When it comes to having a baby, there are a lot of different things you need to consider and plan before the baby arrives. Having a baby requires planning and attention and requires you to make certain decisions even before the baby is born. If you are having a baby boy then you also have to make a decision about circumcision. Whether you decide to get your baby boy circumcised or leave the foreskin can be a very delicate topic. With such an important decision such as circumcision you might be wondering what are the positive aspects and negative aspects of this common procedure. Some people are against circumcision for a religious reason while other people just think it is a standard practice. Having a baby boy can be difficult especially if you are someone on the fence about this issue and do not know that much about circumcision. If you are going to have a baby boy then you might want to look at both the positive and negative aspects of circumcision and debate them before you decide.
Benefits of Circumcision
Better Hygiene- One of the most important positive aspects of circumcision is it will create better hygiene practices. When a guy has foreskin it becomes a very delicate task of taking care of it and washing underneath of it to prevent infection or disease. Foreskin is a common place where bacteria can grow due to the location and nature of the warmer environment near the penis. If you choose to have your son circumcised, this creates a better environment for your son and can prevent disease and bacteria. Daily care of the penis is easier when there is no foreskin to worry about and washing is more efficient and accurate. Easier cleaning is especially important for a smaller child who might not be able to effectively wash the foreskin.
Prevents Urinary Tract Infections- Circumcision is also a great way to prevent your son from getting urinary tract infections. The foreskin is a known cause of urinary tract infections due to the fact it can track bacteria and infection back to the urethra. A boy can easily get bacteria and infection from the foreskin if it is not washed properly or daily. Circumcision is a great way to lessen the risk of a serious and painful infection such as one that occurs in the urinary tract.
Cuts Risk of Sexually Transmitted Diseases- Getting your son circumcised will also cut down on the risk of your son getting a sexually-transmitted disease. Since the foreskin is a common place for bacteria and infections to occur, it only makes since that the area can harbor a sexually-transmitted disease. If your son takes good care of his penis and washes it after having sex then they are less likely to encounter a sexually-transmitted disease. The foreskin can harbor fluids from a female that might contain the bacteria or virus of a sexually-transmitted disease. If your son encounters a female and forgets to wash the area under the foreskin then they are at a higher risk of catching a sexually-transmitted disease.
Improves Self-Esteem- Self-esteem and social acceptance might also be a reason why you would choose to get your son circumcised at birth. Your son might notice when he gets in school that everyone is circumcised and if he is not this could lead to feeling embarrassed or socially awkward. Knowing that the other men around you are circumcised and you are not might also lower your son’s self-esteem and make him feel either like less of a man or not worthy. If your husband or the father of the child is circumcised then it would be good to get your son circumcised so he does not feel different around his dad. You want your child to feel like they are worthy and that they belong in the male group.
Can Prevent Medical Issues- Circumcision can also prevent many different medical conditions that are common among people who have foreskin. Circumcision will prevent phimosis which is the inability to pull the foreskin back when it should be retractable. Paraphimosis is also a common medical issue with foreskin and it is when you can not get the foreskin to go back to the natural position. Paraphimosis is a very painful condition and it can cause skin irritation as well as inflammation and infection. Choosing to get your son circumcised will prevent these painful and serious medical conditions from happening.
Risks Associated With Circumcision
There are also some negative aspects of getting your son circumcised so you should take them into consideration as well. You should always look at both the good and the bad of circumcision before you make such an important decision. Remember, as a parent you have a duty to protect your son and keep him as healthy as possible. If you are still on the fence about getting your son circumcised then you need to remember some important negative aspects of this medical procedure.
It Could Be Painful- One negative aspect of the circumcision procedure is the pain your son will go through. No parent wants to see their child in pain and circumcision is one of the most painful events in a young male’s life. If your child is a newborn then the pain will be more difficult for you to handle since they can not really give a newborn pain medication good enough. The pain only should last about four weeks and is generally tolerable after the first week. As the circumcision area heals the penis will be very sensitive and sore and there might be some irritation or redness.
Surgical Risk- As with any medical procedure there is always a risk involved in performing the circumcision. Going into a surgical procedure on a small child involves more risk than a surgical procedure on an adult so that is a known negative aspect. The risks of a circumcision are just like the risks of any surgical procedure which can involve infection, bleeding, injury to the penis, improper healing or scarring and even death although most of the risks are very minor or unlikely to occur. You need to make sure you understand the risks involved with the circumcision procedure which should be something your doctor will discuss with you.
Having a circumcision is not a necessary medical procedure and there is no real risk involved by keeping the foreskin. Some people think that since circumcision is an elected surgical procedure it is not something you should mess with. Generally, a circumcision is performed as soon as a boy is born unless specified by the parent these days. Since a circumcision is more of a cosmetic procedure it might also not be something you want your son to go through at the moment. You can wait until your child gets a little older to make the decision but it is more painful as they get older and there is a better chance of scarring if you wait.
1. Women get far more infections down there than men, and their parts are a lot harder to keep clean, but we don’t cut parts off baby girls to make it easier.
2. You have to circumcise 111 baby boys to prevent one UTI. Girls get about four times as many UTI’s as boys though, but we just treat those with antibiotics.
3. In Europe, almost no-one is circumcised unless their parents are Jewish or Muslim, but Europe has lower rates of STI’s than the USA. Several studies including a 29 year study of males in New Zealand showed a slightly *higher* rate of STI’s among circumcised men. Babies aren’t going to be getting any STI’s before they’re old enough to decide for themselves whether or not they want part of their genitals cutting off. It’s their body; it should be their decision.
4. Improves Self-Esteem!?!? If someone thinks they’e going to feel better after surgery down there, they can make that decision for themselves when they’re old enough.
5. It can prevent medical issues, but they’re a lot rarer than you think, and can usually be treated by more conservative means.
It’s actually less painful to circumcise later in life btw. General anesthetic can be used, adn the foreskin doesn’t need to be separated from the glans. (the most painful part). The USA (at 55% and dropping) and Israel are the only two countries in the world where more than half of baby boys are circumcised. Other countries circumcise, but not till anywhere from the age of seven to adolescence. Only about 10% of the world’s circumcised men were circumcised as babies. 70% of the world’s men (88% of the world’s non-Muslim men) never get circumcised.
This is what some national medical organizations say about male circumcision:
Canadian Paediatric Society
“Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed.”
“Circumcision is a ‘non-therapeutic’ procedure, which means it is not medically necessary.”
“After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions.”
Royal Australasian College of Physicians
“After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand.”
(almost all the men responsible for this statement will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%. “Routine” circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in Australia.)
British Medical Association
“to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate.”
The Royal Dutch Medical Association
“The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity.”
“[30 September 2013] – At a meeting today in Oslo, the children’s ombudspersons from the five Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, and Iceland), and the children’s spokesperson from Greenland, in addition to representatives of associations of Nordic paediatricians and pediatric surgeons, have agreed to work with their respective national governments to achieve a ban on non-therapeutic circumcision of underage boys.”
German Pediatric Association
“Therefore it is not understandable that circumcision of boys should be allowed but that of girls prohibited worldwide. Male circumcision is basically comparable with FGM types Ia and Ib that the Schafi Islamic school of law supports”
“The other claimed health benefits, including protection against HIV/AIDS, genital herpes, genital warts, and penile cancer, are questionable, weak, and likely to have little public health relevance in a Western context, and they do not represent compelling reasons for surgery before boys are old enough to decide for themselves.”
(Written in direct response to the AAP’s position statement on male circumcision, and signed by 38 senior physicians, about half of them presidents or chairs of national paediatric or urological organisations).
Drops in male circumcision since 1950:
USA: from 90% to 55%
Canada: from 48% to 32%
UK: from 35% to about 5% (about 1-2% among non-Muslims)
Australia: 90% to 12.4% (“routine” circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in all states except one)
New Zealand: 95% to below 3% (mostly Samoans and Tongans)
South America and Europe: never above 5%
According to Theresa To’s study of 60,000 boys you would need to circumcise 192 boys to prevent a UTI. But To’s study was biased by failing to control for discharge diagnosis. If just 0.5% of intact boys with a UTI in that study had been circumcised for UTI, the benefit of circumcision evaporates.
There are over 20 studies and two meta-analyses confirming that circ protects against UTIs.
And when you remove Thomas Wiswell, who played hard and fast with the data, and St. Morris, patron saint of the groundless study and the circumcision meta-analyses, what do you have left?
Then why did I get a UTI while circumcised? Derp.
As you well know not one of the organisations you cite opposes circ in the context of high-HIV countries. I might also add that, unlike the AAP, they have not conducted thorough literature reviews, and the Dutch one was particularly awful, being the work of an intactivist with no medical background. The 38 physicians (out of 1000s) were rebutted by the AAP.
The AAP rebuttal to the 38 highest ranking physicians was embarrassingly unsuccessful, even more so than their 2010 FGM initiative which they literally were immediately forced to retract due to public outrage led by Intactivist forces the world over. The recent Freedman editorial in AAP Journal shows their circumcision juggernaut to be hopelessly sputtering.
I’d pay a year’s salary rather than be circumcised. Why would I want the most sensitive and pleasurable parts cut off? That little bit of skin makes a big difference.
So true.
So false. I have caught out ml66uk (Mark Lyndon of Manchester) lying many times in the past and know better than to believe anything he says.
But, you worship at the shrine of Saint Brian Morris.
We all know where you are coming from.
He probably is Brian Morris.
Er, no.
That is an American fallacy. In most of the world there is no decision to make. A normal healthy child needs no surgery, certainly not circumcision.
The decision can and should be left to the the person whose life will be affected – the boy himself. Of course it will be a little while before he can make that decision, but no need to rush.
Pathetic pro circ article probably written by a woman who cut her kids or will. Circumcision is on the way out. Kids cut today will know full well what damage was caused when they develop and research on the internet. I truly feel sorry for them and their parents who are misled by poor articles such as this. Leave your boys sexual organs alone. He will thank you for it. 80 percent if the men in the world are whole and happy. Men do not choose circumcision for themselves – only in rare cases due to societal or religious pressure or absolute medical need. The foreskin is there for a reason google foreskin functions and learn. Americans need to learn.
Basic Human Genital Anatomy
“Neurologically, the most specialized pressure-sensitive cells in the human body are Meissner’s corpuscles for localized light touch and fast touch, Merkel’s disc cells for light pressure and tactile form and texture, Ruffini’s corpuscles for slow sustained pressure, deep skin tension, stretch, flutter and slip, and Pacinian corpuscles for deep touch and detection of rapid external vibrations. They are found only in the tongue, lips, palms, fingertips, nipples, and the clitoris and the crests of the ridged band at the tip of the male foreskin. These remarkable cells process tens of thousands of information impulses per second and can sense texture, stretch, and vibration/movement at the micrometre level. These are the cells that allow blind people to “see” Braille with their fingertips. Cut them off and, male or female, it’s like trying to read Braille with your elbow.
Physiologically, the clitoris is richly endowed with thousands of these specialized pressure-sensitive nerves and the clitoral foreskin is virtually bereft of them. The ridged band at the tip of the the penile foreskin is richly endowed with thousands of these same specialized pressure-sensitive nerves and the glans is virtually bereft of them. Lightening speed feedback by somatosensory transduction from such tactile sensitivity gives humans intense pleasure, environmental awareness, and control. Cut off these super-sensitive cells and with lack of awareness comes lack of control. To say that amputation of the clitoris or amputation of the mobile roller-bearing-like portion of the natural penis, and consequently thousands of these specialized nerve cell interfaces, does not permanently sub-normalize a woman’s or a man’s natural capabilities and partially devitalize their innate capacity for gliding action tactile pleasure is grossly illogical denial of the bio-mechanical and the somatosensory facts of human genital anatomy.
Mechanically, the natural vaginal and penile lubricants are kept inside the vagina during male/female intercourse by the organic seal effect of the mobile penile foreskin. The mechanoreceptors in the buried legs of the intact clitoris straddle the entroitus of the vagina and are stimulated by the identical mechanoreceptors in the thick bunching accordion folds of the mobile penile foreskin. The clitoris and the penile foreskin are also intensely vascular – thickening when stimulated. Millions of years of trial and error evolutionary forces have synchronously engineered the human sex organs to function synergistically. We can be sure Nature has evolved (if you prefer, God has created) these differences and duplications for a reason. The brilliantly engineered unaltered female body is the perfect match for the equally brilliantly engineered design of the natural penis; they evolved together to compliment each other and they function collaboratively to achieve two common goals – mutual pleasure and insemination.
A woman can live without the sensitivity of the visible part of her clitoris. A man can live without the mobile and most sensitive part of his penis. But, both men and women are better off with their natural fine-touch parts intact – all of them. And so are their sexual partners.”
(Gary Harryman)
No mention of genital corpuscles? These are the ones generally considered to be the source of erogenous sensation and are richly concentrated around the glans, but are rare in, or absent from, the 4skin. Meissner’s corps are present in some, not all, 4skins, are mostly gone by middle age, and are bigger and more numerous in other areas, like fingertips, which are not erogenous.
Circumcision should be a personal choice when the person is old enough to decide for themselves.
Amen to that.
In an ideal world, but this is not an ideal world. If you lived in a country with double digit HIV rates would you just hope that your son will be sensible and take appropriate precautions, thus gambling with his life? Or would you give him an effective prophylaxis at the best time, and ensure that he already has some protection when he becomes sexually active? Note also that infant circ is cheaper, quicker, safer and more convenient than adult, and that many adults in multiple studies (of barriers to circ as part of anti-HIV drives) say they wouldn’t mind being circ’d but are deterred by things like fear of pain, inconvenience, and the need for abstinence during healing, none of which apply to infants.
Is the US a country with double digit HIV rates?
I think that puts your bull rationalization to rest.
Once again, genital cutting on children who don’t need it, is morally inexcusable.
It doesn’t take a genius to see that.
Most new HIV are found in uncut spiks, blacks that use drugs and receptive homosexuals! Not in normal circumcised males!
No circumcised man is normal. Take yourself for instance.
Countries like Japan hardly circumcise at all and their HIV rate is way lower than the USA. There is no correlation between HIV rate and circumcision rate when looking at the epidemiological data. Apparently Malawi’s HIV rate has went way up since the circumcision drive.
Oh like vaccines!
And IF vaccination could wait until adulthood I would agree with you. Do I need to explain why vaccination needs to be preformed at a young age?
Vaccinations like circumcision comes down to parental decision.
No, vaccinations require early administration for them to be effective. Do I need to explain why?
exactly.
Circumcision has backed up medical benefits, that is a fact.
Medical studies are now backing this practice as healthier for male health than non-circumcision. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that medically performed male circumcision could help decrease the risk of contracting HIV, sexually transmitted infections, as well as other health problems.
In response to the draft CDC guidelines, which the peer review says was written by a “who’s who of circumcision advocates”, 31 senior physicians, around half of them presidents or chairs of national pediatric or urological organisations, wrote the following:
“However, the way from the background paper to the recommendations is marked by exclusion, omission and minimization of scientific peer evidence that does not support the recommendation. This is very similar to the development of the AAP circumcision policy statement in 2012 in which critical evidence was omitted or downplayed. A group of 38 distinguished physicians from Europe and Canada, comprising several heads and representatives of national medical associations, societies for pediatricians and pediatric surgeons, and medical ethics boards, published a comprehensive and evidence-based reply to the AAP recommendations, which has not been considered by the CDC (Frisch et al 2013).”
“Health providers, male patients and parents will miss important information for decision making if they follow the CDC proposal.”
Frisch is a well-known circ opponent and hardly impartial.
Read the Freedman letter.
Some doctors at the Centers for Disease Control have a religious bias in favor of male circumcision that distorts their clinical judgment. No one should pay any attention that biased report.
“One of the most important positive aspects of circumcision is it will create better hygiene practices. When a guy has foreskin it becomes a very delicate task of taking care of it and washing underneath of it to prevent infection or disease.”
Seriously? Really now?? “delicate task”??? I am so sick and tired of people using this hygiene argument as a reason to circumcise. It’s complete crap and has absolutely no basis in what actually takes place. Unless you’re an intact man or have had contact with an intact man who can tell you how the washing process really goes, please stop commenting about something that you really know nothing about and acting as if it’s some monumental problem that requires us to automatically remove the most sensitive part of a boy’s penis at birth. I’ll openly and proudly admit that I am not circumcised and that washing my foreskin is nowhere near the huge inconvenience people make it out to be. It literally takes 5 seconds: first retract the foreskin all the way back, rub away any smegma or dirt that is on the inner foreskin or glans, rinse everything with water and then replace the foreskin all the way forward. No soap is necessary, as it can cause problems with the mucous membrane environment that is damaged by circumcision. That’s it! Nothing else. It takes me less time and effort to wash my hair every day than it does to wash my foreskin. So if we go by the pro-circumcision logic I should get all my hair removed via laser removal so it doesn’t inconvenience my daily hygiene routine right? This argument is beyond ridiculous. 80% of the world’s men are intact and you don’t hear about them not being able to wash themselves and constantly needing to be circumcised because of supposed problems with bacteria or infections. And you know why you don’t hear it? Because this fear mongering pushed by pro-circumcision advocates in the US (and the US alone) doesn’t play out in reality and men don’t have the unending list of problems and complications from having a foreskin like people in this country think they do.
“Foreskin is a common place where bacteria can grow due to the location and nature of the warmer environment near the penis. If you choose to have your son circumcised, this creates a better environment for your son and can prevent disease and bacteria.”
Oh give me a break. I’ve lived into my late 20s with a foreskin and not once have I had a problem with bacteria or any other kind of infection. It just doesn’t happen like pro-circumcision advocates say it happens. If you do the very simple 5 second washing routine I outlined above every day like a clean man should, you won’t ever have any problems at all. It’s plain and simple. Women’s labia and vaginal area have a lot more folds and moist areas where bacteria can grow and thrive, but you don’t see them having problems and needing to have their genitals augmented or removed do you? Such a surgery is in fact illegal if done to baby girls, and rightly so. So why aren’t baby boys afforded the same protection of their penis when born? Going along with this stupid bacteria argument, we might as well get our eyelids removed because bacteria can thrive there given that they’re a mucous membrane just like underneath the foreskin. Again, what a bunch of crap.
How about we leave the circumcision decision up to the boy who has to live with the penis for the rest of his life after he reaches adulthood? If you want to go get circumcised as an adult, be my guest and do whatever you want. But this surgery should not be performed on non-consenting infants, as it is nearly permanent and causes a lot of damage to a normal functioning organ.
Improves Self-Esteem- Self-esteem and social acceptance might
also be a reason why you would choose to get your son circumcised at
birth. Your son might notice when he gets in school that everyone is
circumcised and if he is not this could lead to feeling embarrassed or
socially awkward.
This is freaking crazy. What it is easy to explain what you can never have. Don’t people who write such insanity realize what they are doing. Circumcision ruins what a penis is and even worse its forced on a child, come on, wake up people circumcision on a child or infant is sick.
I’m glad we share the same views. That’s absolutely correct. It significantly decreases the sexual function of the penis. I’ll never get the obsession with circumcision in the US. It boggles my mind.
It makes no difference to the sexual function of the penis as shown by multiple studies including 2 RCTs, a meta-analysis and an extensive review.
Leave it to the person with the foreskin to get circumcised. It’s not my foreskin or anyone else’s to chop off. That’s the bottom line. All of these other issues are not important. If an adult wants to go get circumcised, great. Go be my guest. Whether it leads to less sexual function, more metal stenosis or not, I could care less. But a child should be protected and be able to make the decision for themselves.
It is best done as a baby! A few minutes of discomfort for a lifetime of benefits! Circumcision perfects the imperfect!
You absolutely believe what you want to believe, to justify that you voluntarily had your foreskin removed.
I’m OK with that. It was your choice.
What I’m not OK with, is your need to spread the gospel to everyone else.
Multiple studies by circumcised guys to prove that circumcision is the greatest invention of mankind don’t prove anything, except desire to justify.
Meta-analyses, especially those by circumfetishists, don’t really cut it either, pardon the pun. A meta-analysis of crap is still crap. Ditto for an extensive review.
Advocating unneeded surgery on children, is morally reprehensible.
It is truly sick stuff.
Dude, you are the pot calling the kettle black! You are uncut and want to force your beliefs on normal American parents! Face it 80% plus of white boys get circumcised everyday! You were the odd man out in school, the freak kid….get circumcised already!
thank you
There is no proof that it decreases sexual function of the penis! Most studies show it does not have a negative effect.
Even if that were true, “socially awkward” is not a justification for genital mutilation.
Circumcision does not ruin anything, stop trying to spread lies. Don’t you know how insane you sound.
It destroys sexual pleasure as it only leaves you with the non-erogenous glans and a scrap of frenulum in most cases. All the erogenous nerves are in the foreskin. Most mutilated men don’t know this as they were knife-raped at birth.
No, it does not destroy sexual pleasure since the glans are erogenous and most sex experts will laugh at you if you repeat what you said here. No study, I repeat NO study shows or confirms the ridiculous thing you said.
For many, circumcision perfects the penis. You know what is insane, people telling OTHER people what they should do with their child.
You know what is insane, people who believe removal of the cl_toral hood perfects the vagina.
My sensations were not negatively affected.
Do you have a study to back up that laughable claim?
Very true.
They will continue to ignore actual real life experiences.
The whole “damage” you speak of is unproven and many studies show there is no damage.
“Some people are against circumcision for a religious reason while other people just think it is a standard practice.”
As an atheist, I can assure you there are many reasons one might be opposed to this procedure.
Better Hygiene- Caring for an intact child is easy. Just wipe the outside like a finger. Never attempt to forcefully retract the foreskin. Sometime between childhood and adolescence, it will become retractable on it’s own. Instruct them to retract and rinse with warm soapy water and you’re good. This only takes seconds. It’s not a hard or delicate procedure.
UTI’s- The risk of any male child getting a UTI is really now. Beyond infancy, circumcision confers no benefit. Additionally, UTI’s can be easily treated with antibiotics.
STD’s- Ever wonder why the diseases supposedly less common in circumcised men occur less frequently in the mostly uncircumcised western world than they occur in the USA? It comes down to safe sex practices. Wear condoms, get the HPV vaccine, and circumcision becomes useless.
Self-Esteem- Circumcision guarantees nothing regarding self-esteem. The rates of circumcision have dropped to the point where your child is unlikely to be the only uncircumcised one in class. What you’re advocating here is herd mentality. It’s not healthy in the slightest. The best interests of the child’s health should be paramount. We should all raise our children in a way that self-esteem comes from within. If they wonder why they’re different, explaining why you didn’t circumcise them will likely make them feel grateful that they didn’t experience what their peers did.
Medical Issues- All the one’s you listed are unlikely to occur. Decisions like this should never be based on fringe scenarios.
I’d recommend soap not be used. It can irritate the area.
You sound ignorant and ignored major things. Do you know that many do the STDS in America are common among communities who do have foreksin. Connecting countries that have high STDs with high circumcision is very stupid.
Many people that are also against circumcision are against foreign cultures, especially Jewish cultures.
There is no link between circumcision rate and HIV rate. Source: world epidemiological data.
Circumcision destroys sexual pleasure. Sources: My experience as I was cut in my teens so know, and histological analysis of the foreskin and glans.
Your experience is yours and that’s is….many men have said how their sexual pleasure increased after circumcision or there was not much difference after. Source: thousands of men in Kenya and Uganda study as well as other countries.
There is a link between circumcision and lower HIV transmission. Source: endless studies confirmed by World Health Organization.
Saying sexual pleasure increases after cutting off sex nerves is like saying clarity of eyesight is improved after chopping your eyes in half.
“Sex nerves” that makes no sense lmao. Your whole comment does not make any sense. Foreskin is not the same as half your eyes, you are just proving to me that anti-circumcision people have the most flawed logic.
Endless? You mean 3 methodologically flawed ones funded by the USA. lol Derp.
No, three very well done objective studies done by professionals who had no bias on the topic. America has the tools and money and funds many many studies all around the world. Does not mean they have a voice in the conclusion. Heck, European studies are more biased.
Better hygiene is not only for infants but throughout life, soup is not recommended and water is not enough. Most objective studies show circumcision does have medical benefits, WHO even backs up these studies. STDs and other infections are much lower among circumcised men and that is a fact.
Wow, necroing an old thread much?
“Better hygiene is not only for infants but throughout life, soup is not recommended and water is not enough.”
Who washes their with soup?
“Most objective studies show circumcision does have medical benefits, WHO even backs up these studies.”
True, but let me ask you one thing. Do you even know what circumcision is? They take take a baby boy (which is what I’m pretty sure you’re advocating for here) who is at best partially numbed during the procedure and fully conscious, assuming he doesn’t faint from the horrendous ensuing agony, and they cut off a large chunk of his shaft skin. Then they slap some petroleum and a diaper on it and your little bugger spends the next few days pissing all over a healing wound for the first crucial days of his life.
Now, wouldn’t you think if I was going to say, consent to something like that on behalf of my child, by taking away his autonomy over his body, I’d have a damn good reason to do that?
Do I live in an HIV epidemic level country in Africa? No. Does ANY medical body in the world advocate RIC? No. The best you have is the AAP, saying, well, uh… we don’t actually know all the complications that can result from this totally optional procedure, but we’re going to go ahead and make a blanket statement that the benefits outweigh the risks because, lul… Africa and stuff? And the AAP wonders why they were so brutally lambasted by other medical organizations for their policy statement? Further to the point though, even they, the most pro of pro circumcision say, that even though they believe the benefits outweigh the risks, they still don’t advocate routine circumcision. They leave the choice as a discretionary decision to the parents. Well, as a parent, I choose to exercise my discretion and not circumcise.
“STDs and other infections are much lower among circumcised men and that is a fact.”
No, it’s not a fact. It’s another blanket statement, the kind I’m used to seeing these days from RIC fanatics. Not all STDs occur at lower rates in circumcised populations and the comparative risk varies between one STD and another when comparing one group to another – one region to another, etc… It’s a gross oversimplification of a persons relative acquisition risk that doesn’t take into account other far more crucial factors.
1. Circumcision has been shown by many studies to decrease the chances of being infected by STDs, infections and does offer better hygiene. It is also less likely to cause problems later on in life where foreksin can become an issue. STDs are an issue everywhere. It’s a FACT that circumcisions does reduce the chances of getting many types of infections and STDs.
2. Circumcision is low risk if done in sterile environments by a professional. The risks are less than 1 percent and it would be close to zero if very minor things such as a little bleeding did not happen, which are also rare.
3. They are given pain reducers and crying is not a sign that they are in deep pain. Babies cry louder than when they were circumcised if you give them a bath. I know, I am a nurse.
4. The whole point is about parental choice! Hence what APP is trying to say when acknowledging the benefits and agreeing that benefits of circumcision do in fact outweigh risks. But still giving the choice to the parents.
You can have your opinion and use shocking words but that still does not mean you are correct and pro-circ people are wrong.
“Circumcision has been shown by many studies to decrease the chances of being infected by STDs”
Again, It doesn’t lower the risk for ALL STDs and if you’ve really done your homework, you’d know that. If you’re going to advocate a position, the bare minimum you can do is be concise and transparent, otherwise people are going to assume you’re being intentionally vague to hide the weaknesses of your stated position.
“and does offer better hygiene”
If you mean hygiene by changing the natural bacterial biome of the penis through circumcision, and thus, lowering the risk contracting an STD (please cite which ones you are referring to), that is debatable. All that anyone has conclusively established is a correlation between circumcision and lower rates of transmission with X, Y, and Z. A causation is yet to be demonstrated.
What does this mean? We don’t know why circumcision lowers the risk. We just know it does. Now, if what you’re actually trying to say is ew, smegma, or something of the like, you’re entering even more controversial waters. The penis in its natural state has a very specific bacterial profile. Some of that bacteria is good, some of it is bad. When you remove the foreskin, the bacterial composition is completely altered. Whether this is the reason for the reduction in risk remains to be seen. It is in fact possible that washing and drying out a penis with soap might raise the risk of bad bacterial taking over and leading to an infection. Thus, this hygienic maneuver would end up having quite the opposite effect, so when you claim circumcision makes a penis more hygienic, you’re making that claim based on an assumption, not an established fact.
“It is also less likely to cause problems later on in life where foreskin can become an issue.”
Yes, it is true that if you don’t have a foreskin, you won’t have foreskin related problems later in life. Did you also know that castrated men have a zero percent chance of developing testicular cancer?
“It’s a FACT that circumcisions does reduce the chances of getting many types of infections and STDs.”
Okay, that’s at least slightly less vague than the last time you made this claim. I’m not actually in disagreement on this point. It’s just that those benefits aren’t enough for any pediatric organization in the world to recommend the procedure.
“2”
The first point is true, but that isn’t the way it pans out in the real world. Most circumcisions the world over are performed in non-sterile conditions, and the ones that are aren’t always performed by the steadies of hands. The second point is like saying you wouldn’t die if cancer couldn’t kill you. I agree of the risks we’ve exclusively studied, the risk of complications are low, but even the AAP admits quite upfront that, “The true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision is unknown.” If a doctor came to you with a vaccine for a minor disease and said something to that degree, would you really feel comfortable with that prospect? I sure as heck wouldn’t, and if all vaccines carried that sort of risk, I find it highly doubtful you’d see very many people vaccinating their children.
“3”
I’ve seen studies that claim even with a full dorsal block, it doesn’t completely eliminate the pain. Also, keep in mind that after that wears off, all the kids get if the parents even bother to bring up post surgery pain concerns is some on and off children’s Tylenol, which like the dorsal block aforementioned, carries its own health related risks. Oh, and did I mention newborn boys frequently get erections because of the high levels of testosterone in their bodies. Just let the image of that sink in for a moment…
All of these problems can be avoided by not opting FOR AN UNNECESSARY PROCEDURE.
“4”
Let’s just pretend every other pediatric body doesn’t vehemently disagree with the AAP’s conclusions. If we just go with what the AAP recommends and leave it at that, the tipping point for whether a child is circumcised or not should come down to parental preference, not the medical benefits, therefore the argument shifts to those aforementioned preferences. Now, unless you live in an Orthodox Hasidim community where violating these cultural norms might actually have a meaningful impact a child’s emotional well being, I’m pretty damn sure I can refute every preferential argument one might throw my way.
“You can have your opinion and use shocking words but that still does not mean you are correct and pro-circ people are wrong.”
Very little of what I’ve stated has been opinion, and if what I have stated is in fact true, I AM CORRECT. That goes without saying.
Evidence supports that male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection. Which is huge and a great way for better prevention in the future. Circumcision in general is associated with reduced rates of cancer causing forms of HPV and risk of both UTIs and cancer of the penis. It makes logical sense since there is less bacteria, viruses etc stuck there. You can find so may studies backing this up. There is also evidence that shows women with circumcised partners have less chances of cervical cancer. Jewish women actually have lower rates of cervical cancer compared to other groups. I am for circumcision performed in sterile environments by a doctor who is VERY experienced. If this is the case, the risks are extremely low. The baby is also not in severe pain and there just is not that much evidence that backs up the babies are mentally altered, that is all bs. Also, the comparison with removing the whole testicles….no, why do people do that? So removing my tonsils is same as removing my brain?
What does babies getting erections have to do with this? Pain relievers are used, enough for the baby to be safe! They won’t do surgery on a baby if it caused severe pain nor put the baby in harm. This is not about preferences, this is about parental choice after doing their research and speaking with their doctor. Not Internet people!! And APP is one of the best organizations and their stand on this is very important.
“Evidence supports that male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection.”
Yes, I agree. In sub-Saharan Africa, the evidence currently supports that conclusion. There is not one single piece of conclusive evidence RC has the same effect outside that setting.
“Circumcision in general is associated with reduced rates of cancer causing forms of HPV and risk of both UTIs and cancer of the penis. It makes logical sense since there is less bacteria, viruses etc stuck there. You can find so may studies backing this up. There is also evidence that shows women with circumcised partners have less chances of cervical cancer. Jewish women actually have lower rates of cervical cancer compared to other groups.”
Finally, I thought we’d never get here. I am in agreement, circumcision reduces the risks of HPV, UTIs, and certain cancers. You’re preaching to the converted here. Now allow me to add a bit of context.
You’re advocating surgery. Surgery is generally reserved as a last resort. One must therefore ask the question, “Is there an alternative to surgical intervention in this case?” Well, let us address the points you brought up.
UTIs: Whether a child is circumcised or not, they’re still very uncommon, and the risk reduction for males in only within the first year of life. There is a significant risk reduction with circumcision. I’ll give you that, but with the risk already quite low, it’s a drop it the bucket. If it really was a significant enough of a benefit, the AAP (along with EVERY other reputable pediatric organization in the world) wouldn’t hesitate in recommending RIC, but they don’t, so that’s that.
HPV: Good news! There’s these things called HPV vaccines. They don’t prevent all mutations of the virus, but they prevent the majority of the ones that lead to cervical cancer.
Oh, and did you know that the closest analogues to the United States – Western European States, have equal or lower rates of HPV and cervical cancer when compared to the United States, and – GASP! Most of their men are intact.
Now listen closely here, because I want you to be clear on what I’m actually arguing here. I am not arguing that the research is wrong. I’m arguing that your application of it to your argument is incorrect.
Case in point, circumcision status of a woman’s partner IS NOT the greatest risk factor in HPV acquisition. Where, who, and how your male partner has been going at it with other women is. That’s why you can have a country like the US have a higher incidence of these diseases, even though most men here are cut, because being cut isn’t nearly as important as not being a moron when it comes to where you stick your junk, which seems to be a concept lost on many Americans.
So, let’s bring this full circle. The original question, “Is there an alternative to surgical intervention?” We’re basing this on the universally agreed upon principle of surgery as a last result. We can’t argue circumcision as a supplementary approach because it is an order of last resort. That is to say, it, we resort to circumcision AFTER exhausting all other alternatives first. We do this because surgery carries a greater risk than the other suggested alternatives.
With that, let us look at Western Europe. Relatively low incidences of the conditions less likely to occur in the circumcised. Some of these countries have very low incidences of HPV and CC. This is the case because, although circumcision is uncommon in these countries, they mitigate their risk factors in different ways. Would introducing RIC to these countries lower the incidences if nothing else changed? In theory, yes, but we’re already talking about a handful of countries where the incidences of these conditions are some of the lowest in the world. Yes, circumcision might drive those numbers lower, but the numbers we have to work with are already so low, we’re dealing with the law of diminishing returns here. There comes a point when it’s just not worth the intervention.
The AAP states quite plainly that the benefits of circumcision are not enough to recommend the procedure routinely. The made that statement, because they’re aware of the above. They know that surgery to treat a medical condition is usually reserved as a last resort. They know that there are other more effective ways to deal with these conditions than circumcision. They know this, because if they believed otherwise, they would come out and advocated RIC in their updated policy statement. But, again, they did not, and that is that. Which AGAIN, leaves us with the preferential, not the medical – justifications taking the fore.
“Also, the comparison with removing the whole testicles….no, why do people do that?”
It’s comparing one absurd proposition that people have normalized and thus do not see it as absurd due to their bias, with another absurd proposition that hasn’t been normalized. It’s fun watching people freak out at the comparison and assume that I’m arguing the two are analogous, which they of course aren’t.
So removing my tonsils is same as removing my brain?
No. Removing your brain is equivalent to removing your brain. Removing your foreskin to prevent a disease is comparable to removing any other body part in the homes of preventing a disease.
“What does babies getting erections have to do with this?”
Ask a man who got an adult circumcision how morning wood felt in the days following the surgery. Here, I’ll save you the time. He’d tell you it HURTS!
“Pain relievers are used, enough for the baby to be safe!”
Define safe. Some pediatricians refuse to use dorsal blocks (the most effect pain reliever), because they’re terrified of the infant having a surprise allergic reaction to the analgesic. Rare as it might be, people don’t like being sued for all they’re worth, so a lot of them don’t even bother to take the risk, which means, more pain for the one on the receiving end.
“They won’t do surgery on a baby if it caused severe pain nor put the baby in harm.”
Dead wrong. For most of RIC’s history, they didn’t use ANY analgesics. Using them is a recent phenomena, and they aren’t even used universally for the aforementioned reasons, and even when they do, it takes 30 minutes for them to take full effect. Most practitioners start cutting mere minutes after injecting the analgesic.
“This is not about preferences”
It is for the vast majority of parents who circumcise their sons, “So they’ll look like Daddy.”
“this is about parental choice”
Based on parental preference, because-
“after doing their research and speaking with their doctor.”
Their research, if you follow the AAP line leads to the conclusion that circumcision is not recommended for or against by the AAP. Instead, they suggest you make that call for yourself based on what you think is best for your family. If your doctor has done his homework, he will tell you exactly what the AAP concludes. Unless your child has a precondition mandating circumcision, that rules out medical reasons. We are therefore left with religious reasons (which I would classify as a preference), social norms (the perceived preferences of Society), and family norms (I prefer my son to match his father, brother, etc…)
“Not Internet people!”
Pot, meet Kettle. Kettle, Pot.
“And APP is one of the best organizations and their stand on this is very important.”
And their policy position is, “Leave it to the families”, because they couldn’t make the argument for RIC based on the data available. If the AAP, with all its acumen and repute, can’t make the argument that I should circumcise my son based entirely on the established medical justifications, what on earth would make you think I, a humble parent, could argue that would surmount that fact.
What you said makes very little sense. The men in Africa are just as human and similar to men in the West. If there is proof of it showing less chances of getting the virus then it points to that direction. It would mean the same in the West. People keep saying how America is circumcised and STDs are high, STDs are high among groups who don’t practice circumcision. STDs are also rising among the younger group in America and this was not the case before. Think about that.
I am not advocating surgery, I am advocating parental choice and for people not to harass parents on their choice. That’s why organizations usually give the choice to the parents by not saying full on “do it!”because it’s up to the parents to make the choice and organizations can get in hot water if something might happen.
UTIs still happen, no matter how rare they are, they still can happen to boys and men alike. It has been shown that circumcision is low risk, so you keep bringing up that it carries risks….the risks are very low if you look at their information page. The risks that usually happen are minor bleedings which can happen with vaccination. Like I said, I am only suggesting it if it’s done in hospitals by a very experienced doctor. Not many women actually have the HPV vaccination, and it does not work after getting a certain age, I think 25. And cervical cancer is lower in USA and Northern Africa than actually many places in Europe. You should check that out.
You keep bringing up Europe, here is the thing, places like Scandinavia….the population is much lower and less diverse than USA. However, other places in Europe like Spain, France, etc, STDs are a problem…same with Latin America where nobody is circumcised.
APP has stated that benefits outweigh the risks. Again, recommending it as routine can bring firestorm. Especially in this day and age with crazy Internet people.
Anti-circumcision people have compared foreskin to legs, testicles, kidneys, etc….I mean at some point it gets ridiculous and they sound insane. I am looking at it logically and yes, those comparisons sound insane. Not because circumcisions is “normalized” but because people want to use the shock factor to get their point across and it’s cheap. I am neutral on this topic….I see it for what it is, not some crazy evil procedure. The thing is though, we are not removing the brain to decrease the chances of getting brain cancer because the brain is kind of important in like you know, doing everyday stuff.
Safe to be fine after a few minutes and be ready to go home. People use the crying and screaming as “proof”….I have seen babies cry louder when giving them a bath. I have seen babies scream to the heavens above by wiping them.
“What you said makes very little sense. The men in Africa are just as human and similar to men in the West. If there is proof of it showing less chances of getting the virus then it points to that direction. It would mean the same in the West.”
The results of the African studies have never been replicated outside the continent. The conclusions were that cir significantly reduces FTM transmission of HIV. Since we do not see this mirrored in the West, it seems there is some sort of variable at play causing the disparity. What it is, we don’t know, but the disparity exists.
“People keep saying how America is circumcised and STDs are high, STDs are high among groups who don’t practice circumcision.”
Even when we exclude minorities who practice cir less, the rates of STDs are still significantly higher in the United States when compared to WEU.
“STDs are also rising among the younger group in America and this was not the case before. Think about that.”
Think about what? That doesn’t prove anything. It doesn’t demonstrate anything. There are so many reasons that could be the case. It could be a combination of different factors. To tribute that to circumcision without any corroborating evidence is just… I don’t even…
“I am not advocating surgery, I am advocating parental choice and for people not to harass parents on their choice.”
Good, I’m not advocating harassment either.
“That’s why organizations usually give the choice to the parents by not saying full on “do it!”because it’s up to the parents to make the choice and organizations can get in hot water if something might happen.”
And I highly doubt they’d be afraid to do so if universal RIC was recommendable. Food for thought.
But wait. There’s more. AAP is the only pediatric organization in the world that even claims RIC outweighs the risks. More food for thought.
“UTIs still happen, no matter how rare they are, they still can happen to boys and men alike.”
Yes, but cir only confers a benefit in the first year of life. Oh, and I forgot to mention in the last post that UTIs are easily treated with antibiotics. Cir is only recommended in severe cases of recurrent UTIs, which is even rarer. Again, refer to my good friend the law of diminishing returns.
“you keep bringing up that it carries risks….the risks are very low if you look at their information page.”
The known risks are low. KNOWN RISKS.
“The risks that usually happen are minor bleedings which can happen with vaccination.”
There’s less risk associated with vaccines than there is with cir, oh and we know this by the way because we know all the risks associated with said vaccines, because they’ve been thoroughly vetted. Can’t say I can say the same for cir, which is one of my main concerns with cir, BTW.
“Like I said, I am only suggesting it if it’s done in hospitals by a very experienced doctor.”
I agree. If parents want to be flippant idiots and dock their kid’s sleeve, they should probably have it done by a professional.
“Not many women actually have the HPV vaccination, and it does not work after getting a certain age, I think 25.”
Well, then, maybe they should consider getting it, eh? Oh, and for women over 25, what relevance do they have to babies being born today? There aren’t a lot of men who end up having intercourse with women 25 years their senior. And for the few that do, I again defer to my ever faithful companion, the law of diminishing returns.
“And cervical cancer is lower in USA and Northern Africa than actually many places in Europe. You should check that out.”
I looked up those numbers years ago. What you said sounds right and I’ll take your word for it, but I don’t see how…
“You keep bringing up Europe, here is the thing, places like Scandinavia….the population is much lower and less diverse than USA. However, other places in Europe like Spain, France, etc, STDs are a problem…same with Latin America where nobody is circumcised.”
Oh Jesus tap dancing Christ! First, show me a study that says the lower a country’s population is in comparison to another’s, the lower it’s rate of STD X. If that were the case, China should have higher rates of HIV, etc than the US, but they don’t. Second, show me a study that demonstrates the same correlation with a country whose population is largely homogeneous. Zimbabwe being 75% Shona didn’t seem to do much to stem the HIV epidemic. Third, I can compare any region I’d like to supplement my argument. If I wanted to, I could compare the US to Japan, but that would be unfair, because the US has far more in common with Western Europe than it does with Japan, or in your comparison’s case, Latin America, so let’s stick with comparing likes with likes shall we.
“APP has stated that benefits outweigh the risks. Again, recommending it as routine can bring firestorm. Especially in this day and age with crazy Internet people.”
So you’re claiming they were lying when they said the benefits were not enough to recommend RIC, because they were afraid of a handful of keyboard warriors (who can’t even rally together more than a handful of people to protest publicly} and who have never carried out a single act of violence for their cause? That their fear was so great that they would risk the health of the nation? Good grief.
“Anti-circumcision people have compared foreskin to legs, testicles, kidneys, etc….I mean at some point it gets ridiculous and they sound insane. I am looking at it logically and yes, those comparisons sound insane. Not because circumcisions is “normalized” but because people want to use the shock factor to get their point across and it’s cheap.”
A comparison is only illogical and invalid if there is nothing the compared have in common. If you’re removing one part of the body, you can compare that to removing any part of the body, because they’re both acts of removing a body part. You can claim the comparison is cheap, but that is merely subjective conjecture and since the comparison is valid, it is far from ‘insane’.
“I am neutral on this topic….I see it for what it is”
I don’t care whether or not you’re neutral. CNN for example is neutral. That sure as heck doesn’t make them objective. Objectivity is what is important here.
“The thing is though, we are not removing the brain to decrease the chances of getting brain cancer because the brain is kind of important in like you know, doing everyday stuff.”
Hey, if all else fails, you always have your reflexes to fall back on. I kid. I kid.
“Safe to be fine after a few minutes and be ready to go home. People use the crying and screaming as “proof”….I have seen babies cry louder when giving them a bath. I have seen babies scream to the heavens above by wiping them.”
You’re not doing it right, then.
In all seriousness though, your proof that they’re not in pain is just as subjective and anecdotal as the “proof” those you criticize use, and there’s a reason scientists don’t hold anecdotal evidence in high regard.
It has been replicated in Africa where it shows better results since HIV is a bigger problem there and the results would be more consistent. USA is a highly diverse and populated country, a lot more than European countries. Travel is much more here and it is bound to have more STDs…and STDs are higher among groups who tend to practice circumcision less. You can’t compare USA to countries where it more homogenous. Hey, I am just saying STDs are rising among the much younger generation, much more than the kids from 80s’ 90s, etc. Just something to keep in mind.
APP is one of the best organizations in the world for children. People forget USA has one of the best medical establishments. People from Europe and all over the world come here to learn from American medical establishments. So their word is still very much important. World Health Organizarion also stands by the benefits. Antibiotics are not really good for people and people have made cases against using antibiotics. They are not for everyone.
Actually, the risks for vaccines are close to if not more than circumcision. Vaccinations also kill babies and cause allergic reactions. They also scream and cry like they are being killed when being vaccinated. And you missed my entire point, when it done in sterile place by a good doctor, there are like close to zero risks.
China is a lot more homogenous amd has many untraveled farm places where most people live. Either way, dying from AIDS has become a leading cause there. Again, you are missing the point. You are comparing places that should not even be compared.
The benefits are there!! APP and other organizations have backed them up. They have put it out there that there are benefits and risks are low…so it’s up to the parents at the end of the day which is my stand. Many smart parents to choose to circumcise. In terms of pain, pain relievers are used no matter how many anti-circumcision people want to argue with that. Again, I have seen babies crying louder when giving them a bath.
“It has been replicated in Africa where it shows better results since HIV is a bigger problem there and the results would be more consistent.”
That’s cool, but it doesn’t address my point that they haven’t been replicated outside of that setting.
“USA is a highly diverse and populated country, a lot more than European countries. Travel is much more here and it is bound to have more STDs”
The EU is a high travel zone. France, for example, even beats out the US in that regard. But with regard to travel, you’re overemphasizing it as a risk factor. Travel is important in introducing a new disease to a population, but once it is there, the habits of said population become paramount in how many individuals become infected. The first reported cases of HIV, for example, started hitting the EU in the 80s. Most STDs we’re familiar with have been around far longer. Ages in fact. If circ status was a major risk factor in those regions, you’d think we’d have seen a crisis level epidemic by now.
“You can’t compare USA to countries where it more homogenous.”
I’ve compared the US to it’s closest analogue – Western Europe. So far, you’ve compared the US to third world Africa, and Latin America, which by the way, are fairly homogeneous populations for the most part. But homogeneity is a bit of a red herring here. I’ve already pointed out that white Americans still maintain the higher average HIV/STD rate when compared to most of WEU. Another interesting thing of note is that interracial dating is lowest among US whites, so a large scale introduction of disease from the minority populations into the majority population – which even if plausible has never been demonstrated by any study – is unlikely and mere conjecture at best. Also consider that roughly 60% of US men are white, but 81% of US men and teens 14-59 are circumcised, so this idea that there’s this giant number of uncircumcised minorities driving up the STD averages in the white population is not only an argument just slightly tinged with racism, it’s nonsense. I’m not saying you made this argument, but I’ve heard it so many times now I wanted to dispel the notion nonetheless.
“Hey, I am just saying STDs are rising among the much younger generation, much more than the kids from 80s’ 90s, etc. Just something to keep in mind.”
It’s a random point with no studies linking it to a decline in circ, so I think I’ll just let it slip into the back of my mind guilt free for the time being.
“APP is one of the best organizations in the world for children. People forget USA has one of the best medical establishments. People from Europe and all over the world come here to learn from American medical establishments. So their word is still very much important.”
And they don’t recommend RIC. I can state it a thousand different ways if you’d like, but their conclusion remains the same.
“World Health Organizarion also stands by the benefits.”
They recommend circ in countries where there’s a heterosexual HIV/AIDS epidemic and a low rate of circ. The US does not fit that profile, and WEU most certainly doesn’t either.
“Antibiotics are not really good for people and people have made cases against using antibiotics. They are not for everyone.”
Antibiotics have an extremely high success rate with regard to UTIs. I’m sure you can find fringe arguments that antibiotics shouldn’t be used to treat the rare UTI, however, if you did so, you’d be screwing over little girls, because they get them at rates far higher than boys do. Circumcision is only advised in cases of severe recurrent UTIs, and even then, if the boy has a UTI, circumcised or not, they’re going to TREAT HIM WITH ANTIBIOTICS REGARDLESS! If your next argument is going to be, “Well, if more boys were circumcised, there would be less UTIs.” Yes, I agree, but at what cost? We don’t know the true incidence of complications with regard to the procedure. Of those we know, the risks are low, but so are the risks of developing a UTI in the first place, and the risks of recurrent UTIs that don’t respond to antibiotics are even lower, and the risk of complications from antibiotics and UTIs in the already minuscule percentage that will ever need them are even lower still. Law. Of. Diminishing. Returns! Jesus Christ.
“Actually, the risks for vaccines are close to if not more than circumcision.”
Judging by the varying numbers on this, we average between 10,000-50,000 hospitalizations due to circ complications every year in this country. For all vaccinations, the average is around 1,000-2,000 hospitalizations every year. I would hardly call that close.
“Vaccinations also kill babies and cause allergic reactions. ”
I know you probably aren’t, but you’re seriously starting to sound like an anti-vaxxer here. VEARS data, which tracks the hospitalization statistics cited above, have never been able to attribute a death to vaccination. Is it possible that babies have died? Yes? Can I say any babies have died from vaccinations in, say, the last five years? No, because I don’t have the evidence needed to substantiate that claim. If however, I look at circumcision, I can cite several examples within the last few years where a death was directly attributed to the procedure.
“They also scream and cry like they are being killed when being vaccinated.”
They’re also keeping the next plague from sweeping across our nation and killing millions of people. Oh, and tell me, which sounds more painful to you? Having a needle poked in you for a few seconds, or having that needle poked into your penis, followed by a genital surgery without general anesthesia, followed by a week with a healing wound right next to your urethra. If your answer is the prior, this conversation is over.
I also feel the need to note that if we were to introduce RIC to WEU, we probably wouldn’t see much change, but if we were to say, end all vaccination programs, well, I don’t think I even need to tell you what that would look like. Why do I make this point? Well, it just goes to show how big a difference there is between the necessity of something like RIC and vaccine programs.
“And you missed my entire point, when it done in sterile place by a good doctor, there are like close to zero risks.”
It’s hard to say it’s close to zero risk when the you, let alone the AAP, can’t cite the true incidence of complications. Your ideal scenario also doesn’t play out in the real world, and it leaves too many crucial variable unaccounted for. Let’s say you get the best doctor on the block, then you take your baby home and your bloke of a husband changes junior’s diaper and accidentally spreads bacteria to the wound, which leads to an infection later on. It’s certainly not a common scenario, but it’s one that happens regardless and demonstrates that even with the best doctor, things can go wrong somewhere else along the chain of command.
“China is a lot more homogenous amd has many untraveled farm places where most people live.”
China is the 4th most traveled nation. The majority of their population live in cities by the way.
“Either way, dying from AIDS has become a leading cause there.”
Stop moving the goal posts. I cited the rate as a percentage of the population, not the total number of people who die from AIDS. China is a country of over a billion people. Of course more are going to die from AIDS there when compared to the raw number of people who die from it here, but that’s not the point I was making. Geez.
“Again, you are missing the point. You are comparing places that should not even be compared.”
No, that’s what YOU were doing when you compared the US to Africa and Latin America in an attempt to make a point that wasn’t applicable to the point I was making. I then directly addressed your NEW point that the US has a higher rate than Scandinavia, because the US has a greater, more diverse population by pointing out that China, a diverse and even larger nation has a lower rate than the US to prove a point that bigger, and more diverse, doesn’t mean higher rates of a given disease, which seemed to be the point you were trying to make. Hey, I’ll make a deal with you, though. Stop comparing the US to Africa and Latin America, and I’ll stop comparing it to China. It will certainly help us focus the conversation a little better.
“The benefits are there!! APP and other organizations have backed them up. They have put it out there that there are benefits and risks are low.”
How many times do I have to say that I recognize the benefits? I’ve seriously lost count how many times I’ve said it before. And how many times must I say that the AAP recognizes the KNOWN risks are low, but they ALSO STATE the true incidence of complications are unknown. Omitting the prior would be convenient to my personal leanings, but it would also call into question my objectivity, so when you continue to omit the latter in your arguments, you’re calling into question your own objectivity. Not a smart move if you’re trying to convince someone of the validity of your argument.
“so it’s up to the parents at the end of the day which is my stand.”
My stand is the same, although I take my stand reluctantly and for reasons different from your own, but that’s another issue for another day.
“Many smart parents to choose to circumcise.”
Many smart parents don’t. Many bad parents do. Many bad parents don’t. Who knows? Maybe aliens circ their kids. What do I care?
“In terms of pain, pain relievers are used no matter how many anti-circumcision people want to argue with that.”
There are also many cases where pain relievers aren’t used at all, no matter how many pro-circ people want to argue this is not the case. I trust the statistics on this matter.
“Again, I have seen babies crying louder when giving them a bath.”
Thanks again for citing your anecdotal experiences. I’ll file them away with my anecdotal experiences of watching 2 of my 3 sons scream like I’ve never seen them scream since their circumcisions. However, I’ll continue to ignore my personal experiences in favor of studies that show there is pain even when analgesics are administered if you don’t mind because I value objectivity and sound research above all else.
“A 2008 meta-analysis, which examined data from the three RCTs, as well as from cohort and case-control studies, found that HIV risk was reduced 58% in circumcised men (overall risk ratio [RR], 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33-0.53). The authors concluded that the studies provided enough evidence to conclude that circumcision causes a reduction in transmission of HIV-1 infection [19].”
Very important.
France does have problems with STDs but isn’t the Muslim population high there? I am sure they represent a good part of the population who have less chances of getting HIV virus.
White Americans are actually the less likely to suffer from STDs compared to the groups who don’t practice circumcision and that is important to keep in mind. We are comparing the people IN that country who do and do not practice circumcision. It’s not racism, it’s a FACT. You trying to turn this around me and call me racist which is a red flag to me.
I again have to repeat this, APP has already put out their stand on circumcision which is that there are benefits and risks are low. It is up to the parents to decide.
They recommend it to people who choose to do the procedure and they stand by the benefits.
UTIs are less common in partnerships where the man is circumcised. I need to say this, there are not enough reliable and good studies that show there are negative effects and AGAIN…I am only for the parents doing it if done in a hospital.
“we average between 10,000-50,000 hospitalizations due to circ complications every year in this country.” this sounds very incorrect!
But vaccinations still can carry and do carry complications. I am for vaccination of course but they do carry risks!
Anesthesia is used…..and I brought that up only because anti-circumcision people make the argument that these babies are screaming and crying…well babies cry and wail all the time.
The complications that are cited are usually MINOR bleedings and these minor bleedings are put in the complication percentages. The reason why I brought up vaccinations and I am bringing up again is that everything can carry some risk. The baby getting an infection, etc, like you said is uncommon and I am sure responsible parents would never let that happen. Irresponsible parents would have something go wrong even if they baby was not circumcised.
I can’t see anything past “China”…
“Very important.”
If you live in sub-Saharan Africa.
Context is everything and it’s something you’ve shown again and again that you don’t care for in the least, which implies there’s an underlying bias to your reasoning here. I can tell you if those results had been replicated in the West, we’d have seen at least one major pediatric organization recommend RIC there.
“France does have problems with STDs but isn’t the Muslim population high there? I am sure they represent a good part of the population who have less chances of getting HIV virus.”
The Muslim population there is a sizable minority. I think it’s somewhere around 10%. They’re also very conservative socially, especially with regard to sex outside of marriage, so I’d be surprised if STD/HIV rates were higher among their group than the general population, in the same way I’d be surprised if the Amish surpassed the average rates in our general population.
“White Americans are actually the less likely to suffer from STDs compared to the groups who don’t practice circumcision and that is important to keep in mind. We are comparing the people IN that country who do and do not practice circumcision.”
Actually, Asians constitute the lowest risk group for HIV/STDs in the US and they practice circumcision at a significantly lower rate than whites.
“It’s not racism, it’s a FACT. You trying to turn this around me and call me racist which is a red flag to me.”
Go talk to any organization seriously trying to address HIV and STDs among minorities in this country, and they’ll talk about the need to reduce poverty, lack of access to good health insurance and good health services, barriers related to undocumented status, concern over discrimination, and education on safe sex practices. The greatest predictor for disease isn’t race; it’s poverty.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve witnessed people invoke the dark, the brown, the dirty unwashed masses and other coded language, specifically targeted at nonwhites as ‘the other’ when discussing this issue. It’s one thing to cite statistics, which is fine. I do that all the time, but another entirely to demagogue and demonize. I never said you yourself were racist before, but you just made the mistake of generalizing every group outside White Americans as being more at risk of STDs, which turned out to be untrue.
“I again have to repeat this, APP has already put out their stand on circumcision which is that there are benefits and risks are low. It is up to the parents to decide.”
Yes, and I told you I concur with their conclusion, many times over. Maybe I should start copy pasting my responses over and over until either my computer blows are circuit or you do. I have a feeling my computer will win out on that one.
“They recommend it to people who choose to do the procedure and they stand by the benefits.”
They stand by the benefits yes, however, they do not recommend for or against the procedure. They take a neutral stance. I could go on and talk about how they defer the decision to parents, but I’ve already covered that and – hey, is that burning wires I smell?
“UTIs are less common in partnerships where the man is circumcised.”
Show me one pediatric organization that recommends RIC for this reason. Oh, that’s right. You can’t.
“I need to say this, there are not enough reliable and good studies that show there are negative effects and AGAIN.”
There are plenty of reliable studies that demonstrate negative outcomes, even ones that draw circumcision favorable conclusions. You can’t possibly be claiming the risks are 0% after stating the risks are very low, which is itself a prior acknowledgement of risk.
“I am only for the parents doing it if done in a hospital.”
What? You think I’m advocating people do this in a ditch by the road? Have a little faith in me, lady.
“this sounds very incorrect!”
You’re right. Those numbers were based off of a distant memory of a study I saw ages ago. I went back and reviewed the numbers. It’s actually between 10,000-30,000, though another source I stumbled upon has it as high as 100,000. I feel much better now about all those hospitalized kids now.
/sarcasm
“But vaccinations still can carry and do carry complications. I am for vaccination of course but they do carry risks!”
Sure, however, based on the available information, they’re not nearly as dangerous as circumcision seems to be in comparison, which kind of craps all over your original assertion that vaccines were as dangerous if not more dangerous.
“Anesthesia is used.”
Except when it isn’t, which is far too often unfortunately.
“The complications that are cited are usually MINOR bleedings and these minor bleedings are put in the complication percentages.”
I can’t see why they wouldn’t. A complication is a complication. It would be idiotic not to include them. If you’re trying imply that somehow negates the thousands of other complications that aren’t as mild, consider me thoroughly unmoved.
“The baby getting an infection, etc, like you said is uncommon and I am sure responsible parents would never let that happen.”
I would never say never. It’s unrealistic to expect perfection in even the best.
“Irresponsible parents would have something go wrong even if they baby was not circumcised.”
Depends, if we’re talking about infecting a circumcision wound, well that’s just not going to happen with an intact child for reasons that should be obvious. Also, the odds of a child suffering a post circumcision infection are higher than the odds of an intact child getting a UTI, which is painfully ironic considering how much you were emphasizing that piddling benefit before.
“I can’t see anything past “China”…”
Clear your cache, sign in and out, or try another browser.
WE both know it’s an excuse when you want to say “only in Africa”…that makes very little sense. African men are human beings like the men in the West. Did you know STDs especially HIV infections are rising among young people in the West? The reason why it is done in Africa is because it shows better results since AIDS is a bigger problem there but that still does not mean HIV infections are not a problem in the West. This is important.
We don’t know if they are more “conservative”…who knows how people are behind closed doors. But they do tend to have lower risks when it comes to STDs.
With Asians, they are a huge minority in America but the Filipino Asian demographic is actually large portion of Asian Americans and they DO practice circumcision. Koreans are also a good percentage and they also practice circumcision. So thank you, that actually proves my point.
Circumcision should still be taken into account when this is the topic at hand. I did not bring Asians up who also are not White. I brought up Latinos because they do not practice circumcision, not because they are brown.
I am repeating myself because you keep saying how they don’t recommend, my main point is that it is up to the parents on the information they have, from fact sheets and not on opinions from other people. AGAIN you brought up the recommendation….what we do know is that it does reduce UTI and these organizations admit it. Period.
I have repeatedly said risks are low. And the most common risks (again low) are VERY MINOR. Those numbers are all over the place. CDC fact sheet has said the percentage is around .2 percent including very minor bleeding.
Based on the available information, vaccinations are low risk like circumcision.
I am not for it when it is not done without anesthesia but as a nurse, I have seen very safe methods being used and anesthesia always being used. This is something doctors keep in mind.
“WE both know it’s an excuse when you want to say “only in Africa”…that makes very little sense.”
It’s not my fault they can’t seem to replicate the results outside of sub-Saharan Africa. Don’t like it, take it up with them, not me.
“African men are human beings like the men in the West.”
That’s nice. I’m curious where exactly I implied they aren’t?
“Did you know STDs especially HIV infections are rising among young people in the West?”
Depends on the country. Last I checked it’s actually dropping in some. Oh, and you know where else it’s rising, in fact where the largest statistical increase has occurred with regard to HIV –
The Middle East.
“The reason why it is done in Africa is because it shows better results since AIDS is a bigger problem there but that still does not mean HIV infections are not a problem in the West. This is important.”
If RIC ever demonstrates itself to be efficacious in the West, it will become important. Until then, I expect public health experts here will stick with their current strategies and expand on them, as they should.
“We don’t know if they are more “conservative”…who knows how people are behind closed doors. But they do tend to have lower risks when it comes to STDs.”
I’d say that, for example, 52% of UK Muslims holding that view that homosexuality should be outlawed would probably fall within some scope of broader conservatism (to put it mildly). It’s true we can’t know for certain everything that goes on behind closed doors, if most surveys (which are usually quite reliable) are to be believed, their views on alcohol consumption, infidelity, marriage, and homosexuality, although quite repressive by the standards of most Westerners, would, in practice, generally curb the acquisition and spread of STIs.
“With Asians, they are a huge minority in America but the Filipino Asian demographic is actually large portion of Asian Americans and they DO practice circumcision. Koreans are also a good percentage and they also practice circumcision. So thank you, that actually proves my point.”
The Asian American circumcision rate is lower than it is among whites (and even African Americans), so no, nothing there proves your point. It actually seriously calls into question any coherent thought you might have accidentally stumbled upon in your quest to make a point.
“Circumcision should still be taken into account when this is the topic at hand. I did not bring Asians up who also are not White.”
Intentionally or not, you applied the label to all American minorities, so I pointed out your error, and I did so by taking circumcision into account.
“I brought up Latinos because they do not practice circumcision, not because they are brown.”
That would come as news to the 44 or so percent of Hispanic Americans with bellends.
“I am repeating myself because you keep saying how they don’t recommend”
Yeah, I keep saying it because it’s true, and I like saying true things. Bite me.
“my main point is that it is up to the parents on the information they have, from fact sheets and not on opinions from other people. AGAIN you brought up the recommendation….what we do know is that it does reduce UTI and these organizations admit it. Period.”
These organizations also admit that the benefits aren’t enough to recommend RIC. But please, keep regurgitating your talking points. It gives something to do while I watch the paint dry.
“I have repeatedly said risks are low. And the most common risks (again low) are VERY MINOR. Those numbers are all over the place. CDC fact sheet has said the percentage is around .2 percent including very minor bleeding.”
That .2 number you pulled out is the impatient complication rate. The average frequencies for complications in general are higher, and for medical providers they had it at 6% I believe. Keep in mind, the CDC, although largely reliable, is just one organization among many. I wouldn’t, for example, call the AAFP or the AAP unreliable because they cite a different selection of sources and draw a different set of conclusions. You can cherry pick and misuse data if it pleases you, but if you’re seriously trying to convince me of anything, I’d recommend waste your time on someone a little more gullible.
“Based on the available information, vaccinations are low risk like circumcision.”
Finally coming around, are we?
“I am not for it when it is not done without anesthesia”
*with
“but as a nurse, I have seen very safe methods being used and anesthesia always being used.”
Anecdotal evidence, we meet again.
“This is something doctors keep in mind.”
Not all, unfortunately.
Sub-Saharan African studies have a lot of merit so please don’t bring the excuse that because it was done in Africa, it is not good. I have already explained why they are actually very reliable and the reason why they are done there in the first place.
STDs are rising among the younger generation in America. STDs are actually less common in Muslim and Jewish communities compared to other groups.
Circumcision is a parental choice, nobody said anything about every person needing to circumcise their son. But it does have important benefits for the parents who choose to do the procedure.
Has nothing to do with homosexuality.
Circumcision in Asian Americans is actually quite common especially in Korean and Filipino groups.
Latino communities don’t practice circumcision and they have a larger STDs problem in America when compared to White or other groups.
Again, I have repeatedly said risks are low. And the most common risks (again low) are VERY MINOR. Those numbers are all over the place. CDC fact sheet has said the percentage is around .2 percent including very minor bleeding. This comes from a reliable source. No way in heck is 6 percent correct.
Anesthesia is used.
“Sub-Saharan African studies have a lot of merit so please don’t bring the excuse that because it was done in Africa, it is not good.”
I’m parroting what other medical bodies have stated with regard to the application of those studies to the West. Eg: an inability to replicate said results. The only excuses, and might I say, some of the most egregious hand waving I’ve seen in a very long time, are coming from one Tulisa Tinkle.
“STDs are rising among the younger generation in America.”
You keep shooting that my way like it’s some sort of silver bullet. I take it you mean that because the circ rate has fallen in recent times, we’re suddenly seeing a spike in STDs for primarily that reason. I see a major error in this hypothesis. For one, the only groups that were studied are those aged 15-24. That literally starts from about 1992 and goes up to 2001. In that time period, the circumcision rate spiked significantly during certain years, in fact the overall rate rose from 48-61% from years 88-97. Therefore, there should be variations in the rise of STDs when males born during those years become sexually active. There is no indication that this occurred. Also, the report, compiled in 2014, wouldn’t include people who were born in the early 2000s (when national circ rates finally began to consistently fall for a period of years.)
“STDs are actually less common in Muslim and Jewish communities compared to other groups.”
There doesn’t seem to be any statistics comparing Muslim American STD rates to other groups in the US, so I’m wondering where you got your numbers on that. When you say Jewish communities, well, Jewish Americans are some of the most integrated people in the whole of the US, with the intermarriage rate being extremely high. The only communities which remain largely homogenized are the Orthodox Jewish communities, which tend to be very conservative and self-isolating communities. That would of course serve to lower rates of STDs within their demographic.
“Circumcision is a parental choice, nobody said anything about every person needing to circumcise their son. But it does have important benefits for the parents who choose to do the procedure.”
Even if I were to look at circ through the most rosy of rose-tinted glasses – which is what I have been doing for the sake of argument all this time – the AAP still doesn’t advise circumcision, and that begs the question for even the most pro of pro circ, if the benefits which outweigh the risks are important, why oh why is routine infant circumcision not recommended for all healthy newborns?
“Has nothing to do with homosexuality.”
If a gay/bi Muslim man is not having sex with other men, because he’s suppressing his nature for fear of reprisal from his community and or due to his conservative religious beliefs, that means he’s much less likely to acquire HIV from the highest risk scenario (sex with other men). To add to this, many gay/bi Muslims marry and have children, as was common among many Christian, Western homosexuals before broader society liberalized. Therefore, if we consider gay married Muslim men who do not lead double lives have a much lower risk of contracting HIV and spreading the disease to their wives, than say, gay Muslim men who have sex with men (high risk), and acquire HIV, depending on how many partners they have (including their wife), that’s a lot of other people at risk, so to say homosexuality and religion do not interact to affect risk factors in their community is highly improbable, to put it mildly.
“Circumcision in Asian Americans is actually quite common especially in Korean and Filipino groups.”
Doesn’t change the fact that when you count all Asian Americans in this country, the average rate is lower than it is among whites and African Americans, significantly I might add.
“Latino communities don’t practice circumcision and they have a larger STDs problem in America when compared to White or other groups.”
So you’re just going to pretend that those 44% of circumcised Hispanics don’t exist. Okay, that’s fine. Let me know when fantasy hour is over so we can get back to a rational and reasoned discussion.
“Again, I have repeatedly said risks are low. And the most common risks (again low) are VERY MINOR. Those numbers are all over the place. CDC fact sheet has said the percentage is around .2 percent including very minor bleeding. This comes from a reliable source. No way in heck is 6 percent correct.”
Wow, you’re even lazier than I am. That 6% number is in the fact sheet you keep citing, and I’m sure you’d know that if you had actually read it, but you didn’t, did you? You just scrambled to find the lowest percentage you could and slapped it in your post without any context. Here, have a gold sticker☆. You’ve earned it.
“Anesthesia is used.”
Except when it isn’t, which is far too often. Am I repeating myself? I don’t know, and frankly I don’t care, because it’s true either way.
I don’t know how to better make you understand that studies have been replicated where they prove that STDs are less easily transmitted to circumcised men. These studies have been replicated many times and the conclusion is that circumcised men are less likely to get STDs.
It’s a fact. Period. Whatever else you say is an excuse. It was done in humans and that’s all we need to know.
Circumcision was much more common before early 90s, the people in that generation did not have an increase in STDs, in fact it was quite low compared to now. Circumcision rate did go down after the mid 90s and more studies show the younger generation has more issues with STDs. Also, a lot of the younger generation is made of groups who don’t practice circumcision.
We have been through this many times, they leave the choice up to parents while giving out the benefits for anyone who may choose it. For them to recommend something, it had to be life or death especially now where there are many people with opinions.
But STDs get transmitted between heterosexual couples. It’s not just about homosexual relations. To think Muslim men don’t have multiple parners based on their religion is nuts. Every human is different and I know for a fact that many don’t have any problems with having many partners throughout their life or with same sex.
Circumcision is still practiced in Asian communities like Koreans and Filipinos and their numbers are way too low compared to White and Black people to make a reliable comparison.
What 44 percent!?!? Circumcision is very low among Hispanic community and that percentage does not sound reliable.
No, it’s not 6 percent. It’s less than .2 percent including minor bleeding. This percentage is cited in fact sheets. I have no clue where the 6 percent is coming from….
I can’t see what you wrote after that.
“I don’t know how to better make you understand that studies have been replicated where they prove that STDs are less easily transmitted to circumcised men. These studies have been replicated many times and the conclusion is that circumcised men are less likely to get STDs. It’s a fact. Period. Whatever else you say is an excuse. It was done in humans and that’s all we need to know.”
The degree to which specific STD transmissions are reduced (in those that that are less common in the circumcised) is not significant enough to warrant the procedure routinely in the US. These are not my conclusions, but those of the AAP.
If however, a country has a high prevalence of heterosexually transmitted HIV and a low rate of circumcision, one can, based on the available research on the matter, make a rational case for routine circumcision on medical grounds. This is the deduction that can be drawn from the WHO’s statement on the matter.
Are you following? Good.
Now, does the US meet the WHO’s standards for MMC recommendation?
No.
Does the AAP recommend RIC?
No.
Don’t waste my time with all the other STDs and maladies we’ve already covered to death. The AAP already has a policy statement covering all said additional benefits and they’ve concluded that although the benefits outweigh the risks, they are not sufficient enough to recommend the procedure routinely.
That’s what this all comes down to. What is most important isn’t whether or not there are benefits, but whether those benefits are enough to recommend the procedure on a routine basis on healthy boys with no prior health risks (such as, say, hemophilia).
“Circumcision was much more common before early 90s, the people in that generation did not have an increase in STDs, in fact it was quite low compared to now. Circumcision rate did go down after the mid 90s and more studies show the younger generation has more issues with STDs. Also, a lot of the younger generation is made of groups who don’t practice circumcision.”
The rate spiked several times in the mid and late 90s. Like I said earlier, it didn’t start decreasing consistently until the early 2000s. If by younger generation, you mean recent immigrants, that has always been the case for recent immigrants, as most places in the world we have always received the bulk of our immigrants from are places where circumcision is uncommon. One thing that is worth noting is that, although the rates of circumcision have varied over time, the total percentage of living teens and adults who are circumcised isn’t that different than it was around its peak in the 80s, so your whole argument about more uncut ‘winkie”s everywhere = why there be more STDs an s*** now, although already quite spacious, is even more ridiculous upon reflection.
“We have been through this many times, they leave the choice up to parents while giving out the benefits for anyone who may choose it. For them to recommend something, it had to be life or death especially now where there are many people with opinions.”
No, it doesn’t have to be life or death, it just has to be beneficial enough for them to recommend it. The WHO recommends it under specific circumstances for example. The AAP even draws part of their conclusions based on the WHO recommendations. Also, a recommendation is not a mandate. Everyone agrees you can’t make circumcision mandatory in the US. That would be absurd. A recommendation however isn’t so absurd. It’s easy to append with exceptions, and if it was worth their while, it would make no sense for the AAP not to make a general recommendation. Parents can still choose to opt out regardless, so what’s the problem?
“But STDs get transmitted between heterosexual couples. It’s not just about homosexual relations. To think Muslim men don’t have multiple parners based on their religion is nuts. Every human is different and I know for a fact that many don’t have any problems with having many partners throughout their life or with same sex.”
People from different cultures can exhibit radically different behaviors. One of the first things I’ve seen when a researcher starts talking about the drastically lower rates of STDs in the Middle East, is how the predominate culture in the region likely plays a large role. If you would seriously contend that this is not the case, it would require extraordinary evidence. Evidence, I highly doubt you have.
“Circumcision is still practiced in Asian communities like Koreans and Filipinos and their numbers are way too low compared to White and Black people to make a reliable comparison.”
Still doesn’t refute anything I said before and citation needed on lower percentage of overall population = lower percentage of a given disease within that group when compared to larger groups. Note: this assertion you made seems to also contradict your earlier contention (which had some validity) that minority groups (a significantly lower percentage of the population than whites) have higher rates of STDs. So which is it? Or do you only stand by a point when it’s convenient to you?
“What 44 percent!?!? Circumcision is very low among Hispanic community and that percentage does not sound reliable.”
Lulz! I didn’t know the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were an unreliable source!
“No, it’s not 6 percent. It’s less than .2 percent including minor bleeding. This percentage is cited in fact sheets. I have no clue where the 6 percent is coming from….”
I cited that 6% within the context it was relevant and explained how you used that .2% in a manner that was deeply deceptive. If you really doubt me, go back to the fact sheets in question and examine them yourself.
“I can’t see what you wrote after that.”
Clear your cache, sign in and out, or try another browser.
They were not talking about STDs, their conclusion is that the final decision should be left to parents. “Routine” means every single baby, some babies are too weak or premature….they can’t say every single baby should be circumcised since they would get in trouble. You are trying to twist the words but they already have said benefits outweigh risks. That’s clear. STDs are reduced in circumcised men. That’s clear.
Benefits outweigh risks.
In the MIDWEST, it spiked but not the rest of the country. STDs are actually rarer in the Midwest where most men are circumcised than places where circumcision decreased. Something to think about.
Recommendation is literally like them saying every single baby is better off being circumcised but again, some babies are not fit for it yet. You are trying to focus so much on that they don’t recommend it to ALL babies…they still talked about benefits and that a lot of babies will have benefits if they get circumcised.
I have lived in the Middle East ….let me tell you, you’re wrong about them being more true to their parners or being with one person. My goodness. I know how it’s like under closed doors and they sleep with a lot of people and have many parners. I was in Lebanon for a couple of months and sleeping around is very common. It’s crazy that people attribute it to just their religion.
Circumcision has been a staple in many southern Asian countries where they practice Islam and South Korea.
FYI in another discussion Tulisa Tinkle claimed to have had her cl_toral hood removed in adolescence and has convinced herself that it improved sensation. I think her issue is denial.
“And cervical cancer is lower in USA and Northern Africa than actually many places in Europe. You should check that out.”
In Europe, almost no-one is circumcised unless their parents are Jewish or Muslim, but the UK, Greece, Denmark, Cyprus, the Netherlands, Italy, Luxembourg, Finland, Iceland, and Malta have lower rates of cervical cancer than Israel. Sweden, France, Norway, Austria, Germany and Spain have lower rates than the USA.
Comoros is 99% Muslim but is 4th highest on the list. Mali is 95% Muslim and 9th on the list. The country with the lowest rate is Malta, where almost no-one is circumcised. Five of the ten countries with the lowest rates of cervical cancer are in Europe (Malta, Iceland, Switzerland, Finland, Luxembourg)
A 2003 paper in the Israeli Medical Association Journal discusses male circumcision and cervical cancer at length and says the following:
“Although the dispute over the association of circumcision and cervical cancer in various populations is still ongoing [23,24], there seems to be no hard evidence that circumcision prevents its occurrence in Jewish women, and it is no longer considered to play a protective role.”
USA and Northern Africa (where circumcision is higher) have lower rates of cervical cancer than many parts of Europe. It is known that Jewish women suffer from less cases of cervical cancer.
I can’t post links, but the figures are readily available, and I listed ten European countries with lower rates of cervical cancer than Israel, and another six with lower rates than the USA.
That paper I referred to (published in the Israeli Medical Association Journal) is pubmed 12674663.
By the way, cervical cancer is low in Israel.
“The cervical cancer morbidity and mortality rates are low in Israel compared to those of Western countries, and the trends indicate stability both among Jewish women and Arab women alike.”
Israel Cancer Association.
And US has lower rates than many parts of Europe.
Mortality rates from cervical cancer (per 100,000 age-standardized)
Malta: 0.85
Iceland: 0.92
Finland: 1.43
Luxembourg: 1.55
Italy: 1.81
the Netherlands: 2.02
Cyprus: 2.09
Denmark: 2.10
Greece: 2.15
UK: 2.49
Israel: 2.63
Spain: 2.64
Germany: 2.72
Austria: 2.77
France: 2.80
Norway: 2.80
Sweden: 2.98
USA: 3.21
And pubmed 12674663 (published in the Israeli Medical Association Journal) still says this:
“Although the dispute over the association of circumcision and cervical cancer in various populations is still ongoing [23,24], there seems to be no hard evidence that circumcision prevents its occurrence in Jewish women, and it is no longer considered to play a protective role.”
“various studies have shown that Jewish women have a markedly lower incidence rate than others.” He said there were indications that male circumcision may be a factor. He noted that death from cancer of the uterine cervix in 1961 in Israel was only one per 100,000 compared with 10.5 per 100,000 for England and Wales.”
Mr. Robinson, Health Care Minister
“The cervical cancer incidence rates in Israel are lower than the estimated incidence rates for 2012 in most European countries* and in the United States – 7.9, Greece – 6.2, Germany- 9.8 per 100,000 women and are similar to those of Cyprus 5.2 and Finland 4.9. The average incidence rate in Europe is 13.4 per 100,000.”
“In the United States, Hispanic women are most likely to get cervical cancer, followed by African-Americans, Asians and Pacific Islanders, and whites. American Indians and Alaskan natives have the lowest risk of cervical cancer in this country”
Cancer Organization.
“Your son might notice when he gets in school that everyone is circumcised and if he is not this could lead to feeling embarrassed or socially awkward.” Uh, EVERYONE is circumcised??? The circ rate is nearing 50/50 and is continuing to drop, so such embarrassment is unlikely. And, what about the future when most boys are intact? Then he’ll be embarrassed about being in the minority. And what about the embarrassment of being sexually modified and the 75% loss of sensitivity?
This is a horrid, sexist article and should be retracted.
your estimate of 100 deaths a year from circumcision is what should be retracted.
The CDC says there are 0 deaths.
20% of mutilated men suffer meatal stenosis, a condition almost unheard of in intact boys
The other way round, 20% of uncircumcized men suffer from meatal stenosis, so get your facts strait.
Meatal stenosis is well known to more common among the circumcised.
That’s completely wrong. Mental Stenosis is medically proven to happen more in circumcised men.
Actually no, it isn’t proven. DIAGNOSIS is more common in circ’d males, but as the actual rates in both circ’d and uncirc’d are unknown, and estimates vary wildly by orders of magnitude, one cannot be sure it is a result of circ, or simply a consequence of being easier to see once the 4skin is out of the way. The largest study yet of complication rates (n = 1.4 million) by the CDC found very low rates, and only a slight difference between circ & uncirc (73 per million vs 70 per million respectively – see table 1, “Urethral stricture”).
Sure. Like the CDC isn’t trying to cover their ass, and protect their favorite cash cow.
Try the Canadian figures, and see what you get. They are more like a disinterested party. Same for the British.
what? NOPE. Meatal stenosis is caused by the meatus rubbing against your underwear. Uncut men NEVER have it
Uncircumcised men suffer from many issues.
Please link proof comparing “issues” from Europe and the USA?
Circumcised men have less issues.
I’ll wait for you link showing specific “issues”
Data from clinical trials also provides evidence that circumcision is significantly associated with decreased incidence of herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) [27, 37, 38]. The Ugandan trial also found that male circumcision may reduce self-reported genital ulcer disease in men [18]. In female partners of circumcised men, evidence from the trials showed a significant reduction of female genital ulceration, bacterial vaginosis, and trichomoniasis [39].
Studies have consistently demonstrated decreased incidence of urinary tract infections (UTIs) among circumcised compared with uncircumcised boys. A meta-analysis including 18 studies found a pooled UTI prevalence of 20.1% among febrile uncircumcised boys <3 months of age and a prevalence of 2.4% among febrile circumcised boys <3 months of age [34]. Another systematic review [35] included 12 studies and over 400,000 children and concluded that male circumcision was associated with a significantly reduced risk of UTI (OR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.08-0.20; p<0.001).
How many s_xual partners does a 3 year old have, what risk is he at for herpes? why not wait until the human’s genitals are mature and the procedure is less painful and safer?
Re-guarding UTIs, medication is much safer and less painful option than routine genital cutting.
thank you.
It’s a preventative prodecure, like vaccinations.
And who is more accurate? Dan Bollinger, or the CDC? Do a search for wrongful death circumcision, and see what turns up.
and they say your are dumb wanna-bes that need your dick cut because you are too stupid to know where to put it…..that’s why it helps you…because you are dumb….you know how to prevent std’s know where you stick you dick buddy if you are so dumb then maybe you need to be cut
..
[CITATION NEEDED]
Anti’s will say anything to scare new parents! Most are uncircumcised, many are homosexual or they are Cows that have no other hobby!
The funny thing is that I never knew if my friends were circumcised or not.
Who looks at their friends penis in school anyway? I say if your son is concerned about their friend’s penis (for any reason) there’s a much bigger problem going on that needs to be investigated.
Actually 80% plus of white boys get circumcised! My three circumcised boys will not be attending any school with Mexican or Blacks! They will be attending the schools I attended which are still 99% white, just a few Asians. It has been proven over and over there is no loss of sensitivity! Anti’s are so full of something!
You missed the most important “benefit”: IT RUINS YOUR SON’S SEX LIFE! Circumcision, male and female, is all about controlling someone else sexuality. (American) men circumcised at birth are missing out on something and most of them don’t even know it. Worse, their partners are also missing out on something and most of them don’t even know it. Fortunately, America is slowly waking up to the truth.
No it doesn’t. Plenty of quality studies to prove that. And then I have my own experience.
Does circumcision remove thousands of sexually responsive nerves, or not?
Are you better off without them? Come on.
No it doesn’t.
Makes scant difference.
That is not at all what the Morris Sorrells study determined, is it?
The Sorrells study showed that the 5 most responsive to fine touch parts of the penis are all on the foreskin.
Sorrel is highly subjective and biased plus he did not measure pleasure.
Keep telling yourself that.
As you lose sensitivity over the years, I mean.
You got attacked by a bunch of trolls who have no reliable back up or proof except for one highly biased guy.
and you just don’t want to believe that the part which was cut off of you, is extremely pleasurable for someone else.
you desperately want to believe it doesn’t matter.
good luck with that.
I look at studies, thousands of men were taken into account in the Uganda and Kenyan study where they surveyed them after circumcision, 3 times and MOST of these men said how their pleasure was not affected or their pleasure increased!!
They keep brining up Sorrells, whose “studies” are so flawed and have been called out.
What’s your experience?
Many studies show the benefits of circumcision.
Then don’t complain if American men have sex with European women.
I went through Europe with 2 friends for a summer when we were 19 and we found European girls loved our cut cocks! A few even said they wished European guys were circumcised!
Solid proof there isn’t a Israeli-Saudi conspiracy behind ISIS, or else circumcision would have been made mandatory in Europe long time ago.
Israeli-Saudi….are you stinking kidding?
Said ISN’T.
Trump will take care of ISIS……
Israel could teach the Dutch how to do the surgery properly.
Any Mohel could teach them…
There is much research done that shows it does not make a difference in their sex life. Especially the latest study. Sorry.
Many circumcised men have also said their sex life has improved.
How embarrassing for this writer to publish this opinion piece interjected with old medical myths. She’s clueless.
“If you are having a baby boy then you also have to make a decision about circumcision.”
No, you really don’t, Jeanne Rose. For most parents around the world, it’s simply not a decision to be made, just like the decision to irrevocably alter their daughter’s genitals is simply not a decision to be made. As knowledge of the sexual benefits of having a foreskin becomes more and more common knowledge every year, there’s a very good chance that when circumcised boys grow up they will resent what their parents did to their genitals. This isn’t the 1950s. We have Google and our fingertips now and medical associations around the world condemning circumcision.
Her body, her choice; his body, his choice. If you wouldn’t consider making an “irrevocable alteration” to your daughter’s genitals (which, by the way, have MORE folds in which fluid may be trapped, MORE bacteria, a MUCH warmer environment, require MORE effort to keep hygienic, and are far MORE prone to odor, smegma, UTIs, yeast infections, STIs, HIV, etc.), why on earth would you consider doing so to your son’s?
Truly bizarre that parents completely disregard their parental instinct to protect their child when it comes to excision of genital tissue. I hope to see barbaric practices like these ended for all children regardless of gender in my lifetime.
A better attack against circumcision I haven’t read in a long time. Very well said.
There is plenty of evidence which shows lifetime health benefits of circumcision
with no down side. Parents should be given unbiased information and decide for themselves what they think is best.
Would you recommend researching, say, what parts of little girls’ genitals we could cut off at birth for “health benefits”?
AFAIK, they never circumcised boys as part of an experiment. They simply compared the results of boys already cut.
Circumcision makes men lose a little, and women gain a lot, clitoridectomy makes men gain a little, and women lose a lot. So circumcision is a net win, and clitoridectomy a net loss.
Sure, clitoridectomy is a net loss, but how about labiaplasty or hoodectomy? We could very well set up studies for these procedures in Africa like we did for male circumcision.
Among non-Muslims in Europe, labiaplasty is more common than circumcision. In Africa, we could convince people to replace clitoridectomy and infibulation by labiaplasty, and compare STD stats with unlabiaplastized women.
No downside? Wouldn’t you say that’s a bit presumptuous considering the lack of overall consensus on this issue? Even the AAP, which considers the benefits to outweigh the risks, (which many other reputable medical organizations have criticized it for) acknowledges there are risks associated with the procedure and do not consider the pros strong enough to recommend it routinely, instead vying to leave the decision to parents.
But they also acknowledge the true incidence of complications of newborn circumcision are unknown. That right there raises many flags. There has been a lot of research into the benefits long term and short term of circumcision, but not so much for the complications. Obviously, more research is needed, but even as it stands, there are better alternatives to circumcision and parents should be made aware of that before resorting to what really amounts to a rather drastic and invasive surgery.
What would you call meatal stenosis? Hidden penis? Skin bridges?
Don’t forget a partially removed glans and/or completely removed frenulum.
If circumcised guys knew what they were missing by having their frenulum removed or cut in half, the doctor who did it would have his life in danger.
Since they have nothing to compare it to, the ugly practice goes on, and no one is the wiser. They simply feel less, throughout their lives.
I’m assuming you’re not circumcised…? I think most of them actually get to keep it and read that only a third of circumcised men have their frenulum removed.
In the US, the frenulum is either removed, or it is cut in half.
You can imagine that after severing the nerves, it’s damaged, even if they knit themselves back together somewhat.
Circumcision is a mean-spirited thing.
Circumcision perfects the imperfect! An uncircumcised penis is disgusting and sub-human!
BS….you have no clue, you have only experienced a doggy dick!
They do not remove glans. If it is done by an experienced doctor, which most are, there are no negative affects. They only remove the foreskin. Most circumcised men are not missing out on anything.
“Most circumcised men are not missing out on anything.”
Tulisa Tinkle makes a similar claim about victims of Female Circumcision.
I was talking about my experience. You can continue harassing me but I know more about this since my clitoral hood was removed and my sexual pleasure was not affected. My ease of excitement was better and higher.
“clitoral hood was removed and my sexual pleasure was not affected” Do you have a study to back up that ludicrous claim?
A few minutes of discomfort for a lifetime of benefits! My 8yo knows only Mexicans and poor people are not circumcised!
My wife and I never discussed it, all three boys were circumcised! It is the proper way to be! Uncircumcised is disgusting and so Eurotrash and Wetback!
“My wife and I never discussed it,”
Wow, you never discussed surgery on your child’s genitalia? What amazing parents.
It was a given….we are both (cute) Jews……like Zac Efron
It was not given, it was perpetrated.
My 8yo knows only, Mexicans, Eurotrash and white trash are uncircumcised. He knows all his cousins, peers, uncles, father (me) and grandfathers are all circumcised!
You realize that a circumcised dick is basically a Third World dick, right?
Not really…in the USA more upper middle class and wealthy are circumcised!
Okay, so you’ve demonstrated that you hold racist and classist views. I have two questions for you.
What value does bringing race and class into the discussion in an inflammatory way hold besides alienating large swaths of people, and why on earth would you ever feel the desire to denigrate people of color?
I would recommend putting your account on private, people use your public account to go and write something else to people you already replied to, they also down vote comments which can go further in the comment section.
I have nothing against people of color…..I think every white family could use a few. Would save on the house keepers fees.
M-A-S-A-D-A (stop stalling).
Meatal stenosis and buried penis are almost exclusively consequences of circumcision. But pssst, don’t tell your doctor, he/she might be pissed off at hearing the truth.
Meatal stenosis and buried penis are almost exclusively consequences of circumcision. But pssst, don’t tell your doctor, he/she might be pissed off at hearing the truth.
Problems with the foreskin are caused by forceful retraction. If you leave your son’s foreskin alone it will almost never give him problems. For example, balanitis can occur in both, circumcised and intact boys. In intact boys it is often a result of forceful forceful retraction by an adult.
Meatal stenosis occurs in uncirc’d males too, but is harder to diagnose with a 4skin in the way. So the supposed circ connection may simply be diagnosis bias.
Prove it.
Steppo abhors any form of the word ‘proof’.
Moronton abhors the word ‘proof’.
Studies that purportedly show lowered UTI risk from circumcision refused to consider forced retraction. Doctors in the USA are obsessed with pulling back baby foreskins when they aren’t meant to be. So they cause most of the UTIs.
This article is absurdly inaccurate. It relies on false information to make its false claims.
Better hygiene? No way. The foreskin keeps feces away from the urethra and helps to prevent E. coli urinary tract infections. Furthermore, the foreskin is flushed out with sterile urine every time the boy urinates. Furthermore, the foreskin prevents meatitis, meatal ulceration, and meatal stenosis.
Improves self-esteem? No way. Only about 50 percent of boys are circumcised these day and that drops every year as circumcision loses popularity. There are boys with intact foreskins everywhere. How can any boy who only has part of a penis have high-self esteem? This claim is absurd and false.
Circumcision prevents phimosis? Phimosis is not a disease. Phimosis is a normal condition up until age 18. Phimosis is nature’s way of protecting the delicate head of the penis. It is a good thing. Paraphimosis is the condition of having the foreskin retracted behind the head and stuck there. It is easily corrected by squeezing the blood out of the head and then bringing the foreskin forward to its normal position. Neither of these conditions justify circumcision.
This author clearly does NOT understand her subject. The Gazette-Review should recall this article. No parent should make a decision based on its false and biased contents.
A complete and whole body produces the highest level of health and well-being.
Yours’ are the false claims. Circ prevents UTIs, get your facts right. It does prevent phimosis by definition. Phimosis is a tight foreskin, no foreskin, no phimosis. Nor is phimosis a good thing if the result is a stinking organ that causes pain on coitus. Nor is it good if it is pathological in origin, rather than the normal physiological phimosis seen in small children. It is rich for you to talk about self-esteem when so much anti-circ polemic is aimed at undermining the self-esteem of circ’d males by telling them lies about function and sensation. Infant circ does prevent disease, a whole list of diseases. One can argue about whether it is sufficient to merit it, and the answer will vary from country to country, but it does prevent diseases. Get over it.
UTIs don’t require an amputation. Girls get them in higher rates than either circumcised or uncircumcised boys, and nobody is advocating preventative surgery for them.
There is no chance of phimosis with circumcision, just like there is no chance of a hangnail after an arm amputation. Circumcising to prevent phimosis, is absurd. Most phimosis is easily fixed without surgery, by stretching, or by betamethasone cream, or both.
What happened to first, do no harm? Amputating thousands of nerves is harm, no matter whether you wish to believe it, or not.
Don’t tell others to get over it, when you have anger problems. It’s unbecoming.
Circumcision does not prevent UTIs. Source: Circumcised males get UTIs. lol
Cutting off the clitoris prevents clitoral warts. We don’t cut off clits though. It’s overkill. Why cut off the primary erogenous organ for something that might not happen and when it does happen never requires cutting it off. Common sense.
All cases of phimosis can be cured via less invasive measures. That’s a simple statement of fact and should be obvious to anyone who’s objective and has average intelligence.
You are doing good work, the only educated person here. Anti-circumcision people love using shocking words and comparisons but they are the only ones who look like a fool. Educated people know circumcision has health benefits.
This is what some national medical organizations say:
Canadian Paediatric Society
“Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed.”
“Circumcision is a ‘non-therapeutic’ procedure, which means it is not medically necessary.”
“After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions.”
Royal Australasian College of Physicians
“After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand.”
(almost all the men responsible for this statement will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%. “Routine” circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in Australia.)
British Medical Association
“to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate.”
The Royal Dutch Medical Association
“The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity.”
“[30 September 2013] – At a meeting today in Oslo, the children’s ombudspersons from the five Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, and Iceland), and the children’s spokesperson from Greenland, in addition to representatives of associations of Nordic paediatricians and pediatric surgeons, have agreed to work with their respective national governments to achieve a ban on non-therapeutic circumcision of underage boys.”
German Pediatric Association
“Therefore it is not understandable that circumcision of boys should be allowed but that of girls prohibited worldwide. Male circumcision is basically comparable with FGM types Ia and Ib that the Schafi Islamic school of law supports”
And how many of these bodies claim that circ is harmful to sexual function and satisfaction? None. How many oppose its use in high HIV countries? None. But you do in each case.
This is an uncomfortably subjective article, even for an opinion piece (is that what this is??) … poorly representing BOTH sides of the issue, but particularly the side which is against routine infant circumcision. It uses loose (or no) citation to support its talking points, biased American ideology, and completely ignores the most important aspect: ETHICS. It is a severe violation of human rights to remove ANYTHING from a person’s body without their consent. (Religious, cultural or otherwise) The only exception would be medical NECESSITY…and virtually every “medical benefit” which circumcision *might* provide can be addressed in another non-invasive manor, thus rendering circumcision virtually unnecessary in 2015 for any male. i.e. condoms and smarter sex education regarding STD transmission rates, antibiotics for infection, topical treatments for phimosis, and so on. Even the “it might make the boy less self-conscious argument is absolutely bogus! A circumcising culture will, of course, promote circumcision. That doesn’t make it right nor does it mean a healthy psychology can help a boy cope with being “different” than his circumcised peers or father. But even then, that will no longer be the case as the majority of baby boys in America will soon be left intact after birth.
I don’t even know where to really begin to respond to this article other than to recommend that it be removed and that the author be held up to higher research and writing standards by the publisher in the future. We’ve got to start asking more from people who put out published pieces into the public sphere. This country suffers from anti-intellectualism and it grows unchallenged. This issue, as you can see, is a deep issue to highlight the importance of fact-based writing, rationalism, and scientific support over cultural bias and American preference.
In short, I would ask the writer, who is female, if she would write the same “neutral” article if we replaced all references to baby boys with baby girls.
My apologies for not proofreading. I meant to say:
Even the “it might make the boy less self-conscious” argument is absolutely bogus! A circumcising culture will, of course, promote circumcision. That doesn’t make it right nor does it mean a healthy psychology can’t help a boy cope with being “different” than his circumcised peers or father. (i.e. parents can talk with him and tell him that it is not HE who is different, but rather the circumcised boys)
Very well said.
Circumcision is a primal wound that:
*interferes with the maternal/infant bond
*disrupts breastfeeding
*disturbs normal sleep patterns
*hurts a baby, even if/when analgesia is used,
*leaves physical scars, including the scar on the remnant
foreskin, hunks and slices missing from the glans (head of the
penis), curvature, and even loss of the penis
*leaves psychological scars, as evidenced by the response of 4 –
6-month-old circumcised babies being vaccinated), and
*undermines the baby’s first developmental task of establishing
trust
The foreskin:
*has protective and sexual functions
*provides necessary tissue for a full and comfortable erection;
many circumcised men complain of tearing and bleeding at the
scar site with tumescence
*contains tens of thousands of specialized, erogenous nerves
that allow a male to ride the wave to excitement; lacking these
causes premature ejaculation because there is no feedback to the
brain about what the penis is feeling, and this is why
circumcised males go “Ooh, ooh, oops, honey! Sorry, it’s because
I’m so sensitive.” It’s not because they are so sensitive, it’s
because their sensitivity is gone!
Sexual consequences of circumcision for both male and his partner:
*As a circumcised male ages, free nerve endings in the glans
are buried by callousing of the non-protected glans, which
decreases sensitivity. With age, many circumcised males often
have to work harder and take longer to ejaculate. The USA has
the highest sales of Viagra in the world.
*Circumcision also affects the female partner. The gliding
mechanism of the foreskin allows for ease of intromission. But,
when a dry, calloused glans comes in contact with the sensitive
mucosal tissue of the vagina, it causes chafing and painful
intercourse.
*With every withdrawal stroke during intercourse, the corona
(widest part) of the glans scrapes lubrication out of the
vagina, adding to the problem of chafing.
*The movements a circumcised male needs to ejaculate–long
strokes to stimulate whatever is left of the frenulum, the
remaining specialized sensitive tissue of the penis, is not
compatible with the movement a woman needs to reach
excitement–short strokes that keep the male’s body in contact with
hers. So, the joke that goes “Why do women fake excitement?” with a
punchline of “Because men fake foreplay,” has the wrong answer.
Women fake excitement so they won’t be considered frigid or because
they don’t want to hurt the feelings of their partner, who is
probably already insecure about his masculinity/sexuality. They
both know something is wrong but no one knows what, so they
don’t talk about this potential cause for deep tension in
relationships. It helps to understand that sexual mechanics are
disturbed when genitals have been cut and movements during sex
must be adjusted to compensate for genital alteration.
*Circumcision affects us all, even if it’s not yet recognized or
difficult to acknowledge. What man wants to learn that the most
sensitive part of his body was amputated, usually without analgesia,
when he was too little to consent, resist, or escape? What mother
wants to learn her precious baby suffered needlessly? And, what
doctor wants to admit he has blood on his hands or blood
money in his pocket? Yet, in order to bring this anachronistic blood
ritual to an end, everyone must recognize and admit the harm of what
we’ve been doing to our babies and begin to see our role as
protectors of our children, respecting their genital integrity
rights, and protecting them until they are old enough to defend
themselves and make personal choices about their own bodies.
Circumcision is a violation of the UN Declaration on Human Right, UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the UN International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It also violates
constitutional rights of the child.
As the 2012 Cologne High Court ruled:
Circumcision causes pain and harms a baby
Circumcision is irreversible
Circumcision denies a male’s inalienable right to his own body
(security of person)
Circumcision denies a male his own religious freedom
The rights of the child trump personal, cultural, and
religious preferences of the parents.
No excuse is good enough to excuse non-therapeutic circumcision of
non-consenting minors!
Circumcision is a primal wound that:
*interferes with the maternal/infant bond
*disrupts breastfeeding
*disturbs normal sleep patterns
*hurts a baby, even if/when analgesia is used,
*leaves physical scars, including the scar on the remnant
foreskin, hunks and slices missing from the glans (head of the
penis), curvature, and even loss of the penis
*leaves psychological scars, as evidenced by the response of 4 –
6-month-old circumcised babies being vaccinated), and
*undermines the baby’s first developmental task of establishing
trust
The foreskin:
*has protective and sexual functions
*provides necessary tissue for a full and comfortable erection;
many circumcised men complain of tearing and bleeding at the
scar site with tumescence
*contains tens of thousands of specialized, erogenous nerves
that allow a male to ride the wave to excitement; lacking these
causes premature ejaculation because there is no feedback to the
brain about what the penis is feeling, and this is why
circumcised males go “Ooh, ooh, oops, honey! Sorry, it’s because
I’m so sensitive.” It’s not because they are so sensitive, it’s
because their sensitivity is gone!
Sexual consequences of circumcision for both male and his partner:
*As a circumcised male ages, free nerve endings in the glans
are buried by callousing of the non-protected glans, which
decreases sensitivity. With age, many circumcised males often
have to work harder and take longer to ejaculate. The USA has
the highest sales of Viagra in the world.
*Circumcision also affects the female partner. The gliding
mechanism of the foreskin allows for ease of intromission. But,
when a dry, calloused glans comes in contact with the sensitive
mucosal tissue of the vagina, it causes chafing and painful
intercourse.
*With every withdrawal stroke during intercourse, the corona
(widest part) of the glans scrapes lubrication out of the
vagina, adding to the problem of chafing.
*The movements a circumcised male needs to ejaculate–long
strokes to stimulate whatever is left of the frenulum, the
remaining specialized sensitive tissue of the penis, is not
compatible with the movement a woman needs to reach
excitement–short strokes that keep the male’s body in contact with
hers. So, the joke that goes “Why do women fake excitement?” with a
punchline of “Because men fake foreplay,” has the wrong answer.
Women fake excitement so they won’t be considered frigid or because
they don’t want to hurt the feelings of their partner, who is
probably already insecure about his masculinity/sexuality. They
both know something is wrong but no one knows what, so they
don’t talk about this potential cause for deep tension in
relationships. It helps to understand that sexual mechanics are
disturbed when genitals have been cut and movements during sex
must be adjusted to compensate for genital alteration.
Circumcision affects us all, even if it’s not yet recognized or
difficult to acknowledge. What man wants to learn that the most
sensitive part of his body was amputated, usually without analgesia,
when he was too little to consent, resist, or escape? What mother
wants to learn her precious baby suffered needlessly? And, what
doctor wants to admit he has blood on his hands or blood
money in his pocket? Yet, in order to bring this anachronistic blood
ritual to an end, everyone must recognize and admit the harm of what
we’ve been doing to our babies and begin to see our role as
protectors of our children, respecting their genital integrity
rights, and protecting them until they are old enough to defend
themselves and make personal choices about their own bodies.
Circumcision is a violation of the UN Declaration on Human Right, UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the UN International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It also violates
constitutional rights of the child.
As the 2012 Cologne High Court ruled:
Circumcision causes pain and harms a baby
Circumcision is irreversible
Circumcision denies a male’s inalienable right to his own body
(security of person)
Circumcision denies a male his own religious freedom
The rights of the child trump personal, cultural, and
religious preferences of the parents.
No excuse is good enough to excuse non-therapeutic circumcision of
non-consenting minors!
I quickly lost count of the number of myths you crammed into your polemic. Don’t you ever bother to fact check your claims, instead of uncritically parroting whatever pseudoscientific garbage you come across on anti-circ websites? Tens of thousands of erogenous nerves, calloused, Viagra, gliding & intromission … For goodness sake, get your facts right and stop peddling discredited myths, unsubstantiated claims and speculations. But then, you are a major peddler of such claims, so have painted yourself into a corner. What’s your latest estimate for the number of nerves? 20,000? 70,000? Both are fictions. Got any hard data yet to support the callousing claim?
That circumcision results in a 60% reduction in HIV incidence is the fiction that needs to be eliminated. If you and the circumcision mafia care to inform the world on the number of nerves that are lost with the amputated foreskin all you have to do is go to Africa to find an endless supply of this amputated organ and, with proper microscopes and lab equipment, start counting. What’s holding you all back?
I would suggest that everyone who has a problem with this article, email the Gazette Review at [email protected]
Articles this irresponsible should not exist. Please let the staff know, so that no more articles this dumb get published.
If you disagree with the author of the article, you should contact the gazette review, using this email address. The surest way to prevent the next dumb article in the media regarding circumcision, is to confront the publisher of this dumb article.
[email protected]
It won’t make a difference. Women can write articles supporting knife-rape of males. But if a man even makes a rape JOKE, he’ll be viewed as the devil and probably lose his job.
Girl or boy circumcision may help with better hygiene because less surface area means less area for bacteria. Self-esteem and social acceptance might also be a reason why you would choose to get your daughter circumcised. If mom was circumcised she wants that for daughter. No parent wants to see their child in pain and circumcision is one of the most painful events in a little girls life, so lets end FGM, and MGM now.
It doesn’t help hygiene. We have a natural microflora. The pro-circers don’t even understand basic microbiology.
“might be painful” seriously, have you ever been in a delivery room when they perform this procedure on a baby boy?
Subjecting the baby boy to 4 weeks of agony for dubious benefits is totally barbaric.
Not my decision to make but the answer is no.
what stupid person would not know……if it’s not broken don’t fix it…how dumb could they be and how perverted
circumcision…health benefits for the dumb
they don’t know what water is, they don’t bathe, and the f anything that moves
Wow, you are so wrong!
How could the removal of erogenous tissue from a baby and the man he will become be considered a parental decision. It is a HUMAN rights violation if parents do this.
The alleged benefits are contrived. In the US cut and natural men get about the same HIV, HPV and STDs. EU, Japan and even Mexico have few cut men and have MUCH lower STD rates as compared to the US.
They get what should be obvious to anyone, the penis wounding — cutting off thousands of nerves, shutting down a part of the sensory system and amputating the only mobile erogenous tissue is bad for the baby and bad for the man the baby will become.
The practice is dying in the US because Parents are getting the word, that this practice is very harmful to the man the baby will become. People are becoming aware that the parts that are amputated contain over 3 feet of arteries, veins and capillaries and thousands of nerve endings (well above 10,000). Of course cutting the parts off leads to sexual DYSFUNCTION. Americans are getting the word that the parts that are cut off are some of the most highly innervated parts of the human.
Was the written in 1820? The stuff is primitive nonsense particularly – “Foreskin is a common place where bacteria can grow due to the location and nature of the warmer environment near the penis.” For the primitives that believe that mutilating a penis makes it cleaner, there is bacteria all over us and we all NEED it. No one is such an idiot as to think cutting vulva parts off a baby girl avoids a common place where bacteria can grow due to the location and nature of the warmer environment near the vagina DO THEY??
It is actually not cleaner to have a cut up penis. It has now also been observed that natural boys have the same bacteria as natural girls and that cut boys have different (invasive) bacteria. A partial penis (cut up penis) is just missing parts, but as such it is invaded by not natural bacteria. A changed microbiome is bad.
In the US cut and natural men get about the same HIV, HPV and STDs. EU, Japan and even Mexico have few cut men and have MUCH lower STD rates as compared to the US.
The parts have THOUSANDS of specialized nerve endings. These are the MOST innervated parts of the HUMAN MALE. The parts cut off shut down a huge part of the kid’s/man’s sensory system. That can never be returned (it is shut down for good). Most cut men will get ED at a much younger age than they would otherwise (cut men are 4.5 TIMES as likely to get ED).
It is WRONG to take away a whole range of sensation and sexual and protective function without consent. The lips, fingertips and nipples have similar touch sense. To take this away from another person without their consent is heinous. To do this to a newborn baby is creepy, child abuse and a human rights VIOLATION.
The mutilation just causes sexual dysfunction– a loss of sexual pleasure and function for life and the poor sods still need to wear CONDOMS!!!!!!!!!
What you said is basically a bunch of opinions and things you made up. Nothing you said is sourced and backed up by science. You people lie because you have issues with your own head. The most objective studies do show circumcision does not have negative effects and adult men circumcised as adults have said how their pleasure is even better. Mexico has high Viagra use and circumcision is rare there as well as the groups in US that have high STDS are people not circumcised.
Studies show what should be obvious to anyone — the cutting off of the mobile erogenous tissue and the most innervated penis parts of the penis negatively affects sex and masturbation.
Is there a better before and after study than the Korean study that noted a loss of pleasure — even though men rarely say negative things about their penis and the men were PRESSURED to remove the parts of their penis?
How about that Jennifer Bossio and her colleagues from Queen’s University in Ontario, Canada putting one over on all the circ pushers in denial about the harm? The study did not test THE AREAs of the natural penis (inner foreskin) that are known to be the most sensitive — the main penis pleasure sources. — Bossio did not collect data on the inner foreskin, the ridged band, the frenulum and the frenular delta.
So they only test the skin (outer foreskin) and yet it is still more sensitive than the adjacent skin — “Tactile thresholds at the foreskin (intact men) were significantly lower (more sensitive) than all [other] genital testing sites” including the sites in circumcised men.”
You are in denial dude. .
The foreskin is not erogenous.
Circumcision Doesn’t Reduce Sexual Satisfaction And Performance, Says Study Of 4,500 Men
A study on science daily.
There are more reliable studies that SHOW circumcised men have no negative effects in terms of sexual pleasure and sensation. In fact, they have better sensations and pleasure.
Bossio confirmed that there is no difference between the groups.
Tulisa Tinkle claims that the cl_toral hood is not erogenous.
Clitoris is erogenous but from their foreskin has not been proven to be erogenous.
You are claiming that the cl_toral hood provides absolutely no sensation, and it removal has no negative affect on female s_xual function?
Are you slow or something? IT DOES NOT AFFECT SENSATION IN A NEGATIVE WAY!
I’ll wait for a study to back up your half baked claim.
It does not.
He knows, I have already linked in many studies that take into consideration over 2000 men done in Kenya, Zambia and Uganda. All those studies show there is no loss in sensation, in fact, there was better sensation.
You have had the “studies” flaws pointed out many times. Even without them you are comparing adult circumcision to infant circumcision. I have no issue with male and female adult genital amputation, which is significantly safer and less painful than infant genital amputation.
Funny that he has nothing left to say and is literally running in his own circles.
And he never EVER pointed out flaws because those studies were very well done.
still replying to your second account?
I am aware of that since the dude is full of bs. It’s pretty scary.
If’s funny that you have to use duplicate accounts to agree with your self.
I am not replying to him many times but he stalks me so it is scary.
Your not replying to me because I discovered your support of Female Genital Mutilation. You know that you can’t defend infant genital cutting so you will instead create fake conversation between your 2 accounts to pretend that your pro-infant cutting stance is valid.
It’s laughable.
I mean who does that? It’s like one of those horror movie scenes where you keep being followed. It’s disturbing as well as the lies he tells.
And now he is accusing me lol
It obvious you are posting under 2 or more accounts.
He just makes up these lies as he goes along.
yikes!
You have to ignore insane people.
It’s funny that you have to resort to duplicate accounts to agree with yourself.
Very true.
The same claims can be made about cutting up the so called excess flesh on a vagina. But no thats fgm. The foreskin performs multiple roles. The glans is in fact a internal organ. The claims u make or pseudo quack science. It amazese the double standard with mgm issue. Ignorance and peoples hidden agendas are rampant. Our baby boys get no protection. For shame
No, there actually studies that prove benefits of male circumcision. “the multiple roles” you speak of is actually false.
Judging by your responding to a really old post and your numerous manic responses over the last 4-5 days? I see you are a deranged, fanatical genital mutilation fetishizer. If you love genital mutilation so much why dont you get your clitoral hood circumcised becuase its the exact same thing as male circumcision. Keep in mind women can wash their genitals 50% of the time and still smell like fish. That the clitoral hood harbors smegma let alone the constant filth that harbors inside the vagina. That theres a entire aisle in every pharmacy dedicated to assisting the cleanliness of the vagina. Yet a intact man simply needs to retract and wash with soap and entire external genitalia is clean. Something a sexist genital mutilation fetishizer woman like yourself will never understand. Judging by your clinically insane level of pro circ replies on this page alone over the last few days. You seem threatened by men having the same rights to genital autonomy as women? You spout much bs and propaganda and yet deny that the female genitalia is more often the catchers mit to stds and bacteria. Check your genitalia protected privilege.
Goes to show how uneducated you are since genitals should not smell like fish and that is actually a sign of infection which actually can be problem. It’s not about washing since washing does nothing in a lot of cases. It’s not just about cleanliness, although that is a great thing about lots of circumcised men. We don’t live in a perfect world so men washing their genitals everyday and efficiently is really not the case. You can call me names but I have only demanded logic and proof which you have given me none. I am not frantic, just wanted some answers. The fact that I have not even replied to you once and you have been following me points to your own obsession with spreading misinformation but nothing new there.
FYI Tulisa Tinkle claims to have had her cl_toral Hood removed and claims it improved her sensation.
This article is full of misinformation and lies!
This is just horrible!
1. Circumcision does NOT improve hygiene, taking baths or showers does.
2. Circumcision does NOT PREVENT UTIs! Circumcised and intact men get UTIs, and they are RARE for both. The chance of getting a UTI can be reduced by…you guessed it, taking baths or showers!
3. Circumcision does NOT reduce the risk of contracting any disease, sexually transmitted or otherwise. Education, condom use and safe behavior does reduce the risk.
4. Circumcision does NOT improve self-esteem…this is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard in my life! Obviously the author has never heard of the #i2 or #SinceIWasABoy campaign which showed that many circumcised men have LOWER self-esteem and are pissed off that their parents mutilated them. Circumcision has no effect on self-esteem, that’s just a crock of cutter propaganda if I’ve ever heard it.
5. The last argument about phimosis and paraphimosis are absurd. Those can be treated non-surgically and are not “common” but are quite rare. Phimosis is overdiagnosed in the United States because parents think they should be able to retract their son’s foreskin to clean under it when they are infants….newsflash…YOU CAN’T RETRACT IT! The foreskin is fused to the glans when the baby is born and doesn’t release until sometimes early teens! Stop pulling the skin back and all these “problems” will start to go away! Just leave your son alone!
I sincerely hope no one takes this article seriously…it’s obviously written by an uneducated individual.
You basically just said a bunch of opinions!
The author is mentally dumb on this issue. Circumcision is FGM for males. It’s more damaging in terms of sensory loss than all recognised forms of FGM. Why? Because all erogenous nerves have been proven, via histological analysis, to be in the foreskin. The glans penis, contrary to folk theory, is non-erogenous–it’s covered with free nerves which sense pain and pressure.
There are no medical benefits to circumcision, only post hoc rationalisations. All these pseudomedical benefits are based on flawed, biased studies promoted by the multi-billion dollar circumcision industry.
By the logic of the author, it would be acceptable to give your baby daughter a boob job to protect her self-esteem in the dressing room. False comparison? Nope. Same logic. Both are bodily modifications.
@Jake Brandy True, many anti-circumcision groups are heavily biased and misinformed about many things. More studies show circumcision has many benefits, low risk and tends to even increase pleasure. Bottom line, the positives are much more confirmed and come from reliable sources.
It is safer and less painful when done as an adult. Not sure if you have ever changed the diaper of a breast feed infant, but poop get EVERYWHERE? Can you say infection?
That is not true. It’s safer when done during infancy and infections almost never happen, look it up. You are spreading so many lies.
You are the one spreading myths. In what specific ways is it riskier and more painful when done in adulthood?
In adulthood- The foreskin and glans has naturally separated, so the pain from forcible separating them is not experienced by an adult
In adulthood – The patient is potty trained so there is little risk of fecal mater entering the blood stream through the open wound
In adulthood – The patient has more pain blocking options available to him
In adulthood – The patient can self report post operative pain and can self medicate
In adulthood – The patient’s genitals have fully matured and the surgeon can amputate as much flesh as desired
In adulthood – The risk of amputating the frenulum is significantly lower
I could continue to list specific ways that cosmetic genital surgery is safer when done as an adult… I’ve seen you make the claim that it’s “safer” when done in infancy but I’ve never seen you list specifics.
So I am asking you, what specific risks are higher when done in adulthood?
You are ignored…I will carry this conversation with an adult.
So you are unable to list specific risks that are higher in adulthood. Please stop spreading lies and myths.
Of course, it is a small procedure when done during infancy. The risks are much lower when they are infants.
Yes, during infancy, it a very short procedure, less time which means less pain, risks are much lower and recovery is much sooner.
FYI Tulisa Tinkle support cutting infant girls.
Of course! Every fact sheet shows that circumcision during infancy is MUCH safer. As a nurse, this is a common knowledge. Ad adults, circumcision takes much longer and recovery time is longer as well.
In what specific ways is it safer to operate on a newborn?
As an adult the risks of infection are lower, the amount of pain experienced is lower, the options for post operative pain management are better. You keep repeating that myth but do not specify which “risks” are lower.
It’s done in less than a minute during infancy , very quick and risks are very low. Complications are low and include things like minor bleeding. Nothing more serious than that, again, risks are much much lower when done during infancy.
Again, what specific risks are lower in infancy vs adulthood.
I can list many risks that are lower when done in adulthood, but you are not able to list a single one that is lower when done in infancy…
Risks are higher as your age is higher. So from childhood to adulthood, it is much more riskier. Infant circumcision is a very simple procedure.
I can list multiple risks that decrease at a later age when the body part in question is fully developed.
Risk of infection is lower, pain experienced is lower, risk of complications are lower, consent is given,
You keep pushing the myth that risks are lower in infancy for girls and boys but you are unable to list any.
Infections are also lower during infancy, much lower. A simple procedure means it is less riskier.
Complications in general are much lower when done during infancy. This is a fact.
It takes less than a week for infant to be as good as new, infections from circumcision is very rare when done during infancy. It is easily managed when kept clean. Circumcision during infancy is very very simple. It is short, simple and low risk. Circumcision during adulthood is longer, higher risk and more complicated.
you keep repeating yourself without listing specific risks. The presence of human waste increase the risk of infection in infancy.
Risks for infant male circumcision are very low. It’s a very simple procedure with short recovery time. Circumcision during adulthood carries higher risks.
Complications for infants is less than 1 percent. Infant male circumcision is LESS riskier and much more safe.
you keep repeating your self with out listing the specific risks.
Can you provide a list of the risk with an explanation of why the risks increase?
It’s pretty logical why it would be a simple and safer procedure during infancy.
And based on actual stats, children and adults are just at a higher risk. This is a fact. Infant circumcision is a very low risk procedure because it is a simple, fast and easy one.
If people actually research for themselves, they will see that the stats regarding risks which are much higher after infancy.
Infant male circumcision is lower risk in every way possible. Less risky, less infections, less complications, simpler, shorter recovery, etc.
CDC has a whole fact sheet on this, they do mention that circumcision is lower risk when done as infants.
CDC and many other organizations that have a duty to put out the truth.
Facts do showcase that circumcision is much safer when done during infancy.
In what specific ways is it safer in infancy? does the same hold true for infant girls?
I can list multiple ways that the procedure is safer in adult hood. Yet you can’t list a single risk that increase with age.
And it’s many sources related to pediatrics that showcase circumcision is safer during infancy.
“safer during infancy” what an oddly non-specific statement….
Yeah, all people have to do with get information from pediatric associations. Which agree with us.
In what specific ways?
I am actually looking into it more and you are definitely right.
People should really look into it.
Any luck finding a specific risk that increases with age? I can only find risks that decrease with age.
People should check out CDC. org, they mention that risks are lowest during infancy.
Tulisa Tinkla
Joined May 2, 2016
Mezzra Tey
Joined May 1, 2016
So two separate private accounts that joined discus 1 day apart both decide to visit the same year old thread to agree with each other…. what a strange coincidence…
You can go to pediatric websites of many different countries and it does confirm infant circumcision being the lowest risk, complications being rare.
What specific risks though? I keep seeing that myth repeated, but no one is able to list a risk that is higher in adult hood.
The risk of infection, disfigurement, excessive bleeding, shock, and death are all higher when done in infancy. Also the amount of pain experienced is higher in infancy due to the forcible de-fussing of the natural genital structures.
What about cutting infant girls, is that more or less risky when done in infancy?
I was looking at Canadian Pediatrics as well, they mentioned circumcision is much safer when done during infancy as well.
You keep repeating yourself without providing any information. What specific risks are higher in adulthood?
The presence of poop makes the risk of infection higher in infancy
The forcible de-fusing of the glans make it more painful in infancy.
You talk of research and studies yet you are unable to provide information backing up your claim that it’s less risky to cut the genitals of girls and boys in infancy.
Which risks specifically are higher during adulthood? I keep seeing that myth but no one is actually able to provide an example
Which ones specifically? You keep repeating the myth that it is less risky to operate on infant girls and boys but you are not listing which specific risks.
when done in Infancy-
Risk of infection is higher
Pain experienced during surgery is higher
Pain experienced during post operative healing is higher
Risk of undiagnosed bleeding conditions are higher
Risk of amputating the Frenulum is higher
when done in adulthood-
??????
Actually the risk of infection is much higher in infancy. The infant is pooping in an enclosed space with an open wound. Just because you label it “a simple procedure” does not change the fact that the infant girl or boy will have an open wound in a diaper frequently filled with human waste.
An adult will not have that risk…. so that is a risk that is lower in adulthood.
Common knowledge =/= fact
Simpler and safer.
“less time which means less pain” that is a myth about pain. Intensity and prior experiences with pain is what determines how much pain someone reports. Duration is irrelevant.
So for an infant with no context of pain, genital cutting is the most painful moment their fragile bodies and impressionable minds have experienced.
Much better to wait until adulthood, when pain managements options are better and the risks are lower.
I keep seeing that myth spread about, but no one is actually able to list which risks are lower.
I can list multiple risks that are higher when done on a newborn.