Anonymous asked in Social ScienceGender Studies · 8 years ago

Why are people so misinformed about circumcision?

I knew there were people that objected to circumcision but I didn't know, until this site how bizarre some of them are. It's annoying but somewhat fascinating. There hasn't been enough research into mass paranoia or whatever this phenomena is. All of the medical evidence that is on the anti-circ side is fabricated or twisted beyond recognition.

The evidence for your side of the issue is all recent and funded by anti-circ groups or by psuedo-professionals who stated their views before their research and to no one's surprise came back with evidence that proves their claim. The evidence in favor of circumcision goes back for decades and has been accepted and held up time and time again to the scrutiny of peer review. Your side can cherry pick a few instances of poorly designed studies but they are a drop in the bucket.

Most anticircs have posted comments stating there is no medical rationale for circumcision. They are wrong. Period. Ive read them. No one is saying there isnt some level of risk. What the experts on this ARE saying is that the benefits outweigh them. There IS a value to circumcision. YOU blindly reject all value. Pot calling the kettle black. No value is not the same thing as risks outweigh the benefits

Why have no health organizations spread the word that circumcision is bad if it really is? The ones that are against it are never medical professionsionals. Circumcision prevents penile cancer, syphilis, balanoposthitis and phimosis. To keep it clean you have to wash EVERY DAY. I guess that rules out camping or joining the army if you're uncircumcised

The foreskin evolved because our ancestors ran through tall grass and swung from trees nude, a little extra protection probably wasn't a bad thing. Your ancestors were elderly at 30 and typically didn't live long enough to develop many of the maladies we suffer today. The foreskin has been redundant and a liability since the advent of the loom. Unless you're recommending we all start walking around nude to diminish the incidents of infection and inflammatory diseases then circumcision is a reasonable course of action. The ten countries that have the lowest rate of HIV are all countries that practice circumcision.

I love the "proper hygiene" "safe sex" argument. If humans have proven one thing through out our history it's that we aren't very responsible as a whole. Besides, even the cleanest person cannot avoid any bacterial, viral or fungal exposure. Just do the experiment of showering using NO deodorant/antiperspirant and then do some moderate but steady house work and see how long it takes before you can smell steamed hot dogs, that odor is the byproduct of bacteria. Any warm, moist, dark place will encourage pathogens to thrive. Moving beyond that is the fact that HPV (the virus correlated with this and other cancers) easily infects the soft moist skin of the glans and underside of the foreskin. In other words you could shower before and after sex and still be infected. Poor hygiene elevates the risk, not creates it.

I'm tired of hearing people say the chance of penile cancer is only 1:100,000. That is not even remotely accurate.

To illustrate the point:

1:100,000 is the chance of all males in the population if they are lumped together for one year regardless of whether they are 18 or 75 (median age of onset is 60). Assuming a man lives an average life expectancy of 75 years the chances of developing penile cancer are 75:100,000 in his life time.

Lets say uncircumcised men make up 30% of the population. Since invasive penile cancer is almost exclusive to uncircumcised men we can say approximately 75:30,000=1:400. Obviously there are a lot more variables at play but it brings us close enough to the actual number to demonstrate the point.

The actual number is 1:600 in the USA.

The "Intact" crowd has also been pointing to Denmark for having a lower rate than the U.S. and alleging this is proof circumcision is not to credit. Denmark has roughly 25% of it's males circumcised. As you've seen it's is only appropriate to compare the uncircumcised populations of the two countries. Denmark's rate is 1:900 as opposed to the US's 1:600 is close enough to be explained by environmental, genetic and cultural differences. Their circumcised males also rarely develop invasive penile cancer.

Statistics on the American Cancer Society web page indicate 1,280 new cases of penile cancer in 2007, with 290 deaths [American, 2007b]. 25-30% mortality

If you’re only going to dismiss all professional organizations supporting circumcision then I get to dismiss ACS. You've seen my post explaining the math behind their 1:100,000. So it should be apparent they didn't put a lot of thought into their release.

If you object morally and ethically then state that all you want, make all of those types of arguments you want. Circumcised

12 Answers

  • 8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    It is estimated that from about 10000 to 100000 specialized nerve endings are cut with this WOUNDING. So why not mention the 100% RISK of harm to the sensory system? Leaving out the harm is twisted misinformation.

    The knowledge of the cut affecting sexual pleasure and function goes back years so there is NO IF as to SEXUAL HARM, it is a matter of HOW BAD IS IT for the average guy. Maimonides (the Torah scholar) noted that the act that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. Kellogg declared a ‘war on masturbation’ at the end of the 19th century and advocated circumcision to curb male sexual urges by removing the main male pleasure parts.

    Recent medical studies identify a correlation between circumcision and sexual health harm. The International Journal of Men's Health published results of a study that showed circumcised men are 4.5 times more likely to experience erectile dysfunction due to loss of sensitivity. In a further study, The British Journal of Urology International reports that circumcised men can experience up to a 75 percent reduction in sensitivity compared to men who are not circumcised.

    It is an observed REAL POPULATION FACT that in the US, and in all developed countries, the cut men get HIV (HPV and other STDs) at about the same rate as intact (natural penis) men. Some studies even show cut being MORE at risk for HIV. A study on Circumcision from Puerto Rico that shows "Circumcised men have accumulated larger numbers of STI in their lifetime, have higher rates of previous diagnosis of warts, and were more likely to have HIV infection." There is clear evidence that "Circumcision does not appear to shield men from most types of STDs in developed nations". Journal of Pediatrics, MARCH 2008. So there is no STD advantage to removing parts of babies. We need to defund this across the board and that includes defunding the mutilation of African Men.

    Most countries have moved past the issue of believing in any benefits to cutting up a babies penis, cutting thousands of nerve endings and now focus on the fact that it violates human rights and it is essentially a criminal act.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 8 years ago

    At one time not so long ago lobotomies were performed without the patient.s consent. The argument was that the results were so beneficial the patient's right to consent were over ridden. Thankfully this barbaric practice has been outlawed. Personally I was not circumcised as a child but I am a nudist and have considered having the operation performed for cosmetic reasons. I admit that cut does look better and with the majority of men cut you are less likely to stand out in a crowd of nudists. I have nothing against circumcision but don't think it should be performed routinely and never on infants except in a medical emergency. The biggest negative, other than the negatives associated with any surgery, is the loss of sensitivity. I think the decision should be postponed til after adolescence when sensitivity is an issue. All risks should be explained to the young boy and it should be presented as a purely cosmetic issue with little or no health benefits. The most absurdt argument I have ever heard for male circumcision is that it makes it easier to keep the head clean. a woman's genitals have a hundred times as many folds and crevices where bactria can hide. Do we suggest cutting off newborn's facial lips in order to make it easier to keep their teeth clean and therefore promote dental hygiene? Nothing could be easier than for a male to retract his foreskin completely straightening out the wrinkles before washing with soap and water.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 8 years ago

    An immoral practice, even if it has a benefit, is still an immoral practice. Circumcision OF MINORS is an immoral practice. As an adult, you are free to believe what you want and do what you want with your body.

    “proxy consent” poses serious problems for

    pediatric health care providers. Such providers have

    legal and ethical duties to their child patients to

    render competent medical cane based on what the

    patient needs, not what someone else expresses. Although

    impasses regarding the interests of minors

    and the expressed wishes of their parents or guardians

    are rare, the pediatrician’s responsibilities to his

    or her patient exist independent of parental desires

    on proxy consent.’#{176}

    Informed Consent, Parental Permission, and Assent in Pediatric Practice - Committee on Bioethics AAP 1995

    BTW, have you realized the religious bias in the AAP? Of 4 people in the task force that wrote the new policy, 3 are Jewish. I also think but can't confirm that the President of the AAP is Jewish.

    Now, by comparison I have to ask, what do anti-circumcision have to win? What profit can people obtain from engaging in activism?

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Tundra
    Lv 5
    8 years ago

    ....and your QUESTION is??????

    Actually, I'll ask one of my own: WHY go through such a rant to try and somehow discredit people who speak out against a procedure that they had no choice in receiving? I'm one who took the time and effort (by stretching with weights over YEARS) to re-grow my foreskin. I can tell you of a benefit that is worth all of the hygienic concerns which are EASILY addressed.....SEX IS 100 FOLD BETTER. For both me and my partner.

    Seeing as you have no glut of statistics in answer to THAT little EMPIRICAL FACT, I will thank you to keep your rant to yourself and next time ASK A QUESTION!

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Deni
    Lv 5
    8 years ago

    You have some good points.

    One example is the argument that ancestors who ran around naked were elderly at 30 so with clothes we lose the foreskin benefit but modern circumstances make it a liability. Given the life expectancies today in places without good medical facilities that probably understates things. However since penile cancer is extremely unlikely before 50 your argument makes a lot of sense.

    A related change of circumstances argument is that going back only a few hundred years or less there was no HIV in humans. So the 76% long term protection didn't mean much to our naked ancestors.

    Your calculations were based on uncircumcised men being 1/3 of the US adult male population. It is widely believed that they are about 1/5 of the US adult male population.

    Getting down to your question. People get misinformed because for a tiny group with some way out ideas anti-circumcision activists have an awful lot of money.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    As a pediatric nurse who has assisted in over a thousand circumcisions, the facts are Circumcision Rates never actually declined as much as the anti-circ movement would have had everyone believe.

    And now that the A.A.P. has reversed it's stance on infant circumcision and now supports it and recommends it, the rates are going to sky-rocket upwards to a level we have not see in a long time.

    This infuriates the anti-circ movement as it is and was a MASSIVE blow to them when this was announced a couple weeks ago.

    They are LOOSING there fight, and rightfully so.

    It was only a matter of time before a professional medical community confronted their claims and debunked them for the lies that they are.

    Now they are left like SORE LOOSERS, all upset that the pros are not buying into there B.S. anymore.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    I agree with the other answers that it is truly barbaric.

    A religious blood ritual carried out on a new born baby without any consent - that is not without risks and only negligible health benefits if any.

    They can go wrong. You would probably feel differently if your circumcision was botched. I don't think a reduced risk of cancers or infections would be any consolation to you.

    its often done without anesthetic as well - to a new born baby - Its just disgusting.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Steven
    Lv 4
    8 years ago

    I think male circumcision should be a personal choice when the person is old enough to decide for themselves. I was circumcised as a infant and wish I wasn't. Just let it be your son's decision.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 8 years ago

    If it could be demonstrated that breast cancer could be completely and permanently defeated, just by the simple procedure of mandatory double mastectomies on adolescent girls at the beginning of puberty, would you support the procedure?

    What if it could be demonstrated that the number of girls who died on the operating table while having their breasts chopped out against their will were only a drop in the bucket compared to the number of lives saved from breast cancer?

    Personally, I would consider it barbaric, and anyone who started bringing up cancer statistics would be missing the point. But apparently we disagree.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • John
    Lv 4
    8 years ago

    As Deni said the anti-circumcision whackos have a lot of money to promulgate bunk. Plus in America most men aren't circumcised and got cut at birth so they don't know the difference and most women have never had an uncut penis so they don't know the difference. Therefore totally ludicrous stuff can get believed.

    Source(s): circed at 19
    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.