 |
| Science Denialists and Illogicals Storming The Citadel of Logic |
Anyhow Jesse presents much evidence of the wonders of circumcision. OK, and he also states that the American Academy of Pediatricians (AAP) revised their policy statement on circumcision which according to Jesse:
"The consensus regarding this cascade of new datasets—all of which, they claimed, they went over methodically with a fine-toothed comb—moves the AAP away from its historically noncommittal view and towards a clear stance that the benefits of infant male circumcision now unambiguously outweigh its minimal risks when performed under sterile conditions by properly trained physicians."OK so gee I guess I am wrong, circumcision is a really good thing. Jesse claims that there is a 60% reduction in HIV transfer. I have read some things about that 60% but OK, I'll give Jesse his 60% reduction. Then in an ever rising crescendo of hysteria Jesse ends the article with this pearl of wisdom:
"I don’t need someone else to tell me what I should be outraged by, Sullivan, thank you very much. It’s certainly not going to be in response to already stressed-out parents acting sensibly as their child’s health advocate and appealing to the ethical directives of professionals, rather than online blowhards who think that repeatedly referring to an act with an amygdala-fuelled term like “mutilation” makes it so. If you want your child to be at an increased risk of urinary tract infections, herpes, genital ulcers, HPV and HIV, that’s entirely your choice, and feel free to celebrate with other science-denialists sharing similarly misplaced passions. But spare me your righteous indignation over those parents today that fail to see their benevolent, educated decision to circumcise their infant sons as an 'attack on their sexual pleasure at birth.'"
In case you haven't guessed, the emphasis is mine. So now I am a science-denialist using amygdala-fuelled terms like mutilation, but good Ole' Jesse here is a paragon of emotional stability. So let's take a look at what the AAP said in their revised policy statement. From:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/585.full#abstract-1
"Although health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns, the benefits of circumcision are sufficient to justify access to this procedure for families choosing it and to warrant third-party payment for circumcision of male newborns. It is important that clinicians routinely inform parents of the health benefits and risks of male newborn circumcision in an unbiased and accurate manner."
Again of course the emphasis is mine. So does the import of this paragraph warrant Bering's accusation of those who would refuse circumcision as science-denialists? I really have no interest in Bering's and Sullivan's spat but I do resent being called a science-denialist just because I don't agree with Bering. But OK I'll concede, I am a science-denialist, but grant me this Jesse, I am a science-denialist with a mutilated penis and a well fueled amygdala.
Incidentally I have been counseled by people who are against circumcision to avoid the M-word because it is inflammatory. But because 1) I am a little pissed at moment, 2) I am only using it in reference to myself, and 3) that is exactly the word that I feel best describes my condition, I believe that I shall use it for one more day.
OK I said I would give Jesse his 60% improvement in preventing HIV transfer. From a practical standpoint what does that mean? One only needs a condom 40% of the time? In terms of HIV transfer what real value is attained by circumcision? HIV is no longer a problem? Ohhh? Why did we ever have a problem to begin with in the US? What about Europe? The best I can gather Europe and the US have about the same rates of transfer. Shouldn't the European rate be much higher with the 60% reduction in HIV transfer garnered by circumcision? Circumcision is relatively rare in Europe.
Regarding HIV transfer, in a practical sense, being circumcised means that on the average it will take you longer to get infected than it would if you are not circumcised. But the fact remains that if you engage in continual risky sexual behavior and do not use condoms you will eventually become infected with HIV. So what exactly has circumcision done for you? You can get circumcised and have to use condoms all the time, or you can stay intact and have to use condoms all of the time. The choice is yours. Oh wait, no. I am sorry, it's not your choice, it is your parents choice. I apologize for the confusion.
Note: I posted comments 16, 19 and 43 at Bering's Blog at the link above.
Well my second foray into the world of circumcision blogging resulted in two of my comments not being published. Now we all know that I ain't too smart, intellect has never been one of my claims, but wouldn't that qualify as censoring? Of course the blog belongs to an individual and it is hers to publish or not as she sees fit, but gee, post a note that comments from illogicals will not be posted. I could go waste my time else where. Well here are the two blog posts:
SquintMom, Resources For Evidence Based Parenting, What The Science Says About Circumcision: Part 1 — The Benefits
Her conclusion for the benefits:
"Science Bottom Line:* There is no scientific evidence that strongly supports circumcision in the United States for the sole purpose of preventing disease.**
**Obviously, this is not to say that there’s no reason to circumcise, nor is it to say that there’s no SCIENTIFIC reason to circumcise in areas with epidemic HIV, etc. The point here is that the argument FOR circumcision in the U.S. can’t be made on the basis of scientific evidence, and must instead be made on the basis of values and beliefs."
SquintMom, Resources For Evidence Based Parenting, What The Science Says About Circumcision: Part 2 — The Risks
Her conclusion regarding the risks:
Science Bottom Line:* There is no scientific evidence that strongly links routine infant circumcision with appropriate analgesiato physical or psychological harm.** Because there are many options available for managing pain during infant circumcision, however, there’s simply no justification for medical circumcision without analgesia.
**Obviously, this is not to say that no one is ever hurt by circumcision, or that there are not individuals who wish they hadn’t been circumcised. However, the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE does not provide support for the argument that routine infant circumcision is harmful. As such, the argument AGAINST circumcision in the U.S. can’t be made on the basis of scientific evidence, and must instead be made on the basis of values and beliefs.
So I thought, cool! This person did what appeared to be a fair assessment and arrived at the conclusion that the evidence neither supports or refutes circumcision. OK I can buy that. So then I started reading through the comments, and I ran into this inquiry by a mother to be:
"Hi. This is my first time commenting, but I’ve been reading your blog for a while. I am pregnant with a boy and am trying to decide whether to circumcise. I posted on the Mothering.com forums, and the women there are very anti-circumcision. It seems like they make a lot of unsupportable claims, though. For instance, they say that there’s no reason for a boy to look like his father, since they won’t be sitting around with their penises out. I think (but I don’t have the scientific evidence to back it up) that children probably get a lot of their early sense of sexual identity from comparing their bodies to those of their parents. A little girl knows she’ll GROW breasts, and a little boy will get a bigger penis like his father’s…but an uncircumcised boy knows his penis won’t look like his (circumcised) father’s penis when he gets older. Also, my understanding is that the majority of white, middle-class boys in the US are circumcised. What would be the effect on a boy’s psychology of looking around the bathroom or gym and realizing his penis is different? Also, what if he’s in high school or college and hears girls making fun of the way an uncircumcised penis looks?"
So we are not talking about religious circumcision, HIV, HPV, penile cancer, cervix cancer, sensation, child rights, wishes of the adult, or any other issue than appearance. Is appearance a valid consideration for circumcising a child? In my mind no. Appearance does not exceed the right of the individual. But let's put that aside. I can understand this woman’s concern. So I wrote the following reply concerning appearance:
"Let’s turn your question around. Immigrants from Africa move in next door. They are nice people and they are going to have a ritual circumcision of their daughter. You have been invited to the ceremony. How much weight will the argument hold with you, that if they fail to circumcise their daughter, she will not look like her mother, her grandmother, her aunts, or her older sisters? Valid argument? Would you object, or simply agree that this girl should physically resemble her relatives?I am circumcised. I have no idea if my father was circumcised. My son was born in 1983 and he was circumcised. Why wouldn’t he? Its what we do. A decision I deeply regret today. I have not seen my son’s penis since he was 5 years old, and I don’t believe that he has ever seen mine. We don’t exactly lounge around in the buff comparing our goods.In any event if we are going to use the argument of the importance of appearance, then we should actively support female circumcision in Africa because we don’t know how much damage may result by a generation of daughters not resembling the mothers. If that sounds a bit absurd, and I hope it does, then think again about how that argument sounds for the perpetuation of routine male circumcision in the US."
I wrote another comment (which I did not copy) at the end of the comments. I complimented her on research and presenting a balanced view on circumcision. I then went into a rant but a well behaved rant and simply asked why it was that I was circumcised in 1949, and I replied with "Well ah you know ah hygiene, prevention of phimosis, ah err ah he will look like his father." In other words nobody knows. I then went on to provide a rushed, brief, and admittedly not terribly well written history of circumcision in the US. The point that I was trying to make was that I was circumcised in 1949 because Victorian zealots 60 to 100 years earlier were convinced that masturbation was going to be the downfall of the Western world and some how the practice not only caught on but became medicalized. The root historical reason for medical infant circumcision in the US is to blunt sexual pleasure for both masturbation and coitus.
So I posted both comments on SquintMom's blog Thursday night. They were awaiting moderation for about 24 hours. I checked last night, the comments were still waiting. I checked this morning and my comments had vanished.
SquintMom posted the following comments last night to another person's post. Normally I would not copy a reply to another person, but in this comment she also indicates, indirectly, why my two comments were censored:
WOW, thats a lot of blog about penis's (?) I will say this, I had to laugh a few times! Keep up the good work! ;-)
ReplyDeletePhil,
DeleteThe plural is a bitch, isn't it, that's why I prefer pecker, much easier to make a plural and while being somewhat sleezy at least it's not porno, nor clinical, and sounds more mature than pee-pee. Jalombo is a nice term but it has a size connotation that is not always accurate. I have to admit I am a little sick of male members at this juncture. Prefer to write about cosmetic gynecology. Although the destruction of fine art always pisses me off.
Well this is a bad post, its a pissed off rant which is never good. Glad it give you a chuckle. Thanks for stopping by and commenting.
There is just no way you can say this is a bad post. It's very interesting and I probably would have been better off reading it bright and early tomorrow morning cause this is all pretty heavy stuff for the end of the day.
ReplyDeleteYou make an excellent point in noting that SquintMom changed her tune once the hordes descended upon her with their bad breath, bad data and bad logic.
As I've mentioned before in other posts you've done about circumcision, a lot of decisions are made simply out of ignorance. You do what your ancestors before you have always done. "If it was good enough for dad, it's good enough for me and my son!"
When I had my son I counted on and trusted my doctors and my son's pediatrician and they all sang the praises of circumcision. Would I do things differently now? I don't know, but I do know that I would make a much more informed decision. Ignorance is no longer a valid excuse!
Well like I mentioned before, when our children were born there was no easy way of researching this stuff. Doctors and nurses have a lot of authority and we were all good sheep and listened to the people who knew what they were talking about. The internet has changed that and people can find a lot of information and of course a lot of lunacy. You have to be discerning no doubt.
DeleteI am angry with my self that when they come and said our hospitalization no longer covered it, why didn't that ring an alarm bell. There was not an ounce of curiosity on my part...its something that you do, like paying taxes or mowing grass. I can't even use the conceit that the lad should look like his father. There was not that much thought put into that on my part.
Alicia, thanks for stopping by and commenting.
You're welcome. I can relate to your comment about not an ounce of curiosity or doing something just because that's the way it's done and the way were were taught, like paying taxes or mowing grass. I know I often think that it's staying inside the box because I always "used" to try to do what was expected or staying within the norm. As we get older though we thankfully get wiser and start thinking more and researching and educating ourselves so we can make better choices. If we had only known then what we know now.
DeleteNo doubt about it, you take less craps when you are older. But I think the Internet is probably the greatest factor for making people more aware.
DeleteProof reading my comment above, I have stated a falsehood. I find myself, that I take more craps but less crap as I get older.
DeleteOmgosh...that was hilarious. Thanks for the giggle!
DeleteI too have concluded that the internet has become the Elephant in the Room when debating the Fate of the American Foreskin.
DeleteAlicia & Sextant, I get a sense that you believe that when your sons were born, a strong case could have been made to leave their penises alone, but you did not know the elements of that case. You are being a bit harsher on yourselves than the facts warrant. In the 1970s and 80s, we knew less about the male tender bits and their sexual value than we know now. Once again, the internet has been a major player in this unfolding human enlightenment.
Oy. I think I have to agree with you on this one, Sextant, and also with Alicia. It used to be, at least in my mind, that having a Jewish heritage made the decision simple-- even for non-believers like me. But I've got to admit, on further reflection, Abraham's weird pact with God doesn't make much sense and is kind of creepy. On the bright side, however, snipping the foreskin doesn't appear to have a negative impact on the biblical injunction to be fruitful and multiply-- and enjoy it while you're at it. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for mutilated females. Eliminating enjoyment seems to be the whole point of that horrible practice.
ReplyDeleteDonna,
DeleteIt does seem to be a rather odd requirement to show faith, but who knows.
SquintMom is right comparing circumcision to female genetic cutting is in a way not fair, and it is done for the shock value. I don't know that I would call it ridiculous though, and within the narrow confines of my argument, appearance, I think it was an absolutely fair comparison. None the less for medical circumcision, I think people in the US confuse commonality and acceptance with morality. What was it that Stalin said,
"One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic."
Donna, thanks for stopping by and commenting. Its always a pleasure.
"Abraham's weird pact with God doesn't make much sense and is kind of creepy." I reached your conclusion some years ago on my own. In fact, I call it the weirdest contract in world history. Here's a standup routine I wrote about it, in the spirit of Lenny Bruce:
Delete“This old dude named Abraham hears a voice in his head saying: ‘Abraham, God here. Gee, I’m sorry you and your wife don’t have kids. I’ll see to it that she gets pregnant. Yea, I know she’s way past menopause, but I can do anything, right? And I promise you’ll have lots of descendants through that kid, forever. Now here’s your end of the deal: you know that bit of skin that hangs off the end of your willy? Well, you’ll have to cut it off. I also want you to do that to every hired man working for you. Also, your descendants will have to do that to their baby boys when they’re a week old. Any descendant of yours who’s got all the willy skin he was born with, well it’s no deal for him. Got that, Abe?’ Now can you believe it, Abe did as he was told and trimmed his willy, even though it’s hard to even think about getting the wife pregnant when it hurts like hell down there, you know. Did Abe use a sharp metal knife or scissors? Forget it, not invented yet. So he probably used a flint knife. And where was God coming from when he told people to cut their kids, thousands of years before anybody knew what germs can do? And here’s the weirdest thing. Abe’s descendants – I’m one of them, by the way – have been reeeeal good about keeping up their part of the deal. We don’t want to get written out of God’s will, you know! And what about God, the big guy upstairs? Well, who let the holocaust happen? And who let the Gestapo point guns at men and boys and order them to down trousers?”
@Donna: African women heatedly deny that their having undergone FGM prevents them from enjoying their husbands.
Meanwhile, while a lot of circumcised men are doing fine, some are not, and circumcised men can experience a gradual diminution of sexual pleasure over the life cycle in a way that has yet to be adequately researched.
We did not circumcise my son because his father refused. It has always worried me that a close friend's sisters cervical cancer and untimely death was "blamed" on her uncircumcised husband-but it was suggested.
ReplyDeleteI don't know but it gave me thought.
I hope my son doesn't one day tell us we did something wrong by him on this.
Right now he'd be mortified to discuss it-maybe that'll always be so.
Now the really ridiculous thing is I, personally find circumcision more attractive. Which is a rather odd thing to acknowledge, and it just never has seemed to me to be mutilation looking-but did seem it looking at my newborn and considering doing that to him.
From what I have read there is a positive correlation between uncircumcised men and cervical cancer. How strong it is I am not sure. Three things in my mind (not exactly the most scientific place) would reduced the incidence. Condoms, hygiene, and the HPV vaccine. Obviously condom use in a loving monogamous relationship is onerous, and I believe ultimately destructive to the relationship. But I think that 100% condom use in the sowing of wild oats phases for both genders is absolutely required.
DeleteFor any one case, I think blaming the husband for cervical cancer is a bit of a long shot. Cervical cancer has a direct correlation to the number partners and family history also. I would imagine that certain types of birth control may have a positive correlation and other factors such as diet, smoking, drug and alcohol use. Cancer is always a tough thing to pin down in specific cases. Well, except lung cancer, which we know has nothing to do with smoking if you listen to the tobacco lobbyist from years ago. An interesting factoid I read years ago, nuns have the lowest rate of cervical cancer, and priests have the highest rate of prostate cancer. There seems to be an asymmetrical relationship.
Apparently many people both women and men prefer the appearance of a circumcised penis. Myself, well its schlong, and I am not into schongs. From a purely aesthetic ... its still a schong. I guess objectively I can see some point in that argument. However, if my memory serves me right, the ancient Greeks regarded the sight of the glans as pornographic. It was fine for the lads to be out competing in the pure buff, but if the glans was exposed it was cause for embarrassment and shame.
The only thing I can say in regard to beauty is in the opposite case, in my research on AVS, the before photos (other than the obvious manipulation of tug and stretch sideways, leaving thumb prints) are far more beautiful and interesting than the bland industrial results in the after photos. The destruction of fine art!
http://navfin.blogspot.com/2011/07/what-if-georgia-was-alive-today.html
Myself, I prefer function to form. The original 6 cylinder Corvettes were beautiful cars. They just didn't perform worth a shit. So given my choice of a beautiful instrument that provides an F-1 putt putt putt in 90 seconds on the Fujita scale of orgasms, or and ugly apparatus that gives category F-5 trip to Oz with technicolor, confetti, a brass band, and manages to drop a house on the wicked witch of sexual ennui for both partners in 15 minutes...well sorry, but ugly takes the day. Myself being in the former category, I can only imagine the latter.
You find circumcised more attractive because your grew up in the USA. Very few European or Japanese women prefer circumcised. In fact, they go through their lives never thinking of the choice.
DeleteIf your son regrets having all the factory installed moving parts, let him trim prune the excess and get on with his life.
Circumcision and HOV: the only data that matters are HPV rates in the USA, Korea and Israel, versus Japan and Europe. Many of the subjects in recently published studies that excite the AAP and the like, are from the Third World, and live lives whose sexual and other hygiene falls short of what all readers of this blog would expect.
I cannot give an opinion about circumcision...(I could not even spell it) since I have no knowledge on the subject
ReplyDeleteKim,
DeleteI think that you are in a rather enviable position. I wished I had no knowledge of the subject. Thanks for stopping by and commenting.
Wow.. who knew one could write so much about this topic?? I'll admit, my mind wandered because it got pretty long. I'll just say this: that quote you posted from the medical folks sounds kind of wishy washy and slightly pro-circumcision for the sole purpose of convincing insurance companies to pay for the procedure. Back when I was having kids, they came out against routine circumcision. I bet some insurance companies used that as evidence for not needing to pay, hence they had to change their stance and make it wishy-washy. Just my observation, based only on my thoughts and lacking any factual support.
ReplyDeleteCarol
DeleteWell I can't say that I blame your mind for wandering, this is a pissed off rant, and such rants are usually of interest only to the ranter.
The AAP policy is a bit obtuse is it not? So what are they really saying? You either circumcise or you don't circumcise. It is not something you do on Mondays, Wednesdays or Fridays. Its not like taking a prescription or flossing your teeth.
"Although health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns"
That is pretty clear to me that they are not recommending circumcision, but if you really want to, well go ahead, and to make it easy for our doctors to get paid we think the insurance should cover it.
They are still disregarding the rights of the infant. The law allows no other amputations or surgical procedures on infants without strict medical justification. It is an ethical violation for a doctor to perform non-essential surgeries on patients without their permission. I don't care how common or socially acceptable infant circumcision is, it is unethical. There are plenty of men who resent being circumcised without their knowledge or permission. I know because I am one of them.
Two spectres haunt the American medical profession in its role as circumciser to the American nation:
ReplyDelete(1) A judge will rule in favour of a plaintiff who initiates an action under tort law against the doctor who circumcised him in infancyl
(2) All health insurers will cease covering the cost of RIC.
The AAP's Task Force carefully crafted its policy so as to head these two spectres off at the public policy pass. Only time will tell if this policy succeeds. Personally, I think that the policy will prove moot, because the American foreskin is coming back into fashion, esp. with mothers.
Roger,
DeleteThanks for visiting my blog and providing many knowledgeable and insightful comments. I hope you are right, that the foreskin comes back into fashion. Minimalism has gotten old.