CDC may recommend routine circumcision for US baby boys

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2009 5:45 PM GMT
    Link to NBC Today Show video about possible recommendation by the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) regarding circumcision:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/32537110#32537110

    msnbc online vote for or against circumcision:

    http://www.newsvine.com/_question/2009/08/24/3185879-should-the-cdc-recommend-that-all-boys-born-in-the-us-get-circumcised
  • Sparkycat

    Posts: 1064

    Aug 24, 2009 7:22 PM GMT
    Hard to believe. Genital mutilation as a means of disease prevention. If cutting on the genitals of women would help prevent disease there is no way in hell the CDC would recommend that. For some sick reason that I don't understand society has decided it's ok to take the knife to the genitals of baby boys. There have recently been studies released rebutting the findings that circumcision of men in Africa reduced HIV transmission. Sorry, I don't have a citation for that. So, if circumcision is such a great thing why not recommend it for adult men and leave babies alone. Let them make the decision for themselves when they become legal adults. It's crazy, the idea of cutting on babies who aren't going to have sex instead of telling adult men to go have part of their penises cut off. Circumcision is sick and wrong. Period.

    OK, I'm done ranting. I think I need a nap.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2009 8:02 PM GMT
    I was circumcised shortly after birth, typical in US hospitals in 1949. A few years ago I looked into foreskin restoration options, but haven't done it. My motivation for researching it was the alleged return of some of the original full sensation to the glans.

    In visiting online restoration sites, I read some of these claims about the history of circumcision:
    - routine hospital circumcision was promoted in the US beginning around 1900
    - one reason for it was to reduce penis infections
    - the other principal reason was to reduce the incidence of masturbation as the boy matured
    - health concerns about female sex partners were not initially a major factor in the circumcision movement
    - more recent concerns over possible higher cancer risks to the female reproductive tract became an argument for retaining circumcision

    According to the video above, it seems that female health concerns may now take center stage, even in the absence of proven studies about an HIV risk to uncircumcised men themselves. The risk to women from other STDs may well be real, however, and while it's certainly possible for adult men to choose circumcision before having straight sex, the question for the CDC may be "would they?"

    Hence, like mandatory childhood immunizations, the CDC may issue a requirement or strong recommendation for infant circumcision following hospital births. I think that would be a premature decision given the incomplete & weak research on the issue.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2009 8:19 PM GMT
    Want to slow the spread of HIV?

    How about comprehensive sex education?
    How about increasing funding for clinics?
    How about increasing funding for outreach organizations?
    How about condom distribution?
    How about about protecting Planned Parenthoods so more people have access to their education resources?
    How about a needle exchange program?

    Funny, Europeans generally do not circumcise their children and they don't have the same problem we do. Meanwhile, when the AIDS epidemic began in the 70's around 70% of children were circumcised. And that sure helped, didn't it?

    Rates of HIV infection are increasing in pockets of the population. In 2004 50% of all cases of HIV/AIDS was among African Americans. Being about 12% of the population you would think it would make sense to make a strategy targeting that group rather than cutting off dick skin.

    This is just a foolish and poorly thought out strategy not to mention it violates what is a basic human right.

    Finally, let me add, fuck you CDC.

    Thank you.
    /angryrant
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2009 8:23 PM GMT
    circumcision is an unnecessary operation and should be totally avoided.
  • t0theheights

    Posts: 428

    Aug 24, 2009 8:38 PM GMT
    Red_Vespa saidLink to NBC Today Show video about possible recommendation by the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) regarding circumcision:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/32537110#32537110

    msnbc online vote for or against circumcision:

    http://www.newsvine.com/_question/2009/08/24/3185879-should-the-cdc-recommend-that-all-boys-born-in-the-us-get-circumcised
    ]


    Circumcision is proven to reduce the risk of HIV and a host of other STI's, as well as penile cancer and infections of the glans. For instance, an uncut friend of mine kept getting a yeast infection in his glans, due to the moisture retention caused by foreskin. He was very hygienic; his body was simply prone to this. The recommended treatment to keep him off Monistat month after month: circumcision. Another friend's glans was dangerously and painfully cut off from blood circulation by excessively tight foreskin, if he got hard the wrong way. The cure: circumcision. And notice that neither case would have ever been an issue were they both circumcised at birth, when it is quick, virtually painless, and highly effective.

    Circumcision is no more "mutilation" than piercing a baby's ear or removing the excess skin of webbed feet. I hope the CDC follows common sense and approves this recommendation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2009 11:10 PM GMT
    t0theheights saidCircumcision is proven to reduce the risk of HIV and a host of other STI's, as well as penile cancer and infections of the glans. For instance, an uncut friend of mine kept getting a yeast infection in his glans, due to the moisture retention caused by foreskin. He was very hygienic; his body was simply prone to this. The recommended treatment to keep him off Monistat month after month: circumcision. Another friend's glans was dangerously and painfully cut off from blood circulation by excessively tight foreskin, if he got hard the wrong way. The cure: circumcision. And notice that neither case would have ever been an issue were they both circumcised at birth, when it is quick, virtually painless, and highly effective.

    Circumcision is no more "mutilation" than piercing a baby's ear or removing the excess skin of webbed feet. I hope the CDC follows common sense and approves this recommendation.


    It's good you can point to specific instances where circumcision was a solution -- but I think these are the exceptions, not the rule.

    As for it being on par with removing excess skin, I would disagree since the foreskin has a well-defined purpose: to lubricate the glans and facilitate sensation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2009 11:30 PM GMT
    t0theheights saidCircumcision is proven to reduce the risk of HIV and a host of other STI's, as well as penile cancer and infections of the glans. For instance, an uncut friend of mine kept getting a yeast infection in his glans, due to the moisture retention caused by foreskin. He was very hygienic; his body was simply prone to this. The recommended treatment to keep him off Monistat month after month: circumcision. Another friend's glans was dangerously and painfully cut off from blood circulation by excessively tight foreskin, if he got hard the wrong way. The cure: circumcision. And notice that neither case would have ever been an issue were they both circumcised at birth, when it is quick, virtually painless, and highly effective.

    Circumcision is no more "mutilation" than piercing a baby's ear or removing the excess skin of webbed feet. I hope the CDC follows common sense and approves this recommendation.

    I have foreskin, I've never had an infection, I've never had any blood flow problems.. well.. okay, once,but it was stress related and I was tired icon_razz.gif

    Yes is can reduce the chance of STI's and HIV, but in a first world country where safe sex practices SHOULD be followed it shouldn't matter.

    You have given two examples, of two people, what about the millions who have no problems? like tons of aussies, brits, irish, scottish, hell most of Europe and asia
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 24, 2009 11:37 PM GMT
    So in other words, use a condom and this shouldn't be an issue?.......icon_idea.gif

    Im uncut, and have never had a problem. No blood flow issues, I keep it clean (*shudders at the thought of not*). Outside of the former, I don't see an issue. Though I can understand somewhat trying to avert dumb choices for the child in the future. Still.... the thought of bringing a sharp object to a penis... icon_eek.gif
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Aug 25, 2009 1:26 AM GMT
    Sparkycat saidHard to believe. Genital mutilation as a means of disease prevention. If cutting on the genitals of women would help prevent disease there is no way in hell the CDC would recommend that. For some sick reason that I don't understand society has decided it's ok to take the knife to the genitals of baby boys. There have recently been studies released rebutting the findings that circumcision of men in Africa reduced HIV transmission. Sorry, I don't have a citation for that. So, if circumcision is such a great thing why not recommend it for adult men and leave babies alone. Let them make the decision for themselves when they become legal adults. It's crazy, the idea of cutting on babies who aren't going to have sex instead of telling adult men to go have part of their penises cut off. Circumcision is sick and wrong. Period.

    OK, I'm done ranting. I think I need a nap.


    That's not what the study said. It said men who aren't circumsized that have sex with women have fewer instances of HIV transmission than men who are circumsized. Secondly, this study was severely flawed because it never took into account what percentage of men were using condoms, i.e. the uncircumsized men might have worn more condoms. It also incorrectly makes assumptions based upon the fact that the majority of cases are caused via transmission at birth.
  • styrgan

    Posts: 2017

    Aug 25, 2009 1:35 AM GMT
    I feel like we've been here before, and it wasn't pretty...
  • Celticmusl

    Posts: 4330

    Aug 25, 2009 5:00 AM GMT
    lilTanker said
    t0theheights saidCircumcision is proven to reduce the risk of HIV and a host of other STI's, as well as penile cancer and infections of the glans. For instance, an uncut friend of mine kept getting a yeast infection in his glans, due to the moisture retention caused by foreskin. He was very hygienic; his body was simply prone to this. The recommended treatment to keep him off Monistat month after month: circumcision. Another friend's glans was dangerously and painfully cut off from blood circulation by excessively tight foreskin, if he got hard the wrong way. The cure: circumcision. And notice that neither case would have ever been an issue were they both circumcised at birth, when it is quick, virtually painless, and highly effective.

    Circumcision is no more "mutilation" than piercing a baby's ear or removing the excess skin of webbed feet. I hope the CDC follows common sense and approves this recommendation.

    I have foreskin, I've never had an infection, I've never had any blood flow problems.. well.. okay, once,but it was stress related and I was tired icon_razz.gif

    Yes is can reduce the chance of STI's and HIV, but in a first world country where safe sex practices SHOULD be followed it shouldn't matter.

    You have given two examples, of two people, what about the millions who have no problems? like tons of aussies, brits, irish, scottish, hell most of Europe and asia


    Firstly, don't go dragging the Irish into any of this. And B) If an infant wants his winky flap cut off it's his own business.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 25, 2009 5:10 AM GMT
    lilTanker said
    t0theheights saidCircumcision is proven to reduce the risk of HIV and a host of other STI's, as well as penile cancer and infections of the glans. For instance, an uncut friend of mine kept getting a yeast infection in his glans, due to the moisture retention caused by foreskin. He was very hygienic; his body was simply prone to this. The recommended treatment to keep him off Monistat month after month: circumcision. Another friend's glans was dangerously and painfully cut off from blood circulation by excessively tight foreskin, if he got hard the wrong way. The cure: circumcision. And notice that neither case would have ever been an issue were they both circumcised at birth, when it is quick, virtually painless, and highly effective.

    Circumcision is no more "mutilation" than piercing a baby's ear or removing the excess skin of webbed feet. I hope the CDC follows common sense and approves this recommendation.

    I have foreskin, I've never had an infection, I've never had any blood flow problems.. well.. okay, once,but it was stress related and I was tired icon_razz.gif

    Yes is can reduce the chance of STI's and HIV, but in a first world country where safe sex practices SHOULD be followed it shouldn't matter.

    You have given two examples, of two people, what about the millions who have no problems? like tons of aussies, brits, irish, scottish, hell most of Europe and asia


    In fact male genital mutilation, was very much apart of the Aussie culture up until maybe the 80s it was the new Australians who kept their foreskin, and Aussies lost theirs..

    So millions of Aussie walk around without a foreskin!

    I myself find the procedure barbaric..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 25, 2009 5:37 AM GMT
    Arggg!!!! I hate how some people just say how dirty an uncut penis is!!! Umm yeah if you don't fucking clean it!

    An uncut penis is no different then a Vagina!(well it is,but I don't feel like going into detail)

    You have to clean them both!!

    my Ex best friend didn't know that your suppose to clean your vagina inside out
    and I'm a GUY and knew that!!

    I asked her why she doesn't clean her self and she said because It burns. Umm yeah because you don't wash yourself. She found out later that she had a yeast infection.

    I swear I hate hate hate people with bad hygiene!

    I took 3 sex ed classes throughout school and all they tell you is how a baby is made. They might brush over stds but that's it.


    Sorry to change topics lol
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 25, 2009 5:50 AM GMT
    Celticmusl saidFirstly, don't go dragging the Irish into any of this. And B) If an infant wants his winky flap cut off it's his own business.
    Umm, excuse me? when did you start speaking for all Irish men?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 25, 2009 7:09 AM GMT
    It was The Lancet which ran research saying the studies in to circumcision in Africa were flawed. High numbers of men were also getting infections after the operation. Hmm. Try to cure one thing and you get another unintended consequence.

    I think good, unbiased sex education is the key to preventing stds rather than genital mutilation of male infants
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 25, 2009 7:14 AM GMT
    Oh, yes, and who makes money from these unnecessary operations?
  • t0theheights

    Posts: 428

    Aug 25, 2009 7:33 AM GMT
    styrgan saidI feel like we've been here before, and it wasn't pretty...


    It wasn't pretty because some people seem to think a simple procedure to remove an unnecessary flap of skin that is proven to decrease the risk of serious illness and infection in yourself and others is somehow akin to cutting off an arm..... leave it to the gays to be grossly overdramatic and illogical. lol

    Calling circumcision "genital mutilation" is beyond ridiculous. There are numerous reasons for being cut, and no real negative consequences if the procedure is performed properly.
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Aug 25, 2009 7:41 AM GMT
    t0theheights,

    Circumcision is proven to reduce the risk of HIV and a host of other STI's, as well as penile cancer and infections of the glans.

    Total exaggeration. If you did research about the subject you would see that for example, penile cancer is extremely rare, and it doesn't stop it from occurring.

    There are also problems created which occur more greatly, almost exclusively with circumcision, like inflammation of the opening of the urethra or skin tags and bridges from the healing process, which themselves can create regions that harbor bacteria.


    For instance, an uncut friend of mine kept getting a yeast infection in his glans, due to the moisture retention caused by foreskin. He was very hygienic; his body was simply prone to this. The recommended treatment to keep him off Monistat month after month: circumcision. Another friend's glans was dangerously and painfully cut off from blood circulation by excessively tight foreskin, if he got hard the wrong way. The cure: circumcision.

    Good, you just made some cases for THERAPEUTIC circumcision, not non-therapeutic circumcision, which is what routine circumcision of infants and children is.

    It's fine if a guy wants to cut his own penis, just don't force it onto other people, like children and babies. Anyone who thinks that is ok to do is just ignorant or plain stupid OR protecting their ego because they don't like the fact that they were circumcised and don't want to confront how they've been violated or possibly what they are missing in regard to their 'manhood'.

    Also a tight foreskin can be treated without actually cutting everything off, that's just old-school 'medicine'. It's like amputating an arm to treat an infection in it.

    And notice that neither case would have ever been an issue were they both circumcised at birth, when it is quick, virtually painless, and highly effective.

    You don't know that. You can get yeast infections in other parts of your body AND still suffer other problems.

    Circumcision is no more "mutilation" than piercing a baby's ear or removing the excess skin of webbed feet.

    That's nice of you to decide that for someone else..
  • t0theheights

    Posts: 428

    Aug 25, 2009 7:47 AM GMT
    Anto saidt0theheights,

    Circumcision is proven to reduce the risk of HIV and a host of other STI's, as well as penile cancer and infections of the glans.

    Total exaggeration. If you did research about the subject you would see that for example, penile cancer is extremely rare, and it doesn't stop it from occurring.



    The overwhelming majority of penile cancers occur in the foreskin and thus only affect people who are uncut. This is just one of a host of reasons it is best for infants to be circumcised while they are young and the procedure is relatively painless and safe. The rest of your reply was equally fallacious and inaccurate, or pure opinion (not fact), so I won't bother.
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Aug 25, 2009 7:52 AM GMT
    t0theheights,

    ..some people seem to think a simple procedure to remove an unnecessary flap of skin..

    Do you honestly believe it's an unnecessary flap of skin? It serves more than one purpose, go look them up..

    Calling circumcision "genital mutilation" is beyond ridiculous.

    Yes, and religious people who circumcise women say the same thing.

    There are numerous reasons for being cut, and no real negative consequences if the procedure is performed properly.

    Fine, let a person decide that for themselves. Not many male babies I'm aware of are having unsafe sex.


    Why are you so evangelical about circumcising male kids?

    Also, are you just as much against male homosexual sex considering the logic you are using here?

    leave it to the gays to be grossly overdramatic and illogical. lol

    You are the one exaggerating things. Penile cancer? C'mon..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 25, 2009 7:59 AM GMT
    The removal of foreskin is more a religious thing then a heath care issue. It just so happens that because of the increase of Aids/HIV it's easy to say it's beneficial to remove the skin.

    What people fail to realize is that cut or uncut Aids, HIV and others are STDs. Sexually Transmitted Diseases meaning you usually have to have sex to contact them or are doing something that is just unclean, unsafe and probably involves blood or an open cut of sorts that goes untreated or just bad hygiene.

    Speaking as an uncut person I pull back the skin and wash everyday as any sensible person would when concerning their privates. Throughout the day I take of business and clean myself like say when I go a use a public bathroom. i grab a paper towel, wet it and go into a stall and wash gently wipe my junk. Simple. I also moisturize myself and keep my stuff feel smooth lubricated with lotion.

  • mynyun

    Posts: 1346

    Aug 25, 2009 8:05 AM GMT
    styrgan saidI feel like we've been here before, and it wasn't pretty...

    Yes there have been many posts concerning this subject. -sigh- and now another one to add to the count.icon_neutral.gif

    Although MUNCHINGZOMBIE said this and I thought it interesting.:

    "Funny, Europeans generally do not circumcise their children and they don't have the same problem we do. Meanwhile, when the AIDS epidemic began in the 70's around 70% of children were circumcised. And that sure helped, didn't it?"

    I,however, am glad I am cut.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 25, 2009 9:02 AM GMT
    The amount of ignorance bubbling to the surface of this thread is eye opening.
  • junknemesis

    Posts: 682

    Aug 25, 2009 9:05 AM GMT
    Geez guys... it's only a suggestion. It's not like a federal mandate. I admit I don't agree with doing anything about someone's body (or soul for that matter) before they are old enough to decide for themselves. But circumcision is no big deal. If you were cut as a baby (Like I was) big deal, grow up and get over it.