US circumcision rates drop to record low of 33%

[englad]

No, what you wrote was not pertinent.

I mentioned that you claimed the US promoted circumcision to prevent masturbation, then linked an article that never mentions this at all, and in fact the US campaign promoted it for purported prevention of neurological diseases.

You replied by telling me you'll stay uncircumcised and use condoms.

You talked about the purported benefits, I mentioned that condoms are considerably more effective. It is relevant to bring up culture and the lack of a socialised healthcare system as these are the reasons why circumcision is not prevalent over here.

Maybe you don't notice how wordy your posts are. Others do. For someone who couldn't give much of a fuck, you invest a lot of time writing about it. And my suggesting that your tomes amount to soap-boxing doesn't remotely indicate that I care about this. The fact that I clearly said, "live and let live" and that I don't understand the uproar this site creates over what other people do to their penises should show it doesn't matter to me.

Because you are quoting me on it, and you clearly care about the response. I left the thread weeks ago.

I do understand where the uproar comes from, it is cultural, it's American. We barely discuss this issue on European platforms.

Again, worked up? Me? How so? The sum total of my posting here is pointing out that your link wasn't relevant to your claim of the US promoting circ to stop masturbation, that I think people should chill over what is a personal family matter, and that your replies to me were unrelated to those statements from me. Meanwhile you've been grandstanding on this for pages, and managing to be condescending, patronizing and generally insulting. You think you're superior to everyone here, you think the US is stupid, and you think you're always right. We get it.

Well feeling the need to quote me in the first place was the first clue. Stopping masturbation was a motivating factor in the late 19th century, it is now a cultural hangover from that period, though no longer related to that desire. The viewpoint here is straightforward, why do something that is not medically necessary? End of. Doctors do not do things for "aesthetic" reasons over here, this is related to the fact that the US unlike the rest of the western world does not have a socialised healthcare system. That is a fact, it isn't meant to insult. Naturally it does come across as insulting, because it is a blatant disadvantage to not have a socialised healthcare system. I don't consider myself to be "superior" on the topic, that reeks of your own inferiority complex on the issue. For the record, the viewpoint on the American "healthcare system" in Europe is simply that it is barbaric, not that the country is stupid. And for the record, I eschew both patriotism and nationalism in their entirety, and do generally look down on people who don't.

I left this thread lying weeks ago, you're the one pulling me up on this.

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

You talked about the purported benefits, I mentioned that condoms are considerably more effective. It is relevant to bring up culture and the lack of a socialised healthcare system as these are the reasons why circumcision is not prevalent over here.

I didn't "talk about the purported benefits". I wasn't supporting one idea versus another. I mentioned that the benefits (preventing masturbation) YOU claimed were the reasons for promoting circumcision in the US weren't even mentioned in your linked article. I wasn't and still haven't stated any of these reasons were right, wrong, or neutral. I've expressed no opinion in favor of or against circumcision. If you'd spend even one moment actually reading what I wrote instead of assuming it, you would see this. The US campaign to prevent masturbation was led by Kellogg of the cereal company, and promoted foods, not circumcision, as a "cure". I suspect you're confusing these bits of history.

 

[englad]

I didn't "talk about the purported benefits". I wasn't supporting one idea versus another. I mentioned that the benefits (preventing masturbation) YOU claimed were the reasons for promoting circumcision in the US weren't even mentioned in your linked article. I wasn't and still haven't stated any of these reasons were right, wrong, or neutral. I've expressed no opinion in favor of or against circumcision. If you'd spend even one moment actually reading what I wrote instead of assuming it, you would see this. The US campaign to prevent masturbation was led by Kellogg of the cereal company, and promoted foods, not circumcision, as a "cure". I suspect you're confusing these bits of history.

Listen man, this is directly from the article I posted:

Believe it or not, circumcision was introduced in English-speaking countries in the late 1800s to control or prevent masturbation

True it is one sentence, it's possible you missed it, but it is in there. I stated this was the original reason why circumcision was promoted, not why it continues to the present day.

This is from Kellogg's wikipedia page:

in his Plain Facts for Old And Young he advocated circumcision as a remedy for "local uncleanliness" (which he thought could lead to "unchastity"),[48]phimosis,[49] and "in small boys", masturbation.[50]

It's true that he also invented foods for this purpose as well, but he also advocated circumcision as a method to stop masturbation. This is fairly widely known.

You did also briefly discuss the purported benefits, that is what you said on the topic:

Current thought says benefit outweighs risk by a small margin

Which incidentally is why I brought up the difference in HIV prevalence rates in Europe and the USA.

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

You talked about the purported benefits, I mentioned that condoms are considerably more effective. It is relevant to bring up culture and the lack of a socialised healthcare system as these are the reasons why circumcision is not prevalent over here.





Because you are quoting me on it, and you clearly care about the response. I left the thread weeks ago.

I do understand where the uproar comes from, it is cultural, it's American. We barely discuss this issue on European platforms.






Well feeling the need to quote me in the first place was the first clue. Stopping masturbation was a motivating factor in the late 19th century, it is now a cultural hangover from that period, though no longer related to that desire. The viewpoint here is straightforward, why do something that is not medically necessary? End of. Doctors do not do things for "aesthetic" reasons over here, this is related to the fact that the US unlike the rest of the western world does not have a socialised healthcare system. That is a fact, it isn't meant to insult. Naturally it does come across as insulting, because it is a blatant disadvantage to not have a socialised healthcare system. I don't consider myself to be "superior" on the topic, that reeks of your own inferiority complex on the issue. For the record, the viewpoint on the American "healthcare system" in Europe is simply that it is barbaric, not that the country is stupid. And for the record, I eschew both patriotism and nationalism in their entirety, and do generally look down on people who don't.

I left this thread lying weeks ago, you're the one pulling me up on this.

Pointing out that you linked an article that wasn't relevant to your claim is the only reason I posted.

I added the fact that I don't understand why people feel they have a right to tell others how to live their lives. You somehow took this as my support of circumcision?

The fact that you left the thread weeks ago doesn't mean your posts at that time didn't show quite the investment by you. And you certainly jumped right back, didn't you?

Saying that you don't think the US is stupid yet disparaging the healthcare system and mocking the culture of a large segment of the population in your spar with foxy grandma is a big contradiction.

Have you lived in the US for any appreciable time? Do you live here now? If not, you aren't in a position to understand it. I don't comment on other countries, because one must actually understand why people and governments operate as they do. And that understanding will not be gained via media. What works in Europe doesn't necessarily work anywhere else. What works in the US...or doesn't...is irrelevant to the rest of the world.

Our healthcare system has issues surrounding affordability. This does affect care decisions, but it is far from the primary reason for circumcision being prevalent. Inertia, religion, disease prevention (which if you aren't an MD are in no position to argue, as the issues are varied and complex) and yes aesthetic opinions are ALL reasons for the choices Americans make. To imply that US doctors circumcise for only or primarily aesthetic reasons is flat out wrong. To state that private healthcare promotes it is absurd....insurance companies don't want to and almost universally won't pay for elective procedures. They certainly never pay for anything "aesthetic" that would be considered a vanity procedure. So our health insurance system absolutely is not covering circumcion, assuming a majority do, for aesthetic reasons. IF they cover it, a proven effective reduction in disease (and therefore protection of their premiums) is why. Ratables rule in insurance.

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

Listen man, this is directly from the article I posted:

Believe it or not, circumcision was introduced in English-speaking countries in the late 1800s to control or prevent masturbation

True it is one sentence, it's possible you missed it, but it is in there. I stated this was the original reason why circumcision was promoted, not why it continues to the present day.

This is from Kellogg's wikipedia page:

in his Plain Facts for Old And Young he advocated circumcision as a remedy for "local uncleanliness" (which he thought could lead to "unchastity"),[48]phimosis,[49] and "in small boys", masturbation.[50]

It's true that he also invented foods for this purpose as well, but he also advocated circumcision as a method to stop masturbation. This is fairly widely known.

You did also briefly discuss the purported benefits, that is what you said on the topic:



Which incidentally is why I brought up the difference in HIV prevalence rates in Europe and the USA.

I mentioned the purported benefits were slightly more than risks currently. You conveniently left out that I also mentioned that purported risks were judged slightly higher in the seventies. The point was that none of this is a proven factual case-closed matter. Not that I was seeking to discuss particulars or judge the relative merits of worldwide healthcare paradigms. I'm circumcised, that's that for me, I have daughters so it was never a decision I had to make, and I don't care enough about how it looks to render an opinion either way.

Is it unclear that I don't have any strong feelings for or against circumcision, that in my opinion this is a personal matter that individuals should be free to decide on their own without propaganda efforts from either side, and that the opinions of their trusted clergy and/or doctors are the input they should use for consideration?

If not, I can't and won't go any further. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

 

[englad]

Pointing out that you linked an article that wasn't relevant to your claim is the only reason I posted.

I added the fact that I don't understand why people feel they have a right to tell others how to live their lives. You somehow took this as my support of circumcision?

Except the article was relevant to my claim, I just showed you that within the article it states that an original primary motivation for circumcision was to discourage young men from masturbating. Here's the quote again:

Believe it or not, circumcision was introduced in English-speaking countries in the late 1800s to control or prevent masturbation

No I took the amount of emotion you're throwing into the debate to be an indication of that.

The fact that you left the thread weeks ago doesn't mean your posts at that time didn't show quite the investment by you. And you certainly jumped right back, didn't you?

You quoted (thus bringing me back into the thread) me with an inaccurate claim that the article didn't mention circumcision as being originally introduced to discourage young men from masturbating:

Believe it or not, circumcision was introduced in English-speaking countries in the late 1800s to control or prevent masturbation

Saying that you don't think the US is stupid yet disparaging the healthcare system and mocking the culture of a large segment of the population in your spar with foxy grandma is a big contradiction.

That was me taking the piss out of a troll by implying that she was a redneck, nothing more and nothing less.

I feel it is justified to disparage your healthcare system. It is simply inhumane, more expensive and delivers worse results. Why should it therefore be sacrosanct?

Have you lived in the US for any appreciable time? Do you live here now? If not, you aren't in a position to understand it. I don't comment on other countries, because one must actually understand why people and governments operate as they do. And that understanding will not be gained via media. What works in Europe doesn't necessarily work anywhere else. What works in the US...or doesn't...is irrelevant to the rest of the world.

Nope, I wouldn't ever live in the USA, the healthcare system alone is a very good reason not to move, as is the lack of employment protections as a secondary reason. I like living in a country with 25 days statutory minimum unpaid leave.

I do however know enough about how your country works, because I know shitloads of Americans living in Europe, something like a quarter of my university were Americans. I frequently keep abreast of your country's current affairs, and we imbibe a shitload of American media all the time.

I don't understand why your country is so unique that a socialised healthcare system wouldn't work in it. If that were the case, then surely many of the other western countries would have followed in your footsteps, they haven't. Why is it that Canada has a different system? Australia has a different system? Argentina has a different system? New Zealand has a different system than you? All the European countries have a different system than you?

I do not understand American exceptionalism in the slightest on this one. My homeland set up our health care system in 1948, when half of the country was still a bomb site, we had lost 40,000 civilians in a single 8 month period after a gruelling six year war and we were massively indebted to your country. And yet the wealthiest country in the world doesn't seem to be able to do the same.

Our healthcare system has issues surrounding affordability. This does affect care decisions, but it is far from the primary reason for circumcision being prevalent. Inertia, religion, disease prevention (which if you aren't an MD are in no position to argue, as the issues are varied and complex) and yes aesthetic opinions are ALL reasons for the choices Americans make. To imply that US doctors circumcise for only or primarily aesthetic reasons is flat out wrong. To state that private healthcare promotes it is absurd....insurance companies don't want to and almost universally won't pay for elective procedures. They certainly never pay for anything "aesthetic" that would be considered a vanity procedure. So our health insurance system absolutely is not covering circumcion, assuming a majority do, for aesthetic reasons. IF they cover it, a proven effective reduction in disease (and therefore protection of their premiums) is why. Ratables rule in insurance.

Then why pray do you have a higher HIV prevalence rate than Europe does? That is practically the only reason why they tout the "benefits" (written in inverted commas purely because effective condom use is infinitely more effective than circumcision):

Americans make up 56% of the people living with HIV within the entirety of North America and Western/Central Europe (and trust me the combined population of that region of Europe alone is a lot higher than the USA).

https://www.avert.org/professionals/hiv-around-world/western-central-europe-north-america/overview

So if it were such an effective method to lower the risk of HIV transmission, you would expect the HIV prevalence rate in the USA to be quite a bit lower than in Europe, except it is a lot higher. And to be honest a particularly high proportion of that is coming from France, Spain and Portugal. In the former's case there are a lot of immigrants from countries with comparatively high HIV prevalence rates. In the latter two's cases, the main transmission route has been IV drugs, sex less so. So in summary, if that is the reason why circumcision is prevalent in the US, it ain't very effective now, is it?

I can well imagine American doctors are doing it for a number of reasons, notably financial gain as they are working in a privatised health care system.

I mentioned the purported benefits were slightly more than risks currently. You conveniently left out that I also mentioned that purported risks were judged slightly higher in the seventies. The point was that none of this is a proven factual case-closed matter. Not that I was seeking to discuss particulars or judge the relative merits of worldwide healthcare paradigms. I'm circumcised, that's that for me, I have daughters so it was never a decision I had to make, and I don't care enough about how it looks to render an opinion either way.

Once again, your HIV prevalence rate is higher. Circumcision is supposed to reduce the risk of HIV transmission primarily, but you have far higher prevalence rates than central or western Europe does. It clearly isn't working very well as a strategy now, is it?

Is it unclear that I don't have any strong feelings for or against circumcision, that in my opinion this is a personal matter that individuals should be free to decide on their own without propaganda efforts from either side, and that the opinions of their trusted clergy and/or doctors are the input they should use for consideration?

If not, I can't and won't go any further. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

I don't think I could ever describe clergymen as trusted, given their track record on a number of issues. In Europe alone, these would range from covering up sex abuse scandals, right through to corruption, to supporting fascist regimes in Europe (Spain/Austria/Portugal/Croatia/Putin), to encouraging forced labour in Ireland (unmarried "unchaste" women working in laundries run by nuns until the 1990's), to helping Nazis escape justice and flee to South America, to working as informants under communist regimes, and then finally ending with opposing women's reproductive rights and LGBT civil rights.

And frankly, having been brought up in an excellent, cost-effective health care system, that is not inclined by financial gain. I can safely say I would trust the opinions of a Canadian doctor, a British doctor, a German doctor and a French doctor any day of the week before I would trust an American doctor on anything. Because the American doctor works in a privatised health care system, and therefore I would also ALWAYS suspect financial gain as being a primary motive for any of their recommendations, recently evidenced by your opioid epidemic.

 

[mpls_avg]

His Body, His Choice I think sums it all up nicely.