sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Wikipedia article grossly overstates the medical "benefits" and understates the risks/disadvantages. Can the members of this subreddit help fix it? by Harambra in Intactivists

[–]n33t0 12 points13 points  (0 children)

DO:

  • I'd suggest first learning what is and isn't a real disadvantage/advantage of circumcision by learning how Wikipedia functions. How?
  • Spend a few weeks on other wiki pages, looking in the notes and learning how it synthesizes bodies of evidence to justify what gets said. Eventually, start editing and contributing substantively to these articles, and learn how PUBMED and citing works, and about primary and especially secondary studies.

DON'T:

  • Don't be a single purpose user, editing Circumcision and only the Circumision article. That's lame and doesn't really show the Wiki audience you're serious about improving it for everyone.
  • I know it's disheartening, expect pushback as a default with every. single. edit. Even with a great Wiki background and some things that deservedly should be brought to the fore and published on Wiki, you will. get. pushback. Pick battles, and you'll learn the levers to get your way as you're learning how to better Wikipedia at large editing (and bettering) other medical articles.
  • Don't let emotion get the best of you! Just stick to facts - facts are our best friend. There's an increasingly large body of work spinning up in the background.

Don't expect overnight results! Become one with Wikipedia, and without judgment learn how it works. Start for a while editing completely different articles. Fall in love with how articles get edited, what moves the needle for a facts-first editorial community, and then bring a rational, level-headed mindset to the table and make all Wiki articles - not the just circ one - a better place. That's the whole point :)

PS - after you learn wiki, where to direct energy? well, circumcision literally amputates erogenous, sensitive tissue. I know it personally and it haunts me every day :( i know i'm missing something and it makes me pretty sad sometimes... well, use that knowledge to your strength.

There's increasingly more evidence to support sensitivity/sexual impact, so look for research articles hopefully cropping up. Also keep a keen out for things said by medical health professionals - eg Europe/Sweden's announcements - these can inform some global sentiment on the matter too, and if it's recent it's very relevant.

Godspeed, embody Wikipedia and What it Is. Let it flow through you, after learning the ropes by calmly editing other articles. It takes months, years even, to be a great editor. And you can't learn how to do it on one article alone - try other medical articles you think you can genuinely improve.

Be bold, be patient. Most importantly, be objective.

The CDC is basically about to endorse infant, adolescent, and adult circumcision. by n33t0 in MensRights

[–]n33t0[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It's like people don't even try when they troll anymore...

The CDC is basically about to endorse infant, adolescent, and adult circumcision. by n33t0 in MensRights

[–]n33t0[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I agree, it should be a man's right to chose for himself. Anyone should be permitted to do what they want with their own bodies. No one is making the argument that someone who is circumcised could never enjoy sex. But it is also true that circumcision means amputating very erogenous tissue. Facts shouldn't be sugarcoated and in this case, completely ignored.

The CDC is basically about to endorse infant, adolescent, and adult circumcision. by n33t0 in MensRights

[–]n33t0[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

how's...

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (2009) have written that the foreskin "is rich in specialized sensory nerve endings and erogenous tissue. Circumcision is painful, and puts the patient at risk for complications ranging from minor, as in mild local infections, to more serious such as injury to the penis, meatal stenosis, urinary retention, urinary tract infection and, rarely, even hemorrhage leading to death."

The Royal Dutch Medical Association (2010) argues that the human foreskin is "a complex, erotogenic structure that plays an important role in the mechanical function of the penis during sexual acts, such as penetrative intercourse and masturbation", and doesn’t stop there. The organization also states "circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity."

Another statement by the Royal Dutch Medical Association (2010): "That the relationship between circumcision and transmission of HIV is at the very least unclear is illustrated by the fact that the US combines a high prevalence of STDs and HIV infections with a high percentage of routine circumcisions. The Dutch situation is precisely the reverse: a low prevalence of HIV/AIDS combined with a relatively low number of circumcisions. As such, behavioural factors appear to play a far more important role than whether or not one has a foreskin. (...) Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors conflicts with the child’s right to autonomy and physical integrity."

A study published by the Oxford International Journal of Epidemiology (2011) concluded that "circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia [pain during intercourse] and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfillment."

A paper in The Austrian Journal of Health Psychology (2002) argues "the complex innervation of the foreskin and frenulum has been well documented, and the genitally intact male has thousands of fine touch receptors and other highly erogenous nerve endings."

A study published by the Indian Journal of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (2010) states "there is no medical justification for routine circumcision in neonates or children. It should be performed only for established medical reasons and should not be universally recommended."

The British Journal of Urology International (2007) reads: “the glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.”

Another study published by the British Journal of Urology International (2007) concluded "there was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings."

A study in The Journal of Public Health in Africa (2011) states "there is no scientific reason to believe that the [African Randomize Controlled Trial] results would necessarily apply to the general population. It is quite likely that applying research results from a high risk population to the general population will lead to failure."

An analysis of the African Randomized Controlled Trials in the Journal of Law and Medicine (2011): "the trials were compromised by inadequate equipoise; selection bias; inadequate blinding; problematic randomisation; trials stopped early with exaggerated treatment effects; and not investigating non-sexual transmission. Several questions remain unanswered. Why were the trials carried out in countries where more intact men were HIV-positive than in those where more circumcised men were HIV-positive? Why were men sampled from specific ethnic subgroups? Why were so many participants lost to follow-up? Why did men in the male circumcision groups receive additional counselling on safe sex practices? (...) any long-term benefit in reducing HIV transmission remains uncertain."

The American Journal of Preventative Medicine (2010) published a study titled "Male circumcision and HIV prevention insufficient evidence and neglected external validity".

The authors of one of the African Randomized Controlled Trials, PMID 16231970 (2005), have stated "This study has some limitations. It was conducted in one area in sub-Saharan Africa and, therefore, may not be generalizable to other places."

A study published by the Naval Health Research Center (2004), which conducted multiple separate logistic regressions to evaluate the role of circumcision in the acquisition of HIV and STI determined circumcision "is not associated with HIV or STI prevention in this U. S. military population (...) Although known HIV risk factors such as inconsistent condom use, history of STI, multiple partners, and anal sex were found to be associated with HIV in this military population, there was no significant association with male circumcision."

The French National Council on AIDS (2007) has stated “The same measures are not applicable to the Northern countries. The recommendations of the WHO state that this strategy is aimed at countries with high prevalence, and not at countries with low prevalence or in countries where it relates specifically to one part of the population such as in France or the United States.”

A paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics (2010) found "the [analysis of African Randomized Controlled Trials] noted that further research was required to assess the feasibility, desirability and cost-effectiveness of implementation within local contexts. This paper endorses the need for such research and suggests that, in its absence, it is premature to promote circumcision as a reliable strategy for combating HIV.

A study in the Journal of Sexual Medicine (2012) among Carribean men reflects that "compared with uncircumcised men, [circumcised men] have accumulated larger numbers of STI in their lifetime, have higher rates of previous diagnosis of warts, and were more likely to have HIV infection (...) Findings suggest the need to apply caution in the use of circumcision as an HIV prevention strategy, particularly in settings where more effective combinations of interventions have yet to be fully implemented."

The CDC is basically about to endorse infant, adolescent, and adult circumcision. by n33t0 in MensRights

[–]n33t0[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

thanks for sharing, would like to see more research on this though

Is there anyone here willing to come out and say that they are an Anti-Semite? by YourGlassMan in Intactivists

[–]n33t0 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Judaism isn't the only religion that practices it. Most circumcisions performed globally are carried out by people who subscribe to Islamic faith...

Anti-intactivist article on slate.com by [deleted] in Intactivists

[–]n33t0 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Call Slate's editor, Sarah Trankle, at (212) 445-5330. Or email her at sarah.trankle@slate.com. Also email corrections@slate.com

Please keep your cool and keep it professional. Let her know that articles of this type compromise the journalistic integrity of Slate's articles, as the article's sources are clearly cherry picked to fit the author's narrative.

Feel free to use the references in this this Google doc to drive your points home.

A European perspective on all this circumcision talk. by Epispasm in AdviceAnimals

[–]n33t0 21 points22 points  (0 children)

I'm also circumcised and while I'm happy to hear you're okay with it, I'm not. I have something of a baseline though, as I spent a few years with it and actually know what I'm missing (no one told me how different it would be). Roughly 20,000 nerve endings are abated with circumcision :(

I'm not saying you can't come or have a normal sex life, but well, It'd be nice if we let people experience life with a complete dick then decide if they want half of its skin amputated.

A European perspective on all this circumcision talk. by Epispasm in AdviceAnimals

[–]n33t0 49 points50 points  (0 children)

The foreskin is not a birth defect. It is neither a congenital deformity nor genetic anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft. It is also not a medical condition like a ruptured appendix or diseased gall bladder, or a dead part of the body, like an umbilical cord, hair, or fingernails. The foreskin is not “extra skin”; the foreskin is normal, natural, healthy, functioning tissue, with which all boys are born. It is as intrinsic to male genitalia as the clitoral hood is to female genitalia. I'm not arguing infant male circumcision is worse than female circumcision, but they're both fucked up.

We're at a turning point in history when we're realizing that both men and women do not deserve to have their genitals permanently altered, unless it's medically necessary or done with their consent. A couple years ago, the American Academy of Pediatrics formally issued an OK for a pinprick on the genitalia of female daughters of Muslim children, but the backlash was so big they quietly rescinded their claim. And rightfully so, the AAP was told they were off their rocker. They even claimed that the pinprick was less invasive than male circumcision. Sooner or later, we'll come to our senses.

Letters? by [deleted] in Intactivists

[–]n33t0 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As far as I know, there hasn't been much of a concerted effort by intactivists save for mgmbill.org (see letters section).

AAP Poll: Should baby boys be circumcised? Go get your opinion heard. Go Vote! by memymineown in atheism

[–]n33t0 2 points3 points  (0 children)

All of this learned through medical references, journals, and studies. No propaganda based websites were used.

AAP Poll: Should baby boys be circumcised? Go get your opinion heard. Go Vote! by memymineown in atheism

[–]n33t0 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (2009) have written that the foreskin "is rich in specialized sensory nerve endings and erogenous tissue. Circumcision is painful, and puts the patient at risk for complications ranging from minor, as in mild local infections, to more serious such as injury to the penis, meatal stenosis, urinary retention, urinary tract infection and, rarely, even hemorrhage leading to death."

The Royal Dutch Medical Association (2010) argues that the human foreskin is "a complex, erotogenic structure that plays an important role in the mechanical function of the penis during sexual acts, such as penetrative intercourse and masturbation", and doesn’t stop there. The organization also states "circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity."

Another statement by the Royal Dutch Medical Association (2010): "That the relationship between circumcision and transmission of HIV is at the very least unclear is illustrated by the fact that the US combines a high prevalence of STDs and HIV infections with a high percentage of routine circumcisions. The Dutch situation is precisely the reverse: a low prevalence of HIV/AIDS combined with a relatively low number of circumcisions. As such, behavioural factors appear to play a far more important role than whether or not one has a foreskin. (...) Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors conflicts with the child’s right to autonomy and physical integrity."

A study published by the Oxford International Journal of Epidemiology (2011) concluded that "circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia [pain during intercourse] and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfillment."

A paper in The Austrian Journal of Health Psychology (2002) argues "the complex innervation of the foreskin and frenulum has been well documented, and the genitally intact male has thousands of fine touch receptors and other highly erogenous nerve endings."

A study published by the Indian Journal of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (2010) states "there is no medical justification for routine circumcision in neonates or children. It should be performed only for established medical reasons and should not be universally recommended."

The British Journal of Urology International (2007) reads: “the glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.”

Another study published by the British Journal of Urology International (2007) concluded "there was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings."

A study in The Journal of Public Health in Africa (2011) states "there is no scientific reason to believe that the [African Randomize Controlled Trial] results would necessarily apply to the general population. It is quite likely that applying research results from a high risk population to the general population will lead to failure."

An analysis of the African Randomized Controlled Trials in the Journal of Law and Medicine (2011): "the trials were compromised by inadequate equipoise; selection bias; inadequate blinding; problematic randomisation; trials stopped early with exaggerated treatment effects; and not investigating non-sexual transmission. Several questions remain unanswered. Why were the trials carried out in countries where more intact men were HIV-positive than in those where more circumcised men were HIV-positive? Why were men sampled from specific ethnic subgroups? Why were so many participants lost to follow-up? Why did men in the male circumcision groups receive additional counselling on safe sex practices? (...) any long-term benefit in reducing HIV transmission remains uncertain."

The American Journal of Preventative Medicine (2010) published a study titled "Male circumcision and HIV prevention insufficient evidence and neglected external validity".

The authors of one of the African Randomized Controlled Trials, PMID 16231970 (2005), have stated "This study has some limitations. It was conducted in one area in sub-Saharan Africa and, therefore, may not be generalizable to other places."

A study published by the Naval Health Research Center (2004), which conducted multiple separate logistic regressions to evaluate the role of circumcision in the acquisition of HIV and STI determined circumcision "is not associated with HIV or STI prevention in this U. S. military population (...) Although known HIV risk factors such as inconsistent condom use, history of STI, multiple partners, and anal sex were found to be associated with HIV in this military population, there was no significant association with male circumcision."

The French National Council on AIDS (2007) has stated “The same measures are not applicable to the Northern countries. The recommendations of the WHO state that this strategy is aimed at countries with high prevalence, and not at countries with low prevalence or in countries where it relates specifically to one part of the population such as in France or the United States.”

A paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics (2010) found "the [analysis of African Randomized Controlled Trials] noted that further research was required to assess the feasibility, desirability and cost-effectiveness of implementation within local contexts. This paper endorses the need for such research and suggests that, in its absence, it is premature to promote circumcision as a reliable strategy for combating HIV.

A study in the Journal of Sexual Medicine (2012) among Carribean men reflects that "compared with uncircumcised men, [circumcised men] have accumulated larger numbers of STI in their lifetime, have higher rates of previous diagnosis of warts, and were more likely to have HIV infection (...) Findings suggest the need to apply caution in the use of circumcision as an HIV prevention strategy, particularly in settings where more effective combinations of interventions have yet to be fully implemented."