Right, lots of ignorance in this thread, including in the article, so let me clear a few things up before I actually say what I think.The ruling is completely biased and based off junk research.
Well, in fairness, I think most of what they say is true. I'm going to discuss below what the issues with the article are. I think it's more misleading than it is based off junk research. There are elements of bias, though, you're right there. Generally it is medical authorities that have an interest in finding circumcision to be beneficial (those associated with religion being big contributors) that do so. You might not see it at first in this case, but American medical authorities make a huge amount of money out of circumcisions as the whole of America's medical system is privatised. While they don't have an interest to completely make shit up, this does make them more likely to conclude things that are more likely to make people give them money when it's something of a grey area. Always remember the biases and vested interests of the people who are telling you things.
The only actual "scientific proof" of there being decreased sensation is the fact that the foreskin has more nerves inside, which doesn't make much, if any, difference. Plus even if it is true, circumcised penises have been shown to maintain erections twice as long, so I guess it evens out anyways.
Not exactly true, on both counts. No, there's pretty much no scientific proof either way. However, there are things which studies show to be likely. One of the main reasons for decreased sensitivity being posited as a consequence of circumcision is that as the head of the penis is extremely sensitive, it being constantly touched (by underwear etc.) dulls its sensitivity. Protecting this sensitive area is actually the main function of the foreskin, much like the clitoral hood in females. There is significant evidence that suggests, though not conclusively, that this is an issue. Unfortunately, the vast majorities of studies on the matter document the difference between in various things for an uncircumcised adult who gets a circumcision, and then reports on the differences. This does not account for differences that are accrued as a result of circumcision from the age of a few months until adulthood. Of course, a test that did would be incredibly hard to control variables, so it might not even be that helpful then.
Several studies have shown, although unfortunately again not conclusively, that uncircumcised men may ejaculate quicker than circumcised men. May sound like a good thing, increased sexual performance and all that, but assuming these studies were properly controlled for external variables (and I don't know whether they were, though suspect they were) it would also suggest that uncircumcised men have greater sensitivity in their penis, and are thus able to experience greater sexual pleasure. After all, if a group of people are likely to ejaculate slower for reasons other than experience and learning to understand and control your own body better, then it can only be because there is less of an urge to ejaculate. Ejaculation being caused by sensitivity in the penis and sexual pleasure... You get the picture, I hope.
I don't need science to tell me what a woman wants. Circumcised or get out. Just sayin'.
Actually, you kinda do. As an individual woman, you can only say what you want, and not what women want. Scientific research has shown that women from countries were circumcision is very common (such as the USA, where you're from) are far more likely to prefer a circumcised penis, usually because they either consciously believe or subconsciously feel that it's a lot cleaner (of course, I'm sure people have told you plenty of times that this isn't true - with the most basic of genital hygiene they're equal. It's true that if a circumcised guy and an uncircumcised guy both never washed their penises, the uncirc. would be truly gruesome whereas the circumcised would just be highly unpleasant, but I'm guessing that you probably also wouldn't want a guy who never washed his penis to come anywhere near you either...)
On the other hand, in countries were circumcision is not common, women are far more likely to prefer an uncircumcised penis. I guess partly because they're more likely to be used to uncirc. ones from early ages of sexual activity and the circ. ones are more likely to seem "unusual". It's interesting that it's usually whatever is uncommon that is reported to be less sexually pleasurable and to cause more discomfort when entering the vagina. Just shows you how much of sex is actually mental and not physical, really.
Evolution would have destroyed foreskins, if there were more benefits to a penis without one, so I remain skeptical.
Simply not true. Lugion points out cases where this isn't true already. If there are reasonably minor benefits for something in both directions, but one outweighs the other, particularly if the larger one is more long term, it is completely feasible that evolution could have resulted in the less desirable option. As it is, I don't actually think this is true, but that is something that could have happened.
Now, after that wall of text, here comes another one: my actual opinions.
The fact is no medical authority in the entire world recommends routine circumcision for medical reasons. This is not because, as this article makes it sound, this would mean removing the autonomy of the parents or some crap like that. Doctors make recommendations about routines etc. all the time that some people just choose not to follow and it isn't considered denying them their autonomy. The reason is because the benefits are actually so marginal, particularly compared to the risks and adverse side effects, that it just isn't clear enough that it is a good idea. Even the medical authority in the article don't dare to say that, they just want to make it sound like it's a benefit, probably partially because, as I said and explained near the top of this post, it is actually in their benefit to do exactly that.
To go through what they claim the benefits are:
*STI contraction, specifically mentioning HIV and herpes. All studies that I have seen in the past only show that large a difference in risk of infection in unprotected sex. That's why in countries like Nigeria, where condom use is incredibly low, the difference in chance between you getting HIV if you're circumcised is something ridiculous like 60% (I don't have the figures to hand, but it really is in that region). This is not the same in developed countries where sex education is much better and protected sex is much more common, particularly with strangers, from whom you're much more likely to contract HIV. That's why HIV rates in developed countries are actually really low nowadays (as opposed to in the 60s/early 70s when there was less awareness around that sort of stuff).
*Less chance of UTI. Note that they say "particularly in the first year of life". That's because the chances of contracting UTI beyond the first year of life is, for males (different story for females) almost nil. This is actually a pretty minor condition anyway. It is true, however, that in the first year of life you're much less likely to get it if you're circumcised. That's a win for circumcision, though, in my opinion, a pretty marginal one.
*Less chance of cancer. I'd like to see more detailed data on this one. I suspect the difference in likelihood of contracting cancer is extremely small, and possibly a conclusion reached due to problems with sampling. I'm calling BS on this one being anything of any real significance. Less of a win than UTI or STIs.
As for the risks and adverse side effects. I've already talked about reduced sexual pleasure. Often poo-poo'd by institutions who have an interest in saying circumcision is the best human enhancement since haircuts, but there is evidence to suggest there is truth to it. There's also the fact that the procedure can go wrong. Of course, it's rare, but it's pretty horrific when it does go wrong. Less than 1% of millions of men is still thousands of men who may have total loss of the use of their penis, significant damage to their penis, or no penis at all for the rest of their life.
Personally, I'm more concerned by the moral issue of the fact that you are cutting up the genitals of a perfectly healthy baby boy who is completely unable to give any kind of consent or not. I honestly think the only reason that this isn't considered genital mutilation is because of religious and cultural norms saying that it is a natural and good thing to do. In this article they say it is a decision best left to parents, but personally I really don't think that's acceptable. I know I probably sound like a crazy liberal to most of you, but I really think it encroaches on someone's bodily autonomy to be cutting bits off without their consent for medical benefits that have never been shown to actually definitely outweigh the risks, and actually it's usually not done for that reason anyway, in spite of what people like to say. When it's not done for religious reasons, it's typically done for cultural reasons, in other words "Uncircumcised penises are icky."
That's my contribution. Let me say congratulations to all of you who made it to the end, and I hope it has been at least interesting.
ncG1vNJzZmiapaGvorPAq5uepl6jsrV706GpnpmUqHyiucSroJyZnmKupK3DnqSyZZ%2BberGxw6KYraqZmMBursSnnJ%2BhpKh6sLKMppilnV2YtrOv1KaaoquZpLtuu9Strp6hl516s7XSpKpnaWNtg3aFjg%3D%3D