CDC comes out in favor of male circumcision

Forwend20: I have heard of a kid suffering from balanitis due to phimosis. This seems like a rare case. Certainly there are many many more people who talk about "infection risks" than people who actually have experienced any infection. Also, this is not a severe issue: it can be dealt with using antibiotics, or circumcision if the problem repeats.

I've also heard of male adults who have trouble with intercourse due to phimosis. One famous example is King Louis XVI of France. Again, this seems like a rare issue.

It seems overkill to have every male baby submit to a procedure that has side effects and consequences on sex life because of such rare and not severe cases later on. I mean, we're not talking life threatening issues there.

I live in a country where only Jews, Muslims, and boys with phimosis are circumcised, and I've never heard about adult men getting foreskin infections.

Let me use a parallel. Some girls have imperforate hymen, which is a real problem when they reach puberty (their menses cannot get out), resulting in some highly embarrassing surgical procedure. Some have nearly imperforate hymen, which prevents them from using tampons and, later on, will make intercourse difficult or impossible, or at least very painful at first; again there is the possibility of a highly embarrassing medical consultation and surgical procedure. Nobody suggests submitting every female baby to a hymen perforation to prevent these issues.

This is something unique to the States. Living in Europe, I've never heard of someone having a foreskin infection.

The talk about foreskin infection is mainly scaremongering. It is one of the last excuses left in the quiver of routine/under-age pro-circumcisers. It sounds reasonable and what parent does not wish for their children to grow up healthy with no physical problems? So, as an argument it resonates.

That is not to say that the argument itself is true or very likely to happen. It is not. As has been said again and again and again, such infections are rare.

My father was one who also just couldn't let his apocalyptic predictions go. He kept on and on about incurable infections that would undoubtedly result in amputation of my penis. he kept this up until I was in my mid-twenties, a short while before I (officially) married. Still the warnings that if I didn't get cut I'd have nothing left some years down the line. It was simply ridiculous when he started and I was often mortified when he started, like when we were both in a car and i couldn't walk away.

He got this idea from an older sister apparently who was the epitome of ignorance and superstition. A real doom-sayer, seeing perdition in just about everything.

So, you are right. One virtually never hears of foreskin infections in non-circumcised individuals because it hardly ever occurs. It is nothing but cheap scaremongering.

One virtually never hears of foreskin infections in non-circumcised individuals because it hardly ever occurs. It is nothing but cheap scaremongering.

But scaremongering that works to get parents to have a unneeded procedure done to their baby. Unless it is religiously called for of course.

I think a lot of it is that Americans don't have the experience with care and operation of a foreskin. Which means either cut it off or be very intentional about learning how to care for it and teaching your kid.

I go back and forth on mine. I do like the look of my cut penis, but wonder what it would be like to have a foreskin. Never get mad that it was done though.

I have the opinion that any kind of alteration to a body without an urgent medical need during the age span a young person can not have an informed opinion about it, should be punishable by law.

As I've mentioned in my posts, I have spina bifida, a congenital disability. I hadn't thought about this until your post, but that may have been a reason my biological parents decided to have me snipped. Though I'm not really knowledgable about what the connection would be (but now you've got me curious!).

Agracier: I've also read documents hinting that some people believed circumcision could help in case of chronic enuresis (boys peeing in bed etc. at an age when it should no longer happen). Ironically, some of these documents were from recent medical sources and warned explicitly "circumcision does not cure enuresis" — if you need to state such a warning it's because some people believe in that.

There's a 2% chance that an uncut penis will sometime during their lifespan develop a cancer of the penis. So let's cut it just to be safe.

There's a 12% chance that a female will develop breast cancer sometime during their lifespan. Anyone proposing prophylactic mastectomies for newborn girls?

Just sayin'

Lorena Bobbit can fix it so you'll be 100% certain it will never get cancer or anything else.

I think a lot of it is that Americans don't have the experience with care and operation of a foreskin. Which means either cut it off or be very intentional about learning how to care for it and teaching your kid.

I go back and forth on mine. I do like the look of my cut penis, but wonder what it would be like to have a foreskin. Never get mad that it was done though.

Based on the feedback of my friend who got the snip-snip as an adult, it would be like having a retractable holster for your extremely sensitive penis head. It's by far the most sensitive part of my body and I'd never want it to desensitize because then oral would just not be as much fun.

It is my opinion that overall circumcision is better than not being circumcised. I can see benefits to circumcision including controversially that circumcision reduces sensation. I see only negatives to foreskin.

Myself I am English. I was circumcised age 6 and am glad of it. I do believe circumcision should be promoted and freely available. Again controversial but I also believe the parts of the US where circumcision is universal have it right. It is my feeling it is a shame English lads are missing out on the benefits of circumcision and many have problems often undiagnosed. Due to growing prudery do not even know foreskin should retract.

You are a good boy cut.

Mashie

It is my opinion that overall circumcision is better than not being circumcised.

You've literally listed no benefits to circumcision and said that you only see negatives to having a foreskin. You need to back up your statements with reasoning. It is my opinion that overall having a foreskin is better than being circumsized, and there are only negatives to circumcision. See how that's just an empty statement?

@forwend20 Sorry, I was stating my opinion as an open statement, as I say my opinions may be controversial, however, and this is my opinion not a statement of facts...

I see the Benefits of Circumcision as:

Hygenic, no folds for smegma to collect

less prone to infection through mucous membrane,

Looks more masculine

reduces sensitivity discouraging masturbation, thus increasing libido and staying power, for sex

as a tradional rite of passage to manhood, or to peers

foreskin can become phimotic and not retract, or paraphimotic

I think CDC statement is highly biased and doesn’t match health situation in other countries where most of population isn’t circumcised: Europe, China….

We should expect tons of health issues related to the penis in these countries, and that simply doesn’t happen. Nor did anything happen when UK NHS stopped funding circumcision in 50’s and parents just skipped it.

No matter doctors try to disguise it with medical reasons, non therapeutical circumcision is just a social/religious custom, and when performed in non consenting minors, or in misinformed adults, a human rights violation.

However, a consenting and informed adult should have the right to be circumcised, as has been my case, but don’t expect real health advantages.

I was circumcised at birth or shortly after so I know nothing else. I have had "encounters" with zippers. I seriously doubt that I would have chosen to be circumcised after any amount of years as an elective procedure.

I knew men in the service who got circumcised for whatever reason. I don't think they enjoyed the procedure or the recovery.

If it isn't broken, don't fix it.

It blows my mind that this is still the norm for American medicine. The US and South Korea are the only two nations where elective, non-religious infant circumcisions are still recommended by the medical establishment. I can see how in earlier times with less medical advancement it could be cleaner and healthier. But in 2019, how can all the rest of the developed world, and much of the underdeveloped world, be so wrong and just the US be correct? It seems like today's parents are catching on. I read somewhere (and I could remember where I would like to it), that the newborn circumcision rate in the US has dropped to near 50%, which is great! But it just astounds me that it's still pushed by the CDC and other American medical bodies.

I'm a 67 year-old retired physician and not cut and very glad of it. I've never had a single infection in 67 years. Washing correctly under and over your foreskin is both pleasant and easy. If you wash, you won't smell or collect much if any smegma. Never had a complaint from a wife or GF about hygiene or odor ever in my life.

A urologist I once worked with stated the benefits of circumcision were

1) lower risk of penile cancer

2) lower risk of contracting HIV and possibly other STD's

3) better ability for older men to do self-care as we age and become less flexible .

I remain delighted that I was not cut.

I insisted that neither of my sons was cut. One almost required it due to phimosis but we gradually trained him out of it and he is able to retract fully now with never any evidence of infections.

As an anesthesiologist I once gave anesthesia to a 22 year old man who wanted a circumcision mostly for his perceived esthetics. The operation went very well but a few days afterward he told me he really wished he hadn't done it because it didn't look the way he expected (and hurt a lot). I imagine many other men who get circ'd as young adults think it looks fine.

Eric

I'm a 67 year-old retired physician and not cut and very glad of it.

I have never bought the CDC argument in favor of circumcision. I see it as an aesthetic choice only. That is to say, either circumcise or not based on the owner’s personal preference. I am glad you did not have an unwanted circumcision.

77 here going on 60. So far, so good. Never had an issue being uncut. CDC is another Executive Branch Cabinet Level Bureau under HHS, jockeying for reasons to exist.

It is my opinion that overall circumcision is better than not being circumcised. I can see benefits to circumcision including controversially that circumcision reduces sensation. I see only negatives to foreskin.

Myself I am English. I was circumcised age 6 and am glad of it. I do believe circumcision should be promoted and freely available. Again controversial but I also believe the parts of the US where circumcision is universal have it right. It is my feeling it is a shame English lads are missing out on the benefits of circumcision and many have problems often undiagnosed. Due to growing prudery do not even know foreskin should retract.

As noted earlier, I'm a 67 year old physician, never cut, never will be, and never had any problems commonly listed for owning a foreskin, and glad of it. That includes all 67 years of excellent hygiene, no infections and not a single complaint about hygiene or odor. A circumcised penis "looking more masculine" and being a "rite of passage to manhood" are nothing more than personal opinions held by those already circumcised or coming from those communities in which it has been seriously culturally or religiously entrenched for eons. Obviously, I have no reason to share either opinion.

Cleaning, bathing, deodorizing and retraction of a foreskin is a responsibility that is inherent in parenting a boy. I have great respect and affection for the British, but if those poor English lads don't take care of themselves properly, and, God forbid, don't even know their FS retracts, they appear to have had a seriously bad combination of parents and pediatricians who abdicated teaching their lads what they should have. Societal prudery in England or anywhere else is simply irrelevant. I agree that circumcision should be freely and widely available, especially including to a large proportion of roughly teens through thirtysomethings who have the option to request a circumcision if they decide they want it. Once they reach 18 or the age of majority, they have the right, the intelligence and the free will to decide if they want their foreskin removed or not. Though many adult men choose to do so successfully, see my earlier post about the 22 year old who regretted it.

Eric

I have never bought the CDC argument in favor of circumcision. I see it as an aesthetic choice only. That is to say, either circumcise or not based on the owner’s personal preference. I am glad you did not have an unwanted circumcision.

I agree, but an awful lot of them are done for cultural or religious reasons, which is why there are so bloody many as there are.

Eric

Eric: And among those done for medical reasons, many are "preventive": solving a problem that may solve by itself.

Walking into the fray, here's my thoughts:

First of all, I'm a cut male, so I have no idea what an uncut male deals with as far as cleanliness issues or medical problems associated with a foreskin.

But I do know that the majority of mammalian males have a sheath of some sort that covers the penis. This is for protection of this sensitive device.

Granted, as humans, we have clothing and such to help protect our genitals, but nature decided we have a foreskin for a reason.

Studies I have read postulate that sexual satisfaction is higher in men that are uncircumcised, including more intense orgasms. This in based in part on data derived from males who were circumcised post adolescence. Makes sense to me. If a sensitive part of your body (i.e. the glans) is constantly being stimulated, after a while it can become desensitized. Ergo a circumcised penis with the glans exposed would become less sensitive over time.

My personal opinion is that circumcision should be a choice. Once a male is an adult, he can make a decision based on facts and personal preference.

Removing body parts on an infant based on religious or social norms is just wrong. If we were talking about the practice of removing an infants finger at birth because, hey, who needs 10 fingers, then moral outrage would ensue. So why do we continue to advocate circumcision based on suspect medical reasons or because of religious or societal norms? Really makes me wonder....

I wonder how many who are horrified at male circumcision are okay with declawing a cat? (amputating the toes at the first digit)

I wonder how many who are horrified at male circumcision are okay with declawing a cat? (amputating the toes at the first digit)

No no no. No way. 😮

I wonder how many who are horrified at male circumcision are okay with declawing a cat? (amputating the toes at the first digit)

Luckily that is why in some states/countries declawing cats is now formally against the law. I might even add, in many countries it has never been a custom to begin with. Much like circumcision ....

I'm uncut, and have never had a problem, nor have I ever had an STD. I wash at least once a day and usually at least twice a day. I can't imagine circumcising anyone for any reason other than some sort of medical reason - cutting it off because it MIGHT get an infection seems like a bad reason. Cleanliness isn't difficult.

Happyone: Some of the medical reason is actually: "his foreskin has not retracted properly by the age of X" (X can be 3 to 6 typically) "thus one day he might get infections so let's cut it".

In the speech of some physicians and in the mind of some parents this is like "he WILL get terrible infections", thus the decision for surgery.

I wonder how many who are horrified at male circumcision are okay with declawing a cat? (amputating the toes at the first digit)

We had hunting dogs that always had their thumbs (dew claws) snipped at around 4-6 weeks old. Much better than tearing one off in the field at age 2-3 While hunting, which is what their instincts were bred to do and what they loved to do. At an early age the bones are just cartilage and it’s not inhumane. Same with cats.

As an anesthesiologist I once gave anesthesia to a 22 year old man who wanted a circumcision mostly for his perceived esthetics. The operation went very well but a few days afterward he told me he really wished he hadn't done it because it didn't look the way he expected (and hurt a lot). I imagine many other men who get circ'd as young adults think it looks fine.

Eric

In fairness, a few days isn't nearly enough time to know whether or not he likes the results. Healing time varies by my understanding based on method but I've seen before and after pictures of guys who didn't see the final product until several months post-op. Now if the patient just didn't like the style he got (e.g., he wanted a low cut but got a high and tight) then he likely didn't properly communicate his expectations. My grandma liked to say, “there's more than one way to skin a cat.” The same adage applies to circumcision and it's important to make clear how that cat should be skinned.