually the one who didn't feel very strongly about it and instead was leaning toward the "like father, like son" approach, but it was my husband who insisted on the trim. He recalled the speech the moehl (a.k.a. the snipper) gave at my nephew's bris (a.k.a. the snipping): No matter how religious you are, no matter how secular you may be, all Jewish males are circumcised. We had already decided we were going to raise our kids Jewish, so the bris was in.

I do think it's important for everyone to do their research, though the studies can be contradictory: some say that uncircumcised men are more likely to get certain infections, while other studies say this is B.S. I do know that in most countries, baby boys are not circumcised, and their penises go on to lead very happy lives.

According to the National Hospital Discharge Survey, the rate of circumcision in this country has declined over the past 10 years, from 60.2 percent in 1996 to 56.1 percent in 2006. That means the rationale to circumcise so your son looks like everyone else doesn't hold much water either.

But whether you choose to circumcise or not is a very private matter, and frankly, I think Momversation bully Daphne Brogdon is way out of line.

What do you think?

Photo: Kim Rosen for Time Out New York

Christian Parents Opt for Religious Circumcision . . . Even if It's Jewish

JeanneSager — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 17:27:00 GMT

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I always thought participating in a religious ceremony was supposed to have something to do with your religion. I know, call me crazy.

Christian parents who have started calling on Jewish mohels to perform their sons' circumcisions apparently don't care that they're not, well, Jewish. They don't even care that it costs a little extra.

Traditionally, Christian parents who have opted to circumcise their little boys have it done in a hospital setting - where it's often covered by a parent's health insurance. Many Jewish parents, however, follow the traditional method of a bris - a ceremonial circumcision performed after the baby has been released from the hospital, in the presence of friends and family. A mohel - a specially trained Jewish circumciser - traditionally does the honors, not only cutting the foreskin but leading the onlookers in a small religious ceremony. The whole thing can cost upwards of $300 to $800 - and that's not including the party the parents' usually throw for their guests.

So why would Christian parents call on a mohel? Philip Sherman, a mohel in the New York City area, told the Houston Chronicle parents would rather have the process done in the comfort of their own homes; they like to make it spiritual. Plus, he claims, the process is much quicker for the baby - he says it's a few seconds for a mohel, half an hour in a hospital (The American Academy of Pediatrics actually calls for anesthetic cream to be applied sixty to ninety minutes before the procedure in a hospital or the use of some other, faster-acting anesthetic. The AAP also suggests a clamp be left on the area for several minutes to stop bleeding).

The mother of a daughter, I never had to make the "to circumcise" or "not to circumcise" decision. I don't have a feeling either way. But where I can accept a Jewish parent's decision to call in a mohel to practice their faith, I find the concept of a Christian parent doing the same slightly bizarre. Even odder? That mohels are adjusting their usual ceremony to make them less Jewish. In the case cited in the Chronicle, he actually handed out a prayer booklet that was appropriate for the largely Presbyterian crowd. Instead of religious, they call it "holistic" circumcision.

Isn't this a bit like calling on a rabbi to perform your Catholic wedding? Maybe I'm just not well-versed enough in the Bible. Is there really any religious meaning to a bris outside of the Jewish faith?

Image: Houston Chronicle

Is Banked Sperm Really the Same as Hair and Toenail Clippings?

Juno Goes to Washington? Congress' First Unwed Mom

Baby Dies After a Game of Airplane

Boy Tells 'Your Mom' Joke, Boy Goes to Jail

When Moms Collide: Breastfeeder Kicked Out of Pool

Talking Pets, the New Child Safety Gadget?

A New Anti-Aging Miracle Treatment Made From Baby Foreskins

Cole Gamble — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:03:00 GMT

For just a moment, I ask you readers to imagine me as a pitchman on the back of an old timey wagon…

“Ladies and gentlemen, I am here to tell you we’re all getting’ older. Yessiree, why in fact you’re older now than you were when I started this pitch. Heck you’re even older now. And now you’re older yet. Folks, there’s absolutely nothing you can do to hold off the inevitability of aging and all the unsavory drooping that comes with it. That is, until now. Right here in my hand I hold what may be the greatest miracle invention on this earth since God invented the baby Jesus. Inside this seemingly normal bottle is a gen-u-ine fountain of youth. Yep, take a little dab and you’ll transform into a schoolgirl in pig tails once again. It’s called Vavelta and it’s the handy-dandy, superfied, bone-fide, quantified miracle cure to make you look young once more.

And how Mr. Gamble, you ask, do we know this miracle cure works? Why, my good folks, because it’s derived from the most amazing substance on God’s Green Earth: little baby foreskins.”

Okay, enough with the snake-oil salesman act. Let’s get to the nitty gritty. Like: How? Why? What?!

Like I said, the product is called Vavelta and it’s claimed to work better than Botox or any of the other conventional wrinkle eradicating products on the market. So where do the baby foreskins come in? Let’s ask Britain’s Daily Mail:

"Vavelta is a clear liquid in which tiny skin cells, called fibroblasts, are suspended. These are derived from baby foreskins donated by mothers at a hospital in the U.S. after routine circumcision. The mothers and babies are screened before the foreskins, which would otherwise be discarded, are used.
Once in Britain, they are divided into pieces less than a centimeter square and treated with enzymes to release the fibroblasts. These are grown in sterile conditions in labs. The process is monitored by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the U.S. and by Britain's Human Tissue Authority."

(Suddenly writing this article has flooded my brain with foreskin jokes learned long ago that are wholly inappropriate here.)

The ladies who tested the product in trials say it’s a life changing miracle with few side effects. And it comes at a miracle price: $2,300.

So I ask you: women already inject fat and botulism into their faces, is this any weirder? And are you down with injecting little boy foreskins into your face for the sake of eternal(ish) youth?

More by this author:

Pregnant Man Receiving Death Threats

10 WORST. BABY. PRODUCTS. EVER! (Part 1)

Will Smith Remakes The Karate Kid, Casts His Son in Lead

Horrifyingly Cute Animals

10 Things You May Not Know About Pregnancy (and might shock you)

Cute Overload: White Tiger Kitten and Monkey are Friends (PICS!)

Men with Baby Heads

The 26 Most Disturbing Kids Movies Ever

Part II: A Guy’s Take on Why You Shouldn’t Circumcise (and Why You Should)

Cole Gamble — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:04:00 GMT

Okay, I’ve had my say so now it’s time to acknowledge the pros of whacking the little bugger off (the foreskin, I mean).

There Are Some Small Medical Benefits

Among the benefits are:

Decreased potential for urinary tract infection.

Increased possibility for penile cancer (although probability for penile cancer is remote for either circumcised or uncircumcised males).

Three times more susceptible to contract HIV from infected women. (Might want to give your son the condom talk, what do you say?)

Some Girls Do Like it Better

And some don’t, I might add.

Will Make Son Look More Like Daddy

Assuming daddy is foreskin-less as well. Their similarity, anatomically speaking, is something they can bond over, like when they play catch.

Circumcisions Don’t Hurt Like They Used To

For months leading up to our boy’s circumcision (yes, my wife won) I feared the sound of betrayed wailing that would come from my son as the doctor has is way with him and a machete. On the day of the procedure, I was surprised the find the operation had more to do with string than scalpel. There was a quick cut, a quick yelp and then the doctor put a nice Boy Scout knot around my boy’s penis, leaving the foreskin to dry up and eventually fall off on its own.

I have given you all I can. Hopefully you’re now armed to make an educated decision regarding your son’s penile future. The most important part to remember is it’s your choice. Not grandpas. Not your neighbor’s. Not society’s. It’s yours.

Back to part 1...the cons of circumcision

More by this author:

Child Prodigies So Amazing They'll Make You Feel Bad About Yourself

The 26 Most Disturbing Kids Movies Ever

7 Classic Kid's TV Shows Clearly Conceived on (Bad) Acid

12 Pregnancy Myths

**The Sh*t List: 10 Bizarre (or Terrific?) Potty Gadgets**

A Guy’s Take on Why You Shouldn’t Circumcise (and Why You Should)

Cole Gamble — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 16:00:00 GMT

To cut or not to cut: that is the question. Any parent about to have a boy faces this quandry. In ancient times circumcision was a must. Lack of proper hygiene made foreskins a liability. This is the modern era, however. The old slice n’ dice routine is more choice than mandate. Some of you made your decision the second you discovered the sex of the baby. “I’ll chop the sucker off myself if I have to.” Some of you were a bit more hesitant. The same problem saddled my wife and I two years ago. One of us was very pro-circ (wife) and the other less so. For full disclosure’s sake, I myself am not circumcised and it doesn’t bother me one iota. So I laid out my case to save the foreskin. Here’s is what I told my wife:

Penis Styling as Fashion

Save the religious exception, most parents chose to cut because they simply think it’s a more fashionable look. The line I got from my wife was, “Girls like them better.” To which I replied, “You married me, didn’t you?” At which point she added, “Oh, but yours is…special,” patting me on the head reassuringly. Um, nice save. My father in law tossed in his two cents: “The boys in the high school showers will make fun of him.” “Oh really?” I said, “Well then my son can just say, ‘Dude, you’re the one staring at my penis.’” Face it, parents circumcise because they want their boy to be like all the others. They’re shaping their child to conform from birth. Is that what you want, a conformist? Do you want to a kid who is a genital sheep, or do want one who rocks the system with a penis with personality?

Great Names

All the euphemisms for circumcised are played out. Bald headed soldier. One eyed snake. Yawn. Think of a cut penis as a wellspring of inspiration for new names. Like “The Sleeping Bag” or “Mr. Turtleneck.”

Men with Uncircumcised Penises Have More Pleasurable Sex

Okay so you’re not giving a lot of thought to your child’s future sex life. Fair enough, but many experts believe that circumcision leads to lessened penile sensitivity because the foreskin is jam packed with nerve endings. It is even said that an un-snipped penis is better for the woman as well. Leave the foreskin alone and, believe me, your son will thank you years from now. Not that you would ever, ever, ever want him to.

Possible Surgical Risk

Any and all surgery (and circumcision is surgery) comes with risk.

It Is Not Too Much Trouble to Care For

This was the big argument my wife trotted out. “You don’t want to clean it everyday, do you?” Turns out you are not even supposed to touch the thing until the boy is three, and by then it pulls back naturally and you clean it just like you would a normal penis. So there, you penis scrubbing fanatics!

Read Part 2: The Pros of Circumsicion

More by this author:

The 26 Most Disturbing Kids Movies Ever

7 Classic Kid's TV Shows Clearly Conceived on (Bad) Acid

12 Pregnancy Myths

**The Sh*t List: 10 Bizarre (or Terrific?) Potty Gadgets**

Interview With A Mohel

Amy Kuras — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:02:00 GMT

I'm not Jewish and don’t live in a heavily Jewish area (although the front door to my house has a mezzuzah on it, since I believe my neighborhood was a more Jewish area back in the day). I have never attended a bris, although I did go to the baby naming for a friend's daughter, and we didn’t circumcise our little dude.

So I found this interview with a mohel (the Jewish official who performs the bris, or ritual circumcision, of Jewish babies) really interesting.

I didn’t know that the ceremony takes 21 minutes, which includes the circumcision procedure, special prayers and a blessing over the baby, and the announcement of the baby's name.

Part of the ceremony involves giving the baby sweet wine to suck on, which has both religious significance and a practical use. Babies like the sweetness and it acts as an analgesic. Mohel Sam Pessaroff actually carries backup wine in his car, because sometimes parents purchase a nice dry something they like instead of the sweet stuff that does the trick.

He also carries special instruments used in ritual circumcisions, cloth diapers, bacitracin ointment, Vaseline, and skullcaps.

And the vanity plate on that car reads "MOHEL." Which is just funny, any way you slice it (sorry, really, I couldn't resist).

Cribsheet: Circumcision, vaccination, and autism rates

editors — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:00:00 GMT

Percentage of American boys circumcised in 1963-65: 76
In 1999: 65.3
In 2003: 55.9
Percentage of American pediatricians who recommend circumcision to all parents: 24
Percentage of American pediatricians who discourage circumcision: 9.4
Percentage of American pediatricians who make no recommendation: 50.4

Mean number of parents refusing immunization, per 1000 children according to one survey: 7.2
Immunization refusals based on fear of side effects: 52%
On religious belief: 28%
On anti-government sentiment: 8%
Number of new U.S. cases of polio each year in the 1950s: 20,000
Year polio vaccination was begun: 1955
Number of cases of wild polio per year in the U.S. today: 0

Percentage of people under the age of 21 who have Autism: 0.2-0.6
Number of American children diagnosed with ADHD: 4.4 million
Number of American children receiving ADHD medication: 2.5 million

Increase in diabetes rates among people under the age of 44 since 1980: 100%
Number of diabetes cases today that are type 2 (formerly considered "geriatric") diabetes: 90-95 percent
Fraction of American children born five years ago who are expected to develop diabetes: 1/3

Number of American children with asthma: 5 million
Number of schooldays missed due to asthma every year: 14 million
How asthma ranks among reasons for hospitalizations of 3 – 12-year olds: #1
Increase in death rate for asthma among children since 1980: 80%
Percentage of summer campers on one or more medications for chronic conditions: 40

Research by Sarah Sundberg. Cribsheet appears in Strollerderby every Wednesday.

Pediatrician Poll: Circumcision

editors — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:00:00 GMT

"We always tell parents there is no medical reason to circumcise, but we respect cultural obligations." — Kim Gush MD, FAAP. Chapel Hill, NC.

"I am for circumcision. New evidence shows less transmission of AIDS in circumcised men. This is a world-wide issue." — Eugenia Marcus, MD, FAAP. Newton, MA.

"In my opinion, this is more of a social/religious decision than it is a medical one. I discuss the pros/cons with parents and let them decide." — John W. Waidner, MD, FAAP. Jacksonville, FL.

To obtain these results, Babble randomly called 300 AAP-approved pediatricians in 50 states, then tallied the answers of the 20 who called back. Pediatrician Poll appears in Strollerderby every Friday.

Cuts Through Corrugated Cardboard and Foreskin

makeitadouble — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 22:00:00 GMT

Whether you call it felony child abuse, a gross misinterpretation of the Hebrew Covenant of Circumcision or a father’s foreword thinking to reduce his son’s risk of contracting the HIV virus by 50% while increasing his need for a tetanus shot by 100%, a North Carolina Man has been accused of circumcising his sons with a utility knife.

Caldwell County Police are investigating John Eric Marlowe on possible charges of felony child abuse for removing the foreskin of two of his son’s with a Stanley Retractable sometime between 2005 and 2006. Marlowe, who is currently serving a 105 day prison sentence for assault on a female and child neglect, has a history of child neglect most recently by going to Myrtle Beach with one of his two wives and leaving his 11 children home without adult supervision.

Besides the chutzpah this sterilization candidate demonstrated in mutilating his sons with a box cutter, I was struck by the uncomfortable parallels between his actions and the Book of Genesis in the Hebrew Bible. Bear with me here. From the article, “Investigators learned from Marlowe’s two wives that Marlowe circumcised two of his sons eight days after they were born with a utility knife”

From the Book of Genesis, “…Throughout all generations, every male shall be circumcised when he is eight days old.” Not to mention that it also states that the infant's father is commanded to perform the circumcision himself.

Coincidence? Probably, but I’ve seen lawyers invoke Freedom of Religion for less. Personally, I’d go after Home Depot as an accomplice for encouraging such behavior with their slogan, “You can do it. We can help."

The important thing is that medically the children are fine and that they won’t experience a reduction in sexual pleasure when they’re older.

Sex Just As Hot For Circumcised Men

Amy S.F. Lutz — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 18:13:00 GMT

I bet you thought there was no away even the most creative researchers could design a before-and-after study examining the effects of circumcision on sexual enjoyment. After all, it's not like the volunteers would be lining up for standard study compensation: fifty bucks and all study-related medication.

But actually, in Uganda, where adult men are getting circumcised as a way to reduce the spread of HIV, researchers were able to ask thousands of sexually experienced men whether circumcision reduced their pleasure. And virtually 100% reported no problems following the procedure.

Thank God. Or else I would have had a lot of explaining to do to my nice Jewish sons.

Top Medical Journal Pulls Out Scalpels for Circumcision Smackdown

Madeline Holler — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:36:00 GMT

There’s a high-level smackdown going on in a respected medical journal. Two doctors make their case for and against something regulars on parenting message boards and websites have been hashing out for years: circumsizing baby boys.

But instead of calling each other vicious mutilaters or cultural imperialists, they use big words, studies and analogies to make their cases.

One of the writers points out that non-therapeutic foreskin removal continues throughout the world, while body mutilations – female circumcision, scarring – have been widely condemned or made illegal.

He asks:

The law and principles pertaining to child protection should apply equally to both sexes, so why do society and the medical profession collude with this unnecessary mutilating practise?

He says the U.S. and U.K. laws discriminate against boys when it comes to protecting children from genital mutiliation.

As for the evidence that circumcision reduces risk for HIV infection in sexually active adult males, he argues the boys, not their parents, should make that decision for themselves when they are men.

Ding! Next round.

The other writer argues that, if expertly done, male circumcision doesn’t carry significant risk and is nothing compared to female circumcision.

Also:

In terms of evidence of benefit, male circumcision has been associated with a reduced risk of sexually transmitted infections, such as human papilloma virus, chancroid and syphilis. Robust research has also shown that circumcision can reduce the spread of HIV.

Also, no robust research exists regarding psychological impact of the circumcised life for men, so quit claiming that it does.

She says nowhere in the world is male circumcision illegal. She says that considering the long tradition of the practice, it should never be outlawed as a way of ensuring that it will continue to be performed safely by experts.

What do you think? Is male circumcision comparable to female genital mutilation? Should it be outlawed? Are we discriminating against boys when we allow it for them but ban it for girls?

U.S. Circumcision Rates Have Been Snipped

Karen Murphy — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:59:00 GMT

When my older son was born 11 years ago I sort of took it for granted that he'd be circumcised. After all, I had never until then met a penis that wasn't. But his father had a different idea, basically presenting the question: why?

To that I had no answer. And apparently I am not alone: the U.S. circumcision rate has been dropping steadily since reaching a peak at nearly 90 percent in the early 1960s, and by 2004, the most recent year for which government figures are available, about 57 percent of all male newborns delivered in hospitals were circumcised. In some states, the rate is well below 50 percent. Worldwide, about one in three males are circumcised.

Part of this change has been attributed to an influx of immigrants from cultures where circumcision is the exception rather than the norm, affecting circ rates mostly in western states with big populations from Asian and Latin American countries. The decline is also associated with a shift in perception regarding medicine and bodies, and may be connected to an increase beginning in the 1980's in drug-free births and breastfeeding rates as well.

Of course, circumcision, still the number-one surgery performed in the U.S., is still performed routinely in many areas of the country, with the upper Midwest being a prime area for the snippage. Many doctors still recommend circumcision, stating that it may reduce the risk of penile cancer, urinary tract infections, HIV and perhaps other sexual transmitted diseases. But opponents say the medical benefits are dubious: penile cancer is pretty rare, for instance, and since 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics has not endorsed routine circumcision.

The religious aspect of circumcision can't be ignored, however, and it's still quite common among Jewish and Muslim communities for that reason.

More than almost anything other than breastfeeding, though, circumcision remains an emotional and polarizing topic among parents, eliciting strong feelings on both sides. Where do you weigh in? What decision did you make regarding your sons or sons-to-be, and why?

Study: Circumcision Reduces HIV Risk By 50%

Alisyn — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 16:24:00 GMT

The results of a new study conclude that male circumcision provides significant, immediate protection against HIV. Circumcised men in the study were 63 percent less likely than uncircumcised men to be infected through sex with HIV-positive women, whereas the AIDS vaccine has a target of 30% risk reduction, and may not be available for up to 20 years.

French AIDS researcher Bertran Auvert presented his study's findings yesterday at the International AIDS conference, which are based on 3,300 South African men, the largest study to date. He encouraged the promotion of circumcision, and adaptation of the public health system, as part of a health initiative in Africa.

The idea that circumcision helps prevent HIV is not a new one, but health officials have hesitated to make it part of their overall HIV prevention strategy, because of it's strong religious and social implications, and the risk of complications for those who choose circumcision, if the procedure is not performed correctly, or in unsanitary conditions.

With AIDS becoming increasingly widespread (there were an estimated 5 million new cases last year), and 2/3 of the world's men being uncircumcised, it remains to be seen whether or not circumcision will be a viable means of curtailing the world infection rate.

Would this new information encourage you to circumcise your son, as a means of future HIV protection, whereas before, you wouldn't have?

To Circ Or Not To Circ: That Is The Question

Karen Murphy — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 19:00:00 GMT

When my older son was born eleven years ago, I assumed that he'd be circumcised. After all, the friend whose baby I envied that was practically responsible for my son's birth had circumcised her son. So I'm in the hospital after the birth with The Ex, being questioned by the pediatrician who had made it through our rigorous interview process, and he asks if we're having our son circumcised. "Yes," I say, while at the same time The Ex firmly said: "No." He looked at me like I suddenly had three heads, muttered something about "genital mutilation", and that was that. Since I didn't personally own a penis, I figured The Ex could call this one.

Since then, I've done more research, come to some conclusions, dived out of the mainstream in many other ways, and when eight years later we had another son, there was no question as to whether he'd be circumcised. Which brings me to Much More Than A Mom's recent and comprehensive circumcision post. She has definite opinions, which I recognize not everyone shares, but carefully and fairly respectfully takes apart some of the conventional wisdom supporting circumcision.

In addition! Videos! First, this entertaining piece by Penn and Teller; lots of information and demonstration. How can you go wrong? Next, (and I had to stop it partway through and couldn't finish it), this one that shows a routine circumcision (please usher any children out of the room before you watch it; it's definitely graphic).

This is an emotional issue for people, and I have yet to meet anyone who isn't clearly on one side of the fence or another. What about you? Were your sons circumcised? What led to your decision?