Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are counting on circumcision (rather than abstinence, condoms, etc) to avoid STDs, you are in trouble.

OMG no one is counting on circumcision as the sole method of avoiding STD's. That does not mean that we should ignore the benefits of partial protection.

Are you "counting on" false dichotomies to prove your case on circumcision?

But if you still need to use a condom to avoid STDs and HIV, then what exactly is the point of circumcizing? Circumcision contributes nothing additional. There is no difference between circed under a condom, and un-circed under a condom. Even if you have the circ, the condom is doing 100% of the work.

Are you "counting on" logical fallacies to prove your own case?

People still get stds with condoms on.

I'm going to assume that you're reasonably smart, and that you're deliberately trying to miss the point.

The point is that condoms are much more effective than circumcision, even if neither is perfect. And once you put the condom on, circumcision doesn't matter.

+1000

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are counting on circumcision (rather than abstinence, condoms, etc) to avoid STDs, you are in trouble.

OMG no one is counting on circumcision as the sole method of avoiding STD's. That does not mean that we should ignore the benefits of partial protection.

Are you "counting on" false dichotomies to prove your case on circumcision?

But if you still need to use a condom to avoid STDs and HIV, then what exactly is the point of circumcizing? Circumcision contributes nothing additional. There is no difference between circed under a condom, and un-circed under a condom. Even if you have the circ, the condom is doing 100% of the work.

Are you "counting on" logical fallacies to prove your own case?

People still get stds with condoms on.

I'm going to assume that you're reasonably smart, and that you're deliberately trying to miss the point.

The point is that condoms are much more effective than circumcision, even if neither is perfect. And once you put the condom on, circumcision doesn't matter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are counting on circumcision (rather than abstinence, condoms, etc) to avoid STDs, you are in trouble.

OMG no one is counting on circumcision as the sole method of avoiding STD's. That does not mean that we should ignore the benefits of partial protection.

Are you "counting on" false dichotomies to prove your case on circumcision?

But if you still need to use a condom to avoid STDs and HIV, then what exactly is the point of circumcizing? Circumcision contributes nothing additional. There is no difference between circed under a condom, and un-circed under a condom. Even if you have the circ, the condom is doing 100% of the work.

Are you "counting on" logical fallacies to prove your own case?

People still get stds with condoms on.

Anonymous wrote:cut male here, and I wish my dick was a 1/2 inch longer or at least had some more sensitive skin on it. why not? zero chance my sons would be circumsized, but alas I have only girls ....

It doesn't get shorter circumcised.

Anonymous wrote:Jesus was circumcised and never complained, case closed

Jesus was also crucified. Your point?

cut male here, and I wish my dick was a 1/2 inch longer or at least had some more sensitive skin on it. why not? zero chance my sons would be circumsized, but alas I have only girls ....

Anonymous wrote:Jesus was circumcised and never complained, case closed

Because faith-baiting wins the argument every time. Classy, PP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are counting on circumcision (rather than abstinence, condoms, etc) to avoid STDs, you are in trouble.

OMG no one is counting on circumcision as the sole method of avoiding STD's. That does not mean that we should ignore the benefits of partial protection.

Are you "counting on" false dichotomies to prove your case on circumcision?

But if you still need to use a condom to avoid STDs and HIV, then what exactly is the point of circumcizing? Circumcision contributes nothing additional. There is no difference between circed under a condom, and un-circed under a condom. Even if you have the circ, the condom is doing 100% of the work.

Are you "counting on" logical fallacies to prove your own case?

Jesus was circumcised and never complained, case closed

Anonymous wrote:My OB told me that there was NO medical reason to circumcise our son. He said he did them, was "an excellent surgeon" but he encouraged us to do the research for ourself. I ran into those studies and asked him about them. I can't remember everything he said, but he said there were a few problems with them.

First, they didn't have a placebo group, I think. Second, (and more importantly) he said that it didn't control for the fact that the circumsized group were, by virtue of having pain in the penis and by requirements of the surgeons, had to be celebrate for a period of time during the study. Moreover, the study was ended early, so the results were skewed by that. Finally, he said that while it MAY be helpful in reducing HIV transmission rates in subsaharan Africa, a lot of this had to do with a specific cultural practice of "dry sex" where the women put things in the vagina to dry it out before engaging in sex. This makes HIV transmission (through cuts and injuries) more common.

I am not really an alternative person. Most people would probably be surprised to learn we didn't circ. And we actually had not really thought that much about it before the convo with our OB. I'm very, very glad we did not circ, though, now that I know more about it and have researched even more.

I think most people in the states are not circ'ing their sons in order to reduce the transmission of HIV anyway. I think they're doing it for religious or cosmetic or "look like daddy" or fear of the kid being mocked, etc reasons. I'm not saying they're not valid reasons to consider it, but the whole "health" benefits is the thing they can tell themselves they're embracing. I hate to say that, but I do think it is true. It has seemed true of most of my friends who did circumcise their boys.

Agree.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to re-read the bolded part of my post Circumcision does significantly reduce the incidence of a number of horrible diseases/viruses.

Let me ask – do you vaccinate your children even though vaccines don’t 100% prevent the diseases they were developed against? You likely do because they reduce the likelihood of transmission of disease/viruses – just like circumcision does.

Do you have any numbers on that? How much does it reduce the chance for which disease?

The information is in the studies linked previously, and the answer depends on which study you read. One study says circumcision is correlated with increased transmission of HIV to women. Even the study with a provoking name like "Male Circumcision for the Prevention of HSV-2 and HPV Infections and Syphilis" shows no significant difference between circ and intact men for the incidence of the 3 STDs. CDC-quoted American studies seem to be split down the middle between studies that show no association between circ and HIV status and studies that do.

I think most of the HIV prevention discussion is based on the meta-analysis a PP mentioned that showed increased HIV risk for intact men in 21 out of 27 studies in Sub-Saharan Africa.

The CDC concludes "Male circumcision may also have a role in the prevention of HIV transmission in the United States [...] individual men may wish to consider circumcision as an additional HIV prevention measure, but they must recognize that circumcision 1) does carry risks and costs that must be considered in addition to potential benefits; 2) has only proven effective in reducing the risk of infection through insertive vaginal sex; and 3) confers only partial protection and should be considered only in conjunction with other proven prevention measures (abstinence, mutual monogamy, reduced number of sex partners, and correct and consistent condom use).

CDC acknowledges the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) position that the data are insufficient to recommend routine neonatal male circumcision. Note that nowhere does CDC (or any other major health organization) promote routine neonatal circumcision, which is the whole point of this debate! No one here is arguing for banning circumcision altogether; the issue is at hand is not about consenting individuals, but about routine circumcision of very young infants.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to re-read the bolded part of my post Circumcision does significantly reduce the incidence of a number of horrible diseases/viruses.

Let me ask – do you vaccinate your children even though vaccines don’t 100% prevent the diseases they were developed against? You likely do because they reduce the likelihood of transmission of disease/viruses – just like circumcision does.

Do you have any numbers on that? How much does it reduce the chance for which disease?

Try opening the links provided by PPs. From the CDC: "A systematic review and meta-analysis that focused on male circumcision and heterosexual transmission of HIV in Africa was published in 2000 [5]. It included 19 cross-sectional studies, 5 case-control studies, 3 cohort studies, and 1 partner study. A substantial protective effect of male circumcision on risk for HIV infection was noted, along with a reduced risk for genital ulcer disease. After adjustment for confounding factors in the population-based studies, the relative risk for HIV infection was 44% lower in circumcised men. The strongest association was seen in men at high risk, such as patients at sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics, for whom the adjusted relative risk was 71% lower for circumcised men."

No one is saying there is 100% protection but there is a signficant reduction in disease transmission. You can choose not to circumcise but don't say it's because there are no or limited medical benefits.

Regarding the studies I linked to, you can call it cherry picking if you wish, I call it (as it simply is) different studies showing different things about STD prevention, which shows there isn't scientific/ medical consensus on this, therefore my conclusion that the research to date is inconclusive.

The link wasn't to studies, the link was to the CDC position page indicating there's enough evidence to support circumcision as a means of reducing the transmission of HIV/STDs. The page includes a few studies that drew different conclusions but when discussiing the rationale behind a policy position, it is good practice to consider and acknowledge alternative positions. That's what that CDC position page did. Even considering the studies that did not support circumcision, the CDC concluded the research was strong enough to support circumcision. Your conclusion is the opposite of the CDC's - I'm going with CDC.

Just because there are studies that didn't find evidence of circumcision reducing the transmission of STDs, that doesn't mean there's not concensus among the world's health organizations. There is. That's why there's such a push to increase the number of circumcized men in Africa. You may not think circumcision an appropriate choice for your DS but that doesn't mean it should be banned, limited or discouraged.

Anonymous wrote:If you are counting on circumcision (rather than abstinence, condoms, etc) to avoid STDs, you are in trouble.

OMG no one is counting on circumcision as the sole method of avoiding STD's. That does not mean that we should ignore the benefits of partial protection.

Are you "counting on" false dichotomies to prove your case on circumcision?

If you are counting on circumcision (rather than abstinence, condoms, etc) to avoid STDs, you are in trouble.