Quick googling shows that balanitis is treatable, and avoidable with good hygiene in most cases. It's worth noting I've had multiple cases of thrush and UTIs, and no one has recommended cutting any of my genitalia as a solution. Anti-fungals and probiotics were recommended.
You cant use justification of past instances of an idea and assume the justification is the same now. There is no benefit in female circumcisions, but in males you drastically reduce urethral infection chances. That's enough reason to ask, and the parents are the ones saying yes.
-
-
Here's a study where they tried to prove FGM doesn't prevent HIV and accidentally found the opposite. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265824402_Female_Circumcision_and_HIV_Infection_in_Tanzania_for_Better_or_for_Worse … Do I believe it? Hell no! Sometimes bad science happens even despite the best of intentions. Why trust "benefits of male circ" research either?
-
Because the foreskin provides the perfect environment for bacteria to thrive, and unlike females is not protected by acid.
-
And to the acid-statement: The genitals of a (uncircumcised) men also have an acidic pH-value, just as women's genitals have. You can even buy special washlotions for the genitals which mimic the natural acidic environment there.
-
It operates at about a pH of 5, which is higher than vaginal acid, but about the same as saliva.
-
Well sounds like between that pH, and the langerhans cells killing harmful viruses and bacteria, the male genitalia is about as well protected as any of the other vulnerable points on our body. Evolution isn't stupid, it knows which spots need extra protection
-
The bacteria that cause balanitis have developed resistance to pH levels of 5 because that is how they successfully infect you. Like what
@Vegaytarier said with certain pathogens developing resistance to stomach acid. -
Okay, so, this debate is really dragging on, mind if I change my approach? This study documented deaths that occurred during the same hospital admission as a circumcision: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326040454_Factors_associated_with_early_deaths_following_neonatal_male_circumcision_in_the_United_States_2001-2010 … As many deaths happen after leaving the hospital, this number is a lower bound /1
-
How do you weigh death against balanitis? Against a UTI? What's the exchange rate? Is one death worth it for a dozen UTI preventions? A hundred? A thousand? How many people does it take, admiral?!https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ibEJoNyDDgw …
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Actually, circumcision increases UTIs in boys https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20929075 1% risk of a UTI in an intact male vs. circumcising him creates a 2% risk hemorrhaging and infection https://adc.bmj.com/content/90/8/853.short … Meanwhile, girls get UTIs at a rate five-fold that of boyshttps://www.aafp.org/afp/1998/0401/p1573.html …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Female circumcision reduces UTIs. These "UTI prevention circumcisions" are the exact "circumcision for no reason" that you mentioned earlier. Amputation, surgery, and genital mutilation are NOT legitimate forms of prevention.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It doesn't drastically reduce urinary tract infection chances. Male infants have a 2% rate of UTIs when they are in diapers. You know why? Because they're in diapers. As soon as they get out of diapers, it drops to 0.1% chance of boys getting UTIs. Circumcision isn't worth it.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.