CDC: Circumcision Benefits Outweigh Risks

[DemocratSinceBirth]

U.S. health officials on Tuesday released a draft of long-awaited federal guidelines on circumcision, saying medical evidence supports having the procedure done and health insurers should pay for it.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines stop short of telling parent to get their newborn sons circumcised. That is a personal decision that may involve religious or cultural preferences, said the CDC's Dr. Jonathan Mermin.

But "the scientific evidence is clear that the benefits outweigh the risks," added Mermin, who oversees the agency's programs on HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.

These are the first federal guidelines on circumcision, a brief medical procedure that involves cutting away the foreskin around the tip of the penis. Germs can grow underneath the foreskin, and CDC officials say the procedure can lower a male's risk of sexually-transmitted diseases, penile cancer and even urinary tract infections.

The CDC started working on the guidelines about seven years ago, when a cluster of influential studies in Africa indicated circumcision might help stop spread of the AIDS virus.



http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/cdc-circumcision-benefits-outweigh-risks-27301210

[Oktober]

1. Fuck that...

It's a genital mutilation practice from the tribal desert days that has survived to the modern era for some reason.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. Maybe it has survived because it has proven to be beneficial

Maybe it has survived because it has proven to be beneficial in reducing the incidence of HIV, HPV, other STDs, and assorted urinary track infections.

[Oktober]

3. The idea that folks are willing to cut off a portion of a baby's penis...

... to save a few percentage points in the potential STD category is insane.

[Mariana]

4. Exactly. Let grown men have it done if they want to

and leave the babies alone.

[Oktober]

7. The reason they don't is because no man would...

[customerserviceguy]

221. I did

Had to have it done at eighteen, and by god, I made damn sure my sons had it done right after birth, so they wouldn't have to go through the hell I went through.

On balance, it hasn't affected my enjoyment of anything I do with that organ one bit. I'm down with having health insurance pay for it.

[Orrex]

264. Really?!?

Why, in this very thread it has been repeatedly claimed that circumcision causes PTSD, an aversion to needles, and the destruction of sexual function & sensitivity.

Obviously you must be lying!!!1!!!!!!

[customerserviceguy]

284. On the other hand

in the almost forty years since it was done, I haven't been to any kind of counseling to bring out my buried anger at it, so that's still possible!

[FunkyLeprechaun]

294. It's not funny to joke about child abuse

And there IS a study that proves infants show signs of PSTD 4-6 months after the procedure.

[Orrex]

296. It's not child abuse, and that study is questionable.

Find me a jurisdication in the US that considers medical circumcision to be child abuse, and I will recant. Otherwise, you are making a false claim.

I read the paper that you linked that alleges PTSD, and I find the conclusion ill-supported and speculative.

Further, your claims about "post-traumatic itchy foot disorder" demonstrate that your ability to assess evidence is limited.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

300. So cutting off a very sensitive part of a child's body without his consent

is not child abuse?

And you believe the African studies?


I guess when I write a research paper using diet pills, I will divide the volunteers into two groups: one not taking the diet pills and one taking the diet pills. I send the people not taking the diet pills on their merry way and give the people who are taking the pills a free gym membership, a nutritionist, and a check up on their weight once a month. 3 months later, the volunteers who didn't take the diet pills gained a lot of weight and the volunteers who took the diet pills lost a lot of weight. I could conclude that the diet pills worked 60% of the time.

This kind of scenario exactly happened with the Africa study- some of the uncircumcised males got HIV because they didn't get the same kind of controls as the circumcised men did, which was waiting 4-6 weeks to have sex, getting sexual education and regular STD testing and the researchers who did the study concluded, even with the results being incredibly flawed, that circumcision reduced HIV 60% of the time. The CDC, alongside other American medical organisations, is essentially using an incredibly flawed study to prop up circumcision either because of cultural bias or financial incentive as there is a billion dollar industry in the US using infant foreskin- including companies that make facial creams that consist of material from infant foreskin or using foreskin to help regrow skin for burn victims.

[Orrex]

301. You are using a straw man

That is, you are rephrasing my assertion contrary to my intent.

So cutting off a very sensitive part of a child's body without his consent is not child abuse?

That is not my assertion. My assertion is that having a child undergo a medical procedure widely recognized in the US as beneficial is not child abuse.

You need either to support your claim that medical circumcision is child abuse (a fairly specific legal concept), or you must abandon your claim as false.

I also dispute your characterization of "the African studies," which you once again cite without attribution. You ou remain a poor rhetorician and an offensive blowhard.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

303. What was the straw man?

N/t

[Orrex]

305. Seriously?

You are rephrasing my assertion contrary to my intent.

So cutting off a very sensitive part of a child's body without his consent is not child abuse?

That is your assertion. That is not my assertion. My assertion is that having a child undergo a medical procedure almost universally recognized in the US as beneficial is not child abuse.

You are claiming that I endorse child abuse--in fact, you are accusing me of child abuse--and you are unable to recognize an unambiguous straw man.

You remain a poor rhetorician and an offensive blowhard.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

310. For those who hate that the procedure was foisted on them

Abuse/d is a word that often appears. Some even say they felt raped. So how am I supposed to think about circumcision? That it's a pretty straightforward operation that males will thank their parents to the ends of the earth for making that sort of decision for him, right?

For a procedure that kills around 117 infants a year in the US, your denial of the harm the procedure does to children is horrifying.

[Orrex]

314. You know nothing of statistics or logic

For a procedure that kills around 117 infants a year in the US, your denial of the harm the procedure does to children is horrifying.

That's a fatality rate of 0.02 percent, a preposterously low rate for anything, frankly. You'd better work on banning infant bathtubs, too, if you're that worried about their health and safety.

Abuse/d is a word that often appears.

Really? Where? Provide citations, please.

Some even say they felt raped.

Really? Who? On what grounds? Provide citations, please.

So how am I supposed to think about circumcision?

Beats me. One would hope that you would accept the conclusions of objective medical studies, but that seems unlikely at this point. You could perhaps listen to the vast number of circumcised males who weren't traumatized by the experience. Why do you ignore them entirely, while giving exclusive ear to the statistically infinitessimal number of unsatisfied customers?

That it's a pretty straightforward operation that males will thank their parents to the ends of the earth for making that sort of decision for him, right?

Your hyperbolic tone doesn't strengthen your already weak position, nor does it bolster your dubious rhetorical style. If given truthful information about the procedure and its minimal longterm negative impact, I don't imagine many circumcised males would be too upset about it.

By the way, how do you counsel the many men who've confided in you re: their circumcision-inflicted trauma? Or are you simply guessing, relying on third-hand accounts, and generally making shit up?

[FunkyLeprechaun]

315. Oh really?

27 infant deaths due to crib bumpers- banned
32 infant deaths (since 2000) due to drop side cribs- banned
13 infant deaths due to sleep positioners- banned

god knows how many toys and other things were banned because it killed or injured a very small number of children.

so on

so 117 infant deaths a year and that doesn't faze you?

[Orrex]

322. Why do you ignore the majority of the post?

Abuse/d is a word that often appears.

Really? Where? Provide citations, please.

Some even say they felt raped.

Really? Who? On what grounds? Provide citations, please.

So how am I supposed to think about circumcision?

Beats me. One would hope that you would accept the conclusions of objective medical studies, but that seems unlikely at this point. You could perhaps listen to the vast number of circumcised males who weren't traumatized by the experience. Why do you ignore them entirely, while giving exclusive ear to the statistically infinitessimal number of unsatisfied customers?

That it's a pretty straightforward operation that males will thank their parents to the ends of the earth for making that sort of decision for him, right?

Your hyperbolic tone doesn't strengthen your already weak position, nor does it bolster your dubious rhetorical style. If given truthful information about the procedure and its minimal longterm negative impact, I don't imagine many circumcised males would be too upset about it.

By the way, how do you counsel the many men who've confided in you re: their circumcision-inflicted trauma? Or are you simply guessing, relying on third-hand accounts, and generally making shit up?

[FunkyLeprechaun]

325. just look online, there are videos and comments of

men who truly are upset about the choice being taken away from them.

I feel like you don't care, even if I lived in a country with less than 9% of the population that's circumcused and has a lower HIV rate compared to the U.S. , that fact still wouldn't be strong enough an argument for you.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

349. "Why do you ignore the majority of the post?"

Because that was one of your dozen or so points she could conveniently turn into a red herring?

[Orrex]

354. It's not my job to find support for your claims

Post links to these abundant horror stories. How many of these victims underwent successful circumcision as infants, only to be convinced in adulthood that their sadistic parent mutilated them?

Your entire position depends on brainwashing healthy, well-adjusted men into believing that they were raped and traumatized as infants, and that they've spent their entire lives in denial. I would find that laughable, were it not so abhorrent.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

369. There are many people who feel that they were robbed of the choice

I think you're the one that's been brainwashed. "It's healthier!" (not proven) "It prevents STDs." (not proven) "It's easier to keep clean." (not proven)

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

[Orrex]

371. What you think is hardly a convincing argument

You think your foot itches because your blood was sampled when you were a baby. We can pretty much ignore your medical speculations after that point, as well as your ability to assess evidence.

There are many people who feel that they were robbed of the choice

That's a meaningless platitude. Tell them to pursue the matter in the courts, if indeed they were raped and abused and mutilated and robbed as you insist. Otherwise, it's simply an appeal to emotionalism. A person's wishes in adulthood do not trump the good-faith medical decisions made by their parents when they were infants.

I think you're the one that's been brainwashed.

Well, you've certainly brainwashed me into perceiving you as a yammering crank, so maybe you're onto something.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

372. You haven't shown ANY evidence that Circumcision works

n/t

[BigDemVoter]

378. Ever heard of evidence based practice?

It's what medical professionals base their practice on. Evidence (and statistics) show a marked and unbiased DECREASE in urinary tract infections, HBV, etc, etc, etc, AFTER circumcision.

And, by the way, FORESKIN is NOT the penis. . . . It may be in the vicinity of the penis, but they are not the same thing.

[Man from Pickens]

326. I really would have liked to have the choice, myself

There are parts of the world where FGM is considered to be for a woman's own good. Permanent body modification choices properly belong to the person whose body is being modified.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

332. Thank you for speaking up

N/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

350. Please refer me to the peer reviewed research...

Please refer me to the peer reviewed research that suggests female genital mutilation confers medical benefits and while you are at it please refer me to the peer reviewed research that suggest male circumcision is akin to female genital mutilation.

Thank you in advance.

[Orrex]

367. Again, any comparison between circumcision and female genital mutilation is offensive.

Last edited Sat Dec 6, 2014, 03:24 PM - Edit history (1)

Any argument that springboards from that comparison can be ignored.

Permanent body modification choices properly belong to the person whose body is being modified.

This endlessly asserted as an article of faith, but I have never once seen a successful argument that a parent's good-faith medical decisions should be delayed until the child reaches the age of consent.

Do you suppose that your life would differ greatly, had you been given the choice? Do you wish that you'd been allowed to choose your native language, the place where you were raised, or your vaccinations?


I accept that you wish you could have weighed in on the choice, but I don't accept that the adult child's post hoc wishes necessarily trump the parents' good-faith decisions made in the child's infancy.

[irisblue]

386. have you discussed these feelings with your parents?

How did they respond? what did they say? I am interested in their and your response. thanks in advance.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

347. You are trivializing PTSD

I have a friend Nate who is eighty. He is a retired staff sergeant who was awarded Bronze Stars for his service in Korea and Viet nam. There's volumes of research on PTSD for those who have seen combat. He still goes to the veteran's hospital to see the psychiatrist. Do the math. It's forty or so years since he last saw combat.

Why don't you inquire of those gentlemen if their circumcision experiences caused their PTSD.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

278. That was quick./NT

[customerserviceguy]

285. Yeah, medical condition

had to have it done. I figured there was a chance that my sons could have inherited it to some degree, so I made sure they didn't have to go through the hell I went through for a month in healing from it.

[Warpy]

103. You don't know what you're talking about.

It's minor surgery in a baby in whom pain pathways are not fully established. Local anesthetic does the job and healing is very rapid.

In adults, the operation is a drastic and painful one with healing taking much longer.

Parents who know the risks and benefits are the ones who have the say in this. Butt out.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

248. Babies still feel pain during circumcision

And have a higher pain response to needles being inserted in their arms (vaccination, etc).

And "minor surgery"? Geez.

Adults get general anaesthetic, painkillers, and the surgery is supposedly much easier on them since their foreskins are more likely to be retractable.

People (parents) should not have a say in altering an individual's (the baby) body without the said individual's (the baby) consent. It's just medically unethical.

[Warpy]

266. Topical anesthetic does it for babies.

Parents make decisions for their children all the time. When a baby can consent verbally or in writing, then we'll get their consent.

The wound on an infant is half an inch long and heals within a week.

You're ASSuming that doctors don't know how to do the operation. Nothing I can do about that except tell you I hope your appendix doesn't blow up.

You're also assuming a lot that isn't true about infants. Nerve development occurs from the top down and the spinal cord out. While sensory nerves are there, conduction of impulses along them is inefficient until they are myelinized. Think of the myelin as insulation around a wire. Without it, there are a lot of short circuits at the source and the impulses barely make it to the spinal cord and few make it to the brain. It's why it takes a baby weeks to gain control of its hand, why it aims and swipes at shiny objects before being able to grab them, and why everything it finds goes right into its mouth, the only place with adequate sensory conduction.

I am amazed at the rampant ignorance among the anticircumcision people about what the operation is, what it does for the male getting it, and why the CDC thinks it's slightly better than leaving the foreskin on, and exactly who makes medical decisions for people who can't consent.

We're done here.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

268. Here's the problem with your statement

Medical professionals are trained to give a certain amount of anaesthetic to people, from young children to adults (mainly trained on adults). Even then, it's iffy on how much anaesthetic would be given to a newborn child- either local or topical. Circumcisions are often done WITHOUT anaesthetic because of the risks of the anaesthetic, ironically, to the baby boy.

I am amazed that I see support for child abuse on this site and the excuses for doing a non-neccessary operation on the child.

I will leave you with this list of men who are absolutely relevant to this discussion-

http://www.circumstitions.com/Resent.html
https://www.facebook.com/IAmCircumcisedAndHateIt
http://www.girlsaskguys.com/sexual-health/q239759-anyone-angry-over-circumcision-hate-my-parents
http://restoringtally.com/blog/2010/01/i-am-circumcised-man-hates-his-circumcision
http://forum.grasscity.com/sex-love-relationships/916953-i-hate-being-circumcised.html

and a bunch of links on google.

Why don't you tell these men the same things that you told me- "You're ASSuming that doctors don't know how to do the operation... I am amazed at the rampant ignorance among the anticircumcision people about what the operation is, what it does for the male getting it, and why the CDC thinks it's slightly better than leaving the foreskin on, and exactly who makes medical decisions for people who can't consent."

Go tell them that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

277. As if a small group of disgruntled circumcised men is dispositive of anything.

There are hundreds of millions of circumcised males.If it was a life ruining procedure isn't it logical to assume we would hear a lot more about it.


Most males have three complaints about sex: it doesn't last long enough. they don't get enough of it, and they don't get to have it with people they really want to have it with.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

283. Small?

Really?

Several things

1) look at any news report on this issue, including the one in the op, and if it has comments, can you tell whether the comments are mostly positive or negative towards circumcision?

2) look at the CDCs own report online, you can comment on it for 45 days- There are at least 288 comments, can you tell whether the majority of these comments are positive or negative towards the CDC's press release?

3) there actually is a booming industry catered to men only in the US- foreskin restoration. This involves manually stretching what remains of their foreskin to attempt to cover the glans of their penis like what they should have had. Many have reported that their penises started to look and feel so much better.

this is why I so overwhelmingly support the child deciding for himself when he's an adult.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

286. There are hundreds of millions of circumcised men in the world.

Hundreds of millions!!!

If circumcision ruined lives there would be a lot more than two hundred and eighty eight disgruntled uncircumcised men carping on a message board.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

293. Less than 20 percent of the world's men are circumcised

So we have billions of uncircumcised men walking around in vastly different cultures around the globe and they're just fine.

So you don't even think about what you're missing out then?

[closeupready]

279. Don't worry - this thread with 300 replies but only 10 recs

is indicative - rest assured - that, at a minimum, DU supports giving people the right to decide what to do with their own bodies, whether we are talking about abortion or circumcision.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

295. I find it sad that for a site that values a woman's right over her own body

People are so willing to suppress a man's right over HIS own body.

[Orrex]

298. It's also sad that people compare apples and oranges

[FunkyLeprechaun]

309. What's the difference between FGM and Circumcision?

There's none- either procedure usually perpetuated on a person who usually never consents.

Wait until the child is an adult so he can decide on whether he wants to be circumcised. Simple.

[Orrex]

313. The comparison itself is offensive.

Female genital mutilation, which you euphemistically abbrevate as "FGM," entails the removel of the entire clitoris, at least, and it's nothing at all like the removal of a patch of skin. Entirely different procedure and impact. It's like comparing a manicure to the amputation of a finger. It's a shocking insult to women that you consider the comparison reasonable.

Wait until the child is an adult so he can decide on whether he wants to be circumcised. Simple.

Obviously, that's incorrect. If you'd read any objective information about the subject, rather than burying your nose in an anti-circumcision propaganda site, you'd know that adult circumcision is more complicated, more painful, less likely to achieve satisfactory cosmetic result, and incurs a longer recovery time.

You foolishly worship at the altar of consent, valuing it above all else, when it's hardly paramount. What if a child doesn't consent to be fed or bathed or to have it's diaper changed? Would you demand that the parents allow the child to starve while sitting filthy in its own shit?

Would you allow a six-year-old to drop out of school because he didn't consent to be enrolled? Would you require an infant to give legal consent for vaccinations or for surgery to correct a cleft palate? How can you allow such a gross violation of personal sovereignty? How can you allow mere doctors and parents to make medical decisions on the child's behalf?

These are not straw men, by the way: they are straightforward questions to explore the implications of your repeated demand that child must consent to procedures performed upon him.

According to what criteria, if any, can parents act without the child's consent? Please be specific, and please indicate exactly why consent must be otained in some cases but not in others.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

316. What is the matter with

letting the child decide when he's older?

Obviously if there is a problem pertaining to his penis at a certain age (and that does happen) and it is certainly medically required to circumcise, it can be done for children.

You are the parent, you provide what YOU think is the best for the child- education, clothing, food. But what differs from all that to circumcision is none of those things alter the child's body. I mean I don't have any children at the moment but I do have two pets- a cat and a dog- and I would be reported to the authorities if I thought circumcising either pet because I felt I would be helping them keep clean. It's sad that baby boys have less rights than dogs and cats.

BTW I was using FGM as an example of a baby girl not being able to consent and, believe me, I know all about the different levels of FGM. Even a minor pin-prick of the clitoris is completely banned. I would like to see the day that baby boys have the same rights as baby girls.

[Orrex]

323. Because it's not a fair choice

Last edited Sat Dec 6, 2014, 12:02 AM - Edit history (1)

If you could make it so that the child could retroactively decide to have the circumcision at birth, then the choice would be fair.

Otherwise, here's what you're asking: "Do you want to remove your foreskin in a procedure that will be painful, that will entail a long recovery, that will very possibly yield a cosmetically undesirable result, and of which you will retain a vivid and lifelong memory, or do you wish the procedure to have been done at birth, with a superior result and no memory of it?"


And you were using female genital mutilation as an obvious appeal to emotionalism, as is common among the strident anti-circumcision crowd. It was intellectually dishonest, and if you can't admit it, then you're not simply a poor rhetorician and offensive blowhard; you're also deceitful.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

324. That doesn't make any sense

why not wait until the child is 18 For consent? I think that's more than fair.

[Orrex]

358. Because then it's not a fair choice

Last edited Mon Dec 8, 2014, 01:13 PM - Edit history (1)

By that point you've eliminated the option that would have achieved a superior result with a shorter recovery time and no memory of pain, leaving only the more painful procedure that will be remembered, tuat will take longer to heal, and which will likely have an inferior cosmetic outcome.

How can you possibly see those two choices as equivalent?

[FunkyLeprechaun]

363. It's not a fair choice?

An infant= pees and poos in a diaper, puts an open wound at risk of further infection. Gets cream and gauze and it heals in 2 weeks.

An adult= doesn't wear a diaper so doesn't put an open wound at risk, foreskin is usually retractable by then so surgery is a bit easier, has painkillers, usually heals in 2 weeks.

Which choice is fairest?

It'd be nice if every single surgery we've ever had were done as babies, that way we don't remember the pain of surgery at all when we're older!

Unfortunately that's not the case.

[Orrex]

368. That's right--it's not a fair choice.

An infant= pees and poos in a diaper, puts an open wound at risk of further infection. Gets cream and gauze and it heals in 2 weeks.

How long do you allow a baby to sit in his own piss and shit? Have you ever been around a circumcised infant?
Your simplistic grasp of the situation suggests very strongly that you have not. Both of my sons (now 10 and 8) healed very quickly, and the routine cleaning during multiple daily diaper changes was easily sufficient to prevent infection. I asked both of them about it a few days ago, and they were surprised to learn that circumcision was even a thing. I asked them if they were sorry that we had it done, and they laughed and said "no."

An adult= doesn't wear a diaper so doesn't put an open wound at risk, foreskin is usually retractable by then so surgery is a bit easier, has painkillers, usually heals in 2 weeks.

Why don't you consult the poster in-thread who had the procedure done at age eighteen? Ask him how easy the surgery was, how little pain he endured, and how quickly it healed. I suspect that he wouldn't find the two procedures equivalent, despite your preposterous insistence that they must be so.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

370. So you did this procedure to your sons?

Very creepy, considering one of the main assumptions you've thrown out in this thread- STDs (you assumed two baby boys might be sexually active). I think that's creepy and gross because you've just dictated two minors' sex lives without them even having a sexual experience at all.

They're 8 and 10- so I'm sure they're old enough to see a video of the procedure being done... or are you scared they'll be horrified by what was actually done to them and they'll change their minds about the procedure?

Again, surgery can be painful and takes time to heal. Adult circumcision in terms of healing is no different to all the procedures that are done.

[Orrex]

373. Nope. A trained surgeon performed the procedure.

They're 8 and 10- so I'm sure they're old enough to see a video of the procedure being done... or are you scared they'll be horrified by what was actually done to them and they'll change their minds about the procedure?

Another idiotic and transparent appeal to emotionalism. Suppose your child had to have abdominal surgery. Would you force him to watch a video of the procedure and give consent before allowing the surgeon to proceed?

Very creepy, considering one of the main assumptions you've thrown out in this thread- STDs (you assumed two baby boys might be sexually active). I think that's creepy and gross because you've just dictated two minors' sex lives without them even having a sexual experience at all.

What kind of a sick asshole are you to get off on speculating about my children's sex lives?


You're disgusting. The fact that you oppose circumcision is all the argument that anyone needs to conclude that it's a safe and beneficial medical procedure.


I will waste no further time on your disgusting sex fantasies.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

351. FGM confers no medical benefits.

To disabuse me of that notion you will have to provide me with peer reviewed research that suggests that it does.

And if you think female genital mutilation which sometimes results in the woman being unable to accommodate anything with a greater circumference than a pencil is akin to male circumcision there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion.

[closeupready]

306. Yep, I agree, but welcome to the real DU.

Very regrettable double standard, particularly with a matter that is one of the most personal anyone can make. Yet somehow, all these liberals are fine with it.

I've been here ten years and I STILL can't figure that out entirely.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

308. Me neither

And I've been around for about almost 10 years too, but just lurking most of the time.

Mention FGM and people would say this is appalling, this is disgusting. This issue is totally wrong.

In the country I live in (the UK), the authorities arrest parents of girls after they've been on "holiday" (taking the girls to countries where FGM is common). Doctors do annual check ups on these girls and if they find that the girl was subjected to FGM so they report the case to the authorities who in turn arrest the parents. I'm certain that the same occurs in the US.

MGM (circumcision) is condoned. Even given it a pretty name to make the procedure a-ok.

It's truly a disgusting double standard.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

352. You insist on saying that circumcised men have been mutilated

This exact topic is being debated on another site and those male posters who are circumcised are calling their uncircumcised interlocutors "dog dicks" and "anteaters" .


Your phraseology is as hurtful and patently moronic as their phraseology. You just dress it up more in highfalutin language.

[d_r]

385. you so worried about tiny pain

Right after birth. When it can't be remembered and when nervous system isn't developed. Despite benefits of procedure.

Now you think.

Who is giving ammo to anti-choice freaks?

When they ask, oh it is a big deal for a little pain right after birth, but not before, what do you say? Did something magical happen to nervous system at birth?

When you argue that parents have no right to make decision for newborn, how do you counter their false arguments that women have no right to make decision about fetus?

From my point of view you support their arguments, which I also disagree with.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. The studies indicate it is more than a few percentage points.

And some of these STDs come with a death sentence or at least the threat of death.

[closeupready]

12. Living ITSELF comes with a death sentence.

[LawDeeDah]

65. The world has a 100% death rate - nothing changes that. You are absolutely correct.

And if we never left our homes, the chances of getting hit by a bus is Zero!

[A HERETIC I AM]

174. Then again....

Sorry...couldn't resist.

[closeupready]

192. not funny, but very funny, in a way, lol.

[evirus]

9. Cutting off your fingers helps prevent hang nails

Might aswell

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. I rather have a hang nail than harbor the humanpapilloma virus...

I rather have a hang nail than harbor the humanpapillma virus and transmit it to a unsuspecting female and give her cervical cancer.

Also, hundreds of millions of men since time immemorial have lived without their foreskins, not so many without fingers.

[DetlefK]

35. Hundreds of millions of men have lived WITH their foreskin.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. How many of them gave some unsuspecting female the human papillomavirus that causes cervical cancer?

[evirus]

64. Circumcision doesn't cause HPV immunity

[DemocratSinceBirth]

69. But peer reviewed research suggests it reduces the incidence.

I stand on the side of science.

IMHO, circumcision benefit denial is global warming denial stood on its head.

When there are ten scientists/researchers/physicians saying something is so for every one that says something isn't so I am going to side with the ten. To do that in some instances and not in others would make me a hypocrite.

[evirus]

76. How about instead of mutilating children...

On the off chance that, for some, the circumcision would end up being the "straw that broke the camels back" why not go for education and vacation

What are the numbers anyways? How does STD rates compare between circumcised and non~ with respect to same nationality?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

77. From the peer reviewed reasearch

In the new guidelines, the CDC says there is now strong evidence that male circumcision can:

Cut a man's risk of getting HIV from an infected female partner by 50 to 60 percent.

Reduce their risk of genital herpes and certain strains of human papillomavirus by 30 percent or more.


http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/cdc-circumcision-benefits-outweigh-risks-27301210?page=2


And , IMHO, calling male circumcision "mutilation" is as unpersuasive as global warming deniers citing cold days as proof that global warming doesn't exist.

[evirus]

82. Risk and incidence are two different things

If removing your ear lobes reduces risk of contracting malaria for example would you do it?

My issue is not the facts of risk reduction it's the context of the procedure being justified by the reduction. That's why I wonder how each group compares in terms of actual incidences and if those numbers are enough to advocate for circumcision

[DemocratSinceBirth]

107. That's an improper hypothetical

There is no evidence that suggests a nexus between ear lobes and malaria. There are volumes of evidence that suggest there is a nexus between the foreskin and a lot of nasty diseases.

I also reject the notion that circumcision is mutilation. You would think with hundreds of millions of males being circumcised since time immemorial there would be more than a few lone voices with claims they were mutilated.

[evirus]

176. You missed my point completely

The earlobe comment I made was to emphasize the fact that although certain surgical procedures exist(or might exist) that has the benefit of reducing the risk of infection from certain viruses, depending on geography and incidence rates advocating for such procedures could be unjustified, like worryIng about malaria when it's rare that you'd come into contact with it anyways

[HERVEPA]

134. It's fucking not an off chance. Just like the damn climate-deniers.

Deny science when it's goes against your world-view.

[evirus]

177. Climate change is an observed fact, risk reduction is a statistic

Based on all other risks being equal. My point of contention is that I question that all other risks apply to the children that would be circumcised based on this statistic alone

[Crunchy Frog]

217. Or when the science is just really, really crappy.

[Yupster]

150. So much of life goes by the slogan of

"It depends on whose ox is gored."

A scientist says something you agree with and it's obvious. A scientist says something you disagree with, and F*&^k that.

It just depends on whose ox is being gored.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

223. You stand on the side of American science then

The rest of the worlds major health organisations DO NOT recommend circumcision. Hell, there are European countries planning to ban them outright!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

255. Well, since the United States has won the lion's share of Nobel Prizes in science and medicine...

Well, since the United States has won the lion's share of Nobel Prizes in science and medicine I might be on to something, ergo:

[FunkyLeprechaun]

256. What does this have to do with circumcision

Did any of the American Nobel Prize winners get their prize for the study of foreskin or the act of circumcision?

Here's a hint: no.

However, there is ONE known American Nobel Prize winner- George Wald, who won the prize for his discovery of Vitamin A in the retina of his eye, campaigned for bodily integrity for both males and females. His paper on circumcision is quite fascinating.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

258. It has as much to do with your argument because the procedure isn't prevalent in Europe ...

It has much to do with your argument because the procedure isn't prevalent in Europe it isn't efficacious.

I will lean on the understanding of the Center for Disease Control, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the World Health Organization, and the American Academy of Pediatrics and you can lean on the understanding of yourself and Dr. Wald.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

269. Europe and the US have similar kinds of populations

especially those in the US, besides the Jewish and Muslim people, who choose to circumcise their children are more likely to be white people of European origin.

Europe used to have widespread circumcision rates at the same time as the US in the early to mid-20th century. The UK, for example, reached a peak of 90% of its male population being circumcised right after WWII. The UK even had the same circumcision drives, such as "Victorian Morality," as the US and also had changing reasons for circumcision as well- it was cleaner, it prevented STDs and the same host of reasons to circumcise as the US. After WWII, the circumstances started to change and more people questioned the validity of the procedure. Now it's plummeted to less than 9% of the population and may fall further, with the advent of the Bris Shalom in the young Jewish community.

That's not many organizations that support circumcision so here's the medical organisations that are against the procedure-

The Royal Australia College of Physicians
Australian Association of Paediatric Surgeons
New Zealand Society of Paediatric Surgeons
Urological Society of Australasia
Royal Australasian College of Surgeons
Paediatric Society of New Zealand
Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons
Australian Medical Association
Australian College of Paediatrics
Australian Pædiatric Association
Canadian Paediatric Society
College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia
College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba
College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan
Central Union for Child Welfare (Lastensuojelun Keskusliitto)
Royal Dutch Medical Society
British Medical Association
General Medical Council
Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health
British Association of Paediatric Surgeons
Royal College of Nursing
Royal College of Surgeons of England
The Royal College of Anaesthetists
American doctors who oppose circumcision http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/statement0.html

and many more organisations.

Plus there are some European countries considering banning the procedure outright. Sooner or later the AAP, AAFP, CDC and WHO will come to their senses sooner or later.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

276. I have been following this debate for nearly twenty years

The AAP, CDC, AAFP, WHO, and the NIH have went from a neutral stance to a more favorable stance during that time period so it's illogical to assume they will reverse their course without a major intervening event.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

297. Yeah because of Cultural Bias

The doctors who run the organisations don't know any better. IE they don't look to other western nations when they release these stupid statements.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

299. So bias is a function of time.

As Thomas Kuhn wrote in his seminal work, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" the acquisition of knowledge isn't cumulative. What was believed to be right and turned out to be wrong is replaced by what is found to be right. If we kept adding on to knowledge medical libraries would be size of football stadiums. There has been a paradigm shift in favor of circumcision. Those that ignore it will sink like a stone...

As Dr. Kuhn would say when the evidence changes my conclusions change.
....


As a young man I was a huge fan of Farrah Fawcett. I had her iconic poster in my bedroom. Do you know what killed her? Anal cancer that she acquired via the human papilloma virus. How do you believe she acquired it?


I assure you it wasn't a woman who gave her the dose. If the man she was having sex with was circumcised there is a good chance Charlie's most beautiful Angel would still be with us.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

302. I told you earlier

HPV is one of the most common STDs around- it's very easily caught. What Fawcett failed to do was have regular check-ups, as one should, and her cancer was caught too late to be treated. I never had sex of any sort when I got suspected HPV (at the age of 20) and it was caught very early and was cleared up very quickly.

BTW, all of Fawcett's known partners were circumcised: Lee Majors was circumcised, Ryan O'Neal was circumcised, and James Orr is very likely to be circumcised (born in Canada in the 1950s, when circumcision was still the norm). So, according to YOU, circumcised males spread HPV more readily than uncircumcised males because of one celebrity's death. Yes, there really are websites dedicated to finding out whether male celebrities are cut or uncut.

Circumcised men do get HPV strains so it's just silly to believe that circumcised men don't have STDs at all at anytime (85% of males in the US during the AIDs epidemic were circumcised and even spread the disease to their female partners as well).

http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/199/1/1.full

Given the range of estimates of the protective effects from observational studies and the fact that we have data from only 1 randomized trial, it would be premature to promote circumcision as a way to prevent HPV infection in men and a possible way to protect their female sex partners from infection [14].

[DemocratSinceBirth]

304. Your disagreement is not with DemocratSinceBirth but with the National Institute Of Health

Reducing the MC rate to 10% will increase lifetime health care costs by $407 per male and $43 per female. Net expenditure per annual birth cohort (including procedure and complication costs) is expected to increase by $505 million, reflecting an increase of $313 per forgone MC. Over 10 annual cohorts, net present value of additional costs would exceed $4.4 billion. Lifetime prevalence of human immunodeficiency virus infection among males is expected to increase by 12.2% (4843 cases), high- and low-risk human papillomavirus by 29.1% (57 124 cases), herpes simplex virus type 2 by 19.8% (124 767 cases), and infant urinary tract infections by 211.8% (26 876 cases). Among females, lifetime prevalence of bacterial vaginosis is expected to increase by 51.2% (538 865 cases), trichomoniasis by 51.2% (64 585 cases), high-risk human papillomavirus by 18.3% (33 148 cases), and low-risk human papillomavirus by 12.9% (25 837 cases). Increased prevalence of human immunodeficiency virus infection among males represents 78.9% of increased expenses.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22911349

Wow...The uncircumcised and their propensity toward disease and transmitting disease will increase health care costs by five hundred million dollars. That seems incredibly selfish when that money could better be used to feed the hungry, comfort the afflicted, and house the homeless.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

311. Fine

I will ignore ALL the other international medical associations, who roundly denounce circumcising children, and side with the AMA/AAP?etc who use very flimsy studies to support circumcision.

I mean fat people spend a lot on health care, disabled people spend a lot on health care, but who cares about those factors?

[FunkyLeprechaun]

220. There was research done on that

They found the men carried a different strain of hpv than the women. Who knows?

[Warren Stupidity]

164. Good News! Here is something that is 100% (or close to it) Effective for Prevention of HPV!

Q: How well does HPV vaccine work?


A: The HPV vaccine works extremely well. Clinical trials showed the vaccines provided close to 100% protection against precancers and for HPV4, genital warts. Since the vaccine was first recommended in 2006, there has been a 56% reduction in HPV infections among teen girls in the US, even with very low HPV vaccination rates. Research has also shown that fewer teens are getting genital warts. In other countries such as Australia where there is higher HPV vaccination coverage, HPV vaccine has also reduced the number of cases of precancers of the cervix in young women in that country. Also, genital warts decreased dramatically in young women and men in Australia since the HPV vaccine was introduced.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/hpv/vac-faqs.htm

[otohara]

201. I Like Vaccines

wish the polio one would have been around to save me from a life long disability.

[earthside]

191. We are not evolutionarily perfect, by any means.

Humans do all kinds of corrective things to our bodies, from obtrusive things like major surgery for congenital defects to unobtrusive practices like wearing corrective lenses to improve our vision.

On the other hand, there does't seem to be anything that humans can do that some group doesn't turn into an abuse or some kind of religious fetish.

However, if indeed circumcision is now scientifically demonstrated as a survival advantage, then those who chose it for themselves and/or their male progeny should be supported.

I think it is a keen observation that the reason it has survived in various cultures is because it provided some real physiological benefit.

Frankly, considering the investigation, medical/scientific research, debate and discussion people have had for generations on this topic, I find those who categorically condemn and castigate those who favor male circumcision to be rather illiberal.

[closeupready]

194. Yes, because a child's consent or refusal is 100% irrelvant.

[earthside]

211. We should all remember that before poking vaccination needles into them?

Parents make all kinds of decisions for their children.

[closeupready]

213. Okay, good to know you do not support girls aborting their fetuses

without parental consent.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

247. The irony about your claim about UTIs

Is circumcision actually increases the incident of UTIs compared to keeping the penis intact. Compared to intact females, it is extraordinarily rare for intact males to get UTIs, unless their foreskin was forcibly retracted when they were infants (the foreskin is fused to the glans, much like a fingernail is fused to our nail beds, in newborn baby boys, it doesn't fully retract until they are at least 10-20 years old), because their UT opening is well away from the body, compared to a female's UT in relation to her body.

This is due to the meatus opening (the very opening at the tip of the penis). In an intact male, the meatus is wider and provides greater access for the egress of urine. In a circumcised male, the meatus shrinks and leads to meatal stenosis which constricts the deposit of urine and leads to UTIs. Circumcised males often need surgery to fix this problem.

It's also the reason why catheters are difficult to insert in circumcised males versus intact males.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

251. The CDC, WHO, AAP, and AAFP disagree with you, ergo:

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-circumcision-cdc-guidelines-20141202-story.html

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2006/s18/en/

http://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/Pages/Newborn-Male-Circumcision.aspx


http://www.aafp.org/news/health-of-the-public/20120828aap-circumcision.html

Please share with me/us your curriculum vitae and if your education, experience, and training which consists of peer reviewed research is superior to those of the organizations above who concluded the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks and I will gladly revisit my conclusions based on their research.


Thank you in advance.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

259. The rest of the world's major health organizations disagree with the AAP/WHO/etc

WHO has also published pro-circumcision statements as well as AAP. The opposite reaction to these statements from medical organisations in Europe, Canada, Australia and Asia is quite telling.

Here is a paper from the AAP's own Pediatrics magazine written by doctors representing various European medical communities- http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896.full.pdf

The doctors, in the PDF, say there may be SOME evidence that circumcision prevents UTIs but this is what they have to say about it- "To these authors, only 1 of the arguments put forward by the American Academy of Pediatrics has some theoretcal relevance in relation to infant male circumcision; namely, the possible protection against urinary tract infections in infant boys, which can easily be treated with antibiotics without tissue loss." I/E there might be SOME evidence it prevents UTIs but it's not quite enough (to warrant amputating healthy tissue).

Women get UTIs more readily than men and yet, they don't get circumcised. They get antibiotics and the matter is resolved within a week.

I don't think the subject of my education/training is relevant to the discussion but I did a lot of research with the last two degrees of mine relating to history/psychology (for my BA, MA was scientific as well but relating to the environment of the museum) and usually when I find issues that are interesting I try to do lots of research so I don't come out of any argument with egg on my face.

BTW I am a 30-something white American female as well, women my age and demographic in the US are more likely to lean towards circumcision for their children.

Before you tell me that due to my sex, I shouldn't even be discussing this matter, I also have a foreskin and I know what it's like to have a foreskin so I am more than qualified to have an opinion in the matter.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

261. You can find scientists who deny global warming is a real phenomenon...

You can find scientists who deny global warming is a real phenomenon, even tenured professors at prestigious institutions but the weight of science suggests global warming is a real phenomenon, thus it is with the benefits of circumcision outweighing the risks.

And the urinary tract argument is a bit of a red herring as most urinary tract infections can be easily cured. Circumcision has been indicated in greatly reducing the incidence of HIV and the humanpapilloma virus that causes cervical and anal cancer. Those conditions can not be easily cured. And as a female, a male is usually the source of the dose, you should be concerned, if not for yourself then for your progeny and your sisters who are at risk.

I have been reading the literature and if circumcision rates continue to decline the nasty sexually transmitted diseases which I have mentioned will increase, putting a greater burden on our health care system.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

263. And they're usually laughed out of the room

Regarding your last sentence, did you even read the literature where some, if not most, European countries have at least a 10% circumcision rate in each country and a much much lower incident of HIV and STD rates?

The number of AIDS cases per 100,000 has continued to decline in Western Europe with the number stabilising in Central Europe. This is largely a result of the widespread availability of antiretroviral drugs in these regions. In Eastern Europe, the number of AIDS cases has been rising since 2009. - See more at: http://www.avert.org/european-hiv-aids-statistics.htm#sthash.4l2LnrQq.dpuf

Caveat, I live in the UK and it's one of the countries with less than 20% of the population circumcised (it's at 9% of the population circumcised) and a much lower incident of HIV than the US. It's beneficial to read those articles in terms of your arguments for circumcision because with those articles included the following doesn't make any sense at all-

1) Circumcisions prevent STDs/HIV- if this was true, why do populations of certain countries of Europe, with a very small circumcised population, not have higher HIV rates than the US? This part of the argument is baffling to me because this information is very very easy to look up and refute the AAP/CDC's argument. Even the European doctors' response to the AAP's position is confused by the AAP's stance- http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896.full.pdf

2) Circumcisions prevent UTIs- my father is uncircumcised (I changed my language from earlier because "intact" was an offensive term) and he's 71 and has had no UTIs and my husband is uncircumcised and he's 34 and has had no UTIs. I have had UTIs (I'm female) and I keep wondering why males shouldn't get the same antibiotics as I do and usually my UTI clears up after a week. The rest of my family, bar my brother in law and my nephew, are all uncircumcised and, excluding the females, the males (19 males in all) have had no UTI problems and we are very open about these things (I'm an American-born woman of Irish parents). It doesn't make any sense to me to get antibiotics as a female and in the US, a male getting a UTI gets circumcised instead of being prescribed antibiotics.

3) Circumcision preventing HPV- Here's one thing about HPV- it's pretty much the common cold of the STD world. Lots and lots of men and women are infected with HPV without showing symptoms, either circumcised/uncircumcised or sexually voracious/choose not to have sex. Men and women have had HPV at one point or another in their lives and can even carry different strains of HPV. People can get infected with HPV by shaking hands with someone who has touched their genitals- it's the kind of STD that can be transmitted without being sexually active. It usually clears on its own with or without treatment but it's good to take cautions (regular pap smears and vaccines for example) as it is one of the causes of cervical cancer.

I have had suspected HPV (mild dysplasia) and I got it before I had any type of sexual activity (which is why it's suspected) and I got a pap smear at the age of 20 and they spotted abnormal cells in my cervix. They lasered off my abnormal cells and gave me antibiotics and my suspected HPV had completely cleared. I have, since then, had pap smears as a precaution and they have always been clear (I'm now 33). To me, it's laughable that it's believed that circumcision can prevent HPV when it's nearly impossible to be prevented without the vaccine.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

270. You raise a good point...

Why do Americans have more STDs than their European counterparts or many of their European counterparts?

The same reason the USA has one of the highest unwanted pregnancy rates in the industrialized world. Because many Americans despite evidence of their efficacy refuse to wear condoms, even those engaging in sexual acts with the highest risk like unprotected anal sex. A simple google search will affirm that.

I'm not arguing circumcision is a panacea and neither is the CDC, AAP, WHO, and the AAFP. I believe what they are arguing is the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks, ergo:



A potential impediment to evidence-based policy development on medical male circumcision (MC) for HIV prevention in all countries worldwide is the uncritical acceptance by some of arguments used by opponents of this procedure. Here we evaluate recent opinion-pieces of 13 individuals opposed to MC. We find that these statements misrepresent good studies, selectively cite references, some containing fallacious information, and draw erroneous conclusions. In marked contrast, the scientific evidence shows MC to be a simple, low-risk procedure with very little or no adverse long-term effect on sexual function, sensitivity, sensation during arousal or overall satisfaction. Unscientific arguments have been recently used to drive ballot measures aimed at banning MC of minors in the USA, eliminate insurance coverage for medical MC for low-income families, and threaten large fines and incarceration for health care providers. Medical MC is a preventative health measure akin to immunisation, given its protective effect against HIV infection, genital cancers and various other conditions. Protection afforded by neonatal MC against a diversity of common medical conditions starts in infancy with urinary tract infections and extends throughout life. Besides protection in adulthood against acquiring HIV, MC also reduces morbidity and mortality from multiple other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and genital cancers in men and their female sexual partners. It is estimated that over their lifetime one-third of uncircumcised males will suffer at least one foreskin-related medical condition. .The scientific evidence indicates that medical MC is safe and effective. Its favourable risk/benefit ratio and cost/benefit support the advantages of medical MC

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22452415

[FunkyLeprechaun]

271. Maybe it's because there's better sexual education in the EU compared to the US

I did most of my education in the US, all education up to my undergraduate degree (BA) was undertaken in the US. I actually thought circumcision was a normal thing, as I grew up in the midwest, and was taught sex ed of penises without the foreskin.

Until I met my now husband (who is uncircumcised and from Britain)- we talked about our education etc, he was astonished to know that I got my sex ed mainly from 10th grade (I got my sex ed at the age of 16 in school, 8 years old at home (my Irish parents decided it was time that we learned about sex and gave us a book to read) and he added that HE got sex ed when he was 10 years old.

I thought it was a totally normal thing and actually wondered why my hubby's penis was different to the images I saw in the books. That was when I learned about foreskin and wondered why parents would do such a thing to their sons.

I also know, being a child from a medical family and often had access to those books, that there's no American medical textbooks that teach about the care of foreskins, as far as I know. Doctors are taught in US medical schools to care for a circumcised penis and not an uncircumcised penis whereas in EU it's almost the opposite (they're taught how to care for BOTH). There are many doctors in the US who do not know how to care for an intact penis that parents, who choose to leave their children uncircumcised, have begun to seek out intact-friendly doctors (the list can been seen here: http://www.thewholenetwork.org/intact-friendly-doctors).

I have said before that the infant's foreskin is fused to the glans penis like our fingernails are fused to our nail beds and don't naturally retract until they are much older (10 to 20 years old)- doctors who don't know how to care for the intact penis actually forcibly retract the foreskin, tearing the head of the penis and creating wounds which, eventually, lead to UTIs for that uncircumcised child.

I don't mind if an adult male has to make a decision to have a circumcision. I feel like he had a choice in the matter and we don't give children that choice.

I base my position of being a child of immigrant parents, who were quite open about talking about these issues with us and often voiced their positions on these issues.

[LawDeeDah]

63. Total agreement. It's insane.

Like babies don't feel pain, omg how absolutely horrific to do that to a Baby!
Let the kid decide when he's an adult - oh? it would hurt too much Then? Well it hurts that much to a baby too - but because they can't speak, only with tears and crying, that 'they get over it' nonsense. Well maybe they don't!

[LordGlenconner]

91. I'm sure they feel pain

However, like most, I don't remember any of it.

Just like I don't remember my first vaccinations, my first birthday, or my first Christmas, and so on.

In this case, that's the good news.

The scientific angle is the only one that I'm interested in. Is it effective as a tool to improve overall long-term health? Or is it a waste of time?

The other part of the discussion is based entirely on people's emotions which are largely irrelevant.

[LawDeeDah]

92. Well then, maybe we should do experiments on babies, for the sake of science

seeing as they don't remember the pain!

[LordGlenconner]

94. Yes, because that's just what I meant

eye roll

Big fucking eye roll.

[LawDeeDah]

96. that is what you said though

Sorry if my example startled you.

[LordGlenconner]

99. Actually your example made me laugh

It's the same kind of bullshit argument fundies used to trot out re: marriage equality.

"What's next, men marrying their goldfish?", they would often say.

And you proved my point nicely. Your position on this is based entirely on emotion, not science.

[LawDeeDah]

100. Yeh, I get emotional about babies in pain,

as if that is a bad thing - emotions.

Being a heartless robot is what bullshit fundies do well.

Science says that babies feel pain, they are not slabs of styrofoam. They bleed, they have nerve endings, fear, joy all the bag and my gosh they are little humans! Now THAT is science, I don't know what kind of sick science you are talking about.

[LordGlenconner]

102. Sick science?

So you're moving the CDC into the witch doctor/faith healer category now. How lovely for you.

Here again, you address none of the merits in the CDC findings with your comments. It's all about how it makes you feel.

[LawDeeDah]

104. I'm done. Whether it the CDC or whoever, anyone who thinks that

pain is forgotten because, um, it's only babies needs to get with some more emotions of some sort.

ugh.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

109. I don't believe the CDC dismissed the pain associated with the procedure

I do believe they considered that as part of the risks to be weighed against the benefits and found the benefits outweighed the risks as did the Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Family Physicians though the latter two groups while finding the benefits outweigh the risks did not go as far as the Center for Disease Control in recommending insurance companies cover it.


As your interlocutor says the opposition is much about how people feel and very little about the science.

I thought we were the logical ones. I guess logic is just something to beat people you don't like over the head, the way we use logic to beat up global warming deniers.

[yeoman6987]

161. Are you a conservative? I am not trying to

Be nasty, but just asking. We do have them here. You sound pro-life for sure. Pro lifers complain that late term abortions cause pain. Only a few days later and snip for circumcision. Just curious where your beliefs are coming from. You seem very passionate about this. Take care!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

108. Actually it's the same kind of argument nutters use to deny global warming...

The fact there are "cold snaps" means global warming could not possibly exist.


I am willing to be crucified on the altar of science.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

249. They do feel pain and they often show signs of PTSD 4-6 months after the procedure

And as for the comparison between an intact adult male and a circumcised adult male-

- sex can often be painful for the circumcised adult male and their partner
- erection, due to the lack of foreskin, can be painful if there is too much skin taken off
- even masturbation is an endeavour for circumcised males as there isn't enough skin and decreased sensitivity on the penis to achieve climax.

I'm currently trying to find out if there was a study done whether adult circumcised males are more prone to pain compared to adult intact males- regarding needles (blood tests/vaccinations), etc.

There HAVE been studies done on infant babies in terms of pain threshold- the circumcised babies felt pain more readily (when they got their routine vaccinations) than the intact babies.

I don't remember when they had to slice my feet to get blood for tests when I was a very sick baby and yet sometimes I have niggling itches on those very areas of my feet over 30 years later. The body remembers even when the mind doesn't remember.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

289. Well, your contentions are specious. I can cite the peer reviewed research if you want

For now I will address your points anecdotally


"- sex can often be painful for the circumcised adult male and their partner"

Nope, never painful for me or my partner. Embarrassing yes, painful no, like the time my mum came home early from work and found my girlfriend and I, in flagrante delicto.

"- erection, due to the lack of foreskin, can be painful if there is too much skin taken off "

Nope, I am in my fifth decade of life and can still achieve an erection, literally on command, sometimes I even get three a night.



"- even masturbation is an endeavour for circumcised males as there isn't enough skin and decreased sensitivity on the penis to achieve climax. "

Over the course of my life I have masturbated thousands of times and it was never a problem. In the interest of candor , one time when I was sixteen years old I masturbated ten times in one day. The tenth time was a endeavour but I did finally climax.

Perhaps you can share your personal experience with your penis with us.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

292. Good for you

However... it would have even been better if you had a foreskin.

I have a foreskin and I think it's the best thing on the planet (I'm a woman).

[Logical]

120. LOL, Oswald was circumcised. So were the 9/11 hijackers! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! nt

[yeoman6987]

159. Ok. So this study by scientists are balony,

But climate change scientists are to believed. Quite frankly I believe both. You really should too. You say mutilated, but at 2 seconds old? I would circumcise my sons just on what the scientist predict could happen.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

333. I certainly believe that there's global warming

and what we do as a human population has affected the globe for sure.

However, I think the CDC's position, relative to the world's medical organisations positions, is complete and utter bullshit.

[roguevalley]

162. funny how some science is sacrosanct and some isn't. not.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

6. If people want to be circumsized, great.

But it's not a decision parents should be allowed to make for their infants.

[abelenkpe]

51. Exactly nt

[Tree-Hugger]

57. +1

[ismnotwasm]

93. Yup

It's social pressure at the point---one of my daughters had her son's circumsized because she thought they'd be made fun of if she didn't. Time to be the decision in the hands of an consenting adults

[roamer65]

119. I second that motion.

[Logical]

121. Yes! Like vaccines!!!! nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

170. I'm afraid that's a very silly analogy.

A better analogy would be

Like vaccines which

:-Are agonisingly painful to administer.
:-Reduce your capacity for sexual pleasure
:-Confer no benefits until adulthood (this, of course, is the really important one).
:-Even in adulthood, only confer health benefits to certain people.
:-Do not have any kind of herd immunity effect.
:-In some contexts make a statement about religious or cultural identity that you may not wish to make

i.e. "not like vaccines".

[Orrex]

181. The analogy was exactly appropriate, given your initial framing.

:-Are agonisingly painful to administer.

Debate remains open on this, in fact, and extrapolating from the experiences of men circumcised as adults does not automatically grant insight into the experience of hours-old infants. Still, it remains a powerful argument, though I don't know that it's paramount. If a medical benefit can be demonstrated (as has been done), then this needs to be weighed against pain of which one retains no lasting memory.

:-Reduce your capacity for sexual pleasure

Subjective and inconsistently demonstrated.

:-Confer no benefits until adulthood (this, of course, is the really important one).

Simply untrue. The hygiene benefits are realized almost immediately. Yes, an uncircumcised penis can still be cleaned, but dismissing the ease afforded by circumcision is simply a matter of selection bias.

:-Even in adulthood, only confer health benefits to certain people.

A meaningless objection. Even if vaccines only protected the vaccinated individual, they'd still be worthwhile.

:-Do not have any kind of herd immunity effect.

Except insofar as circumcision has been repeatedly documented to reduce the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases including HIV. Although this doesn't improve herd immunity, the reduced incidence of infection should not be trivialized.

:-In some contexts make a statement about religious or cultural identity that you may not wish to make

Yeah! Just like language. Who the hell do these parents think they are?

Your objections are almost entirely subjective and aesthetic, unconvincing except to someone who already agrees with you.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

222. Hmm

- there was a Canadian study measuring the pain threshold of babies as they were being circumcised without anaesthesia and they had to stop the study because the babies were turning blue from crying so much and vomiting because they were in so much pain.

- there is also sufficient evidence that circumcision reduces sexual senstivity. Circumcised men suffer early erectile dysfunction (one study turned up a man in his 20s having to be prescribed Viagra) and premature ejaculation because 1) they no longer feel the senstivity and 2) no longer have control on when they ejaculate. The glans (tip) of the penis is one of the most sensitive organs when it has a foreskin to cover it up. Without the foreskin, the glans becomes hard and keratinises and thusly becomes less sensitive over time. There is a website called "Sex as Nature Intended It" and is very informative on the subject.

- in the western world we live in, we are fortunate to have access to clean water and soap. It takes an intact man far less time to clean his penis than an intact woman her labia.

- if circumcision prevented the spread of HIV, why does the U.S., with the highest rate of circumcision in the world, have such a high rate of HIV incidents? Compared to Europe, this is such a baffling position to have. I live in the UK and the population is less than 9% circumcised and yet we have a lower incident of HIV rate in the UK.

The CDC should be looking as to why 80% of the world's men are intact and there's no epidemic proportions of STDs and HIV in the countries with little to no circumcision rates.

[Orrex]

240. The term "intact man" in this context is pointedly offensive

It's an agenda-driven buzzword that explicitly asserts circumcised men to be inferior and "less manly." It also reduces the man to his penis, which is a bizarrely retrograde sentiment. Would you tell a woman post-mastectomy that she isn't an "intact woman?" I invite you to refrain from using that deliberately insulting term.

- there was a Canadian study measuring the pain threshold of babies as they were being circumcised without anaesthesia and they had to stop the study because the babies were turning blue from crying so much and vomiting because they were in so much pain.

Citation? When was this study conducted, and by whom? Under what circumstances? How many babies were involved? What was the control group? How was the double-blind maintained? There is no shortage of circumcisions, so it's simply unbelievable that the study was terminated because all the babies turned blue and vomited.

- there is also sufficient evidence that circumcision reduces sexual senstivity.

Again, this is inconsistently demonstrated and is bolstered chiefly by anecdote. Please provide citations for the peer-reviewed studies that support your claims.

- in the western world we live in, we are fortunate to have access to clean water and soap. It takes an intact man far less time to clean his penis than an intact woman her labia.

That's nice, but it's not compelling.

- if circumcision prevented the spread of HIV, why does the U.S., with the highest rate of circumcision in the world, have such a high rate of HIV incidents?

Obviously, it's because circumcision isn't the only factor, but it's still a factor and shouldn't be dismissed simply because other factors also play a role.

The CDC should be looking as to why 80% of the world's men are intact and there's no epidemic proportions of STDs and HIV in the countries with little to no circumcision rates.

Why should "epidemic proportions" be the threshold? The UK doesn't have a measles epidemic, but you still vaccinate for it. Why?

[FunkyLeprechaun]

245. Intact is most assuredly the correct term

'Intact" means the man was born with his penis intact/not circumcised. Using the term "uncircumcised" for intact men means that being circumcised is a natural, normal thing to occur, which it is not. Even I feel that the term "circumcision" is a friendly term for male genital mutilation, the same kind of language as FGM. If males and females choose to alter their bodies in anyway, within their terms of consent, they aren't "intact" in the widest term of the word but they made a choice to alter their own bodies.

- I was wrong, it wasn't a Canadian study. I could have sworn it was done in Canada in the mid-1990s but here is the actual study I was talking about (TBF I was on a tablet and if I checked links in another window, I would lose what I had typed out in my response)- . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9417009. Here is a Canadian Study that I have read previously when they tested pain threshold on babies AFTER a routine circumcision compared to intact babies (it sounds like they did a paper previously- studying the effects of anaesthesia vs no anaesthesia during RIC), when they had their routine vaccinations- http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/taddio2/. The found that the circumcised infants were still affected by the circumcision procedure 4-6 months after the surgery- they showed signs of PTSD and had a higher pain response to the vaccinations compared to the intact babies.

- There are study after study showing that circumcision reduces sexual senstivity: here are several links and article titles as well-

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Circumcision/Pages/Advantages-and-disadvantages.aspx - Reduced sensitivity – an uncircumcised penis is more sensitive than a circumcised penis, meaning that circumcised men may experience less pleasure during sex.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102?dopt=Abstract - It is shown that the foreskin is more sensitive than the uncircumcised glans mucosa, which means that after circumcision genital sensitivity is lost.

"Male Circumcision and Sexual Function in Men and Women: A Survey-based, Cross-sectional Study in Denmark"- Circumcised men were more likely to report frequent orgasm difficulties, and women with circumcised spouses more often reported incomplete sexual needs fulfillment and frequent sexual function difficulties overall, notably orgasm difficulties, and painful sexual intercourse.

"Prevalence and Correlates of Premature Ejaculation in a Primary Care Setting: A Preliminary Cross-Sectional Study"- Multivariate analysis showed that erectile dysfunction, circumcision, and sexual intercourse =5 times in 4 weeks were predictors of PE.

and many many many more. It's also a frequent topic of discussion in European medical journals as they continue to completely debunk American medical journals. The best website is http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com which has many articles, studies, anecdotal evidence and images to show how bad circumcision of males is for male AND female sexuality.

- Here are several medical journal articles that debunk the claim that circumcision prevents HIV transmission-

1) "HIV/AIDS and Circumcision : Lost in Translation" - M. Fox and M. Thomson, Journal of Medical Ethics 36 (2010)
2) "Male Circumcision and HIV Prevention: Insufficient Evidence and Neglected External Validity," Greene, et al, American Journal of Preventative Medicine 39 (2010) (This study actually shows that circumcision is associated with increased transmission of HIV to women.)
3) Connelly, et al, in the South African Medical Journal 98 (2008) found that circumcision had no protective effect in the prevention of HIV transmission.

And many more studies. The widely cited African study that the CDC used in their statement had flawed methodology- they had two groups- the first group being males who were kept intact and males who were circumcised. The males who were circumcised were asked to abstain from sex 4-6 weeks after the operation (to heal), the intact males were not given such an instruction (abstain from sex 4-6 weeks anyway, to match the timeline of the study). The circumcised males were given sex education and condoms whereas the intact males were not given the same instruction at all. When it came to the end of the study- the intact males obviously were exposed to HIV (because they weren't given the same instructions or the same time period of abstinence) and were more likely to have HIV infection compared to the circumcised males because they didn't get the same level of sex education as the circumcised males did. It was a flawed, unethical study and it irritates me that people, who support the genital cutting of baby boys, keep clinging onto that when there are so many studies that debunk it.

85% of American Males were circumcised in the 1980s-1990s (during the AIDS epidemic) and yet HIV still spread. Circumcision does not protect anyone from STDs and it's unethical to claim it does because people will think they will have unprotected sex anyway if they're circumcised (and actually facilitates the spread of HIV/STDs). It's like parents choosing not to vaccinate their children, the incidents of measles, etc spread and there HAVE been outbreaks in the US.

Measles is a highly infectious, airborne disease and it's best to take precautions against it. Polio is a disease that is water borne and it's best to take precautions against it. So on. STDs? You can take precautions against them by using condoms, having better sexual education, STD testing and so on. You can also choose to live completely celibate, which is definitely 100% prevention against STDs.

STDs can also be transmitted by other means than sexual relations. HIV can be transmitted by blood (my sister, who is a doctor, had to get tested for HIV infection after she had accidentally exposed herself to a HIV-positive patient, due to a tear in her latex glove), Herpes are very prevalent on the skin of people (and can be highly contagious when they have a flare up). I've heard of people getting STDs without penetration, such as oral sex and dry humping (herpes, chlamydia, pubic lice and gonorrhoea have been caught via these methods).

It is a COMPLETE fallacy that circumcision prevents these. It's also sexist to say that males are protected from STDs when they are circumcised, it implies that females are more likely to get STDs because they're not circumcised.

[Orrex]

252. If you persist in using that insulting term, then I have no reason to listen to you

Intact is most assuredly the correct term. 'Intact" means the man was born with his penis intact/not circumcised.

Intact most assuredly is an agenda-driven insult, as well as a self-congatulatory propaganda buzzword deliberately chosen because it also, as I'm sure your exhaustive research has shown, means "not castrated." You therefore declare that a circumcised man has been castrated, and I know that this must be intentional because you wouldn't dream of throwing words around without having a thorough awareness of their meaning. Further, this definition says nothing at all about circumcision, so perhaps you can provide an impartial source for your claim? At the very least you must acknowledge that your cherry-picked definition isn't the only one. Why would you deliberately insult men this way, further harming them when they clearly suffer daily from the trauma so cruelly inflicted upon them by their abusive and sadistic doctors?

By using the term "intact man," you are still identifying the entirety of your being with the state of your penis. You are also requiring other men to do so. I find this limiting, comical, and pathetic.
Would you tell a man with an amputated foot that he is not "intact?" Is there any surgical excision that would make you feel entitled to tell another person that he is not "intact?" Please provide examples. If you cannot, then this is further proof that you identify yourself as your penis.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9417009. Here is a Canadian Study that I have read previously when they tested pain threshold on babies AFTER a routine circumcision compared to intact babies (it sounds like they did a paper previously- studying the effects of anaesthesia vs no anaesthesia during RIC), when they had their routine vaccinations- http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/taddio2/. The found that the circumcised infants were still affected by the circumcision procedure 4-6 months after the surgery- they showed signs of PTSD and had a higher pain response to the vaccinations compared to the intact babies.

The first study that you cite doesn't support your claim and is therefore irrelevant. The second study speculates that PTSD results from circumcision, but this is inferential and not clearly supported by the data. They should test to compare general nerve function as well; it's possible that the early painful stimulus helps to kickstart sensory development. I'm not asserting this as fact, merely observing that the posited explanation isn't necessarily the only one. Further, even if true, such pain response is not in itself sufficent argument against the procedure, if other benefits can be shown to outweigh that pain response, as has been done.

- Here are several medical journal articles that debunk the claim that circumcision prevents HIV transmission-

Those articles date from 2008 and 2010. Do you have something more recent and definitive than the study described in the OP? Please provide links to more current studies, and please explain why these are definitive. Why, specifically, do you reject the findings of the CDC?

Incidentally, cirp.org is a heavily agenda-driven site that by its own statement of full disclosure makes no attempt at objectivity. I'm not surprised that you were able to find material there to support your view, just as a crazed anti-vaxer can find lots of like-minded thinking at the Mercola website. I question (and, frankly, am inclined to reject) any data interpretations offered by that site.


Since you persist in proudly using a deliberately insulting term, and since you have no reservations about baselessly accusing people of child abuse, I see no further need to discuss this with you. You are a poor rhetorician and an offensive blowhard.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

257. That's fine

And I'm not anti-vaxxer (that's another term that pro-cutters use to try to demean the people who fight for the rights of the child).

And I did make an attempt to find unbiased research and sources which can be easily found on PubMed and other medical journals, whereas you're heavily clinging on a study that, by all means and purposes, is completely fallacious. I'm curious as to why you didn't choose to comment on that.

I know how difficult it is to admit to being wrong but, frankly I hate to be the one to do this, you're wrong.

BTW There is a brilliant article that refutes the AAP's statement of circumcision in 2012- http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896.full.pdf

(BTW this is from 2013, despite the fact that you're moving the goal posts on when research is published AND this article WAS published in the AAP's OWN publication Pedriatrics. Sooner or later the same medical community will publish a response to the CDC's statement)

Last word here, I'm surprised that I'm the only one showing you research papers and rebutting my points with research papers and you're not. Hmm.

[Orrex]

260. Since you're the one making positive assertions, it's up to you to support them.

Your assertion that I am wrong is not compelling, in the same way that your accusations of child abuse are not compelling. You are no authority, and your conclusions are not definitive. Further, your preposterous conclusion that your occasionally itchy foot is the result of blood tests in your infancy tells me that you're a crank.

Since you are the one making various positive claims about the evils of circumcision, it is appropriate to require you to support these statements. Instead, you're following the pseudoscience playbook of making claims and requiring me to refute them.

Also, requiring an article more current than 2010 is hardly "moving the goalposts." All else being equal, if an earlier study is contradicted by a later study, then it is reasonable to require proponents of the earlier study to support it in light of these more recent findings.

I'm happy to give you the last word if it means that you'll shut up thereafter.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

262. Where is the research that makes circumcision good for the long run?

Where is the research that definitively shows circumcision prevents HIV and other STDs?
Where is the research that definitively shows circumcision enhances sexual pleasure?
Where is the research that definitively shows circumcision easily keeps a male's genitalia clean?

This isn't the African study, which used flawed methodology to support circumcision. This isn't Professor Brian Morris using heavily anecdotal material to support circumcision even going as far to link circumcision and vaccination together when they are two completely different issues (I'm sure you've seen the Mayo Clinic Proceedings Magazine article by him and the editor of the magazine stressed to me that it wasn't a purely scientific article as Proceedings isn't quite a research magazine of the Mayo Clinic- that distinction belongs to Discovery's Edge and Forefront, two of Mayo's research publications).

The fact that circumcision is a surgery for things that MIGHT happen is unethical (the child MIGHT get a UTI in the future, the child MIGHT get a STD in the future). I mean baby girls MIGHT get breast cancer in the future, would you advocate for the removal of the breast buds in infant girls? Every person MIGHT get a ruptured appendix, would you advocate the removal of the appendix in babies? Wisdom teeth MIGHT cause problems in the future, we might as well advocate the removal of those teeth in babies as well. Why not limit circumcision to just boys, girls should get circumcised too as they are proven to get UTIs as well and proven to get STDs as well... oh wait... it's against the law, FGM was banned in March 1997.

And on that note... we might be hearing more about the issue next year or the year after due to baby boys being born in or after March 1997 (IE they turn 18 and will have the right to sue the hospitals and their parents for taking away their right to consent). They might use the 14th amendment effectively in this case as well, due to the law banning FGM. There has already been one case where a man sued the hospital for circumcising him and won- and that is William Stowell.

Here's two websites that deal with law- http://arclaw.org (Attorneys for the Rights of the Child) and a list of people joining a case for a class action lawsuit (http://www.sueeasy.com/class_action_detail.php?case_id=258) with their experiences/reasons for joining the list.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

280. Who said drawing blood can give you an itchy foot ?

Where's the nexus?

[Orrex]

281. Here

Reply #249

[DemocratSinceBirth]

287. LOL

Let me play paid medical expert. There is no research to suggest that the drawing of blood in infancy leads to an itchy foot in adulthood.

[Orrex]

288. Of course you'd say that, since you're biased in favor of American science.

The itchy foot coverup has been going on for decades.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

290. Perhaps the person suffering from this malady can get a governmental grant to further research it.

In the interim this layperson recommends foot baths and Gold Bond.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

334. It's nice that you know so much about "circumcising" a newborn

yet you don't know about drawing blood from newborns-

"Newborn Care Series- Taking a Heel Sample"

I was a very ill baby as a newborn (was in the hospital for a long time) so they had to take repeated samples from my foot and I still can see where they took the blood tests on my foot (on the side of my heel).

Newborns don't have big enough veins so they usually have a blood sample taken from either the foot or a prick on the finger.

Glad that this is all a joke to you and Orrex.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

346. Life is tough...

I had an undescended testicle. I had to get all kinds of shots and have a physician check my junk (feel my testicles at regular intervals to see if it dropped). I was just a kid, maybe nine or ten. That's all I remember. I do wish the physician was a she instead of a he and looked like her:



But, thankfully it dropped and I never have an itch down there...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

275. The claim that circumcision reduces sexual pleasure for the circumcised and his partner is specious

IF you want I will link the peer reviewed research.

The polio vaccine only confers health benefits to certain people; those who come into contact with those who have polio. There's a pretty strong free rider effect since practically everybody else is vaccinated an individual's chance of contacting polio is small.

How does circumcision make a statement about religious or cultural identity when many men who are circumcised for non-religious reasons?

Vaccinating young women for HPV doesn't have a herd immunity effect. Should that vaccine be eliminated?

[FunkyLeprechaun]

335. It's actually not specious

It's been proven. And certainly, link me to the peer reviewed research.

The Polio vaccine almost always protect the child for life. There are still countries who don't do it, because of religious reasons, and therefore, polio is still around.

Circumcision usually makes a statement about cultural identity if it's not for religious reasons, to be honest.

And no, the HPV vaccine should not be eliminated.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

344. In my best Jack Nicholson voice, you want peer reviewed research...

In my best Jack Nicholson voice, you want peer reviewed research ,you can't handle peer reviewed research.


"Here we critique opinions of MC opponents (Boyle & Hill, 2011; Chin, 2011; Conroy, 2011; Darby, 2011; Darby & Van Howe, 2011; Forbes, 2011; Paix, 2011; Travis et al., 2011). "


As they say in the business, the money shot:


"These misrepresent credible research, and cite questionable websites, superseded publications, outlier studies, non-peer-reviewed book chapters and discredited paediatric policy statements (Schoen, Oehrli, Colby, & Machin, 2000; Morris, Bailis, Castellsague, Wiswell, & Halperin, 2006; Morris et al., 2012b)."


Sounds like sloppy science... Wait there's more:


Claims that MC is “highly mutilating”, “seriously impairs penile function” (Paix, 2011) and “amputates healthy, functional, protective, erogenous tissue” (Boyle & Hill, 2011) have led vulnerable men to falsely believe their sexual problems stem from their infant circumcision, leading them to “feel angry and mutilated, even to the point of psychological disturbance” (Darby & Van Howe, 2011), resorting to mutilating “foreskin restoration” (Walter & Streimer, 1990). In reality, sexual dysfunction, especially with age, is either more common (Laumann, Maal, & Zuckerman, 1997; Richters, Smith, de Visser, Grulich, & Rissel, 2006) or no different (Collins et al., 2002; Ferris et al., 2010; Masood et al., 2005) in uncircumcised versus circumcised men.

Empirical measurements show no difference in penile sensitivity (Bleustein, Fogarty, Eckholdt, Arezzo, & Melman, 2005; Collins et al., 2002; Masters & Johnson, 1966), sensation during arousal (Payne, Thaler, Kukkonen, Carrier, & Binik, 2007), sexual satisfaction (Collins et al., 2002; Fink, Carson, & deVellis, 2002), premature ejaculation (Son, Song, Kim, & Paick, 2010) or intravaginal ejaculatory latency time (Waldinger et al., 2005; Waldinger, McIntosh, & Schweitzer, 2009). Sexual satisfaction may increase (Senol, Sen, Karademir, Sen, & Saraçoğlu, 2008), with randomized controlled trials (RCTs) confirming similar or enhanced sexual function, sensitivity and satisfaction in men and their wives (Breda, 2011; Kigozi et al., 2008; Krieger et al., 2008; Westercamp, Bailey, & Agot, 2011).

Travis et al. ignore these, instead citing Sorrells et al. (2007), a discredited study with erroneous statistics (Waskett & Morris, 2007). Similarly Forbes (2011) cites a Korean study (Kim & Pang, 2007) also discredited (Willcourt, 2007), as have others (Morris, Waskett, & Gray, 2012).

US men ranked the ventral surface of the penis highest for “sexual pleasure” and “orgasm intensity”, followed by the upper surface and sides, the foreskin being less important (Schober, Meyer-Bahlburg, & Dolezal, 2009). Sexual sensation is mediated by genital corpuscles, but these are absent from the foreskin (Rhodin, 1974). Penile sensitivity decreases during arousal, as appropriate for penetration (Payne et al., 2007). In circumcised men arousal response is quicker.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3663581/


My parents did make a cultural statement by caring enough to have me circumcised. They gave me an aesthetically pleasing and healthy penis. I will share with you a story to demonstrate the first time I learned they made the right choice. I grew up in exurban Central Florida , about thirty miles north of Orlando, which to me was a big city. One time when I was sixteen a bunch of friends and I went to Orlando. There were six of us in the van. Vans were popular in the late seventies/early eighties. My friend, Mike, the driver picked up two African American prostitutes in their twenties near Church Street. I said "I'm not doing this." Remember I'm only sixteen. He said "just shut up." So any way they start negotiating a price and one of the prostitutes says. "We ain't doing all of you at once. You have to bust your nut one at a time." So we go back to their apartment which is in the Parramore Street projects. It's my turn and when I pull down my pants the prostitute says. "Hun, you're clean." At that time I knew dear mum and dad made the right decision.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

345. However, there are numerous European studies that

completely refute American studies.

I thought you didn't like old studies, I see one from 1974, 1990s, and a bunch from the early 2000s. It's already known that the foreskin serves an important purpose in protecting the glans of the penis (American doctors choose to ignore this fact- probably due to cultural bias or financial incentive).

Sure you were clean at the time- was the prostitute clean at the time (hell you might have latent HPV as a result of this encounter). How do you know that your friends didn't have STDs and infected the prostitute?

I have to tell you this, you really don't have a magical STD-repelling penis. That's all in your mind.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

348. The encounter was over thirty years ago and I'm alive.

And have never had an STD in my life.

BTW, I have no quarrel with "old" research, only superseded research.

[uppityperson]

8. more education on proper penile cleaning is needed, simpler, effective

As well as proper consistent condom usage. In some places, cases it could be helpful, but proper cleaning and condoms work.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. "Everybody " knows sex is safer with condoms.

But lots of people still take the risk of having unprotected sex.

It's like drugs..."Everybody" knows drugs like crack, heroin, oxy, and meth are really, really...bad for you and lots of people still take them.

[840high]

128. People get lazy. I'm

for circumcision.

[uppityperson]

139. rather than using good hygiene, cut it off? weird, imo

[closeupready]

11. His body, his choice.

It is wrong to mutilate a son's penis because the father's was also. When he's old enough to make an informed decision, then that's the time to either do it, or not. IMO.

[belzabubba333]

16. mutilate?

[Oktober]

17. It is the literal definition...

[belzabubba333]

19. it's hyperbolic

[Oktober]

20. If you saw a million people with their right ear lopped off...

... and became used to it, doesn't mean they aren't mutilated.

[belzabubba333]

22. i dont see many penises but that's not a good analogy maybe if the whole thing was cut off

there might be a similarity there. more appropriate would be an ear that had a flap over it , having that removed or removing an earring, but not the whole ear you dont remove the whole thing

[BlindTiresias]

26. So...

You must support the milder forms of female genital mutilation that leave the clitoris intact then??

[belzabubba333]

33. i dont consider circumcision mutilation

[Oktober]

37. Neither do the cultures who cut off a girl's clitoris...

[belzabubba333]

40. no one is cutting off any penises- they are not the same

[BlindTiresias]

45. Well

Not all FGM excises the clitoris, and removing the foreskin does decrease sensitivity in the same way that removing tissue around the clitoris but leaving it intact would.

As I said, to be consistent you either have to oppose it altogether unless out of necessity or until they reach an age of consent, or you allow both to be performed on children and infants.

[Oktober]

47. Just a portion of it..

Is it ok to cut off 'just a bit' of a clitoris?

[BlindTiresias]

41. Neither do cultures that perform FGM

There is a strong cultural element to circumcision of both kinds, but I find both to be wrong unless for specific medical problems. You could at least be consistent and extend your consideration to children and infants of both genders and leave the choice for circumcision until necessity or age permits it.

[belzabubba333]

43. i dont think fgm is the same as circumcision

[BlindTiresias]

48. FGM occurs along a spectrum

Very similar to old style circumcisions before modern medicine, actually.

The most extreme forms remove the entire clitoral structural + labia but more moderate kinds will actually leave the clitoris mostly intact in a way directly analogous to modern male circumcision.

[Orrex]

200. It isn't. And anyone who says otherwise can be ignored.

The analogy itself is offensive and trivializes this actual atrocity committed against women & girls.

It's akin to likening a haircut to a decapitation.

[closeupready]

36. It's ironic, isn't it? FGM is considered savagery - rightfully, since

in almost 100% of instances, the female can not give consent; it is imposed upon her. Thus, we are told, this form of genital mutilation is evidence of cultural savagery.

Meanwhile, many of the "science" arguments in favor of male genital mutilation would apply to females; yet unlike in the case of females, male genital mutilation is, it is argued, fine and dandy without the male subject's consent; it is, again, imposed upon him.

[madinmaryland]

111. Are there any scientific reasons for FGM. The only reason I have heard is to

prevent women from enjoying sex. That definitely does not play a part in circumcision.

[closeupready]

124. I take it, then, you support father trump cards on abortion

when the doctor informs the family that a potential abortion could have long-term consequences?

Because that is what you are effectively supporting when you argue that consent of the patient takes a back-seat to demands of the infant/minor patient's family when it comes to medical treatments of minors/infants.

[madinmaryland]

125. Huh? I'm not exactly sure where you are going. Are you comparing abortions to circumcisions??

[Crunchy Frog]

183. There have been a few studies suggesting for HIV and other diseases.

It s generally considered taboo to carry out such studies or to give them any credence. That doesn't mean that the findings are invalid.

My guess is that if you had massive resources and large numbers of Western scientists looking as arduously for health benefits to FGC as they are for MGC, that they would most likely find them.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

353. Could you please direct me to the peer reviewed research...

Could you please direct me to the peer reviewed research you have found that suggests female genital mutilation has proven to be beneficial in reducing the incidence of HIV and other diseases.


Thank you in advance.

I suspect if you rendered a female or male incapable of having sex at all you could reduce the incidence of those diseases but from an evolutionary perspective it would be contraindicated.

[Crunchy Frog]

389. This was among prostitutes, so not rendered incapable of having sex.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1442755

while a history of excision and BCG vaccinations decreased the risk of HIV-2 infection.

There's only a tiny mention of it. As I said before, this is a taboo area for science to examine. If it were not taboo, and if scientists were looking as hard for benefits to certain types of female genital cutting as they are for male, I suspect that they would find what they were looking for.

Here's another one.

http://www.iasociety.org/Default.aspx?pageId=11&abstractId=2177677

Conclusions: A lowered risk of HIV infection among circumcised women was not attributable to confounding with another risk factor in these data. Anthropological insights on female circumcision as practiced in Tanzania may shed light on this conundrum.

[joeglow3]

67. In your example, is there science supporting the removal of the excess skin?

[FunkyLeprechaun]

336. It's not excess skin

It's skin that's fused to the glans of the penis until it naturally retracts when the child is much older.

[rug]

21. No, it's not.

circumcision (n.)
late 12c., from Latin circumcisionem (nominative circumcisio), noun of action from past participle stem of circumcidere "to cut around; cut, clip, trim," from circum "around" (see circum-) + caedere "to cut" (see -cide).

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=circum+scision&searchmode=none

[belzabubba333]

23. i thought he meant the literal def of mutilate

[LanternWaste]

44. It also accurately applies to tattoos and piercings.

All other things being equal, it also accurately applies to tattoos and piercings.

[Oktober]

49. Anyone who tattoos a baby should probably get a CPS visit as well...

Let the adults choose for themselves..

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

132. Haven't seen that, but I know a lot of folks

get infant females' ears pierced.

[laundry_queen]

153. And,

most people I know that are vehemently against circumcision are ALSO against babies getting their ears pierced. Same reasoning: Their body their choice. I can't say that it's an inconsistent stance.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

337. I'm the same

I don't believe in piercing baby girls' ears. If they want their ears pierced when they're older, that's their choice. I didn't have mine done until I was 17 and sure, it did hurt, but not for long though.

[closeupready]

30. It's in the dictionary. Look it up.

[belzabubba333]

34. so is hyperbole check it out

[meaculpa2011]

13. My father had his "pencil sharpened" when he was 80.

I wouldn't wish that on anybody. He had problems for years but developed a serious infection in later life. He's 92 now and hasn't had a problem since. Two of my cousins also developed infections and had the "procedure" done when they were in their 40s. Lucky for me my mother had a more progressive attitude when I was born.

Better a quick snip at birth.

[belzabubba333]

15. agreed i dont think i'd want it done now

[LawDeeDah]

71. because the thought of the pain is unbearable, babies feel that pain too

after all they are human and have nerve endings but they can't speak and say: No, I don't want this pain! I want a world that is safe and loving not something so barbaric and painful to have seated in my memory for a lifetime.

[belzabubba333]

78. having had it done when i was a baby i dont remember any pain or anything else about it

no harm no foul

[BlindTiresias]

81. Wow

No words for this...

[belzabubba333]

83. well if it's any comfort i dont have any male children

[BlindTiresias]

88. heh

The fact that you think injury to an infant is OK if they don't remember it is disgusting, I hope you realize this. Any number of horrors could be justified based on your argument.

[belzabubba333]

89. oh please - wow didnt you just leap off hyperbole cliff.

more like you fired yourself out of a hyperbole cannon yea that's what i said you can do all kinds of horror to a baby cause they wont remember it. taking what isaid and turning into that is truly disgusting. jeez you must be tired from stuffing all those words in my mouth

[BlindTiresias]

98. yeah

Backtrack all you want, your line of argumentation is terrible and I think that is plain to see for everyone here.

[d_r]

155. Not really

I think it is much better to get a quick snip as a newborn who doesn't have fully developed pain receptors and will not remember it at all than as an adult. The benefit far outweighs the cost.

[BlindTiresias]

163. The justification based on remembering it is terrible

Under that criteria any non-crippling abuse would be considered OK. It is not a good standard to go by.

[d_r]

209. It is why pitocin

blocks the mothers' memory of the pain of childbirth, or why the dentist gives you medicine to block your memory when you take your wisdom teeth out. But that doesn't make it OK to punch someone in the mouth while they are in the dentist's office.

It is disingenuous to say that preferring to circumcise before an infant can remember it is the same as justifying any non-crippling abuse. That is a false argument. There is no benefit to non-crippling abuse. There is a benefit for circumcision. The benefit outweighs the cost, which is about 30 seconds of unremembered pain. Well, that, and having to listen to people on the internet tell you that you are missing something and would have had a huge penis that has erections for hours and stimulates women beyond their wildest dreams if only your parents hadn't hated you so much and had you mutilated before you could defend yourself. Circumcision is not abuse, despite irrational rhetoric. So there is no equivalence between the two.

[BlindTiresias]

215. Benefits are marginal imo

Which is why I didn't impose that on my infant son.

If your exclusive criteria is "the kid won't remember it" then lots of shit is justified, sorry. The only proper avenue is benefit to the child, an I think the benefits are quite marginal so it should be up to adults to make the decision about their own bodies.

[d_r]

229. it basically innoculates the kid against penile cancer

it reduces the risk of spreading cervical cancer to a partner, and cuts the risk of hiv in half. Then read about the grown men who had to have it done for various reasons and hat they went through.

Look, people can convince themselves that it is a big deal, but it isn't. They can decide it is some emotional spiritual hllabaloo, but it isn't. It is a simple procedure which has much more benefit than cost.

Which is why I didn't impose the risk of penile cancer on my infant son.

The cost is too minimal not to take that advantage.

For the second paragraph, again, it is a false equivalence.

I'm done, have a nice evening, believe what you want, peace.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

395. Since this is the silly season and folks are arguing circumcision turns men into eunuchs...

Since this is the silly season and folks are arguing circumcision turns men into eunuchs why were the four most popular male porn stars of the twentieth century; Ron Jeremy, Peter North, John Holmes, and Harry Reems, circumcised?


Also, why do Muslims, for whom circumcision is a mandate, have the highest rates of population growth?

[d_r]

154. I agree

it didn't hurt me a bit.

[belzabubba333]

172. when i said that this is what someone said to me

"The fact that you think injury to an infant is OK if they don't remember it is disgusting, I hope you realize this. Any number of horrors could be justified based on your argument. "

can u believe it?

[FunkyLeprechaun]

338. It did hurt you

And I think this is the perfect place to put this video here-

(infant circumcision procedures)

Be sure to turn the volume WAY up.

Do you honestly think those babies aren't feeling pain at all?

[d_r]

340. I'm telling you

It didnt hurt.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

342. How do you know it didn't hurt?

Since, you know, you don't remember it.

[d_r]

384. why do yuou think it did?

I don't know who you are but as far as I know you weren't there. I was and I'm teloimng you it didn't hurt.

[Stargazer09]

145. I actually watched

I was in the room, comforting two of my sons during the procedure.

One had a local, the other had nothing.

It was a quick procedure. They were both more upset by the cold air than the actual procedures. (The one without anesthesia was done using a plastic bell that cut off the circulation, thus making the actual incision painless.)

Neither cried.

It was not cruel, it was not torture, and it was not barbaric. None of my sons has ever had a urinary tract infection, and as far as I know, they've never had an STD. All of them have thanked me for having it done as infants.

[d_r]

157. I saw it too

My son really didn't care, it was with the plastic bell.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

339. They didn't cry because they were in shock

If they really truly knew what happened to them, they wouldn't readily thank you.

[Stargazer09]

360. My sons are not stupid

We have discussed it. They are aware of the benefits of being intact, as well as the benefits of circumcision, and they are glad I made the decision I made.

That's all that matters to me.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

362. Really?

Did you show them the videos of the procedures and all?

That usually turns people off circumcision.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

380. Do you advocate showing women what an abortion looks like before they receive one...

Do you advocate showing women what an abortion looks like before they receive one, especially as the fetus develops?

[Stargazer09]

412. Sounds like you're the one with issues

My sons are not unhappy, upset, turned off, or angry.

Just because you have a problem with the procedure doesn't mean that the world has to agree with you.

[phil89]

24. Not much of a sample size

in your anecdote.

[Rowdyboy]

79. Thank you-I was forced for medical reasons to have the operation in my early 50's...

Full recovery (including time for brain cells to rewire) took over a year and was hideously painful at first. Wouldn't wish that fate on anyone. Apparently my grandmother insisted I be kept "natural".

[MineralMan]

18. Ah, is it circumcision month again?

I must have missed the notification.

[CTyankee]

31. always a pleasure to see it return for another round! Has any mind been changed?

[snooper2]

80. no but I am waiting to see some new jokes!

What do you call an overpriced circumcision?
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
A rip off

[LawDeeDah]

138. Did you hear that Magellan circumsized the world with a 30 foot clipper?

[CTyankee]

274. Now, THAT is BAD...whatsa matta you?

[CTyankee]

141. OY!

[MineralMan]

254. To cut or not to cut...

That is the question.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

227. I'm staying out of it - I don't have a dick in this fight.

[MineralMan]

253. LOL!

I suppose not.

[BlindTiresias]

25. Two thirds of the world gets along fine without it

And the two areas it is most rare in (Europe and East Asia) also have the lowest rates of HIV.

[closeupready]

29. Give them time, and DU's pro-penis mutilation camp will devise

some lamebrained argument why cutting off part of their penises will help them, too! Probably something along the lines that, low rates of HIV could go still LOWER!1!

[FunkyLeprechaun]

224. Yet

Even the pro-cutter DUers and the CDC are blind to this fact.

Shh, don't look at the very forward-thinking European countries with their free health care, etc etc, basically.

[upaloopa]

27. This has always been one of DU's best debate starters.

I never thought it deserved a thread of it's own but hey what ever floats your boat.

[CTyankee]

143. well, I'm ready at the flame fest! Let the excitement begin!

[kentauros]

250. We should start a thread for "Circumcision Techniques"

Here's a couple:

Bitten off by a pitbull
Bombed by NASA

[mainer]

28. Pity all those poor, unhealthy European men

who never got circumsized. How they must be suffering.

[JustAnotherGen]

32. When they get older and have illnesses

They will often have it done - my FIL had it done at 77.

My older brother in law had it done earlier this year.

My husband may go next year.

They saw how their dad was suffering so they want to avoid that when they are elderly.


ETA - my husband is opposed to doing this to baby boys - thinks it should be a grown man's decision.

[Crunchy Frog]

233. Do your relatives live in Europe or in the US?

[JustAnotherGen]

243. Europe

Father In Law and older BIL in Italy - younger BIL moved to Germany when my husband moved to US. None of my nephews have circ'ed either.

My dad had serious issues the last week he was alive too. . But they weren't circumcising in the South as standard operating procedure in 1941 either.

Babies no. I can't get with that. But grown men can make their own decisions.

My father in law broke his hip and the pressure on his body was bad. I won't get into details - ouch - but It was really bad.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

396. Their situations aren't unique

The research suggests that approximately thirty percent of uncircumcised males will have problems as a result of not being circumcised.

[JustAnotherGen]

409. I think so . . .

But if I had a little boy - id let him make that decision for himself.

On the naughty tip - my brother in law said its like you get to "start" having sex all over again! I'm not a guy - but I found that funny. Especially when said in a thick Italian accent!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

410. I'm not here to proselytize. I respect any decision a parent makes.

I do think the thirty percent figure if correct should give any parent pause though.

[JustAnotherGen]

411. I would agree

And I think that hopefully what I shared without getting too TMI will make men hitting middle age consider the possibility. You don't want to be a stroke survivor with a broken hip and deal with that guys.

My husband is 45 and due to the male health history in his family I'm glad he's planning this in the next few years. There's no need to suffer.

[belzabubba333]

38. pity all those mutilated men suffering the disfiguring horror of circumcision

i guess there's not much to do today

[mnhtnbb]

58. self delete

[DetlefK]

39. Dear circumcision-proponents, please consider this:

The human appendix serves no purpose. Stone-Age humans needed that extra-part of the colon for digestion but with the current diet it has become useless. Worse yet, it often infects, with lethal consequences.

Wouldn't it be the prudent thing to do to cut out the appendix as soon as possible?



And yes, I consider the removal of a perfectly healthy bodypart a mutilation.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

59. If the appendix was a culprit in the spread of HIV and the HPV virus that causes...

If the appendix was a culprit in the spread of HIV and the HPV virus that causes anal and cervical cancer and serves no practical purpose I could be convinced of the necessity of its removal.

[belzabubba333]

84. dont forget tonsils and wisdom teeeth

[DemocratSinceBirth]

110. Well

If tonsils and wisdom teeth were a culprit in the spread of HIV and the HPV virus that causes anal and cervical cancer and serves no practical purpose I could be convinced of the necessity of their removal.

[Mariana]

114. It serves a practical purpose.

It is not an absolutely essential one, obviously. But the foreskin does have a purpose, it's there for a reason.

[belzabubba333]

115. they serve a practical purpose?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

117. Whether or not they serve a practical purpose is of no moment.

Whether or not they serve a practical purpose is of no moment as science doesn't suggest they are a culprit in the spread of HIV and HPV, the virus that causes cervical and anal cancer.

I can't speak for others but I couldn't live with myself if I transmitted HIV to someone or transmitted to them the virus that causes anal and cervical cancer.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

137. Yup. I had 4 of my molars pro-actively yanked

so my wisdom teeth could grow in in their places. But we've got 'baby teeth' and adult teeth, so it's not like you can do that sort of thing at birth. You have to wait til you're old enough to enjoy every wonderful minute of the pain.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

136. Would certainly have saved me a lot of pain later on.

I'd rather have had my appendix out as an infant when I wouldn't remember it, than as an adult, when I got to the hospital only a few hours before it would have burst.

[d_r]

158. Logically

you have to think of the risk to the benefit.

Taking an appendix out is more invasive and has more risk. There would be a benefit - people die from appendicitis and it would eliminate that. But the risk is higher and so the balance is different.

[ecstatic]

231. If the appendix was an external organ,

I'm pretty sure it's removal would be standard procedure. But as it stands, such a procedure would be way too invasive and dangerous for a newborn.

[Glassunion]

42. Proof that the war on men is alive and kicking.

Stop legislating my penis!

[subterranean]

50. American exceptionalism.

Why is it only the American medical establishment that's always touting the "benefits" of infant circumcision?

It's actually pretty uncommon in most countries other than the U.S. And most of them are not suffering epidemics of the problems it supposedly prevents.

[cbayer]

52. Actually it's the norm in all countries with majority muslim populations.

It is also common in parts of southeast asia and africa, israel and other areas.

[subterranean]

60. I meant neonatal circumcision for non-religious reasons.

I should have made that clear. Even among Muslims, though, the ritual is often done later in childhood, not shortly after birth.

In Canada and Australia, where infant circumcision used to be the norm, the majority of baby boys are now left intact.

[cbayer]

66. Ok, I agree with your point.

I have taken a hard stand against non-religious circumcision for about 30 years and have been pleased with the drop in numbers, particularly in the south.

This CDC report is going to set that back, well, about 30 years.

[Harmony Blue]

166. Look at that chart

Now compare that chart with HIV infections and guess which continent has the most problems with HIV transmission?

Junk science from the CDC.

[pnwmom]

97. The World Health Organization made this recommendation several years ago

based on multiple large scale, multi-year studies involving thousands of subjects and eliminating hygiene as a confounding variable.

So this is the opposite of American exceptionalism; it's the result of the CDC accepting the WHO's recommendations.

[Crunchy Frog]

184. For African countries with high HIV Prevalence, not for developed countries.

[pnwmom]

214. The results of the studies do not apply only to African countries.

There is nothing special about African physiology, only the high incidence of HIV because it began in the heterosexual population.

[Crunchy Frog]

216. The WHO has never recommended circumcision for the developed world.

And yes, those studies really do not apply outside of an African context. The epidemiological and social differences between Africa and the developed world are so profound, that these studies cannot be extrapolated to the US and Europe.

These epedemiological and social differences account for the reason that there is a raging Ebola epidemic in parts of Africa, and essentially no chance of such a situation occurring in the US, no matter how badly the CDC fucks things up.

[pnwmom]

218. The studies can be extrapolated because they accounted for differences in hygiene

practices and condom use. And African men physiologically are the same as other men.

[Crunchy Frog]

232. Until similar findings can be replicated in the 1st world

No, you can't extrapolate from Africa to the US.

Do you really not have any idea of what the differences are in access to hygiene between between rural, impoverished Africa, and even the worst areas of the US? Do you no understand that social conditions, education levels, basic medical infrastructure, and basic sanitation infrastructure, and customs and behavior can have on differences in disease transmission and incidence in different societies? Yes, the physiology is the same. Everything else is different.

If you don't understand this, can you then tell me what you are doing to protect yourself against malaria and Ebola?

Look, I understand that you had your sons cut, and you had every legal right to in this country. I just think you would be doing them a terrible disservice if you give them the impression that this will somehow make them "safe" from sexually transmitted diseases.

And neither you nor the CDC have yet satisfactorily explained why HIV and STD rates are considerably lower in intact Europe than they are in mostly circumcised America.

[pnwmom]

234. The thousands of men in the study all followed the same hygiene practices

and were instructed in condom use and given condoms to use, so these factors were eliminated in comparing the groups. The only variable was circumcision.

Of course there are major differences in access to hygiene between rural areas in Africa and in the U.S. That is exactly why these studies were carefully designed by the researchers to eliminate hygiene and condom use as confounding variables.

[Crunchy Frog]

235. Let me know when the results of these studies get replicated

In a first world setting. Until that happens, it's all just hot air.

[pnwmom]

236. Right. Because African men are just so different.

The results of those three studies, involving thousands of men who followed safe sex and good hygiene, couldn't possibly have any relevance for us.

Because the US is so special.

[Crunchy Frog]

238. No, because African social conditions are just so different.

So why is America more similar to Africa than it is to Europe? Is it because the US is a special snowflake?

I don't think there is anything else productive to be gained from this exchange, but you are welcome to get in the last word.

[pnwmom]

239. You're the one who thinks the US is a special snowflake.

The "social conditions" in Africa you refer to were carefully accounted for in the study design. That is why the results can be extrapolated to other countries and cultures.

[cbayer]

53. I would like to see studies that compare circumcision to improved hygiene

or other practices that decrease disease incidence.

Surely there is something less drastic than circumcision that could be done for STD prevention.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

55. I addressed it...

Most folks know you should wear condoms and keep your nether parts clean but a lot of people ignore those common sense instructions.

[cbayer]

62. I feel certain that there are studies that compare the two.

I can't look for them right now, but will try later.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

70. It's not some cosmic mystery.

Want to reduce your chances of sexually transmitted diseases; wear a condom, practice monogamy or greatly reduce your amount of sexual partners, eschew certain sexual acts...

In the real world lots of folks ignore those common sense suggestions.

[cbayer]

90. I suspect you are right, but I like data, particularly when I want to make

a case that is not in line with what the CDC is saying.

I'm more interested in the data regarding hygiene than in sexual practices, as that has already been documented.

[pnwmom]

86. The World Health Organization studies used thousands of subjects

all of whom were thoroughly educated on the hygiene aspects and instructed to maintain the measures during the years of the study. So different hygiene practices were eliminated as a cause of the results.

[cbayer]

95. I'm not even familiar with what their findings were.

I need to do more homework on this.

[Crunchy Frog]

185. The findings were all with subjects in Sub Saharan Africa

Living in 3rd world conditions. Western style hygiene facilities were not even available.

I would like to see similar studies done in a first world setting.

[cbayer]

202. That's exactly what I am asking for as well.

Circumcision is a rather drastic solution for a problem that might be solved in a much easier way.

[Mariana]

204. It's not really being used as "a solution to a problem".

Not in the US, anyway. If the studies found zero evidence of any benefit, I don't think we'd see much of a reduction. Almost everyone who has it done to their children in the US do it for religious or cosmetic reasons. Pronouncements like this reinforce the decision to circumcise, but I think in most cases, the kids would have been cut either way.

[cbayer]

205. I don't think you will see much change in rates done for religious reasons, but

there has been a 10% decrease overall from 1979 - 2010. While not overwhelming, that is a statistically significant trend.

[Mariana]

207. It is slowly but certainly going out of style

to circumcise babies for cosmetic reasons. I don't think we'll see any significant change in that trend on account of announcements like this one.

[cbayer]

208. I am concerned that this kind of announcement will not only stop but reverse

progress.

I was one of those parents that bucked the trend. It wasn't easy for me, but it was particularly difficult for my kids.

I just hate to see this happen when there may be much less drastic measures to address STD transmission.

[Crunchy Frog]

237. There is no problem to solve

Because there is no Great Foreskin Crisis other than in the pocket books of doctors who are seeing reductions on the numbers of circs.

The real problem in this country is the ignorance among doctors and nurses about basic anatomy, and the proper care of intact boys. For this reason, there is an epidemic of parents being given dangerously outdated advice about cleaning and caring for their intact sons, and mistaking normal physiological conditions for diseases that need to be treated, usually by circumcision.

The solution is not to cut off all the foreskins, but to improve the basic education of doctors and nurses.

[Iggo]

54. Trash thread.

What? No pit bull news today?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

56. If it's of no moment why do health organizations...

If it's of no moment why do health organizations like the World Heath Organization, the Center for Disease Control, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Academy of Pediatrics visit and revisit it ?

Iggo, could you please answer that?

Thank you in advance.

[Iggo]

74. No thanks.

But do have fun with your thread.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

75. My goal is to edify, nothing more and nothing less.../NT

[belzabubba333]

85. because it's simple, easy to understand. people post stuff of great importance it gets

a handful of views, a couple kicks but this simple not-important-to-living stuff has people talking for hours because it's not complicated

[pnwmom]

87. The WHO revisited it so they could conduct definitive studies because it is so important

to stop the spread of HIV around the world -- and earlier studies have been too small or flawed in some other way. The WHO studies are regarded as definitive because of their size and the way they were conducted.

They used thousands of subjects over the course of years and educated them ALL in correct hygiene. Even though all the subjects were practicing good hygiene, those with circumcisions were far less likely to be infected with HIV.

[Trillo]

105. Answer ... bread and butter $urgery

As you can see, circumcision is extremely profitable, forming a bread-and-butter income for the medical-industrial complex. Yet, this is hardly the end of the story. The after market for human foreskins is where the real money is made. Parents should be wary of anyone who wants to cut off their baby's foreskin. Human foreskins are in great demand for any number of commercial enterprises, and the marketing of purloined baby foreskins is a multibillion-dollar-a-year industry. The human foreskin has been commodified without the permission or knowledge of the majority of Americans.

Pharmaceutical companies use foreskin in the manufacture of interferon and other drugs. Corporate researchers use human foreskins for a wide range of experiments, searching for new profit horizons. International biotech corporations are procuring cells from amputated foreskins and experimenting with artificial skin. Products like LifeCell Corporations AlloDerm or Advanced Tissue Sciences Dermagraft-TC, which sells for about $3,000 per square foot, are grown from the unique cells in infant foreskins and used as temporary wound coverings. One foreskin contains enough genetic material to grow 250,000 square feet of skin.

According to a report in Forbes magazine, the annual market for baby-penis-derived products could be $1 billion to $2 billion. Advanced Tissue Sciences has sold about $1 million worth of cultured foreskin products to Procter & Gamble, Helene Curtis, and other such businesses for premarket testing. Advanced Tissue Sciences' foreskin-derived merchandise helped generate a $32 million stock offering in the beginning of 1992.

....

[LawDeeDah]

142. Follow the money.

Man, that is so disgusting there aren't enough swear words in the world, in all languages. Profiting off of baby pain.

[laundry_queen]

156. i bet

if you followed all the connections in the industry, you would find somehow that all these pro-circ studies are tied to the corps that profit from them. Big documentary a few years back here in Canada showed even the top scientists had several ties to different corps and that some of the studies done by these highly credible scientists would be considered compromised if there was more transparency. I'm sure the problem is worse south of the border.

[LawDeeDah]

199. It's the sort of business Mitt Romney would get into

and laugh around the dinner table with his family about how much money he makes off of cutting babies and the parents not even knowing it's all about the bottom line $$$ for a chosen few

[Trillo]

203. I agree, it's completely disgusting.

Last edited Wed Dec 3, 2014, 12:42 PM - Edit history (1)

I bet not one hospital bill correctly itemizes the expenses and incomes related to the foreskins. I'm sure the accounting can get quite complicated when the elite, preferred shareholders have a zillion shell corporations. It can be a disposal cost to the hospital, but the disposal company can in turn market these skins elsewhere, making a profit, thereby creating only "expenses" on the hospital bill, instead of incomes that should go to the kids for sale of their tissues.

Such accounting appears to be a fundamental deception.

[mnhtnbb]

61. It's a power/control trip.

Genital mutilation when a boy can't make the decision for himself.
The intent, is "see, see who's in charge--better follow the rules, authorities, parents, spiritual leaders, etc.?"

We did not have either of our sons circumcised at birth.

What other body parts regularly get removed from babies?

[Mariana]

72. There's also a weird obsession that baby boys' penises

must look like their fathers' penises. You don't see boys having nose jobs done, or even their hair dyed to look more like Daddy, but those penises must be indentical. It's really weird.

[Comrade Grumpy]

68. This place needs a circumcision forum. n/t

[Iggo]

73. Word. (n/t)

[99Forever]

106. I was circumcized as an infant...

... and I'm damn glad I was. My son was circumcised also, at the request of myself and his mother. Quite frankly, I don't give two shits what anyone else thinks of our choice, because it's none of your gawddamn business. I don't judge your family's personal medical decisions, keep your nose out of mine. I don't need or even care about your opinion on such matters.

[840high]

129. !!!!!!!!!

[Stargazer09]

146. +1

While it is nice to have peer-reviewed scientific studies supporting my decisions, it really isn't anyone else's business what decisions I've made on behalf of my children.

I feel the same way about vaccines.

[d_r]

160. +2

thanks for saying it

[Go Vols]

169. +1

[FunkyLeprechaun]

173. Child Abuse

Should not be kept private.

Regardless, you should be prepared for the day your son tells you it was "none of your goddamn business" to take such a personal, private right away from him.

Men do complain.

[99Forever]

178. That's the most ridiculous tripe I seen in weeks.

My son is 41 now, not a single complaint, especially about this non-issue.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

219. How do you know?

Sit around and talk about your penises all the time then?

[99Forever]

225. None of your gawddamn business.

And next time you feel the urge to accuse me of a crime, I won't let it slide. Go troll someone else.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

226. That's fine

Some people, like you, can't accept what has been done to them as abuse and resort to telling reasonable people that it's none of their business yet made it their business to control another persons body as they see fit.

Have a good day, sir.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

355. You can do a study...

You can cross the ocean and come to the USA and find a random sample of men and ask them if they are happy with their penises then inquire as to whether or not they are circumcised.

That would be more scientific than citing self identified circumcised males who feel they have been abused.

For me having me circumcised was the best parental decision mum and dad ever made for me as an infant.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

365. Oh I don't have to do that- it's already been done

Burning Man 2011 for example-

[img][/img]

[DemocratSinceBirth]

366. Well, that study will certainly pass scientific muster./NT

[olddots]

112. and now for some classy penis jokes

Naw can't do it. Not even the moil working for tips one or the cheese jokes because I am too mature .

[Efilroft Sul]

113. Haven't seen this much interest in the penis since the great Liam Neeson v. Huey Lewis debate.

[Bettie]

116. And yet, it is still a choice which should be made from an informed position

DH and I did research and decided to leave our three boys intact. Had he wanted them cut, I'd have gone along with it, not being the owner of a penis myself.

My best friend chose to have her three circumcised.

Both sets of boys are just fine. Mine simply needed to learn a little more about penis maintenance than hers did.

[roamer65]

118. It's genital mutilation, plain and simple.

The decision should be left to the child later in his life, it is not anyone's else decision to make. Only exceptions I can see is where it is medically necessary.
If I had my way, I would make the practice without documented approval from the one receiving the procedure a criminal offense. Eff the religious freaks on it 2.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

307. Are

Are the



-Center for Disease Control
-National Institute of Health
-American Academy Of Pediatrics
-National Institute of Health
-World Health Organization
- American Academy of Family Physicians

all of whom have found the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks "religious freaks" ?

Sir or madame, your quarrel isn't with religion but with science. I believe there's a paradox in that.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

312. So do you agree that

If the male, after he turns 18, wants to be circumcised because it is HIS choice. That's fine with me as well.

The real issue is doing this to children who clearly cannot consent with healthy tissue being cut away from them.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

317. Do you oppose vaccination?

[FunkyLeprechaun]

320. Not at all

and even I don't think vaccinations should be up to the parents. After all if they refuse, they put other children at risk of getting preventable diseases.

[Orrex]

321. Ergo you approve of making a permanent change to the child's body without the child's consent

Indeed, you approve of making such a permanent change even in defiance of the parents' wishes.

Interesting.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

328. Which part of the child's body is permanently changed?

Do vacciations remove parts of the body? Do tell.

[Orrex]

356. Now THAT'S changing the goalposts.

Are you suggesting that a permanent change without consent is ok, as long as you don't take something away?

Does that mean that it's ok to tattoo an infant?

Apparently in addition to failing to grasp logic and statistics, you also don't understand what vaccines do.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

364. It's not, it's a perfectly valid question

What part of the child's body is taken away when they get vaccines?

(and believe me I understand what vaccines do)

[Orrex]

374. Nothing in any of your posts suggests that there's any reason to believe you

What part of the child's body is taken away when they get vaccines?

Strictly speaking, the child's vulnerability to common diseases is taken away. That is, a clear medical benefit is imparted to the child.

Likewise with circumcision. A clear medical benefit is imparted to the child.

I know that you don't believe it, and that you're snuggled comfortably in the spew from your anti-circumcision propaganda site.

I'm embarrassed to have wasted so much time arguing with a crank who clearly--and explicitly--speculates about the sex lives of other people's children. Reply to me or don't--I simply don't give a fuck.

[Orrex]

377. Juror #3, wiser than I, has suggested that I stop responding to you.

I will take that very good advice, and I regret allowing myself to be baited in the first place.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

379. That's an ad hominem and tu quoque attack and a rather nasty one at that.

And is unworthy of the lofty standards of civility that the denizens of this august board pride themselves on.

Your interlocutor seems to take them personally. I find your arguments antique but charming.

[Crunchy Frog]

122. The same organization that told us Ebola could be safely treated

in any US hospital, using only contact and droplet precautions. Great.

The head of the CDC also has a history of nonintervention and looking the other way on the issue of adult men transmitting herpes infections to newborns by sucking on their freshly circumcised penises when he was New York City Health Commissioner. http://www.circleaks.org/index.php?title=Thomas_R._Frieden

I believe that Mr. Frieden has his own personal axe to grind on this issue, and is dressing it up in scientific language, and using his official position to do it. I personally do not trust anything that comes from this guy.

Very glad I kept my sons intact.

[Logical]

123. LOL, were you an ebola hair on fire poster? nt

[Crunchy Frog]

130. No I was not, but the CDC's contention

that any US hosptial could safely treat Ebola using only basic contact and droplet precautions was demonstrably very, very wrong, as well as various other missteps.

They have definitely discredited themselves in my mind.

[Logical]

140. It was fixed QUICK! No other deaths and no massive spread. We handled it GREAT! nt

[Crunchy Frog]

147. It was fixed quick because social conditions in this country

are not conducive to the easy spread of that particular disease. It's extremely unlikely that there would have been a significant outbreak even if there were no CDC. The CDC didn't save us, the CDC just lucked out. They were nevertheless consistently bumbling around and behind the 8 ball on this.

Because of their recommendations, two nurses got sick who shouldn't have, with possible lifelong repercussions, and another man died who might not have had he not been sent home from the hospital earlier in the course of his illness (partly based on CDC guidelines that said not to suspect Ebola with a fever less than 101.5).

Nope, I think I will take CDC recs with a huge grain of salt.

[roamer65]

126. Gotta stop those boys from masturbating.

That is why the procedure was started up in the 1870's. Yet another milestone in human progress.

Yeah, like that stops it.

[NCTraveler]

265. Never heard of that before. Why would it stop them from masturbating? nt.

[subterranean]

282. It didn't. But that was one of the first reasons for it.

John Harvey Kellogg (the inventor of Corn Flakes) was an early proponent of circumcising young boys to curb the evil habit of masturbation. Here is a quote from one of his books:

"A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice, and if it had not previously become too firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not resumed."

Incidentally, he also recommended applying carbolic acid to the clitorises of young girls for the same reason. Yeah, a lot of his ideas about sex were

[mythology]

127. Science is a wonderful thing

Even if people don't like it and so stick their fingers in their ears.

[Crunchy Frog]

133. Science is a wonderful thing.

Science that's tainted by cultural biases and financial interests, not so much.

Since the rest of the developed world rejects non-religious circumcison, would you hold that they are all "sticking their fingers in their ears" and should listen to the pronouncements of America's "Greatest Healthcare System in the World?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

131. I wonder if the same benefits could be achieved

simply by a single slice along the bottom of the foreskin, such that it would all still remain, but simply not be as snugly covering the glans for ease of cleaning.

[Prophet 451]

135. Very few men are circumcised here (UK)

and our rates of STDs are well within statistical norms.

[Crunchy Frog]

148. And you're all dropping dead from STDs and infections.

It's well known that the UK life expectancy is considerably lower than that of the clean, circumcised USA.

[Skittles]

318. I am curious if the unsnipped, you know, last longer

I've long wondered about that

[Prophet 451]

319. No idea

As it happens, I'm bisexual so could theoretically answer but circumcision is so rare over here that I've never shagged anyone who was cut.

[JEB]

144. Oops, I thought this was about the Chris Christy post.

[xfundy]

149. Circ in the USA started during the Victorian era

... when piano legs had to be covered and chicken breasts were referred to as "chests" so as not to arouse the men. Circ was recommended to prevent masturbation, which was "known" to cause blindness, among numerous other maladies, and the pain was thought to be remembered, an additional preventative against "perversions."

For those parents who want to make sure their kids "fit in," the fact is circ has declined dramatically and those kids will wonder why they lost part of their penises.

I was cut and always felt I was missing something. Through stretching, grew part of it back, or a reasonable facsimile, and increasingly developed more sensitivity.

[Marr]

151. Maybe we should cut off infants' index fingers to prevent firearm deaths, too.

I mean, isn't that ultimately about what the HIV risk is about? Make sex less pleasurable and they're less likely to get an STD?

[d_r]

152. people thougth buts were going to explode the internet

looks like it is going to be dicks instead

[Harmony Blue]

165. Only in the U.S. is this junk science pushed

onto the American public.

Outside of the U.S. you will not see this.

[HockeyMom]

206. Nazis in WW2

My FIL fought in Germany. He told me they pulled down the pants of POWS. Why? To separate the circumcised Jewish soldiers from the uncircumcised Non-Jews. The Nazis were furious over the American POWS because they could not use this method for separation since the majority of Americans were circumcised regardless of their religion.

True? I don't know for sure but my FIL also told me far more graphic and horrific things about when his unit liberated Buchenwald.

[Purveyor]

331. I've also heard of this... eom

[DemocratSinceBirth]

359. Brian Morris has done sixty four papers on the efficacy of circumcision...

Brian Morris has produced sixty four papers on the efficacy of circumcision and he's a professor emeritus at the University Of Sydney.


BTW, I notice you have a U.N. avatar. WHO has produced numerous papers on the efficacy of circumcision. They are, of course, the public health arm of the United Nations.

[Harmony Blue]

393. There is no significant benefits to circumcision to human populations

which is why this topic is rigorously debated and not settled. That is why there are so many papers done on this because there is a lot of disagreement.

That is why the WHO and CDC have conducted studies that contradict their findings very often. More specifically, regarding populations in Africa compared to European or North American populations. As it is related to the propensity to contract STD's and HIV.

The entire "argument" to remove the foreskins is that it increases the likelyhood of infections because of the increased surface area off the skin. However, as we all know in Africa, HIV infections are sky high, so it doesn't seem significantly beneficial to discuss it as a important reason to circumcise male babies. Condom usage would do more to reduce the chance of STD and HIV infections as well as help with population dynamics in the LDC.In Ancient times, circumcision had a practical reason, and that was due to arid, Aoelian environments, or there was a lack of water.

Modern times, we have access to water and body cleaning products as well as condoms in the MDC (Major Developed Countries). Pushing this as a key "benefit" when it is marginal and not really as significant as wearing a condom, or proper cleaning practices is not only misleading, but also exposes an agenda.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

394. The research suggests:

!) Hygiene and circumcision is superior to hygiene alone in reducing the incidence of most sexually transmitted diseases.

2) The uncircumcised penis is more likely to be abraded during intercourse thus obviating the benefits of hygiene.

3) Condom compliance is far from universal. Sixteen percent of men and twenty four percent of American women admit to not wearing condoms with their non-primary partners.

[Crunchy Frog]

398. He's also a circumcision fetishist, who gets off on it sexually.

He's involved with various groups and websites that publish erotic fiction about circumcision.

He is also not a medical doctor, and his area of expertise is in molecular biology and not urology or epidemiology.

I can hardly believe that anyone would cite Morris as a reliable source.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

403. "He's also a circumcision fetishist, who gets off on it sexually."

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).


...



Brian was the first in the world to patent the use of PCR for cervical screening (priority date Feb 1987). This test was devised to detect the cancer-causing types of human papillomavirus. His work in the cervical cancer field led him to become interested in the health and medical benefits of male circumcision (www.circinfo.net and www.circumcisionaustralia.org), a field in which he has developed a strong international reputation, with over 60 of his 348 academic publications being on this topic.


http://sydney.edu.au/medicine/people/academics/profiles/brian.morris.php


He would be more than qualified to opine on circumcision as an expert witness in any American court and I suspect any open court system.


...



""Many studies have suggested that male circumcision plays a role in protecting against HIV acquisition," notes NIAID Director Anthony S. Fauci, M.D. "We now have confirmation — from large, carefully controlled, randomized clinical trials — showing definitively that medically performed circumcision can significantly lower the risk of adult males contracting HIV through heterosexual intercourse. While the initial benefit will be fewer HIV infections in men, ultimately adult male circumcision could lead to fewer infections in women in those areas of the world where HIV is spread primarily through heterosexual intercourse."



http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/dec2006/niaid-13.htm


Please share with me the paraphilia that Dr. Fauci, who was awarded the Presidential Medal Of Freedom for his seminal work in HIV detection and treatment, participates in that undermines his opinion. Failing that please share with me how his training and experience renders him unqualified to opine on circumcision.


Thank you in advance.

[Crunchy Frog]

405. I have no wish to get into a back and forth debate with you about this.

You obviously have a very deep investment in male genital cutting, and that's your prerogative, and I respect it. I am strongly opposed to child genital cutting, and that is my prerogative.

I don't believe there is anything either of us could say that would sway the opinion of the other, so I just don't see the point of continuing this exchange.

Brian Morris's affiliations are well known, and can be easily discovered by anyone who does a bit of internet research, and I choose to not take him seriously on this issue. You are obviously free to form your own opinions.

I will not be engaging with you further on this. If you want to get in the last word, you are welcome to.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

406. My final word is I respect your opinion and I am no more or less passionate about mine ...

My final word is I respect your opinion and I am no more or less passionate about mine than you are about yours.

[Applan]

167. My fellow UNcircumcised chaps

Should we let them into the secret or would that be too cruel for those poor buggers whose parents thought it was a good idea to mutilate them when they were babies?

[budkin]

168. Sponsored by Hospitals Inc.

They make a shit ton of money off every one.

[cali]

171. Two words: Olive Garden. OK, a few more words.

No, I didn't have my son circumcized when he was born 28 years ago. Yes, it was recommended. Having said that, I think this is a profoundly silly thing to argue about, and I really don't have a problem with people choosing to have their infant sons circumcized. What really steams me is when people compare it to FGM.

[CTyankee]

188. like so many men of his generation, my husband was circumcised at birth and in his mid 20s he

converted to Judaism. Had he not been circumcised, um....

[Orrex]

189. Excellent point, too often overlooked.

Circumcision is to female genital mutilation as a professional manicure is to ripping one's arm off.

There's something of a trend to equate the two, but I find it offensive and baseless.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

175. Circumcision is state-sanctioned child abuse

N/t

[Orrex]

180. Well, so is Common Core

And Common Core inflicts much greater harm.


Let's outlaw it!!!!!!!!!!!!1!

[UglyGreed]

179. Men have

survived having a foreskin for thousands and thousands of years. What's next, neuter and circumcise your pets???

[morningfog]

182. I'd like to see the studies they relied on. It seems it was only the Africa studies.

Are there any studies comparing STD infection rates in the US or other western nations?

[Crunchy Frog]

186. Yes there are, and they are much higher in the US.

[morningfog]

187. Link please.

[Crunchy Frog]

193. Later as I'm currently on my cell phone.

[Crunchy Frog]

391. Sorry it took me so long to get back to you.

http://www.avert.org/worldwide-hiv-aids-statistics.htm

Note that the the adult HIV prevalence is 3 times higher in North America than it is in Western Europe.

Similar information available here. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2155rank.html

Adolescent sexual health outcomes considerably better in non-circumcising European countries than in heavily circumcised United States, with suggestions for alternative approaches to promoting sexual health that do not involve genital cutting.

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/419?task=view

[morningfog]

392. None of that compares circumcised and not cut

individuals and STDs.

[Crunchy Frog]

397. You asked for links comparing STD rates in the US and Europe.

Europe is overwhelmingly intact, US is largely circumcised. I think I provided you what you asked for.

If it's of any interest to you, here is a link to a study finding no correlation between circumcision status and STD infection in a US Navy population. http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/result_am?query=102282676&id=102282676&itemnum=1&amhighlight=Yes

Another study on a birth cohort of circumcised and intact males in New Zealand, followed for 32 years. No statistically significant differences in STD rates. http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476%2807%2900707-X/abstract

[morningfog]

407. Yes , those two links are what I looking for.

Those studies undermine the OP completely. With no significant difference in cut and uncut STD rates in developed countries, the benefit asserted by the CDC is non-existent in those counties. Thus, any risk at all, and there is some, to circumscision is not outweighed by the non-existent benefit.

In places with good access to hygiene and sex education, there is no reason to cut a baby's penis, other than antiquated religious beliefs.

[Mariana]

408. But people who choose to have their sons cut

"because it looks nicer" or "so he'll look like Daddy" or "because I can't be bothered to teach him to wash" will continue to find ways to convince themselves that they're doing a great and wonderful thing.

[HappyMe]

190. Cornflake chicken! Olive Garden!

"Long awaited" - by whom.

To me, this is a choice that should remain up to the parents of the baby boy.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

195. Why does circumcision get thrown in with Olive Garden ?

To the best of my knowledge dining at Olive Garden doesn't increase or reduce the incidence of

-HIV
-STDs
-the humanpapillomavirus that causes anal and cervical cancer
-penile cancer
-urinary tract infections

[Orrex]

196. Because in both cases the tips are small.

And because a DU thread about either is guaranteed to generate a lot of fiery rhetoric.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

197. I tip 20% wherever I go.

When it comes to circumcision I would hope the tips are much smaller...Parsimoniousness should be the order of the day.

[dilby]

198. Oh Lord, why do people get so excited about Foreskin and if a parent opts to have it removed from

their child. It's almost like a fetish, the cult of keep babies intact, if a child was born with a tail or extra digit no one would bat an eye if it was removed for medical or cosmetic reasons. We rip the wisdom teeth out of our children's mouths and force them to wear braces. There is a lot we do to the human body that is not natural for both medical and cosmetic reasons, people need to just get over it and accept some people have foreskins and some people don't. And since there is medical evidence that proves the lack of foreskin reduces the chance for some VD's I am thankful I am Jewish, maybe God knew something a long time ago and that is why it was pushed upon my people.

[CTyankee]

212. Oh, now you've done it! Sigh...I have gone down that road as I have Jewish grandkids and

son in law, plus a stepdaughter who is a Reform rabbi. My husband converted to Judaism before I even knew him. It's all good. I'm of no religion so I try to keep out of the fray but wow, some folks really take this personally...

[FunkyLeprechaun]

341. The real fetish is

I think the real fetish is cutting children without them giving their consent and that is disgusting.

His body his choice.

[olddots]

210. pride of ownership

What you got is what you like .

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

228. I don't have a foreskin in this fight.

I didn't even realize that I didn't have one until a group physical when I joined the marines and they told us to "skin it back" and I had no idea what they were talking about.

[ecstatic]

230. Science.

[closeupready]

242. Abracadabra.

[Socal31]

241. This obviously draws out suppressed angst.

The most vocal anti-circumcision posters are likely not circumcised themselves, which probably lead to insecurity in US locker-rooms and with new sexual partners as youth.

[Bonobo]

244. I'm amazed that there are 243 replies and no one has used the word "Smegma".

Ultimately, though, what is FAR more interesting than the different opinions on this is the remarkable similarity that the flame-haired ravers screaming about "mutilation" have with those that scream about "Flesh-eating".

For me, one central and defining feature of the American is his/her incredibly obnoxious, pushy, preachy, proselytizing about THEIR ISSUES. The concept of tolerance just does not seem to be understood by a lot of you on this thread.

I tell you as a person who has spent 1/3 of his adult life away from America, that this is without doubt the most unbecoming and ugly features of Americans. The filthy and hypocritical judgmental attitudes that you have.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

246. I'm surprised too

As I keep seeing the word "smegma" as an argument for circumcision.

What people don't realize is that males AND females produce smegma and is a naturally occurring incident in the human body.

That said, I believe it's wrong for me use my beliefs to alter the body of an unconsenting infant. The child may grow up to have different opinions than me.

[closeupready]

267. No question can exist that genders each have a distinct body odor.

Probably related to their gender equipment, though I have zero interest in researching the issue in any depth, lol.

Suffice to say that soap and water work regardless of gender/circumcised status. Don't use it? Great, but be prepared to endure ridicule.

[merrily]

401. "The filthy and hypocritical judgmental attitudes that you have."

[FunkyLeprechaun]

272. The comments to the CDC's statement can be seen here

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketBrowser;rpp=25;po=0;dct=PS;D=CDC-2014-0012;refD=CDC-2014-0012-0001

Hopefully that link opens.

[uppityperson]

273. What are the benefits of Snip vs benefits of teaching good hygiene? They are comparing what are

the risks of snipping vs what are the benefits of snipping. I don't see them comparing, and probably why they aren't recommending it, doing NOTHING but teaching hygiene vs snipping.

1. teach hygeine
2. snip benefits
3. snip risks

They seem to be comparing #2 and 3, ignoring #1.

[morningfog]

291. Yes. That is the important and unanswered question.

I asked up thread for any studies comparing STD rates of snipped and unsnipped in the US and other developed nations.

I was told they exist, but never shown any. I agree that this recommendation has a glaring omission.

[roguevalley]

327. its sort of amusing how science is sacrosanct until you disagree. :D

[nilesobek]

329. All I can add to this thread is practical experience.

I've got 4 sons and 4 daughters and I refused circumcision for my sons clearly on the basis of the creepy way I was approached about it at the Hospital and the idea that my sons could make up their own minds. They have all thanked me deeply for this.

[Mariana]

330. Will you describe the creepy way you were approached about it, please?

If you don't mind. I've heard some stories from other people about hospital personnel being very pushy, trying to talk them into it after they'd said no.

[nilesobek]

343. Oh yeah.

At first they made it sound like I was being silly and also committing a crime. I was open minded about it until I had the conversation with the Hospital social worker who warned me it was against God himself not to perform circumcision.

That did it for me. Religious kooks cutting my son's penises? No thanks. Its pretty nutty how they have to inject God into everything. Where is this mysterious coward God? Haven't seen any evidence of him except loud braying.

[ScreamingMeemie]

357. Did you report her?

Was it a private hospital?

[nilesobek]

383. No it was a public hospital.

Another factor in this decision for me was that we were receiving partial state assistance and they really put me on the spot to make a snap decision that moment. And I didn't know how to report what seemed like institutionalized policy.

[Mariana]

361. I've always wondered if God ordered Abraham to circumcise

himself and all his descendants as a form of sacrifice. We know from the stories that that particular God was all about blood and sacrifice. At any rate, I'm with you. Arguments that some bloodthirsty God wants it done would not get anywhere with me, either.

[nilesobek]

381. Weird thing is that I'm still open minded to opposing arguments.

Its really not that big of an issue for me, I mean, I'm not campaigning for non circumcision. For quite a while I wondered if I had done the right thing. So far so good. My youngest son is 27 and just fathered my seventh grandchild. There hasn't been any health issues.

[Omnith]

382. It's part of religious freedom. nt

[Mariana]

388. Whose religious freedom?

Certainly not the baby boys'. They don't get any say in it.

[Crunchy Frog]

390. What does religious freedom have to do with the state officially promoting child genital cutting?

This is no about people having the freedom to cut their children's genitals, it's about the state pushing it onto parents.

[McCamy Taylor]

387. Politics as usual at the CDC.

[ileus]

399. I thought this has been well known for 100's of years.

Now to check on the "Santa is not real thread"

[Crunchy Frog]

400. Yes. In the 19th Century it was proven to cure masturbation,

epilepsy, paralysis, club foot, and tuberculosis.

[RKP5637]

402. So, maybe for people who never shower or bathe. I would have liked to have made my own decision

on this. I suppose cutting off fingernails and toes would also help with the spread of nail fungi.

[RKP5637]

404. Male genital mutilation IMO. Let the victim decide for themselves. n/t