New MSNBC article

[melanie83103]

This article totally makes me want to

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15593753/

[lunarmagic]

My husband just emailed me this article saying "SEE!!" OMG. Does anyone have info to refute the stupid article? (I'm trying to convince hubby NOT to circumcise... this article was the LAST thing I needed!!!)

[ShaggyDaddy]

doing something to a baby to LOWER chances of getting an STD (not actually prevent) is rediculious. It is like giving condoms to a toddler... oh wait condoms are actually effective.

Howabout this:
would you rather your son play Russian Roulette with 5 bullets or with 3?
NEITHER, doesn't make any difference to me... I would rather he choose not to play at all... or at least if he does play switch the safety on.

IMO preaching of "lowering chances" of contracting or spreading STDs is misleading and dangerous.

By the time you have had sex 10 or 20 times does it matter that the chances are 1:8 vs 1:5... no.

So even if the B.S. studies are true it is not a valid arguement for mutilating someone 16-20 years before they will ever have sex.

[dynamohumm6]

Originally Posted by lunarmagic

My husband just emailed me this article saying "SEE!!" OMG. Does anyone have info to refute the stupid article? (I'm trying to convince hubby NOT to circumcise... this article was the LAST thing I needed!!!)

This biggest refute to this stupid "study" is that the vast majority of sexually active men in this country are circed - meaning, our generation and most of our parents. Is the STD rate in this country next to nothing? NO? Well then, it might look good on paper, but it doesn't mean jack sh*t in the real world

If your dh thinks this is a good reason to circ (and assuming he is circed himself) ask him if he'd be willing to have sex with a woman that has HIV or syphillis or any of the other diseases listed in that study, if he's so confident that being circed will protect him against these things. Would he be willing to tell his future ds to not bother using protection because he's circed?

If the answer is no, than he's got no business even bringing this study up as a reason to circ.

Also - I can believe that scar tissue and/or keratinized tissue (as is found on the head of EVERY circumcised penis) makes it harder for infection to enter. There is a study linked somewhere on this board that shows that circumcising females lowers their risk for contracting STDS (works the same way, forcing the formation of scar tissue). Would your husband want to circ his daughter based on these findings? No? What, his daughter isn't worthy of the same protection as his son?

By the way, if my "tone" seems a little harsh, please know it's not directed at you (or your dh). I'm just REALLY lit up right now after reading this study. My blood pressure has increased tenfold in the last 5 minutes.

[lunarmagic]

Don't worry, I don't take offence! I don't think my hubby was completely serious about it, but in his eyes every thing he sees that promotes circumcision strengthens his resolve. We're not even pregnant yet and we're getting into arguments.

[13Sandals]

NO - this study took information from questionnaires filled out by the participants...no one was examined. How many men between 18 and 25actually know for certain whether or not they are carrying an STD??? THe media in this country MAKES ME SICK. THEY WILL PUBLISH ANYTHING AND CALL IT A STUDY. write to MSNBC. these guys are notorious for parrotting crap like this.

From the article:
"In the current study, the researchers analyzed data collected for the Christchurch Health and Development Study, which included a large birth cohort of children from New Zealand. Males were divided into two groups based on circumcision status before 15 years of age. The presence of a sexually transmitted infection between 18 and 25 years of age was determined by questionnaire."

[melanie83103]

Natalie, I wish you lots of luck in convincing your DH. That's a tough thing to have different views on.

My thing is, even if it does prevent STD's, it's still mutilation. Who's to say that female circumcision doesnt prevent STD's? Wonder why no-one is studying that one? And if we find out that female circ does prevent STD's, should we start mutilating our baby girls, too???

Also, if your future son DOES eventually WANT to be circumcized, he can make the decision to do it himself. I've always said that if my son eventually WANTED to be circumcized, I'd even pay for it. It's HIS choice, not mine.

Melanie

[dynamohumm6]

Originally Posted by 13Sandals

NO - this study took information from questionnaires filled out by the participants...no one was examined. How many men between 18 and 25actually know for certain whether or not they are carrying an STD??? THe media in this country MAKES ME SICK. THEY WILL PUBLISH ANYTHING AND CALL IT A STUDY. write to MSNBC. these guys are notorious for parrotting crap like this.

From the article:
"In the current study, the researchers analyzed data collected for the Christchurch Health and Development Study, which included a large birth cohort of children from New Zealand. Males were divided into two groups based on circumcision status before 15 years of age. The presence of a sexually transmitted infection between 18 and 25 years of age was determined by questionnaire."

unbelievable.

[ared1]

That article is a joke. Questionnaires are notoriously unreliable. Someone that supports circ can slant their answers. Someone that has a disease can be looking for something that can help them cope with the fact they have it. So their answers are colored. KWIM? I'm not circ'd! That is why I got this disease, I don't have to take any responsibilty! : Even the article itself is full of maybes and probably. I don't even know why or how they were allowed to print it.

[star2589]

infants are not at risk for STDs. if as adults they are willing to take the risk of having getting an STD for the sake of keeping their foreskin that ought to be their decision to make.

[baybee]

Every warm, moist area of the human body is a "breeding ground for infection"--think about the throat, the eyes, the vagina, etc. We don't consider amputating any of these areas in order to prevent infections. We understand that it's better to have these parts as protection to prevent infections going deeper into the vital organs. When we get a sore throat, vaginal discharge or a weepy eye, WE TREAT IT. We don't amputate. Having an intact foreskin gives a man the same feedback about caring for his body. Men are interested in being healthy and feeling good. An intact foreskin is an aid to that wellness. The only reason why circumcision is even a consideration is that we have become culturally blind to the insanity of the practise. That's all changing now, of course.
Baybee

[Kim22]

I used some of your comments (I hope nobody minds, and I didn't figure anyone would since we're all for the same cause) to reply to my brother-in-law's e-mail, which I'm sure you've figured out was pro-circ, based only on the info in this MSNBC article. I think I did a good job keeping myself tame! :LOL


Hello Brother-in-law,

About that article…

First of all, did you see the part that says, “The American Academy of Pediatrics has called the evidence ‘complex and conflicting,’ and therefore concludes that, at present, the evidence is insufficient to support routine neonatal circumcision.” ?


Secondly, did you read how they did the “study?” They took information from questionnaires filled out by the participants...no one was examined. Questionnaires are notoriously unreliable. How many men between 18 and 25 actually know for certain whether or not they are carrying an STD???


If being circumcised really lowered STD rates, then why is the U.S. so infected? Most of the men in our generation and our parents’ generation were circumcised but we still have the highest STD rate of the industrialized nations. Hypothetically, of course, would you feel confident enough (being circumcised yourself) to go have unprotected sex with a woman that has HIV or syphilis or any of the other diseases listed in that study? If you had your son circumcised, would you tell him “Go ahead and have sex with as many people as you want. You’re circumcised. You can’t catch anything.” Circumcising girls has been shown to possibly lower STD risks, too. If you had a baby girl would you remove her labia at birth?


Doing something to a baby to LOWER chances (not actually prevent) of getting an STD 15 years later is ridiculous. Infants are not at risk for STDs. Preaching of "lowering chances" of contracting or spreading STDs is misleading and dangerous. By the time you have had sex 10 or 20 times does it matter that the chances are 1:8 vs 1:5... no. It’s like Russian roulette- 8 bullets or 5? If we were talking about eliminating the risk of catching STDs, that would be a little different (though I still wouldn’t agree with circumcising infant boys).


Let me know if you want links to medically based studies. I didn’t want to go overboard! It’s a hot button topic for me, as you already know, and I could go on and on but I’ll spare you unless you want more info (which of course I’m more than happy to provide!). ~Kim

[13Sandals]

Kim - that's awsome! so beautiful how you offered to send more, but didn't push everything at him all at once. Great letter!!! now if we could just raise the standards of our moronic media 'reporting'..my dp always says - "honey, we are in America. The news is strictly for entertainment purposes only"

[phatchristy]

Hope that we have some reasonable articles that make the serious holes in this "study" more evident for the public.

This was not a random trial...just a wild guess, the circ'd ones were from more educated wealthier homes with access to medical care, and the intact ones weren't. Which do you think would be more likely to practice safer sex practices...those with access to more education or those who were not .

So sad that people are going to use these arguments as justification to mutilate their boys.

I am amazed that people "don't get it"...honestly, does someone have a right to amuputate healthy sexual tissue...and if they do, then how much tissue...why not just do it to girls with this faulty logic. How horrific!

Look at the intact European nations with low STD rates, and look at the mutilated US with high STD rates. I hope that people see the ridiculousness in this!

Don't wear a condom...nope just cut part of it off. : Hey, I'll bet cutting it all off would really reduce STD rates : . (heavy sarcasm, yet also probably true)

[13Sandals]

Many STDs produce no symptoms in men. The sampling of men was so small - a few undetected cases of STDs in the circumcised men would radically alter the results. maybe they are all from the same background, maybe not - but there's no way they got an actual STD count without testing the men. the usa media is quite simply - negligent.

[Amber Lion]

Did anyone else notice that among the questionees there were 202 MORE uncirc'd males than circ'd that participated?!?!? MIGHT have something to do with why there were more STD's in the uncirc'd group... cause there were more men!!!

Just one more argument for why it's bunk...:

ETA: Especially since there was such a low number of participants to the whole "study"!

[dnr3301]

this actricle was just posted on a list I'm on, made up mostly of doulas in my area. This is my response. (they all know me)

"slightly reducing my son's risks of STDs is not, in my opinion, a good reason to cut off part of his body. Teaching people about safe sex practices has been shown to reduce rates of STDs, but there is still a push for "abstinence-only" teaching. A better way to reduce risk for STDs is to reduce the number of partners you have, and use safer-sex practices when you aren't in a monogamous relationship.

Aside from that, how did this study even get published? That has got to be the most number of "probably"s, "may show"s, and "could be"s I think I've ever seen in one place. And even having reveiwed it, the AAP still "...called the evidence "complex and conflicting," and therefore concludes that, at present, the evidence is insufficient to support routine neonatal circumcision." Know what that means? This isn't a good reason to do it! Not to mention that the "evidence" was gathered by self reporting 18-25 year old in a questionnaire!

Sorry, I'm ranting now. I'll step back and breathe. No mixed feelings here. I'm not cutting my daughter either, even though she's at a higher risk of UTI than circumcised boys are...wait I said I was stepping back, oh yah."

[dnr3301]

Originally Posted by Amber Lion

Did anyone else notice that among the questionees there were 202 MORE uncirc'd males than circ'd that participated?!?!? MIGHT have something to do with why there were more STD's in the uncirc'd group... cause there were more men!!!

shouldn't matter, they look at percentages. but to get a fair representation, they should have used an approximately equal number in both groups, I agree.

[Fyrestorm]

Once again circumcision is a cure in search of a disease. It's amazing to me how they just keep trying desperately to find new reasons to mutilate little boys when all thier old reasons are thrown in the trash:

[~*SugarMama*~]

Why don't parents just take the time to take responibility for their children by teaching them safe sex practices instead of mutilating their infant bodies in hopes that it will reduce their risk of an STD "someday".

Its just like people supporting the HPV vax for young girls. Better to inject them with something that hasn't been fully tested yet than to run the risk of them "possibly" getting an STD.