So, I can't tattoo my child until they are 16 or 18 (depending on state), but I can chop off their foreskin just so it "looks better". Please explain.

Ukman_44 · 2020-05-30T08:34:35+00:00

This is seriously fucked up. The main (non-religious) reason for circumcision is cosmetic - a decision made by a boy's parents (usually the mother in...

[–]FinallyReborn 42 points43 points44 points 6 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ukman_44[S] 24 points25 points26 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]FinallyReborn 22 points23 points24 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]eldred2 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]homo_ignotus 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]xNOM 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]FinallyReborn 12 points13 points14 points 6 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

[+]xNOM -12 points-11 points-10 points 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

I'm not. Because I'm not a teenaged snowflake who does their research on Reddit.

"Male circumcision: Global trends and determinants of prevalence, safety and acceptability" (PDF). World Health Organization. 2007. p. 8. Retrieved 4 March 2009.

Hart-Cooper, Geoffrey D.; Tao, Guoyu; Stock, Jeffrey A.; Hoover, Karen W. (November 2014). "Circumcision of privately insured males aged 0 to 18 years in the United States". Pediatrics. 134 (5): 950–956. doi:10.1542/peds.2014-1007. ISSN 1098-4275. PMID 25332502.

Introcaso, Camille E.; Xu, Fujie; Kilmarx, Peter H.; Zaidi, Akbar; Markowitz, Lauri E. (July 2013). "Prevalence of circumcision among men and boys aged 14 to 59 years in the United States, National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys 2005-2010". Sexually Transmitted Diseases. 40 (7): 521–525. doi:10.1097/01.OLQ.0000430797.56499.0d.

[–]FinallyReborn 7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+]xNOM -14 points-13 points-12 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dim6969696969420 10 points11 points12 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FinallyReborn 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]xNOM -7 points-6 points-5 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AdrianRPNK 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]xNOM -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chomponthebit 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Picker-Rick 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darth-trax 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]DarthEquus 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The commonly claimed benefits of circumcision are that it reduces the risk of getting UTIs, penile cancer, and prevents STDs. These claims are based on reports made by the American Association of Pediatrics. But there is a lot of criticism regarding their research. The important points are mentioned below:

It takes around 100 circumcisions to prevent a single UTI, and UTIs can be treated easily by other less invasive ways, like antibiotics. Not to mention, it is easily prevented with basic hygiene. 1 case of UTI may be prevented at the cost of 2 cases of haemorrhage, infection, or, in rare instances, more severe outcomes or even death. This negates whatever minuscule protective benefit circumcision might have against UTIs. And it should be noted that girls are about 10 times more likely to get UTIs and yet we do not alter their bodies to reduce their risk of infection
Penile cancer is one of the rarest forms of cancer in the Western world (∼1 case in 100,000 men per year, rarer than male breast cancer), almost always occurring at a later age with the average being 68. When diagnosed early, the disease generally has a good survival rate. According to the AAP report, between 909 and 322,000 circumcisions are needed to prevent 1 case of penile cancer. Penile cancer is linked to infection with HPV, which can be prevented without tissue loss through condom use and prophylactic inoculation. Incidence rates of penile cancer in the United States, where ∼75% of the non-Jewish, non-Muslim male population is circumcised, are similar to rates in northern Europe, where ≤10% of the male population is circumcised
The studies that claim circumcision prevents STDs often confuse correlation with causation. In fact, circumcision might increase the risk of contracting STDs, because it can cause pain and bleeding, increasing the risk of infection. The authors of the AAP report forget to stress that responsible use of condoms, regardless of circumcision status, will provide close to 100% reduction in risk for any STD

Another common claim is that circumcision reduces the risk of men contracting HIV by 60%. These were the results of some trials done in Africa, which found that 2.5% of intact men and 1.3% of circumcised men got HIV. The 60% figure is the relative risk (2.5%-1.2%)÷2.5%. The AAP also ignored the statistics showing that there was a 61% relative increase (6% absolute increase) in HIV infection among female partners of circumcised men. It appears that the number of circumcisions needed to infect a woman was 16.7, with one woman becoming infected for every 17 circumcisions performed

Moreover, there were several methodological errors in these trials:

The circumcised experimental group got more medical care, including education on the proper use of condoms
The trials were terminated early when statistical significance was reached
In one study, circumcised men's infection rates were increasing faster than the intact men's, until the study was terminated early
The circumcised group could not have sex for 4-6 weeks after the circumcision; this was excluded from the analysis and distorts the results
HIV was contracted through means other than sex
Many researchers had cultural and religious biases

The findings are also not in line with the fact that the United States combines a high prevalence of STDs and HIV infections with high circumcision rates. The situation in most European countries is the reverse: low circumcision rates combined with low HIV and STD rates. Therefore, other factors play a more important role in the spread of HIV than circumcision status. This also shows that there are alternate, less intrusive, and more effective ways of preventing HIV than circumcision, such as consistent use of condoms, safe-sex programs, easy access to antiretroviral drugs, and clean needle programs

Further criticism of the African RCTs:

Critique of African RCTs into Male Circumcision and HIV Sexual Transmission

Circumcision of male infants and children as a public health measure in developed countries: A critical assessment of recent evidence

Sexually Transmitted Infections and Male Circumcision: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Even if circumcision did reduce rates of HIV transmission, which it doesn't, it would be a small reduction. “The number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1,231 in white males to 65 in black males, with an average in all males of 298. The model did not account for the cost of complications of circumcision. In addition, there is a risk that men may overestimate the protective effect of being circumcised and be less likely to adopt safe sex practices.”

And besides all of that, babies are not having sex. They are not transmitting ANY STDs to anyone. By the time a person is old enough to engage in sexual activities, they are old enough to decide about such body modifications for themselves

Balanitis is extremely rare. Having a surgical incision in a dirty diaper increases the risk of balanitis. This risk decreases in all males drastically after puberty. It is easily preventable with good hygiene and most cases respond to treatment in under a week

Phimosis doesn't warrant circumcision. It can be cured by stretching the foreskin gently at regular intervals. For faster results, steroid creams can also be used. If stretching doesn't work, surgery like Z-plasty and preputioplasty can be done as a last resort. None of these treatments results in the loss of tissue. Moreover, some doctors misdiagnose phimosis in young children, when they're supposed to have foreskins which can't retract, until puberty, though in some cases the foreskin becomes retractable earlier. Improper handling of the foreskins of children can cause phimosis

"An estimated 0.8% to 1.6% of boys will require circumcision before puberty, most commonly to treat phimosis. The first-line medical treatment of phimosis involves applying a topical steroid twice a day to the foreskin, accompanied by gentle traction ... allow[ing] the foreskin to become retractable in 80% of treated cases, thus usually avoiding the need for circumcision."

Smegma and hygiene are ridiculous reasons for circumcision. Properly washing the penis is enough. If you don't wash your junk, it will get dirty, period. Foreskins aren't releasing a constant ooze of smegma. You would have to neglect your basic hygiene for some time to get a significant buildup. And even then, washing takes maybe a second or two. It's not rocket science

The legitimacy of research supporting circumcision

The literature review by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which supports circumcision, does not mention any of the functions of the foreskin, implying that it is useless

Ethicist Brian Earp shows how scientific literature can be filled with bias, how medical literature can get biased with controversial opinions disguised as systematic reviews, and how a small group of researchers with an agenda can rig a systematic review in medicine to make it say whatever they want.

Opposition to circumcision by foreign medical organizations

Other medical associations and doctors in the world, from the Netherlands, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, Germany, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Slovenia and South Africa have stated that circumcision causes complications, have also said that the evidence supporting circumcision is insufficient and flawed, and consider the AAP's views scientifically unsound. Some of them have gone on record in opposition to non-therapeutic circumcision of boys. Some doctors in the US oppose it too

Functions of the Foreskin

The foreskin has several unique physiological functions. The foreskin represents at least a third of the penile skin. It protects the glans from abrasion and contact with clothes. It also increases sexual pleasure by sliding up and down on the shaft, stimulating the glans by alternately covering and exposing it. Not to mention that it is highly erogenous tissue in and of itself.

Attempts to legitimize FGM

Another issue with using "health benefits" to justify infant male circumcision is that the same poor reasons given for baby boys are the same reasons being used in attempts to legalize and legitimize FGM on girls. They will try and use the logic that: "If it is legal on boys because there are slight medical benefits, then it should be legal and acceptable for girls as well."

[–]Darth-trax 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheCanadianChocolate 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]needletothebar1 points 6 years ago [recovered] (8 children) | Copy Link

it may be 75% for babies being born today, but it's around 90% for adult men. most of us were born in the 1980s, 1970s, and 1960s when infant rates were 90% or higher.

[–]xNOM 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+]needletothebar1 points 6 years ago [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

i looked at the papers. one of them deals exclusively with children, and the other one has a cutoff at 59 years of age. none deals with all living men.

[–]xNOM 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+]needletothebar1 points 6 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

right here: https://i.imgur.com/Y2vox23.png

that wasn't about any age range. that was about all living males.

[–]xNOM 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]needletothebar1 points 6 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

that's my point: you said NOTHING about an age range.

[–]xNOM 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]outlet_135 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DarthEquus 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I would suggest checking out this video if you get a chance: https://youtu.be/GBH0g_Cl7Rk

It is a short presentation by Brian Earp, a bioethicist, on this very subject. But when you are referring to FGM, you seem to only be referring to the most extreme forms of it. Namely clitorectomy and infibulation. I do not trivialize either of these awful, barbaric practices. But it should be noted that the term Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) covers a much wider array of genital cuttings on women:

FGM Type 1 – This refers to the partial or total removal of the clitoral glans (the part of the clitoris that is visible to the naked eye) and/or the clitoral prepuce (“hood”). This is sometimes called a “clitoridectomy,”28 although such a designation is misleading: the external clitoral glans is not always removed in this type of FGM, and in some versions of the procedure–such as with so-called “hoodectomies”–it is deliberately left untouched.33 There are two major sub-types. Type 1(a) is the partial or total removal of just the clitoral prepuce (ie, the fold of skin that covers the clitoral glans, much as the penile prepuce covers the penile glans in boys; in fact, the two structures are embryonically homologous).34 d Type 1(b) is the same as Type 1(a), but includes the partial or total removal of the external clitoral glans. Note that two-thirds or more of the entire clitoris (including most of its erectile tissue) is internal to the body envelope,35 and is therefore not removed by this type, or any type, of FGM. FGM Type 2 – This refers to the partial or total removal of the external clitoral glans and/or the clitoral hood (in the senses described above), and/or the labia minora, with or without removal of the labia majora. This form of FGM is sometimes termed “excision.” Type 2(a) is the “trimming” or removal of the labia minora only; this is also known as labiaplasty when it is performed in a Western context by a professional surgeon (in which case it is usually intended as a form of cosmetic “enhancement”).33 In this context, such an intervention is not typically regarded as being a form of “mutilation,” even though it formally fits the WHO definition. Moreover, even though such “enhancement” is most often carried out on consenting adult women in this cultural context, it is also sometimes performed on minors, apparently with the permission of their parents.11,36 There are two further subtypes of FGM Type 2, involving combinations of the above interventions. FGM Type 3 – This refers to a narrowing of the vaginal orifice with the creation of a seal by cutting and repositioning the labia minora and/or the labia majora, with or without excision of the external clitoris. This is the most extreme type of FGM, although it is also one of the rarest, occurring in approximately 10% of cases.11,37 When the “seal” is left in place, there is only a very small hole to allow for the passage of urine and menstrual blood, and sexual intercourse is rendered essentially impossible. This type of FGM is commonly called “infibulation” or “pharaonic circumcision” and has two additional subtypes. FGM Type 4 – This refers to “all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes” and includes such interventions as pricking, nicking, piercing, stretching, scraping, and cauterization.32 Counterintuitively for this final category – which one might expect to be even “worse” than the ones before it – several of the interventions just mentioned are among the least severe forms of FGM. Piercing, for example, is another instance of a procedure – along with labiaplasty (FGM Type 2) and “clitoral unhooding”33 (FGM Type 1) – that is popular in Western countries for “non-medical purposes,” and can be performed hygienically under appropriate conditions.11,38–40

The less severe forms are conflated with the removal of the entire clitoris, and people wrongly believe that all FGM is worse than MGM. (And let's not even get started on more extreme versions of MGM such as subincision, penectomy, and castration)

Despite that, cutting female and male genitals have the following similarities:

Over 100 million procedures have been performed on current populations
It's unnecessary and extremely painful
It can have adverse sexual and psychological effects
It's generally done by force on children
It is generally supported by local medical doctors
Pertinent biological facts are not generally known where procedures are practiced
It is defended with reasons such as tradition, religion, aesthetics, cleanliness, and health
The rationale has currently or historically been connected to controlling sexual pleasure
It's often believed there's no effect on normal sexual functioning
It's generally accepted and supported by those who have been subjected to it
Those who are cut feel compelled to cut their children
The choice may be motivated by underlying psychosexual reasons
Critical public discussion is generally taboo where the procedure is practiced
It can result in serious complications up to, and including, death
The adverse effects are hidden by repression and denial
Dozens of potentially harmful physiological, emotional, behavioral, sexual, and social effects on individuals and societies have never been studied
Where female genital cutting is practiced, cutting the genitals of males is also practiced (though, not necessarily vice versa)

Either way, people are cutting the genitals of children. That is not a very difficult thing to compare.

[–][deleted] 22 points23 points24 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Picker-Rick 9 points10 points11 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]VenusDescending 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]exclusiveasparagus 11 points12 points13 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]skyderper13 11 points12 points13 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ukman_44[S] 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Picker-Rick 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RickWest495 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]needletothebar1 points 6 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

yup, my father told me that nobody asked him and he never gave it any thought. "kid stuff" was my mom's domain.

[–]RickWest495 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IntenseLamb -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Picker-Rick 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Like any injury it heals a little better the younger you are. But adults can take pain medications and care for their own wounds. Nothing in a diaper is going to feel good on an open wound.

The clitoris is only removed in some instances. Often only the hood or "female foreskin" is removed. But it's banned too. Even the slightest cut on a female baby's genitals is illegal. Also you should read up on female anatomy. The part you see is only the tip equivalent to the head of the penis. The average clitoris is over 4 inches long and extends into the body. https://mosex.wordpress.com/2011/11/30/the-internal-clitoris/ and it's entirely possible to have a full and orgasmic sex life after FGM. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/how-this-female-genital-mutilation-survivor-learned-to-love-sex_n_5759d1fae4b0e39a28ad0672

“Even though the clitoris has been removed, that doesn’t stop us from having full capacity of pleasure during sex,” Kamara told HuffPost at the Women Deliver conference in Copenhagen last month. “It’s just difficult because you have to engage both physically and mentally.”

This isn't to say that FGM is good. But to end the debate that it's somehow ok to outlaw FGM while MGM remains "normal" and to put things into perspective. Remember that in countries that practice FGM, they think you're the weirdo. They also make arguments that it's cleaner, men prefer it... All the same stuff that people here say about MGM.

Also the chance of complications in American circumcisions is low. 1% or less. But with 3000 being performed every day that means up to 30 boys every day are experiencing denuding (taking off too much skin so the penis cannot be sewn back together), complete penis removal, infections, a couple hundred every year experience death, sometimes they clench so hard in pain that they burst their internal organs... Yes it's rare but you tell that to a boy with no penis or a parent with a dead son. Imagine a doctor taking away your healthy baby and then looking you in the eye and saying "he didn't make it." Or deciding if your baby gets to be a girl without a vagina or a man without a penis because they cut it off.

There is no excuse to ever have a baby die from a cosmetic surgery. Ever.

That and uncircumcised feels better. Circumcision or either gender is designed to reduce pleasure and make a person more pure since pleasure is generally considered sinful.

[–]DarthEquus 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I would also suggest checking out this video if you get a chance: https://youtu.be/GBH0g_Cl7Rk

It is a short presentation by Brian Earp, a bioethicist, on this very subject. But when you are referring to FGM, you seem to only be referring to the most extreme forms of it. Namely clitorectomy and infibulation. I do not trivialize either of these awful, barbaric practices. But it should be noted that the term Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) covers a much wider array of genital cuttings on women:

FGM Type 1 – This refers to the partial or total removal of the clitoral glans (the part of the clitoris that is visible to the naked eye) and/or the clitoral prepuce (“hood”). This is sometimes called a “clitoridectomy,”28 although such a designation is misleading: the external clitoral glans is not always removed in this type of FGM, and in some versions of the procedure–such as with so-called “hoodectomies”–it is deliberately left untouched.33 There are two major sub-types. Type 1(a) is the partial or total removal of just the clitoral prepuce (ie, the fold of skin that covers the clitoral glans, much as the penile prepuce covers the penile glans in boys; in fact, the two structures are embryonically homologous).34 d Type 1(b) is the same as Type 1(a), but includes the partial or total removal of the external clitoral glans. Note that two-thirds or more of the entire clitoris (including most of its erectile tissue) is internal to the body envelope,35 and is therefore not removed by this type, or any type, of FGM. FGM Type 2 – This refers to the partial or total removal of the external clitoral glans and/or the clitoral hood (in the senses described above), and/or the labia minora, with or without removal of the labia majora. This form of FGM is sometimes termed “excision.” Type 2(a) is the “trimming” or removal of the labia minora only; this is also known as labiaplasty when it is performed in a Western context by a professional surgeon (in which case it is usually intended as a form of cosmetic “enhancement”).33 In this context, such an intervention is not typically regarded as being a form of “mutilation,” even though it formally fits the WHO definition. Moreover, even though such “enhancement” is most often carried out on consenting adult women in this cultural context, it is also sometimes performed on minors, apparently with the permission of their parents.11,36 There are two further subtypes of FGM Type 2, involving combinations of the above interventions. FGM Type 3 – This refers to a narrowing of the vaginal orifice with the creation of a seal by cutting and repositioning the labia minora and/or the labia majora, with or without excision of the external clitoris. This is the most extreme type of FGM, although it is also one of the rarest, occurring in approximately 10% of cases.11,37 When the “seal” is left in place, there is only a very small hole to allow for the passage of urine and menstrual blood, and sexual intercourse is rendered essentially impossible. This type of FGM is commonly called “infibulation” or “pharaonic circumcision” and has two additional subtypes. FGM Type 4 – This refers to “all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes” and includes such interventions as pricking, nicking, piercing, stretching, scraping, and cauterization.32 Counterintuitively for this final category – which one might expect to be even “worse” than the ones before it – several of the interventions just mentioned are among the least severe forms of FGM. Piercing, for example, is another instance of a procedure – along with labiaplasty (FGM Type 2) and “clitoral unhooding”33 (FGM Type 1) – that is popular in Western countries for “non-medical purposes,” and can be performed hygienically under appropriate conditions.11,38–40

The less severe forms are conflated with the removal of the entire clitoris, and people wrongly believe that all FGM is worse than MGM. (And let's not even get started on more extreme versions of MGM such as subincision, penectomy, and castration)

Despite that, cutting female and male genitals have the following similarities:

Over 100 million procedures have been performed on current populations
It's unnecessary and extremely painful
It can have adverse sexual and psychological effects
It's generally done by force on children
It is generally supported by local medical doctors
Pertinent biological facts are not generally known where procedures are practiced
It is defended with reasons such as tradition, religion, aesthetics, cleanliness, and health
The rationale has currently or historically been connected to controlling sexual pleasure
It's often believed there's no effect on normal sexual functioning
It's generally accepted and supported by those who have been subjected to it
Those who are cut feel compelled to cut their children
The choice may be motivated by underlying psychosexual reasons
Critical public discussion is generally taboo where the procedure is practiced
It can result in serious complications up to, and including, death
The adverse effects are hidden by repression and denial
Dozens of potentially harmful physiological, emotional, behavioral, sexual, and social effects on individuals and societies have never been studied
Where female genital cutting is practiced, cutting the genitals of males is also practiced (though, not necessarily vice versa)

Either way, people are cutting the genitals of children. That is not a very difficult thing to compare.

[–]IntenseLamb 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DarthEquus 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CantHaveANormalName -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thicc-daddy_senpai -3 points-2 points-1 points 6 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]towersofmidnight-13 -36 points-35 points-34 points 6 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[–]Catcrumble 21 points22 points23 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mikesteane 16 points17 points18 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnalGenocideComeBack 16 points17 points18 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+]towersofmidnight-13 -13 points-12 points-11 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnalGenocideComeBack 7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]towersofmidnight-13 -3 points-2 points-1 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Picker-Rick 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]towersofmidnight-13 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 6 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

The commonly claimed benefits of circumcision are that it reduces the risk of getting UTIs, penile cancer, and prevents STDs. These claims are based on reports made by the American Association of Pediatrics. But there is a lot of criticism regarding their research. The important points are mentioned below:

• ⁠It takes around 100 circumcisions to prevent a single UTI, and UTIs can be treated easily by other less invasive ways, like antibiotics. Not to mention, it is easily prevented with basic hygiene. 1 case of UTI may be prevented at the cost of 2 cases of haemorrhage, infection, or, in rare instances, more severe outcomes or even death. This negates whatever minuscule protective benefit circumcision might have against UTIs. And it should be noted that girls are about 10 times more likely go get UTIs and yet we do not alter their bodies to reduce their risk of infection • ⁠Penile cancer is one of the rarest forms of cancer in the Western world (∼1 case in 100,000 men per year, rarer than male breast cancer), almost always occurring at a later age with the average being 68. When diagnosed early, the disease generally has a good survival rate. According to the AAP report, between 909 and 322,000 circumcisions are needed to prevent 1 case of penile cancer. Penile cancer is linked to infection with HPV, which can be prevented without tissue loss through condom use and prophylactic inoculation. Incidence rates of penile cancer in the United States, where ∼75% of the non-Jewish, non-Muslim male population is circumcised, are similar to rates in northern Europe, where ≤10% of the male population is circumcised • ⁠The studies that claim circumcision prevents STDs often confuse correlation with causation. In fact, circumcision might increase the risk of contracting STDs, because it can cause pain and bleeding, increasing the risk of infection. The authors of the AAP report forget to stress that responsible use of condoms, regardless of circumcision status, will provide close to 100% reduction in risk for any STD

Another common claim is that circumcision reduces the risk of men contracting HIV by 60%. These were the results of some trials done in Africa, which found that 2.5% of intact men and 1.3% of circumcised men got HIV. The 60% figure is the relative risk (2.5%-1.2%)÷2.5%. The AAP also ignored the statistics showing that there was a 61% relative increase (6% absolute increase) in HIV infection among female partners of circumcised men. It appears that the number of circumcisions needed to infect a woman was 16.7, with one woman becoming infected for every 17 circumcisions performed

Moreover, there were several methodological errors in these trials:

• ⁠The circumcised experimental group got more medical care, including education on the proper use of condoms • ⁠The trials were terminated early when statistical significance was reached • ⁠In one study, circumcised men's infection rates were increasing faster than the intact men's, until the study was terminated early • ⁠The circumcised group could not have sex for 4-6 weeks after the circumcision; this was excluded from the analysis and distorts the results • ⁠HIV was contracted through means other than sex • ⁠Many researchers had cultural and religious biases

The findings are also not in line with the fact that the United States combines a high prevalence of STDs and HIV infections with high circumcision rates. The situation in most European countries is the reverse: low circumcision rates combined with low HIV and STD rates. Therefore, other factors play a more important role in the spread of HIV than circumcision status. This also shows that there are alternate, less intrusive, and more effective ways of preventing HIV than circumcision, such as consistent use of condoms, safe-sex programs, easy access to antiretroviral drugs, and clean needle programs

Further criticism of the African RCTs:

Critique of African RCTs into Male Circumcision and HIV Sexual Transmission

Circumcision of male infants and children as a public health measure in developed countries: A critical assessment of recent evidence

Sexually Transmitted Infections and Male Circumcision: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Even if circumcision did reduce rates of HIV transmission, which it doesn't, it would be a small reduction. “The number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1,231 in white males to 65 in black males, with an average in all males of 298. The model did not account for the cost of complications of circumcision. In addition, there is a risk that men may overestimate the protective effect of being circumcised and be less likely to adopt safe sex practices.”

And besides all of that, babies are not having sex. They are not transmitting ANY STDs to anyone. By the time a person is old enough to engage in sexual activities, they are old enough to decide about such body modifications for themselves

Balanitis is extremely rare. Having a surgical incision in a dirty diaper increases the risk of balanitis. This risk decreases in all males drastically after puberty. It is easily preventable with good hygiene and most cases respond to treatment in under a week

Phimosis doesn't warrant circumcision. It can be cured by stretching the foreskin gently at regular intervals. For faster results, steroid creams can also be used. If stretching doesn't work, surgery like Z-plasty and preputioplasty can be done as a last resort. None of these treatments results in the loss of tissue. Moreover, some doctors misdiagnose phimosis in young children, when they're supposed to have foreskins which can't retract, until puberty, though in some cases the foreskin becomes retractable earlier. Improper handling of the foreskins of children can cause phimosis

"An estimated 0.8% to 1.6% of boys will require circumcision before puberty, most commonly to treat phimosis. The first-line medical treatment of phimosis involves applying a topical steroid twice a day to the foreskin, accompanied by gentle traction ... allow[ing] the foreskin to become retractable in 80% of treated cases, thus usually avoiding the need for circumcision."

Smegma and hygiene are a ridiculous reasons for circumcision. Properly washing the penis is enough. If you don't wash your junk, it will get dirty, period. Foreskins aren't releasing a constant ooze of smegma. You would have to neglect your basic hygiene for some time to get a significant buildup. And even then, washing takes maybe a second or two. It's not rocket science

The legitimacy of research supporting circumcision

The literature review by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which supports circumcision, does not mention any of the functions of the foreskin, implying that it is useless

Ethicist Brian Earp shows how scientific literature can be filled with bias, how medical literature can get biased with controversial opinions disguised as systematic reviews, and how a small group of researchers with an agenda can rig a systematic review in medicine to make it say whatever they want.

Opposition to circumcision by foreign medical organizations

Other medical associations and doctors in the world, from the Netherlands, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, Germany, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Slovenia and South Africa have stated that circumcision causes complications, have also said that the evidence supporting circumcision is insufficient and flawed, and consider the AAP's views scientifically unsound. Some of them have gone on record in opposition to non-therapeutic circumcision of boys. Some doctors in the US oppose it too

Functions of the Foreskin

The foreskin has several unique physiological functions. The foreskin represents at least a third of the penile skin. It protects the glans from abrasion and contact with clothes. It also increases sexual pleasure by sliding up and down on the shaft, stimulating the glans by alternately covering and exposing it. Not to mention that it is highly erogenous tissue in and of itself.

Attempts to legitimize FGM

Another issue with using "health benefits" to justify infant male circumcision is that the same poor reasons given for baby boys are the same reasons being used in attempts to legalize and legitimize FGM on girls. They will try and use the logic that: "If it is legal on boys because there are slight medical benefits, then it should be legal and acceptable for girls as well."

[–]DarthEquus 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The commonly claimed benefits of circumcision are that it reduces the risk of getting UTIs, penile cancer, and prevents STDs. These claims are based on reports made by the American Association of Pediatrics. But there is a lot of criticism regarding their research. The important points are mentioned below:

It takes around 100 circumcisions to prevent a single UTI, and UTIs can be treated easily by other less invasive ways, like antibiotics. Not to mention, it is easily prevented with basic hygiene. 1 case of UTI may be prevented at the cost of 2 cases of haemorrhage, infection, or, in rare instances, more severe outcomes or even death. This negates whatever minuscule protective benefit circumcision might have against UTIs. And it should be noted that girls are about 10 times more likely to get UTIs and yet we do not alter their bodies to reduce their risk of infection
Penile cancer is one of the rarest forms of cancer in the Western world (∼1 case in 100,000 men per year, rarer than male breast cancer), almost always occurring at a later age with the average being 68. When diagnosed early, the disease generally has a good survival rate. According to the AAP report, between 909 and 322,000 circumcisions are needed to prevent 1 case of penile cancer. Penile cancer is linked to infection with HPV, which can be prevented without tissue loss through condom use and prophylactic inoculation. Incidence rates of penile cancer in the United States, where ∼75% of the non-Jewish, non-Muslim male population is circumcised, are similar to rates in northern Europe, where ≤10% of the male population is circumcised
The studies that claim circumcision prevents STDs often confuse correlation with causation. In fact, circumcision might increase the risk of contracting STDs, because it can cause pain and bleeding, increasing the risk of infection. The authors of the AAP report forget to stress that responsible use of condoms, regardless of circumcision status, will provide close to 100% reduction in risk for any STD

Another common claim is that circumcision reduces the risk of men contracting HIV by 60%. These were the results of some trials done in Africa, which found that 2.5% of intact men and 1.3% of circumcised men got HIV. The 60% figure is the relative risk (2.5%-1.2%)÷2.5%. The AAP also ignored the statistics showing that there was a 61% relative increase (6% absolute increase) in HIV infection among female partners of circumcised men. It appears that the number of circumcisions needed to infect a woman was 16.7, with one woman becoming infected for every 17 circumcisions performed

Moreover, there were several methodological errors in these trials:

The circumcised experimental group got more medical care, including education on the proper use of condoms
The trials were terminated early when statistical significance was reached
In one study, circumcised men's infection rates were increasing faster than the intact men's, until the study was terminated early
The circumcised group could not have sex for 4-6 weeks after the circumcision; this was excluded from the analysis and distorts the results
HIV was contracted through means other than sex
Many researchers had cultural and religious biases

The findings are also not in line with the fact that the United States combines a high prevalence of STDs and HIV infections with high circumcision rates. The situation in most European countries is the reverse: low circumcision rates combined with low HIV and STD rates. Therefore, other factors play a more important role in the spread of HIV than circumcision status. This also shows that there are alternate, less intrusive, and more effective ways of preventing HIV than circumcision, such as consistent use of condoms, safe-sex programs, easy access to antiretroviral drugs, and clean needle programs

Further criticism of the African RCTs:

Critique of African RCTs into Male Circumcision and HIV Sexual Transmission

Circumcision of male infants and children as a public health measure in developed countries: A critical assessment of recent evidence

Sexually Transmitted Infections and Male Circumcision: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Even if circumcision did reduce rates of HIV transmission, which it doesn't, it would be a small reduction. “The number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1,231 in white males to 65 in black males, with an average in all males of 298. The model did not account for the cost of complications of circumcision. In addition, there is a risk that men may overestimate the protective effect of being circumcised and be less likely to adopt safe sex practices.”

And besides all of that, babies are not having sex. They are not transmitting ANY STDs to anyone. By the time a person is old enough to engage in sexual activities, they are old enough to decide about such body modifications for themselves

Balanitis is extremely rare. Having a surgical incision in a dirty diaper increases the risk of balanitis. This risk decreases in all males drastically after puberty. It is easily preventable with good hygiene and most cases respond to treatment in under a week

Phimosis doesn't warrant circumcision. It can be cured by stretching the foreskin gently at regular intervals. For faster results, steroid creams can also be used. If stretching doesn't work, surgery like Z-plasty and preputioplasty can be done as a last resort. None of these treatments results in the loss of tissue. Moreover, some doctors misdiagnose phimosis in young children, when they're supposed to have foreskins which can't retract, until puberty, though in some cases the foreskin becomes retractable earlier. Improper handling of the foreskins of children can cause phimosis

"An estimated 0.8% to 1.6% of boys will require circumcision before puberty, most commonly to treat phimosis. The first-line medical treatment of phimosis involves applying a topical steroid twice a day to the foreskin, accompanied by gentle traction ... allow[ing] the foreskin to become retractable in 80% of treated cases, thus usually avoiding the need for circumcision."

Smegma and hygiene are ridiculous reasons for circumcision. Properly washing the penis is enough. If you don't wash your junk, it will get dirty, period. Foreskins aren't releasing a constant ooze of smegma. You would have to neglect your basic hygiene for some time to get a significant buildup. And even then, washing takes maybe a second or two. It's not rocket science

The legitimacy of research supporting circumcision

The literature review by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which supports circumcision, does not mention any of the functions of the foreskin, implying that it is useless

Ethicist Brian Earp shows how scientific literature can be filled with bias, how medical literature can get biased with controversial opinions disguised as systematic reviews, and how a small group of researchers with an agenda can rig a systematic review in medicine to make it say whatever they want.

Opposition to circumcision by foreign medical organizations

Other medical associations and doctors in the world, from the Netherlands, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, Germany, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Slovenia and South Africa have stated that circumcision causes complications, have also said that the evidence supporting circumcision is insufficient and flawed, and consider the AAP's views scientifically unsound. Some of them have gone on record in opposition to non-therapeutic circumcision of boys. Some doctors in the US oppose it too

Functions of the Foreskin

The foreskin has several unique physiological functions. The foreskin represents at least a third of the penile skin. It protects the glans from abrasion and contact with clothes. It also increases sexual pleasure by sliding up and down on the shaft, stimulating the glans by alternately covering and exposing it. Not to mention that it is highly erogenous tissue in and of itself.

Attempts to legitimize FGM

Another issue with using "health benefits" to justify infant male circumcision is that the same poor reasons given for baby boys are the same reasons being used in attempts to legalize and legitimize FGM on girls. They will try and use the logic that: "If it is legal on boys because there are slight medical benefits, then it should be legal and acceptable for girls as well."

r/Intactivism

[–]DarthEquus 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]towersofmidnight-13 -2 points-1 points0 points 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Picker-Rick 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's just not true. Circumcision of females only most commonly removes the hood but leaves the clitoris mostly intact just like male genital mutilation. Even in cases where the entire outer portion of the clitoris is removed the rest of the clitoris is actually inside the body.

https://mosex.wordpress.com/2011/11/30/the-internal-clitoris/

“Even though the clitoris has been removed, that doesn’t stop us from having full capacity of pleasure during sex,” Kamara told HuffPost at the Women Deliver conference in Copenhagen last month. “It’s just difficult because you have to engage both physically and mentally.” https://www.huffpost.com/entry/how-this-female-genital-mutilation-survivor-learned-to-love-sex_n_5759d1fae4b0e39a28ad0672

Furthermore, the disparity in health issues caused by FGM vs MGM is mostly caused by the environment. When done the same healthcare environment, the two are very similar. When done by non-medical personnel the rate of serious complications in men was found to be as high as 60% by the WHO.

The problem comes in the justification. If you tell the world "genital mutilation is bad" we can all come together to stop it for all genders. But when a doctor has to tell a family "no we can't circumcise females" they respond with "but you did my son..." So the IDEA of genital mutilation still remains valid to them.

Pro circumcision is pro circumcision for all genders whether you like it or not.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]towersofmidnight-13 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DarthEquus 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I would suggest checking out this video if you get a chance: https://youtu.be/GBH0g_Cl7Rk

It is a short presentation by Brian Earp, a bioethicist, on this very subject. But when you are referring to FGM, you seem to only be referring to the most extreme forms of it. Namely clitorectomy and infibulation. I do not trivialize either of these awful, barbaric practices. But it should be noted that the term Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) covers a much wider array of genital cuttings on women:

FGM Type 1 – This refers to the partial or total removal of the clitoral glans (the part of the clitoris that is visible to the naked eye) and/or the clitoral prepuce (“hood”). This is sometimes called a “clitoridectomy,”28 although such a designation is misleading: the external clitoral glans is not always removed in this type of FGM, and in some versions of the procedure–such as with so-called “hoodectomies”–it is deliberately left untouched.33 There are two major sub-types. Type 1(a) is the partial or total removal of just the clitoral prepuce (ie, the fold of skin that covers the clitoral glans, much as the penile prepuce covers the penile glans in boys; in fact, the two structures are embryonically homologous).34 d Type 1(b) is the same as Type 1(a), but includes the partial or total removal of the external clitoral glans. Note that two-thirds or more of the entire clitoris (including most of its erectile tissue) is internal to the body envelope,35 and is therefore not removed by this type, or any type, of FGM. FGM Type 2 – This refers to the partial or total removal of the external clitoral glans and/or the clitoral hood (in the senses described above), and/or the labia minora, with or without removal of the labia majora. This form of FGM is sometimes termed “excision.” Type 2(a) is the “trimming” or removal of the labia minora only; this is also known as labiaplasty when it is performed in a Western context by a professional surgeon (in which case it is usually intended as a form of cosmetic “enhancement”).33 In this context, such an intervention is not typically regarded as being a form of “mutilation,” even though it formally fits the WHO definition. Moreover, even though such “enhancement” is most often carried out on consenting adult women in this cultural context, it is also sometimes performed on minors, apparently with the permission of their parents.11,36 There are two further subtypes of FGM Type 2, involving combinations of the above interventions. FGM Type 3 – This refers to a narrowing of the vaginal orifice with the creation of a seal by cutting and repositioning the labia minora and/or the labia majora, with or without excision of the external clitoris. This is the most extreme type of FGM, although it is also one of the rarest, occurring in approximately 10% of cases.11,37 When the “seal” is left in place, there is only a very small hole to allow for the passage of urine and menstrual blood, and sexual intercourse is rendered essentially impossible. This type of FGM is commonly called “infibulation” or “pharaonic circumcision” and has two additional subtypes. FGM Type 4 – This refers to “all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes” and includes such interventions as pricking, nicking, piercing, stretching, scraping, and cauterization.32 Counterintuitively for this final category – which one might expect to be even “worse” than the ones before it – several of the interventions just mentioned are among the least severe forms of FGM. Piercing, for example, is another instance of a procedure – along with labiaplasty (FGM Type 2) and “clitoral unhooding”33 (FGM Type 1) – that is popular in Western countries for “non-medical purposes,” and can be performed hygienically under appropriate conditions.11,38–40

The less severe forms are conflated with the removal of the entire clitoris, and people wrongly believe that all FGM is worse than MGM. (And let's not even get started on more extreme versions of MGM such as subincision, penectomy, and castration)

Despite that, cutting female and male genitals have the following similarities:

Over 100 million procedures have been performed on current populations
It's unnecessary and extremely painful
It can have adverse sexual and psychological effects
It's generally done by force on children
It is generally supported by local medical doctors
Pertinent biological facts are not generally known where procedures are practiced
It is defended with reasons such as tradition, religion, aesthetics, cleanliness, and health
The rationale has currently or historically been connected to controlling sexual pleasure
It's often believed there's no effect on normal sexual functioning
It's generally accepted and supported by those who have been subjected to it
Those who are cut feel compelled to cut their children
The choice may be motivated by underlying psychosexual reasons
Critical public discussion is generally taboo where the procedure is practiced
It can result in serious complications up to, and including, death
The adverse effects are hidden by repression and denial
Dozens of potentially harmful physiological, emotional, behavioral, sexual, and social effects on individuals and societies have never been studied
Where female genital cutting is practiced, cutting the genitals of males is also practiced (though, not necessarily vice versa)

Either way, people are cutting the genitals of children. That is not a very difficult thing to compare.

[+]needletothebar1 points 6 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

the clitoris is much smaller than the foreskin. you had a much bigger portion of your genitals removed than any circumcised woman did.

circumcised women have fewer problems than you do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0DkhqTNy08

[–]towersofmidnight-13 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]needletothebar1 points 6 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

the penis is not essential to reproduction. it's a tube of flesh that semen passes through. men without a penis can and do still reproduce.

being sexually abused as a child is not a tiny thing.

[–]towersofmidnight-13 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BulbasaurusThe7th 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Picker-Rick 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]intactisnormal 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

“It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics.

"The foreskin can become inflamed or infected (posthitis), often in association with the glans (balanoposthitis) in 1% to 4% of uncircumcised boys." This is not a common issue and can easily be treated with antibiotics if it happens.

These are terrible statistics and don't present a reason to circumcise all newborns. Especially when there is a normal treatment that does not remove the body part.

As for ethics, perhaps the medical ethics will resonate more with you. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well:

Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet the authority of substitute decision makers is not absolute. In most jurisdictions, authority is limited only to interventions deemed to be medically necessary. In cases in which medical necessity is not established or a proposed treatment is based on personal preference, interventions should be deferred until the individual concerned is able to make their own choices. With newborn circumcision, medical necessity has not been clearly established.

http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision

To override someone's body autonomy rights the standard is medical necessity. Without necessity the decision goes to the patient themself, later in life. Circumcision is very far from being medically necessary.

[–]towersofmidnight-13 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]intactisnormal 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]towersofmidnight-13 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]intactisnormal 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]towersofmidnight-13 -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]intactisnormal 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Comments