Would you/did you have your newborn baby boy circumcised?

I thought it was a good thing to be circumcised for cleanliness or something… Reduces the chances for infection or something? Am I way off base here?

I am told that circumcision is mostly done for hygenic purposes.

those are myths…also

wow… I kinda miss my foreskin now =(

it misses you too

There is evidence showing if your circumcised and have unprotected sex with someone is a STI your less likely to catch it.

Though some people who are circumcised would have you believe people with foreskins (like me) have gunk poring out the end of our penises, mine stays clean.

yep, my boy’s pee pee don’t need no sweater.

I am suspicious that both the linked sites are supported by organizations who are opposed to circumcision therefore not likely to be the most best sources for unbiased information.

I have heard stories from nursing friends regarding the infections that occur in uncircumcised when not properly cleaned.

I have no strong feelings about it.
It happened to me, and I don’t remember a single thing about it.
Personally, I think uncut ones look weird, but I’m really not interested in penises (especially that of my hypothetical son), so it really doesn’t matter to me.

As far as infection, it just depends on whether you clean it off or not. If you let dirt and grime and cough stuff cough stay under the folds, yeah you’ll probably have an issue.

@rooeytoo I googled it, and those two sites were the first to pop up. feel free to do your own “research” :)
@Sarcasm Thanks for pointing out that any area of the body can become dirty if you don’t surprise surprise clean it

@Sarcasm
I can’t stress enough how much of a slob you’d have to be to let it get that bad, I mean it would be a task to do it even of a bet, and I’d probably loose that bet.

My sister is a nurse, and because of her I would definetly circumcise my son if I had one. She did see boys and older men that did not, or were unable to keep the area clean well, and they get more infections. I also think women prefer a circumcised penis. And, if you live in America the majority of boys are circumcised.

My son was. I did it because at the time I thought it was necessary. I mean I always heard (back then) that it was unhealthy for a man to be uncircumcised. I know now that is not true but it’s said and done.

@JLeslie @allansmithee
What wrong when men in America? My sister is also a nurse and I just spoke to her and she said she’s never had boys/men coming in because they didn’t clean they thing.

(because most here believe in evolution) why do you think evolution would make us evolve with something that needs to be removed?

We had my son circumcised. It was the late 80’s, and AIDS was about, and I knew an uncircumcised male would more easily contract the disease. I have also been told that circumcised men have fewer prostate problems, but I don’t know if thats true.

@Facade: You mean like an appendix?

@nikipedia I don’t think I know what you mean

@allansmithee I don’t think it is a high percentage of men, just that it happens. My sister worked in a hospital, so the older men were probably ill and had a hard time bathing themselves. I am not talking about the typical adult male. A relative of mine who is not circumcised did get some sort of irritation when he was very young, his grandmother mentioned it to me, I don;t know the details…I assume maybe it was a yeast infection? Total guess, but since little kids get hot from running around, and are less careful to wash well and towel off completely. My sister also had a couple of patients get theirs removed, because they wanted to in their teens (wasn’t there a sex and the city about that?). I’m sure for the most part it is fine not being circumcised, you just increase your odds of some of these things I think.

@nikipedia
The appendix does have uses that most common people don’t know about

@Facade: The appendix is one of a few things in the human body believed to be a vestigial organ that was once biologically useful but isn’t any longer. @allansmithee is correct to point out that some scientists have hypothesized that it does retain some functionality.

The point that I was trying to make is that evolution is imperfect and has no mechanism for removing things that were useful once upon a time that no longer serve any function. As long as it’s not detrimental to our survival or procreation, it’ll just sit there.

@nikipedia
Wrong again http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBkiT0zyYm0
It takes energy to make organs that we don’t use that’s why they get smaller because more energy can be used for movement, heat, etc

The appendix isn’t used much anymore that’s why it’s smaller but we still use it.

I would not have my child circumcised (my partner is uncut, and I prefer it that way). I think circumcision should be a person’s own choice.

Here is the wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision gives stats on infection and cancer towards the bottom.

We had two girls, but if we’d had a boy, we’d definately have had it done. I, too, associate it with cleanliness. And I agree with Sarcasm…they just look better.

We had our sons and grandson done as a standard medical procedure at the hospital within a day or two of their birth. If it is done as a religious procedure, it depends on the schedule of the Rabbi.

To call female mutilation “circumcision” is doing a great injustice to both genders. It is nowhere near the same, and done for entirely different reasons.

@jbfletcherfan
Really? they look gross.
Also here http://digg.com/health/Study_Circumcision_Removes_Most_Sensitive_Parts

@allansmithee: Huh? What did I say that was “wrong”? And I believe the putative uses of appendix remain a matter of controversy. Can you provide me with a legitimate source indicating otherwise?

You can argue about appendices all you want.
Wisdom teeth. Good luck justifying those suckers!

@nikipedia
We don’t just keep parts after we don’t need them anymore.

@Facade The STD/HIV/infection correlation is definitely NOT myth, as I stated here. Those websites are clearly anti-circumcision, so they attempt to confuse the average reader, but multiple well-controlled, randomized, double-blind studies have shown reduced rates of heterosexual HIV-STD transmission and acquisition. In fact, the World Health Organization recommends male circumcision to reduce heterosexual HIV transmission.

@allansmithee: Yeah, except that we do.

I understand your point about minimizing energy expenditure. This is an important part of natural selection. But the fact is that we do have vestigial organs. Evolution is not a guided process that can eliminate things the moment they become irrelevant. It takes time for those structures to be phased out of a species, or to be exapted to serve another function (which may be what’s going on with the appendix), and during this time these organs are considered vestigial.

most? didn’t know that, I thought only Muslims did that.

anyway, I was not circumcised, and even though my daughter did have an operation, it was purely for health reasons (she was born with a tumor). I don’t think I’d ever mutilate my own child unless it was really necessary.

I left that up to my childrens’ father, I figure since I don’t have the gear I shouldn’t make the call. He decided they should be circumcised. I had read @shilolo‘s link in the previous thread and it made me glad the ex made the choice he did.

Wait, I don’t get why circumcision affects HIV transmission? Is it that the virus lives in the folds? I read that link quickly, but it seemed like many of the most dramatic findings were in African countries, I would be curious about the particulars of the studies. I would also want to know if they see more HIV transmission in European countires. In Africa that might be a correlation and not a causation, I question it. Did I not read thoroughly enough? There is the possibility that subcultures who frown most on circumcision are also more premiscuous? Don’t jump on top of me with that statement, I am just saying that it could influence the findings. Remember I am on the side of circumcision to prevent infection, I just had not thought of it related to HIV.

No, I wouldn’t. Let him stay the way he arrived, if it’s not going to harm him immediately or in the future. His daddy can teach him how to take care of himself properly.

@JLeslie Observational studies can be fraught with correlation, and they did in fact show that circumcised men have a significantly reduced chance of HIV transmission. However, 3 large, randomized studies (some men were randomized to circumcision, while an equal number were not) showed a dramatic benefit to circumcision (a 60% reduced chance of HIV) in a highly endemic region. This is not a correlation effect.

The biology is that inside the foreskin can be small abrasions or STDs that are not readily visible, either because they are hidden or because they are small. Having open wounds/sores greatly increases the chance of HIV acquisition. Yet another hypothesis is that the foreskin has a large number of Langerhans cells, which can be targets of HIV infection. Removing the foreskin removes this population of cells. Whichever hypothesis is true doesn’t change the observed phenomenon in 3 trials, so the cumulative data points to a dramatic benefit to circumcision.

@shilolo Thank you for elaborating.

Yes I would, I stand by the advantages of hygiene.

I know I recently read that he reduces HIV for the men, but not the women (or maybe vice versa..)

We had our son circumcised. Yes, it sounds like a shitty thing to do, but I believe it is the proper thing to do. I don’t have any strong feelings for or against it, but my husband wanted it to be done.

Is this relevant?

The Connoisseuse of Slugs; Sharon Olds

When I was a connoisseuse of slugs
I would part the ivy leaves, and look for the
naked jelly of those gold bodies,
translucent strangers glistening along the
stones, slowly, their gelatinous bodies
at my mercy. Made mostly of water, they would shrivel
to nothing if they were sprinkled with salt,
but I was not interested in that. What I liked
was to draw aside the ivy, breathe the
odor of the wall, and stand there in silence
until the slug forgot I was there
and sent its antennae up out of its
head, the glimmering umber horns
rising like telescopes, until finally the sensitive knobs would
pop out the ends,
delicate and intimate. Years later,
when I first saw a naked man,
I gasped with pleasure to see that quiet
mystery reenacted, the slow
elegant being coming out of hiding and
gleaming in the dark air, eager and so
trusting you could weep.

I think circumcision is genital mutilation. It’s really not that difficult to keep it clean.

First, to answer the question: I’m not sure if I would have my son circumcised or not. If I had a son now, I think I would. However, in five to ten years, when I plan to start having shildren, I don’t know. I could change my mind.

Second, @Sarcasm: Wisdom teeth do make a certain amount of sense because our jaws used to be bigger and until modern dentistry, we would lose a lot more teeth so the wisdom teeth would just fill in the gaps.

Our jaws used to be bigger, so it’s okay to pull out our wisdom teeth?
If our cocks are smaller than cavemen, would circumcision be okay?

There are other medical benefits of circumcision. Penile cancer is almost unheard of in circumcised men (although, to be fair, it’s rare overall) and urinary tract infections are many times more common in uncircumcised boys. UTIs may not sound like a big deal, but they are one of the main causes of hospitalization of young infants, who are generally given IV antibiotics (requiring hospitalization) for a fever.

Plus: not a medical reason, but still a rather convincing one in my opinion: smegma.

I am, my son is not. I chose not to, because I have no religious reason to do so and I felt that fitting in with society was not a valid reason. Some recent studies have now shown a reduced risk of STDs (in people who have unprotected sex). What I found out in my research is that if you keep it clean, you’re probably not going to have any more problems statistically speaking than a circumcised man. We decided that not having to worry about proper hygiene was also not a reason for cutting off part of a baby’s genitals. It strikes me as a barbaric practice, which is unnatural in the first place. If the foreskin did not serve a purpose, natural selection would have gotten rid of it. Hell no, didn’t do it, never would, wish my parents hadn’t done me, I could use the extra skin.

@dalepetrie I agree, It is barbaric. Makes about as much sense as cutting the folds of the vagina from baby girls. Which is in fact the reasoning some people have for female genital mutilation (cleanliness)

complete and total circumcision has no health benefits. This is a myth. Those who cut the foreskin off of infants are practicing genital mutilation. To claim it is health-related makes about as much sense as yanking out a child’s teeth so they don’t get cavities. Besides that, the foreskin is attached to the glans until a boy is about 7 or 8 yerars old. To get it off, the skin must be torn free. Removing the skin from the most sensitive part of the body is disgusting and barbaric. Doing it to an infant is unconscionable.

Anyone who endorses circumcision is a barbarian and a sadist. Even if a baby has phimosis, the skin can be snipped a little to ease the tightness. Full removal is unnecessary.

The foreskin is a normal and natural part of the the body, if it has no purpose, then why did we evolve with one? If you want it removed, it should be a personal choice, not forced on you when you cannot choose for yourself. I’d like to kill the sumbitch that cut mine off, unfortunately, that bastard is already dead.

Doctors used to rip out tonsils when they became inflamed, thinking they had no purpose. Now we discover that tonsils are part of the body’s defense against infections. I still have my tonsils, still have my appendix, and I am just fine with them.

One thing you must consider if you get your sons circumcised. The hospitals sell that piece of skin for profit. You get nothing for it. Would you let the hospital sell your son’s kidney and give you nothing in return? You don’t need two kidneys, you can easily survive with just one.

@evelyns_pet_zebra You are wrong. There are clearly health benefits to circumcision. Perhaps read some of the links I posted to educate yourself. It is no myth.

@evelyns_pet_zebra – I’ve heard of that selling the skin for profit. In fact, I had a friend who bought me a wallet made of human foreskin, and when I didn’t look that thrilled to get the gift (it WAS a little weird after all), he told me, “I haven’t shown you the best part, rub it for a while and it turns into a suitcase!”

I would wait a few years until he gets older. It’s considered as a social rite of passage in our culture and has some hygienic purposes as well.

@dalepetrie Ewwww! You GOTTA be kidding!!

@allansmithee…it takes away the most sensitive parts? Really??? Tell my husband that!

@jbfletcherfan
But wouldn’t he be judging off his own axioms? What does he have to compare it with?

@allansmithee LOLL…..well, what does ANY man have to compare it with? After all, you only get one penis in this life, right? Or is there a spare out there somewhere that I don’t know about that I could keep with me all day long? ;-)

@shilolo of course a doctor would promote a purely cosmetic form of surgery that has no place in civilized society, doctors make a fortune from not only the procedure, but also from the sale of foreskin material. There are millions of uncircumcised men in Europe and Canada, and they seem to have no problem with cancer, or STD, or anything that circumcision supposedly prevents, simply because they practice good hygeine.

“It would be like a parent saying, “You know, Doc, little Billy just can’t keep the area behind his ears clean, and he keeps getting scabies back there. Can’t we just cut off his ears so no dirt gets trapped there? That way, we can prevent the disease.”

I will repeat my opinion, disagree if you like. If removing a foreskin prevents certain forms of disease, and helps prevent STDs, then cutting off a baby’s toes will prevent infected ingrown toenails or pulling out his teeth will prevent cavities. Circumcision is one of those things that everyone thinks is normal and they do it based on tradition, but they never ask the victim how he feels about it.

While there may be some health related reasons to circumcision, to do it as a preventative measure to a child too young to make an informed decision, and to give consent is medical mutilation, and barbaric, and just plain wrong.

Everybody fights against female circumcision, but ripping the foreskin off little boys is considered normal. Humans that harm children, are disgusting, and those that circumcise infants without their consent and in the name of preventative medicine are no better than child molesters.

@shilolo Don’t give me your biased links. I’ve read almost everything available for and against circumcision for years, I spoken with many health professionals, and even my own doctor is against it. I know a woman who is a licensed midwife and she is on the side of NOT performing circumcision of infants. Some people are for it, but when given the facts of how long the procedure takes (about ten minutes), how no aenesthetic is used, and that the child is strapped down to keep him immobile most find it suddenly abhorrent. People always scream about how they would kill someone that would molest their child, but then they give a doctor permission to do far worse, simply because people trust doctors to do the right thing all the time. I say BULLSHIT.

I wouldn’t let a doctor strap any of my children down for a procedure anywhere on his body, and I sure as Hell wouldn’t let them do it to chop off a very sensitive part of his body to prevent supposed diseases he won’t have to worry about at least until his teens, if at all.

Everyone talks about STDs like little boys are out having unsafe sex. Sex is an adult activity, and if people practice safe sex, with a condom, then what is the need to chop off the most sensitive part of a male’s body? And if male wants to be circumcised, great, I’m all for people making decisions based on informed consent. The thing I am dead set against is infant circumcision. Cosmetic reasons, religious reasons, and doing it because parents don’t want little Junior to look ‘different’ than Daddy is ignorant and more importantly, it is genital mutilation.

To prevent UTIs? Really? Since when are those something to fear? UTI can be cured with medicine. I know, I had one in the past, and I AM circumcised. I know a couple of other circumcised men that had them, and they were cured easily enough with medicine. I was given a weekly regimen of a prescription medication, and voila, no more infection. Why don’t you rip out Juniors sinuses to keep him from getting hay fever, which is ten times more common as UTIs?

Doctors should quit scaring parents with all this disease prevention claptrap (since babies aren’t likely to be having sex with others that are HIV positive or carry STDs) and let the individual make the choice, via informed consent. Good hygeine will solve the majority of problems that circumcision supposedly prevents, and who in good conscience would actually perform such a procedure on someone so young?

No one I would consider trustworthy around any children I know that’s for damn sure.

Life is about choices, your results may vary.

Yes, I would, if for no other reason aside from the fact that it is what is considered normal in America. I would not want girls to be weirded out by my child’s penis when he started to become sexually active at that already awkward stage. No need to make it more awkward for him by having foreskin!

@girlofscience It’s normal for people our age, but I know I’ve read that the rate of circumcision is lower than what it was in the 80s. So, who knows.
This is the only non-biased site I can find http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;103/3/686

@girlofscience: So I take it you condone female genital mutilation in those societies that practice it, on the grounds that an unmutilated woman might weird out a man?

@evelyns_pet_zebra A little vitriolic, are we? Calm down. I won’t really bother to argue with you, but the facts are the facts. UTIs, especially in small children are not so trivial. Antibiotic resistant bugs are everywhere, and all antibiotic treatments come with risk. HIV is by no means trivial, particularly in countries where HIV is endemic. This is about choice after all, but try not to be so histrionic about it. Also, I found it funny that you said “doctors make a fortune” off this. Um, no.

@shilolo I didn’t see that comment about doctors making a fortune off of it. That makes me laugh lol.
Circumcision is very inexpensive, compared to other medical procedures. Usually Medicaid does not cover it, so if we have a boy, it’ll cost us close to $300 out of pocket. That’s really nothing compared to what doctors get paid to deliver the babies. Usually an OB does the procedure.

@cwilbur: Oh come on. That practice is obviously disgusting.

@girlofscience: Nice objective answer, there, completely free of cultural bias. It seems disgusting to you only because you don’t consider it normal. To people in cultures that practice female genital mutilation, unmutilated genitals are weird and disgusting.

Genital mutilation is genital mutilation. It’s no less acceptable when it’s done to males than when it’s done to females, and both are obviously disgusting.

@cwilbur The flaw in your argument is…female mutilation is just that, mutilation. Circumcision on a man is completely different.
Okay, I don’t care I’m quoting wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting

Cook states that historically, the term female circumcision was used, but that “this procedure in whatever form it is practiced is not at all analogous to male circumcision and so the term ‘female circumcision’ gave way to the term ‘female genital mutilation’”[13] Shell-Duncan states that the term female circumcision is a euphemism for a variety of procedures for altering the female genitalia

The foreskin is not a sexual organ. Cutting out a womans clitoris or labia is not even comparable, IMO. It is done to sexually demean a woman…that is not why I had my son circumcised.

Women who have been sexually mutilated can often not urinate, deficate, or have intercourse without horrible pain. Often they develop anal fistulas and often they die in childbirth or during the process. They have trouble walking, too.

The foreskin is, in fact, an extremely sensitive erogenous zone, and it protects the head of the penis. Lopping it off is mutilation.

Especially when the best reason you can come up (thank you, O enlightened and intellectual @girlofscience) with is because some hypothetical woman, 20 years down the line, will never have encountered the concept of circumcision and thus might think your son’s penis is odd.

@gailcalled: The horror of female genital mutilation is no reason to continue male genital mutilation, simply because male genital mutilation is less damaging.

@cwilbur: Agreed.

@cwilbur: I don’t agree that it was valid for you to compare my agreement with male circumcision to agreement with female genital mutilation, though. Regardless of cultural norms, one practice is obviously greatly more harmful than the other.

@girlofscience : Would you be/are you “weirded out” if your partner had an uncut penis? (I am not trying to provoke you, just genuinely curious). Have you been with a man who was uncircumcised?

@all : Any men out there who have encountered “awkwardness” due to their uncut genitals?

@LC_Beta: No, I have not been with a man who was uncircumcised. As a teenager, yes, I probably would have been “weirded out.” Less so, now, as I am an adult and able to overcome such trivial things, but I would still view it as a slight oddity.

@girlofscience: I ask because I really don’t think I would have known the difference with my first partner. I didn’t know enough about was a penis was “supposed” to look like to know. (In fact, I remember vaguely wondering about it).

I didn’t have an uncircumcised partner until my 20’s, and quickly found that I preferred it that way. I won’t go into explicit detail as to why.

@LC_Beta: I was a savvy little gal and was well-versed in the appearance of penises, both circumcised and uncircumcised, well before seeing one in person.

@LC_Beta Now you’re talking personal sexual preference. Is that what you’d base circumcising your son on? Also, I’ve been with a cut and uncut guy….a penis is a penis when it comes down to it, so I can’t imagine why you feel the fact that the one you prefer’s penis is uncut has anything to do with the sex.

@casheroo : yes, I would make this decision based on the personal sexual preference of both myself and my partner (who also considers circumcision to be unnecessary and a decision that should be made by the owner of the penis in question).

And, as I said before, I won’t go into the explicit details of my personal sexual preferences with strangers. But, to me, a penis is not just a penis, and I have a preference. I would not accept or reject a partner based on whether he was circumcised, but I know I would wish he wasn’t if he was.

@girlofscience : Maybe my experience wasn’t ordinary, but the first erect penis I ever saw was IRL. Then again, I was relatively young (I’ve gathered). I’m just trying to say that I didn’t know one way or another about what might be considered “weird,” as you call it, and I think that cultural stereotype may not be as solid as you think. Or at least it doesn’t have to be.

@LC_Beta So you would be fine with someone rejecting you because your labia are too droopy or something of that nature? Wow

@Facade: I said I had a preference, and I don’t think that’s wrong. I also clearly stated that I would not accept or reject a person solely based on that factor. Finally, one of the reasons I prefer an uncircumcised penis it was created that way and is “unmutilated” as you say.

Am I misunderstanding? I thought you said you preferred a circumcised penis instead of a natural one

@Facade: I am with the uncut crew, here.

@girlofscience: Ah, so it’s okay to practice genital mutilation if it heals quickly and has few complications, in the interests of looking “normal”? You don’t think it’s reasonable to call circumcision mutilation—but I ask you, what other term applies to it? You’re lopping off a perfectly functional piece of skin that is an incredibly sensitive erogenous zone, and that protects the head of the penis so that it’s more sensitive, for what? Mindless lockstep conformity, and fear of seeming different?

@LC_Beta: mine was remarked on in the high school locker room, because back then I was in a distinct minority. (I was a month early, and my birth had complications, and it just never got done.) I’ve never had a problem with a sexual partner over it. Also, in gym locker rooms nowadays, I notice that as men get younger, the frequency of circumcision decreases.

It would be a delicious irony if @girlofscience had her son circumcised in a fit of lockstep conformity, only to find out that by the time he was a late teenager, circumcised men were in the minority.

@cwilbur my husband was premie so they didn’t do his circumcision at the time of his birth either. At 5 years old they told him he was going in to get his tonsils out and when he woke up from surgery his penis hurt. Poor kid, they tricked him. I asked him if he had his tonsils removed at the same time, or if they just flat out lied. He had/has no idea. If you ask him if he has his tonsils he still doesn’t know.

@JLeslie Take a flashlight, ask him to open his mouth, and look for the two big lumps in the back.

@shilolo I asked him at the time I learned the story if he remembered getting ice cream after the surgery, and he said, “they would have given me ice cream not matter what.” So true LOL.

@cwilbur The rate of circumcision IS lowering. My son will probably be in the “minority” but I doubt it’ll be enough for it to be the more uncommon thing to see. I live in the Northeast, where I believe it is more prevelant anyways.
This is a pro-circ site, but they have statistics. Who knows if they’re true or not. http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/

@casheroo Interesting stats. Actually lower than I thought it would be.

@casheroo shows that black men are much less likely to get circumsized, so I again I question the stats on HIV infection, even though shilolo gave a good explanation, because I think black men are less likely to use condoms and black men and women are less likely to have access to medical care statistically.

@JLeslie How does circumcision matter if they are less likely to use condoms resulting in a high amount of HIV transmissions?

@JLeslie The studies on HIV and circumcision were all done in Africa, where HIV prevalence in some countries approaches 20%! Also, circumcision rates there are low at baseline, and condom use is nonexistent.

@shilolo And you feel confident that sexual habits were accounted for among various subcultures in the African studies? I have heard their taboos and misinformation about HIV transmission is ridiculous. I think they might readily lie about sexual habits/history.

@shilolo Again, I ask, if they don’t use condoms, how do you know that the lack of circumcision is a factor?

@Facade Yes, condoms work. But when unprotected sex is common, circumcision is highly beneficial. In any event, your argument is invalid. It’s like saying an airbag is useless because the seat belt is available.

For the second time, 3 different randomized clinical trials were done on sexually active HIV negative men. The three trials were performed in 3 separate countries (South Africa, Uganda and Kenya). Within each trial, one group underwent circumcision, while the other group did not. The men were then followed over time and HIV seroconversion determined. There was a 60% reduction in the risk of HIV conversion in the circumcised group compared to the control (uncircumcised group). Not only that, but the clinical trials were stopped early because it was quickly apparent how beneficial the circumcisions were. The entire series is reviewed by the Cochrane Review.

@JLeslie Epidemiologists aren’t stupid. This was clearly determined within the trials. In any event, each study was performed within a specific country, with the same cultural practices. Participants were randomized to circumcision, so it isn’t like more careful men chose to be cut, and the more promiscuous ones chose not to be. If anything, in one study, the cut men had more partners and yet had a much lower risk of HIV. As summarized by the Cochrane review:
We conducted a meta-analysis of the secondary outcomes measuring sexual behaviour for the Kenyan and Ugandan trials and found no significant differences between circumcised and uncircumcised men. For the South African trial the mean number of sexual contacts at the 12-month visit was 5.9 in the circumcision group versus 5 in the control group, which was a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001). This difference remained statistically significant at the 21-month visit (7.5 versus 6.4; p = 0.0015). No other significant differences were observed.

@shilolo First, I was not trying to imply anyone is stupid. My father was in charge of issuing grants to universities for research under the surgeon general at HHS, I don’t think he or the other scientist who worked with him are stupid. What I do know is that studies can be flawed. Being from the same country is not be enough, but as you said they accounted for cultural practices.

Look, I saw an ad on tv ten years ago from a lawyer trying to do a class action suit against a birth control pill manufacturer stating that studies have shown a relationship between that pill and cervical cancer. Well, probably the fact is that women on the pill are more exposed to HPV, but that is not the pill manufacturers fault. Yet still they tried to do a class action. Someone did that study, even though it seems ridiculous and money thrown out onto the street to me. We have known links from HPV to cervical cancer for over 20 years.

I’ll say again, I still believe more infections occur in general with non-circumcised men, I just was curious about the details of the studies since the results were so significant.

I have seen no scientific evidence to convince me that parents need to circumcize their male children. The cost/benefit ratio doesn’t work for me. If I had had a male child, I would never allow healthy tissue to be cut from their genitals for issues of hygiene (questionable), cultural custom, cosmetic reasons, or potential benefits in terms of reduced STD transmission. The % increase in safety provided by circumcision may justify its advocacy at social scales in very specific circumstances (high HIV risk populations, low use of safe sexual practices), but I do not think these circumstances are really what are at issue for western parents making decisions for a newborn.

Any male who is old enough to have sex is capable of making the decision for themselves whether the surgical removal of their foreskin is worth the argued benefits. I see no medical reason for the parent making this decision for an otherwise healthy newborn.

I have two bio-boys and I have not circumcized them and wouldn’t – I don’t care what’s more accepted and it’s not medically necessary – my husband is circumcized and pissed about it

Bio-boys? Well that just sounds spooky.

@Sarcasm not if you use it all the time – not all boys are bio-boys so i make the distinction..

My problem with this notion of using circumcision to prevent AIDS/STDs is twofold. One, if we didn’t already have a strange and utterly baseless ritual in which we were removing most male babies’ foreskins, we would never contemplate this surgery to reduce AIDS. The very notion would be abhorrent and no ethics board would ever sign off on the research. Two, circumcision is not a vaccination, it does not “prevent” HIV infection or STDs, even if it makes them less likely. Washing your penis after sex would likely have a similar effect. Convincing men to wear condoms would be far more effective. We can virtually eliminate the risk of STDs with simple and none too difficult behavioral changes, instead of reducing it with an otherwise pointless surgery. I fear that people will develop a believe that by being circumcised they have been vaccinated against AIDS and STDs and will engage in more risky behavior, ultimately leading to higher infection rates. People are stunningly willing to believe in all sorts of magical cures for or preventatives that justify their continuing their current sexual practices.

@shilolo Since you seem to be involved with this research, which I have a lot of questions about, without me doing a complete literature review that I have no time for, what’s the actual risk for circumcised men versus uncircumcised men, not the reduction of risk? Also, I believe there was a study in which the men had known HIV positive partners, is there such a study?

Also, your comment re: airbags and seatbelts isn’t really quite appropriate. An airbag is not surgery, and a seatbelt is not nearly as effective as a condom.

@gussnarp As much as I would like to help you, you’ll have to do your own research on this as I am not Cliffs Notes. Check my links above.

@gussnarp A good summary of the issues – with article links is – provided here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#cite_note-Cochrane2009-152

@Critter38 Thanks for that. I thought perhaps gussnarp might also want to read any of my posts above, including the one that dissects the data (including the Cochrane review). Maybe that was too much to ask.

@shilolo You are certainly under no obligation to answer my question, but you don’t have to be nasty about it. I read your post that “dissects the data” and it still doesn’t answer my question. Your post, and the Cochrane review, state that there was a between a 50 and 60% reduction in the risk. This doesn’t tell me what the risk is. Now I’m not an epidemiologist, but in general just talking about the percent reduction (or increase) is deceptive statistics. Here’s an example. I could honestly tell you that a recent study shows a 500% greater risk of dementia in retired NFL players compared to the general population. But here’s how the New York Times more fairly reported the result: “The Michigan researchers found that 6.1 percent of players age 50 and above reported that they had received a dementia-related diagnosis, five times higher than the cited national average, 1.2 percent” See, that’s still a big difference, and it still matters, but it’s not nearly as sensational as 500%. The base numbers matter as much, if not more, than the percentage increase (or decrease). Now as I said, you are under no obligation to provide me that information, and maybe you just don’t have it off the top of your head and don’t have the time to go look for it, but when you make a smart alec comment drawing attention to your decision to not provide a piece of information that may weaken your case to someone who appears to disagree with you, it really doesn’t make you look good.

@gussnarp When someone says ”...without me doing a literature review which I have no time for”, it implies that I should be doing their work for them. Unlikely.

I’m sorry you felt that I was rude, but I don’t expect others to do my work for me, and take offense to your implication that your time is more valuable than mine.

@shilolo I didn’t mean to imply that my time was more valuable, that’s why the comment started with “Since you seem to be involved with the research…”. I thought that you might have the information off the top of your head or readily available, whereas I would have to go and read through the full paper to find it, since the authors did not see fit to include it in the abstract.

Also, I’m not paying for journal access to read the results. It is very difficult for the general public to get a good understanding of a study if the results are hidden behind the firewall of copyrighted journals, and the available abstracts and reports fail to divulge important aspects of the results. But then I suppose only college professors who have library access to these journals are supposed to have enough education to actually understand the full results.

Definitely not – just as I would not cut off his ears because boys have difficulty keeping that area clean. I also appreciate the religious/regional differences in this but in the UK the general population do not do this and would not even think about it.

Never had my son circumcised. This is a decision I’m leaving up to him when he’s older, I’ve worked in the pediatric ward in a hospital and none of the doctors have absolute proof as to why it needs to be done. There is no more risk of AIDS or HIV when you’re uncut, then when you are. This is just one of those things meant to get everyone to conform.

I’ve known guys that were uncut and they had plenty of girlfriends that knew beforehand. Not to mention that they never had a problem with keeping it clean or getting diseases.