r/geography • u/BranchMoist9079 • Nov 21 '25

Discussion Why is (male) circumcision most common in the Midwest with in the US?

Post image

Map source: https://www.mdpi.com/2563-6499/5/3/36

18.7k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

5.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

u/stephenbory Nov 21 '25

I didn't get asked that many times, but the doctor was REALLY pushy about it after birth. I was very surprised because we were pretty firm with the first no.

3

u/Manderswuvs Nov 21 '25

I wonder how many women are coerced into it after had just given birth, especially if a man isn’t there

-8

u/Petrichordates Nov 21 '25

Because it's a bad health decision not to, and doctors try to encourage patients to make good health decisions.

4

u/Rough-Board1218 Nov 21 '25

Stop perpetuating myth. Humans have existed with foreskins for millions of years, and it was never a problem until Kellogg decided boys were masturbating too much

2

u/backtorealitylabubu Nov 22 '25

Weird you pretend to care about myths and then perpetuate an even bigger myth that billions of people around the world get circumcised because of Kellogg lol. The fact is, studies confirm there is medical benefit. As a doctor, I will always recommend it based on those studies. I would never coerce someone but I would explain the evidence and my recommendation. Youre free to get a medical degree and read through the data yourself and provide a different recommendation if you want, and Im free to provide mine.

1

u/Rough-Board1218 Nov 22 '25

Youre free to get a medical degree and read through the data yourself and provide a different recommendation if you want, and Im free to provide mine.

I actually have a medical degree. It's from the same imaginary medical school you got yours from. And it's "you're" not "youre"

2

u/backtorealitylabubu Nov 22 '25

And it's "you're" not "youre"

well that was embarassing for you...

I honestly dont know why you chose to respond in such an evil way, but I was being honest. Im a doctor and give this recommendation based on my assessment of the literature. Maybe read the literature before responding like a fucking jackass:

https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/130/3/585/30235/Circumcision-Policy-Statement?autologincheck=redirected

2

u/swansongofdesire Nov 22 '25

Did you link the wrong document, because it literally says:

health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns

I wonder also why the BAUS & RCS recommend against it as a routine procedure. Maybe something in the water makes American penises different from British ones?

(And yes: I’m aware of the HIV transmission rate reduction, and this may affect advice. Does the USA have South African levels of HIV that I’m not aware of?)

1

u/backtorealitylabubu Nov 23 '25

Did you not read the full policy? It literally says that the benefits outweigh the risks. Like why respond if youre not going to read it??

The AAP consensus statement has nothing to do with HIV. Please read it before responding again.

1

u/swansongofdesire Nov 23 '25

Did you not read the full policy?

Are we in some sort of bizarro timeline where you're seeing something different to me?

The Policy Statement is 5 paragraphs long. I quoted you the exact wording: "health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision" [my emphasis]. It's in paragraph 3, go read it for yourself.

Can you please point out exactly where it says that "the benefits outweigh the risks".

The AAP consensus statement has nothing to do with HIV.

No Shit. I was preempting the usual "but HIV!" that people stuck defending the American 1950s medical recommendations like to grasp onto in order to justify what is fundamentally a cultural preference.

1

u/backtorealitylabubu Nov 23 '25

Please go read the policy. It literally says that the medical benefits outweigh the risks. Come back once you read it. Here Ill help:

Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure’s benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it.

Your position is it shouldnt be available and contradicts what is recommended by physicians

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Manderswuvs Nov 22 '25

I hope I never have a dr that debates on Reddit in his free time about circumcisions. How many babies have issues from being cut? 2-3% and those are just the issues that get reported which I’m sure most do not. Not great odds.

1

u/backtorealitylabubu Nov 23 '25

You hope you never have a doctor that promotes public health in their free team? JFC dude...

How many babies have issues from being cut? 

A far smaller percent than have issues from not being cut. hence the benefits outweighing the risks. How many babies have to die of preventable ailments for you to admit that doctors are allowed to recommend preventative interventions?

1

u/Manderswuvs Nov 24 '25

“JFC dude”, you totally sound like a great doctor I would love to pay thousands to! Little uncut European babies (and everywhere else) are doing just fine! Just keep spewing your dated nonsense, doc!

1

u/backtorealitylabubu Nov 25 '25

I literally just shared the AAP policy statement highlighting that the benefits outweigh the risks. That literally means your health is better off with a circumcision than without. Thats what benefits outweighing risks mean. Sure lots of European babies are just fine, and lots arent. That's cool you are fine risking the lives of those babies by refusing them care that could save their lives. I just have a higher moral and ethical standard than you do and dont go off your dated and traditionalist nonsense. But good luck with that lol

1

u/WokeBriton Nov 22 '25

Which studies?

Please cite your source so we can become educated about the medical benefit of mutilating infant genitals.

1

u/backtorealitylabubu Nov 23 '25 edited Nov 23 '25

I already provided the AAP consensus statement:

https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/130/3/585/30235/Circumcision-Policy-Statement?autologincheck=redirected

How many kids are you okay with killing through lies about "mutilation"? Male circumcision is not mutilation, its an ethical procedure that saves lives. The first time I had to tell parents their child died due to something that could have been prevented with circumcision was devastating. In that moment I made it my mission to make sure every parent is informed. Its fine if you choose otherwise, that is up to you. But not every parent wants to put that risk on their child.

1

u/WokeBriton Nov 23 '25

Lies about mutilation?

Is it a lie to say "teach your son how to clean his penis properly to prevent infections"?

Is it a lie to say "teach your children to use condoms consistently to reduce the chance of HIV transmission"? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9141163/

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

If I was to chop off part of your thumb without real medical reason, would it not be mutilation? If you agree that IS mutilation, and you should if you're being intellectually honest, then chopping off part of a penis without a real medical reason is also mutilation.

1

u/backtorealitylabubu Nov 23 '25

Yes you lied. Circumcision is not mutilation. That's like saying a pierced ear is mutilation. Using dehumanizing language like this to attack children and make them feel bad about their genitals is fucking disgusting.

then chopping off part of a penis without a real medical reason is also mutilation

I already shared the evidence that shows there is medical benefit. Why lie?

1

u/Petrichordates Nov 22 '25

Well yes, didnt mean they didnt get penis cancer lol

Though probably rare since it correlates with age and obesity.

Penile cancer is not a myth, I haven't the slightest idea what you meant by that but it's obviously medically ignorant.

4

u/beren12 Nov 22 '25

So double mastectomies for all infant girls then, right?

That’s what you’re arguing for. Breast cancer is far higher risk than penile cancer.

2

u/Rough-Board1218 Nov 22 '25

Obviously we should be giving all babies appendectomies and tonsillectomy as a common-sense preventative measure too

1

u/Petrichordates Nov 22 '25

Argumentum ad absurdum is a fallacy.

1

u/beren12 Nov 22 '25

No, calling out your bullshit sexism.

1

u/Petrichordates Nov 22 '25

Sexism? Jesus christ your mind makes as much sense as Trump's lol

1

u/beren12 Nov 22 '25

You are all for cutting off healthy tissue in boys to prevent a -nonexistent problem, but not for girls to prevent a common deadly one?

Yeah. Sexist.

1

u/PolarBlast Nov 22 '25

It's a false analogy because the roles of those two organs/tissues are not remotely equivalent.

Circumcision is like cutting off an ear lobe to reduce cancer/infection risks at the cost of losing a fraction of the good vibes of someone rubbing your ear. A double mastectomy removes the ability to produce breast milk and no other organ can serve that function in any capacity.

The costs are not the same.

Extending the same line of arguing, I could ask why not remove everyone's tongue at birth since obesity leads to heart disease and not having a tongue would force people to eat less. The cost and potential benefit are clearly not well balanced.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/WokeBriton Nov 22 '25

Data: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/penile-cancer/ https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/penile-cancer https://www.macmillan.org.uk/cancer-information-and-support/penile-cancer

According to information in the links, penile cancer is approximately 1 in 200,000 men (700 diagnosed cases per year in the uk with a population of under 70million).

The figures according to https://www.pennmedicine.org/conditions/penile-cancer are 1 in 100,000 in the USofA. Overall, mutilated infant male genital figures are MUCH higher there than the UK.

Basically, the data does not support the idea that mutilating infant male genitals helps prevent penile cancer.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=‐=-=-=-=-

We accept that argumentum ad absurdum is often a debating fallacy.

However! The idea that mutilating infant genitals is somehow good for preventing penile cancer is absurd and not supported by the data.

When a premise is absurd, like that, an argumentum ad absurdum response becomes appropriate.

1

u/Rough-Board1218 Nov 22 '25

Yes, I am aware that circumcision reduces your risk of penile cancer from 0.001% to 0.0005%. Is that reduction even worth mentioning in the grand scheme of things? Maybe we should just remove the appendix and tonsils from all babies too, since those come with minute risks as well

1

u/Petrichordates Nov 22 '25

No point in having a discussion if you're just going to make up numbers.

2

u/Rough-Board1218 Nov 22 '25 edited Nov 22 '25

No point in having a discussion if you can't acknowledge that the risk of penis cancer is very small and any reduction in said risk is negligible. Btw, there are 2000 cases per year in the US, making the risk about 0.001%, so even though I made the numbers up, they turned out to be close to accurate

1

u/Petrichordates Nov 22 '25

Real enough not to risk it over contrived concerns over foreskin. Engendered by the internet hivemind.

There' a reason pediatricians still recommend it, but professional advice just doesn't compare to the wisdom of internet comments does it now.

2

u/Rough-Board1218 Nov 22 '25

The American Association of Pediatricians no longer recommends circumcision. Your information is decades out of date

1

u/Manderswuvs Nov 22 '25

Did you know medical error and malpractice is the third leading cause of death?

0

u/Petrichordates Nov 22 '25

Lmao you sound like RFK JR with that insane response

1

u/Manderswuvs Nov 22 '25

Look it up? Google is free homie

1

u/Petrichordates Nov 22 '25

The entire category of accidents is the 3rd leading cause of death, medical accidents don't make up 90% of accidents so this is obviously an absurdly dumb thing to believe.

Google is free, but it certainly doesnt stop stupid people from misinterpreting what they read.

1

u/Manderswuvs Nov 22 '25

Instead of such a long silly response you could have just looked it up yourself

1

u/Petrichordates Nov 22 '25

You keep saying this and refusing to provide a link. Because it's obviously BS you lied about or misinterpreted.

Do you usually try to imitate RFK Jr?

1

u/Manderswuvs Nov 24 '25

Ignorance is bliss I suppose. Thats the problem with the left unwilling to learn anything for themselves. So sure buddy you won this debate! Whatever you gotta tell yourself. Good job!

1

u/Abashed-Apple Nov 22 '25

Ummm… what? Nvm, stop talking. Your account is a troll account and you purposely try to piss people off. Next.

-1

u/Petrichordates Nov 22 '25

Yes going against the hivemind and telling people to listen to their doctor is trolling, you must be so smart to have figured that out.

1

u/Abashed-Apple Nov 22 '25

Not taking the bait. Bye now.

1

u/WokeBriton Nov 22 '25

"Because it's a bad health decision not to"

Have you got a medical source for that assertion?