3 ms·

The health/hygiene argument has been thoroughly dismantled. That argument is akin to saying that we should remove people's teeth so that they don't have to deal

The health/hygiene argument has been thoroughly dismantled. That argument is akin to saying that we should remove people's teeth so that they don't have to deal with cavities. The only time there is a difference in hygiene between a circumcised and uncircumcised penis is if they both go unwashed for an extended period of time. I also don't buy these utilitarian arguments. If someone wants to trade the benefits of an uncircumcised penis for those of a circumcised penis, they can make that permanent decision for themselves.

leafmeal 5y ago
While I generally agree with you and wouldn't circumcise any child, data seems to support that circumcision reduces transmission of some STIs > Three randomized clinical trials showed that adult male circumcision significantly reduced the risk for HIV acquisition among heterosexual males by 51%–60% (95% confidence interval 16%–76%) over time. These trials also found that medically performed adult circumcision significantly reduced the risk of men acquiring two common sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including genital ulcer disease (GUD) prevalence by 47% and incidence by 48% and high-risk (i.e. oncogenic) types of human papilloma virus (HR-HPV) prevalence by 23%–47%. It also seems to reduce the risk of UTIs > Male circumcision has been shown to reduce the risk of urinary tract infections inmales aged 0–1 years by 90%, in males aged 1–16 years by 85%, and in males >16 years by 71%. This data is from a report from the CDC https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/58456 https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/58456
- layoutIfNeeded 5y ago
  Sure, it reduces STI transmission rates, because the mucous membrane (the inside of the foreskin) gets cut off, and the exposed glans also becomes keratinized due to years of abrasion against the underwear. No mucous membranes = lower chance for pathogens to enter the body. Now, whether these would worth the tradeoff with reduced sensitivity, surgical risks (e.g. reduced sexual function due to tight scar formation), the psychological trauma for the infant, etc. is another question.
  - leafmeal 5y ago
    Look, I agree with you. I don't think we should mess with anyone's genitals without their consent. I'm just pointing out that there's data to support the health concerns.
- hackflip 5y ago
  Let's take it a step further. We can reduce STI transmission to zero if we remove all of everyone's genitals.
  - layoutIfNeeded 5y ago
    Exactly. Also, we can 100% eliminate nail fungus and ingrown nails (it can cause serious infections!) if we surgically remove the nail root of infants. It's a super simple surgery, and modern men has no use for nails anyway!
  - leafmeal 5y ago
    Look, I agree with you. I don't think we should mess with anyone's genitals without their consent. I'm just pointing out that there's data to support the health concerns. Obviously there's some trade off here, and I don't think it's worth it to circumcise anyone without their consent or medical necessity.

leafmeal 5y ago

While I generally agree with you and wouldn't circumcise any child, data seems to support that circumcision reduces transmission of some STIs > Three randomized clinical trials showed that adult male circumcision significantly reduced the risk for HIV acquisition among heterosexual males by 51%–60% (95% confidence interval 16%–76%) over time. These trials also found that medically performed adult circumcision significantly reduced the risk of men acquiring two common sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including genital ulcer disease (GUD) prevalence by 47% and incidence by 48% and high-risk (i.e. oncogenic) types of human papilloma virus (HR-HPV) prevalence by 23%–47%. It also seems to reduce the risk of UTIs > Male circumcision has been shown to reduce the risk of urinary tract infections inmales aged 0–1 years by 90%, in males aged 1–16 years by 85%, and in males >16 years by 71%. This data is from a report from the CDC https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/58456 https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/58456

layoutIfNeeded 5y ago
Sure, it reduces STI transmission rates, because the mucous membrane (the inside of the foreskin) gets cut off, and the exposed glans also becomes keratinized due to years of abrasion against the underwear. No mucous membranes = lower chance for pathogens to enter the body. Now, whether these would worth the tradeoff with reduced sensitivity, surgical risks (e.g. reduced sexual function due to tight scar formation), the psychological trauma for the infant, etc. is another question.
- leafmeal 5y ago
  Look, I agree with you. I don't think we should mess with anyone's genitals without their consent. I'm just pointing out that there's data to support the health concerns.
hackflip 5y ago
Let's take it a step further. We can reduce STI transmission to zero if we remove all of everyone's genitals.
- layoutIfNeeded 5y ago
  Exactly. Also, we can 100% eliminate nail fungus and ingrown nails (it can cause serious infections!) if we surgically remove the nail root of infants. It's a super simple surgery, and modern men has no use for nails anyway!
- leafmeal 5y ago
  Look, I agree with you. I don't think we should mess with anyone's genitals without their consent. I'm just pointing out that there's data to support the health concerns. Obviously there's some trade off here, and I don't think it's worth it to circumcise anyone without their consent or medical necessity.