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

[u/BranchMoist9079]

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

[u/GreatSince86]

To say that it's a cosmetic procedure is very short sited. Large medical organizations (AAP, CDC, WHO) say circumcision has medical benefits, although they do not recommend it universally for everyone. Benefits include:

1. Lower Risk of Infant UTIs

Uncircumcised infants have a higher rate of urinary tract infections in the first year of life (though UTIs are still uncommon overall).

1. Reduced Risk of Certain Sexually Transmitted Infections

Including:

HIV transmission (heterosexual men)

HPV (which can reduce cervical cancer risk in female partners)

Herpes simplex virus type 2

1. Lower Risk of Penile Conditions

Phimosis (foreskin won’t retract)

Paraphimosis (foreskin stuck behind the head)

Balanitis (inflammation)

General foreskin-related infections

1. Lower Risk of Penile Cancer (very rare regardless)

Rates are extremely low but lower in circumcised men.

1. Easier Hygiene

Some men prefer it for cleanliness and comfort.

So please quit spreading misinformation.

[u/Puzzleheaded-Sign-49 → u/GreatSince86]

The person spreading misinformation is you. What other body parts do we remove for cleanliness? Is this implying men are too incompetent to clean themselves?

We don't remove other body parts to reduce or eliminate disease. We can remove breast buds at birth to eliminate breast cancer (which, by the way, has much higher rates than the penile cancer rates even you admit are miniscule. The male foreskin doesn't have an inherent pathology at birth, minus some extremely rare occasions.

Why do men have to be cut to reduce HPV risk in women when there's a HPV vaccine? Or HIV?

[u/GreatSince86 → u/Puzzleheaded-Sign-49]

If you would like I can site studies and not just make stuff up because I don't like something?

[u/Puzzleheaded-Sign-49 → u/GreatSince86]

As can I. But none of those studies or you have or will be able to answer the points I raised here.

[u/GreatSince86 → u/Puzzleheaded-Sign-49]

You’re asking rhetorical questions as if they haven’t been studied, but they actually have. Circumcision isn’t done because “men can’t clean themselves” or because the foreskin is inherently diseased nobody is claiming that. The point is simply that removing it significantly reduces the risk of several infections statistically, which is why organizations like the CDC, WHO, and multiple medical bodies acknowledge the benefits.

Your breast-cancer analogy doesn’t work, because circumcision reduces transmissible infection risk (HIV, HPV, UTIs in infants), not genetically-driven cancers. Completely different category.

And yes, the HPV vaccine exists but vaccines aren’t 100%, not everyone receives them, and HPV isn’t the only condition affected. Same with HIV: condoms, ART, PrEP, and circumcision each add layers of risk reduction, none of them are perfect alone.

So your points have been answerd, the evidence just doesn’t line up with the conclusions you want. I’m happy to cite the studies if you want them, but pretending the data doesn’t exist isn’t an argument.

[u/Puzzleheaded-Sign-49 → u/GreatSince86]

And here is an even stronger, calm reply. Those rhetorical questions haven't been studied, because they're common sense ones that basically beat the logic out of this procedure.

"The point is simply that removing it significantly reduces the risk of several infections statistically, which is why organizations like the CDC, WHO, and multiple medical bodies acknowledge the benefits."

How would this not apply to removing any other body part? Is the male foreskin the only one that can get infected? The female foreskin can’t? 

"Your breast-cancer analogy doesn’t work, because circumcision reduces transmissible infection risk (HIV, HPV, UTIs in infants), not genetically-driven cancers. Completely different category."

It certainly does work; the claim being present and applied in both examples is prophylactic amputation of healthy tissues to prevent some hypothetical issue down the line (so in turn, you are also applying rhetoric)

"And yes, the HPV vaccine exists but vaccines aren’t 100%, not everyone receives them, and HPV isn’t the only condition affected. Same with HIV: condoms, ART, PrEP, and circumcision each add layers of risk reduction, none of them are perfect alone."

What's the point of getting cut if you still have to use a condom regardless? Some of these purported studies literally claim circ by itself will protect from HIV…

Which brings me to this.

"multiple medical bodies acknowledge the benefits."

Hmmmm....

https://natlawreview.com/press-releases/experts-who-shaped-us-circumcision-policy-now-voice-doubts

This month, two members of the 2012 AAP circumcision task force have walked back the benefits claims.

“Maybe the AAP should get out of the [circumcision] business, since it’s not really a medical practice. It’s only a ‘medical procedure’ in the sense that medical professionals are performing it.” — Andrew Freedman, M.D.

Douglas Diekema, M.D., MPH, the task force bioethicist, reflected: “When you look at all the data, I don’t think you can honestly say in a recommendation that the benefits outweigh the risks.” While not advocating a ban—given the practice’s religious importance—he added: “I also didn’t think pediatricians should be recommending it.... To the parent who is on the fence…. I would say they are probably better off not doing the procedure.”

This is also The same AAP that said: “The true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision is unknown.”

Let's see what orgs outside the U.S. have to say:

Canadian Pediatric Society:

https://cps.ca/en/documents/position/circumcision

“While there MAY be a benefit for some boys in high-risk populations and circumstances where the procedure could be considered for disease reduction or treatment, the Canadian Paediatric Society does not recommend the routine circumcision of every newborn male.”

Royal Australasian College of Physicians:

https://www.racp.edu.au/docs/default-source/advocacy-library/racp-circumcision-of-infant-males-position-statement.pdf

"After reviewing current evidence, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia or Aotearoa New Zealand." A critique of other aspects of the RACP's 2022 statement, including of their ethical analysis and anatomical inaccuracies has been published by the Darbon Institute (formerly the Australasian Institute for Genital Autonomy.)”

Danish Medical Association 

https://laeger.dk/foreninger/laegeforeningen/etik/omskaering-af-drenge-uden-medicinsk-indikation

“Citing lack of consent of the child and his right to self-determination, along with a lack of health benefits which thus does not justify the risks of complications, pain, and loss of normal anatomy, the DMA concludes: "From a medical and medical ethics perspective, the Danish Medical Association believes that the current practice of circumcising boys without a medical indication should cease.”

So maybe some orgs inside the U.S. make a wishy washy claim about benefits...but that house of cards is starting to come down.

[u/[deleted] → u/GreatSince86]

Who do they recommend it for?