I think they act like dicks about this because
the evidence is not on their side.
Notice they claim whatever they want but rarely
site scientific studies to support what they say.
All they have is their emotional attachment to
foreskin is prone to problems.
removing it has many well-documented
health benefits backed by scientific research.
everything is better without it.
Did you read these articles?
It's not mutilation just because you say it is.
As for the definition you quote, since there are
well documented health benefits to being circumcised,
circumcision takes something imperfect and perfects
Circumcision in fact a like surgical vaccine for the
circumcised person. It greatly reduces the risk
of acquiring STD'd.
Anti-circ people seem to like to quote ancient
reasons for circumcising. The difference between
then and now is there is plenty of scientific
evidence to support the health benefits claims.
If there happened to be a simple procedure for
girls which provided similar documented health
benefits as MC and had no downside, then I think
the medical community would be behind that too.
I don't buy the pain argument. Even the AAP says
that a local anesthetic should be used on infants.
An OB/GYN friend says 90% of boys she circumcises
sleep through the procedure.
The rest of the anti-circ stuff you mention is from
people who would not be convinced that circumcision
is a good thing no matter how much scientific
evidence there is. So why should anyone believe
Most of the US men who have died of AIDS
got infected through either anal sex or IV drug use.
Obviously their circumcision status didn't matter.
I don't know where you've gotten your statistics
but they don't seem to agree with the field studies.
Take a look at this:
"The evidence for the long-term public health benefits of male circumcision has increased substantially during the past 5 years. If a vaccine were available that reduced HIV risk by 60%, genital herpes risk by 30%, and HR-HPV risk by 35%, the medical community would rally behind the immunization and it would be promoted as a game-changing public health intervention."
I too encourage all readers to educate themselves
about the life-long health benefits of circumcision.
Just because you think circumcision is mutilation
doesn't make it so. Take a look at this for a
dispassionate argument about why it's not mutilation:
Over the past 5 years or so numerous wide-scale
randomized controlled studies have shown beyond
any reasonable doubt that there are many health
benefits to being circumcised at birth.
The first is a reduced risk of urinary tract infections during the first year after birth.
Recent studies have shown a reduced risk of HIV
and HPV infection in circumcised males.
The World Health Organization and UNAIDS have been
promoting circumcision in Africa for a couple of
years to reduce the incidence of HIV. Follow up
studies have shown that there's an 86% reduction in
risk of HIV in circumcised males which is even more than the 60% protection shown by the RCT's.
As for the circumcision rate of newborns in the
US, the CDC says it's declining but still around
It's not about "profit", it's about public health.
HIV never penetrated the heterosexual population
in the US, probably because of the high rate of
circumcision in the US.
Improved hygiene in circumcised males is one of
the few things I thought everybody agreed with.
I dispute what you call "scientifically known functions of the male foreskin". Please provide
scientific evidence to support what you said.
Lastly, I was circumcised as an adult but wish
it had been done at birth. Sex is better without
foreskin to get in the way.
What I would like is for parents to be told the
health benefits and the risks and make the decision
that they think is best for their sons.
The decision is easy for me -- the benefits far
outweigh the risks.
having had an uncir'd penis, I can tell you that
the stench starts to return shortly after cleaning.
i'm not freaked out by pleasure at all. I find my
cut cock much more pleasurable and if that nasty
foreskin grew back, I'd have it cut off time and
No they don't all look the same when erect.
It's easy to spot an uncut one.
Disease prevention isn't ridiculous. There's
a whole lot of research showing the health benefits
Vaccines aren't necessarily 100% protective.
But they're a lot better than not getting vaccinated.
Condoms aren't 100% effective either.
"people who are circumcised can still be infected with HIV and any awareness campaign would have to be extremely careful not to suggest that it protects against HIV or is an alternative to using condoms"
It's not "his decision". He's unable to decide.
There are lifelong health benefits of circumcision
that far outweigh the risks. Doing it at birth
is the least risky time to do it. And as recommended
by the AAP to use a local anesthetic, 90% of boys
sleep through the procedure according to an OB/GYN
Would you let him decided if he should be vaccinated
Would you let him decide if he should be religiously indoctrinated or not?
Would you let him decide which grade school to attend?
These are far more important decisions for parents
yes, the woman who says it takes more than a quick
shower is right. It's next to impossible to keep
an uncirc'd penis clean.
Just think about it. Whatever it is that ultimately
makes it filthy is happening continuously.
Clean it now but it's starting to get unclean
right after it's cleaned.