Newborn question

[Cain]

Originally Posted by blankall

People are pushing facts they know to be untrue. Like you've done several times in your post, they are making jumps in logic and exaggerating small effects or dismissing large effects.

Please be specific.

I quoted a medical paper, I am not pushing something that I know to be untrue. There is a grey area whether you like to recognize it or not. Another quote from the same article: "The medical harms of circumcision lie mainly in the 1% acute complication rate and the additional patients who require revision of their initial circumcision for cosmetic or medical reasons."

"and one investigator has estimated that it may take approximately 80 neonatal circumcisions to prevent one UTI."

Who is dismissing what now? Nothing grey here?

"Regarding the relationship between STDs and circumcision, patient education and the practice of low-risk sexual behavior make a far greater impact than does routine circumcision in hopes of reducing the spread of HIV and other STDs"

"Proper penile hygiene should all but eliminate the risk for foreskin-related medical problems that will require circumcision."

I don't see how you think people are pushing things they know not to be true when there is clearly medical opinion that the benefits might very well be negligible.

And again, nobody is comparing female circumcision to male straight up, merely arguing that there is really no compelling reason to perform either in today's society.

[bc-chris]

this topic is rather 'front and center' (bad pun?) with our family right now

my dad had bladder cancer last year and has so far beaten it. he has now been diagnosed with penile cancer. he is one of very few cases in the world (first in north america) where the same cancer that was in his bladder has now migrated south. (i guess penile cancer happens, but it's usually a different kind of cancer than what my dad has)

his doc told him that had he been circumcised he would likely not have gotten the penile cancer. he had a ct scan on friday and is meeting with 'the best of the best' in vancouver later this week. we should know soon how the docs want to proceed

my wife and i had a son a couple months back - and he got snipped (this was even before we knew of my dad's cancer)

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by blankall

P
The medical benefits are more than minimal. The protection against STDs is substantial. Yes you can get better protection from condoms, but realistically...people slip up.

Citation needed.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Cain

Please be specific.

I quoted a medical paper, I am not pushing something that I know to be untrue. There is a grey area whether you like to recognize it or not. Another quote from the same article: "The medical harms of circumcision lie mainly in the 1% acute complication rate and the additional patients who require revision of their initial circumcision for cosmetic or medical reasons."

"and one investigator has estimated that it may take approximately 80 neonatal circumcisions to prevent one UTI."

Who is dismissing what now? Nothing grey here?

"Regarding the relationship between STDs and circumcision, patient education and the practice of low-risk sexual behavior make a far greater impact than does routine circumcision in hopes of reducing the spread of HIV and other STDs"

"Proper penile hygiene should all but eliminate the risk for foreskin-related medical problems that will require circumcision."

I don't see how you think people are pushing things they know not to be true when there is clearly medical opinion that the benefits might very well be negligible.

And again, nobody is comparing female circumcision to male straight up, merely arguing that there is really no compelling reason to perform either in today's society.

A lot of "shoulds" in there. Yes people should wear condoms. Yes people should practice proper hygiene. However, in reality people slip up.

Here's a notice from the CDC that cites many proper medical sources:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/preventio...rcumcision.pdf

Yes, on a statistical level, the cost benefit analysis of everyone getting a circumcision may not be there. However, the effects on the individual are dramatic. Given the catastrophic nature of acquiring HIV or even herpes, the medical benefits of circumcision are clear.

From a policy perspective, it looks like a pendulum. In the 1960s, they were promoting circumcision for sanitary reasons. That slowly faded. Now that they've discovered just how profound the medical benefits are, when it comes to STDs, groups like the CDC are promoting it again.

That being said, there is no consensus on whether governments should promote everyone being circumcised. That doesn't mean that the health benefits aren't there.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by blankall

Comparing it to female circumcision (which by the way is not a circumcision), which is the removal of parts of the genitals necessary for sexual experience, is totally different. Female circumcision would be the anatomical equivalent of cutting the head of the penis off.

As mentioned earlier, it would be the equivalent to trimming back the clitoral hood, which, although rarely done alone, is a form of female circumcision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female...ers.2C_methods

So I pose the question again but with a more accurate analogy:

If you had a daughter you would have no problem with her clitoral hood being partially removed as an infant?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

As mentioned earlier, it would be the equivalent to trimming back the clitoral hood, which, although rarely done alone, is a form of female circumcision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female...ers.2C_methods

So I pose the question again but with a more accurate analogy:

If you had a daughter you would have no problem with her clitoral hood being partially removed as an infant?

Firstly, what you're talking about has zero positive medical affects and has been shown to decrease sexual satisfaction. The same isn't true of male circumcision.

If there was a female modification that had no known negative effects and positive medical affects, I would not be against it. Particularly if it had a religious/cultural history. Beyond medical benefits, there are also benefits to cultural affinity and being part of a community.

[GGG]

the fact that it does not reduce the rate of his infection from an infected male to a non infected female might actually have the unintended consequence of reducing increasing the number of his carrying females.

The primary method of AIDS transformation in North America is male male Anal which their is no data for a reduction in transmission.

Also the CDC in their draft recommendations does recommend or not recommend it only that medical benefits exist and that financial barriers should not prevent access.

Saying that the cdc supports male circumcision is really stretching what that fact sheet states.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by GGG

the fact that it does not reduce the rate of his infection from an infected male to a non infected female might actually have the unintended consequence of reducing increasing the number of his carrying females.

The primary method of AIDS transformation in North America is male male Anal which their is no data for a reduction in transmission.

Also the CDC in their draft recommendations does recommend or not recommend it only that medical benefits exist and that financial barriers should not prevent access.

Saying that the cdc supports male circumcision is really stretching what that fact sheet states.

Male circumcision is a proven effective prevention intervention with known medical benefits. Financial and other barriers to access to
male circumcision should be reduced or eliminated.

The exact quote from their last line...that seems like a pretty clear endorsement to me. They specifically state that circumcision:

1) Is proven and effective at lowering transmission rates of STDs.
2) Has known medical benefits.
3) Should be made cheaper by the government.

Of course it doesn't reduce transmissions to females...not sure I understand how it will increase transmission rates to females though. No one is recommending it in lieu of safe sex. The only 100% effective method of stopping STD transmission is abstinence. Also, fewer heterosexual males with the disease will lead to fewer transmissions to females.

The report also states, societally, it makes financial sense for every male to be circumcised. The cost of treating HIV is so high, that even a small difference in transmission rates justifies the overall cost of having all males circumsised. Ultimately and ironically, the studies ultimate conclusion is that the parents' right to make a decision on behalf of their child should reign supreme:

Parents and guardians should be informed about the medical benefits and risks of neonatal male circumcision. Other considerations,
such as religion, societal norms and social customs, hygiene, aesthetic preference, and ethical considerations also influence decisions
about male circumcision. Ultimately, whether to circumcise a male neonate is a decision made by parents or guardians on behalf of
their newborn son.

[townie_80]

Just to weigh in on a possible reason to circumcise... My cousin wasn't a fan of underwear and when he was 6 somehow zipped the foreskin into his jeans. It ended up infected and he had to be circumcised. It was not super fun for him. Oddly enough, my husband has two friends who chose to circumcise due to the fact that both got infections as kids and needed to get it done. Both vividly remember and did not want to chance it with their kids. I am not sure how common this is but it is weird that we know of 3 people between the two of us who had to get it done later in life.

[Ruttiger]

Originally Posted by Chell_King

My wife and I are about to have our first son together and we are debating on whether to circumcise our child. I grew up without a circumcision but, my wife is adamant about it that we get our son circumcised.

She obviously hates the look of yours.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by townie_80

Just to weigh in on a possible reason to circumcise... My cousin wasn't a fan of underwear and when he was 6 somehow zipped the foreskin into his jeans. It ended up infected and he had to be circumcised. It was not super fun for him. Oddly enough, my husband has two friends who chose to circumcise due to the fact that both got infections as kids and needed to get it done. Both vividly remember and did not want to chance it with their kids. I am not sure how common this is but it is weird that we know of 3 people between the two of us who had to get it done later in life.

[Royle9]

Until today, I honestly had no idea how controversial this subject is and just how strongly opinionated people are when it comes to the penis topic.

Back in my day, the joke was always "are you a helmet or a toque!?" and it was the anteaters who were always teased. I figure the fiance and I will decide together and do what we feel is right, I was snipped and don't feel like my parents stole a choice away from me at all. Very good read however, interesting to see just how strongly some people voice their opinions, almost personal when it comes to the attacks.

[Thor]

These STD and AIDS risk studies are being done in Africa, the hotbed of of AIDS. When you have a culture that fears condoms and is told repeatedly they don't work, circumcision seems to at least slightly lower the risk.

Now to take those studies and suggest us in the western world do this is just ridiculous. Use a condom, practice safe sex, keep your hood and the extra sensitivity you get by having it, problem solved.

Its amazing how far people who have been circumcised try to justify this because it was done to them, the majority of the world outside America like the EU does not have this circumcision problem. I guess then we should see much higher rates of STDs and AIDS in the EU? lol nope.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Royle9

Until today, I honestly had no idea how controversial this subject is and just how strongly opinionated people are when it comes to the penis topic.

Back in my day, the joke was always "are you a helmet or a toque!?" and it was the anteaters who were always teased. I figure the fiance and I will decide together and do what we feel is right, I was snipped and don't feel like my parents stole a choice away from me at all. Very good read however, interesting to see just how strongly some people voice their opinions, almost personal when it comes to the attacks.

I think this is a big part of it as well. There doesn't seem to be much of a consensus either way about benefits vs harms scientifically. Most of the reasons popping up seem to have to do with "keeping it the same as dad" or still lingering ideas about the health benefits preached to them when they were younger.

I remember a kid had his thing pop out while doing gymnastics in like grade 7 or 8. A girl spotted him not being circumcised and laid into him for it. Calling him disgusting and telling him to get snipped. A lot of people joined in. As an anteater myself, it made me feel like I was weird for having it and honestly made me very self conscious about the possibility of a girl seeing it.

I quickly found out in my late teens early twenties that no one cares and there were definitely no complaints from women. When it's a full mast it doesn't look much different anyway. I don't see how it couldn't hinder your pleasure though. The tip for me is super sensitive, there is no way I could just let it hang out rubbing against my clothes. The fact that many guys walk around like that tells me that the tip has to be de-sensitized.

On one hand, I don't think it's a big deal either way, on the other hand, that begs the question "why?" Kid might get made fun of, or they have to clean it properly, or that's what dad is like are not very good reasons to be cutting a piece of people off at birth. Whether it hurts the kid that much is irrelevant to me, if there doesn't show to be a difference either way, then whats the point?