4 ms·

> one-third of males in the world are circumcised, primarily for cultural reasons. … the degree and magnitude of associated benefits and risks, remain contentio

> one-third of males in the world are circumcised, primarily for cultural reasons. … the degree and magnitude of associated benefits and risks, remain contentious and hotly debated It’s poplar to go in on curcumcision. Haven’t numerous studies shown that they reduce sti risk and are medical standard practice for African countries with aids epidemics?

adamwong246 3y ago
A modest proposal: Why don't we just remove the child's genitals entirely? That ought to decrease their chances of catching an STI substantially.
- erulabs 3y ago
  Not sure why you’re being downvoted, this is perfect. Engineering for a single metric is catastrophic. It took social media to wake folks up to that but “let’s reduce STI metrics by cutting infants” really should have beaten it to the punch.
  - adamwong246 3y ago
    Let's remove their teeth next, so they don't get cavities.
    - masfuerte 3y ago
      This used to be common practice in England in the 1950s. Not to babies, but to adults in early middle age. Once you'd lost a few teeth the dentist would recommend the removal of the rest and provide you with a nice set of dentures. All of my grandparents had dentures when I knew them.
    - readthenotes1 3y ago
      Given the articles topic, I thought you were going to go somewhere else with that
  - Ekaros 3y ago
    We could also lobotomize everyone and that would certainly remove lot of violent crime...
- jstarfish 3y ago
  No need. They're already having less sex than previous generations. It turns out if you redefine the mechanics of docking to the point where nobody can recognize themselves or their role in the exchange of personnel, nobody can negotiate the Fucking Protocol.
thomastjeffery 3y ago
Those "studies" have been thoroughly debunked. Give people soap and condoms. Don't give them wounds! Circumcision is popular for the exact same reasons that FGM is popular: it's popular. If everyone you know did it, then what reason do you have to not do it? Can you explain that reason to those people? Of course not, you are too young to even know what is going on! This is a failure of medical professionalism. When we allow unhealthy practices to be perpetuated by circular narratives, popularity of those narratives increases. We are more afraid of cutting words than cutting people.
- twisteriffic 3y ago
  > Those "studies" have been thoroughly debunked. Give people soap and condoms. Source? The CDC has a very thoroughly reviewed set of literature and studies that support up to a 50% reduction in STI transmission. https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/male-circumcision.html https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/male-circumcision.html
bastawhiz 3y ago
> Haven’t numerous studies shown that they reduce sti risk Yes, but mostly for heterosexual men. And a large number of studies show that there is no association with sti risks for most common STIs. And some meta studies show that there's probably not a strong enough reason to justify circumcision. The relatively small number of HIV infections you prevent in the West [0] is probably not a justifiable reason to encourage circumcision, especially when there are other ways to prevent infection. [0] 22% of infection among heterosexual individuals through intercourse, which is very heavily biased towards women—it ends up being only a few percent of total infections, and the reduced risk would only prevent maybe half of those. We're talking about a maximum of a few hundred infections in the US per year.
at_a_remove 3y ago
Last I checked, the NNT was quite high. One hundred circumcisions prevents one (1) urinary tract infection. Meanwhile, in the United States, the procedure ends in death, one way or another, roughly 117 times per annum.
twisteriffic 3y ago
> Haven’t numerous studies shown that they reduce sti risk and are medical standard practice for African countries with aids epidemics? Yes. https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/male-circumcision.html https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/male-circumcision.html

adamwong246 3y ago

A modest proposal: Why don't we just remove the child's genitals entirely? That ought to decrease their chances of catching an STI substantially.

erulabs 3y ago
Not sure why you’re being downvoted, this is perfect. Engineering for a single metric is catastrophic. It took social media to wake folks up to that but “let’s reduce STI metrics by cutting infants” really should have beaten it to the punch.
- adamwong246 3y ago
  Let's remove their teeth next, so they don't get cavities.
  - masfuerte 3y ago
    This used to be common practice in England in the 1950s. Not to babies, but to adults in early middle age. Once you'd lost a few teeth the dentist would recommend the removal of the rest and provide you with a nice set of dentures. All of my grandparents had dentures when I knew them.
  - readthenotes1 3y ago
    Given the articles topic, I thought you were going to go somewhere else with that
- Ekaros 3y ago
  We could also lobotomize everyone and that would certainly remove lot of violent crime...
jstarfish 3y ago
No need. They're already having less sex than previous generations. It turns out if you redefine the mechanics of docking to the point where nobody can recognize themselves or their role in the exchange of personnel, nobody can negotiate the Fucking Protocol.

thomastjeffery 3y ago

Those "studies" have been thoroughly debunked. Give people soap and condoms. Don't give them wounds! Circumcision is popular for the exact same reasons that FGM is popular: it's popular. If everyone you know did it, then what reason do you have to not do it? Can you explain that reason to those people? Of course not, you are too young to even know what is going on! This is a failure of medical professionalism. When we allow unhealthy practices to be perpetuated by circular narratives, popularity of those narratives increases. We are more afraid of cutting words than cutting people.

twisteriffic 3y ago
> Those "studies" have been thoroughly debunked. Give people soap and condoms. Source? The CDC has a very thoroughly reviewed set of literature and studies that support up to a 50% reduction in STI transmission. https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/male-circumcision.html https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/male-circumcision.html

bastawhiz 3y ago

> Haven’t numerous studies shown that they reduce sti risk Yes, but mostly for heterosexual men. And a large number of studies show that there is no association with sti risks for most common STIs. And some meta studies show that there's probably not a strong enough reason to justify circumcision. The relatively small number of HIV infections you prevent in the West [0] is probably not a justifiable reason to encourage circumcision, especially when there are other ways to prevent infection. [0] 22% of infection among heterosexual individuals through intercourse, which is very heavily biased towards women—it ends up being only a few percent of total infections, and the reduced risk would only prevent maybe half of those. We're talking about a maximum of a few hundred infections in the US per year.

at_a_remove 3y ago

Last I checked, the NNT was quite high. One hundred circumcisions prevents one (1) urinary tract infection. Meanwhile, in the United States, the procedure ends in death, one way or another, roughly 117 times per annum.

twisteriffic 3y ago

> Haven’t numerous studies shown that they reduce sti risk and are medical standard practice for African countries with aids epidemics? Yes. https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/male-circumcision.html https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/male-circumcision.html