When someone says, "But it prevents infection and STDs"

[joannamf]

What do you say? I know its incorrect but I don't have enough evidence to prove it.

[Mama Poot]

I say "No, proper hygiene and safe sex prevents infection and STD's"

[Fyrestorm]

All those poor intact European men must be waiting in terror for their foreskins to attack them

Why is it that in the rest of the world the need to circ later in life is only 1%?

Why is it that in the US with the highest circ rate we also have the highest rates of HIV and other STD transmission? Could it be that circumcision causes loss of sensitivity and US men are more likely to engage in more risky behavior (including refusal to use condoms) to get the needed stimulation? Could it be that the lack of foreskin causes cut men to need to have rougher sex in order to orgasm and this can cause micro tears in both their genitals and those of their partners, leaving them more vulnerable to STDs?

[Fellow Traveler]

Originally Posted by joannamf

What do you say? I know its incorrect but I don't have enough evidence to prove it.

You can present them with papers such as this one published last March in the Journal of Pediatrics, "Circumcision and Risk of Sexually Transmitted Infections in a Birth Cohort" by N. P. Dickson, T. Van Roode, P. Herbison and C. Paul, J Pediatr 2008;152:383-7, (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...?dopt=Abstract) shows that circumcision does NOT prevent STDs. These findings are consistent with recent population-based cross-sectional studies in developed countries.

The full paper is here:
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcisi...08_Dickson.pdf

You could share this report from Advocates for Youth. Recently, the organization, Advocates for Youth, which champions efforts to help young people make informed and responsible decisions about their reproductive and sexual health, released an intriguing fact sheet which paints a stark picture with regard to the sexual health of US youth as compared to their European counterparts.

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/pub...heet/fsest.htm

That should get you started.

[latinalonestar]

Yes the US has the highest STD rates in the entire world and the circ rate of sexually active men in the US is still at around 86%.

Also over 450,000 circed men from the US have died of Aids.

Risky behavior increases the risk of STD, NOT foreskin.

[AllyRae]

Sometimes I say "well, I supposed cutting off the entire penis would prevent those as well. And cutting off the breasts and all breast tissue would reduce the risk of mastitis and breast cancer. And taking out your brain prevents brain cancer. And out comes the stomach, because that would prevent reflux, obesity, and stomach cancer" and so forth until the person realizes what a dumb statement they made. :

[carriebft]

Simply show them the evidence:

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...9&postcount=40

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...?dopt=Abstract

[kriket]

I don't even understand how they can claim that a piece of skin designed for a function, could increase your risk for STDs. I always just respond to those comments, along with the "its cleaner" comments with "Thats BS"

[Claire and Boys]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...?dopt=Abstract
http://highwire.stanford.edu/cgi/medline/pmid;16925903
http://www.cirp.org/library/general/dave1/

[Greg B]

The problem is 1) in the word "prevent" and 2) in the implied decision making logic. In addition to the good resources already given, here is a way to respond:

First, it does not prevent the transmission of STDs. It reduces the chance that (or increases how many encounters it will take for) a person to contract STDs. This benefit is not large when taken in the context of the experimental population studied. And he will still need to do everything that an uncircumcised person would need to do in order to meet current standards of safety during sex.

In addition, we need to balance the advantages of reducing the liklehood of becoiming infected against the negative consequences of losing your foreskin. It is not enough to simply find one small advantage to removing your child's foreskin without his agreement.

This means weighing the risk of complications, the uncertainty of how it will turn out because of his developmental stage, going against his human right to bodily integrity, and the loss of sexual feeling and function for both him and his future partner, against this benefit.

Regards

[becca_howell]

I tell them the same thing that I tell them when they ask why I don't give my daughter(s) the HPV vaccine: Forget the medical evidence. I plan on teaching my children to respect their God, their bodies and their future girl/boyfriends and to be abstinent until marriage. It's amazing how many illnesses can be prevented by staying abstinent! Abstinence until marriage and a monogamous marriage!!!

[AllyRae]

Originally Posted by becca_howell

I tell them the same thing that I tell them when they ask why I don't give my daughter(s) the HPV vaccine: Forget the medical evidence. I plan on teaching my children to respect their God, their bodies and their future girl/boyfriends and to be abstinent until marriage. It's amazing how many illnesses can be prevented by staying abstinent! Abstinence until marriage and a monogamous marriage!!!

Well, technically I believe in abstinence until marriage, and I was abstinent until marriage. But that doesn't protect against infection. And, HPV can happen without sex as well (heck, my 1 year old has a plantar's wart on her foot, which is caused by HPV I believe...I can guarantee that "HPV" didn't come from her being promiscuous--she's only a year old!). So, while that may hold true for the actual STD part, you'd still have to come up with a way to convince people that an uncirc'd penis isn't an infection factory. :

[D'sMama]

"If it was found that female circumcision prevented STDs, would you run out to have parts of your daughter's genitals cut off?"

"Double mastectomies prevent breast cancer - are you/your wife/etc. planning to remove your breasts anytime soon?"

[Ron_Low]

It prevents disease

Which disease? Urinary tract infections? The AAP acknowledges that the studies claiming increased UTI for intact boys were tainted by medical intervention. Just like with eyelids, invasive cleaning would cause more infections than it prevents.

For STDs and all other affected diseases, they are adult issues which a boy can decide about when he is an adult.

NO national medical association on earth endorses routine circumcision. They say potential benefits don't outweigh known drawbacks and risks.

[hakunangovi]

In Scandinavia, a part of the world with a virtualy entirely intact male population, I believe their records show that only 1 in 600,000 men actualy NEEDED a circumcision. That translates to a percentage of 0.0002% of the male population. Pretty small!!

As others have pointed out , their rate of disease of the genitals is much lower than that in the U.S.

[Ron_Low]

Originally Posted by hakunangovi

In Scandinavia, a part of the world with a virtualy entirely intact male population, I believe their records show that only 1 in 600,000 men actualy NEEDED a circumcision.

That sounds like the number for infants needing circumcision.

For adults it would be closer to 1 in 10,000, mainly due to the cases of LS/BXO which do not respond to Protopic ointment.

LS/BXO strikes about 1 in 3000 adult men or women. It involves a progressive hardening and scarification of the prepuce which scratches at the glans of the penis or clitoris. Two-thirds of the cases respond to treatment.

[nd_deadhead]

Short answers:

1. It seems ridiculous to me to amputate a body part just in case it might get infected someday. There's no reason boys with foreskins can't be treated for infection excatly the same way as girls and circumcised boys.

2. My baby boy is not sexually active, and therefore does not need protection from STDs.

[NJ*Doula]

Originally Posted by rachel616

"If it was found that female circumcision prevented STDs, would you run out to have parts of your daughter's genitals cut off?"

At least one study has found that FGM gives a similar protection against HIV transmission. I still won't be circing any daughters I might have.

[Fyrestorm]

I think it's also been shown that circumcised men are more likely to transmit HIV and other STDs to their partners. This is caused by more risky sex practices because of desensitization, not using condoms etc. as well as loosing lubrication and causing tears in their partner's genitals and the fact that there is more thrusting involved in circumcised sex causing a higher likelyhood of tearing and friction burns in the vagina.

[Mister Noodle]

* The survey in question was incredibly flawed. *what jwhispers said*

* The exact same cell type present in the foreskin that has been proposed as an infection risk is also present in female genitalia, and you don't go cutting those off.

* When he's old enough to be having sex, he'll be old enough to make the decision for himself. There;'s no reason to do it beforehand.

* Lots of body parts can pose a health risk later in life. You don't go proactively cutting them off at birth, just in case.

* The idea of safer sex through amputation is as stupid as it sounds.