Steep Drop Seen in Circumcisions in U.S.

[Drew]

Steep Drop Seen in Circumcisions in U.S.
By RONI CARYN RABIN

Despite a worldwide campaign for circumcision to slow the spread of AIDS, the rate of circumcision among American baby boys appears to be declining.

A little-noted presentation by a federal health researcher last month at the International AIDS Conference in Vienna suggested that the rate had fallen precipitously — to fewer than half of all boys born in conventional hospitals from 2006 to 2009, from about two-thirds through the 1980s and ’90s.

Last week, officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cautioned that the figures in the presentation were not definitive. But they are already stirring a sharp debate on the Internet.

The numbers were presented to the AIDS conference by a C.D.C. researcher, Charbel E. El Bcheraoui. The presentation was not covered by any mainstream news outlets, but a report by the news service Elsevier Global Medical News, along with a photograph of a slide from the presentation, quickly made the rounds of the blogosphere.

The slide portrays a precipitous drop in circumcision, to just 32.5 percent in 2009 from 56 percent in 2006. The numbers are based on calculations by SDI Health, a company in Plymouth Meeting, Pa., that analyzes health care data; they do not include procedures outside hospitals (like most Jewish ritual circumcisions) or not reimbursed by insurance.

Andrew Kress, the chief executive of SDI Health, cautioned that the data had not yet been published and was still being analyzed, but he confirmed that the trend had been toward fewer circumcisions each year.

He added that measuring the circumcision rate was not the purpose of the study, which was designed to measure the rate of complications from the procedure.

Opponents of circumcision hailed the trend as a victory of common sense over what they call culturally accepted genital mutilation. For federal health officials, who have been debating whether to recommend circumcision to stem the spread of AIDS, the news suggests an uphill battle that could be more difficult than expected.

C.D.C. officials last week declined requests for interviews about the study, but a spokeswoman, Elizabeth-Ann Chandler, answered questions by e-mail. She reiterated that the agency used the SDI figures to calculate the rate of complications, not of circumcisions.

“C.D.C. was not involved in the collection of the data that was cited, nor has C.D.C. undertaken any review of this particular data for the purpose of calculating rates,” she wrote. “As such, we cannot comment on the accuracy of this particular estimate of infant male circumcision.”

But she did not dispute the waning popularity of circumcision. “What we can tell you is that male infant circumcision rates have declined somewhat in this decade,” she wrote.

The study found a very low rate of complications associated with newborn circumcisions; most were considered mild and no babies died.

Organizations opposed to circumcision said parents may be responding to the message their groups have been spreading through their Web sites and a video distributed to childbirth educators.

“Word has gotten out that it’s not necessary, it’s harmful and it’s painful,” said Georganne Chapin, executive director of Intact America, a nonprofit organization based in Tarrytown, N.Y.

Greater awareness about female circumcision may have influenced parents as well, she said, asking, “How can you think it’s O.K. to cut little boys, when you are horrified by the idea of cutting little girls?”

Both the C.D.C. and the American Academy of Pediatrics have been reviewing the scientific evidence on circumcision with an eye to issuing new policy recommendations, but so far neither body has done so, although the federal agency was to have issued its new recommendations by the end of last year.

Officials from the pediatrics academy said its new policy would be issued by early 2011; a task force that studied the topic has completed its report, which is being reviewed by several other committees, said Dr. Michael Brady, chairman of pediatrics at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, who served on the task force. The academy is likely to adopt a more encouraging stance than its current neutral position and to state that the procedure has health benefits beyond H.I.V. prevention, Dr. Brady said.

The World Health Organization in 2007 endorsed male circumcision as “an important intervention to reduce the risk of heterosexually acquired H.I.V.”

“No one is going to tell a parent, ‘You have to circumcise your child.’ That would be foolish,” Dr. Brady said. “The key thing physicians should be doing is providing information on both risks and benefits and allow the parent to make the best decision.”

Several state Medicaid programs stopped covering circumcision after the academy issued its current policy in 1999, and Dr. Brady said that may be one reason fewer parents opt for the procedure. Other possible reasons include a growing Hispanic population that has traditionally been disinclined to circumcision, as well the anti-circumcision movement and a broader trend among parents to spurn medical interventions like vaccination.

Some 80 percent of American men are circumcised, one of the highest rates in the developed world. Yet even advocates of circumcision acknowledge that an aggressive circumcision drive in the United States would be unlikely to have a drastic impact on H.I.V. rates here, since the procedure does not seem to protect those at greatest risk, men who have sex with men.

And while studies in Africa found that circumcision reduced the risk of a man’s becoming infected by an H.I.V.-positive female partner, it is not clear that a circumcised man with H.I.V. would be less likely to infect a woman.
.

[Archigeek]

Sounds to me more like people budgeting. You have to know where to make your cuts.

[IorakeWarhammer]

its cleaner. do it. from the Sunnah of Abraham. Islamic thing to do.

[Deathravin]

Sounds to me more like people budgeting. You have to know where to make your cuts.

3050

[Cephalopod]

“Word has gotten out that it’s not necessary, it’s harmful and it’s painful,” said Georganne Chapin, executive director of Intact America, a nonprofit organization based in Tarrytown, N.Y.


I really want to see their business cards...

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Honestly.. I don't have a dick. I know guys who are cut and uncut. Neither lament their condition.

I'll leave the choice completely up to my partner.

[BriarFox]

I really want to see their business cards...

There's a little sheath you have to move before you can read the card.

[Cephalopod]

It may make more sense to get it done earlier, so this doesn't happen:
http://www.inquisitr.com/28085/really-dumb-guy-attempts-diy-circumcision-with-nail-clippers/

[BriarFox]

Honestly.. I don't have a dick. I know guys who are cut and uncut. Neither lament their condition.

I'll leave the choice completely up to my partner.

I read a study once that said that circumcision was potentially linked to lower sexual enjoyment. Apparently, the foreskin is one of the most sensitive areas, though it's nearly impossible to compare practically unless you have a guy who was circumcised as an adult. Women who had had both types of partners said uncut guys had a "shorter thrusting style" that felt "more intimate."

[AestheticDeath]

People just want boys with bigger cocks. I blame my delivery doctor for my penis being under 10 inches!

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I read a study once that said that circumcision was potentially linked to lower sexual enjoyment. Apparently, the foreskin is one of the most sensitive areas, though it's nearly impossible to compare practically unless you have a guy who was circumcised as an adult. Women who had had both types of partners said uncut guys had a "shorter thrusting style" that felt "more intimate."

I've been with both types.

There are differences, but both ultimately seem to enjoy themselves just as much as the other.

[ZeP]

Sounds to me more like people budgeting. You have to know where to make your cuts.

Winner!

[Deathravin]

http://www.fohguild.org/forums/attachments/screenshots/55526d1195595961-funny-strange-random-pics-haha1znip6.gifhttp://www.fohguild.org/forums/attachments/screenshots/55515d1195595538-funny-strange-random-pics-1b8701b928c94e92d466e0cd59cd9b04.gif

[B4Hand]

If my youngest had been a boy I would have faught with my husband about circumcision. What I saw my little guy "(child number 3, the only boy) go through the first week of his life, after circumcision, I would have wanted to just not do it again. It was horrible, there was no little "bell cap", they strapped him to a mold..used a little device, and just "bammo" cut skin off. He screamed every time he urinated, and his poor little Mr. was purple/red. To top it all off, they left a small bit of foreskin on the, we'll say 12'oclock position. They offered to remove that at a later time, I was like "Hell No!"

Anyway, I've seen cut and uncut, each is a bit different sure, but I think both seem to enjoy themselves equally. However, as a mother, I wouldn't put a baby through it again, if I actually was going to have another baby. I think I would have waited until pain meds were actually given, or something.

[Kuyuk]

I'm not circumsized, as most females here can attest, as they've all seen my wanger.

Neither is my kid.

[Deathravin]

http://www.fohguild.org/forums/attachments/screenshots/53588d1193238358-funny-strange-random-pics-0004ekws_.gif

[Back]

I will never understand guys issues with this. Cut or uncut YOU HAVE A PENIS ENJOY IT. Fuck sake.

I am with the clan of Abraham and while it was not my decision I have no regrets. Anticor has a great quote somewhere about not being able to walk for 6 months after having had it done.

[Delias]

I am not part of a desert dwelling people, so the sand factor is out. I am uncut... I look at it like this... imagine wearing a glove on one of your hands your whole life, and then take your glove off, and see which hand is more sensitive. I'm betting it's the one in the glove. I didn't get my son cut because I honestly just don't see the point. A number of my male friends think it's weird... I think it's weird that we arbitrarily lop off parts we were born with. I guess it's just what you're used to.

[Ribbons]

I am not part of a desert dwelling people, so the sand factor is out.

I've lived in the desert my whole life, no sand in my dick. So far.

[AnticorRifling]

I would caution folks I got snipped when I was a born and I couldn't walk for a year.

[Showal]

I would caution folks I got snipped when I was a born and I couldn't walk for a year.

Same here. I couldn't talk for a long time either and, when I finally started talking afterwards, it was mainly broken english.

[Ashliana]

Circumcision is wrong. You're making a permanent body modification for your child, without their consent--one that will reduce their enjoyment of sex, for little to no benefit.

If your argument is "it's cleaner," then perhaps instead of relying on a part of your child's body being cut off, you should teach them to wash themselves instead. It's like forcing a kid to have a permanent buzz-cut just in case they don't feel like washing their hair. Except, in addition to looking different, they also get less pleasure from sex. All so they can look like, and fit in with, other people who have had the same choice made for them.

If your argument is "it protects them against HIV," again--having no foreskin isn't going to stop you from contracting HIV, if you do and continue to engage in unsafe sex practices. It's just a matter of time, if you're exposing yourself to the virus/risk. And the famous addage: "It only takes once." Teach your kids to wash themselves and choose good sex partners. Not chop off body parts.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

If my youngest had been a boy I would have faught with my husband about circumcision. What I saw my little guy "(child number 3, the only boy) go through the first week of his life, after circumcision, I would have wanted to just not do it again. It was horrible, there was no little "bell cap", they strapped him to a mold..used a little device, and just "bammo" cut skin off. He screamed every time he urinated, and his poor little Mr. was purple/red. To top it all off, they left a small bit of foreskin on the, we'll say 12'oclock position. They offered to remove that at a later time, I was like "Hell No!"

Anyway, I've seen cut and uncut, each is a bit different sure, but I think both seem to enjoy themselves equally. However, as a mother, I wouldn't put a baby through it again, if I actually was going to have another baby. I think I would have waited until pain meds were actually given, or something.

I thought it was standard practice now so I didn't include it in my answer, but I would absolutely demand anesthetic if we went the circumcision route.

[TheEschaton]

I wouldn't do it, but that's mainly cause I'm uncut too, and there's some weird proto-sexual thing about doing something to your son that you haven't done yourself.

If you want an opinion on sexual sensation, I'd say to ask Daniel, iirc, he posted a few years ago about getting circumcised as an adult.

[Beguiler]

My husband was adamant that our son be circumcised... I caved, but I did insist on anesthesia (local) and was given a topican anesthetic for the first couple of weeks. I was with him during the procedure, he didn't scream or really even fuss, and didn't cry on urination. And he told me he was glad we had it done. Something about being like his Dad.

As a parent, you have to make informed decisions. But both parents get a vote, and in this one case my husband won the toss. At least I won the toss and didn't have to name the kid Marvin Gaye. <twitch>

(Disclaimer: No offence meant to anyone named Marvin or Gaye. But sometimes naming kids after favorite singers is just NOT an option. :P)

[Rinualdo]

one that will reduce their enjoyment of sex, for little to no benefit.

Is this actually proven?

Do you also object to girls getting their ears pierced when they are toddlers or the like?

[Deathravin]

My uncle was circumcised once... then he died...

[Ashliana]

Is this actually proven?

There's evidence (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847) for it, but it's debated on both sides, but men who choose to have it done in their adult lives seem to find decreased sensitivity.


Do you also object to girls getting their ears pierced when they are toddlers or the like?

Are pierced ears permanent? It was my understanding that the body would heal a pierced ear if you stopped wearing earrings long enough, but generally, yes--I don't approve of making permanent body modification choices for someone else, even if they're your child.

[Rinualdo]

Interesting.

[Showal]

Is this actually proven?

Do you also object to girls getting their ears pierced when they are toddlers or the like?

I imagine it's hard to prove. Studies have also shown that circumcisions increase pleasure. None of these studies are well designed so take what you will from them. There is, however, some small amount a evidence that circumcisized men are more likely to have an issue with premature ejaculation.

Circumcision is not just connected to lower HIV transmission, but also many other STDs (STIs).

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

[Showal]

There's evidence (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847) for it, but it's debated on both sides, but men who choose to have it done in their adult lives seem to find decreased sensitivity.

Let's not make the jump into saying a reduction in the sensation of fine-touch pressure equals a reduction in pleasure from sex. That's not what the article concluded.

The reason it's hard to design a study to prove that pleasure is reduced is because it is based on self reporting, which is unreliable. A lot of other factors make it hard too.

[AnticorRifling]

A lot of other factors make it hard too.


In a penis thread says he.

[Drew]

Circumcision is not just connected to lower HIV transmission, but also many other STDs (STIs).


Circumcision also seems to lower the rate of penile cancer. Honestly of all the cancers I want to avoid that is right up there with pancreatic.

[NocturnalRob]

I'm cut, and girls have been complaining about my lack of sensitivity for years.

[Showal]

In a penis thread says he.

I wrote that and immediately thought "Anticor's going to comment on this ... fuck it, i'll keep it."

[Nieninque]

The thread wins for the lulz

[Archigeek]

I tend to agree with TheE on this one. You kind of want your kid to be like you: cut or uncut. Who wants their kid to wonder if there's something wrong with them when they're notice that dad's wang looks different than theirs?

As for the whole "studies show" bull shit. That's exactly what it is. I find it amusing that one study shows decreased sensitivity and another shows premature ejaculation. No contraction there at all, nope, none.

[4a6c1]

I think circumcision should be the new accidentally.

Example: "I just circumcisioned this thread"

[Drew]

Also at my high school there was only 1 kid who was uncut and he got mocked pretty mercilessly.

[Warriorbird]

Also at my high school there was only 1 kid who was uncut and he got mocked pretty mercilessly.

How did you know?

You know how I know you're Drew2...

[Bobmuhthol]

I think I enjoy the statement that "circumcision is wrong" more than anything else in this thread. "Murder is wrong" or "fur is murder is wrong" I can understand, but circumcision is wrong?

[BriarFox]

This thread needs a Biblical reference, so let's not forget the power of circumcision to defeat your enemies. In one story in the Old Testament, some townies rape a Jewish girl and piss off her family. The dad works out a deal with the town where the townies convert to Judaism and get circumcised. While they're all writhing around in pain, the girl's brothers go into the town and kill them all.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I think I enjoy the statement that "circumcision is wrong" more than anything else in this thread. "Murder is wrong" or "fur is murder is wrong" I can understand, but circumcision is wrong?

When this debate came up on another forum I frequent and I said I'd let the father decide, quite a few people freaked out on me, including someone who said something along the lines of, "So you'd stand idly by and just let your husband mutilate your innocent child?"

[Drew]

How did you know?

You know how I know you're Drew2...

You know how I can tell you didn't play sports in high school?

[Kuyuk]

I played sports in high school... but I dont think we all got naked and checked out each others cocks?

[Showal]

I played sports in high school... but I dont think we all got naked and checked out each others cocks?

Same here.

[Drew]

I guess I was the only one who had one of those big group showers.

[BriarFox]

Nah. They're pretty common.

On a related note, while I was fencing in college, the girlfriend of the men's foil captain, who was on duty somewhere or other with the Army, asked if she could take a picture of the butts of the entire men's team while we were in the shower to send him as a joke. Line up, click, click, and he got a bunch of asses in a 4x6 square in the mail.

[Ashliana]

I think I enjoy the statement that "circumcision is wrong" more than anything else in this thread. "Murder is wrong" or "fur is murder is wrong" I can understand, but circumcision is wrong?

I should have phrased it: "circumcising your children is wrong." In my book, anyway. If you want to wait until they're old enough to make a conscious decision about it, then so be it. I just can't approve of making a permanent body modification choice for someone else. And the reasons commonly proferred don't justify it.

It is not done because people don't want their kids to have a slightly reduced chance of contracting an STI during risky sex they shouldn't be having anyway; it's done because it's "tradition," or because they think "they'll be mocked if they're the only ones different." Both increasingly irrelevant reasons--as the topic article says, the circumcision rate is going down.

[NocturnalRob]

it's done because it's "tradition,"
TRADITION!

http://lahaiseslair.com/bradleym/files/2009/11/Fiddler-on-the-Roof.jpg

[Drew]

On a related note, while I was fencing in college, the girlfriend of the men's foil captain, who was on duty somewhere or other with the Army, asked if she could take a picture of the butts of the entire men's team while we were in the shower to send him as a joke. Line up, click, click, and he got a bunch of asses in a 4x6 square in the mail.

You sure she just wasn't doing a solid for her gay army buddy?

[Warriorbird]

TRADITION!

http://lahaiseslair.com/bradleym/files/2009/11/Fiddler-on-the-Roof.jpg

http://www.sdentertainer.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/fiddler.jpg

TRADITION!

[Drew]

What are you referencing?

[Rinualdo]

The song in Fiddler on the Roof

[BriarFox]

You sure she just wasn't doing a solid for her gay army buddy?

Well, she was pretty smoking, and they were making out hot and heavy at the Halloween party, but I suppose it's possible it was all a ploy - just unlikely.

[Showal]

I should have phrased it: "circumcising your children is wrong." In my book, anyway. If you want to wait until they're old enough to make a conscious decision about it, then so be it. I just can't approve of making a permanent body modification choice for someone else. And the reasons commonly proferred don't justify it. I think most people get it done because doctors recommend it.
I understand TheE's reasons but that makes sense. It's not wrong to get a procedure done that has health implications on your hild even I they can't make the decision..

It is not done because people don't want their kids to have a slightly reduced chance of contracting an STI during risky sex they shouldn't be having anyway; it's done because it's "tradition," or because they think "they'll be mocked if they're the only ones different." Both increasingly irrelevant reasons--as the topic article says, the circumcision rate is going down.

my parents had it done to me for health reasons. That's the same reason I will have it done to my sons. Health reasons are an increasingly relevant reason to have it done, plus it is far less painful for an infant. Children immunizations are also on the decline. Trends don't make it a better reason.

[Archigeek]

I don't think mockery or sensitivity about looking different is going down, at least not in our society in the US. Also, parents do things without their children's consent all the time. I'm pretty sure making decisions for your kids is a big part of being a parent. I do realize this one is a little different, because it causes pain, but I don't think the non-consent argument holds much water. Honestly though, I don't see what the big deal is either way. It's not some big horror, at least if it's done right, nor is it a big deal to leave it alone.

[TheEschaton]

The health reason is virtually irrelevant if you're not a dirty idiot. It was a health concern when people took baths like, once a year.

[Ashliana]

my parents had it done to me for health reasons. That's the same reason I will have it done to my sons. Health reasons are an increasingly relevant reason to have it done, plus it is far less painful for an infant. Children immunizations are also on the decline. Trends don't make it a better reason.

Trends affect the reason that most people I've ever asked about their opinion give: so that their kids fit in. If the trends change, and the vast majority isn't circumcized anymore, how does the "so they'll fit in" argument not become less of a valid reason? Traditions, too, change over time. This is definitely one that should be broken.

How are health reasons increasingly relevant? If you're counting on a circumcision to protect you or your children against risky sex practices, you're making a mistake. It can only take once to get infected with an STI, circumcision or not. Chopping off your child's skin, rather than teaching them how to practice safe sex and take showers, is not the answer.

[Rinualdo]

The number of people who think Obama is a Muslim is on the rise. All the more reason populism and trends have no bearing in individual reality.

[Ashliana]

I don't think mockery or sensitivity about looking different is going down, at least not in our society in the US. Also, parents do things without their children's consent all the time. I'm pretty sure making decisions for your kids is a big part of being a parent. I do realize this one is a little different, because it causes pain, but I don't think the non-consent argument holds much water. Honestly though, I don't see what the big deal is either way. It's not some big horror, at least if it's done right, nor is it a big deal to leave it alone.

There's a difference between just "making decisions for your child" and permanently altering your child's body--especially for such a capricious reason. It's not some "big horror," simply because the majority of people that have it done, have it done as such a young age, they'll never know what they're missing.

[Rinualdo]

If you're counting on a circumcision to protect you or your children against risky sex practices, you're making a mistake. It can only take once to get infected with an STI, circumcision or not. Chopping off your child's skin, rather than teaching them how to practice safe sex, is not the answer.

I'm not sure where you are getting this from. I've yet to see any article or anyone here post a "well, my kid is circumcised so he's protected".
In regards to sexual health, its a process that can reduce risk factors. In combination with other methods, like education, it can be quite effective.

Its not an either/or scenario.

[Ashliana]

I'm not sure where you are getting this from. I've yet to see any article or anyone here post a "well, my kid is circumcised so he's protected".
In regards to sexual health, its a process that can reduce risk factors. In combination with other methods, like education, it can be quite effective.

Its not an either/or scenario.

People are trying to justify circumcision after-the-fact, having become the norm in the US, searching for any reason to maintain the status quo. So what if a circumcision reduces your chances of contracting an STI when you're having unsafe sex? The ideal solution to that particular problem is: Teach kids how to have safe sex. Not "chop off their foreskin at birth so they have a reduced chance when having safe sex, by no means guaranteeing that they won't get an STI anyway."

Lots of things "reduce risk factors." Horribly scarring young girl's genitalia so they don't have sexual pleasure, and are thus less inclined to have risky/adulterous sex, also "reduces risk factors." And yet it is--rightly--decried as barbaric.

[Drew]

I'm not sure where you are getting this from. I've yet to see any article or anyone here post a "well, my kid is circumcised so he's protected".
In regards to sexual health, its a process that can reduce risk factors. In combination with other methods, like education, it can be quite effective.

Its not an either/or scenario.

How dumb can you be? Ashliana is smart and realizes that only from abstaining entirely from a practice can you be sure. That's why he's for an abstinence only policy.

[Archigeek]

There's a difference between just "making decisions for your child" and permanently altering your child's body--especially for such a capricious reason. It's not some "big horror," simply because the majority of people that have it done, have it done as such a young age, they'll never know what they're missing.

Yeah your first sentence there is why I noted this decision is different, but the "it's no big horror" comment has nothing to do with other people having it done, but rather I think you're over-stating that it is horrible. It's not. Millions, no, probably billions of people have had it done, and I don't see them lining up for psychological help because of it, nor is there any credible evidence that it's causing them sexual problems, so they aren't really missing anything.

[Rinualdo]

People are trying to justify circumcision after-the-fact, having become the norm in the US, searching for any reason to maintain the status quo. So what if a circumcision reduces your chances of contracting an STI when you're having unsafe sex? The ideal solution to that particular problem is: Teach kids how to have safe sex. Not "chop off their foreskin at birth so they have a reduced chance when having safe sex, by no means guaranteeing that they won't get an STI anyway."

Lots of things "reduce risk factors." Horribly scarring young girl's genitalia so they don't have sexual pleasure, and are thus less inclined to have risky/adulterous sex, also "reduces risk factors." And yet it is--rightly--decried as barbaric.

I can only assume by your idealistic views that you do not have children. When and if you do, you may have a different perspective. Its always helpful to have a plan B.

I think you're way off base if you think people are actively trying to post-fact justify the status quo. Unless you can find some pro-circumcision lobby out there, I think the vast majority of Americans simply believe it is a personal decision between the mother and father.

You seem to be arguing against the cause while negating the effect. The evidence is pretty strong when it comes to the overall health benefit and mitigation.

By the way, any point you may have had lost all credibility when you utilize clitoral dismemberment as analogous to circumcision.

[Drisco]

I am circumsized and wouldn't want it any other way. Just a personal preference. I don't like the look of uncircumsized penis's. Also just a preference.

Would I do it to my child? I'd have to think hard about it. I'm against doing anything that will alter a child without their consent. Aka, Catholic Baptisms as a child.

[Ashliana]

Yeah your first sentence there is why I noted this decision is different, but the "it's no big horror" comment has nothing to do with other people having it done, but rather I think you're over-stating that it is horrible. It's not. Millions, no, probably billions of people have had it done, and I don't see them lining up for psychological help because of it, nor is there any credible evidence that it's causing them sexual problems, so they aren't really missing anything.

Nothing in your statement refutes anything that I've said. I didn't imply that circumcision inflicts psychological harm, or caused them sexual problems. I said: there's no reason to do it, and the reasons offered:

1) it helps them remain clean
2) it slightly reduces their chances of contracting STIs
3) it helps them fit in/it's tradition

are either not the ideal way to approach a problem.

Better:

1) teach them good hygiene
2) teach them how to have safe sex
3) As the article stated, trends are already changing.

As I already linked to the study demonstrating differences in sensitivity. Whether that translates into better sex lives/etc has yet to be proven, but there's still no good reason to chop off part of a child's genitalia. If it's that important to be done, let the person decide when they're old enough to make a rational decision for themselves.

[Warriorbird]

I'm cut. If I ever have a son I'll let him choose when he's old enough to make the decision.

[Deathravin]

It's an archaic practice left over from religious fears and bias. Cut off the practice.

[Rinualdo]

The procedure has a greater impact on an adult then a child.

[Sean]

The procedure has a greater impact on an adult then a child.

What?

[Drew]

What?

They will remember any trauma, they will have to abstain from sex/masturbation. Lots of things a child would not have to do.

[Rinualdo]

Complications increase, greater amount of overall skin you're dealing with so the chance a mistake is greater. Recovery time is 4-6 weeks of no sexual activity or stimulation. etc.

[Ashliana]

In other words, the adult/adolescent will be able to appreciate the gravity of having part of their penis chopped off for no other reason than because your parents anticipate that you're better off with having it done, as opposed to being told "make sure to wash your junk, and don't have unprotected sex with people you're not in a committed relationship with"? Because it might "look weird" (i.e., natural) and you might not "fit in," otherwise.

Okay.

[Drisco]

In other words, the adult/adolescent will be able to appreciate the gravity of having part of their penis chopped off for no other reason than because your parents anticipate that you're better off with having it done, as oppsoed to being told "make sure to wash your junk, and don't have unprotected sex with people you're not in a committed relationship with"? Because it might "look weird" (i.e., natural) and you might not "fit in," otherwise.

Okay.

Are you a woman?

[Ashliana]

Are you a woman?

I am not. Feel free to search for Parkbandit's billion page thread about the topic.

[Rinualdo]

In other words, the adult/adolescent will be able to appreciate the gravity of having part of their penis chopped off for no other reason than because your parents anticipate that you're better off with having it done, as oppsoed to being told "make sure to wash your junk, and don't have unprotected sex with people you're not in a committed relationship with"?

Okay.

Just because you use incorrect terminology for impact doesn't mean your statement is any more accurate. The penis isn't being chopped off and you know it.

Apparently you didn't read the other benefits, unless you believe washing your junk can reduce your risk on an equal level for penile cancer, balanitis, etc...

http://www.circinfo.net/pdfs/CircBioEssays07.pdf

10 fold increase for a UTI. 20 fold increase in cancer.

If you're not willing to help mitigate risks for your kid, so be it. Don't attempt to group everyone else who does as whackos-who-don't-like-the-look-of-uncircumcised-cock.

[Showal]

Trends affect the reason that most people I've ever asked about their opinion give: so that their kids fit in. If the trends change, and the vast majority isn't circumcized anymore, how does the "so they'll fit in" argument not become less of a valid reason? Traditions, too, change over time. This is definitely one that should be broken.

How are health reasons increasingly relevant? If you're counting on a circumcision to protect you or your children against risky sex practices, you're making a mistake. It can only take once to get infected with an STI, circumcision or not. Chopping off your child's skin, rather than teaching them how to practice safe sex and take showers, is not the answer.

First off, I said health reasons are becoming an increasingly relevant reason to get kids circumcized. I never said "so they'll fit in" is not becoming less of a valid reason. Also, have you really ever had this conversation with someone about their kid? "I see your kid's walking around and he doesn't really have much foreskin, why did you decide to do that?"

I have never once worried about my parents having a doctor mutilate my dick. I don't remember the pain. It's actually less painful for an infant than an adult to have the procedure. Do you know a single person who was circumcized as a child that actually remembers the pain or regrets their parents decision?

I would argue the reason most people get it done is because the doctor recommends it.

When I was circumcized, it was for health reason. Health reasons are becoming increasingly relevant because a lot of the health benefits for circumcision that we know now, we did not know when it happened to me. It seems that scientists continue to find more health benefits.

I never once was told by my parents when I didn't want to shower, "well, you're circumcized, you don't really have to tonight". I never once talked about sex with my parents and they said "you're circumcized, so STDs don't apply to you". That's silly.

You are absolutely right, in an ideal world, kids would never take risks. Shouldn't you help them to be ok when they do? Safe sex doesn't always protect people, but it helps. You can still catch several STDs with condoms. You can still get pregnant regardless of the contraception methods you use. The only way to prevent this is to ensure your kid DOESN'T HAVE SEX, at all. Have you ever met a parent who has truly been sucessful with that? Probably not. That's why you teach kids safe sex, because they're going to have it.

It's also recommend that kids get gardasil to protect against HPV. No one has ever said "get gardasil and you won't have to teach your kids effective safe sex". Just like when kids get MMR vaccines. The doctors don't say "Sure! They're immunized. Take them to Tommy's house, he has measles. It's ok." These are reasonable health precautions.

Scarring a girl's genitals is not really the same as circumcision. Come on, you don't really believe they're equivalent.

Also, the health reasons are not virtually irrelevant if you're not a dirty idiot. Circumcision is recommended in Africa to slow down the spread of AIDS. In the US, we have a big problem with HPV (granted it's not usually as serious). It's estimated by the CDC that over 80% of sexually active adults have some strain of HPV. Condoms do not protect against that, entirely. Circumcision is now thought to help prevent transmission of HPV. Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume circumcision could help slow down the spread of HPV in our own country? The benefits of circumcision do not stop at not having to clean your dick as thoroughly.

I do agree with TheE saying he's not going to get it done. You don't HAVE to get it done, but there are reasons for it to be done.

[Sean]

Complications increase, greater amount of overall skin you're dealing with so the chance a mistake is greater. Recovery time is 4-6 weeks of no sexual activity or stimulation. etc.

Ah ok I misunderstood your statement since the threads been mostly discussed from the perspective of a child I took it to mean that when a child is circumsized the impact of that circumsision increases as an adult.

[Ashliana]

Just because you use incorrect terminology for impact doesn't mean your statement is any more accurate. The penis isn't being chopped off and you know it.

I said "part of their penis," which is true. Sorry if you're uncomfortable with the procedure.


Apparently you didn't read the other benefits, unless you believe washing your junk can reduce your risk on an equal level for penile cancer, balanitis, etc...

http://www.circinfo.net/pdfs/CircBioEssays07.pdf

10 fold increase for a UTI. 20 fold increase in cancer.

If you're not willing to help mitigate risks for your kid, so be it. Don't attempt to group everyone else who does as whackos-who-don't-like-the-look-of-uncircumcised-cock.

Or, alternatively, I've seen the data from a variety of sources, and know that the data is often skewed one way or the other by those justifying or decrying the practice. I am willing to help mitigate the risks for my kids, and like I said: the best way to go about doing that is not chopping off part of their genitalia. It's by teaching them how to have safe sex and good hygiene, STIs-wise. As for cancer, the data does not lead doctors to recommend it for prevention purposes--in fact, just the opposite (http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/letters/1996-02_ACS/).

[Ashliana]

First off, I said health reasons are becoming an increasingly relevant reason to get kids circumcized. I never said "so they'll fit in" is not becoming less of a valid reason. Also, have you really ever had this conversation with someone about their kid? "I see your kid's walking around and he doesn't really have much foreskin, why did you decide to do that?"

I have never once worried about my parents having a doctor mutilate my dick. I don't remember the pain. It's actually less painful for an infant than an adult to have the procedure. Do you know a single person who was circumcized as a child that actually remembers the pain or regrets their parents decision?

I would argue the reason most people get it done is because the doctor recommends it.

I have had conversations with several parents, including my own, about their decisions. No, they weren't brought on by randomly seeing their children's genitalia. Believe it or not, the issue is contentious, and is in the news regularly.

And yes, I've met more than a few people that regret having the choice taken from them by their parents, and just as many parents that had it done without really thinking about it--"the doctors just said it needed to be done," or "my parents had it done to me," so they did it.



When I was circumcized, it was for health reason. Health reasons are becoming increasingly relevant because a lot of the health benefits for circumcision that we know now, we did not know when it happened to me. It seems that scientists continue to find more health benefits.

I never once was told by my parents when I didn't want to shower, "well, you're circumcized, you don't really have to tonight". I never once talked about sex with my parents and they said "you're circumcized, so STDs don't apply to you". That's silly.

You are absolutely right, in an ideal world, kids would never take risks. Shouldn't you help them to be ok when they do? Safe sex doesn't always protect people, but it helps. You can still catch several STDs with condoms. You can still get pregnant regardless of the contraception methods you use. The only way to prevent this is to ensure your kid DOESN'T HAVE SEX, at all. Have you ever met a parent who has truly been sucessful with that? Probably not. That's why you teach kids safe sex, because they're going to have it.

It's also recommend that kids get gardasil to protect against HPV. No one has ever said "get gardasil and you won't have to teach your kids effective safe sex". Just like when kids get MMR vaccines. The doctors don't say "Sure! They're immunized. Take them to Tommy's house, he has measles. It's ok." These are reasonable health precautions.

At least your parents did it for medical reasons, even if I don't agree with them. I'd personally argue, however, that any increased discomfort as a result from having it done at an older age, is far outweighed by the benefit of allowing the person to make the decision for themselves. While there are a few STIs that can be caught despite condom use, but I don't remember implying that condom use alone constituted safe sex. We should be teaching kids to regularly get comprehensive screenings that address STIs condoms don't necessarily protect against, and advice in how to apply discretion before having sex.


Scarring a girl's genitals is not really the same as circumcision. Come on, you don't really believe they're equivalent.

They're not on the same level in terms of damage to the body, but they share the same underlying principle: a parent is making the choice to have their child's genitals mutilated, in exchange for some perceived benefit--whether it's tradition, or to ensure obedient/faithful women. The medical reasons for either were investigated long after the fact.


Also, the health reasons are not virtually irrelevant if you're not a dirty idiot. Circumcision is recommended in Africa to slow down the spread of AIDS. In the US, we have a big problem with HPV (granted it's not usually as serious). It's estimated by the CDC that over 80% of sexually active adults have some strain of HPV. Condoms do not protect against that, entirely. Circumcision is now thought to help prevent transmission of HPV. Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume circumcision could help slow down the spread of HPV in our own country? The benefits of circumcision do not stop at not having to clean your dick as thoroughly.

I do agree with TheE saying he's not going to get it done. You don't HAVE to get it done, but there are reasons for it to be done.

Circumcision is recommended in Africa--which was also a contentious measure by the WHO--because there are both logistical issues in deploying condoms as well as education efforts in teaching safe sex in rural/dangerous Africa. You mention HPV--in the end, it's still boiling down to a risk vs. reward analysis. Does the decreased risk of HPV transmission in circumcised males warrant the practice? Is HPV infection that dangerous? Is it worth the decrease in sensitivity? I don't believe that question's been answered definitively, and there are alternatives to combating the spread of any STI.

[Drisco]

I said "part of their penis," which is true. Sorry if you're uncomfortable with the procedure.



Or, alternatively, I've seen the data from a variety of sources, and know that the data is often skewed one way or the other by those justifying or decrying the practice. I am willing to help mitigate the risks for my kids, and like I said: the best way to go about doing that is not chopping off part of their genitalia. It's by teaching them how to have safe sex and good hygiene, STIs-wise. As for cancer, the data does not lead doctors to recommend it for prevention purposes--in fact, just the opposite (http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/letters/1996-02_ACS/).

I feel like you are spewing out inconsistencies with perhaps non reliable sources. Everything you have said up to this point has other sources claiming the opposite. Whose right I really don't know and don't care to look it up.

There really is no hard core evidence, probably because there is no real hard evidence to be found on such a minor procedure. There is relatively not much of a difference. Your personal opinions are quite clear and we get that.


Likewise, research claiming a relationship between circumcision and
penile cancer is inconclusive.


in fact, just the opposite

Really? That is what they are saying?

[Ashliana]

Really? That is what they are saying?

Look at what I said: "As for cancer, the data does not lead doctors to recommend it for prevention purposes--in fact, just the opposite."

Meaning: The data does not only lead doctors to not recommend circumcision, they specifically warn against making the claim that circumcision should be done as a measure to lower incidence of cancer. And this is the American Cancer Society. Not "circinfo.net."

[Drisco]

Look at what I said: "As for cancer, the data does not lead doctors to recommend it for prevention purposes--in fact, just the opposite."

Meaning: The data does not only lead doctors to not recommend circumcision, they specifically warn against making the claim that circumcision should be done as a measure to lower incidence of cancer. And this is the American Cancer Society. Not "circinfo.net."

Take a look at all of your posts on this topic. You sway everything you say and all your sources to your personal agenda. We get that you don't like the practice but putting your personal preferences and then linking sources that say they don't recommend it because there is not enough evidence and portraying it like they are with you and your opinion; when actually they are saying there is no hard evidence for either side.

[Ashliana]

Take a look at all of your posts on this topic. You sway everything you say and all your sources to your personal agenda. We get that you don't like the practice but putting your personal preferences and then linking sources that say they don't recommend it because there is not enough evidence and portraying it like they are with you and your opinion; when actually they are saying there is no hard evidence for either side.

Rinualdo posted information from a pro-circumcision advocacy site, and implied that the uncircumcised suffer from higher cancer rates. He responded to the argument "Evaluating circumcision as a means of lowering STI incidence and cancer rates, I, Ashliana, do not believe that it's worth the risk," with "there's something we could be doing to mitigate our children's risks, and you're not doing it?! What a monster!" Fallacious.

I responded with a letter from the most respected cancer organization in the US--the American Cancer Society--which urged doctors not to recommend circumcision as a means of reducing cancer rates, as a refutation of his claim that he's just doing his duty to mitigate his child's risks.

There are "personal preferences" reflected in the structure of any argument. It's up to you to look at the sources and make a decision for yourself. I've quoted ACS and the NIH, and specifically commented upon the lack of concrete data as to the dangers and benefits of the procedure. If I wanted to cherry-pick inflammatory sources, there are plenty of them regarding the statistics about botched circumcisions which result in mortalities or permanent disfigurement.

[Bobmuhthol]

Look at what I said: "As for cancer, the data does not lead doctors to recommend it for prevention purposes--in fact, just the opposite."

Meaning: The data does not only lead doctors to not recommend circumcision, they specifically warn against making the claim that circumcision should be done as a measure to lower incidence of cancer. And this is the American Cancer Society. Not "circinfo.net."

Actually that's the same thing repeated with different phrasing. One would hope that a professional would not need to distinguish between inconclusive results and suggesting that no conclusions be drawn. There are no opposites here.

[Ashliana]

Actually that's the same thing repeated with different phrasing. One would hope that a professional would not need to distinguish between inconclusive results and suggesting that no conclusions be drawn. There are no opposites here.

Granted, the statement was worded badly. I still see the opposite of Rinualdo's implication--"the data leads doctors to recommend it, to prevent cancer" in "the data leads doctors to actively warn against recommending it, to prevent cancer," the latter of which was the ACS' position. Awkward choice of words. You got me.

[g++]

Im circumcised...I dont think I would circumcise a kid if I had one. The thing epidemiologists generally fail to mention to the people they are trying to convince on this issue is rate of transfer of HIV female -> male during heterosexual sex is already shockingly low and the statistics are usually ******** in medical journals because the numbers are the scientific version of guesses. If my kid is bathing in so much aids that he needs to alter his dick I think the world is prolly on the way out anyway. If he wants to give his dick a bowl cut he can do it himself later.

[Rinualdo]

Except you linked an article from '96, I liked something with much more recent data. Since you don't refute the data, I can only assume you simply choose to ignore it.
That is your right, but it hardly helps your position.

[Ashliana]

Except you linked an article from '96, I liked something with much more recent data. Since you don't refute the data, I can only assume you simply choose to ignore it.
That is your right, but it hardly helps your position.

ACS' opinion hasn't changed.

In weighing the risks and benefits of circumcision, doctors consider the fact that penile cancer is very uncommon in the United States, even among uncircumcised men. Neither the American Academy of Pediatrics nor the Canadian Academy of Pediatrics recommends routine circumcision of newborns just for medical reasons. In the end, decisions about circumcision are highly personal and depend more on social and religious factors than on medical evidence1 (http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/PenileCancer/DetailedGuide/penile-cancer-risk-factors).

It's worth comparing the rate of circumcision surgery mortalities and disfigurements to the difference in circumcised vs. uncircumcised men's infinitesimal penile cancer rate.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Uncut is ugly, IMO. I like my penis :)

[Rinualdo]

ACS' opinion hasn't changed.

In weighing the risks and benefits of circumcision, doctors consider the fact that penile cancer is very uncommon in the United States, even among uncircumcised men. Neither the American Academy of Pediatrics nor the Canadian Academy of Pediatrics recommends routine circumcision of newborns just for medical reasons. In the end, decisions about circumcision are highly personal and depend more on social and religious factors than on medical evidence1 (http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/PenileCancer/DetailedGuide/penile-cancer-risk-factors).

It's worth comparing the rate of circumcision surgery mortalities and disfigurements to the difference in circumcised vs. uncircumcised men's infinitesimal penile cancer rate.

Even in the quote you mentioned, I don't see them recommend against them, as you are.

Seems like the WHO has some recommendations on circumcision, however.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2007/pr10/en/index.html

[NocturnalRob]

stuff
from your source:


Men who were circumcised as babies have a lower chance of getting penile cancer than those who were not.

For example, men who are circumcised cannot develop a condition called phimosis (see below). Men with phimosis have an increased risk of penile cancer. Also, circumcised men seem to be less likely to be infected with the human papillomavirus (HPV), even after adjusting for differences in sexual behavior.

Circumcision reduces the risk of penile cancer if it is done shortly after birth, but removing the foreskin later (as an adult) does not lower this risk.

Knowing this, why would you not want to circumcise your child, regardless of the rate of penile cancer? I'm actually curious.

[g++]

from your source:





Knowing this, why would you not want to circumcise your child, regardless of the rate of penile cancer? I'm actually curious.

Following that logic we could erradicate breasts no?

[4a6c1]

Papillomavirus wins this argument for me. Do you realise how many nasty gross things are crawling around all over the place waiting to pounce on your penis and make it even dirtier?!?!?!?!?!?!





























I dont either. I only know about turtles.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

If you are uncut, you can't really mushroom stamp your woman's forehead, can you?

[Latrinsorm]

I look at it like this... imagine wearing a glove on one of your hands your whole life, and then take your glove off, and see which hand is more sensitive.So THAT'S what he was up to.
Chopping off your child's skin, rather than teaching them how to practice safe sex and take showers, is not the answer.Kids almost never choose to do what they're taught regarding sex (at least as far as what their parents teach them goes). Kids have no choice but to still be circumcised.
They're not on the same level in terms of damage to the body, but they share the same underlying principle: a parent is making the choice to have their child's genitals mutilated, in exchange for some perceived benefit--whether it's tradition, or to ensure obedient/faithful women.The idea behind ensuring obedience is that it is tremendously painful for women with mutilated genitals to have sex. It is not tremendously painful for circumcised men to have sex - it is usually quite the opposite.

[Drisco]

I posted evidence from the National Institute of Health, a government organization, and one of the most respected cancer organizations, ACS. You posted from a pro-circumcision advocacy site.

Here's something you should read up on, that you're suffering from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Fuck you.

Sincerely,
Ashliana

1. I didn't link a source of any kind.
2. You linked a 14 year old letter talking about circumcision not being bad nor being good. Just no information really.
3. I believe everyone who has read what you said in this thread will agree that you are the one suffering from Cognitive Dissonance.
4. Don't PM me, especially when it's as retarded as that.

[Stanley Burrell]

Based on Drew's avatar, I'm going to say no.

A centaur with a big penis is going to take up too much of a Dr.'s time and, eventually, lead to too many dude babies waiting for circumcisions to the point where an all out war will break out between the centaurs with big penises and babies that waited a long a time to have their circumcisions performed.

It will be called The War of the Centaurs with Big Penises versus Babies who Waited a Long Time to have their Penises Circumcized. War.

[peam]

Baby boy is due at the end of next month.

I'm not sure if we're going to have him cut or not. Leaning towards 'no' at this point.

[Stanley Burrell]

Baby boy is due at the end of next month.

I'm not sure if we're going to have him cut or not. Leaning towards 'no' at this point.

Even in jail, there is enough running water and soap, per week, not to have a dick cheese build-up, usually.

As is any good father's responsibility, make sure he does not become a hippy.

[peam]

Even in jail, there is enough running water and soap, per week, not to have a dick cheese build-up, usually.

As is any good father's responsibility, make sure he does not become a hippy.

Should I name him Big Baby Jesus or Dirt Dog?

[Stanley Burrell]

Should I name him Big Baby Jesus or Dirt Dog?

That is too serious of a decision for me to be making for you.

...

But his middle name should absolutely be "Russell Jones" for good measure.

[Kuyuk]

That is too serious of a decision for me to be making for you.

...

But his middle name should absolutely be "Russell Jones" for good measure.

Hyphenate that shit. Russell-Jones Beotch!

[Stanley Burrell]

Word.

[Kuyuk]

http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2008/10/23/633603705551835662-Circumcision.jpg

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p145/SillyxChicken/Funny%20Stoofs/Foreskin.jpg

[IorakeWarhammer]

obviously you would do this its cleaner

[Krendeli]

Get the kid a vasectomy too. It leads to decreased teenage pregnancy.

[Cephalopod]

whatever he said

I think we now have the strongest argument against infant circumcision.

[Cephalopod]

Also, a sea of penis:
http://i.imgur.com/Vlpr7.jpg

(Very NSFW.)

[Delias]

Sorry, I've been out of contact for a few days. Just going to say I've never had any reason to regret having a foreskin. It's like a protective sheath for my most valuable friend.

[Deathravin]

Also, a sea of penis:
http://i.imgur.com/Vlpr7.jpg

(Very NSFW.)

At least she's safe...