According to American Academy of Pediatrics Benefits of Circumcision Outweigh Risks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The AAP is still saying there are not enough benefits for it to be routine. I'm confused as to how this recommendation is all that different from their earlier one.

Aap statement says they recommend circ as long as it doesn't conflict with the parents religious or personal views.

The reason its not mandatory like vaccines is because to cause harm or diseases its an active action where as airborne virus can be passively passed on with out much contact.

No, the reason why it's not mandatory is because the alleged benefits are several orders of magnitude smaller than that of a vaccines. If circ. were like a vaccine it would, in fact, be either mandatory and routinely performed without asking (like, say, a heel blood draw).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe in altering my baby. No ear piercings, no circ.

BUT keep in mind ladies, men have told me that a foreskin equals less oral sex for the guy. Some girls are just not into it. These men told me they circ'd for their sons' future with the ladies.

There was even a study on this..and you are correct. Also--sorry males---boys and men often aren't as hygenic as women. There is a well-documented increase in infection because they don't lift up the foreskin and clean that area adequately. The term 'd*ck cheese' is appropriate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wait, didn't the AAP go on to say the benefits were not great enough to recommend routine circumcision? So those of you saying you'll follow its advice, do you mean you will NOT circ your next?

No it said the benefits outweigh the risks but that Parents should still make theirvown choices.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe in altering my baby. No ear piercings, no circ.

BUT keep in mind ladies, men have told me that a foreskin equals less oral sex for the guy. Some girls are just not into it. These men told me they circ'd for their sons' future with the ladies.

There was even a study on this..and you are correct. Also--sorry males---boys and men often aren't as hygenic as women. There is a well-documented increase in infection because they don't lift up the foreskin and clean that area adequately. The term 'd*ck cheese' is appropriate.

So you are making your decision so your son will get more head from uptight chicks? DH isn't circ and cleans just fine. I really haven't noticed any difference between him and ex-bfs who were circ. ZERO difference. I think there are a lot of women who are uptight and dislike sex and use it for an excuse. Women really are a bunch of bitches. Truly at the end of the day just hope your son makes a lot of money. I have no opinion on circ it makes zero difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe in altering my baby. No ear piercings, no circ.

BUT keep in mind ladies, men have told me that a foreskin equals less oral sex for the guy. Some girls are just not into it. These men told me they circ'd for their sons' future with the ladies.

So you are making your decision so your son will get more head from uptight chicks? DH isn't circ and cleans just fine. I really haven't noticed any difference between him and ex-bfs who were circ. ZERO difference. I think there are a lot of women who are uptight and dislike sex and use it for an excuse. Women really are a bunch of bitches. Truly at the end of the day just hope your son makes a lot of money. I have no opinion on circ it makes zero difference.

Okay fine. But, would your husband say that you give lots of enthusiastic head. Or, do you ration it out and it's just blasé

[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.

My issue with circ in this country is based in history and why it became so prevalent. I actually believe that sons should look like their fathers. DH is from another country and no one circ except Jews. In the end, it is a cosmetic issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe in altering my baby. No ear piercings, no circ.

BUT keep in mind ladies, men have told me that a foreskin equals less oral sex for the guy. Some girls are just not into it. These men told me they circ'd for their sons' future with the ladies.

So you are making your decision so your son will get more head from uptight chicks? DH isn't circ and cleans just fine. I really haven't noticed any difference between him and ex-bfs who were circ. ZERO difference. I think there are a lot of women who are uptight and dislike sex and use it for an excuse. Women really are a bunch of bitches. Truly at the end of the day just hope your son makes a lot of money. I have no opinion on circ it makes zero difference.

Okay fine. But, would your husband say that you give lots of enthusiastic head. Or, do you ration it out and it's just blasé

Really?!

[Anonymous]

As STDs become more virulent I think the tides will change.

Right now it is too easy apparently for some people to say African studies have nothing to do with them.

[Anonymous]

There is a well-documented increase in infection because they don't lift up the foreskin and clean that area adequately. The term 'd*ck cheese' is appropriate.

Ok, so if you believe that your son is going to be too lazy and incompetent to make the minimal effort to lift his foreskin and clean, get it done. I'm assuming that won't be the case for my kid, and if it is, he's going to have bigger problems than this to address.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are we living in Africa?

Does this study make you feel better about mutilating your son? Do you honestly need an organization to tell you it's okay to ease your guilt?

You think that because we don't live in Africa that we're free from danger? We happily circumcised our boys. Just like daddy!

Didn't say that, but OP used that in her OP, so I responded. Glad you are comfortable with your choice; so are we.

Family of circumcised Dad and non-circumcised boy (who is more than happy to make this choice when he reaches puberty).

Yes, because that will be such a WONDERFUL decision for your pubescent son to make.

Signed,
A terrible child abuser (ahem, normal mom)

If allowing my son to make his OWN decision about a permanent alteration to his body makes me an abnormal Mom, I'm okay with that. You, on the other hand, sound very insecure about your decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every male in my family is mutilated and none of remember it happening. Surprisingly, we are all fine, fully functioning men (and toddler).

Next subject please.

Many abused victims don't remember their molestations either. Does it excuse the wrong that happened to them? Is it only bad if the person can remember? When did the bar get set so low?

It's not just that. It's that millions and millions don't care at all that they were circumcised. Nobody except for a handful of intactivists seems to care when it comes to the ir own circumcisions. How do you call it a trauma if the "victims" don't call it a trauma?? I am tired of the anti circ posts at say I was mutilated but I just don't know it, that my sex life suffered but I just don't know it.

I didn't circumcise my son, but I'm not anti-circ. If he wishes to make this choice on his own, I will happily set up the appointment.

I think lots of folks are missing this point. Many who don't circumcise their son aren't anti-circ, they're just anti-making-a-permanent-alteration-to-my-child's-body-without-his-consent people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe in altering my baby. No ear piercings, no circ.

BUT keep in mind ladies, men have told me that a foreskin equals less oral sex for the guy. Some girls are just not into it. These men told me they circ'd for their sons' future with the ladies.

The men who told you this must have had really excessive foreskin. Once erect, circ and uncirc looks the same.

[Anonymous]

These men and women who say foreskin equals no oral sex are naive. The vast majority of uncirced penises look identical to circed ones while erect, minus the scar line of course.

If you don't trust your partner to be clean, perhaps you should date a man who showers. Otherwise, there is no visual difference and one typically wouldn't notice unless they were told or saw the penis in an unerect state.

Many of the ridiculous comments just go to show that it is in large a cultural decision here in the US -- hi 09:19/10:23.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every male in my family is mutilated and none of remember it happening. Surprisingly, we are all fine, fully functioning men (and toddler).

Next subject please.

Many abused victims don't remember their molestations either. Does it excuse the wrong that happened to them? Is it only bad if the person can remember? When did the bar get set so low?

That's one of the dumbest responses I've ever seen on DCUM.