Why would you expect that? In the developed world, the U.S.A. has the highest incidence of STDs and also, by far, the highest rate of circumcision. Also there are studies done in Africa that claim a higher rate of HIV in the circumcised population: http://circumstitions.com/HIV-SA.html .
What makes you say that? I do not believe that is the case in Europe where almost all the old men are intact. Consider that in Finland only one in more than 16,000 will die without his foreskin, and there is no epidepic of UTIs there, for example.
StudentDr, I commend you for comming here with an open mind. You hit the nail on the head. There is a serious lack of knowlege about normal intact male genitalia on the part of those in teaching positions in North America. Most of what we are told are myths and fabrications. If you research the history of circumcision, you will discover that it was introduced to curb masturbation. The medical community has been searching for justifications ever since. A new one each time the previous one was disproven.
http://icgi.org/medicalization-of-circumcision.htm
Consider that 85% of the word's males are intact. Of those, the vast majority are Muslims. Most of the rest are Jews and Americans.
You seem willing to learn. I hope you are, and I hope that you will not be shy about sharing your knowlege.
You may be interested in perusing:
www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org
There are lots more in the sticky at the top of this board.
Good luck.
I don't think it's a stupid question ;-)! Actually, circumcision first took hold in the US precisely to inflict pain upon children who had been exploring their bodies, so circ'ing was used as a punishment and/or prevention from exploring the body. I remember reading a quote from an old book that talked about it saying something like, inflict pain in that area so the child remembers & will no longer masturbate. Read about Dr. Kellog (can't remember his first name)...he was one of the first big drs. pushing it. And, initially, circ was done to girls also, for the same reasons, I believe, that it was done to boys. It wasn't made against the law to perform circ on girls until 1997, I believe. (Most of my info here is going based on memory. I may have the year wrong and/or Dr. Kellog's name spelled wrong.)
I have three children. They've all explored their bodies. From age 9ish months - 10 years old. I think it is normal to do this, just not looked up as healthy in our prudish, puritan society.
Sus
Hello Ryan! (I have a son named Ryan ;-).) 
I hope you'll stick around & continue to participate in the conversation.
There are plenty of guys in your shoes, happy as larks w/ their goods. But, there are plenty of guys who are in your shoes angry as hell. Does another person have the right to amputate a healthy body part regardless of the potential benefits? What about amputating the healthy body parts of girls? Is that okay? If not, why is it okay to do to boys but not girls?
If you are on twitter, you may want to check out this to follow: https://twitter.com/mendocomplain Oh, and on Facebook, here are pictures of the brave men who stood up at the press conference in front of where the AAP was holding their conference to say that they did not consent to their circ's: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151286880176388&set=pb.41930706387.-2207520000.1361921157&type=3&theater
There's a thread here from those who are unhappy they were circ'd. Here it is: http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1368471/if-you-regret-being-circumcised-post-here My husband is circ'd & we are both unhappy about it. It effects us every single time we're intimate. Every. Single. Time.
And, you have no problem w/ the AAP's statement? We're the laughing stock of the rest of the first world! Here's a sampling of other countries pediatric group's statements: http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/
Since you are a doctor, you may want to become familiar w/ this organization www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org as well as this one www.nursesfortherightsofthechild.org in addition to this one, run by a nurse www.nocirc.org. There is also www.intactamerica.org who is working to end the practice of forced genital cutting on unconsenting individuals.
While I'm not a lawyer, since you are almost a physician, I'd suggest you never circumcise a child. Did you know that a child can sue his circumciser when he comes of age? You might look at GregB's posts here. I believe he's a lawyer who has represented those who have been circ'd as well as a parents of children who's circ's have been botched (Greg, please correct me if I'm wrong).
I'd encourage you to look through the threads here at MDC. There are many rebuttals to the supposed trials of circ in Africa. Did you know that the trials were cut short? Did you know that they advised the circ'd group to abstain from sex for a large portion of the study? There is more that I'm not sure of my memory on so I'll stop there. Do you think that your child won't be able to learn how to protect himself from STDs while keeping their whole body? Do you think that a circ means their immune? What will happen if there is a cure to those diseases by then? Where will your son be then? Oh, maybe you'll help him learn about foreskin restoration.
And, even if they were valid studies, what does cutting off parts of Africans have to do w/ healthy babies born in America?
You said, "I'm prepared as a guy to see the other side of opinion of circumcision but it seems others aren't here." Are you prepared to see the "other side" of the female genital mutilation argument? Do you know what the proponents of that practice claim are it's benefits? Hmmm, hygiene, more attractive potential mates, healthier, blah, blah, blah. Yup, the same stuff that's spewed as "information," and "research," and "reasons" to cut off healthy parts of non-consenting individuals.
Oh, and just to round out the info for your purusal, here are many moms who regret circ'ing their sons. Many of them were misinformed by doctors & other medpros. Many of them were coerced by family members. Many were lead to believe it was just a flap of skin. Many of them believed it was their partner's decision since they weren't the ones w/ a penis. Read it, I dare you (it's 36 pages long): http://www.mothering.com/community/t/112410/if-you-regret-circumcising-your-son-s-please-post-here
I could go on, but I must attend to my happy, healthy, WHOLE sons now.
Best wishes,
Sus
It is interesting that the only medical personnel in the industrialized world that believe that circumcision should be forced on children are also from the only industrialized nation that has a profit based medical system instead of a care based medical system. The United states has the worst health system and the highest rates of HIV, STDs and cervical cancer of all of the industrialized nations.
The German pediatric association recently came out in support of a total ban of male circumcision, in the same manner that the Royal Dutch Medical Association has. Circumcision is already illegal in Finland, represented by the successful prosecution of a couple that had their sons circumcised in 2011.
The Indonesian medical community believes in female circumcision and has specific guidelines for physicians detailing how it should be performed. Female circumcision was also previously supported by many physicians in the American medical community and was covered by the insurance company Blue Cross until 1977. No one has yet to investigate whether female circumcision has health benefits in regards to STDs or cervical cancer, so to say that they do not supposedly exist if they, according to you, do for male circumcision is truly quite daft.
There are many threads on all of these subjects here if you take the time to look around, because many of them are fairly recent. You are a circumcised man that is happy that he is circumcised and has circumcised his son. There are many woman that are happy that they are circumcised and have done the same thing to their daughters and would do it again.
If you were to travel to Europe, Latin America, non Muslim Asia or New Zealand and attempt to introduce male circumcision as a form of preventative medicine similar to vaccines you would be viewed as endorsing a form of pseudo science and be completely disregarded by the medical establishments in those nations (which the vast majority of have much better overall health than the U.S in every way, at a much lower cost).
This is not aimed directly at you as I suspect there is very little chance of changing your position on this regardless. This is aimed at anyone that may be reading this that is on the fence about whether or not they should have any future sons circumcised.
Here is one thing that I believe everyone that may be reading this should watch : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggqa6CCTR-4
Can you explain how you get around the 14th amendment that is supposed to provide equal protection under the law and how you do the work around for medical ethics? I'm confused as to why boys don't deserve the same rights that are guaranteed through this constitutional amendment and how proxy consent and first do no harm come into play here.
@candiceamey... do your colleagues feel the same as you? I hope not. I hope the trend is away from your mentality. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, values, beliefs, etc, but since you have chosen a profession in medicine, you have a responsibility to practice good medicine. Routine circumcision is not that. My intact son was born a few years ago at a very large teaching hospital in NC. He was born via c-section and unfortunately spent his first 9 days of life in the NICU. As you can imagine, I saw and spoke with MANY doctors, nurses, and other practitioners during this time, and everytime I was asked if I was going to circ my son and said no, I was practically high-fived by all of them. I don't know what specialty you are interested in, but I hope not OB/Gyn or any pediatric specialty.
Ryan...the CDC is NOT an appropriate source for information of any kind. They lie about it all. As far as the HIV study in Africa..it's important to note that it is not common for them to use condoms. It's got nothing to do with whether they're intact or not, it's entirely due to the fact that they just don't often use condoms over there...if at all. The only reason the study was stopped, as all one-sided studies are stopped, is to achieve the answer they wanted. Organizations that know better only run highly tweaked studies for a short enough period of time, to achieve the answer they want..then they just stop. Nor do they invest time and money and research into all possible theories. Such as the lack of condoms being the cause of the high rate of HIV over there. That's all there is to it. Pass out a bunch of condoms to the people, teach them how to use them, and why to use them, and I bet we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now.
Can you explain how you get around the 14th amendment that is supposed to provide equal protection under the law and how you do the work around for medical ethics? I'm confused as to why boys don't deserve the same rights that are guaranteed through this constitutional amendment and how proxy consent and first do no harm come into play here.
What you're hinting at could very well happen in the future - especially once boys born after the FGM ban start to turn 18 and thus would have standing in court - someone sues the government on the basis of unequal protection. If the case ever goes up to the Supreme Court it will be interesting to see how it turns out. The downside may be, like a poll in this thread of mine suggests, that because (male) circumcision is so enshrined in our culture that Congress would rather lift the FGM ban rather than ban MGM if the courts rule that they must treat the sexes equally in this regard. (Some religious groups might try to claim it's justified under the 1st Amendment, but freedom of religion does not apply once you force it on others.)
Follow Mothering