Consume Product

Let me preface this with my stance that I believe universal circumcision is wrong (generally it's unnecessary), I didn't circumcise my son, and I disagree with the conclusion of the article. But I'm going to critique your response:

This isn't enough. Being forced through an 5" canal with an 8" head is also pretty traumatic (babies aren't quiet when they pop out), so "the baby shows a trauma response" isn't a counter argument to what they posit here. Of course circumcision is painful, and pain is one of the best forms of getting a message to a brain.

They're saying *the benefits outweigh the risks.* So sure, your baby might have trauma, but the benefits outweigh that. Just like the benefits of vaginal birth are worth the suffering the baby and the mother endure. If you don't agree, C-sections are an option to deliver the baby in the least traumatic way we can muster (mom takes it pretty hard either way).

So you need to argue that the benefits don't outweigh the risks. What are the benefits of circumcision? It lowers your risks of bacterial infections and venereal diseases, two things fairly-easily mitigated by hygienic self care and sexual practices. However, all things being equal, the uncircumcised penis haver is more likely to have those outcomes. In cases of good hygiene, I speculate the difference is negligible. In summation, fairly mild (but more likely) benefits from circumcision.

So what are the risks of circumcision? Glans necrosis or over-circumcision, post-op infection, and from your study:

>Early-circumcised men reported lower attachment security and lower emotional stability while no differences in empathy or trust were found. Early circumcision was also associated with stronger sexual drive and less restricted socio-sexuality along with higher perceived stress and sensation seeking

So any STD-mitigation benefit from circumcising could actually be lost in the "stronger sexual drive and less restricted socio-sexuality" outcome. Though self-reported studies are notoriously unreliable, we'll use it anyway (many circumcised vs. not studies are contradictory or inconclusive anyway).

All that to say... it seems like a wash. And I'd like to read the article about how they came to the conclusion of "benefits outweigh the risks 200:1." I would guess that they're looking at even very minor things like "uncircumcised guys have smegma" which is pretty common (probably 100% over the entire life) but circumcised guys basically never have to deal with it so that's a "huge" benefit purely by the numbers of sufferers. Meanwhile one in 50,000 boys has part of their glans removed in circumcision, well that's 0.002% of all cases so numerically it's such a small number... but it's pretty fucking severe.

In conclusion - the severity of the risks of circumcision, though they may be less common, far outweigh the risks of not circumcising. I'm guessing the article came to their conclusion by equating the severity of a severed glans with a teenager having to wash his penis a little better than the uncircumcised guy.

[Oh I found the article:](https://bigthink.com/health/defying-science-american-parents-reject-male-circumcision/)

>A large reduction in urinary tract infections, which affect 1 in 12 circumcised males over their lifetime compared to 1 in 3 uncircumcised males.

>A large reduction in balantis — a painful, itchy, and potentially disfiguring swelling of the head of the penis — typically caused by fungal infection. The lifetime rate is 12% for uncircumcised men vs. 2% for circumcised men.

>A 15% to 50% lower risk of prostate cancer. Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in U.S. men, killing 34,500 every year.

>An up to 70% lower rate of contracting HIV. (Though this was derived from studies conducted in Africa. The reduction in the U.S. is probably lower, potentially just 16%.)

>A 50% lower risk of contracting genital human papillomavirus.

>A greatly reduced risk of penile cancer (even though it is rare). The lifetime risk is approximately 1 in 1,000 for an uncircumcised man vs. 1 in 50,000 to 1 in 12,000,000 for a circumcised man.

>A reduced risk of giving female sex partners bacterial vaginal infections and sexually transmitted infections.

So yea, practice good hygiene and have safe sex (preferably monogamous sex, which greatly improves the safety factor), which you should do whether you're circumcised or not, and you've mitigated all but the most extreme risks of being uncircumcised. The article goes on:

>“If U.S. male circumcision rates among men born in the same year dropped to European rates (~10%), there would be an expected 12 percent increase in men infected with HIV (or 4,843); 29 percent more men infected with human papillomavirus (57,124); a 19 percent increase in men infected with herpes simplex virus (124,767); and a 211 percent jump in the number of infant male urinary tract infections (26,876). Among their female sex partners, there would be 50 percent more cases each of bacterial vaginosis (538,865) and trichomoniasis (64,585). The number of new infections with the high-risk form of human papillomavirus, which is closely linked to cervical cancer in women, would increase by 18 percent (33,148 more infections).”

Then why don't we see all those increases in the European populations that don't circumcise? Oh right, because the negroid population of Europe is around 2-3% vs. 14-15% of the US. Those are all nigger diseases. And of course with higher nigger prevalence comes more Whites denigrating themselves.

So I return to my bottom line, which is much in agreement with [this healthline conclusion.](https://www.healthline.com/health/mens-health/circumcised-vs-uncircumcised#takeaway)