...a lot of these men are going to have circumcisions despite what you say. And if it helps them great, and if it doesn't, then all they've lost is a little bit of skin...
I was going to stay out of this thread because it seems an exercise in futility, but this statement kinda pissed me off.
Men who choose to have circumcisions will have lost more than "a little bit of skin," and they deserve to know that so that they can make an informed choice about the procedure. They should be told that they'll lose at least a third of their penile skin. They should be told that there is evidence, both anecdotal and research-based, that they'll lose the most sensitive parts of the penis and that intercourse and masturbation may become less pleasurable for them. They'll also lose the simple fun and pleasure of having a foreskin. Even if there are no ill effects, circumcised men have lost
a healthy, functioning party of their body--more specifically, a part of their
penis.
To many of us, both men and women, that's a big deal. It doesn't matter whether or not
you think it's a big deal. You don't get to decide how other people should or shouldn't feel about it. There's no "should" about it. There's what is. For some of us, it IS a big deal.
Amputating any part of the body, no matter how unimportant you think it is, is not something to be taken lightly. It doesn't really matter if it's useful or not. But obviously you just don't get that. More importantly, you seem unwilling to even try to understand that people have legitimate concerns about this procedure.
You know, my earlobes are pretty useless. Nevertheless, I don't want to cut them off, and I'd be upset to lose them. They're my earlobes. They are a part of me. I kind of like it when someone nibbles on them. I'd miss that if they were gone. I don't want to have them cut off.
Now if there was research that showed that cutting my earlobes off would reduce my chances of getting infected with HIV by 60%, I'd want to look at that study very closely. For example, I'd want to know if there were any other variables that could explain why the lobeless people contracted HIV less often (e.g., higher rates of abstinence due to religious beliefs). Only if I was thoroughly convinced that the study was thorough and reliable would I consider cutting off my earlobes. But I would consider it. I don't know what I would decide. I wouldn't WANT to cut my earlobes off, but the benefits might be worth it. For me, it would be a difficult decision.
If I weren't already circumcised, I don't think I'd give up my foreskin, even to reduce my risk of HIV infection, but obviously I don't know since I'm not in the position to have to make that decision.
But whether it's my earlobes or my foreskin, it's
my decision--not my parents', not my doctor's, not the government's, not the World Health Organization's, not UNAIDS, or any other health organization or advocacy group. It's MY decision.
Italian978: I have no problem with an adult man choosing circumcision, as long as it's an informed choice. I DO have a problem with your dismissal of people's concerns about circumcision and their skepticism about the research cited in the article you posted.