Saturday, September 4, 2010

If Circ Rates Are Dropping, Time for AAP & CDC to Act

I took a little hiatus over the summer break, so I have no idea if I lost all the wonderful posters -- both pro and anti-circumcision -- during that time. Most of the medical news over the last few months continues to support the benefit of a foreskin-free society, both to protect the health of the male and the health of his partners.

But the most worrisome report, trumped up or not, was this notion that circumcision rates have dropped to one-third of male newborns in the USA. Now the statistics have been debunked by many as way off -- and in this part of the world, nobody I talk to thinks that the circ rate is anything below 80% -- but any drop at all is troubling as a matter of public health.

I've heard that the theory that a lot of these uncircumcised future disease-promoters are illegal aliens from south of the border. It's true that many Hispanics do not circumcise until they become "Americanized" in the second or third generation. It's bad enough that illegals are sneaking into the country -- it's even worse if they are refusing to raise clean-cut boys.

The other theory I've heard is that the refusal of 16 states, including California, to cover circumcision under Medicaid (health care for the poor) has contributed to the growing number of uncircumcised boys. That would particularly hurt the Black community, along with Hispanics, and the refusal to cover circumcisions for these groups is obviously a form of racism.

Whatever the reason for any drop, this makes it all the more urgent for the Centers for Disease Control and the American Academy of Pediatrics to release their 2010 statements calling for the circumcision of all boys. The so-called "neutral" stance of the CDC and the AAP is causing great long-term damage, and we need that more positive statement right now.

Most parents want to do what is right for their sons. If the CDC and the AAP said that circumcision was an appropriate and healthy procedure with a great many benefits, I know that the circ rate -- assuming it even is dropping -- will return to historic high levels of 90%-plus. A foreskin-free America and the health of both males and females is in the balance.

86 comments:

  1. No facts, no sources, only your personal point of view. Am I surprised? No! Day after day the same old sh_t from grenzdebilen Jake.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Isn't a blog supposed to be personal points of view? Anyways, I agree with PD that there aint no way only one-third of American boys are being circumcised. Almost every white kid is circumcised and same for every black kid except maybe those on welfare. Glad your back, PD. Hope you had good summer vacation.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm glad I'm not the only one who found those recent statistics way off! Hard to believe these were presented as part of "scholarly" research. Now in SOME parts of the western US a 32% newborn circumcision rate might be accurate, but there is no way that could be a current national rate. I live in a medium-sized city in NY state and a recent article about circumcision quoted local OB/GYNs & pediatricians as estimating the regional rate as close to 70%! I understand also that rates continue to be high in the midwest and areas of the south where Medicaid and most private insurances cover this procedure as part of nursery/newborn care.

    ReplyDelete
  4. circumcision in australia is on the rise and has been for over a decade, parents aren't stupid, they know whats right and they are acting in their sons best interests. they're not listening to emotive anti circumcision rhetoric and choosing circumcision.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i as a Australian mother made no hesitation having ym son circumcised as i am well aware of the numerous benefits to the procedure. Im glad others see the wisdom in circumcising boys and i do hope that it becomes compulsory for all boys as its quick and painless and results in a healthier young boy.

      Delete
    2. Many women seem to agree. Do parents have the right to leave their sons unattractive?
      https://oogenhand.wordpress.com/2013/05/29/female-penis-preference/
      http://thesinglediary.com/2013/01/06/female-penis-preference/
      http://www.practicalhappiness.com/do-women-prefer-circumcised-men/

      Delete
  5. @mike: the rise is only in NSW and there it will be due to Muslim immigrants. In ACT, Tas, Vic, WA and NT, the rate is less than 5%.

    I doubt the low US rate too. Looks as though they put it out to spread alarm, but it's had the reverse effect.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Hugh, what do you mean it has had the reverse effect?

    ReplyDelete
  7. What's more amusing is Hugh's claim that it was put out to spread alarm. I guess anti-circumcision activism must be like that: you get so used to incorporating conspiracy theories into your thinking (eg., to explain the results of studies you dislike) that after a while you barely even notice.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Good thing the Royal Australasian College of Physicians aren't buying into the nonsense those three "specialists" are spewing.

    "Dr Gervase Chaney, a member of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians’ Committee for Paediatric Physician Training, told Sydney Star Observer that realities around HIV in Australia were very different to those in developing nations.

    “The College does not believe the African data can be directly extrapolated to the Australian or New Zealand circumstance as HIV and other sexually transmitted infections have a much higher prevalence in Africa,” Dr Chaney said.

    He said there were also ethical issues to consider when “clearly an infant is unable to consent to a procedure”, and that efforts to educate heterosexuals about the risks of HIV infection would produce better outcomes.

    Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations executive director Don Baxter advised caution on circumcising male infants to tackle HIV in straight men.

    “There needs to be thorough discussion about the impacts and the value of moving in this direction, particularly in light of the nature of the epidemic in Australia where it is overwhelmingly among gay men and remains around seventy percent so,” he said.

    Baxter said there was little evidence to suggest circumcision did much to prevent HIV transmission in gay men, though it was somewhat protective against human papillomavirus (HPV).

    However, a vaccine was available for HPV which could be made available on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme."

    ReplyDelete
  9. @ hugh7.. 'the rise is only in NSW and there it will be due to Muslim immigrants. In ACT, Tas, Vic, WA and NT, the rate is less than 5%.' the rate has risen well beyond 5%, you are delusional.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Our host said: Most parents want to do what is right for their sons.

    That includes, of course, not circumcising their sons :)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Our host said: Most parents want to do what is right for their sons.

    That includes, of course, not circumcising their sons :)


    It should be perfectly obvious that PD meant nothing of the sort, and making such a misrepresentation is disingenuous to say the least.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jake said It should be perfectly obvious that PD meant nothing of the sort, and making such a misrepresentation is disingenuous to say the least.

    This is incomprehensible. When did I say, or imply, I was representing PD? I simply followed PD's reasonable - if not banal - statement with something that most reasonable people could agree with. Are you saying that parents who don't circumcise their sons don't care for them, that they're doing (or not doing, as is the case) what is wrong for their sons?

    ReplyDelete
  13. This is incomprehensible. When did I say, or imply, I was representing PD? I simply followed PD's reasonable - if not banal - statement with something that most reasonable people could agree with.

    I think you'll find that some people will judge circumcising their sons to be what's right for them, while others will judge not circumcising their sons to be what's right for them. It's clear that PD falls into the first category, so seeming to agree with him while asserting the exact opposite of his meaning is, as I said, disingenuous.

    Are you saying that parents who don't circumcise their sons don't care for them, that they're doing (or not doing, as is the case) what is wrong for their sons?

    I assume that parents who don't circumcise believe that their decision is right for their sons.

    ReplyDelete
  14. My friend wrote up a hilarious (yet accurate) argument about circumcision. Read it at his blog: http://thingsthatshouldntstillexist.wordpress.com/2010/09/23/03-circumcision/

    ReplyDelete
  15. My friend wrote up a hilarious (yet accurate) argument about circumcision. Read it at his blog: http://thingsthatshouldntstillexist.wordpress.com/2010/09/23/03-circumcision/

    Mildly hilarious, though probably not in the way the author intended. For example:

    "And if you really are wowed by the partial HIV resistance bequeathed unto children by the severing of their foreskin, you may want to also staple a permanent condom on as well. Condoms reduce the risk of HIV even more than claimed by that one circumcision study (the others stated it helps next to nothing, by the way)."

    The most amusing thing here is that the author is completely and utterly wrong. He apparently thinks that there has been a single "that one circumcision study", and is blissfully unaware that there were, in fact, three randomised controlled trials and more than 40 (probably 50 or 60 in total) observational studies. More bizarre still is his claim that "the other [studies] stated it helps next to nothing." What planet is he on? On this planet, the majority of studies found a protective effect (Weiss et al., for example, reported that 21 of 27 included studies found a protective effect).

    It makes me wonder: why would anyone take the trouble to compose a lengthy blog post about a subject without bothering to learn even basic information about it?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Regarding Provoke's comment about Hispanics: it was just reported in the NYT that Hispanics tend to outlive African Americans and non-Hispanic whites. It is also widely reported that Hispanics shun circumcision.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/health/research/19aging.html?ref=health

    Serious health risks like smoking, risky sexual practices, drug abuse, driving too fast, etc., cut across all groups, and have a measurable effect on longevity. If having a foreskin were really as dangerous as PD's hysterical rant says, it seems like somebody would have proved U.S. circumcised men live longer.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Regarding Provoke's comment about Hispanics: it was just reported in the NYT that Hispanics tend to outlive African Americans and non-Hispanic whites. It is also widely reported that Hispanics shun circumcision.

    You're grasping at straws, I'm afraid. A pair of links between A and B, and between B and C, does not necessarily mean that a link exists between A and C. Calm down, look for some real evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Calm down? Have you bothered to read anything written by Provoke? Who's excited?

    I never tried to make the connections between A, B, and C. That's your invention, and a silly response. It still remains to be shown that circumcising men does much for health and longevity anything close to the hysterical claims of Provoking. Whatever effect it might have, it seems awfully weak, not the slam dunk portrayed in these essays.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I never tried to make the connections between A, B, and C. That's your invention, and a silly response.

    In which case, you've just wasted all of our time by posting irrelevant material.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Calm down. Nobody's wasting your time :) Look for some real evidence, instead of tacitly agreeing with rants about "diseased foreskin", "foreskin-free America", etc., while pretending to be neutral and analytical.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Calm down. Nobody's wasting your time :) Look for some real evidence

    That was my point. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  22. You wanna some real evidence? Here you are:

    http://www.examiner.com/early-childhood-parenting-in-dallas/circumcision-rates-drop-to-33-percent

    ReplyDelete
  23. You wanna some real evidence? Here you are:

    http://www.examiner.com/early-childhood-parenting-in-dallas/circumcision-rates-drop-to-33-percent


    First, that isn't evidence. It's a poorly-researched and poorly-written blog post claiming that "circumcision rates drop to 33 percent." If you read the New York Times article on the same subject, you'll find that the figures are much less solid than the author of that article seems to believe: "officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cautioned that the figures in the presentation were not definitive. ... “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.” ... Andrew Kress, the chief executive of SDI Health [the company producing the figures], 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."

    Secondly, and more to the point, this doesn't have anything to do with what we were discussing. We were discussing the notion that lack of circumcision might produce longer lifespans. The US circumcision rate is all but irrelevant in this context.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "We were discussing the notion that lack of circumcision might produce longer lifespans."

    I don't think he was implying that having a foreskin increases lifespan, rather I think he was making a point that lack of foreskin has not been shown to increase lifespan by any measurable amount.

    Real world evidence tends to back this up, as the 10 healthiest countries in the world with the highest average lifespans are all non circumcising ones. Again, that is not to say that having a foreskin is the reason they live longer, but that many other important factors that don't seem to include whether or not one is circumcised are the culprit.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "I've heard that the theory that a lot of these uncircumcised future disease-promoters are illegal aliens from south of the border. It's true that many Hispanics do not circumcise until they become "Americanized" in the second or third generation. It's bad enough that illegals are sneaking into the country -- it's even worse if they are refusing to raise clean-cut boys."

    What do you have to say to all those "disease promoting" illegal aliens now that there is evidence that they live LONGER than all those clean cut white males? Hmm?

    ReplyDelete
  26. I don't think he was implying that having a foreskin increases lifespan, rather I think he was making a point that lack of foreskin has not been shown to increase lifespan by any measurable amount.

    Real world evidence tends to back this up, as the 10 healthiest countries in the world with the highest average lifespans are all non circumcising ones. Again, that is not to say that having a foreskin is the reason they live longer, but that many other important factors that don't seem to include whether or not one is circumcised are the culprit.


    That's illogical and inconsistent.

    If you were to argue that lack of circumcision causes greater lifespan, it would at least be consistent. But you acknowledge that there are other factors involved. But with any outcome with more than one predictor, there's the possibility of confounding. And because of that possibility, the conclusion that you wish to draw is unsupportable.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "But with any outcome with more than one predictor, there's the possibility of confounding. And because of that possibility, the conclusion that you wish to draw is unsupportable."

    Jake, out of curiosity, will you remind PD of the same thing?

    ReplyDelete
  28. we need a massive mandatory circ program. by 2012 there should be no more uncut guys anywhere, ever again!

    ReplyDelete
  29. I think the 15 slides in this essay describe very nicely why STD rates are much lower in Europe that the U.S., and it has nothing to do with circumcision:

    http://www.slate.com/id/2272631/slideshow/2272617/fs/0//entry/2272616/

    This isn't exactly new: STDs - including HIV - are culturally controlled and potentiated. What might be surprising is the fact that Europeans are no more or less sexually active than their American, Asian, or African counterparts.

    The American obsession with circumcision studies and the Puritanical obsession with sex and the appearance of chastity is the perfect storm for HIV.

    -John

    ReplyDelete
  30. I think the 15 slides in this essay describe very nicely why STD rates are much lower in Europe that the U.S., and it has nothing to do with circumcision:

    http://www.slate.com/id/2272631/slideshow/2272617/fs/0//entry/2272616/


    Thought-provoking stuff, certainly. Thank you for pointing it out. It clearly illustrates my oft-repeated point that comparisons between the US and Europe are comparisons between apples and oranges. They cannot isolate the effect of circumcision due to the presence of too many other differences.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Bad news for Jake?

    Ask Google for "San Francisco ban circumcision"

    ReplyDelete
  32. More babies will die from botched circs than will die from having a foreskin. So to have "mandatory circs is preposterous. There are no health benefits to circumcision. removing part of your body to prevent disease is dumb. Why not remove your big toes to prevent ingrown toenails, remove all your teeth to prevent cavities, remove your eyes to prevent glaucoma. the list goes on until there's nothing left to you. Why remove your babies foreskin and not his big toes? If removing the foreskin will kill more babies than leaving it there, what is the logic?

    ReplyDelete
  33. The Journal of Urology (Baltimore), vol 153, no 3 part I (March 1995: pp 778-779) states that the rate of circumcision accidents is from 1.5% to 4%. Leaving the foreskin alone will not cause 1.5 to 4% of men (or women) to have a problem. I challenge you to list a credible source that states otherwise. (your uncle Fred is not a credible source). "They say" is not credible either. Science and math says circumcision is not a good practice. The only country that does it for (supposed) health reasons is the USA, and they run their medical services as a profit making business. If I ran a business making widgits, I'd say having a widgit is good for you too! Now go remove all your teeth so you won't get a cavity and an abscess and die. Statistics show that if you have no teeth (edentulous) you won't get cavities and die from them. This can only happen when you have teeth. Better remove them. Better yet, get them extracted by a rabbi, and do not use analgesics of any kind!

    ReplyDelete
  34. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  35. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  36. For some reason my earlier reply to Mikeleb seems to have vanished, so I'll try again.

    More babies will die from botched circs than will die from having a foreskin.

    You haven't offered any evidence in support of this claim, and it seems extremely dubious. Deaths due to circumcision are no more than 1 in 500,000. Deaths due to lack of circumcision are undoubtedly higher, since these will represent the sum of deaths due to complications of UTIs, penile cancer, and HIV, to list the most obvious candidates. Wiswell and Geschke ("Risks from circumcision during the first month of life compared with those for uncircumcised boys", Pediatrics 1989 Jun;83(6):1011-5) reported 0 deaths among 100,157 circumcised boys and 2 UTI-related deaths among 35,929 uncircumcised boys in the first month of life.

    removing part of your body to prevent disease is dumb. Why not remove your big toes to prevent ingrown toenails, remove all your teeth to prevent cavities, remove your eyes to prevent glaucoma. the list goes on until there's nothing left to you.

    In each of those cases the loss of function would be considerable. This, along with immediate risks, must be weighed against the benefits, and sensible observers will conclude that they aren't worth it. That's not true of circumcision.

    The Journal of Urology (Baltimore), vol 153, no 3 part I (March 1995: pp 778-779) states that the rate of circumcision accidents is from 1.5% to 4%.

    Wrong. You're referring to Gluckman et al., "Newborn Penile Glans Amputation During Circumcision and Successful Reattachment". The 4% figure doesn't appear in that paper, so I think you ought to check your facts.

    To quote some figures that do exist in the cited paper, Weiss et al. (Complications of circumcision in male neonates, infants and children: a systematic review. BMC Urol. 2010 Feb 16;10:2) note that "The median frequency of any adverse event was 1.5% (range 0-16%), and median frequency of any serious adverse event was 0% (range 0-2%)."

    Leaving the foreskin alone will not cause 1.5 to 4% of men (or women) to have a problem. I challenge you to list a credible source that states otherwise.

    Okay, how about Fergusson et al. (Neonatal circumcision and penile problems: an 8-year longitudinal study. Pediatrics. 1988;81(4):537-41), who reported penile problems in 11.1% of circumcised boys and 18.8% of uncircumcised boys (a difference attributable to circumcision of 7.7%)? Or Herzog and Alvarez (The frequency of foreskin problems in uncircumcised children. Am J Dis Child 1986; 140: 254-256) who reported penile complaints in 14.3% of the uncircumcised and in 5.9% of the circumcised boys (a difference of 8.4%)?

    ReplyDelete
  37. What about the pain caused by circumcision?
    Pain:
    100% circumcised
    0% uncircumcised

    That makes a difference of 100% between circumcised and uncircumcised boys! Who has actually more penile problems?

    Fergusson et al.:
    http://www.circs.org/library/fergusson/

    Herzog and Alvarez:
    http://www.circs.org/library/herzog/index.html

    ReplyDelete
  38. What about the pain caused by circumcision?
    Pain:
    100% circumcised
    0% uncircumcised


    I'm not sure that it's accurate to say that 100% of circumcised boys will suffer pain. Anaesthetics are pretty effective nowadays, and many — perhaps even most — should find it pain-free.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Is this blog a joke? Like seriously, think about it. Does circumcision even really make sense?
    Aside from the studies and statistics people on BOTH sides cling to, let's think about it. Your child is born. He is healthy. You send him off to have part of his body (regardless of whether you believe it's "useless") removed without his knowledge. Does that make sense?

    Why don't we remove earlobes to prevent the surface area of skin that might get skin cancer while we're at it? If prominent doctors in the 1800s would have said THAT was medically sound, we'd be doing it today without a second thought, just as many thoughtless parents circumcise their sons today.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Aside from the studies and statistics people on BOTH sides cling to, let's think about it. Your child is born. He is healthy. You send him off to have part of his body (regardless of whether you believe it's "useless") removed without his knowledge. Does that make sense?

    Does it make sense to puncture his skin with a hollow metal cylinder? Put like that, probably not, but most parents subject their children to blood tests and injections. Why? Because it's perceived to be worthwhile.

    Why don't we remove earlobes to prevent the surface area of skin that might get skin cancer while we're at it? If prominent doctors in the 1800s would have said THAT was medically sound, we'd be doing it today without a second thought, just as many thoughtless parents circumcise their sons today.

    It would seem rather foolish to me. Yes, there would be a small reduction in skin cancer, but at the cost of significant loss of function and disfigurement. People attempting this sort of analogy never seem to understand that the benefits of preventing disease have to be weighed against the risks and disadvantages. They can't be considered in isolation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "at the cost of significant loss of function and disfigurement."

      Ironic, much?

      Delete
  41. Exactly what SIGNIFICANT FUNCTION do the earlobes serve?

    And disfigurement is obviously in the eye of the beholder....

    ReplyDelete
  42. Interesting how having the highest level of circumcsion of all industrialized countries has not prevented USA from having among the sh*ttiest rates of STDs and one of the worst rate of HIV... Yet people still believe circumcision has public health benefits. Good lord, rationalization is so annoying. In developped countries there is not evidence that circ'd men have less STDs/HIV. If there were, proponents of circumcision would be rubbing THAT in our faces, not dubious trials conducted by pro-circumcsion zealots in African countries. Isn't that obvious? xD
    You are embarassing yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Interesting how having the highest level of circumcsion of all industrialized countries has not prevented USA from having among the sh*ttiest rates of STDs and one of the worst rate of HIV...

    But of course we have no way of knowing how much worse those rates would have been were it not for circumcision...

    Yet people still believe circumcision has public health benefits.

    People are generally intelligent enough to realise that comparing aggregate rates of disease and circumcision in different countries is inconclusive at best. And since much stronger evidence is available, it makes sense to look at that instead.

    In developped countries there is not evidence that circ'd men have less STDs/HIV.

    Sure about that?

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8245525
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15851918

    ReplyDelete
  44. For some reason a comment I have posted seems to have vanished...
    To sum up my point :
    - Evidences are conflicting about whether circumcised men have less STDs in developped countries, but a majority point to no significant protection.
    - Researchers are often biased when it comes to circumcision. Obvious in the case of the infamous trial about male-to-female transmission that was stopped early for "futility" (in fact to avoid an unpleasant finding, the trend being clearly an INCREASED risk for women with circ'd partners), while others are stopped early to exagerated benefits (it's proven that a trial stopped early for "obvious benefit" will always exagerate the effectiveness of a treatment).
    - Nearly no intact male would want to get circumcised because you have to wash your d*ck and wear condom anyway.
    - How does removing an ear lobe causes "significant loss of function" ?
    - And more importantly : toe nails are useless, have to be cleaned, get infected, and can ingrow and hurt during sport. Some marathonians and people with repeated ingrown nails have them removed permanently. So should parents be allowed to remove their children's toe nails?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Evidences are conflicting about whether circumcised men have less STDs in developped countries, but a majority point to no significant protection.

    It's true that the evidence is inconsistent. I'm not sure I'd agree, though, that the majority suggest no protection.

    Researchers are often biased when it comes to circumcision. Obvious in the case of the infamous trial about male-to-female transmission that was stopped early for "futility" (in fact to avoid an unpleasant finding, the trend being clearly an INCREASED risk for women with circ'd partners),

    Since you say that "in fact" it was stopped to avoid an "unpleasant" finding, could you provide some proof that this was actually the case?

    while others are stopped early to exagerated benefits (it's proven that a trial stopped early for "obvious benefit" will always exagerate the effectiveness of a treatment).

    Again, could you supply some proof that exaggerating benefits was the purpose?

    Nearly no intact male would want to get circumcised because you have to wash your d*ck and wear condom anyway.

    Allow me to point to a review of thirteen studies from nine countries, in which a median of 65% of uncircumcised men were willing to get circumcised.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1847541/?tool=pubmed

    ReplyDelete
  46. "Since you say that "in fact" it was stopped to avoid an "unpleasant" finding, could you provide some proof that this was actually the case? "

    I think it was the purpose because I simply can't think of any other reason, especially since Wawer is known to be an advocate of circumcision. How is it "futility" to further investigate a 50% increased risk for partners of circ'd males? It doesn't make any sense. But regardless of what the PURPOSE was, don't you think extremely valuable information may have been lost?
    I heard of another study (in africa) about the risk factors for females ; circumcised partner had been found to be one of them. But there again I'm sure evidences are conflicting.

    "Again, could you supply some proof that exaggerating benefits was the purpose?"

    Whether it was the purpose or not, it DID almost certainly exagerate benefits.

    "Allow me to point to a review of thirteen studies from nine countries, in which a median of 65% of uncircumcised men were willing to get circumcised."

    Africa. Lower access to condom/water... and I will dare to say, education.
    According to a study in USA(I've even seen a reference to it somewhere on this blog), even if circumcision was proven to be effective against HIV among gay men, only 0.7% of them would be willing to be circumcised. And men in Europe aren't lining up to get circumcised, far from it xD

    Sorry to insist, but what about toe nails? Proponents of circumcision NEVER answer to that.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I think it was the purpose because I simply can't think of any other reason, especially since Wawer is known to be an advocate of circumcision.

    On what basis is it "known"?

    How is it "futility" to further investigate a 50% increased risk for partners of circ'd males? It doesn't make any sense.

    Pretty simple, really. The difference in risk was not statistically significant, meaning that it could easily be due to chance. Also, it appeared to correlate with couples who had had sex before healing was complete (ie., an event that can only happen in the initial stage of a study), so the risk difference would likely have become smaller over time.

    I heard of another study (in africa) about the risk factors for females ; circumcised partner had been found to be one of them. But there again I'm sure evidences are conflicting.

    There have been a number of such studies; most, I believe, have indicated that a circumcised partner results in reduced risk of HIV infection in women. This, of course, is why Wawer's study was conducted in the first place.

    Whether it was the purpose or not, it DID almost certainly exagerate benefits.

    Unlikely.

    Africa. Lower access to condom/water... and I will dare to say, education.

    I'm sorry; I didn't realise that African men don't count. Next time when you say "Nearly no intact male", should I assume you mean non-African male?

    According to a study in USA(I've even seen a reference to it somewhere on this blog), even if circumcision was proven to be effective against HIV among gay men, only 0.7% of them would be willing to be circumcised.

    53%. See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2443289/?tool=pubmed

    ReplyDelete
  48. Of course, *the trial wasn't completed*!! What was the point of stopping it early, except to AVOID eventually reaching statistical significance?

    The point was, quite obviously, that the trial was futile, as stated. Why waste further time and money on a trial that clearly isn't going anywhere?

    [Re "Also, it appeared to correlate with couples who had had sex before healing was complete"] = those who had had sex for the longest time?

    According to Wawer et al., "wound healing was complete in 73% of HIV-infected men at 4 weeks and in 93% at 6 weeks after male circumcision", and the study ran for 30 months (or approx 120 weeks). So even if we make the assumption that these men were resuming sex on the same day as their surgery, that would only mean that they'd had sex for 5% more time.

    [Re "so the risk difference would likely have become smaller over time."] What about continuing the trial to find that out?

    Sure, if you've got a never-ending supply of money and resources.

    Likely.

    Unlikely, as stated. Weiss et al. made the interesting observation that the protective effect of 58% (95% CI 43-69%) across the three trials was "identical to that found in the observational studies (58%, 95% CI 46-66%)". http://journals.lww.com/aidsonline/Fulltext/2008/03120/Male_circumcision_for_HIV_prevention__from.2.aspx

    This article is called "If Circ Rates Are Dropping, Time for AAP & CDC to Act "

    True, but discussion in the comments tends to cover a wider range of topics than the story itself.

    0.7%
    http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20100626000602data_trunc_sys.shtml
    What can possibly explain a so huge difference? o_O


    It is a substantial difference, to be sure. I might point out that the study you cite sampled men in San Francisco, which is the epicentre of the anti-circ lobby, and it might be reasonable to expect more anti-circ views there than elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  49. "Why waste further time and money on a trial that clearly isn't going anywhere?"

    Sure, a 50% increased risk for females with circ'd partners is SO UNINTERESTING How can you even say that?

    "the study ran for 30 months"
    I can't find that information anywhere... Reference? but they calculate "cumulative probabilities" for 24 months, so it did run 24 months at most, didn't it? And my comment about being more sexualy active (more intercourses) and less cautious are still applying.
    Btw, the studies about female-to-male transmission didn't take into account the healing period, did they? This could have been done easliy? In one of them, which ran for 13 months, male were told not to have sex for 6 weeks. That's not negligible. And not taking it into account is suspicious.

    "Sure, if you've got a never-ending supply of money and resources."

    The trial was SUPPOSED to run longer in the first place. Speaking of wasting ressources, according to a cost-effectiveness study, cost of 1 male circumcision = cost for a 29-years supply of condoms. Apparently there is way too much money on that issue, since we can afford dubious and expensive methods.

    "It is a substantial difference, to be sure"
    Considering the current infatuation of straight men to get circumcised, I would think 0.7% to be far closer to reality.

    and again : "... toe nails? Please. Did the idea of amputating babies for some "health benefits" suddenly appeared outrageous to you? Give me a good reason why I could remove my son's foreskin and not his useless dirty stinky dirt-trapping infected ingrown toe nails. "

    ReplyDelete
  50. Sure, a 50% increased risk for females with circ'd partners is SO UNINTERESTING How can you even say that?

    As I've already explained, the difference was not statistically significant, and if not due to chance was likely due to having sex before healing was complete, rather than the effect of circumcision per se.

    "the study ran for 30 months"
    I can't find that information anywhere... Reference? but they calculate "cumulative probabilities" for 24 months, so it did run 24 months at most, didn't it?


    My mistake; sorry. Make that 6.25%, not 5%.

    Btw, the studies about female-to-male transmission didn't take into account the healing period, did they? This could have been done easliy? In one of them, which ran for 13 months, male were told not to have sex for 6 weeks. That's not negligible. And not taking it into account is suspicious.

    All three studies took it into account, though, by incorporating HIV testing at multiple points in time. Thus, if the period of abstinence explained the protective effect, there would be an apparent protective effect in the first few months, then none afterwards.

    The trial was SUPPOSED to run longer in the first place.

    Yes, that was the plan, as were criteria for stopping the study early.

    Speaking of wasting ressources, according to a cost-effectiveness study, cost of 1 male circumcision = cost for a 29-years supply of condoms. Apparently there is way too much money on that issue, since we can afford dubious and expensive methods.

    I'd question those figures. At one condom per day, that's 365 x 29 = 10,585 condoms. The cost of circumcision in Africa is estimated at $47 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1716193/?tool=pubmed), so for that to be correct the cost per condom would have to be 47 / 10,585 = $0.004 (or just under half a cent).

    Considering the current infatuation of straight men to get circumcised, I would think 0.7% to be far closer to reality.

    I'm awaiting your citation with interest.

    ReplyDelete
  51. "As I've already explained, the difference was not statistically significant"

    As I've already explained, THE TRIAL WAS NOT COMPLETED!
    The difference may have become significant if the trial had been completed, we will never know! The only sure thing is : stopping the trial was blatantly dishonest/biased and convenient for proponents of circumcision.

    "likely due to having sex before healing was complete"

    Was it reasonable to stop the trial based on that assumption? Most definitely not.

    "My mistake; sorry. Make that 6.25%, not 5%."
    24 months *at most*. If I remember correctly (no guarantee on that, though) the follow-ups were planned at 6, 12 and 24 months. So that would be 12.5%. Plus what I said about libido and caution.

    "All three studies took it into account"
    I've never heard that they controled at 6 weeks and removed infected men from the trial, to give intact/circ'd men an equal start.

    "if the period of abstinence explained the protective effect"

    It's just one more thing that would lead to over-estimate the effectivness. And the "protective effect" was indeed shrinking with time, which is logical. With a 60% protection, if you do not practice safe sex, you will be infected sooner or later.

    "as were criteria for stopping the study early."

    Non-significant benefit : continue till it becomes significant. Non-significant harm : stop quickly before it becomes significant. Seems fair to me. Again it's pretty convenient for the pro-circumcision side.

    "At one condom per day"
    Austin Powers, is that you? xD Seriously, according to this study, an african male needs 89 condoms a year, distributing a free condom costs 3 cents, and a circumcision costs $74 if not more (lots of hidden costs). I get 27.7 years. This is an especially outrageous waste considering that circ'd men STILL need 89 condoms a year >_<

    If you think my point about toe nails is irrelevant, at least please explain me why. I very honestly don't see.

    ReplyDelete
  52. As I've already explained, THE TRIAL WAS NOT COMPLETED!

    Yes, we've established that. And I'm trying to explain why that is.

    The difference may have become significant if the trial had been completed, we will never know! The only sure thing is : stopping the trial was blatantly dishonest/biased and convenient for proponents of circumcision.

    It doesn't seem at all dishonest or biased, but a perfectly logical decision.

    Was it reasonable to stop the trial based on that assumption? Most definitely not.

    It's not an assumption; it's based on analysis of data from the study.

    I've never heard that they controled at 6 weeks and removed infected men from the trial, to give intact/circ'd men an equal start.

    That's because they didn't do that. I've explained what they did above.

    It's just one more thing that would lead to over-estimate the effectivness.

    Well, if you want to, you can subtract the numbers from the first few months.

    "And the "protective effect" was indeed shrinking with time, which is logical. With a 60% protection, if you do not practice safe sex, you will be infected sooner or later."

    That's illogical. The protective effect is the ratio between the risk of infection in circ'd and uncirc'd males. Both groups are exposed to risk on an ongoing basis, so the risk should remain constant over time.

    Non-significant benefit : continue till it becomes significant. Non-significant harm : stop quickly before it becomes significant.

    If you've any proof of a conspiracy, present it. Otherwise, stop making these absurd insinuations.

    ReplyDelete
  53. "And I'm trying to explain why that is."
    "a perfectly logical decision."

    Completely illogical. You keep saying the difference wasn't significant : this was actually a good reason to CONTINUE the trial : to ensure the difference was due to chance and not to some nasty effect of circumcision. THIS is perfectly logical, unless you have assumed right from the start that circumcision could absolutely NOT increase the risk.

    "Both groups are exposed to risk on an ongoing basis, so the risk should remain constant over time."

    No. After 200 intercourses with an infected female, a man WILL be infected, circ'd or not, so the protection will inevitably shrink with time.

    "If you've any proof of a conspiracy, present it. "

    It doesn't matter if it's a "conspiracy" or not! This is exactly what happened, you cannot deny it : if, at the same point, they had found a non-significant PROTECTIVE effect, they wouldn't have stopped the trial, they would have continued until the protective effect would eventually become significant. Why didn't they do that for the non-significant HARM they were seeing? Because they, just like you, had assumed from the start that circumcision could absolutely NOT be harmful, and thus the increased risk *HAD* to be due to chance or to something else. It's not impossible by the way, but until it was indisputably PROVEN, the trial SHOULD have continued to obtain more reliable datas. A 50% increased risk, isn't that a SERIOUS matter that requires some serious attention? I guess, but not by pro-circumcision zealots, that's for sure.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Completely illogical. You keep saying the difference wasn't significant : this was actually a good reason to CONTINUE the trial : to ensure the difference was due to chance and not to some nasty effect of circumcision.

    That's not rational: you can't expect trials to be kept running on the slightest chance of a result. Decisions are made based on the best available data, and it seems to me that a sensible decision was made.

    No. After 200 intercourses with an infected female, a man WILL be infected, circ'd or not,

    According to Wikipedia's HIV article, the risk for a male engaging in vaginal intercourse with an HIV+ woman is 5 in 10,000, so after 200 exposures the risk of infection would be 10%. But remember that this is statistical: there's no point at which infection is certain.

    It doesn't matter if it's a "conspiracy" or not! This is exactly what happened, you cannot deny it : if, at the same point, they had found a non-significant PROTECTIVE effect, they wouldn't have stopped the trial, they would have continued until the protective effect would eventually become significant. Why didn't they do that for the non-significant HARM they were seeing?

    I've already explained why they stopped the trial, several times. This is not unlike talking to a wall...

    ReplyDelete
  55. "you can't expect trials to be kept running on the slightest chance of a result"

    Lol, the slightest chance xD? There was a sensible difference between the two groups, why are you so sure there would have been NO result? And considering the enormous implications, it is absolutely perposterous to think it was "futility" to at least FINISH the trial. Dude you are rationalizing so hard.


    "I've already explained why they stopped the trial, several times. "

    No you haven't. Your "explaination" only makes sense if you assume that it's IMPOSSIBLE for circumcision to increase the risk for female. Seriously. Imagine that they didn't start with that assumption. Imagine they were neutral, looking for a benefit OR a harm. Would they have stopped? obviously not. The fact that they didn't EXPECT that result is no excuse. Sure you can have theories to explain the difference but damn, nothing was PROVEN so far, and even if "early resuming" is the only cause of the increase, you cannot ignore it ; it WILL happen in real life, certainly much more that on a trial. So circumcision WOULD increase the risk for females.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Lol, the slightest chance xD? There was a sensible difference between the two groups, why are you so sure there would have been NO result?

    First, as explained, the difference was not statistically significant. Second, the pattern within the data suggested that, if not due to chance, the difference was due to actions that could only occur at the very start of the study. From the first point, then, there's little reason for continuing something that could be due to chance alone. And from the second point, even if you grasp at the straw that it might be a real phenomenon, the very same data indicates that extending the duration of the study would make no difference. So there's no credible argument for continuing it.

    No you haven't. Your "explaination" only makes sense if you assume that it's IMPOSSIBLE for circumcision to increase the risk for female.

    Nonsense. It only requires looking at the data they gathered objectively.

    ReplyDelete
  57. "From the first point, then, there's little reason for continuing something that could be due to chance alone."

    Of course there is reason for continuing something that **COULD** be due to chance alone : to check if it IS due to chance alone xD
    I'll try one last time to get you to understand that this argument is moot:
    - Three days after the beggining of the trial, no infection. So nothing statistically significant. So no use continuing the trial.
    - One year after the beggining, a non-significant 50% protective effect. So nothing statistically significant. So no use continuing the trial, it could be due to chance alone.
    Do you FINALLY understand?

    "And from the second point, even if you grasp at the straw that it might be a real phenomenon, the very same data indicates that extending the duration of the study would make no difference"

    I think you are confused here : as far as we know, more infections occured *among people who resumed sex early*, but we don't know if these infections actually occured *during the healing period*! ; If you have proof that they occured in the first month/month and a half, fine, but until then, resuming early means more exposure time, and could be linked to being more active, so having more intercourses, and being less cautious (and maybe something else I have not thought about). So nothing is clear and here is what the reaserchers said :"The possibility of higher risk of transmission in couples who resumed sexual intercourse before complete wound healing cannot be excluded".
    They don't seem really positive about it, do they?

    ReplyDelete
  58. - Three days after the beggining of the trial, no infection. So nothing statistically significant. So no use continuing the trial.
    - One year after the beggining, a non-significant 50% protective effect. So nothing statistically significant. So no use continuing the trial, it could be due to chance alone.


    Correct. For practical purposes, you can generally treat a non-statistically significant difference as no difference.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Correct? What if the trial was supposed to run for 2 years? If you can stop it after 1 year because the result isn't significant, why not after 1 week? xD
    You realize that statistical significance increases with time (=total number of infections), do you?

    ReplyDelete
  60. Correct? What if the trial was supposed to run for 2 years? If you can stop it after 1 year because the result isn't significant, why not after 1 week? xD

    One week is probably too soon.

    You realize that statistical significance increases with time (=total number of infections), do you?

    Wrong, I'm afraid. Significance can easily decrease over time. For example, suppose for the sake of argument that there are 1000 individuals in each group. If there are 10 infections in one group and 30 in the other, there's a significant difference (p=0.002). Now, if the trial continues and a further 30 infections occur in each group, the result is no longer significant (p=0.0508).

    ReplyDelete
  61. "One week is probably too soon."
    For how long did the trial run? I can't find that information anywhere.

    "Wrong, I'm afraid."
    Ok ok, right in 90% cases. But your results get more reliable with time/number of infections in 100% cases.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Some Jew wants to threaten us with death (all laws are a threat of death, for if you don't wish to obey them, the police will come to arrest you, and if you forcefully resist accompanying them to jail, they will be more than happy to kill you) unless we mutilate our sons in the manner favored by his tribe? This is why people hate Jews; people like YOU were the inspiration for the Holocaust. Pushy, obnoxious, bossy, over-privileged, degenerate motherfuckers, that is. Keep your forked tongue behind your teeth, you miserable creature.

    ReplyDelete
  63. The study that sparked this controversy is itself a joke! The study was supposed to be about the incidence of risks and complications of circumcision, yet only a third of the kids enrolled in the study actually were circed. I could find no info on where the study was done, not even which country. This would be like studying the complications of recovery from cancer and only a third of the patients ever had cancer. Of course, the intactivists jumped on this and twisted the information to mean that only a third of boys in the US are getting circ'd. Nowhere in the actual study did it say or imply such a thing.
    Let's remember too that the data we get is only for circ's done at the hospital right after birth, and with shorter maternity stays, more circs are done after that. It doesn't count the boys and men done for medical or other reasons beyond that time. My youngest son was adopted from Brazil and asked for a circ in middle school. His is not counted. Not all hospitals use the same coding system.
    One alarming thing is scattered reports on the net by parents who say they asked for a circ, and the baby boy showed up looking the same, or the Dr took off so little that the kid remains functionally intact. One Dr said in his hometown he estimated that about 20% of circs there amounted to just a little off the end, similar perhaps to the original Jewish circ, and not unlike the look of classic statues like Michaelanglo's David. If parents ask for that, so be it, but if Drs are simply substituting little or nothing, better they had said they wouldn't do a circ and let the parents find someone who will.
    One can get an idea of how prevalent circ at birth remains from an intactivist website, mgmbill.org/statistics.htm. The map suggests the obvious, that states with the highest concentration of immigrants have the lowest circ rates. Likewise those states which have long denied Medicaid for circumcision have much lower circ rates, especially for minorities.
    I wonder if my sons were born today in the far West, at a time when bullying is rampant and kids are increasingly getting plastic surgery for things like protruding ears just to avoid teasing, would I defer this important choice to the current trends in the community? I think I might have to consider those little off the end circs to protect them from local infections like UTIs, balanitis and also phimosis (but little protection from STIs)and hope they don't get bullied someday for something else anyways! After all, the reason my adopted son chose a circ was to be like the others and stop teasing and bullying. It was a good choice for the wrong reasons. My guess is that if we lived in the far West he would have wished to remain intact, a poor choice for good reason. Indeed, his older brothers might then also be intact, with a little off the end for limited protection but to look like their peers.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Circumcision good for heath.... ya right. Read this article from the economist to learn WHY circumcision was originally practiced in the US and around the world... And no It has nothing to do with health or a covenant to God... lol dumb Americans

    http://www.economist.com/node/18712852

    ReplyDelete
  65. ..."Circumcision arrived in America not primarily with Jewish immigrants but as a Victorian British fad, in which the original stated objective was to discourage masturbation and nocturnal emissions. The practice spread during the 20th century, and became almost universal by the 1960s. But in recent decades, circumcision has been declining, to about half of baby boys as of 2008."

    ReplyDelete
  66. Where are you, PD? We need you more than ever.

    ReplyDelete
  67. I will not allow you to silence my voice by deleting my comment. If you REALLY enjoy a good debate as you claim from your profile, you would have the courage and tenacity to address this comment, and not abridge it.

    I am a 21 year old male rendered impotent by circumcision.

    There are tight skin bridges that go all around my penis that healed there after the trauma of circumcision, terminating at distal points along the glans, covering roughly 33% of the head of my penis. As my penis began to grow, my bridges did not, resulting in painful erections that started at age 14. I have been technically impotent from the age of 16 because the pain renders me completely incapable of total penile erection without pain.

    Nighttime is the worse. I can usually control it during the day, but at night I awaken every few hours or so to the painful sensation of an erection, gripping the sheets and holding back my choked sobs. I have not had more than three hours of consecutive sleep since I turned 17.

    I have consulted my doctor on surgeries. A predilection toward keloid scars runs in my family, and operating would leave me looking worse down below, and remove what little erogenous, sensation-receiving flesh I have left in my penis. I had the surgery, and now have something that looks like cauliflower on the end of a gouged bratwurst.

    I am at a no win situation. I will never be able to experience physical intimacy with a woman because of the pain or the shame of the sorry mess between my legs that I call my penis.

    I am not an isolated case. I am not a single voice. I know that there are others like me, permanently damaged and scarred both physically and psychologically, ranging from various states of function left.

    http://www.circumstitions(dot)com/Botched1.html

    This gallery proves that there are others out there like myself. Recent estimates of prevalence of conditions like mine, that is to say, adhesions of all levels of severity, are anywhere between 10 and 30%, the last I read.

    The whole problem starts with prematurely separating the congenital penile adhesions between the foreskin and the glans. This process is very much like using a blunt piece of wood to remove your own fingernail. After the flesh was cut on me, unevenly, the prematurely separated congenital adhesions healed back together permanently. On other men, these newly formed trauma adhesions may break very painfully on their own, but mine never did.

    Every time people like yourself think that YOU have any right to discuss circumcision, there are two voices missing, and they belong to the people like me who are damaged but so normally afraid to speak out of shame that they never do, and most importantly the infant who cannot even speak for himself.

    I feel as if my very right as a human being to be born with an intact body has been abridged.

    I hate you. I hate this website. I hate my parents for ruining me. I HATE THAT YOU DELETED MY LAST COMMENT LIKE THIS.

    I say to you out of nothing but spite that your logic, your life, and the very fiber of your being are the only thing that I can think of that are uglier than my penis.

    I will fight until the day I die to prevent this damned preventative measure.

    ReplyDelete
  68. (I've heard that the theory that a lot of these uncircumcised future disease-promoters are illegal aliens from south of the border. It's true that many Hispanics do not circumcise until they become "Americanized" in the second or third generation. It's bad enough that illegals are sneaking into the country -- it's even worse if they are refusing to raise clean-cut boys.)

    I would just like to point out... As a racist who clearly looks down upon the Hispanic population, and also an academic- next time it would be prudent to use the english language correctly. It is worse to raise an "educated" ignorant supremacist who posts pointless rants just for the sake of argument than to raise a "clean-cut" boy.

    ReplyDelete
  69. you completely foul, horrible, sadistic fuck. i hope someone holds you down and takes a razor to your sorry excuse for a penis.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Circumcision is no longer recommended by ANY major health organization in the world, it increases some risks and decreases the others so the benefits are a mixed bag, on the other hand the sexual drawbacks are going to be there no matter what.

    The foreskin contains more nerve endings than any other part of the penis, that's just fact.
    "In the largest study on circumcision in South Korea, Seoul University found 33% of men who were circumcised reported difficulty attaining sexual gratification, 63% said masturbation less enjoyable, and 11% had "frequent" orgasm difficulties.
    (Kim, Peng et all, Seoul University)"

    ReplyDelete
  71. Anonymous's September 11, 2011 story has been reposted on the Intactivism Pages in case it stops appearing here.

    ReplyDelete
  72. The rates are dropping because people are realizing that circumcision is a fraud and a hoax. The dirty myth has been debunked. Your asshole is also dirty, but do you sew it shut? Enough said. Learn about the human anatomy and how the foreskin is essential for normal sex between a man and a woman, and how intact men are MUCH better able to please a woman. Intact sex is totally different than the pathetic excuse you know due to your mutilated penis. The cats out of the bag on circumcision, and circumfetishists like you aren't ever getting it back in. Don't look now, but there are currently ongoing efforts to regenerate foreskins through stem cell research and regenerative medicine. Some day in the next 5-10 years, the circumcision rates in America may be less than 5%

    ReplyDelete
  73. I'm totally disgusted by these people everywhere who have so much energy to be against circumcision but they never have this much passion for speaking out against things that really matter like all these dangerous drugs pushed on kids for profit. Why isn't that crooked medicine? Or everything now being a disorder? Why isn't pharmacutical companies bribing doctors and faking studies immoral? If studies on the benefits of circumcision are fradulent to you then why aren't just about all these new quack stories on how drug X cures everything? And many of these "Intactivists" are against circumcision but probably have no issue with abortion to chop up the whole baby.

    All boys should be circumcised, by competent practioners and with pain relief using the safest methods possible. We are not born perfect. If your son finds out he has a defect later (like hypospadias of the penis, for example) that could've been noticed/prevented with circumcision, you are doing him a disservice by causing him more grief and pain when it could've been fixed before he could remember it. If your son grows up to feel insecure being uncircumcised or needs to have it done later in life, you are doing him a disservice. If he has a urinary infection or a girl is shocked he isn't or doesn't know how to clean himself or you as a parent don't tell him how (and not all parents do), you are doing him a disservice.

    If I have sons, they will absolutely be circumcised.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your entire first paragraph consists of ad hominem/non sequitur arguments which are irrelevant to this article, the subject of which is circumcision. While the issues you mentioned are significant, bringing them up here doesn't really accomplish anything. You also failed to provide any evidence for your assertions that "these people care too much about this and not enough about that."
      Your 2nd paragraph-just because someone MAY have a problem at some point with one particular part of their body doesn't justify permanently removing it without their consent! You make the argument that parents have a moral obligation to circumcise to spare their boys the trouble of having to deal with something that probably will never be an issue for them in the first place, while failing to acknowledge the other side.(meaning guys who have suffered BECAUSE of their circumcision, and there are plenty) "If your son grows up to feel insecure being uncircumcised... you are doing him a disservice." I disagree. The only reason one would feel insecure about that would be if one lived here in the US where it is still commonly considered "normal" for males to be circumcised...and bought into that particular narrow way of thinking. "If your son...needs to have it done later in life(be circumcised), you are doing him a disservice." I disagree because if one were to need to have it done later in life(as older children, adolescents, or, ideally, adults), then one could simply have it done then when they could actually make the decision for themselves. "If he has a urinary infection...you are doing him a disservice." The term "urinary infection" is pretty vague. I'm assuming you are referring to a urinary tract infection. Those are actually pretty common among children, teens, and adults of both genders, but more common among women than men. As for males that do get them, you didn't give any reason as to why it has anything to do with whether or not he was circumcised or not. "If a girl is shocked he isn't(circumcised)...you are doing him a disservice." Nonsense. In that case, the problem is the woman's reaction to a natural, normal penis, not the fact that the guy's parents failed to have part of his penis cut off for her...umm, potential future personal preference. "If he doesn't know how to clean himself or you as a parent don't tell him how (and not all parents do), you are doing him a disservice." I agree. Parents should definitely teach their children how to properly clean their bodies and if they fail to do so they are indeed doing their children a disservice, but NOT by leaving the son's foreskin alone.
      "If I have sons, they will absolutely be circumcised." Please reconsider. I am not at all happy with my parents for having me circumcised. Why? Because EVEN IF all your claims were true, the individual rights of a person should always be prioritized, especially in the case of something that is permanent, that they have no say in, but have to live with, for better or for worse, the rest of their just-begun lives. If I have failed to convince you, have a look here at what these men have to say and consider that your sons might someday be among them. http://www.circumstitions.com/Resent.html

      Delete
  74. Mandatory circumcision is a good idea, but I would go one step further. Along with the foreskin the entire glans should also be removed from the penis at birth. Sexual "pleasure" leads to rape and prostitution; in effect, making mandatory the removal of the glans would ensure significantly higher levels of civil peace in society.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would like to cut off your entire head, because it's good for the human society have a sick person like you dead ¬¬

      Delete
  75. No Tiffany it's the clitoral hood and clitoris which must be removed to achieve the ends you long for. Just look at the great strides that have been made in the middle eastern countries through female circumcision. Ask any Arab woman on this topic! Sub Saharan women go a step further by utilizing "dry sex" to further reduce their wanton pleasure achieving the most salutory results possible. They know what it really takes to bring true peace to their societies. There, divorce is virtually unknown. There true peace prevails.

    ReplyDelete
  76. This "Article" is sickening. And so is the writer. Genital mutilation is genital mutilation. Foreskin is normal, and good. Genital mutilation, also known as "circumcision" removes the most sexually sensitive parts of the penis.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Work from home posting links! (anywhere)

    Make money by just posting links!
    http://www.referralduty.com/index.php?invite=5827 check it out!

    ReplyDelete
  78. Foreskin is not a birth defect! Foreskin is a complex mechanism that help man and woman during the intercourse and even during masturbation. It's more pleasurable and easy. Sexual response is stronger in uncut men, cleanness we do with water and soap, with a good daily hygiene. It's insane take off a natural and functional part of the body just for diseases we can stop using condoms and avoid risky sexual practices such as unprotected sex or multiple partners. Mutilate the sex organ is not the response ¬¬

    ReplyDelete
  79. Good blog! I agree: male circumcision has to become mandatory!

    ReplyDelete
  80. 95% of all of these states belong to the anticircs. They are wrong. 100%. What is truth is 95% of all of men in the USA are circumcised. I am. All the men in our extended family are circumcised. All the boys in my school are circumcised. All the men in my university are also. Who would want to have a foreskin. Anticircs must have them. They are nuts.

    ReplyDelete