Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's actually 60% risk reduction of contracting HIV. And if it's done with a lidocaine block, it can be painless.
The US is not Africa.
Male circumcision is associated with a significantly reduced risk of HIV infection among men in sub-Saharan Africa, particularly those at high risk of HIV. These results suggest that consideration should be given to the acceptability and feasibility of providing safe services for male circumcision as an additional HIV prevention strategy in areas of Africa where men are not traditionally circumcised.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended that male circumcision be recognized as an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence.
Quote:
A U.S. male has a 1.87% chance of becoming infected with HIV over his lifetime, and the risk varies substantially by race and ethnicity, from 0.94% among white males to 6.22% among black males.
Parentologist, you are arguing upstream against a flood of self-righteous mommies. This is not a battle you can win.
You must join the groupthink and accept that all circumcisions are barbaric mutiliations done purely for cosmetic reasons. Facts do not matter. Scientific studies are all falsefied/too old/biased. There is ONE Truth in this matter, and everyone "feels sorry for your children" that you cannot see beyond the facts and studies to accept and rejoice in This One Truth!
As I said, non-circumsizers are not tinfoil-hatters. Militant anti-circ internet evangelizers are.
i feel really sorry for the children of these kinds of people. Usually they aren't athletes so how would they know what it is like for the kid who is really, really different than the rest of the 45 or 60 guys on the football team or whatever.
Since the circ rate was about 50% when my son was born almost 18 years ago, I'm pretty confident his junk is similar to about half of his friends' junk. I don't know how closely he looks. We chose not to do cosmetic surgery on our son at birth; if he wants to do it later, he's certainly free to do so.
My brothers were not circed and neither are most of the men in the world. I wasn't worried that my son would be an anomaly and he hasn't mentioned anything about it to me or my husband.
Of course anti-circ is not the same as anti-vax. What a troll post!
Goody, around the circ merry-go-round we go again!
This is the best response you are going to get. While militant, ranting, Anti-Circ people are probably just as obnoxious as Anti-Vaxxers, the health and well-being effects of Circ/Uncirc are negligible. As the AAP currently states: The health benefits of circumcision are not decisive enough to make a recommendation either way. Parents have the difficult choice of balancing their child's personal body integrity against small, but present, health risks.
Anyone facing this decision should rest assured that most circ'ed and non-circ'ed men are happy with their parent's choice. You'll note that most--possibly all--vehement anti-circumcision advocates are women, and not circ'ed or uncirc'ed men.
Circumcised man here who is not happy that choice was made for me!
Why do they make that choice? Especially if they have easy access to the procedure in a first world country like the USA? Do you compare these people to anit-vaxxers?
You would probably be surprised to learn that the U.S. in in the minority of countries when it comes to circumcision. In most European countries circumcision rates are less than 20%. I'd hardly call France, the U.K. or Germany third world countries.
In Asia the only countries where it is common are those places with high percentages of Muslim like Malaysia and Pakistan.
If I had to choose for my son today, I would likely make a different choice and leave him uncircumcised.
I believe in bodily integrity and consent for unnecessary cosmetic procedures.
It's unnecessary
Most of the world's men are uncircumcised
Its history in the West, specifically America, is puritanical and nonsensical
It carries risks and lasting effects for men and their sexual partners
Foreskin serves an important function
It's not my body
Rates have declined significantly in my region. It's probably somewhere around 25%
Basic hygiene practices is sufficient for European boys and men, why not their American counterparts? It's really not that hard. Really.
In places with ample water for washing, hygiene is likely not going to be an issue for uncircumcised boys/men. It's thought that circumcision first arose in Egypt as a response to desert conditions where sand could not be easily removed from underneath the foreskin.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
