What kind of poll has two answers for yes and only one for no? I for my vot would like to say no, it removes a sourceofpleasure from the human for life. Also a good one would be no,there is no reason to amputate parts of a male's body.
Jack - 13 years ago
The CDC does not present any real US population dada that shows the per cent of cut men in the US with HIV is lower than the per cent of natural penis men with HIV. Many US population studies show that in the US and the rest of the world cut men and natural have HiV in the same per cent age. it just does not work. So why are we causing such great harm to infants?
Jake it is known that you have a circumfetish. Pushing this practice on babies so you can get some pleasure is way out there. let us instead allow the babies to grow up and get allofthe pleasure their natural bodies provide.
Jakew - 13 years ago
Jack,
"Joya, it turns out in the US there is no advantage to amputating baby boy penis parts. For example, it turns out that in the real world, HIV is just as prevelent with cut as with natural penis men. In the US, there is no HIV risk change by cutting off parts of one's penis." -- incorrect, I'm afraid. Please see the section entitled "HIV Infection and Male Circumcision in the United States" in http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm
"Also, the US circumcision pushers that claimed 60% relative change (a small 1.2% risk change) never found 60% relative change" -- wrong.
"they also hushed up a study that showed women are at more than 50% higher risk of catching HIV from circumcised men as compared to natural penis men." -- you probably mean Wawer's study, which actually found no statistically significant difference. It wasn't hushed up; it was published.
"Many have pointed to the high circ rate and high HIV rate in the US compared to the low circ rate and LOW HIV rate in EU and JP." -- yes, which is surprising really, when you consider that the US has much lower levels of condom use, so such a comparison is failing to isolate the effect of circumcision and is hence invalid.
"What has gotten my attention is that in many of the countries that have started a circumcision campaign, the % of cut men with HIV is much higher than natural penis men with HIV. [...] In 8 of 18 countries with data, HIV prevalence is lower among circumcised men, while in the remaining 10 countries HIV prevalence is higher among circumcised men." -- unsurprising, as observational studies are inherently limited by confounding. However, the overwhelming majority have found a protective effect.
Jack - 13 years ago
Joya, it turns out in the US there is no advantage to amputating baby boy penis parts. For example, it turns out that in the real world, HIV is just as prevelent with cut as with natural penis men. In the US, there is no HIV risk change by cutting off parts of one's penis. Also, the US circumcision pushers that claimed 60% relative change (a small 1.2% risk change) never found 60% relative change and they also hushed up a study that showed women are at more than 50% higher risk of catching HIV from circumcised men as compared to natural penis men.
Many have pointed to the high circ rate and high HIV rate in the US compared to the low circ rate and LOW HIV rate in EU and JP. However, few mention that within the US, there is no HIV (nor HPV , STD) advantage to missing parts of the penis. What has gotten my attention is that in many of the countries that have started a circumcision campaign, the % of cut men with HIV is much higher than natural penis men with HIV. In Swaziland the infection rate for circumcised males is at 22 per cent while for those with a natural penis it is 20 per cent. IN Kenya they just did a study of a group and circumcision status was not associated with HIV or HSV-2 seroprevalence or current genital ulceration. The US sponsored DHS Comparative Reports No. 22 showed that in Africa there appears no clear pattern of association between male circumcision and HIV prevalence. In 8 of 18 countries with data, HIV prevalence is lower among circumcised men, while in the remaining 10 countries HIV prevalence is higher among circumcised men.
I think there is a need to reconsider male circumcision as an HIV prevention method. The WHO and many in Africa will take the US money that is being thrown at them by circumcision proponents eager to keep the practice going in the US. However, as this has not been shown to be effective in the real world, the money is wasted. These people need water/water treatment, information and condoms, not removal of genital parts. This shows desperation on the part of Africans to try anything (to do something)as to the HIV crisis. However, it also shows that American circumcision pushers like Bill Gates are so so eager to justify the mutilation practice even though the real data indicates that keeping all of ones penis does not put one at risk.
Stop with the misinformation. Stop harming baby boys.
Lace - 13 years ago
It's the kind of ridiculous misinformation given in the above comments that keep this horrible violation of human rights going.
Joya you are wrong. Totally wrong. The most commonly practiced form of female circumcision is the removal of the clitoral hood, the bit of skin located above the clitoris, it is EXACTLY like male circumcision!! And it is EVERY BIT the rights violation as any and all forms of female circumcision!
Condoms are a lot more effective than amputation to prevent STDs and HIV, penile cancer is so rare that it's just plain stupid to promote amputation on all babies to prevent it and circumcised men DO get penile cancer.
Trichomonas vaginalis is extremely common and extremely treatable with a perscription so to promote mutilation to prevent an easily treated STD is as stupid as promoting circumcision to avoid the occasional UTI. Girls get UTIs much more often than boys, but we don't go around removing the labia to prevent them, we give them medicine! It's utter nonsense to suggest that we mutilate children to avoid something completely treatable or preventable with better sex education and condoms.
The medical "benefits" are wrong, without a doubt. The studies that "prove" them were skewed and gave false results, you need to do more research into your "proof".
Jami - 13 years ago
Male circumcision IS on the decline, as it should be. The numbers in the article are correct. Circumcision is an unnecessary, damaging, dangerous cosmetic procedure that no infant should be forced to undergo. Foreksin is normal and functional and not an abnormality to be removed. Informative links:
http://www.drmomma.org/2010/01/are-you-fully-informed.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html
http://www.savingpenises.org/our-information-packs.html
JOYA BANERJEE - 13 years ago
Medical male circumcision should be legal and parents should be informed of the benefits and risks. MMC prevents HIV by 60%, human papilloma virus (the cause of cervical cancer), penile cancer, trichomonas vaginalis, etc. Its medical benefits have been proven without a doubt. It's especially necessary, cheap, permanent and easy to roll out in poor countries with a high HIV prevalence. In the US where HIV prevalence is not that high, it should remain an option. Even if babies are not at risk for STIs, they are at risk when they become sexually active. Let's not be so short-term focused.
It is UNETHICAL and INCORRECT to compare it to female genital mutilation where the clitoris and labia are cut off to rob a woman of her sexuality. When done correctly, male circumcision is painless, has a VERY low complication rate, and is overall more hygenic. Studies of thousands of men have shown that it does not decrease sexual pleasure when done correctly, in fact some men report increased pleasure after circumcision.
Jillian - 13 years ago
These are the rates for INFANTS as of 2009, not ADULT men. The number of circumcised adult men is much higher. Freedom of religion ends with yourself. Cutting of the genitals is a barabaric act. The US has one of the highest HIV or STD rates in the developed work and also the highest rate of circumcision. Most of the world's men ar eintact and have NO problems with it. There are man complications to circumcision, inculding death and no baby should be subjected to that. It makes my skin crawl that people don't believe their little bayb boys are not perfect. Instead of bonding with mommy and daddy, tehy are sent off to get part of their penis to get cut off. If that's a choice you make for youselrf, tehn so be it. DO NOT force other people ( innocent babies at that) to be forcably strapped down and have parts of their genitals removed. Just because something has been done for a long time, doesn't make it right. HIS BODY HIS CHOICE. I know as a woman, if i were strapped down and had my labia or other ladt bit cut up, I'd call it torture.
David - 13 years ago
I'm so sick of adults trying to force their opinion of what constitutes a "good" penis on an infant. Babies are not at risk for ANY sexually transmitted diseases. For crying out loud, grant our sons the opportunity to decide for themselves what they want THEIR body to look like. I guarantee you, that having grown up with a foreskin, most men would just as soon keep them. My sons had that priveledge.
"First do no harm" -- the doctors oath.
Cutting off a useful, pleasurable body part, for a fee, is not harmless. It hurts.
Dr. Androus - 13 years ago
The numbers come from a CDC researcher who surveyed the rate of circumcisions being reimbursed by insurance, just like the article said. The National Hospital Discharge Survey has similarly shown a decline in the circumcision rate over the last few decades. Given that the overwhelming majority of US births occur in hospitals, it's probably safe to assume that these statistics, incomplete though they may be, accurately represent the general trend away from circumcision. Interesting to note that the promotion of circumcision for health occurs primarily in the United States, the only developed country in the world with a profit-based health care system. Coincidence?
I am not Jewish or Muslim and unfortunately was not circumcised at birth "The doctor did not believe in it!" I suffered with a foreskin for 40 years until I was finally circumcised at 40 my own choice. It was the best thing I ever did and I thoroughly recommend it to all men
jack - 13 years ago
They really must stop funding infant circumcision Aka cutting genital parts off babies. This is purely cosmetic. The apparent benefit in from this surgery is nil as in the US there is no apparent difference in percent of natural and cut men as to HIV, hpv and STDs in general. That is the fact, regardless of what they claim from the pro circ Africa study -- interesting how women being at higher risk of getting HIV (the hushed up Africa study) is not mentioned.
The harm caused by the genital cutting is real, including cutting off parts with about 20000 nerve endings. We should not pay for this surgery on an infant. Medicaid tax money should not go to cosmetic surgery and should not assist in harming baby boys. The parent must pay for this alteration to their son's genitals. This is a real savings and contrary to other changes this cut in service has benefits as to general health.
Sanford - 13 years ago
Yes, Bill, above is of course correct. Those percents are totally in error.
Bill56 - 13 years ago
Where do you come up with that low ball figure of only 32%. About 90% of all males are circumcised in the USA. The numbers are going up. Not all circumcisions are done in a hospital setting so therefore you do not get an accurate count there. But ethnic groups like latinos and other groups are a growing number of those who are opting to have their sons circumcised. And all of the nonsensical reasons for not doing it are fast becoming a topic for mythology. The mythology of no-circ created by those who oppose this important health and even in many cases life saving bit of surgery.
What kind of poll has two answers for yes and only one for no? I for my vot would like to say no, it removes a sourceofpleasure from the human for life. Also a good one would be no,there is no reason to amputate parts of a male's body.
The CDC does not present any real US population dada that shows the per cent of cut men in the US with HIV is lower than the per cent of natural penis men with HIV. Many US population studies show that in the US and the rest of the world cut men and natural have HiV in the same per cent age. it just does not work. So why are we causing such great harm to infants?
Jake it is known that you have a circumfetish. Pushing this practice on babies so you can get some pleasure is way out there. let us instead allow the babies to grow up and get allofthe pleasure their natural bodies provide.
Jack,
"Joya, it turns out in the US there is no advantage to amputating baby boy penis parts. For example, it turns out that in the real world, HIV is just as prevelent with cut as with natural penis men. In the US, there is no HIV risk change by cutting off parts of one's penis." -- incorrect, I'm afraid. Please see the section entitled "HIV Infection and Male Circumcision in the United States" in http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm
"Also, the US circumcision pushers that claimed 60% relative change (a small 1.2% risk change) never found 60% relative change" -- wrong.
"they also hushed up a study that showed women are at more than 50% higher risk of catching HIV from circumcised men as compared to natural penis men." -- you probably mean Wawer's study, which actually found no statistically significant difference. It wasn't hushed up; it was published.
"Many have pointed to the high circ rate and high HIV rate in the US compared to the low circ rate and LOW HIV rate in EU and JP." -- yes, which is surprising really, when you consider that the US has much lower levels of condom use, so such a comparison is failing to isolate the effect of circumcision and is hence invalid.
"What has gotten my attention is that in many of the countries that have started a circumcision campaign, the % of cut men with HIV is much higher than natural penis men with HIV. [...] In 8 of 18 countries with data, HIV prevalence is lower among circumcised men, while in the remaining 10 countries HIV prevalence is higher among circumcised men." -- unsurprising, as observational studies are inherently limited by confounding. However, the overwhelming majority have found a protective effect.
Joya, it turns out in the US there is no advantage to amputating baby boy penis parts. For example, it turns out that in the real world, HIV is just as prevelent with cut as with natural penis men. In the US, there is no HIV risk change by cutting off parts of one's penis. Also, the US circumcision pushers that claimed 60% relative change (a small 1.2% risk change) never found 60% relative change and they also hushed up a study that showed women are at more than 50% higher risk of catching HIV from circumcised men as compared to natural penis men.
Many have pointed to the high circ rate and high HIV rate in the US compared to the low circ rate and LOW HIV rate in EU and JP. However, few mention that within the US, there is no HIV (nor HPV , STD) advantage to missing parts of the penis. What has gotten my attention is that in many of the countries that have started a circumcision campaign, the % of cut men with HIV is much higher than natural penis men with HIV. In Swaziland the infection rate for circumcised males is at 22 per cent while for those with a natural penis it is 20 per cent. IN Kenya they just did a study of a group and circumcision status was not associated with HIV or HSV-2 seroprevalence or current genital ulceration. The US sponsored DHS Comparative Reports No. 22 showed that in Africa there appears no clear pattern of association between male circumcision and HIV prevalence. In 8 of 18 countries with data, HIV prevalence is lower among circumcised men, while in the remaining 10 countries HIV prevalence is higher among circumcised men.
I think there is a need to reconsider male circumcision as an HIV prevention method. The WHO and many in Africa will take the US money that is being thrown at them by circumcision proponents eager to keep the practice going in the US. However, as this has not been shown to be effective in the real world, the money is wasted. These people need water/water treatment, information and condoms, not removal of genital parts. This shows desperation on the part of Africans to try anything (to do something)as to the HIV crisis. However, it also shows that American circumcision pushers like Bill Gates are so so eager to justify the mutilation practice even though the real data indicates that keeping all of ones penis does not put one at risk.
Stop with the misinformation. Stop harming baby boys.
It's the kind of ridiculous misinformation given in the above comments that keep this horrible violation of human rights going.
Joya you are wrong. Totally wrong. The most commonly practiced form of female circumcision is the removal of the clitoral hood, the bit of skin located above the clitoris, it is EXACTLY like male circumcision!! And it is EVERY BIT the rights violation as any and all forms of female circumcision!
Condoms are a lot more effective than amputation to prevent STDs and HIV, penile cancer is so rare that it's just plain stupid to promote amputation on all babies to prevent it and circumcised men DO get penile cancer.
Trichomonas vaginalis is extremely common and extremely treatable with a perscription so to promote mutilation to prevent an easily treated STD is as stupid as promoting circumcision to avoid the occasional UTI. Girls get UTIs much more often than boys, but we don't go around removing the labia to prevent them, we give them medicine! It's utter nonsense to suggest that we mutilate children to avoid something completely treatable or preventable with better sex education and condoms.
The medical "benefits" are wrong, without a doubt. The studies that "prove" them were skewed and gave false results, you need to do more research into your "proof".
Male circumcision IS on the decline, as it should be. The numbers in the article are correct. Circumcision is an unnecessary, damaging, dangerous cosmetic procedure that no infant should be forced to undergo. Foreksin is normal and functional and not an abnormality to be removed. Informative links:
http://www.drmomma.org/2010/01/are-you-fully-informed.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html
http://www.savingpenises.org/our-information-packs.html
Medical male circumcision should be legal and parents should be informed of the benefits and risks. MMC prevents HIV by 60%, human papilloma virus (the cause of cervical cancer), penile cancer, trichomonas vaginalis, etc. Its medical benefits have been proven without a doubt. It's especially necessary, cheap, permanent and easy to roll out in poor countries with a high HIV prevalence. In the US where HIV prevalence is not that high, it should remain an option. Even if babies are not at risk for STIs, they are at risk when they become sexually active. Let's not be so short-term focused.
It is UNETHICAL and INCORRECT to compare it to female genital mutilation where the clitoris and labia are cut off to rob a woman of her sexuality. When done correctly, male circumcision is painless, has a VERY low complication rate, and is overall more hygenic. Studies of thousands of men have shown that it does not decrease sexual pleasure when done correctly, in fact some men report increased pleasure after circumcision.
These are the rates for INFANTS as of 2009, not ADULT men. The number of circumcised adult men is much higher. Freedom of religion ends with yourself. Cutting of the genitals is a barabaric act. The US has one of the highest HIV or STD rates in the developed work and also the highest rate of circumcision. Most of the world's men ar eintact and have NO problems with it. There are man complications to circumcision, inculding death and no baby should be subjected to that. It makes my skin crawl that people don't believe their little bayb boys are not perfect. Instead of bonding with mommy and daddy, tehy are sent off to get part of their penis to get cut off. If that's a choice you make for youselrf, tehn so be it. DO NOT force other people ( innocent babies at that) to be forcably strapped down and have parts of their genitals removed. Just because something has been done for a long time, doesn't make it right. HIS BODY HIS CHOICE. I know as a woman, if i were strapped down and had my labia or other ladt bit cut up, I'd call it torture.
I'm so sick of adults trying to force their opinion of what constitutes a "good" penis on an infant. Babies are not at risk for ANY sexually transmitted diseases. For crying out loud, grant our sons the opportunity to decide for themselves what they want THEIR body to look like. I guarantee you, that having grown up with a foreskin, most men would just as soon keep them. My sons had that priveledge.
"First do no harm" -- the doctors oath.
Cutting off a useful, pleasurable body part, for a fee, is not harmless. It hurts.
The numbers come from a CDC researcher who surveyed the rate of circumcisions being reimbursed by insurance, just like the article said. The National Hospital Discharge Survey has similarly shown a decline in the circumcision rate over the last few decades. Given that the overwhelming majority of US births occur in hospitals, it's probably safe to assume that these statistics, incomplete though they may be, accurately represent the general trend away from circumcision. Interesting to note that the promotion of circumcision for health occurs primarily in the United States, the only developed country in the world with a profit-based health care system. Coincidence?
I am not Jewish or Muslim and unfortunately was not circumcised at birth "The doctor did not believe in it!" I suffered with a foreskin for 40 years until I was finally circumcised at 40 my own choice. It was the best thing I ever did and I thoroughly recommend it to all men
They really must stop funding infant circumcision Aka cutting genital parts off babies. This is purely cosmetic. The apparent benefit in from this surgery is nil as in the US there is no apparent difference in percent of natural and cut men as to HIV, hpv and STDs in general. That is the fact, regardless of what they claim from the pro circ Africa study -- interesting how women being at higher risk of getting HIV (the hushed up Africa study) is not mentioned.
The harm caused by the genital cutting is real, including cutting off parts with about 20000 nerve endings. We should not pay for this surgery on an infant. Medicaid tax money should not go to cosmetic surgery and should not assist in harming baby boys. The parent must pay for this alteration to their son's genitals. This is a real savings and contrary to other changes this cut in service has benefits as to general health.
Yes, Bill, above is of course correct. Those percents are totally in error.
Where do you come up with that low ball figure of only 32%. About 90% of all males are circumcised in the USA. The numbers are going up. Not all circumcisions are done in a hospital setting so therefore you do not get an accurate count there. But ethnic groups like latinos and other groups are a growing number of those who are opting to have their sons circumcised. And all of the nonsensical reasons for not doing it are fast becoming a topic for mythology. The mythology of no-circ created by those who oppose this important health and even in many cases life saving bit of surgery.