Wednesday evening

[emmagrant01]

1. It's sad that the first thing the media jumps on when a Senator from South Dakota has a stroke is that this might shift the balance of power in the Senate.  But it actually might, and that's scary too.  :-P  Here's to hoping he'll make a full recovery, and that the governor of South Dakota is not a complete and total asshat.

2. This story was floating around on some of the gay issues comms I watch today: Circumcision Reduces Risk of AIDS, Study Finds.  Yikes.  It's so commonly practiced in the US, and most people I know don't think anything about having their infant sons circumcised.  It's something I have deep reservations about personally, because hello?  Cutting off a piece of your body for no good reason?  It doesn't sound like a very good idea to me. But if research keeps going in this direction, it may settle the argument between me and MDH, should we ever have a son.  (He's staunchly pro-circumcision.)  Still, it's an interesting finding. Edit: More articles: Another study showing men circumcised as infants have significantly fewer instances of STDs as adults | an article criticizing the first link above (thanks, kagyakusha)

3. Whoa -- when did LJ change the posting form?  Cool.

4. Holy crap!  LJ can be so random sometimes.  It's funny how I can never predict which posts will get 200 comments and which will be mostly ignored.  ;-)

Comments

On the Circumcision Study...

[kagyakusha.livejournal.com]

You might want to read this (http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_strauss/20051121.html) article which strongly criticises the criteria used for their research, and puts forth a lot of questions as to the ethics of these scientists. I have to admit, I am biased. I personally see circumcision as male genital mutilation, and therefore very very wrong.

Re: On the Circumcision Study...

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

Thanks! Here's another one (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15593753/) that shows a link between circumcision and reduced STDs with much better methodology. (I've been looking around today.) There's a lot of conflicting information out there, and it seems like the argument won't be settled anytime soon.

[vlredreign.livejournal.com]

You know, I saw this earlier, and I think that if it helps, even a little, then it's a good thing.

Gonna be graphic and gross for a sec.
>
>
>
>
>
>
When you spend a ridiculous amount of trying to clean poop from around an uncircumcised baby, you tend to start rethinking that. Seriously. I know that people say it's mutilation and everything, but...parent speaking here. And it's just my own opinion, but I have no problem with it. I have an uncle that had to be circumcised as an adult, due to some problems, and he said that if only his mom had done it when he was a baby, he wouldn't be sitting there in agony. So...take that as you will. Again, JMHO

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

MDH claims to know men who weren't circumcised who had health problems, but as far as I can tell it's all anecdotal.

[ms-mindfunk.livejournal.com]

Why is he so adamantly in favor of circumcision?

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

Several reasons. He thinks it's healthier (though he has no evidence to support this). He doesn't want his son to look different from all the other boys. It worked for him, and he's glad he was circumcised as an infant. He's known men who weren't circumcised who had foreskin-related health problems (again, anecdotal). That sort of thing.

He's a very reasonable person, but every time this subject comes up, he's unmovable on it. When I try to point out that it's genital mutilation, he just brushes it off and says that's ridiculous.

[ktoth04.livejournal.com]

I find that most people I know do whatever 'daddy has'

to prevent unnecessary awkwardness or something... idk *shrug*

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I know. If it ever comes up, it will be an issue for us. :-P

[lupin-spirit.livejournal.com]

It's amazing how we are so determined that boys should be circumcised that every time a theory is disproved another pops up. Never mind the fact that even if the whole AIDS thing is true, contracting HIV has nothing to do with circumcision. If you don't have sex with someone who has HIV, you won't be infected, circumcised or not and if you use a condom, you are unlikely to be infected with HIV, regardless of if the guy's circumcised or not.

No one will ever convince me that a procedure intended to prevent masturbation is valid for any reason, nor will you convince me to trust an idiot profession that actually thought it would work, and who only in the last decade admitted that newborn boys- circumcised without the benefit of anesthetic- could feel pain.

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

But none of that will convince my husband. I've been through all of it, and this well-educated, intelligent, reasonable, kind, liberal, open-minded man just will not listen. *sigh*

Of course, me having a son is totally hypothetical at this point anyway...

*clamps hand over mouth before she goes off on another issue entirely*

[ashe-frost.livejournal.com]

I don't have children but spend a great deal of time taking care of my cousin's children.. And it's so much easier to clean..

I never realized that people felt so strongly about it for a long time.. I just thought it was something people did..

I've heard so many positive things about it that it's hard for me to think of it as genital mutilation, especially since so many of the men (or older teenagers, when I was that age) I've talked to about it seem to find it agreeable.

But the fact that so many people seem to find it objectionable really makes me want to do more reserach about it, just to make sure I'm getting all the facts if I ever do come into the situation.

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

I was the same way when I first found out infant circumcision isn't the norm outside the US. And the more I looked into it, the more convinced I became that it was genital mutilation. But MDH doesn't agree...

[sciencegeek.livejournal.com]

...huh.

My brother wasn't circumcised. No idea why not though. Eh, he doesn't seem to mind, and so far as I know has had no infections...(to be fair, though I doubt an 18 year old boy is going to tell his sister his penis is infected with something).

Honestly, I don't really see it making a difference in the number of STDs one has though...as wouldn't it mean that most men in NA would have less STDs than those in Britain? I'm anti-circumcision (because like you, I'm not convinced chopping off a part of any body for no good reason is a good idea) and to be swayed I'd have to see the published works and the methodology, but off the top of my head...did they account for how many infected partners said males had sex with? I know the second article says it accounts for number of partners and unprotected sex, but still. What about cleanliness of said male? Also determining the presence of an infection between the ages of 18 and 25 was determined by a questionnaire? I know there may have not been any other way (unless they go for routine check-ups with those in charge of the study over a 7 year period to test for STDs), but I'm not convinced of the accuracy of that method.

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

I haven't checked out the original research, but I have to assume that the fact it appeared in a peer-reviewed journal means the methodology was sound. In popular media, they don't go into quite that much detail... ;-)

[kawaiililme.livejournal.com]

It is so nice to see other people feel the same way about circumcision as I do. I also think it's male genital mutilation as kagyakusha said, and I have also heard from men that they wished it had never happened and felt it affected their sex lives. Plus, if you use a condom that protects against STDs just as well.

[sciencegeek.livejournal.com]

Plus, if you use a condom that protects against STDs just as well.

Word.

[azure-k-mello.livejournal.com]

okay here's the thing:
uncircumcised penises can cause more friction and therefore possible bleeding for a partner. However, use lube and that's averted.
Smegma, the substance made by the mucus membrane located in the foreskin has anti-virus bacteria in it, this has been a fact MAM (mothers against mutilation) tout frequently.
Also, there's a great way of protecting children from STIs better than any surgery, if you start discussing it when they're young, talk about it openly, and frequently, the STI rates drop significantly.

This has been brought to you by the girl whose nurse mother explained condoms, and then made awesome water balloons that were thrown off the roof.

[ktoth04.livejournal.com]

that is the cutest puppy ever.

[zahavah.livejournal.com]

Circumcision as a preventative method would have very little application in the United States. I've honestly never understood the objections to circumcision, but I'm Jewish, so it's something that I've always taken for granted.

In my research and studies on HIV/AIDS, though, there is really very little doubt in the academic realm as to whether circumcision provides some sort of protection against acquiring HIV through heterosexual sex - the NIH has only just caught on after about a decade of research in the area. This largely doesn't make a difference in the US, because the US is one of the only places in the world where HIV isn't fueled by heterosexual sex - here, it's spread largely through homosexual sex (which circumcision may or may not change, since anal tissue tears so easily anyway) and injection drug use (which has nothing to do with circumcision).

In Africa, though? Doctors should be circumcising people left and right. If the answer were as simple as "don't have unprotected sex, okay, guys??" ... well, there wouldn't be a problem. Africans aren't stupid, the majority of the populations there know what constitutes high-risk behavior. A combination of major emphasis placed on children as social status and women's often precarious situation in society make the use of condoms not such a no-brainer. There's also the fact that there simply aren't enough condoms available: even if every African wanted to use a condom every single time they had sex, there aren't enough being supplied - partly because of Bush's stipulation in PEPFAR that a certain proportion of all US aid money has to be spent on abstinence.

The really fantastic thing about circumcision is that it's a one-time procedure that protects the man (and his partners) to whatever degree for the rest of his life. As my professor likes to say, "The foreskin does not jump back on in a moment of passion!" Clearly, protected sex and smart decisions is always going to help - but it's also pretty clearly not enough in most places in Africa... and anything that can help should be made available.

As to circumcision itself, I don't know of any general data that shows uncircumcised penises to be more or less healthy. With regards to HIV, though, there's pretty solid evidence that the foreskin is an easy target for the HIV virus: the foreskin isn't kerotinized, as much of the rest of the penis, so there's less of a barrier. For some reason, there's also a huge number of Langahans' cells in the foreskin, and these cells play a role in transport of foreign objects to CD4+ T-cells... which are exactly the cells that the HIV virus targets. So - circumcision as a way to prevent general poor health? Probably no. But for HIV? Absolutely.

Okay, sorry. This is what I do, so I needed to wax educational for a little bit.

[sagcat.livejournal.com]

I have rather strong feelings on this issue.

I'm cut, my son isn't. My wife (then gf) told me she'd listen to my input only after I researched the whole thing myself thoroughly. After doing so, there's no way in hell I'd ever cut off a perfectly normal, healthy part of my son. I'd just as soon chop off his pinkie. If not sooner.

The foreskin is filled with nerve endings. It's the most sensitive part of the penis. To cut it off is to deprive a boy of sexual pleasure. There's not a reasonable argument to deny this.

And think of it this way... a really good way to make sure no one ever has any health problems associated with say... their left arm, is... CHOP IT OFF! I mean, we could do away with breast cancer in this country if we just performed routine mastectomies as soon as every female developed breasts. Poof! No more breast cancer. Want to get rid of testicular cancer? I've got one for that, too.

My son has his foreskin cleaned every day. It's just part of regular hygiene. There's never been any problems associated with having a foreskin beyond my adjustment to teaching him how to care for a part of his body that i don't have.

People who will chop off a healthy, functioning part of their children because they are too lazy to clean it properly or they're worried that that part of their son might one day develop an illness are fucking twisted.

If you're doing this to your kids as part of practicing your religion, then I support your right to freely practice your religion. but if you're not Jewish or Muslim, then doing this is child abuse.

One more thing. When western doctors *first* put forth the assertion that circumcision was medically beneficial (19th century), they said that chopping off the most sensitive part of the penis would cure masturbation! By taking away all sexual pleasure (so they assumed) they could "cure" this evil practice. As time has elapsed, they've had every one of their assertions disproven, only to come up with some new rationale as to why it's beneficial. Infections! Foreskin cancer! Mental illness! One by one, all their rationale were disproven. Then they come up with something new.

Now it's HIV?! Call me skeptical. My best guess is that one can avoid HIV by not having unprotected sex with infected people. Foreskins *might* make contracting the infection more likely, but I'd guess a good wash up would make the statistics even again.

The medical community has been trying to justify this barbaric practice for 150 years. They'll keep coming up with BS reasons why we should be mutilating our sons. Resist!

[rubymiene.livejournal.com]

Sorry, but I'm just going to have to call you skeptical. The scientific explanation of why the foreskin is more suspectible to HIV (presence of Langahan's cells) makes logical sense to me. And you can't just wash the HIV virus off after having sex. If you could, wouldn't doctors be recommending enemas?
Obviously, the best way to avoid contracting HIV through sex is to avoid having sex with people who have HIV, but if it were that simple, there wouldn't be an epidemic. If you can't get people in wealthy countries to demand their partners get tested before sex, you certainly can't expect it of people in Africa where 1) it's largely unavailable, and 2)the cost of getting every single person tested would probably bankrupt the continent.

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

Wow. The previous two comments have left me not knowing what to think!

[karadin.livejournal.com]

I said no to the circumcision for my son, even before the ernest young doctor came around to try and convince me against it, and he seemed so relieved! I think he didn't feel it was medically neccessary, and he hated doing the procedure!

[whitsun.livejournal.com]

Reading the thread of comments, your situation speaks to me so much because my bf and I have had the exact same conversation - very theoretically because we're not at a 'kids' place, but the same thing, where we're both adamant on different sides. I think it's a ridiculous practice esp if you're not required to by religion, and he's all defensive about his own circumcision and talks about cleanliness. Hey, my ears get really dirty and clogged, and they're a pain in the ass to clean, and you can basically hear without the outer bits, but I'm glad my parents left them on for me to bitch about. That's a bad analogy, but, you know, don't take the choice away from boys at birth is my point.

I wish I knew some uncircumcised men who could speak to this issue, because in the discussions we've had about this it seems like half the info is missing. And as for the HIV study, it's a perfect example to me of not wanting to credit things that conflict with your opinions. I just don't want it to be true, and I keep making up reasons that it might not matter. I just hope there will be more research by the time I may have to make this decision.

Re: Senator Johnson

[(Anonymous)]

I'm a fairly regular poster, but I'm posting anonymously since I actually work in Congress and have some connection with the Dakotas.

This could be huge. All of our excitement over *finally* taking back the Senate - the real power in legislation and oversight - could be for nothing because someone, essentially, got sick. (I lost the article referencing this, but) a huge number of Democratic senators are above the age of 75, many of which are in states with Republican governors. One of the many ways Republicans can regain control is to just wait us out.

The Governor of South Dakota is, as most people would guess, a Republican. What you may not know? He is the governor who signed into a law a bill that banned nearly all abortions in the state and defined life as beginning at conception - a purposeful attack on Roe v. Wade. Check out the news article (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/06/sd.abortion/) or the actual bill (http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2006/bills/HB1215SST.htm).

According to my sources, there is about *zero* chance he would appoint a Democrat - even a conservative one - to fill the vacant seat. So, if Tim Johnson's health declines or he steps down, there is a very real chance the Dems will be out before we even come in. All the speeches about increased oversight, revamped checks and balances, a fresh and comprehensive approach to immigration reform, honest protection of privacy rights (particularly online), and a new Judiciary Subcommittee on Human Rights, all down the tubes.

I said the election felt like Christmas, but a lot of us said it was too good to be true. Sadly enough, that really may be a possibility.

(And to clarify, when I first heard the news I felt horrible for his family and wanted him to get well, as (I hope) most Americans human beings would. But when a Senate staffer comes in to the office nearly in tears because of how such a small, personal thing could undo everything we've worked for, everything we counted on and already started putting in motion, it made me concerned about the big picture of American politics. For moral *and* political reasons, I hope to see Senator Johnson healthy as can be in time for the holidays.)

[vickyverce.livejournal.com]

I find it fascinating that this is done as standard practice in the US. In the UK it is most unusual, really only done for religious reasons or if there is a specific medical problem which requires it. You certainly wouldn't get it done on the NHS for any other reason and I think you'd probably struggle to get someone to do it privately - though throw enough money at something and someone will step forward. I have a 5 year old son and I really can't imagine having it done to him - it tears me apart when he has injections or blood taken!

[oconel]

Men here are mostly uncircumcised and since they wash, there is no health problem.

(I have to admit I like foreskin, so I'm biased, but I can't understand why people insist to cut it, if there is no problem)

[http://users.livejournal.com/_irrlicht_/]

I hate dubious studies like that. Rather than doing more of those, they should promote the use of condoms, because guess how much that decreases your risk of STDs and AIDS.
In Germany circumcision is highly unpopular, and I doubt that we have a significantly higher rate of STDs or HIV. I'm not completely opposed to it and I did have a boyfriend who used to complain about how great it'd be if he was circumsised. But I think it should be treated as what it is, plastic surgery, and therefore thought about carefully. Parents shouldn't do it just because 'everyone did it' and then look for a scientific reason to justify.
I admit though, that peer pressure must be that much higher in the USA.

[lakrids404.livejournal.com]

I like mine and I find it rather practical

[karaz.livejournal.com]

As someone who is in the homestretch of a pregnancy with a baby boy - this issue is gives me fits.

Logically - there is no medical reason to remove the foreskin. There are certainly cases where infection can occur (and removal may become necessary), but women get vaginal infections on a much more regular basis and I don't see anyone suggesting surgical alterations to the vaginas of infants as preventative measure. Sadly, pediatricians will still tell you that circumcision is necessary and will list all the supposed health risks involved in leaving your child uncut.

Yes, there are arguments for better sex with and without the foreskin. For men - there is no real way to know. No guy can be circumcised after he's had sex and assume that his results are the same as they would have been if he were circumcised shortly after birth. However, it’s quite damning evidence when that circumcision began as a way to reduce the inclination to masturbate. Women, however, seem to prefer the foreskin (with the exception of those who have no experience with it – more on that in a minute).

Yes, there are arguments about cleanliness too. The foreskin doesn't fully detach until most boys are well out of diapers, so that's not really an issue with infants. (Conversely, creating an open wound that will sit wrapped in gauze/Vaseline in his diaper hardly seems like it's doing him any favors.) However, in childhood, at some stage he will have to make a point to slide back his foreskin and rinse it with water and soap while bathing. The argument is that while it's hardly rocket science, we can't say boys will be diligent because they already suck at bathing in general - and if their parents don't make a point of instructing them and checking bad things will happen. This cracks me up. The US is the only country that routinely circumcises for non-religious reasons. Is someone really trying to say that all these other countries are full of boys with dirty penises? Or mums who routinely inspect them? ;)

The arguments against circumcision also include genital mutilation. This specific term pisses a lot of people off - mostly because so many men are circumcised and they don't take kindly to the insinuation that they've been mutilated. However, when a kid is under a week old and you purposefully pull forward a bit of their penis and snip it off - how exact can a doctor be? While dating, I've seen more than one penis that wasn't quite right because of circumcision. On the other hand, and much more recently, I've spent time working in nurseries. I'll be honest, they strap the kid down and it's awful to watch. But, in the five years I was in the nursery, I never saw one go wrong. I suspect doctors are much better at whole procedure these days.

So the real issue ends up being cultural. The fact is that circumcision, while declining in the US, is still much more common than not. I attribute it to men thinking about the one or two uncircumcised guys in the locker room during high school. They also remember how much shit those guys got for being different. They heard the horror stories from uncircumcised guys who couldn't get a blow job because the girl had never seen an uncut penis and freaked out (and I've heard them from girls, so I'm pretty sure this does happen). They've seen smegma and it grosses them out. They don't want their kid to be different from themselves.

As a female, we can't really understand the depth to which men attach themselves to their cocks. They need it to be perceived as normal (and preferably large *g*) or they feel incredibly insecure. I found that most men who are adamant about circumcision feel like they are doing their son a grave disservice if they allow them to be different from all the other guys. As a father, it’s sort of their gut instinct to protect them from what they perceive as a lifetime of awkwardness and humiliation. (No matter how greatly they’ve exaggerated it in their minds.) Even if you insist that your husband read the statistical and medical proof that circumcision is unnecessary, and even if he comes to believe it, these are the things that will be in his head. His very limited personal (and yes, sometimes anecdotal) experience has taught him otherwise.

[puppydifranco.livejournal.com]

It's funny how I can never predict which posts will get 200 comments and which will be mostly ignored

very true... although for me it's more along the lines of which post will get 20 comments.... hell most of the time I have more than 5 different people commenting on one post I feel like I have really reached people.

[spiderhides.livejournal.com]

it's true the AIDS thing. it was a good read.

circ

[verdenia.livejournal.com]

It is an American thing when it's not religious, for sure. My dad was in the older generation that had it done as a matter of course. my parents thought depriving sensitivity was wrong, so my brother isn't circ'd.

I've never been with an uncut man, or seen one in person that wasn't an infant. A friend of mine went to Europe after college and thought the uncut look was "more like a sausage".

I would think the cleaning would be well worth the increased sensitivity. I don't think I could let that be done to my kid, but that's years off, if ever, so...

[(Anonymous)]

My favorite reply was the one my husband (circumsized) said, one time a friend of his was surprised we had decided against circumcising our son.

Friend: "But don't you want him to look like you?"

Husband: "We weren't exactly planning nude family photographs, were you?"

FWIW, my husband was fairly pro-circ for a long time because he was just like his friend... he was assuming there was a need for like father, like son.

What really might make the difference to your husband might be talking to other fathers of un-cut sons, or even un-cut men themselves. Because this is such a hot-button item for many *women,* I think a lot of guys feel they have no choice in the matter and their hackles get raised when words like "mutilation" get tossed around. If you ever need a statement from a guy who changed his mind from circ to non-circ, I know one. ;)