How do you argue with people...

[gethane]

ACk.. never mind, just frustrated and venting. I don't understand how people can fail to understand that their son's body doesn't belong to them. It's not their choice to make.

[Frankly Speaking]

I think the key is to not argue but present the information in a manner that will not cause them to become defensive.

Most men and parents have an investment in this issue and that has a way of clouding their vision. You've got to first get past that investment to get them involved in a receptive way. By first saying "Just 30 years ago, the thinking in the medical community was that there are benefits to infant circumcision but new information just 20 years ago changed that and since then tons of new information has been added and it is now known there is no benefit. As a result of that new information, the circumcision rate has dropped almost 50%."

That statement gives older mothers and grandmothers as well as adult men an out of the blame game. Stating that when they gave birth or when they were circumcised it was the standard of medical care takes the blame off of them and helps to prevent defensiveness. The fact that new information has come out does not condemn them for what they did or condemn adult men's mothers.

Of course, we know that the information has been out there for more than 50 years but that doesn't need to be stated. Once you have their ear, you can start discussing all of the "new" medical information to a receptive audience. At this point, they are ready to learn. By having the research backed facts, you can educate them instead of offending them.

The information can be tailored to the specific audience.



Frank

[onlyboys]

The information can be tailored to the specific audience.

Ack. you are so right, Frank. I just wish I could detach myself from the notion well enough to argue the point the best way to convince them.

We've gotten lots of questions about why we haven't circed. In our area, the rate of circumcision is extremely high, and so anytime the diaper area is shown, we get some questions.

It makes me angry and sad to see someone circ (as my best friend did) because they don't want their son to be teased. LIKE I DO???? I'm none too rational about the situation...

Amanda

[gethane]

Thanks for the advice Frank. What about this "new" study last week on Indian men in an STD clinic? The woman I was talking to yesterday was using this as an example as why she circed years ago. *baffled as to how she knew about that study then* And what are some things that can be brought up as failures in that most recent study? I did a web search and couldn't find any obvious (to me) errors in it. Well, other than since it took place on men in an STD clinic, its obvious those men were already practicing unsafe sex.

[Frankly Speaking]

The Pune, India study has been out quite some time and has been thoroughly debunked.

First of all, India is a very different place than the United States (You didn't know that, did you? :LOL ) and even if this were a significant finding, it can not be applied to the US.

One of the most glaring problems I see is that the study was done of men at a sexual disease clinic. For a study to be valid, the choice of subjects should be as much as possible be randomly selected. Quite obviously, this one was not.

Another glaring failure is that this study did not account for religion. Among others, there are Christians, Muslims, Buddists and Hindus. Of all of those groups, only Muslims circumcise so all or almost all of their circumcised subjects were Muslim. They never asked the question "Is there something in the religious culture of Muslims that accounts for the lower rate?" or "Is there something in the religious culture of (insert religion) that accounts for the higher rate?" The hard numbers in the difference was so small that 1 or 2 men would have made a significant difference in the results. However, the researchers reported the difference in percentages which made the difference appear far more significant than they actually were. It's a case of "liars figure to make figures lie."

The consensus is that this study was done to support infant male circumcision and when the differences were found to be insignificant, they just changed the way they were tossed to make them seem more significant. It is also apparent something is up when there was such a publicity campaign when the study was released and the continuing publicty campaign here years later. This was not a new study looking for new evidence. It clearly broke no new ground!

The problem is that when it is continually brought up in the media, people think it is new information and not the same thing they heard two years ago. Then you hear "I've heard about two studies linking HIV and foreskins." Well, no you didn't. You heard about the same study twice!

I also think it is significant that there is never a link to the actual study. Are they afraid we will find the problems if we are allowed to see the real McCoy?




Frank