According to American Academy of Pediatrics Benefits of Circumcision Outweigh Risks

[Anonymous]

Let's set Africa aside, since HIV is primarily a heterosexual disease there. (That is not the case in the U.S.)

If the U.S. has higher rates of circumcision and circumcision prevents HIV and other STDs, shouldn't it follow that STD/HIV rates are lower here than in countries with lower circumcision rates? How do our HIV/STD rates among men compare with those of, say, Western European counties?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

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

no, THIS one is!!!! YIKES!!!!

[Anonymous]

Let me see- hmmmm doctors recommend medical procedures! whoa! What a shock!

I bet dairy farmers recommend drinking milk! And cattle ranchers recommend eating beef! And people who sell their produce at farmers markets recommend eating more of their fresh, locally grown veggies! Wait, the list goes on and on...

Good thing I am able to think for myself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nope, perfectly secure because just like my husband, my son won't remember or care. But you keep on thinking that!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

My husband did it when he was a teenager. He suffered a lot before he was circumcised. So our son was circumcised at birth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

My husband did it when he was a teenager. He suffered a lot before he was circumcised. So our son was circumcised at birth.

Can you be more specific? What was he suffering from?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

My husband did it when he was a teenager. He suffered a lot before he was circumcised. So our son was circumcised at birth.

Can you be more specific? What was he suffering from?

My OB told me the same thing happened to her brother--in his case not physical/-very bad locker room teasing in middle school when uncircumcised in Us were rare.

Btw- my dh's parents left the decision to pick a religion up to him. No surprise he did nothing. You think any teen or adult male will choose to get circ even if it proves to be even more beneficial in the future? NOT.

Getting it done as a newborn is best time if one is ever going to get one from both a physical, emotional and medical standpoint.

Of course the people that gave into whim and fashion and did not have it done are never going to acquiesce that there are legit benefits.

[Anonymous]

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?

[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?

People are focusing on HIV that is just a small part of it...
Significant reduction in herpes, syphilis, hpv transmission (to female partners), decrease in penile cancer, etc.

Measles is coming back as well as pertussis due to anti-vac groups... The uncirc group has been recent in US wonder if stds will go up too..

[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?

Studies were done in Africa (largely Uganda) where there are different sexual practices. There is a large value placed on friction (where most in the US value lubrication). Drying powders or dry sex increases the risk of vaginal tears, which largely explains the higher rate of male-to-female transmission in Africa vs. the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

My husband did it when he was a teenager. He suffered a lot before he was circumcised. So our son was circumcised at birth.

Was your husband woke during the procedure (as a teen)? Did they give him painkillers afterwards?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nope, perfectly secure because just like my husband, my son won't remember or care. But you keep on thinking that!

Yes, but I'd remember and I'd care that I made that permanent change without his consent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

People are focusing on HIV that is just a small part of it...
Significant reduction in herpes, syphilis, hpv transmission (to female partners), decrease in penile cancer, etc.

Measles is coming back as well as pertussis due to anti-vac groups... The uncirc group has been recent in US wonder if stds will go up too..

Can you link to those statistics?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

People are focusing on HIV that is just a small part of it...
Significant reduction in herpes, syphilis, hpv transmission (to female partners), decrease in penile cancer, etc.

Measles is coming back as well as pertussis due to anti-vac groups... The uncirc group has been recent in US wonder if stds will go up too..

Aren't the recent data are equivocal on syphilis? And there is, of course, an HPV vaccine now. And don't condoms, when properly used, have considerable efficacy against STDs (with the exception of genital herpes)?

I know you'd like to tar all people with uncircumcised boys with the same brush, but that's simply not rational. Most people I know who didn't circumcise did in fact follow AAP vaccination schedules. We certainly did. Not circumcising is not the same as not vaccinating, you know.

There's a monetary and a cultural angle to this that no one is really mentioning, btw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Studies were done in Africa (largely Uganda) where there are different sexual practices. There is a large value placed on friction (where most in the US value lubrication). Drying powders or dry sex increases the risk of vaginal tears, which largely explains the higher rate of male-to-female transmission in Africa vs. the US.

Thanks. What happened to the studies showing increased risk of HIV transmission for circumcised men? The we're a couple of those, I think, but not in Africa, of course.