According to American Academy of Pediatrics Benefits of Circumcision Outweigh Risks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, there are numerous contradictions within the paper, including the statement that the benefits don't support routine circ.

Does anyone know what the absolute HIV risk difference is across the three big studies used to justify the statement?

It's 1.31%. They repeat 60% over and over again, and people are all "whoa, better cut," but that's relative risk. The absolute risk either way is very, very low, and that risk is based on an *entirely* different cultural landscape where there is a heterosexual epidemic, sex practices that increase transmission, and poor access to barrier methods. It. is. crazy. talk. to apply this to American infants.

+1. Certain African cultures have different sexual practices that are unheard of here in the US (the use of drying powders). It increase tearing and risk of HIV transmission. Those stats really cannot be used here in the US to justify reduced risk, since that risk isn't here.

The recommendation does not hinge on these studies. But to pretend they are meaningless is foolish. You create a convenient escape for the cause because any Randomized control study is invalid because it's Africa, and any US study is invalid because it's not a randomized control study. Unless of course it is a paper of any kind sporting the anti-circ cause, in which case they will happily publish it without bringing up either of these concerns.

I have learned that intellectual dishonesty is usually a reliable indicator of where the truth lies. The anti-circ crowd applies maximum criticism of studies possible under the scientific method when it disagrees with the outcome, and it gives a virtually free pass to any document tat supports its point of view.

Oh, cut it out. There are many different ways and reasons to be anti-circ, and precisely the same pattern appears in people defending circ. Most pro-circ people have a lot of difficulty addressing the question of consent as the serious ethical issue it is. In this thread, we already have "but don't you make other decisions for your child?" Sure, but none of them a) involve cutting off sensitive genital tissue and b) can be left for later without compromising effectiveness.

The recommendation - which, again, is for access, not in favor of routine circ - *does* rely heavily on the HIV studies, and the cost estimates absolutely do. Have you read the whole thing? There are a few obvious problems even if you don't know the research, and if you do, it's clear that some cited are misrepresented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm still confused. Prior studies show circumcision does not decrease HIV risk for men who have sex with men, right? In the U.S., HIV still occurs primarily among men who have sex with men. Presumably a very high percentage of MSM with HIV in the U.S. we're circumcised, since, historically, most men here have been circumcised. Yet circumcision didn't protect those men. So it protects just men who have sex with women? Why would that be?

It may or may not. The studies involved only showed that it may reduce transmission during heterosexual sex that was likely to be unlubricated and possibly involved drying powder/herbs, sand, etc. in the vagina.

American women tend not to put sand in their vaginas on purpose. See the beach sex thread. Not popular here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:let me break it down.

Uncircumcised penis has foreskin which acts like a pocket that can trap foreign bodies, sweat, dirt, dead skin, bacteria, virus etc... anything that can slip in there especially during friction of rubbing in sexual contact.

During sexual contact there is a high chance of the skin tearing and exposing an open wound inside of this pocket.

Think about it logically of course uncirced can trap diseases more easily and contract them with tearing.

Furthermore it is very difficult to clean out this pocket especially when the child is under the age of 9 and even up to 15 when the skin is not fully able to retract.

UTIs can also occur more often because of trapped urine in the pockets. etc...

You are also describing the labia on women. Should those be removed as well?

Also, the foreskin does not retract until puberty. Until then, there is no need to retract and there is no build-up of sweat, bacteria, etc.

male circumcision only affects the foreskin, while female circumcision affects the entire clitoris. The equivalent of female circumcision would be cutting off the entire penis head.

That's incorrect for two reasons.

First, there are different types of FGM, including close equivalents to foreskin removal. Removal of the prepuce only is Type 1a female circumcision. Removal of the prepuce and/or partial/total clitoridectomy is Type 1b. Type 2a is removal of the labia, and 2b is labia removal with partial/total clitoridectomy. These types represent 85% of FGM. Full excision, apposition of tissues (ie pulling together so they heal together), infibulation etc. (what most people think of when they think of FGM) is only 15% of procedures.

Second, the glans (head) of the penis is not the most sensitive area, the frenulum is, and circumcision removes some of this extremely sensitive tissue directly, as well as tissues that stimulate this area through movement/tugging during intercourse.

In other words, many FGM procedures are somewhat anatomically equivalent to male circumcision - ie, removal of all protective mucosa combined with partial removal of the most sexually sensitive tissue of the genitalia.

[Anonymous]

I'd like to bring the vax/circ thing full circle and point out that a vaccine for HIV is expected before boys born now will become sexually active.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, there are numerous contradictions within the paper, including the statement that the benefits don't support routine circ.

Does anyone know what the absolute HIV risk difference is across the three big studies used to justify the statement?

It's 1.31%. They repeat 60% over and over again, and people are all "whoa, better cut," but that's relative risk. The absolute risk either way is very, very low, and that risk is based on an *entirely* different cultural landscape where there is a heterosexual epidemic, sex practices that increase transmission, and poor access to barrier methods. It. is. crazy. talk. to apply this to American infants.

+1. Certain African cultures have different sexual practices that are unheard of here in the US (the use of drying powders). It increase tearing and risk of HIV transmission. Those stats really cannot be used here in the US to justify reduced risk, since that risk isn't here.

The recommendation does not hinge on these studies. But to pretend they are meaningless is foolish. You create a convenient escape for the cause because any Randomized control study is invalid because it's Africa, and any US study is invalid because it's not a randomized control study. Unless of course it is a paper of any kind sporting the anti-circ cause, in which case they will happily publish it without bringing up either of these concerns.

I have learned that intellectual dishonesty is usually a reliable indicator of where the truth lies. The anti-circ crowd applies maximum criticism of studies possible under the scientific method when it disagrees with the outcome, and it gives a virtually free pass to any document tat supports its point of view.

Oh, cut it out. There are many different ways and reasons to be anti-circ, and precisely the same pattern appears in people defending circ. Most pro-circ people have a lot of difficulty addressing the question of consent as the serious ethical issue it is. In this thread, we already have "but don't you make other decisions for your child?" Sure, but none of them a) involve cutting off sensitive genital tissue and b) can be left for later without compromising effectiveness.

The recommendation - which, again, is for access, not in favor of routine circ - *does* rely heavily on the HIV studies, and the cost estimates absolutely do. Have you read the whole thing? There are a few obvious problems even if you don't know the research, and if you do, it's clear that some cited are misrepresented.

when you can credibly list points in favor of the AAP recommendation, I will believe you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to bring the vax/circ thing full circle and point out that a vaccine for HIV is expected before boys born now will become sexually active.

Speak for your own sons...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to bring the vax/circ thing full circle and point out that a vaccine for HIV is expected before boys born now will become sexually active.

What about dick cancer, herpes, syphilis, chlamydia, etc? It wasn't just HIV...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to bring the vax/circ thing full circle and point out that a vaccine for HIV is expected before boys born now will become sexually active.

What about dick cancer, herpes, syphilis, chlamydia, etc? It wasn't just HIV...

This whole thing is just silly. No one chooses to circumcise or not based on the very marginal medical benefits that may be associated with it, most of which relate to sexually transmitted diseases. No one looks at their newborn and thinks "my son is going to go whoring around when he's a teenager/young adult, so I'm going to send him off to have part of his penis removed to reduce the chance he'll pick up an infection from some skank." People circumcise for religious or cultural or aesthetic reasons, which are almost always highly emotional in nature, NOT because of a small reduction in risk of contracting STDs. Own your choice, circ'ers! If you think that foreskin is ugly or gross, just say so! (As some of you, regrettably but honestly, have).

For my own part, I will admit that my decision to leave my three sons intact was based partially on emotion. And predictably, the new AAP wording does not alter my view of routine infant circumcision one bit. The consent issue troubles me greatly, and the purported medical benefits, assuming the soundness of the studies cited by the AAP, are marginal on the individual level (as with most public health recommendations, including, for example, the recommendation to breastfeed). It was really a no-brainer for me, but then I didn't have any preexisting prejudice against foreskin. Let's just admit what this is about. It ain't about HIV, folks. Maybe for the AAP, yes. But not for the parents out there who are making this decision (or not) for their sons every day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to bring the vax/circ thing full circle and point out that a vaccine for HIV is expected before boys born now will become sexually active.

What about dick cancer, herpes, syphilis, chlamydia, etc? It wasn't just HIV...

This whole thing is just silly. No one chooses to circumcise or not based on the very marginal medical benefits that may be associated with it, most of which relate to sexually transmitted diseases. No one looks at their newborn and thinks "my son is going to go whoring around when he's a teenager/young adult, so I'm going to send him off to have part of his penis removed to reduce the chance he'll pick up an infection from some skank." People circumcise for religious or cultural or aesthetic reasons, which are almost always highly emotional in nature, NOT because of a small reduction in risk of contracting STDs. Own your choice, circ'ers! If you think that foreskin is ugly or gross, just say so! (As some of you, regrettably but honestly, have).

For my own part, I will admit that my decision to leave my three sons intact was based partially on emotion. And predictably, the new AAP wording does not alter my view of routine infant circumcision one bit. The consent issue troubles me greatly, and the purported medical benefits, assuming the soundness of the studies cited by the AAP, are marginal on the individual level (as with most public health recommendations, including, for example, the recommendation to breastfeed). It was really a no-brainer for me, but then I didn't have any preexisting prejudice against foreskin. Let's just admit what this is about. It ain't about HIV, folks. Maybe for the AAP, yes. But not for the parents out there who are making this decision (or not) for their sons every day.

Thank you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to bring the vax/circ thing full circle and point out that a vaccine for HIV is expected before boys born now will become sexually active.

What about dick cancer, herpes, syphilis, chlamydia, etc? It wasn't just HIV...

This whole thing is just silly. No one chooses to circumcise or not based on the very marginal medical benefits that may be associated with it, most of which relate to sexually transmitted diseases. No one looks at their newborn and thinks "my son is going to go whoring around when he's a teenager/young adult, so I'm going to send him off to have part of his penis removed to reduce the chance he'll pick up an infection from some skank." People circumcise for religious or cultural or aesthetic reasons, which are almost always highly emotional in nature, NOT because of a small reduction in risk of contracting STDs. Own your choice, circ'ers! If you think that foreskin is ugly or gross, just say so! (As some of you, regrettably but honestly, have).

For my own part, I will admit that my decision to leave my three sons intact was based partially on emotion. And predictably, the new AAP wording does not alter my view of routine infant circumcision one bit. The consent issue troubles me greatly, and the purported medical benefits, assuming the soundness of the studies cited by the AAP, are marginal on the individual level (as with most public health recommendations, including, for example, the recommendation to breastfeed). It was really a no-brainer for me, but then I didn't have any preexisting prejudice against foreskin. Let's just admit what this is about. It ain't about HIV, folks. Maybe for the AAP, yes. But not for the parents out there who are making this decision (or not) for their sons every day.

Speak for yourself, kitten. This is exactly why we had our son circumcised: we will raise him to be sexually responsible, but you know what? There are no guarantees. From what I read - and I posted this up-thread - circumcision seems to be healthier. I give consent for lots of stuff my son can't consent for when it is in his best interests, like vaccines and will make him do more of the same as he grows up, like school, writing thank you notes, and trying new foods. Having never seen an uncirced penis, I have no opinion on them. I am owning my choice, thank you very much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to bring the vax/circ thing full circle and point out that a vaccine for HIV is expected before boys born now will become sexually active.

What about dick cancer, herpes, syphilis, chlamydia, etc? It wasn't just HIV...

This whole thing is just silly. No one chooses to circumcise or not based on the very marginal medical benefits that may be associated with it, most of which relate to sexually transmitted diseases. No one looks at their newborn and thinks "my son is going to go whoring around when he's a teenager/young adult, so I'm going to send him off to have part of his penis removed to reduce the chance he'll pick up an infection from some skank." People circumcise for religious or cultural or aesthetic reasons, which are almost always highly emotional in nature, NOT because of a small reduction in risk of contracting STDs. Own your choice, circ'ers! If you think that foreskin is ugly or gross, just say so! (As some of you, regrettably but honestly, have).

For my own part, I will admit that my decision to leave my three sons intact was based partially on emotion. And predictably, the new AAP wording does not alter my view of routine infant circumcision one bit. The consent issue troubles me greatly, and the purported medical benefits, assuming the soundness of the studies cited by the AAP, are marginal on the individual level (as with most public health recommendations, including, for example, the recommendation to breastfeed). It was really a no-brainer for me, but then I didn't have any preexisting prejudice against foreskin. Let's just admit what this is about. It ain't about HIV, folks. Maybe for the AAP, yes. But not for the parents out there who are making this decision (or not) for their sons every day.

Speak for yourself, kitten. This is exactly why we had our son circumcised: we will raise him to be sexually responsible, but you know what? There are no guarantees. From what I read - and I posted this up-thread - circumcision seems to be healthier. I give consent for lots of stuff my son can't consent for when it is in his best interests, like vaccines and will make him do more of the same as he grows up, like school, writing thank you notes, and trying new foods. Having never seen an uncirced penis, I have no opinion on them. I am owning my choice, thank you very much.

Problem is, KITTEN, that none of those things require the painful and permanent removal of a body part without consent. And, just for the record, you can't *make* someone try a new food, unless you are willing to shove it down his throat (and even then he can vomit it up), nor can you make him write a thank you note. You can coerce him to do those things, but you can't force it. So again, apples and oranges. I assume, if you make all decisions based on health benefits, that you must have breastfed exclusively for 6 months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to bring the vax/circ thing full circle and point out that a vaccine for HIV is expected before boys born now will become sexually active.

What about dick cancer, herpes, syphilis, chlamydia, etc? It wasn't just HIV...

This whole thing is just silly. No one chooses to circumcise or not based on the very marginal medical benefits that may be associated with it, most of which relate to sexually transmitted diseases. No one looks at their newborn and thinks "my son is going to go whoring around when he's a teenager/young adult, so I'm going to send him off to have part of his penis removed to reduce the chance he'll pick up an infection from some skank." People circumcise for religious or cultural or aesthetic reasons, which are almost always highly emotional in nature, NOT because of a small reduction in risk of contracting STDs. Own your choice, circ'ers! If you think that foreskin is ugly or gross, just say so! (As some of you, regrettably but honestly, have).

For my own part, I will admit that my decision to leave my three sons intact was based partially on emotion. And predictably, the new AAP wording does not alter my view of routine infant circumcision one bit. The consent issue troubles me greatly, and the purported medical benefits, assuming the soundness of the studies cited by the AAP, are marginal on the individual level (as with most public health recommendations, including, for example, the recommendation to breastfeed). It was really a no-brainer for me, but then I didn't have any preexisting prejudice against foreskin. Let's just admit what this is about. It ain't about HIV, folks. Maybe for the AAP, yes. But not for the parents out there who are making this decision (or not) for their sons every day.

Speak for yourself, kitten. This is exactly why we had our son circumcised: we will raise him to be sexually responsible, but you know what? There are no guarantees. From what I read - and I posted this up-thread - circumcision seems to be healthier. I give consent for lots of stuff my son can't consent for when it is in his best interests, like vaccines and will make him do more of the same as he grows up, like school, writing thank you notes, and trying new foods. Having never seen an uncirced penis, I have no opinion on them. I am owning my choice, thank you very much.

Problem is, KITTEN, that none of those things require the painful and permanent removal of a body part without consent. And, just for the record, you can't *make* someone try a new food, unless you are willing to shove it down his throat (and even then he can vomit it up), nor can you make him write a thank you note. You can coerce him to do those things, but you can't force it. So again, apples and oranges. I assume, if you make all decisions based on health benefits, that you must have breastfed exclusively for 6 months.

Are you the person to whom I replied? You really do invest a lot of emotion in this. You said, "People don't choose to circ for health benefits, it's cultural or aesthetic." I said you were wrong. Own your opinions.. Provided you are the same person I'm talking to. And I also said that parents routinely give consent for lots of stuff, which is what we did. No, I don't make all decisions based solely on health decisions, but this one seemed pretty big - much like the decision to vaccinate - so we relied on science to the extent that laypeople can.

And I breast fed exclusively for seven months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, there are numerous contradictions within the paper, including the statement that the benefits don't support routine circ.

Does anyone know what the absolute HIV risk difference is across the three big studies used to justify the statement?

It's 1.31%. They repeat 60% over and over again, and people are all "whoa, better cut," but that's relative risk. The absolute risk either way is very, very low, and that risk is based on an *entirely* different cultural landscape where there is a heterosexual epidemic, sex practices that increase transmission, and poor access to barrier methods. It. is. crazy. talk. to apply this to American infants.

+1. Certain African cultures have different sexual practices that are unheard of here in the US (the use of drying powders). It increase tearing and risk of HIV transmission. Those stats really cannot be used here in the US to justify reduced risk, since that risk isn't here.

The recommendation does not hinge on these studies. But to pretend they are meaningless is foolish. You create a convenient escape for the cause because any Randomized control study is invalid because it's Africa, and any US study is invalid because it's not a randomized control study. Unless of course it is a paper of any kind sporting the anti-circ cause, in which case they will happily publish it without bringing up either of these concerns.

I have learned that intellectual dishonesty is usually a reliable indicator of where the truth lies. The anti-circ crowd applies maximum criticism of studies possible under the scientific method when it disagrees with the outcome, and it gives a virtually free pass to any document tat supports its point of view.

Oh, cut it out. There are many different ways and reasons to be anti-circ, and precisely the same pattern appears in people defending circ. Most pro-circ people have a lot of difficulty addressing the question of consent as the serious ethical issue it is. In this thread, we already have "but don't you make other decisions for your child?" Sure, but none of them a) involve cutting off sensitive genital tissue and b) can be left for later without compromising effectiveness.

The recommendation - which, again, is for access, not in favor of routine circ - *does* rely heavily on the HIV studies, and the cost estimates absolutely do. Have you read the whole thing? There are a few obvious problems even if you don't know the research, and if you do, it's clear that some cited are misrepresented.

when you can credibly list points in favor of the AAP recommendation, I will believe you.

Sure! There's more penile cancer without it, just as you will not get breast cancer after preventive mastectomy. For the portion of the population that does not use condoms/get tested, there may be benefits for some STDs. Circ'd boys will obviously not get phimosis.

The thing is, though, that without the HIV studies, which are just not relevant, we are back to the grey area in which the risk/benefit is a wash and there is no cost:benefit - back to the previous recommendation, which, like this one, was against routine circumcision, but did not specifically defend access, since there were no potential bans when it was written.

So you're still cutting off healthy tissue for primarily aesthetic reasons. There's no way around that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to bring the vax/circ thing full circle and point out that a vaccine for HIV is expected before boys born now will become sexually active.

What about dick cancer, herpes, syphilis, chlamydia, etc? It wasn't just HIV...

This whole thing is just silly. No one chooses to circumcise or not based on the very marginal medical benefits that may be associated with it, most of which relate to sexually transmitted diseases. No one looks at their newborn and thinks "my son is going to go whoring around when he's a teenager/young adult, so I'm going to send him off to have part of his penis removed to reduce the chance he'll pick up an infection from some skank." People circumcise for religious or cultural or aesthetic reasons, which are almost always highly emotional in nature, NOT because of a small reduction in risk of contracting STDs. Own your choice, circ'ers! If you think that foreskin is ugly or gross, just say so! (As some of you, regrettably but honestly, have).

For my own part, I will admit that my decision to leave my three sons intact was based partially on emotion. And predictably, the new AAP wording does not alter my view of routine infant circumcision one bit. The consent issue troubles me greatly, and the purported medical benefits, assuming the soundness of the studies cited by the AAP, are marginal on the individual level (as with most public health recommendations, including, for example, the recommendation to breastfeed). It was really a no-brainer for me, but then I didn't have any preexisting prejudice against foreskin. Let's just admit what this is about. It ain't about HIV, folks. Maybe for the AAP, yes. But not for the parents out there who are making this decision (or not) for their sons every day.

Speak for yourself, kitten. This is exactly why we had our son circumcised: we will raise him to be sexually responsible, but you know what? There are no guarantees. From what I read - and I posted this up-thread - circumcision seems to be healthier. I give consent for lots of stuff my son can't consent for when it is in his best interests, like vaccines and will make him do more of the same as he grows up, like school, writing thank you notes, and trying new foods. Having never seen an uncirced penis, I have no opinion on them. I am owning my choice, thank you very much.

Right. Circumcision will give you that 100% guarantee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Like anti vaccine phobia, Science wins against the crazies once again .

Crazies because we didn't want to do voluntary surgery on our newborns when the scientific evidence was mixed? Riiiight.

BTW, the rest of the world thinks we're the crazies.