“What’s Something Most People Think Is Healthy Today That Future People Will Shake Their Heads At?” (45 Answers)

Doctors don't know sh*t, but YOU do?

Apparently….🙄

So what should she have done? She agreed with your point of view and didn’t get him circumcised. Then he got repeated infections and so she followed the doctor’s advice. (Yeah I know you think doctors don’t know s**t, which I actually find really disrespectful since they studied for years and dedicated themselves to caring for people. Especially all of those physicians who stepped up during Covid).

So sorry I trusted my pediatrician….I guess is what you want me to say here..🤷🏻‍♀️ Also hygiene instructions came AFTER infections started to occur.

https://bmcurol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2490-10-2 Risks of circumcision : https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/circumcision-in-men/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3253617/ I could go on - I too was (now retired) a specialist practitioner

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22752705/#:~:text=Glans%20necrosis%20is%20a%20rare,necrosis%20that%20occurred%20after%20circumcision. Although complications tend to be mild - Above is a paper about necrosing tissue post op. The rate of procedure-related complications during and after circumcision in the neonate is approximately 2 to 6 per 1000 [2-4]. This rate increases 20-fold for boys who are circumcised between one and nine years of age, and 10-fold for those circumcised after 10 years of age [3]. Inadequate training of clinicians contributes to complications, as practitioners without formal training may not recognize congenital malformations (eg, congenital buried penis (picture 1) and penoscrotal webbing (picture 2)) that are more likely to result in poor results when using routine conventional methods [5]. Patients with these abnormalities should be referred to a pediatric urologist.

i read the abstract...they were talking about 2 boys with what they described as a very rare circumcision morbidity...i think you may have misconstrued the data...nearly all males in the u.s. for the past 100+ years have been circumcised at birth...while i haven't slept with or given birth to most of them, i feel i can safely say that the overwhelming majority still have their penises...Exhibit A, the u.s. population continued to grow during this same time period...and that i believe that the boy brought up as a girl thing happened in the 60s...i think that would not be done today b/c we understand gender identity better and have better reconstructive surgeries

No, I don't. That is why 'daughter' is in inverted commas. Unfortunately, in the third world if a boy loses his penis, it is possible he may be brought up as a girl, not that he will be a girl. There was a case in Canada where a boy lost his penis after circumcision, and was brought up as a girl - given hormones etc - https://canadiancrc.com/newspaper_articles/globe_and_mail_boy_raised_as_girl_suffered_final_indignity_11may04.aspx but comitted suicide at 38.

Please click on the links - these are NOT fake statistics and I believe in Evidence Based Medicine.

wrong...it was widely practiced in the u.k. in victorian times and continued up to WW1...circumcision also became de rigueur in the u.s. during the victorian hygiene movement, and infant circumcision is still routine to this day..and let's be frank, much of the historical bias against circumcision throughout europe had nothing to do w/ anti-cruelty sentiments...its roots were based in antisemitism and anti-muslim prejudices...it was a way that a proper european could distinguish himself from the evil jew and the dirty dark arab...it is only recently (i.e., the past 50 years) that anti-circumcision has become more widely seen as infant cruelty

that's not how evolution works, chrissy...not everything is there for a reason...some traits/structures merely carry forward in the gene pool b/c they do not negatively affect reproduction...for example, some traits/structures may have offered a reproductive advantage to an ancient ancestor, but do not do so now, e.g., the appendix...some traits/structures offer no reproductive advantage or disadvantage, e.g., nevi (moles)...some traits/structures develop after reproductive age and, even though they are quite horrible, do not negatively affect reproduction, e.g., parkinson, huntington's...maybe the foreskin is just the appendix of the penis...

that is and was how most people were raised too, biliegh...don't let them mess with your head...

i am confused, bobby...the glanz remains in tact during circumcision...only the foreskin is removed..

Why Just Jeff? I'm curious as to what you perceive the benefits to be.

That is not a good reason whatsoever. That some women might find a man less attractive a certain way?? You should recoil in horror at that view. You wouldn't support women being made to look a certain way just to please men? That's really quite repugnant. THINK about it. If a woman is going to judge your son that way then he should run fast in the other direction - massive red flag.

That's just BS. A penis is not attractive, cut or uncut. It's not meant to be. You look at his warm, caring eyes and his sensual smile, not his dong.

Yup. You win.

http://www.cirp.org/library/death/

The CIRP is an anti-circumcision advocacy group...how about a neutral pier-reviewed scientific study?

It's literally not harmless though?? Males who have uncircumcised penises have much higher sensitivity than ones without, also, the foreskin literally protects the head of the penis.

i think the only people who really know are people who are circumcised after they became sexually active...i worked with a man who had to be circumcised as an adult...he encouraged everyone to have their sons circumcised shortly after birth...questions were had about circumcision decreasing sexual pleasure/sensation...he said there was almost no difference, and still recommended infant circumcision to prevent tears, infections, etc....so, i had my son circumcised when he was three days old with topical anesthesia...the head of his penis was a little tender when touched for maybe a day or two...babies sleep most the time at that age...and they heal super fast...

I was speaking more about intent than technique. However, there are studies that suggest that circumcism reduces the incidence of penile cancer. (And yes, cancer won't develop in your foreskin if you no longer have one.)

There are babies that die from circumcision complications and penile cancer is very rare and rarely deadly. Breast cancer on the other hand affects 1 in 10 women and yet we don't preemptively chop off breasts. The benefits to circumcision are minimal compared to the harm and if we were to decide to start the practice now based on the information we have no medical person in their right mind would recommend it beyond when medically necessary for babies with physical issues.

Note about common usage: Usually when someone says that studies "suggest" something, they typically are indicating that they don't necessarily endorse that conclusion. (Particularly when they mock the methodology in parentheses afterward.)

let's see some data that children are dying from circumcision complications?...if that were true, why would the american academy of pediatricians still state that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/130/3/585/30235/Circumcision-Policy-Statement?autologincheck=redirected?nfToken=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000

This is what I meant by mutilation and I posted on this topic specifically to focus on that. But, like everywhere else, the focus here seems to be on males and their d***s.