Why is circumcision so beneficial?

Question

I have read that research and scientific studies have proved circumcision lowers the risk of contracting AIDS-HIV and other STD's, however some people insist these studies are flawed, without providing any consistent evidence to support their claims. Now even at the American Academy of Paediatrics (AAP) are discussing if it is suitable to change their policy on circumcision and support it again for all newborns.

So in spite of all evidences, why some people insist circumcision is not beneficial and is wrong and consider it a mutilation or child abuse?
What might be their *real* motivation for doing this?
Who is behind them, supporting and backing them?
Are they really succeeding in their cause?
Why do their speech and methods become harassing and harsh at times?
I have come across with facts provided by anti-circumcision groups that are clearly misleading and incorrect, even to someone like me, who is not a specialist on the topic.
Do they produce this wrong information on purpose? If so, why?
Why do they want to manipulate the general public?
Anyone has answers to these questions? Help please!

Please if you think there are no benefits, provide evidence of this to oppose the studies and research above. Otherwise it’s the same story as before, people simply opposing but not supporting of their claims.
I think we have had enough Q&A so far to leave our opinions and say what we think. Let’s just stick to scientific facts and data this time. Thanks!

Hey, PLEASE read and answer the questions above. This question is NOT about circumcision itself, is but about the contradictions regarding this topic.

Answer 1

"So in spite of all evidences, why some people insist circumcision is not beneficial and is wrong and consider it a mutilation or child
abuse?"

One might speculate that their assessment of the evidence is hindered by this belief. There's a psychological phenomena called 'confirmation bias' - in effect, we tend to treat evidence that confirms our beliefs as important, and disregard that which does not.

"What might be their *real* motivation for doing this?"

I suspect that, for the most part, they're sincere.

"Who is behind them, supporting and backing them?"

There are a few psychologists and lawyers who might gain financially, but primarily they're just self-funded people, passionate about their cause.

"Are they really succeeding in their cause?"

I can't find any evidence that this is the case. Among men born in the 1980s, 83% are now circumcised. This was a slight decline from the 1970s. Now, we don't yet have that data for males born in the 1990s or later, but we do know the data for infants circumcised in hospitals. This has remained fairly stable from 1979 to 1999, at around 65%. It's reasonable to assume that the overall rate reflects this, and is stable at around 83-84%.

"Why do their speech and methods become harassing and harsh at times?"

Zealotry? Disrespect for other viewpoints?

"I have come across with facts provided by anti-circumcision groups that are clearly misleading and incorrect, even to someone like me, who is not a specialist on the topic."

Haven't we all?

"Do they produce this wrong information on purpose? If so, why?"

Four main reasons. Firstly, I suspect that many people would lie about something if they thought that it might stop something that they believed (however wrongly) to be child abuse or mutilation. Secondly, even if one is not consciously lying, one can be tempted by such a belief to be rigorous in rejecting one finding yet uncritical in accepting another (and bear in mind that most anti-circers lack scientific or [apparently] critical thinking skills). Thirdly, misinformation tends to spread and get even more distorted as it does so: someone mislead by another might honestly believe that (s)he is giving correct information. Finally, there's a resistance to "unlearning" that which we've learned, even if it's wrong.

As an example, take what a previous poster said about STD and circumcision. Note that the source was claimed to be the CDC. Now compare with what the CDC actually say (see sources below).

"Why do they want to manipulate the general public?"

To force their views onto others.

Answer 2

No, overall circumcism is not beneficial to male health. Over 70% of all males are not circumcised, and there is little health research documentation that would justify that these 2.1 Billion men should undergo the procedure to reap any noticable benefit. It is totally unnecessary for the vast majority of males. While there may be some males who have a foreskin that won't retract or open enough to expose the head, they are few and far between. Most of the clamor for justifying circumcism is from those who are circumcised and advocate the religions that practice this barbaric act. I personally was circumcised like the vast majority of US males, without consent. Heck, there is no psychological impact to it, I and most guys I grew up with never knew we were "cut" until we were nearly grown--there were no uncut guys to compare to. Today the trend has reversed itself, so you will see in many locker rooms at schools and in gyms more and more uncut guys. So the question pops up more. Probably in 20 years, when the vast majority of all living males will be uncut in the US, it won't be an issue other than for those who still cling to the barbaric practice for religious or other reasons.

Answer 3

A friend of mine was about to have a boy baby & we were discussing circumcision. I said I would do some research for her to help her decide; neither of us knew much about it.

After spending a couple hours on the websites of the AAP, pro sites & con sites, it was hard to be objective anymore.

The US is the only non-Muslim country outside Isreal where circumcision is practiced as the norm; the reason is purely mercantile: doctors making money. For many years the American Association of Pediatricians were claiming that circumcision protected women from cervical cancer until the American Cancer Society wrote an open letter to the AAP telling them to stop saying that & that there was no evidence for any link between circumcision & cervical cancer. It was just a manufactured excuse to put the doctor's wallet before the health of the baby.

The AIDS thing is a no-brainer: AIDS is spread by unprotected sex, its spread will not be stopped by circumcision; men need to use condoms, restraint & good sense. More partners = more risk as with all the STDs. Sexual transmission AIDS could be stopped by removing the penis entirely; this could be seen as one conclusion of this line of thought.

In this particular issue, I suspect that because of the deception of the AAP & its subsequent realization by parents, alot of them developed very strong feelings over the circumcision issue.

When strong feelings are formed about anything, people often lose their civility & express themselves in an incendiary manner.
There are no moneyed interests that I know of on the side of not circumcising (leaving the baby whole & normal)

Of all the forces hard at work & very active & powerfully manipulating the American public, a few small groups of informed parents concerned with the health of their babies are not something to be worried about, IMHPOV.

;-)

Answer 4

These "scientific studies" you want to talk about site cost money and if you haven't noticed, in this country, at least, the findings usually support the position of whoever funds it. Viox (and other name brand drugs, and tobaco) was proven safe over and over again, but when the bodies started to pile up even the FDA had to wake up. It is all money.

Circumcision makes money for surgeons, hospitals, and medical equipment manufacturers to list a few, and its a lot of money they are cutting at least 20,000 boys a day (in this country). They and the organizations that represent them will do anything to protect their money source.

Not circumcising doesn't make money for anybody, it will not generate funds for a "war chest" to fund "studies" or buy publicity. A line I've heard several times on cop shows "to find the guilty one; FOLLOW THE MONEY"

You ask:
So in spite of all evidences, why some people insist circumcision is not beneficial and is wrong and consider it a mutilation or child abuse?
What might be their *real* motivation for doing this?
Who is behind them, supporting and backing them?

The answer is, nobody is supporting the crusade against infant and child circumcision. It is just people that see something wrong and want it stopped, it is not something with a profit motive (that is on the other side) we gain nothing personally. It is all about righting a wrong. This might be a strange concept for you and the rest of the "what’s in it for me" group, but some of us are able to think of others without a reward for ourselves.

You say there is a reduced chance of contacting HIV AIDS with circumcision. Even if that is true, a reduced chance is not protection; SAFE SEX AND CONDOMS IS PROTECTION. Already circumcised males are claiming that they do not need to use condoms because of this study. DO YOU REALIZE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GET SICK AND DIE BECAUSE OF THIS.

Sweden never has had widespread circumcision and their incidence of STDs is fifty times less than the U.S. The prevalence of circumcision (about 80%), among the generations now sexually active, have done nothing to stop or even slow the spread of STDs. If anything circumcised males are more likely to resist the use of condoms because they have already lost so much sensitivity. These facts are from the CDC!

Answer 5

In America - where we have access to showers and lots of good hygiene - circumcision is not important. In fact, it may be more beneficial and natural to leave your child as is, uncircumcised.

In nations with poor public health or high incidences of AIDS and other diseases, circumcision can help keep kids a bit cleaner. But here in America in 2006 it is not necessary or advisable.

I cannot speak as to why some people are so strident on the topic. Although it seems that there are highly-strung militant folks speaking out on just about every child-care issue these days, so get used to it. Sad.

I can only assume that because it is commonplace in America to mindlessly circumcise a kid - without any real reason, these folks feel they need to wake people up and make them think about what they are doing. Obviously they believe that unnecesary surgery to the genitals of a newborn is cruel and inhumane.

Perhaps they have found that their assertive posturing gets people to at least discuss and debate the issue, as we are doing now. It that respect, it seems they are correct.

Many folks circumcise for aesthetic reasons (like when piercing a newborn's ears) and others for religious or family tradition. I don't think either reason is particularly compelling. i would need a very good clear rationale before I would allow myself to go under the knife and an even better one before I put my child through a surgical procedure, even one as safe and routine as circumcision.

Answer 6

AAP is not now considering changing their stance on circ's. It is, as was stated, done for cultural and religious reasons. Cleanliness ? If you don't wash yourself, male or female, you are dirty-flat out. There is no increase risk of contracting STD's or AIDs-HIV with the uncirc' penis. That's a common (and proven) myth. Studies done to that fact are flawed and have been rejected by the AAP/AMA because of their flaws. The thought initially was that the STD's harvested underneath the foreskin, but, just as the female labia, when cleaned properly (and of course taking precautions like condoms) this risk is avoided. I've watched many a circ's on the labor and delivery floor, some doctors do this procedure without anesthesia, some with, either which way, it is not a pretty little snip the way most people make it out to be.
Neither my husband, nor my sons are circ'd. I couldn't justify cutting 1/3 of my sons penile skin off, I just couldn't. Which, btw is what circ's do remove.
The chance of breast cancer in females is more likely...and we don't remove baby girl's breast tissue do we ? A lot of people believe this is genital mutlilation ( I see their point, but I don't agree with going that far) because we would never remove 1/3 of the vaginal skin on females. Does that make sense ?
If you do choose to circ' your son...keep in mind there are risks!!! I've seen a lot of *oopsies* done by the doc's that ultimately leave the child either (a) scarred for life, in more than one way; or (b) not fully circ'd.
As for the UTI- well, if you do read the statisitic (which are in my Ped Nursing book), you'll see that the UTI's weren't caused necessarily by not being circ'd but more from the parent/care provider not providing adequate hygeine.
There is no clear cut medical benefit from circumcision. There is no medical benefit from not circ'ing. It's a personal choice.
Some sites you can look at www.cirp.org, www.sexasnatureintended.org http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/circumcision.html
http://kidshealth.org/parent/system/surgical/circumcision.html

You will ineveitably hear stories about kids who started out uncirc'd and for whatever reason needed to be circ'd later in life, but, keep in mind, there are men who pay loads of money to have their foreskin reconstructed.

As I've mentioned before, I've worked in Planned Parenthood- ultimately, I see the uncirc'd and the circ'd, truthfully, they both get diseases, but it's been my own personal exp that uncic'd know something is wrong, come in, get it treated much faster than those of the circ'd population. (Faster treatment= better outcomes)

***ETA***
So in spite of all evidences, why some people insist circumcision is not beneficial and is wrong and consider it a mutilation or child abuse? **Of course they do, watch a circ procedure you might feel this way too. It's not pretty, would you do it ? I wouldn't volunteer to go through that**
What might be their *real* motivation for doing this? To educate people about the facts.
Who is behind them, supporting and backing them? People from all demographics (including the Jewish, who circ' for legitimate religious reason)
Are they really succeeding in their cause? Yes, in two years the circ rate has dropped imensely..FY 2005 the circ rate was only 56%. People are educating themselves and realizing some things are left better as nature intended.
Why do their speech and methods become harassing and harsh at times? Because many people do believe this is genital mutliation, in fact, it very well may be. The WHO has a policy about genital mutlilation that protects ONLY females. Female circ's remove 1/4 of vaginal skin, male circ's remove 1/3.
I have come across with facts provided by anti-circumcision groups that are clearly misleading and incorrect, even to someone like me, who is not a specialist on the topic.
Do they produce this wrong information on purpose? Both sides have very flawed controlled groups, that's why neither sides is accepted by *any* reputable medical proffessional. Circ. is not medically necessary and has no proven benefits.
Why do they want to manipulate the general public?
They arent', unless you call "calling a bluff" manipulation
Anyone has answers to these questions? Help please!

Additional Details

29 minutes ago
Please if you think there are no benefits, provide evidence of this to oppose the studies and research above. Otherwise it’s the same story as before, people simply opposing but not supporting of their claims.
I think we have had enough Q&A so far to leave our opinions and say what we think. Let’s just stick to scientific facts and data this time. Thanks!

* I think you've ran into some nasty people, and are trying to be an a$$ to anti-circ groups. See your doc if you got any questions past this point. Bottom line ? Circ is a personal decision, you WON'T find medical research for or against that is accurate, hence, the AAP/AMA's stance. If you can't accept this, and make the best educated decision, circ'ing will be the least of your worries, believe me.*

Hey, PLEASE read and answer the questions above. This question is NOT about circumcision itself, is but about the contradictions * When you talk about people's kids penis's, you are going to get strong reactions..if you can't handle it, you shouldn't have asked the question in the first place*

Have a great day


Had to touch on Cervical Cancer and the Uncircumcisized man; it's not the penis itself,it's HPV, and the forms that are known to cause Cervical Cancer...again, was thought that HPV was found underneath the foreskin, if not in a monogomous relationship condoms solve this problem, as does the new vaccine. I have been married for sometime now and am working on my Master's in Nursing. I've read all the listed literature on these posts, unfortunately, the AMA/AAP still doesn't recognize circumcision as beneficial, and anybody with any common sense, could certainly see the holes in such research. Still NO solid research that circumcision is beneficial. (Having been married since 82 to an uncirc'd man, I have never had problems with my health...neither have any of my boys..)

Answer 7

It is both mutiliation and child abuse because it is forced upon a patient who has not given informed consent. Nobody else, including parents, has any right to have body parts forcibly removed from an innocent child. Male circumcision rates in the US are falling rapidly and, with any luck, this hideous practice will soon disappear from this so-called 'enlightened' culture. The American Society of Pediatrics no longer 'recommends' this disfiguring, invasive and torturous procedure, which serves no useful purpose except for the doctors and hospitals who reap great financial benefits from legal malpractice.

Answer 8

Deirdre is right. My OBGYN informed me that there is no benefit of circumcision before i had my son, and he is not circumcised. there is a slightly increased risk of uti's in boys who are notcircumcised, but that is poor care of the penis. It is religious and cultural. and the whole "cleanliness" issue is religious as well. If i the old testament of the bible (the book and passage involving the covenant with Abraham) did not state it as a necessary part of the covenant with abraham, and therefore start a long line of people who do it for religious reasons, then there would not even be an issue of it now.

here is a good page on circumcision: http://www.cirp.org/pages/parents/FAQ/

Answer 9

CIRCUMCISION IS VERY BENEFICIAL, its cleaner and several research bodies have concluded that circumcised men have less risk of contracting STD's such as AIDS-HIV or herpes.

Uncircumcised penises are difficult to keep clean, and more prone to infections and penile cancer, studies have shown.
A circumcised penis is naturally clean and virtually free from urinary infection. You will not have to worry again with careful washing of your penis.

Is it NOT true that the AAP (American Academy of Paediatrics) does not recommend circumcision. They simply say they leave the decision to parents. But recently, and specially after the New Zealand study, the AAP has been discussing if it may be necessary to change their policy and recommend circumcision to all newborns as they used to do, so in the future we may see that the AAP advocates again circumcision.
Have a look at: http://www.baby-health.net/articles/381.html

About STD's:

As I said, several studies carried out by prestigious research bodies have concluded that uncircumcised penises are more prone to infections and contraction of STD's, including AIDS-HIV. Circumcised men have been proved to be up to seven times less likely to be infected than those who are uncircumcised. Have a look at this site: http://icuxbridge.icnetwork.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=14095142&method=full&siteid=53340&headline=-circumcision-protects-against-aids--name_page.html

As for women, studies also show that circumcision also protects female partners from AIDS-HIV and other STD's. Browse this article: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases/2006/02_08_06.html

About sensitivity of a circumcised penis:

No medical or physiological study has proved that circumcision reduces sensitivity, opposed to common belief. The American Academy of Paediatrics (AAP) confirms this on their web site; have a look at: http://www.aap.org/pubed/zzzjzmemh4c.htm

Circumcision is an easy and nowadays painless procedure, which has many benefits, and virtually no risks.
Circumcision is NOT an amputation. Circumcision is NOT comparable at all to female circumcision, which is something completely different.

Circumcision rates are INCREASING nowadays, both in the United States and overseas. Many African and South American countries with little circumcision tradition are starting to promote the procedure to help to reduce the AIDS-HIV infection rates.

Answer 10

There is no right or wrong answer! You are right, the facts are conflicting at times, and one must make up his/her own mind about what's appropriate. We all know there really is no physical benefit for the man. It's more of a preferance among females as to what looks attractive. That's the simple truth of it. And as we all know, we women are the ones who give birth and make such decisions!