April 11, 2007
From the desk of Jane Galt:New York City's decision to encourage adult male circumcision triggered a minor conversational firestorm last time I was there. Would circumcision provide similar protective functions in America, where most transmission is not through heterosexual sex? Even if it does work, should the state be in the business of deciding such things? In all this, the obvious point was missed: is anyone really going to take the city up on this?
Posted by Jane Galt at April 11, 2007 10:05 AM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links"); ?>
Maybe if the city throws in a piercing or two on the side, they'll get some of the avant garde to participate? Heck, if the right people do it, the whole thing could become a big fad...
Post pubescent humans getting circumcisions is an unpleasant process.
Posted by: RFK on April 11, 2007 10:47 AMAfter cigarettes, goose liver, and margerine, why wouldn't Bloomberg go after foreskins? It is a health issue after all, and, it's a very simple procedure, albeit somewhat knee-weakening for those affected. Furthermore, think of the children! Well, maybe that doesn't apply here, but you know what I mean.
If this program is a success, next on Bloomberg's agenda: testicular cancer prevention. We won't have to worry about the children then, will we.
And why does the phrase "slippery slope" keep popping into my head?
Posted by: G. Hamid on April 11, 2007 10:50 AMSounds like the HPV vaccine debate, in kind if not in degree, and JG had no problem forcing people to get that and using taxpayers' money to do it.
Posted by: AT on April 11, 2007 10:57 AMI have wondered what the reaction would had been had it been found that female circumcision helped prevent AIDS. Any guesses?
Posted by: Yancey Ward on April 11, 2007 11:10 AMOh come on piercings haven't been avant garde in NYC for years. That's for the kids in the burbs. :)
Posted by: frank on April 11, 2007 11:14 AMWould circumcision provide similar protective functions in America, where most transmission is not through heterosexual sex?
It certainly wouldn't help intravenous drug users, unless they're doing something really weird.
It might help "toppers" though. AIDS is less robust than other venereal diseases. It is much more contagious from the penetrator to the penetrated. Perhaps removing the foreskin makes it even less likely that the penetrator will be infected during sex.
Even if it does work, should the state be in the business of deciding such things?
It's not like Bloomberg is forcebly removing 10,000 foreskins so he can be king. It is a voluntary measure for public health. Whether it makes sense or not is a matter of crunching numbers, not philosophy.
is anyone really going to take the city up on this?
I imagine that there are very few people who would engage in unsafe sex, but will avail themselves of a free circumcision, so it is probably a big waste of time.
What ya do is offer a free BJ with every snip-snip. It is only when the cutting is done (but the local anaesthesia wears off) that you tell them they have to have the BJ now or lose it. Once the skin starts to stretch, they'll forgo the free oral pleasure.
Look at me, I have conclusive scientific evidence that FGM reduces the transmission of STDs because it makes women much less trampy. So, let's promote it.
Oh, you disagree that we should promote it? Why? ... Okay, I understand. Now, reconcile that explanation with your support for circumcision based on its purported benefits.
Posted by: Person on April 11, 2007 11:52 AMFrank wrote:
Oh come on piercings haven't been avant garde in NYC for years. That's for the kids in the burbs. :)
Nuts, missed another memo.
When they came for my trans fats, I did nothing, for I was a vegetarian; when they came for my liquor, I did nothing, for I was not a boozer; when they came for my cigarettes, I did nothing, for I was not a smoker; when they came for my foreskin......
Posted by: Nanonymous on April 11, 2007 12:26 PMCircumcision is unnatural, the foreskin protects the head, that is it's purpose. Why this natural thing should be singled out is anybodies guess, but I don't think large scale mutilation should be encouraged, even if it stops the spread of diseases. You know what else stops aids? Not having sex with people who already have it... DUHHHH... get them tested before you do it with somebody. And anyway - surely by saying that circumcised guys are less likely to get diseases is going to encourage them to have sex with more girls less responsibly. THINK!!!!!!!
Posted by: adrian on April 11, 2007 1:29 PMAt risk of being branded a feminist by the anti-circumcision crowd, I think someone needs to point out one minor difference between male and female circumcision:
If a male circumcision goes horribly monsterously wrong, the male will not be able to enjoy sex.
If a female circumcision goes horribly monsterously wrong, the female will be able to enjoy sex.
Posted by: Bill Dalasio on April 11, 2007 2:03 PMOn looking at my post, I hope readers understand the "horribly monsterously wrong" in the last sentance should be in quotes.
Posted by: Bill Dalasio on April 11, 2007 2:32 PM@AT: huh? Since when is a vaccination similar in any way to having a very sensitive body part removed?
Posted by: Mrs L on April 11, 2007 2:53 PMBill Dalasio, I understand the point you are making and in general agree, but use of the word "enjoy" here I think is mistaken. In most cultures, the whole point of female circumcision is to ensure that while the woman may still have sex, she will be physically incapable of actually enjoying it, ever.
That said though, yes, a botched male operation would be pretty terrible.
Posted by: BerthaMinerva on April 11, 2007 3:29 PMI remember reading a newspaper article once about a poor little baby boy whose hospital circumcision went horribly wrong - they used an iron to cauterize him, had a heat surge, and poof - everything was gone. The doctors "converted" him to a girl, and he/she got hormone therapy for years afterward to help the process along. It didn't take, and the poor man had all kinds of problems.
So I wouldn't say that it's impossible for something to go wrong - although I would agree that the vile intent ascribed to female circumcision obviously doesn't exist in the male practice.
Perhaps the problem is linguistic - the term "female genital mutilation" is, although gut-wrenchingly PC, an essentially accurate term. Circumcision is a euphemism, really, for that vile practice.
Posted by: Nanonymous on April 11, 2007 3:42 PMHave any of you watched a circumcision done? I did on my second boy. If I had on my first boy, my second would not be circumcised...
Posted by: Rob on April 11, 2007 5:06 PMLook, you guys are missing the full story here.
Somebody said to the NY City Council "Oh, you guys are always dicking around with nanny state bullshit! Why not just cut it out already?"
They misunderstood the suggestion, and this is what happened.
Posted by: thoreau on April 11, 2007 5:13 PMBerthaMinerva,
Actually, then, I botched my point more than I thought. I was essentially making the same point you made more eloquently. Specifically, a male circumcision that results in the recipient no longer able to enjoy sex is the sign of a procedure gone horribly wrong. A female circumcision that results in the recipient no longer able to enjoy sex is, well, pretty much the point (Hence the reference to one that has gone "horribly monsterously wrong" resulting in a female able to enjoy sex).
Posted by: Bill Dalasio on April 11, 2007 9:39 PMSo how will this be paid for? Will a city employee do the operation? Or will they hire a contractor who gets paid other ways? Maybe by working for tips?
Posted by: ellipsis on April 11, 2007 9:48 PMHave any of you watched a circumcision done? I did on my second boy. If I had on my first boy, my second would not be circumcised...
Then I hope you never have a third son who develops health complications in his later life, because if he ever endures adult circumcision he will not thank you for your pity past.
Posted by: anony-mouse on April 12, 2007 4:41 AMHave any of you watched a circumcision done?
Sure. Ever been to a bris? That's the ritual Jewish circumcision ceremony - grandpa holds the little guy, they use a dinner napkin soaked in wine for anesthesia, and it's over in like two minutes. The moyle (they're both rabbis and MDs, at least in the States) specializes in that one operation, so they're pretty quick.
And they have smoked salmon afterwards.
Posted by: Nanonymous on April 12, 2007 9:48 AM"It had no face, no...personality"
-Elaine Benes
"I remember reading a newspaper article once about a poor little baby boy whose hospital circumcision went horribly wrong - they used an iron to cauterize him, had a heat surge, and poof - everything was gone. The doctors "converted" him to a girl, and he/she got hormone therapy for years afterward to help the process along. It didn't take, and the poor man had all kinds of problems"
That was a "Law and Order" episode too.
anony-mouse says:
"...develops health complications in his later life..."
Hmmm... Don't see much research that says intact males have health problems later in life, although I'm sure supporting research can be found for both sides of the issue.
Nanonymous says:
"Ever been to a bris?"
Nope. Not Jewish, so I cannot comment on why a religion would subject children to that. The hospital circumcision was done very quickly also. I just wouldn't do it again after seeing the process.
I've not heard that there is any good medical reason for circumcision. So I'll counsel my friends to watch one done first, and decide for themselves, not base their decision solely on convention. I did it on convention, which was a bad choice for me.
Posted by: Rob on April 12, 2007 4:28 PMThere are a few problems with this public health initiative.
They looked at a set of men for 6 months and found that the seroconversion rate in the uncircumsized men was something like 3.2% and the circumsized was something like 1.6 %. "Cut your risk in half" sounds a lot better than "cut your risk by 1.6%" doesn't it?
I've also heard that the female partners of the circumcized men who were HIV+ were more likely to seroconvert as well. Of course, that's difficult to pick up in 6 months.
There's also the "cross-cultural" aspect: for whatever reason, the feared heterosexual epidemic never happened in the US. If circumcision were protective for gay men, I'm sure someone in the 80's would have picked up on it. And it's, um, unlikely to have an effect on IV drug users.
Anyway, we know that chopping off both breasts reduces the risk of breast cancer. Few people want to do that.
Posted by: Shamhat on April 13, 2007 8:45 AMI'm a little late here, but the outcome of this proposal by NYC's Health Department will be to encourage more parents to circumcise their children. If NYC can get a connection to male-to-male transmission from a study that only looked at female-to-male transmission, parents will happily draw the conclusion that it's okay to circumcise their infant sons. After all, the study looked at adults males, so surely we can assume that infant circumcision is the exact same. It isn't, of course, for many reasons. That won't stop anyone.
That's what the public health advocates are always after when touting circumcision studies. Look at what the WHO and UN have said about these studies. Start with infants. I don't question NYC's commitment to reducing HIV among the gay community, but they have a further motive. The same madness always comes out in the end.
Posted by: Tony on April 15, 2007 8:57 AM