November 28, 2005


Delicate choice just got tougher: Circumcision may protect against HIV infection, new studies suggest. But more parents are forgoing the surgery. (Daniel Costello, November 28, 2005, LA Times)

Once a routine procedure for newborn boys, circumcision is falling rapidly out of favor in the United States — even as growing evidence suggests that the surgery may reduce the transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.

In recent years, many doctors and medical groups, including the influential American Academy of Pediatrics, have stopped recommending routine circumcisions because they believed there wasn't enough evidence that it's medically necessary.

It had nothing to do with medical necessity but was instead pure politics. If you've had a kid in recent years you'll be familiar with the birthnazis holy trinity--"natural" birth; no circumcision; breast feed until the kid leaves for college.

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 28, 2005 8:31 AM

And don't forget the re-education camps, a.k.a. pre-natal classes, where you are forced to make a fool of yourself doing breathing exercises with your wife in preparation for your "co-birthing" experience.

Posted by: Peter B at November 28, 2005 9:39 AM

What percentage of parents have their sons circumcised because it may lower their risk of STD transmission? I'm guessing it's approximately 0%...

Posted by: b at November 28, 2005 11:29 AM

Ever hear of soap and water?

Posted by: ghostcat at November 28, 2005 11:52 AM

I wasn't circumsized (which was very unusual 40 some odd years ago) because I was born in an Arab country. They don't do that sort of thing. I'll leave the reason why as an exercise for the reader.

Anyways, I'm very glad I wasn't. The puritans among us had us chop off all those extra nerve endings (and the covering for the ones that are left) for a very unsavory reason. God made man with a foreskin and I'll be darned if I know why He told the Israelites to chop it off. If you keep your penis where it is supposed to be disease transmission shouldn't be an issue.

Posted by: s at November 28, 2005 11:54 AM

I thought all right-thinking people were against genital mutilation.

Posted by: George at November 28, 2005 12:16 PM

I thought to be a Muslim man, you had to be circumcised. And I would think that in such societies, expressing one's non-conformity by differentiating one's son would not be a common thing to do.

Then again, when it comes to sheer fervor of their proselytizing, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses have nothing on the anti-circumcision types. Only the hemp-heads and Mac users come close.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at November 28, 2005 12:28 PM

Right on Raoul. And some of those not so mutilated do so when they come of age to solve various problems that seem to emerge in spite of soap and water usage.

But isn't this a male privacy issue and out of bounds here?

Posted by: Genecis at November 28, 2005 12:36 PM


The point is, He told...

Posted by: oj at November 28, 2005 1:52 PM

I think St. Paul had something to say about it as well OJ.

Which is why circumcision wasn't standard for Christian males until after ww2. Hmmm, boomers, no foreskin, self-absorbed idiocy, correlation or causation?

Posted by: Jim in Chicago at November 28, 2005 6:51 PM

Yes, Paul was willing to trade the covenant for easier conversions.

Posted by: oj at November 28, 2005 6:59 PM

I've been Jewish for my entire life, and circumcised for all but 8 days of it. Neither I nor any other Jewish male I have ever known, has said: sex is ok, but I wish I hadn't been circumcised, because I can't feel anything down there.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at November 29, 2005 12:04 AM

I'm with ya, bro.

Posted by: David Cohen at November 29, 2005 5:50 PM

Wasn't there a case awhile back where a Jewish man (adult) was suing his parents for having him circumcised?

Posted by: Dave W. at November 29, 2005 6:47 PM

i wonder if there is a corelation between lack of circumcision and , err, "control issues".

Posted by: alfred kinsey at November 29, 2005 7:04 PM