The AAP’s New Circumcision Policy

You may also like...

7 Responses

  1. Brett Bellmore says:

    Ok, I’m puzzled: If the facts actually support circumcision, (And you don’t seem to be disputing that.) what’s the AAP supposed to do? Ignore the facts?

  2. Sarah Waldeck says:


    To be clear, I have never written that “the facts” support endorsing circumcision in the United States– although I’m not certain what “facts” you are referring to. Here’s what I’ve written most recently about the connection between HIV and circumcision, which is the primary relevant medical “fact” that prompted the shift in the AAP’s stance:

    “On the medical front, new data about HIV is the big development since the AAP last affirmed its neutral stance in 2005. Studies from Africa have found that circumcision reduces the risk of a man becoming infected from an HIV-positive female partner and the evidence on this front is strong enough that the World Health Organization has deemed circumcision “an important intervention to reduce the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV.” It is not clear, however, what impact circumcision has on HIV rates in the United States, because the health systems are vastly different and the disease spreads through different routes here than in Africa. Most significantly, there is little to no evidence that circumcision protects men who have sex with HIV-infected men and it is unclear whether a circumcised HIV-infected male is less likely to infect his healthy female partner.”

    My post today, however, is not a criticism of the AAP for changing its position. Rather my point is that–at least in some parts of the country–what the AAP says may make little difference.

  3. Brett Bellmore says:

    We can certainly agree with that much; People generally do not have their children circumcised, or not, for medical reasons, save at the margin.

  4. nidefatt says:

    I wasn’t circumcised but my father who was from Portland was. When I was 13 I briefly thought about doing it in order to fit in. Eventually I decided I could care less, partly motivated by claims from those who had had the procedure later in life, after having had sex, that sex was not as good afterward.

    Frankly, men are idiots, and just stating my reasoning out loud shames me a bit. If you’re getting AIDS when you have sex, you have bigger problems than the skin on the tip of your dick. The AAP is a joke, the scientific community, like the art community and every other group that doesn’t make money unless they can find a donor, is utterly corrupt. I have no doubt that this stupidity will have bad consequences that a more advanced age will laugh at. Humanity. Such a waste.

  5. Richard Scalper says:

    They brand men like a herd of cows. American men are such wimps to let their sons be subjected to this

    absurd surgery. If it were women tied down & cut, the Feminists would be howling all over the world.

    The male genitals are a cheap commodity. There is no argument too absurd for the circumcisers. They

    insult the appearance of the intact penis, claim that circumcision heals everything from body warts to

    HIV, and draw an illogical distinction between female & male genitals. Circumcision is the mark of a

    slave, not a free man.

    Top Ten Tortures Less Painful Than Circumcision

    10. Get waterboarded.
    9. Pull out your fingernails.
    8. Eat a pile of steaming bear crap.
    7. Skin yourself alive.
    6. Fall into a vat of molten iron.
    5. Get run over by a train.
    4. Go through a sausage grinder.
    3. Saw off your legs.
    2. Poke out your eyes.
    1. Go To Hell


  6. Christopher Sewell says:

    A circumcised penis is a crippled penis. That’s it in a nutshell. Done and dusted.