![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Salon Letter: Circumcision
Dec. 13th, 2006 11:05 pmI posted this letter in response to a bit in Salon's Broadside about a study indicating that male circumcision may reduce the rate of HIV transmission.
Nothing to lose?
I can't help but wonder how many people who argue in favor of male circumcision are actually uncircumcised men.
So far, I haven't yet seen a single man with a foreskin arguing in favor of circumcision. In fact, all of the proponents of circumcision seem to be either women, or circumcised men.
It is arguable that many of those men may be making the pro-circumcision argument in order to allay their own fears that they may have forever lost something which they would have valued, had they been allowed to keep it.
I'm not arguing that circumcision does not reduce HIV transmission. Although frankly scientists and doctors have made enough errors in the past to make me think twice before allowing someone to chop off my foreskin, or that of any child, on the basis of a study. But in any case, the aforementioned women and circumcised men are unable to weigh both sides of the issue. They can point to hypothetical reductions in the rate of HIV transmission, but they cannot speak to the negative side of the circumcision equation. There is still some debate over the range of benefits which the foreskin provides, but certainly circumcision often results in reduced sensation and sexual pleasure, as well as lessened protection of the glans.
And frankly, we're born with it, which seems to indicate that the foreskin serves a useful function. It seems entirely possible that the foreskin may provide benefits which we're not yet aware of, in addition to those that we already know. Certainly the history of medicine shows that in every past case in which the surgical removal of a body part was popularly practiced, the custom was eventually found to be at best unnecessary, and often actually damaging. Even the appendix, which is admittedly useless, is normally not removed until it has shown itself likely to cause problems for the patient.
As it stands, it seems to me that practicing wide-scale surgical removal of substantial amounts of sensitive tissue from male sexual organs is an extreme reaction to an issue that can be addressed by other means. As someone else here pointed out, complete removal of the penis would reduce the chance of transmission of HIV to zero (well, not really, but it would certainly reduce it quite a bit). Yet no one is seriously suggesting instituting a general program of penis removal.
So it interests me that those supporting circumcision seem to be only those with nothing to lose - so to speak.
Nothing to lose?
I can't help but wonder how many people who argue in favor of male circumcision are actually uncircumcised men.
So far, I haven't yet seen a single man with a foreskin arguing in favor of circumcision. In fact, all of the proponents of circumcision seem to be either women, or circumcised men.
It is arguable that many of those men may be making the pro-circumcision argument in order to allay their own fears that they may have forever lost something which they would have valued, had they been allowed to keep it.
I'm not arguing that circumcision does not reduce HIV transmission. Although frankly scientists and doctors have made enough errors in the past to make me think twice before allowing someone to chop off my foreskin, or that of any child, on the basis of a study. But in any case, the aforementioned women and circumcised men are unable to weigh both sides of the issue. They can point to hypothetical reductions in the rate of HIV transmission, but they cannot speak to the negative side of the circumcision equation. There is still some debate over the range of benefits which the foreskin provides, but certainly circumcision often results in reduced sensation and sexual pleasure, as well as lessened protection of the glans.
And frankly, we're born with it, which seems to indicate that the foreskin serves a useful function. It seems entirely possible that the foreskin may provide benefits which we're not yet aware of, in addition to those that we already know. Certainly the history of medicine shows that in every past case in which the surgical removal of a body part was popularly practiced, the custom was eventually found to be at best unnecessary, and often actually damaging. Even the appendix, which is admittedly useless, is normally not removed until it has shown itself likely to cause problems for the patient.
As it stands, it seems to me that practicing wide-scale surgical removal of substantial amounts of sensitive tissue from male sexual organs is an extreme reaction to an issue that can be addressed by other means. As someone else here pointed out, complete removal of the penis would reduce the chance of transmission of HIV to zero (well, not really, but it would certainly reduce it quite a bit). Yet no one is seriously suggesting instituting a general program of penis removal.
So it interests me that those supporting circumcision seem to be only those with nothing to lose - so to speak.
