CDC rec to counsel all males about benefits of circumcision

phuretrotr · Dec 9, 2014

Many in the intactivist community refer to foreskins as "bimbo repellent" and are frankly grateful that it might run off women shallow enough to act like that, protecting our sons from women not worthy of them.

Being married to a circumcised man and having no other experience, I wouldn't personally know.

All in all, the thread has turned into nothing logical. Everything is refuted with personal opinions or ignored, not even hitting what was being discussed.

But you know what? I'm happy. Happy because the CDC is supposably biased so that parents can continue to make the decision for their children.

So there you have it. Cry all you want about it and claim beliefs are facts, but it isn't changing anything soon. Decide what you want to do. Stay out of other people's decisions for their children.

Plain and simple. If you don't get it/are too arrogant to admit that not everybody should share your view point then maybe you should focus on yourself and not others, because you obviously have bigger problems than if other parents choose for their child's member to have a foreskin or not.

SubSippi · Dec 9, 2014

Sorry to hijack the thread, but I am curious and had to ask...

Out of all the issues surrounding health care and human rights, what is it about male circumcision that has elicited such passionate feelings? Most issues that evoke such polarizing and fervent opinions have either religious and/or political roots, and unless I'm missing something huge, this one has neither. Until these threads were posted, I had never once heard anyone make reference to the fact that some people consider it to be immoral, or any sort of human rights issue (and I don't live under a rock...). I had always thought that it was a thing that, for their own reasons, some moms decided to do, and some moms decided not to do, and that no one was all too worried about the choice that someone else made.

Every member I've ever encountered has been attached to a man who was *******' obsessed with it (intact or otherwise). Given that we live in a male dominated, sex obsessed society, it seems as though if men were unhappy about it, it would have been nipped in the bud immediately. I've browsed some other forums, and it appears (based on what I looked at) that it's almost exclusively women who feel this strongly about it...at least strongly enough to spend hours arguing with strangers on the internet.

I have been reading these posts trying to find an answer, and I'm coming up short. I'm not trying to say that I don't understand how someone can have an opinion on it either way. More that I don't understand why some are spending so much time explaining the medical benefits of circumcision, when it seems as though it doesn't save, or dramatically improve, too many lives. OR why people are so vehemently against male circumcision, even though I haven't been exposed to any evidence that suggests a significant correlation between an intact foreskin and the average man's quality of life. Man, people are so against it that a word has been invented for it (intactivism)!!

Don't be mad...I'm being sincere. I think much of my concern stems from my desire to have my first baby soon, and I can tell already that, if I have a boy, I will agonize over making the right decision (the right decision being the one that my baby will have wanted one he's older). The information I have received so far hasn't made a case overwhelming for, or against, either one (in my opinion). I'm hoping that some statements explaining why it's being debated so intensely (debated intensely, not just debated at all) might help me come to some sort of conclusion.

I'd be much obliged to anyone who took the time to reply!

SmilingBluEyes · Dec 9, 2014

Because, just because someone has a preference one way or the other Seriously. Adds zero argument and is not a salient point.

Why?.

~PedsRN~, BSN, RN · Dec 9, 2014

The evidence is what it is, if you cannot refute the evidence with the over 5K articles in PubMed then that would suggest that the overall agreement in the scientific literature supports the CDC and AAP's literature review.
You are trying to debate scientific literature with opinions instead of facts or other scientific literature, and when you cannot do that you claim that the literature is biased.

I am not debating scientific literature. I have yet to go on a search in the archives for journals that support my ideals. I would wager you haven't looked for those yet either. I'd like to see some literature published outside of the United States (that doesn't link circumcision to the African aids epidemic), because I would wager the research that is pro-circ doesn't come out of generally intact countries. Just like I wager that these circumcised gentleman researching here in America aren't looking up the cons of circumcision to focus their research efforts on.

Which is why I stand by my statement that the research, in general, is already biased.

We use "anecdotal" evidence every day in our lives. It's how we generally learn how the world works. If the recipe says bake the bread for 45 minutes at 400 degrees, but every time we follow the recipe we burn the bread, we will eventually change the way we bake the bread, even though our recipe book by the experts tell us differently.

So you can tell me a hundered different reasons why circumcision is valid. Less chance for penile cancer (already the rarest cancer, but anyway). Less opportunity for UTIs (easily treatable with antibiotics), less chance of the spread of HIV (education that my son will have, we do not live in sub Saharan Africa), etc. But since I have a son (12) and a husband (38) who have their foreskins and have never had a UTI, or any other health issues - your research falls flat for me, because those things have little effect on my own personal experience with foreskin.

Tell me that keeping a foreskin makes you fat.... Or could shorten your life, or gives you diabetes. Hell, show me statistics of injuries caused by zippers vs foreskin. ? Those may change my mind. But as the science stands now, I personally fail to see the scientific benefit. So maybe to answer the original question, yes - let the CDC blather on about those things. Perhaps Americans will use their heads and realize we live in an industrialized country with access to clean water, soap, and condoms. After all, Europeans aren't losing their battle with Penile cancer and UTIs. Their memberes still work! Huzzah! My hope is that with the presentation of the CDC information and studies, we also provide medical information about the functions of the foreskin. And your odds of oenile cancer. :). tclea

Red Kryptonite · Dec 9, 2014

as you were not worthy of a man with a foreskin.

This is just weak. I never had the choice. My husband's parents took it away from me, and him. I love the man that is my husband, and would love him regardless of circumcision status. My crack about " repellent" means that some women are so shallow they'll reject a man because he has foreskin, not caring at all who he is as a person. People in this very thread stated they don't want intact men, without ever having met the men. They are eliminated as relationship possibilities based on not having had their foreskins cut off.

supposably

That isn't a word.

So there you have it. Cry all you want about it

I will cry, for all the newborn boys who, minutes after their parents exclaim about how perfect they are, get strapped down to a cold, hard restraint board and painfully instructed in just how perfect they aren't until mommy pays the doctor to cut up their genitals so she likes them better.

allnurses Guide · Dec 9, 2014

Sorry to hijack the thread, but I am curious and had to ask...
Out of all the issues surrounding health care and human rights, what is it about male circumcision that has elicited such passionate feelings Most issues that evoke such polarizing and fervent opinions have either religious and/or political roots, and unless I'm missing something huge, this one has neither. Until these threads were posted, I had never once heard anyone make reference to the fact that some people consider it to be immoral, or any sort of human rights issue (and I don't live under a rock...). I had always thought that it was a thing that, for their own reasons, some moms decided to do, and some moms decided not to do, and that no one was all too worried about the choice that someone else made.
Every member I've ever encountered has been attached to a man who was *******' obsessed with it (intact or otherwise). Given that we live in a male dominated, sex obsessed society, it seems as though if men were unhappy about it, it would have been nipped in the bud immediately. I've browsed some other forums, and it appears (based on what I looked at) that it's almost exclusively women who feel this strongly about it...at least strongly enough to spend hours arguing with strangers on the internet.
I have been reading these posts trying to find an answer, and I'm coming up short. I'm not trying to say that I don't understand how someone can have an opinion on it either way. More that I don't understand why some are spending so much time explaining the medical benefits of circumcision, when it seems as though it doesn't save, or dramatically improve, too many lives. OR why people are so vehemently against male circumcision, even though I haven't been exposed to any evidence that suggests a significant correlation between an intact foreskin and the average man's quality of life. Man, people are so against it that a word has been invented for it (intactivism)!!
Don't be mad...I'm being sincere. I think much of my concern stems from my desire to have my first baby soon, and I can tell already that, if I have a boy, I will agonize over making the right decision (the right decision being the one that my baby will have wanted one he's older). The information I have received so far hasn't made a case overwhelming for, or against, either one (in my opinion). I'm hoping that some statements explaining why it's being debated so intensely (debated intensely, not just debated at all) might help me come to some sort of conclusion.
I'd be much obliged to anyone who took the time to reply!

Journal of Medical Ethics

Recommendation by a law body to ban infant male circumcision has serious worldwide implications for pediatric practice and human rights

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

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

There is a lot written about the ethical considerations of male circumcision. The beginnings of male circumcision had to do with religious and cultural reasons. Those two reasons seem to be still the main determining factors on whether parents choose to have their sons circumcised or not.

~PedsRN~, BSN, RN · Dec 9, 2014

Sorry to hijack the thread, but I am curious and had to ask...
Out of all the issues surrounding health care and human rights, what is it about male circumcision that has elicited such passionate feelings Most issues that evoke such polarizing and fervent opinions have either religious and/or political roots, and unless I'm missing something huge, this one has neither. Until these threads were posted, I had never once heard anyone make reference to the fact that some people consider it to be immoral, or any sort of human rights issue (and I don't live under a rock...). I had always thought that it was a thing that, for their own reasons, some moms decided to do, and some moms decided not to do, and that no one was all too worried about the choice that someone else made.
Every member I've ever encountered has been attached to a man who was *******' obsessed with it (intact or otherwise). Given that we live in a male dominated, sex obsessed society, it seems as though if men were unhappy about it, it would have been nipped in the bud immediately. I've browsed some other forums, and it appears (based on what I looked at) that it's almost exclusively women who feel this strongly about it...at least strongly enough to spend hours arguing with strangers on the internet.
I have been reading these posts trying to find an answer, and I'm coming up short. I'm not trying to say that I don't understand how someone can have an opinion on it either way. More that I don't understand why some are spending so much time explaining the medical benefits of circumcision, when it seems as though it doesn't save, or dramatically improve, too many lives. OR why people are so vehemently against male circumcision, even though I haven't been exposed to any evidence that suggests a significant correlation between an intact foreskin and the average man's quality of life. Man, people are so against it that a word has been invented for it (intactivism)!!
Don't be mad...I'm being sincere. I think much of my concern stems from my desire to have my first baby soon, and I can tell already that, if I have a boy, I will agonize over making the right decision (the right decision being the one that my baby will have wanted one he's older). The information I have received so far hasn't made a case overwhelming for, or against, either one (in my opinion). I'm hoping that some statements explaining why it's being debated so intensely (debated intensely, not just debated at all) might help me come to some sort of conclusion.
I'd be much obliged to anyone who took the time to reply!

I can only tell you my opinions why.... I think it is because it is a very personal issue. The mothers that I have met that do not want circumcisions for their sons are usually met with resistance from their husbands. Like I said before, no man likes to think that maybe there was a better way in regards to his member.

As a mom, I'm automatically defensive because I hear words like "gross" and "disgusting" and "unhygienic" thrown around. These are the two men in my life that are the most important to me. Of course I get defensive. And if a woman ever told my son he was gross because he is the way God made him, you'd better believe I'd call her worse than a bimbo. ?

I'm hardly an intactivist. I have had open discussions with friends that had questions about it. I will openly tell someone I chose not to circumcise my son if the topic is being discussed. I'm proud to say I have changed some minds in my circle of friends. But I'm not the one who will stalk you and hand you literature in the OBs office. Ha!

Red Kryptonite · Dec 9, 2014

SubSippi, this is an honest question: how is it that just looking at the act of infant circumcision itself, which is cutting a body part, that is not diseased, off of a child, it never crossed your mind even a little that it could be a human rights issue? What other healthy body parts do we cut off of children and tell ourselves that it's okay? People protest ear blocking and tail chopping for dogs, calling it cruel. Yet the practice of routinely surgically altering the memberes of human baby boys passes largely unquestioned. That seems like a cognitive disconnect to me.

I'm grateful you're thinking about it.

morte, LPN, LVN · Dec 9, 2014

i am sorry that you can't understand. but continued obfuscation will get you no where.

And your failure to understand what I thought was a pretty simply-stated concept is indeed impressive! I'm sorry that this seems to be hard for you to follow
Lack of understanding on your part does not equate with "backpeddling" on mine. I continue to stand by EXACTLY what I stated, no more, no less.
I wonder why anyone would join in on a discussion (and make abrasive comments) when they are confused as to the points presented, and by whom.....but that's rhetorical

morte, LPN, LVN · Dec 9, 2014

Because, just because someone has a preference one way or the other, does NOT make them a "bimbo". Seriously. Adds zero argument and is not a salient point.

it was not the opinion of any healthcare practitioner, but of a group of laypersons. and they are as entitled to their opinion just as the much as the women, especially women here at AN who should no better, have to their opinion that uncirc. is gross.

allnurses Guide · Dec 9, 2014

I will cry, for all the newborn boys who, minutes after their parents exclaim about how perfect they are, get strapped down to a cold, hard restraint board and painfully instructed in just how perfect they aren't until mommy pays the doctor to cut up their genitals so she likes them better.

And all the children that sold into prostitution, abused, killed, are starved to death, bullied, beaten, lack basic necessities of life in the United States are you crying for them too? I find it odd that of all the atrocities committed in the United States that someone would pick male circumcision to champion against when medically speaking there are no significant long term negative effects and plenty of positive medical and public health benefits from male circumcision.

An infant is going to cry anytime the majority of time they are placed on a papoose board. Once the foreskin is anesthetized the infant isn't going to feel anything for a few hours, and there has been shown to be no difference in how newborn males feed or adjust that have been circumcised versus uncircumcised.

I just cannot fathom with all the injustices in the world why someone would pick this one to demonize that has been shown to have only positive effects.

morte, LPN, LVN · Dec 9, 2014

And all the children that sold into prostitution, abused, killed, are starved to death, bullied, beaten, lack basic necessities of life in the United States are you crying for them too? I find it odd that of all the atrocities committed in the United States that someone would pick male circumcision to champion against when medically speaking there are no significant long term negative effects and plenty of positive medical and public health benefits from male circumcision.
An infant is going to cry anytime the majority of time they are placed on a papoose board. Once the foreskin is anesthetized the infant isn't going to feel anything for a few hours, and there has been shown to be no difference in how newborn males feed or adjust that have been circumcised versus uncircumcised.
I just cannot fathom with all the injustices in the world why someone would pick this one to demonize that has been shown to have only positive effects.

you have just lost your argument, for it doesn't have ONLY positive effects, even the lit. that you love to quote doesn't say that.