Declining circumcision rates in the US

[_Mephitus]

Im not sure how hot a topic this will be. But in the 80's male circumcision was around 90%. Today its roughly 60% and declining. (a quick google will give you more than a dozen reports verifying this)

To me i think its nice to see we are slowly removing the barbaric mutilation of genitals in such a manor that serves no large scale benefit. (meaning that the benefits outweigh the problems)

[_dartagnan]

What the hell are you talking about it serves no benefit?

I live in Brazil where circumcisions are not automatic for newborns. In fact you have to go to a private doctor to have it done and that is precisely what we did for our son. Ask any doctor about why circumcision is better. The reason circumcision became the norm in the United States is because of the medical benefits. Children uncircumcised are more likely to get infection. In fact, our neighbors across the street have two boys 8 and 10 and they are considering having them circumcised for that precise reason.

I guess some might consider C-Sections during child birth "barbaric" just the same, but nobody can doubt the fact that it is safer. All births are done by c-section in Brazil.

[_Mephitus]

I never said it had NO benefit, merely that the benefits didn't outweigh the problems. (IMHO) which is also supported by many medical and social studies.

The American Academy of Pediatrics(AAP) has never recomended circumcision outside of specific medical needs. (even after a 40 year study! http://www.aap.org/advocacy/archives/marcircum.htm) And as far as urinary tract infections, they are low to begin with as we are in a much cleaner society today than previously. If we lived in a place where cleanliness was an issue or medical treatment was not accessable as they are very easily treatable with a few modern antibiotics. (such as many places in south america or in africa) i can see the argument for it there. But in the US its hardly needed any more. Its more often than not done as a religious move (which i question why its not done when they can make a choice on a permanent bodily modification) or as merely a cosmetic modification. Which all i have to say is....who cares how it looks? Are you going to be looking at his penis wishing it lookoed different? Or will the kid, since he has to live with the damned thing?

pros and cons http://www.naturalfamilyonline.com/arti ... cision.htm

If you want to cite preventitive medicine on things, then why not start doing early mastectomy's? 1 in 4 women in the US will get breast cancer at some point in their lives. that's MUCH higher than ANY problems that could theoreticaly arrise from uncircumcised men.

Theres also the issue that 80% of women in the US who have had contact with both intact men and circumcised men prefer intact. (Kinsey institute) And men who have had sexual behaviour before and after circumcistion also prefered being intact in nearly all cases. (also Kinsey Institute) Do yourself a favor and look up the history of the circumcision. The reason it became popular in US history was due to Kellog (yes, the cereal guy) who recomended it to lessen sexual sensitivity so as to prevent masturbation. Which was thought to cause a multitude of mental dissorders. It was later taken by religious groups and has been defended ever since.

My number one argument is, no matter the side you take with pros and cons, its a permanent body modification choice that would be best left to the child when they can sit down and fully understand the ideas surrounding the situation. Once you are of age, i really couldn't care less what modifications you do to your body. Chop off your arm, implant horns, get full body tattoos, get a frenum ladder installed in a few "choice locations", whatever you want. So long as its YOU making that choice.

[_Fortigurn]

To me I think its nice to see we are slowly removing the barbaric mutilation of genitals in such a manor that serves no large scale benefit. (meaning that the benefits outweigh the problems)

I wasn't circumcised, and my sons won't be, but I think it's absolute Grade A sensationalist melodrama to refer to circumcision as 'the barbaric mutilation of genitals'. Hundreds of infants have superfluous digits removed every year, but would you call that 'the barbaric mutilation of limbs'?

[_dartagnan]

The American Academy of Pediatrics(AAP) has never recomended circumcision outside of specific medical needs. (even after a 40 year study! http://www.aap.org/advocacy/archives/marcircum.htm)

That article is 8 years old and is based on the assumption that since most medical problems caused by penile infection can be cured with simple antibiotics, then it is OK to go ahead and risk infection. But what are the risks of circumcision even according to this article?

“Research suggests that circumcision is generally a safe procedure. Complications occur in 1 in 200 to 1 in 500 circumcised newborn males and are most often minor; the two most common are mild bleeding and local infection.”

I would feel better knowing that my son is not going to be subjected to any of the numerous penile related infections throughout his childhood; even if prevention means taking a 1 in 200 chance that he might suffer “mild bleeding” only once at birth. The logic here fails to convince me. I suggest this (http://www.circinfo.net/#costbenefit) website which contains updated (2006) information about the current studies and statistics on the risks/benefits of circumcision:

The purpose of this site is to provide a balanced up-to-date review of scientific studies on circumcision that have been published mainly in reputable international medical and scientific journals after a formal, critical refereeing process by experts in the field. Listed are 410 references. Most can be found by the reader in any medical library or internet referencing service, such as PubMed. The message they convey is quite clear. Unfortunately, the topic of circumcision has been made unnecessarily controversial because of emotive propaganda and opinions placed on the internet by extremist anti-circumcision organizations. It is the intention of the present overview to provide sound information that should be of assistance to parents, medical professionals and others who are seeking the truth. The author is a full professor in the medical faculty of a major very prestigious highly reputable university, has over 35 years of scientific research experience and more than 240 research publications.

It is a fine and detailed read that takes to task many of the critical studies which do not account for all of the relevant information.

Its more often than not done as a religious move (which I question why its not done when they can make a choice on a permanent bodily modification) or as merely a cosmetic modification.

Actually religious motivation is around 3% of those who choose circumcision. A 2001 study shows that most parents did it not for religious reasons, but for health reasons: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/c ... /107/2/e20

Which all I have to say is....who cares how it looks? Are you going to be looking at his penis wishing it lookoed different? Or will the kid, since he has to live with the damned thing?

To be a kid in gym class in high school with the only uncircumcised penis, can be quite a traumatic thing. Teenage kids are generally unfamiliar with the visual differences between the two and some will naturally poke fun of it, which usually spreads throughout school. That happened in my school at least.

If you want to cite preventitive medicine on things, then why not start doing early mastectomy's? 1 in 4 women in the US will get breast cancer at some point in their lives. that's MUCH higher than ANY problems that could theoreticaly arrise from uncircumcised men.

Chopping off entire organs which help define a woman, is hardly comparable to snipping a tiny piece of skin that would probably result in temporary mild bleeding, if any complication occurred at all.

Theres also the issue that 80% of women in the US who have had contact with both intact men and circumcised men prefer intact.

Oh so now sexual preference plays a role in medical benefits? I also think most men prefer their women with breasts intact.

And men who have had sexual behaviour before and after circumcistion also prefered being intact in nearly all cases.

In January 2007, The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), stated "The effect of circumcision on penile sensation or sexual satisfaction is unknown. Because the epithelium of a circumcised glans becomes cornified, and because some feel nerve over-stimulation leads to desensitization, many believe that the glans of a circumcised penis is less sensitive. Opinions differ about how this decreased sensitivity, which may result in prolonged time to orgasm, affects sexual satisfaction. An investigation of the exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination of the glans of circumcised and uncircumcised men found no difference on comparison. No valid evidence to date, however, supports the notion that being circumcised affects sexual sensation or satisfaction." http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/clin ... ision.html

Someone I knew in Atlanta didn’t have his kid circumcised. When I asked him why, his response was, and I kid you not, that his penis would grow larger and he would thank him later in life for that. This is the same guy who owned a penis pump. Welcome to the age where porno considerations outweigh the medical.

It was later taken by religious groups and has been defended ever since.

Yes, most defenders are doctors.

My number one argument is, no matter the side you take with pros and cons, its a permanent body modification choice that would be best left to the child when they can sit down and fully understand the ideas surrounding the situation. Once you are of age, I really couldn't care less what modifications you do to your body. Chop off your arm, implant horns, get full body tattoos, get a frenum ladder installed in a few "choice locations", whatever you want. So long as its YOU making that choice.

Well since medical considerations are thrown out the window, maybe we should leave the umbilical cord intact too.

[Guest]

I think it's absolute Grade A sensationalist melodrama to refer to circumcision as 'the barbaric mutilation of genitals'.

This is essentially what provoked a response from me. I couldn't care less what someone does with his genitals, but just don't tell me my decision is based strictly on religion and that it is barbaric.

Again, slicing open a uterus during C-Section procedures might also seem barbaric for the medically inept.

[_Runtu]

I think it's absolute Grade A sensationalist melodrama to refer to circumcision as 'the barbaric mutilation of genitals'.

This is essentially what provoked a response from me. I couldn't care less what someone does with his genitals, but just don't tell me my decision is based strictly on religion and that it is barbaric.

Again, slicing open a uterus during C-Section procedures might also seem barbaric for medically inept.

I was not circumcised because the doctors were too busy performing major surgery on me the day I was born. I wondered whether I should circumcise my 3 boys, and I realized that I have indeed had been through some infections as a child that my circumcised brothers had not. So, based on anecdotal evidence, I decided to have my sons circumcised.

That said, do whatever you want. I really don't care. Let's leave the hyperbole to MADB. ;-)

[_Fortigurn]

So, based on anecdotal evidence, I decided to have my sons circumcised.

No, you didn't have them circumcised, you barbarically mutilated them against their will. Get it right.

[_Runtu]

So, based on anecdotal evidence, I decided to have my sons circumcised.

No, you didn't have them circumcised, you barbarically mutilated them against their will. Get it right.

In a sense, that's true. I watched the doctor do the procedure on the first one. Decided against watching the second two. LOL

[_Fortigurn]

So, based on anecdotal evidence, I decided to have my sons circumcised.

No, you didn't have them circumcised, you barbarically mutilated them against their will. Get it right.

In a sense, that's true. I watched the doctor do the procedure on the first one. Decided against watching the second two. LOL

Oh, so now you're saying you mutilated them for your own entertainment! It just gets worse!