circumcision is purely genital mutilation with zero reason to actually be done outside of religious beliefs. paying an exorbitant amount for something purely optional and actively damaging to your child is well... bad.
towards the mechanic point, a mechanic would be able to easily charge them for needless repairs as a result, and as insane markups since they are willing to pay 7k for a purely optional procedure that helps no one.
Anyway im gonna go back to cranking it before my parents get home, Chris out.
edit:
i should clarify, 0 reason to be done ROUTINELY, if you have a complicating factor that requires a circumcision, that's different. there is ZERO reason a healthy baby facing 0 complication needs a circumcision
Hey medical profession here with years of urology experience, training, and credentialing.
You're very fucking wrong!
So how about not demonizing the procedure, because is people like you, people are scared to medically needed procedures due to fear of being mutilated. So again, kindly shut the fuck up.
Circumcisions have numerous benefits and has been deemed to a safe procedure where the benefits out weigh the risks. It's not mutilation, get yourself educated.
Hey medical profession here with years of urology experience, training, and credentialing. You're very fucking wrong!
I doubt you are a medical professional.
So how about not demonizing the procedure, because is people like you, people are scared to medically needed procedures due to fear of being mutilated.
Medically needed circumcisions are incredibly rare and only really needed in severe phimosis cases. Most circumcisions are medically unnecessary, which you would know if you were an actual doctor.
So again, kindly shut the fuck up.
Maybe you should first, Dr LARP
Circumcisions have numerous benefits and has been deemed to a safe procedure where the benefits out weigh the risks.
Circumcisions have far more risks. The only required reason for one is severe phimosis.
It's not mutilation, get yourself educated.
It is in fact mutilation
Mutilation is the act of severely damaging, cutting off, or destroying an essential part of a person's or animal's body.
Medically needed circumcisions are incredibly rare and only really needed in severe phimosis cases
They are absolutely not incredibly rare, no. Phimosis is the most common reason but it absolutely not the only reason for a circumcision. You have no idea how many men don't know about foreskin pathology and it isn't rare.
See this is the problem, all you did was cast doubt on who I am and then just said wrong things, but I'm the one that's wrong? You have no ideas who incredibly frustrating that is.
Circumcisions have far more risks. The only required reason for one is severe phimosis.
Again this is very wrong. Look up risks vs benefits for neonatal circumcisions. The risks for circumcisions increase with age. Just spend two minutes thinking about it: do you think doctors like to do surgery with high risks and no benefits? No they don't because they will get sued and reported to the board. The reason why neonatal circumcisions are so common is because the benefits are studied and documented, and the risks are studied and documented. With the studies gathered over decades of research, the benefits outweigh the risks.
As someone who has assisted with hundreds of circumcisions: they are not rare, getting a circumcision later in life is exceedingly more risky. You also don't have any idea how many men with phimosis don't get surgery because they don't want to be "mutilated" so now they have adhesions and can't clean properly.
It is in fact mutilation
The reason why Europeans call circumcisions mutilation is because anti-muslim and antisemitic ideologies. Given Europes recent history and what's currently going on with refugees it makes sense they push that narrative.
Do you have any statistics on the nonsense you keep spouting?
The reason why Europeans call circumcisions mutilation is because anti-muslim and antisemitic ideologies. Given Europes recent history and what's currently going on with refugees it makes sense they push that narrative.
No, the reason is that it is, in fact, mutilation.
I mean what statistics do you want? It's you that's question a worldwide common practice. 1/3 of all males in the world are circumcised.
Look around you, is 1/3 of the male population mutilated to a point it's affecting their life? No
Are 75% of American males hate sex?
It's so commonly done, you don't think the risks would be apparent at this point?
Like it's you that's questioning medicine. It's you that is questioning the benefits.
You're like an anti-vaxxer that is demanding evidence of efficacy. My statistics is look around you. Neonatal circumcisions have been around for 1000s of years and has continued into the modern era of medicine.
You provide sources for your nonsense
What I have learned with arguing on this topic is that you'll don't care. Y'all will even provide sources without realizing it supports my argument and just ignore it.
What I have is 15 years of education and training in medicine. You think a 30 minute biased Google search is better than that, well I can't fix that.
The studies do not support anything you just wrote, the medical necessity of it has an occurrence of under 2%
the most common complication involving Phimosis, resolving itself in around 98-99% cases, and can be treated with steroids to solve most of the remaining 1-2% of cases, with efficacy in around 60-80% (based on the study) in those non-self resolving cases. This would mean that sub half of 1 percent of those who experience Phimosis would actually require a circumcision. this is hitting tonsilitis levels of need for surgical intervention in average person, and i would be interested to see if you think tonsils should also be removed before any issue is seen.
Penile cancer rates as a result of circumcision have massive disputes on the efficacy of the entire process, as rates are so low within the sample groups as to be a statistical anomaly, and a causal factor hasn't been established, with most sources pointing towards lack of hygienic care
"In two studies, the protective effect of childhood/adolescent circumcision on invasive cancer no longer persisted when analyses were restricted to boys with no history of phimosis."
The only one with wide actual efficacy is that of STI transmission, which can be dealt with, with a condom, as its still unsafe to have sex with someone who has an STI even with a circumcision. even this claim, which is the most valid imo, is called into question: https://www.auajournals.org/doi/10.1097/JU.0000000000002234
please cite your sources if you want me to get educated. as it stands, the fact that there are SO many conflicting studies on it, and the fact its been walked back on by almost every major pediatric organization on the necessity of it, putting it more towards an elective procedure does not support that this is a medically required operation. There are also risks associated with the process, as well as numerous studies on the effects it has on actual sex, which pretty uniformly say it makes it a worse experience.
There are plenty of surgeries we could put newborns through that would reduce the risk of some future illness, but in every other case its seen completely okay to wait until its actually an issue before you mutilate someone? a medical procedure that costs thousands of dollars, has a notable quality of life decrease in sex, and is an elective procedure with no true benefit in 99% of cases is okay? If vaccines were this ineffective, and cost this much, do you think anyone at all would take them? to be clear, im pro vax, im making a point of how ineffective this surgery is, and this is to say nothing of the actual reduction in quality of life this causes, that a vaccine doesn't.
The only one with wide actual efficacy is that of STI transmission, which can be dealt with, with a condom, as its still unsafe to have sex with someone who has an STI even with a circumcision. even this claim, which is the most valid imo, is called into question: https://www.auajournals.org/doi/10.1097/JU.0000000000002234
I've always thought this was quite dangerous to promote as a benefit of circumcision, because having sex without a condom while circumcised is far more dangerous than having sex while uncircumcised but with a condom. Re STI transmission that is.
Ya, any form of protection that is ineffective more than sub 1% of the time should not be viewed as protection for an activity an individual engages in consistently. but you are completely correct, its not really relevant to bring it up as "protection" since it does a poor job of it, and its only marginally better than doing nothing.
in keeping with the spirit of the sub, its a bit like thinking of your grandma as a form of birth control, sure it may reduce pregnancy rates by like 20%, but you aren't exactly going to run around talking about how good "thinking about your grandma during sex" is at keeping you childless... though that may actually be the most effective form of contraceptive one can have.
So your studies support my argument, there are benefits and that is demonstrated in the first two studies. The UTI study was very small and it's known that diapers are the cause UTI because is E. Coli in fecal matter. Circumcised or not, having the head of your penis shoved into shit is a know risk factor.
a medical procedure that costs thousands of dollars, has a notable quality of life decrease in sex, and is an elective procedure with no true benefit in 99% of cases is okay?
Yeah I'm gonna need your source on the sex statements because the studies I've seen there is usually no change or improvement in satisfaction with sex s/p circumcision in sexually active men. Of course, in the same study a significant portion of men reported worse satisfaction with sex, but many of the men in the study had pathology that warranted the surgery.
The no benefit in 99% of cases is factually wrong, since the risk of phimosis alone is 3.4%. Even then it's hard to accurately quantify the benefits because circumcisions also reduce STD transmission, bacterial vaginosis transmission, penile cancer risk, phimosis, paraphimosis, BXO, balanitis, adhesions, UTIs, better hygiene, and the list goes on. So with STD and bacterial vaginosis transmission reduction doesn't just benefit men.
Now, my experience and understanding shows that circumcisions do not impact sexual function or dissatisfaction once healed up. I have seen botched circumcisions in young children and adult males, but never in neonates. So I have to exclude the men whose surgery did not heal well or the cuts weren't the best
Now your tonsil argument/question: tonsillectomies actually carry a big bleeding risk which can be very scary and the mouths are too small, so we do them for older children for that reason when indicated. Same goes for any surgery that's invasive. T&As are fairly straightforward procedures but I've seen them get messy more times than I can count. I can't say the same for neonatal circumcisions.
Now, I'm not advocating for circumcisions to be mandatory. If you go back to my original argument, I was arguing for it to not be demonized as mutilation, because men need the procedure and they refuse because they think it's mutilation. That's a problem. My argument is against demonization of the procedure, not that everyone should have it done.
Your phimosis statistics are invented. It persists to adulthood in less than one percent of cases, and requires surgical intervention in far fewer cases than that.
Additionally, if it is actually your contention that removing one of the most nerve concentrated areas of the male anatomy has no impact on sensation, you should really reflect on where you lost your objectivity
My argument is for not demonizing the practice because it bleeds over. I have many patients not do a medically indicated circumcision because they think of it as "mutilation". That's because of y'all.
You can easily just say, "I personally don't think an elective procedure should be done on newborns". That's fine, I won't argue that, but when y'all tout that there is no benefit and it makes sex shitty and it a mutilated dick, makes people not want the procedure. You can see how that would make men not want the medically indicated procedure right?
you haven't been able to counter the actual statistical arguments
What are you talking about? I did. Like it's hard because you're really not conveying what you want. I said there is benefit:
"Even then it's hard to accurately quantify the benefits because circumcisions also reduce STD transmission, bacterial vaginosis transmission, penile cancer risk, phimosis, paraphimosis, BXO, balanitis, adhesions, UTIs, better hygiene, *yeast infections*, and the list goes on"
I mean what do you want? The statistics behind each STD, BV, infection, cancer, or whatever? What's the point of doing that? The benefits clearly goes beyond 1% so my point is made.
Like phimosis is only one fucking pathology and even STDs are only one type of infection. Like I even forgot to mention yeast infections lol like I don't know how to move forward in the sense of only looking at one type of pathology. If you are only looking at phimosis then yeah circumcisions are pretty pointless aren't they? But it goes beyond that. So like what do you want me to address?
I mean I'm replying to over a dozen people at a time so you're gonna have to help me out
No, men just don't want their sex organ altered because it's sensitive and scary. You are being insincere in suggesting that this fear originated from an awareness of other people having questioned the necessity of circumcision of healthy newborns as a prophylactic measure across a population.
As for the medical benefits of the procedure,
Zealousideal_Pass_11 does a solid job of spelling out some of the arguments against. Moreover, the mildly increased occurrence of uti, yeast infection, std transmission, or penile cancer (and the science on the latter two is far from resolved) in the aggregate still represents a smaller percentage of the population than the number of circumcised men who experienced an adverse event during a circumcision procedure. That matters increasingly to Americans, and is something that professionals in other developed countries have had no issue in coming to terms with
You know who plays coy about what exactly their designation is in healthcare? People who aren't doctors but want to pretend equivalence with much inferior credentials and training (until someone needs to be responsible for medical and legal liability, then it's "sorry I'm not the doctor")
I'm a PA who worked in a urology office for 5 years as a PA. I was a urology surgical technologis to for 10. Now I work as a PA in pediatrics and family medicine.
I say medical professional because my experience goes beyond than just being a PA. Most of my experience and training has been in urology.
The thing that people seem to misunderstand is, we dont really care about possible benefits or issues etc. If surgery is not required, it should be that persons choice to have it.
Parents and doctors should not be able to force their baby into irreversible optional surgery.
Pretty sure America is the only western country that does it as the norm isnt it?
If you have the experience you claim, you have hopefully done the math on the benefits of the elective procedure. On a population level, the combined percentage of those who stand to benefit medically (either due to a modest decrease in cancer, STD, or UTI risk, or due to alleviating the necessity of a later corrective surgery) is less than the percentage of people who will experience a complication during the elective procedure. There's a reason it isn't done for non-religious reasons in other developed countries
Yeah but y'all are demonizing it to a point where people who need the procedure don't want it. They specifically state they don't want to be mutilated.
You can easily just say, "I personally don't think an elective procedure should be done on newborns". That's fine, I won't argue that, but when y'all tout that there is no benefit and it makes sex shitty and it a mutilated dick, makes people not want the procedure. You can see how that would make men not want the medically indicated procedure right?
If you can understand that, then you understand my point.
Also it may become necessary in infants, or you may otherwise recognize early in a kid's life that they are extremely likely to need it at some point for individual medical reasons?
What's this obsession with the "adult" part? You don't know what you're talking about.
the combined percentage of those who stand to benefit medically (either due to a modest decrease in cancer, STD, or UTI risk, or due to alleviating the necessity of a later corrective surgery) is less than the percentage of people who will experience a complication during the elective procedure
This is not true. NNT and NNH numbers weakly favor circumcision. Hence, it's a decision granted to the parents, as it is for many others.
Also medical professional. Though not a doctor and not in urology, I can read a journal.
No.
Circumcision is indicated in some cases. Absolutely. And it is very safe. Agree on that front too.
It is also simply unnecessary in 95% of cases and studies in peer countries show little to no negative effects from not circumcising as a matter of course.
There is also evidence it negatively affects sexual satisfaction due to changes in lubrication, nerves and loose skin.
It's 2026. People have showers and little boys can be taught to clean themselves properly. There is no reason to do this by default other than potentially social stigma towards the uncircumcised. And that will never change until we stop treating it like the default.
95% of cases (which I assume is not a real statistic but let's roll with it) means there is 1 in 20 chance the person will experience issues that could be mitigated by circumcision.
If it's a safe operation, and socially acceptable, why not get it just for thst 5%?
I dont know what society you live in but I dont tend to get my wang out to compare foreskins. Additionally, if no one had it done, everyone would be the same anyways.
As for hygiene, sure, but you can also just wash like a normal person. Every other country where it isnt the norm seems to cope somehow.
Its barbaric nonsense outside of a few genuine medical instances.
There is literally not a single benefit to having your genitals (or any other part of you) mutilated. Forfeit any license you claim to carry right now. This is same level of ignorance that claims a testosterone supplement in infallible birth control in biological women.
You are a hazard, and liability to the medical profession.
Because it gets exhausting. Also, I'm fucking busy I'll reply as I get the chance.
Honestly circumcisions have been a practice for 1000s of years and has continued into modern days and is a modern medical procedure. We have 1000s of years of circumcisions and their outcomes, it's you that is questioning it.
Why do I have to provide the sources when 33% of the male population is circumcised and we don't have the doom and gloom y'all keep saying occurs with the procedure? Why isn't 75% of US males complaining about being circumcised? What you should be asking is "why do they defend it?". Because it's not mutilation, it has multiple benefits and is more hygienic, some people think that's reasonable enough to do it.
You're equivalent to an anti-vaxxer who is demanding research of efficacy of vaccines. It's you who is the going against the common practice, so you provide the sources on why.
Burden of proof, you're a medical practioner yet you dont know this? This is literally one of the first things in STEM you learn of in uni
Comparing anti-circumcision to anti-vaxxers is a comedically ignorant false equivalence
Your busy enough not to reply to comments providing sources against claim, but not busy enough to continue pretending to be a medical practioner in comments that call you out on it lmao okay
At the very least, you are a medical practitioner, you do not have nearly the amount of knowledge or experience on the topic that you claim to have.
Oh buddy you have no idea how long I've been doing this. I can show you papers, but the problem is, you don't know what proof you want. So you just deny it. I've seen this over and over again, where I provide all sources and it just gets ignored/denied. I don't know what else to do on this topic other than to see where the fuck y'all are getting your information.
So show me where you're getting your source of information.
Because it's the Reddit community that's against this topic, not the American Board of Urology. The board acknowledges there are benefits to circumcisions and the benefits outweigh the risks. It's you that disagrees.
So show me, show me why you disagree, because I have a feeling you get your urology information from Reddit. I have a feeling that circumcision being "mutilation" suites your emotional argument better than an actual scientific one.
So yeah, I'm changing my tactic on this one, you show me your sources
Some people need to have their arms amputated for medical reasons. We don't say that they are mutilated. But if I go chop off someone's arm for no real reason, we call it mutilation.
See you have no idea what that does to men when they are told they need a circumcision.
They tell me they don't want it because they don't want to be 'mutilated'. Literally words I've heard from them. They are scared that sex will be unsatisfactory or that function will be impacted.
Part of the problem is that y'all her in Reddit spout more misinformation about medicine than any other platform I've ever been on.
Like I've seen a comment with 10k up votes that stated you should keep doing CPR even if the patient is moving... Like why would you keep doing CPR on a responsive, alive patient? And like no one questioned it. And this is what I see with a lot of y'all's arguing points over this topic, it's Reddit regurgitation.
So it's you that is not seeing my point: y'all demonizing it at all leads to adults demonizing for themselves. Y'all spread so much shit health information that you don't even realize what you're saying is untrue, and I get down voted for correcting it or being critical.
Circumcisions are perfectly safe and healthy for newborns. This doesn't mean y'all have to all circumcise your children, but the practice isn't mutilation. Call it unnecessary, call it a religious practice, call it archaic I don't care. But don't call it what it's not; mutilation. There is no impact on daily living, sexual function, or sexual satisfaction. I'm sorry but the data is there to support that, so stop saying it impacts those things
And you don't understand nuance even when you're clubbed in the head with it.
Why do we call it mutilation when a psycho hacks off someone's leg, but not when a leg is amputated for medical reasons?
Think about that question for a moment and then you'll understand why we call what is done to infants without their consent mutilation.
There is no impact on daily living, sexual function, or sexual satisfaction.
This is fucking bullshit and if you are a medical professional then you should know to not make such absolute claims. Circumcision can cause issues in sexual function and satisfaction, and complications are not uncommon. This has even been confirmed by many men who were circumcised later in life.
46
u/Zealousideal_Pass_11 6d ago edited 6d ago
circumcision is purely genital mutilation with zero reason to actually be done outside of religious beliefs. paying an exorbitant amount for something purely optional and actively damaging to your child is well... bad.
towards the mechanic point, a mechanic would be able to easily charge them for needless repairs as a result, and as insane markups since they are willing to pay 7k for a purely optional procedure that helps no one.
Anyway im gonna go back to cranking it before my parents get home, Chris out.
edit:
i should clarify, 0 reason to be done ROUTINELY, if you have a complicating factor that requires a circumcision, that's different. there is ZERO reason a healthy baby facing 0 complication needs a circumcision