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... show more 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
11 answers 11