Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You can't simultaneously claim it's NBD for babies -- especially without anesthesia -- and then make a huge deal about how difficult and impossible it is for adult men. Pick a lane.

This!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't read all the previous replies, but it is cleaner, it is more common - who wants their son to be the one in the locker room getting teased because he looks different? as for pain, COME ON, it's over in 2 seconds. at my son's circumcision, he cried for 10 seconds. it was literally NOTHING and healed so quickly. I find uncircumcised men dirty, as do a lot of women. it's just putting your son in a position where his peers and lovers may question the whole thing...

You sound ridiculously ignorant. Like the kind of person who would think black ppl are dirty because their skin is dark. Ew!

It IS less clean, that’s not debatable. Uncircumcised penises are more prone to fungus infections STD etc bc harder to keep clean. That’s where the tradition comes from!

We no longer live in the dessert without water.

Do you plan to eventually use Q-tips to clean your boy's ears? And later even teach him how to properly clean his own ears?

Just checking!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well said PP!

It is remarkable to me how so many people claiming health benefits as a reason would not rely on African health norms in any other context.

They’re also probably the same people in the other recent thread saying the science supporting breastfeeding is “very very thin,” because, you know, they read an article in the Atlantic about it once. Just like they read the AAP press release on corcumcision, or, more likely, a CNN article shared on Facebook poorly summarizing the summary of the press release. And I’m sure they love to post smug pro-#SCIENCE ramblings on social media to demonstrate their superiority over anti-vaxxers, who they lump together with/use as shorthand for all “crunchy” parenting choices they didn’t follow (like not circumcising). But the truth is, they are just as science illiterate as the anti vaxxers or climate deniers they make fun of.

But I see people do the same thing in touting, say, a study conducted in urban slums in India on the benefits of breastfeeding over formula for preventing gastroenteritis, to argue the superiority of breastfeeding in the U.S. I wouldn't go so far as to call that science illiteracy, but it's pretty specious. If studies in non-Western cultures don't apply to circumcision, they don't apply to breastfeeding, either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well said PP!

It is remarkable to me how so many people claiming health benefits as a reason would not rely on African health norms in any other context.

They’re also probably the same people in the other recent thread saying the science supporting breastfeeding is “very very thin,” because, you know, they read an article in the Atlantic about it once. Just like they read the AAP press release on corcumcision, or, more likely, a CNN article shared on Facebook poorly summarizing the summary of the press release. And I’m sure they love to post smug pro-#SCIENCE ramblings on social media to demonstrate their superiority over anti-vaxxers, who they lump together with/use as shorthand for all “crunchy” parenting choices they didn’t follow (like not circumcising). But the truth is, they are just as science illiterate as the anti vaxxers or climate deniers they make fun of.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well said PP!

It is remarkable to me how so many people claiming health benefits as a reason would not rely on African health norms in any other context.

They’re also probably the same people in the other recent thread saying the science supporting breastfeeding is “very very thin,” because, you know, they read an article in the Atlantic about it once. Just like they read the AAP press release on corcumcision, or, more likely, a CNN article shared on Facebook poorly summarizing the summary of the press release. And I’m sure they love to post smug pro-#SCIENCE ramblings on social media to demonstrate their superiority over anti-vaxxers, who they lump together with/use as shorthand for all “crunchy” parenting choices they didn’t follow (like not circumcising). But the truth is, they are just as science illiterate as the anti vaxxers or climate deniers they make fun of.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well said PP!

It is remarkable to me how so many people claiming health benefits as a reason would not rely on African health norms in any other context.

They’re also probably the same people in the other recent thread saying the science supporting breastfeeding is “very very thin,” because, you know, they read an article in the Atlantic about it once. Just like they read the AAP press release on corcumcision, or, more likely, a CNN article shared on Facebook poorly summarizing the summary of the press release. And I’m sure they love to post smug pro-#SCIENCE ramblings on social media to demonstrate their superiority over anti-vaxxers, who they lump together with/use as shorthand for all “crunchy” parenting choices they didn’t follow (like not circumcising). But the truth is, they are just as science illiterate as the anti vaxxers or climate deniers they make fun of.

Anonymous wrote:A short video of Egyptian women defending female circumcision and some men in Fargo, North Dakota defending circumcision.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wcJNAtn-c6I

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The science seems to support circumcision, though not strongly enough for it to override some people's concerns. See, e.g.: http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196%2814%2900036-6/abstract.

I'm curious to see if the anti-circumcision people have legit, peer-reviewed studies backing up their claims regarding the risks they fear.

Some facts here. Scroll down a bit. http://www.mothering.com/forum/44-case-against-circumcision/1146643-botched-circ-statistics.html#/topics/1146643?page=1

1-3% of circumcisions require immediate surgical follow up.

Your reference is an online forum? If its on the internet, it must be true.

Anonymous wrote:We are non-White, non Jews and we circumcised.

DH is also circumcised.

My BIL is not and he actually enthusiastically promoted that we circumcise our son. He circumcised his because he had issues with his non-circed penis later in life.

Anonymous wrote:Well said PP!

It is remarkable to me how so many people claiming health benefits as a reason would not rely on African health norms in any other context.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The science seems to support circumcision, though not strongly enough for it to override some people's concerns. See, e.g.: http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196%2814%2900036-6/abstract.

I'm curious to see if the anti-circumcision people have legit, peer-reviewed studies backing up their claims regarding the risks they fear.

But looking for the science to support circumcision is, in and of itself, a biased endeavor, because it assumes a) there is no harm to removing the foreskin, either short-term or long-term, and that therefore b), it's legitimate to do scientific research to determine the potential benefits.

Much ado has been made, for example, of the putative preventive benefits of circumcision with respect to preventing or minimizing the odds of contracting STDs, up to and including HIV. Setting aside the methodological flaws of the studies in sub-Saharan Africa of the studies purporting to show that male circumcision reduces the transmission of HIV (and the studies have been thoroughly critiqued, which I will not get into here) -- what about the potential benefits of *female* circumcision in preventing or minimizing the odds of contracting HIV? Most Westerners would throw a fit at even asking the question, because of cultural bias against female circumcision (i.e., it's always harmful, and there is never any justification for it whatsoever) and for male circumcision (i.e., because of the belief that at worst it is not harmful, there are potential justifications for doing it).

But: research in some African countries, such as Tanzania, has demonstrated an inverse relationship between female circumcision and HIV+ status. In other words, the more women circumcised in a region, the lower the rates of HIV+ status. Which, by the way, is the exact opposite of what researchers were expecting to find.

Here's a PowerPoint that summarizes some research findings from Tanzania and has citations of the studies:

http://www.tzonline.org/pdf/femalecircumcisionandhivinfectionintanzania.pdf

A similar study out of Kenya: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/iph_theses/98/

Now, granted, these are not randomized controlled studies, only observational -- because no IRB in the world would accept randomizing women to the female circumcision arm of a trial. Why? Again, because (in the accepted, majority view in the West) -- there can never be any justification for female circumcision. It is 100% a human rights violation, 100% of the time -- even if it's performed for religious reasons.

The point is not to advocate for female circumcision, obviously -- it's to point out the underlying cultural bias in scientific research on the benefits of male circumcision. That bias runs so deep that people don't question it. It's simply assumed that male circumcision is harmless and that the foreskin has no function but is simply extra skin. There has been far, far more effort put into scientific research justifying male circumcision for putative health reasons than there ever has been into understanding the structure and function of the foreskin. Doctors who circumcise know how to cut a foreskin off -- but they don't have the first foggy clue what it does.

Anonymous wrote:Circumcision rates are going down largely due to the increase in Hispanic immigrants, who are less likely to do so. There isn't a huge change among non-Hispanic whites, outside of a few fairly insular communities (many of which also have higher than average rates of anti-vaxxers).

Anonymous wrote:We are non-White, non Jews and we circumcised.

DH is also circumcised.

My BIL is not and he actually enthusiastically promoted that we circumcise our son. He circumcised his because he had issues with his non-circed penis later in life.