Thursday, August 27, 2009

Boston Globe Endorses Newborn Circumcision for all Males

In another dramatic sign that America may be returning to its clean-cut, foreskin-free tradition, the Boston Globe has editorialized its view that all American boys should be circumcised at birth.

Entitled "Circumcision: A Cut against HIV," the Globe hailed the Centers for Disease Control's call to circumcise all American infant boys. "Such a tactic makes sense against a virus that infects more than 50,000 Americans each year," the editors wrote.

The editorial marks another sign that the anti-circ fanatics are losing the battle because the medical evidence is just so strong in favor of universal mandatory circumcision. The hope is that more major newspapers and media organizations will follow the Globe's example and encourage the CDC. The anti-circ foreskin lovers have mounted a strong PR campaign to dissuade the CDC from its sound science approach, but most Americans dismiss the foreskin lovers as whackos.

As I have repeatedly noted, the current "neutral" government policy hurts minorities, African Americans, and Hispanics because many have been denied health coverage for newborn circumcisions. The Globe notes that rates of HIV are higher among these groups because many more of them are uncircumcised.

While the overall tone of the editorial is quite positive, the Globe's editors can't quite say what we all know is obvious. It's not enough to call for universal male circumcision -- it should be mandatory. The editorial writers stop short of that, saying, "No one should be forced to circumcise a son. But where the health benefits are clear, the CDC should be equally clear in its recommendations. Circumcision is no panacea, but it deserves the CDC’s support."

In my view, if circumcision has clear health benefits that protect the male, his partners, and society, then it ought to be required for all. That's the editorial I really want to read. But the truth is that American parents are smart enough to follow the medical advice of the CDC, so the practical impact of promoting universal newborn circumcision will be to rid the filthy foreskin from the shores of this country.


  1. Universal infant circumcision should not only be a US health policy, but for the rest of the world too. In the US, circumcision should be required for school.

    I don't see why it's suddenly a huge debate, circumcision has been done for thousands of years. There's cave drawings and ancient glyphs (like the Egyptians for example) that depicts circumcision.

    And not only are there beneficial aspects, they say circumcised males are more likely to have a greater variety of sexual activity with their partners.

    I found this article that says a circumcised partner not only does not affect women's sexual pleasure, but many reported greater satisfaction.

    It's also no surprise that most girls and women prefer the look of a circumcised penis and its better hygiene. The foreskin traps bacteria and urine residue that becomes smegma with the fishy odor that always comes back even with good hygiene and cleaning. The no-circ people say that circumcision is only for cosmetic. I say that circumcision not only has so many health benefits, but it has the added bonus of cosmetically looking better, for the boy and his future lovers.

    In my Life After High School (teaches health, college info, and independent living skills for seniors) class a few years ago, when circumcision was discussed the girls all went "Eww" and "Gross" at the thought of an uncircumcised guy and went into an uproar that if they have a son they would have him circumcised.

  2. Hey, Anon. Thanks for the thoughtful post. I agree with you that circumcision should be required for school, and I think with the latest word from the CDC we are headed in that direction. And you're also right about women's reaction to a dude with a filthy ugly foreskin. Ewww about sums it up.

    The reason this is in the news so much is that after a decade or so when the anti-circ fanatics were trying to STOP all circumcisions, the medical evidence is in that circumcision has many more positive health advantages than we originally thought. So now the anti-circs are going fanatic. Some of their bullshit is unbelievable.

    Thanks for posting. Get some others to do the same.

  3. In addition to the US (and promotion in Africa), places like China and India could benefit from universal circumcision too. Since HIV rates and at-risk people have exploded in recent years.

    Which is why I said earlier that it's not just a positive direction for the US but everywhere else in the world too.

  4. Good to see science and reason winning out.

    Great that the CDC is leading the way. Hopefully other industrialised countries will follow.

    The foreskin will be consigned to the trashcan of history.

  5. "The foreskin will be consigned to the trashcan of history." LMAO. Better not let Hugh7 and some of his foreskin loving buddies hear you say that, dude. But I love the analogy. It's hard to imagine anything more worthless and filthy than a foreskin. But the trashcan analogy may really understate the damage that a foreskin can do to the male, his partners, and society as a whole. The foreskin is not just a piece of worthless skin easy to rid, it's also a danger to all around. That's what the CDC recognizes when it calls for universal circumcision. The 60 percent of circumcised Americans are not safe as long as 40 percent can still spread HIV around. Maybe somebody can come up with another analogy!

  6. Not only is the foreskin worthless and dangerous, so is the filthy stinking disease ridden clitoral hood, and I'd like to see a study about removing this useless bit of skin. Look: men are getting HIV from women too, and it's pretty clear where's it coming from. You can't focus just on men. It's women too who need a good tight cut. Already I have heard that an African study shows circumcised women have lower, way lower, rates of HIV. It's time to start snippin!

  7. Bad luck cutters. The CDC has backtracked from "mandatory" and "universal" and now says, and I quote "Whatever the content may include, CDC’s final circumcision recommendations will be completely voluntary." COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY. That's just what we want too. Let the penis' owner decide.

    And here is the latest from the Royal Australasian [Australia + New Zealand] College of Physicians (RACP):

    "When considering routine infant circumcision, ethical concerns have focused on recognition of the functional role of the foreskin, the non-therapeutic nature of the operation, and the psychological distress felt by some adult males circumcised as infants. The possibility that routine circumcision contravenes human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor for non-clinical reasons, and is potentially without net clinical benefit for the child.

    "Recently there has been renewed debate regarding both the possible health benefits and the ethical concerns relating to routine male circumcision. The most important conditions where some benefit may result from circumcision are urinary tract infections, and in adults HIV infection and cancer of the penis. The frequency of these conditions, the level of protection offered by circumcision and complication rate of circumcision do not warrant a recommendation of universal circumcision for newborn and infant males in an Australian and New Zealand context.

    "After extensive review of the literature the RACP does not recommend that routine circumcision in infancy be performed, but accepts that parents should be able to make this decision with their doctors. One reasonable option is for routine circumcision to be delayed until males are old enough to make an informed choice."

  8. "It's hard to imagine anything more worthless and filthy than a foreskin." Really PD, your hatred for the foreskin seems to know no bounds. How long have you been feeling this way? Did you have a bad experience with one?

  9. PD, have you thought about getting any counseling about your hatred of foreskins? Or, maybe you could tell your story here - were you cut as an adult? What the heck happened to make you so angry?

  10. Guess what, I'm going to start a religion, where we cut off the noses of newborn boys and girls. Then, I will say that there is medical evidence supporting why it should be done, which is that you can't get nose cancer. Then, I will start a biased medical organisation run by members of my religion, which will loby to make the cutting off of noses mandatory for all human beings accross the planet.
    How does that sound?
    Or maybe I should replace nose with prostate, or breasts, or legs, or arms, and nose cancer with whatever diseases the previously mentioned body parts can get.
    You should support this, I mean, you support universal circumcision.