• UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    I mentioned in another comment how circumcision dramatically reduces the rate of spread of STDs. That is, at least from my perspective, the primary (and original) incentive to circumcise. Significantly less of an issue now, because you can just get a condom. But in areas where access to a consumer profilactic isn’t readily available or one in which STD infection is high, it would make a great deal of sense to perform the surgery as a preventative measure.

    Same as giving your kid vaccine shots or putting them in the NICU for the first few weeks of their life or demanding that they wash their hands regularly.

    • el_abuelo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Not so dramatically you can not wear a condom. So given you’re going to strap up anyway, what’s the benefit to having surgery on your genitals?

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        CDC has a whole thing on it

        Circumcised men compared with uncircumcised men have also been shown in clinical trials to be less likely to acquire new infections with syphilis (by 42%), genital ulcer disease (by 48%), genital herpes (by 28% to 45%), and high-risk strains of human papillomavirus associated with cancer (by 24% to 47% percent)

        By all means, you should still wrap that shit. But if you’re living in a rural community or one that has a strong stigma against contraception, or you’re just in a place where the disease is rampant and you need a secondary precautionary policy, this will have a meaningful impact on disease spread.

        • el_abuelo@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          The majority of US citizens do not fall into those categories, and for that reason I see it as an unnecessary procedure that is more cultural than scientific.

    • MTK@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      As far as I am aware there is only one study done in Africa that showed that there is a correlation between circumcision and a reduced chance to get HIV.

      But that is the only study and only HIV, not all STIs.

      Also this is moot in most of the world where you have access to condoms.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        CDC has a whole thing on it

        Circumcised men compared with uncircumcised men have also been shown in clinical trials to be less likely to acquire new infections with syphilis (by 42%), genital ulcer disease (by 48%), genital herpes (by 28% to 45%), and high-risk strains of human papillomavirus associated with cancer (by 24% to 47% percent)

        By all means, you should still wrap that shit. But if you’re living in a rural community or one that has a strong stigma against contraception, or you’re just in a place where the disease is rampant and you need a secondary precautionary policy, this will have a meaningful impact on disease spread.

        • MTK@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Still not really reasonable, especially considering that for the most part this decision can just wait until adulthood

    • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      I don’t think this is the original reason, but it has been found to happen. Also, your risk of penile cancer goes to almost zero, as well as fewer and less serious complications related to the foreskin (or its absence). Going fully nude while circumcised is a dangerous game, though.