Yesterday's links roundup asserted that "87 percent of college women prefer a circumcised penis" but forgot to provide the actual link. I read it on Ezra Klein's blog citing this study.
« "If" | Main | Working for the Clampdown »
Circumcision Fact
24 Jun 2007 11:13 am
Comments (17)
It says that when shown _pictures_ of both, they prefer circumcised to uncircumcised, which is unsurprising. I think most people are interested in the other question.
How could you post about this again without pointing out that the study is over 20 years old and had a sample size of 55?
So, 10% of women are gay, 87% prefer a circumsized penis, that leaves 3 percent for 'other'?
The introduction of biquitous innerwebs porn, in which uncirc penises are scarce, actually works against the '20 year old study' counterpoint. However, the sample size is damning to MY's argument.
I wish they'd settle the HIV question. If I choose to uncircumcise my son, and he then contracts the virus later in life, I'd never forgive myself.
If I choose to uncircumcise my son
Um, can you do me next?
I wish they'd settle the HIV question.
The evidence from the study does seem strong, in the specific set of circumstances the study describes. That's the important part, though. Pro-circumcision activists are stressing this study in a somewhat disingenous way, suggesting that the benefit is universal. The study specifically addressed heterosexual men in sub-Saharan Africa. A similar study in Brazil did not show similar findings. There is also no evidence that the benefit applies to homosexual men. There are a lot of possible reasons for a discrepancy of this kind; the physical differences between anal and vaginal sex, the prevalance of other STDs in sub-Saharan Africa (which cause open sores that increase the risk of infection), the high amount of prostitution in those countries, and perhaps cultural sexual practices (involving dry sex) that could increase risk.
If you're a Western parent-- say, an American-- this study really shouldn't affect your decision to circumcise at all, considering there is no known advantage for gay men. And straight men in American don't get HIV.
To be more specific, the studies addressed the affect on HIV risk from voluntary adult male circumcision, not involuntary infant male circumcision. Temporarily ignoring the voluntary versus involuntary nature, circumcision is physically different for adults and infants due to the adherent foreskin at birth.We can theorize that the finding will hold up, but we can't be sure.
As to the study of college women, this matters why? What's the percentage of college men who express a preference for pictures of large-breasted women over small-breasted women? We wouldn't start giving our daughters breast implants to fit the assumed preference of their future sexual partners.
I wonder about the history of circumcision in the U.S. What accounts for American exceptionalism in this respect? Anyone know the answer to this? I say this assuming that everyone realizes that circumcisions in Western Europe are rare.
straight men in American don't get HIV
I sincerely hope you are not having unprotected sex in reliance on this looney assumption.
I'm not having unprotected sex; there are numerous STDs out there. But the fact is that for a straight man who does not use intravenous drugs, in the Western world, the rate of infection of HIV is close to zero. (Kind of like the odds of being killed by a terrorist.) That doesn't mean that I don't think people should protect themselves. But that is the truth, whatever you typically hear from the media.
hyt,
Basically, it took off as a "cure" for masturbation. U.S. doctors circumcised boys and applied carbolic acid to the clitoris of little girls caught touching themselves. Fairly quickly, girls were deemed to insufficiently desire sex to justify taking away pleasure, so that practice stopped. Boys, however, were deemed to enjoy sex more than enough, so the reduction continued to promote moral purity.
Around 1900, circumcision became a sign of a hospital birth, which only the upper class could afford. Doctors became the new priests. Many new medical "benefits" were advertised, usually based on flawed methodology. Circumcision was seen as more hygienic at a time when regular bathing wasn't as easy. With the increase in immigration, the foreskin was also seen as a mark of "dirty" immigrants.
Throughout the development of beliefs in circumcision's medical "benefits", adult males were not getting circumcised. Doctors did not push this, encouraging it for infants instead. "Don't you want to do what's best for your son?" became the basic idea.
Sounds a lot like the current HIV debate, since UNAIDS announced in December that circumcision programs to fight HIV should start with infants and move to teens and adults. The push has always been to force the surgery upon children. Its supporters know that the circumcised will perpetuate it. The practice would mostly die out if left to the adult male to decide for himself.
...porn, in which uncirc penises are scarce, actually works against the '20 year old study' counterpoint...
It seems to me that the prevalance of uncircumcised penises in porn has actually increased in recent years. Many people are surprised to learn that when erect, circumcised and uncircumcised penises are often difficult to tell apart. As a proud owner of a natural penis, I can tell you that many of the penises you are seeing in porn are in fact uncut.
Thanks for starting a discussion about circumcision. I suppose you've done that because you know it draws attention. That's fine, but why not also be kind enough to supply us with a coherent stance on the matter?
Tell us, do males deserve the choice of being genitally intact, if they prefer?
It seems to me that the prevalance of uncircumcised penises in porn has actually increased in recent years.
If you can't tell the difference, how are you so sure of this? And I seriously doubt your claim -- the cold, clinical nature of modern porn, with its hairless, plasticine performers, wouldn't settle for something as 'human' as an uncircumcised member.
If you can't tell the difference, how are you so sure of this?
Infant circumcision almost always removes the frenulum with the foreskin. If the film uses a close-up shot of the penis, whether or not the frenulum remains would be obvious. Even if it's there, how it holds the remaining foreskin would be an easy sign.
Comments closed July 08, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Prefer a circumcized penis to what? Not having penis at all?
The source of the study is clearly suspect, take a look at the rest of the site.
Posted by PHB | June 24, 2007 11:44 AM