What Are Your Thoughts On Circumcision?

And that is exactly the misinformation that pushes parents to circumcise.

Most of these studies (as showing in the quote) have been done in RURAL AFRICA. Where there isn't the same knowledge of sanitation, the same access to clean water, the same access to condoms. In the Western world where we have soap and condoms the benefits of circumcision as mentioned in the above quote are minimised to the point of being nonexistant.

Look at HIV/STD rates in the USA v UK for instance. Wildly different rates of circumcision, almost idential rates of HIV/STDs. If circumcision truly was a magic bullet or medically beneficial you would expect to see at least a statistically significant reduction in the States, but nope, none. Now ask yourself, do you think it is somehow safe for circumcised men to have sex without condoms? You would be forgiven for thinking that with quotes like the above, but of course not (condoms are still a must), so what is the point?

Again, as I've mentioned before - in both the USA and states where circumcision is non-existent, penile cancer rates are both the same (and incredibly rare anyway).

And urinary tract infections? Pretty damn rare for men anyway (and preventable in most cases with basic hygeine), but hardly something to justify surgery for. They cause mild symptoms and are easily treatable with short-course antibiotics (or in most cases cranberry juice!).

So no, when the CDC claims circumcision protects men or their partners it is nothing short of negligent misrepresentation. Understandable in a country without free public healthcare. You have Doctors telling patients a quick, easy and profitable surgery is somehow a "must have"? Yeh, not suspicious at all. It is a lucrative business in the States.

And it is funny how when discussing these "benefits" there is never any discussion (not even a casual mention) of the possibles side effects of circumcision:
-risks of permanent mutilation (in some cases amputation)
-risks of infection
-risks of reduced sensation
-dryness/hardening of the glans (highly common)
-difficulty masterbating/having sex without lubricant (highly common, and expensive!)
-scarring
-risks of removal/damage of the frenulum (one of the most sensitive areas)

 

I can understand it if it's for religious reasons, or actually medicalle necessary, but some other reasons I strongly disagree with. For example, "it's easier to clean", "girls like it more", or "it'll look like his dad's" all sort of gross me out. Especially the last two; if he thinks it'll help his hygene or love life, he can get it done when he's an adult. Doing it to infants is weird.

 

Surely the biggest winner in mass circumcision is the sexual lubricant industry.

 

Sounds hygienic.

 

I oppose it unless there is a defined medical need. I was sick as a baby, so I was not circumcised at that time for that reason. When I was 6 years old, the doctor said it was necessary because of "adhesions". Needless to say, it was totally bull. My mom regrets that I had it done. I had emotional problems after it happened because I was young enough to know what was happening, but I didn't fully understand what the after effects were. It burned for 2-3 weeks after I had it done. I was scared. My sensitivity was not as much as what it was before. Although I wasn't masturbating like a teen, I would play with it as any young boy does.

So, in summary, if someone has phimosis or has a serious infection, then get it done. If not, leave it alone. However, I would ALWAYS recommend getting a 2nd opinion.

 

Circumcision is something we're not allowed to criticize, because reasons.......

 

I don't see the point. If it's just for a traditional/cosmetic reason, then the child can make that decision when they are older. You wouldn't give a baby a tattoo or piercing, would you?

My brother had to be circumcised due to medical necessity, but that's different.

 

I find it infuriating and I am happy I was not born in America because this is the mutilation of people who did not consent to it. I feel deeply sorry for all of you who've had this done to you, it's not fair.

 

I was circumsized and I never really thought to much about it because it was "normal."

 

I honestly think it's abuse. If a grown adult wants to get circumsized, great. But when you force a baby who's barely a day old to have a sensitive part of their body chopped off- that's fucking cruel. You're altering a child's body without their consent. I feel the same way about piercing a baby's ears, female genital mutilation and everything under that umbrella.

 

So..... I'm in nursing. I have heard stories of ACTUAL abuse. I don't want to set anyone off, but trust me - skin on a penis is nothing in comparison. Frankly, I think that's an insult to many people on here who have experienced abuse or assault.

 

So if a child has cancer, then we should not be allowed to treat it, correct?

Obviously, I am talking about procedures done in a nice hospital/office setting. If there are some people who just do it without any of that, then we have bigger issues.

 

And there are plenty of circumcised folks who believe it is just that.

 

You make true points - but the thing is, there is medical backing of this. I just can't fathom bashing innocent parents when there are people out there who beat their kids.

But to each their own. Best of luck to you.

 

Oh shut up. You don't think I fucking know what that is? Why does the fact that people have been abused make circumscision right?

 

I'm a medical student and I am highly for circumcision for babies. I think parents should be able to choose what is best for their baby. I'm not for it later in life unless there is another reason to get it. I will advise all future patients to circumcise their kids and left them do as they please.

The benefits include sanitary improvement (something young boys don't do very well) and certain improvements in transmission of certain STDs. There is no credible evidence in a loss of sensitivity that is credible and aside from small complication risk (this is truly very very rare and we take far more unnecessary risks then circumcision) there really is truly no downside.

If you compare male circumcision to female circumcision you're a dishonest person. The practices aren't comparable.

Male circumcision and risk of syphilis, chancroid, and genital herpes: a systematic review and meta-analysis -- Weiss et al. 82 (2): 101 -- Sexually Transmitted Infections