The Absurd Reason Why America Circumcises Baby Boys

[ponder]

Children can't give consent, that's why you give consent on their behalf.

For a procedure that is permanent & not required?

 

[Sherbang]

That figure is BS. The percentage is marginal at best.

Source?

There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%.

http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/

When the data were reanalyzed to account for these occurrences, men who had been circumcised had a 76% (South Africa), 60% (Kenya), and 55% (Uganda) reduction in risk for HIV infection compared with those who were not circumcised.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/research/malecircumcision/

Scientific trials have shown that male circumcision can reduce a man’s risk of becoming infected with HIV during heterosexual intercourse by up to 60 percent. 1 2 These findings have led to the decision by UNAIDS and the World Health Organization (WHO) to recommended circumcision as an important new element of HIV prevention.

http://www.avert.org/male-circumcision.htm#sthash.L4duw9rv.dpuf

etc, etc

 

[Nick333]

Cut and happy about it.

Children can't give consent, that's why you give consent on their behalf.

How do you justify consenting to a unnecessary procedure that affects sexual gratification?

 

[Sherbang]

For a procedure that is not required?

For any procedure. If your child was born with a giant mole on his face would you wait until he was grown up so he can consent to having it removed or would you just go ahead and do it while he is a baby? It's not required, purely cosmetic

 

[Sherbang]

How do you justify consenting to a unnecessary procedure that affects sexual gratification?

I don't justify it, as circumcision doesn't effect sexual gratification.

An Australian systematic review concludes that the controversial practice has no adverse effect on sexual function or sensitivity.
Thirty-six studies were identified, most were observational studies, though two large randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from African countries were identified. Overall the review finds no evidence for any differences between circumcised and uncircumcised men in terms of sexual function or sexual pleasure.

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/12Decem...cision-doesnt-affect-sexual-satisfaction.aspx

 

[ponder]

http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/


http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/research/malecircumcision/


http://www.avert.org/male-circumcision.htm#sthash.L4duw9rv.dpuf

etc, etc

Those studies are flawed. Now I have to go and look for that long old thread about circumcision again that has the links.

Around the mulberry bush we go...

 

[Sherbang]

Those studies are flawed. Now I have to go and look for that long old thread about circumcision again that has the links.

Around the mulberry bush we go...

If you can find links to actual studies that show that the percentage is marginal at best, go ahead, I'd like to see them...

If all you have are links saying the studies referenced in my post are flawed then that won't support your assertion that the percentage is marginal at best, unfortunately...

 

[ponder]

Here's a quick one I found http://www.salem-news.com/fms/pdf/2011-12_JLM-Boyle-Hill.pdf
http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)60998-3/abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8082965?dopt=Abstract
http://www.samj.org.za/index.php/samj/article/view/5384/3655
http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v13/n3/full/nm0307-245.html
http://journals.lww.com/stdjournal/Abstract/2011/11000/Circumcision_and_Acquisition_of_Human.16.aspx for HPV
http://dontgetstuck.org/2012/02/11/...ee-key-trials-of-circumcision-to-protect-men/

I'll try and find the others.

Anyway have a look at who is on the WHO body that promotes circumcision and then have a look at their links to the industry that makes circumcision devices, some of which have been used in african trials for example.

 

[Ockie]

For any procedure. If your child was born with a giant mole on his face would you wait until he was grown up so he can consent to having it removed or would you just go ahead and do it while he is a baby? It's not required, purely cosmetic

A mole does not serve any body function. A foreskin does. Don't compare the two.

 

[Sherbang]

Here's a quick one I found http://www.salem-news.com/fms/pdf/2011-12_JLM-Boyle-Hill.pdf
http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9

I'll try and find the others.

Anyway have a look at who is on the WHO body that promotes circumcision and then have a look at their links to the industry that makes circumcision devices, some of which have been used in african trials for example.

I don't see any studies or evidence in either of those links that demonstrate the percentage is marginal at best (as you asserted).

They may cast doubt on the 60% figure but they don't back up your assertion...

 

[Sherbang]

A mole does not serve any body function. A foreskin does. Don't compare the two.

What's the function of the foreskin?

 

[Electric]

What's the function of the foreskin?

to keep your shlong warm

 

[Ockie]

What's the function of the foreskin?

Wikipedia it.

 

[Electric]

Wikipedia it.

No need.
Check above.

 

[Ockie]

No need.
Check above.

That is just one of them man!

 

[SauRoNZA]

Edit: The ads and posters were hinting towards it actually preventing AIDS, not reducing the risk.

Yeah that's what pisses me off most.

They are punting this as a preventative measure INSTEAD of other measures, where it should be listed only as an additional one...which makes a <1% difference and therefore is hardly worth the paper it's written on never mind the crazy promotion for it.

 

[Electric]

Yeah that's what pisses me off most.

They are punting this as a preventative measure INSTEAD of other measures, where it should be listed only as an additional one...which makes a <1% difference and therefore is hardly worth the paper it's written on never mind the crazy promotion for it.

Whatever happened to the 'be wise condomise' strategy?

 

[Ockie]

Whatever happened to the 'be wise condomise' strategy?

Why bother when you can just chop off your own foreskin for no good reason at all?

 

[Electric]

Why bother when you can just chop off your own foreskin for no good reason at all?

Plus it's painless.

 

[Sherbang]

Wikipedia it.

The World Health Organization state that there is "debate about the role of the foreskin, with possible functions including keeping the glans moist, protecting the developing penis in utero, or enhancing sexual pleasure due to the presence of nerve receptors"

The Royal Australasian College of Physicians has stated that the effects of circumcision on sexual sensation are not clear, with reports of both enhanced and diminished sexual pleasure following the procedure in adults and little awareness of advantage or disadvantage in those circumcised in infancy."[26] The Royal Dutch Medical Association (2010) states that many sexologists view the foreskin as "a complex, erotogenic structure that plays an important role 'in the mechanical function of the penis during sexual acts, such as penetrative intercourse and masturbation'."

The World Health Organization (2007) states that "Although it has been argued that sexual function may diminish following circumcision due to the removal of the nerve endings in the foreskin and subsequent thickening of the epithelia of the glans, there is little evidence for this and studies are inconsistent."[34] Fink et al. (2002) reported "although many have speculated about the effect of a foreskin on sexual function, the current state of knowledge is based on anecdote rather than scientific evidence."[35] Masood et al. (2005) state that "currently no consensus exists about the role of the foreskin."[36] Schoen (2007) states that "anecdotally, some have claimed that the foreskin is important for normal sexual activity and improves sexual sensitivity.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) state that "no controlled scientific data are available regarding differing immune function in a penis with or without a foreskin."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin

On the other hand:

Simmons et al. (2007) report that the foreskin's presence "frequently predisposes to medical problems, including balanitis, phimosis, venereal disease and penile cancer",