In case you missed it, yesterday I had the opportunity to discuss the issue of early infancy male circumcision with none other than world famous YouTube philosopher Stefan Molyneaux. It was a good discussion, if I do say so myself, and you can catch it here:
I wanted to take a minute to examine two of the contentious issues that arose during the discussion, first the question of mortality rates resulting from infant circumcision, and second, my claim that women overwhelmingly prefer circumcised men for sex.
Infant Circumcision Mortality Rates
During the debate Stefan cited a study by Dan Bollinger titled Lost Boys: An Estimate of U.S. Circumcision-Related Infant Deaths, and no, I didn’t leave the Dr. off his name out of spite or anything like that. Your boy Dan has a Bachelor of Arts in Industrial Design from Purdue University. So. Those are some pretty sweet creds.
just the photo he chose for his linkedin btw
Not to poison the well any further before we look at the actual data, but according to inctactwiki.org, Dan Bollinger serves on Intact America’s Steering Committee and is the Director of the International Coalition of Genital Integrity (ICGI). That’s all fine and good, but here’s the part I lol’d at.
“For most of my life I’ve been troubled by night terrors that I later became convinced were an early recollection of my circumcision at age three-days.”
Sounds like an objective and unbiased source that is definitely psychologically stable and not here to push an agenda. Ok. Let’s look at the numbers.
This study finds that more than 100 neonatal circumcision-related deaths (9.01/100,000) occur annually in the United States, about 1.3% of male neonatal deaths from all causes.
This is where Molymeme’s 1 in 11,000 number comes from. But is it accurate? The usage of the word ‘finds’ is interesting in and of itself, given that the title admits the number is an estimate. Luckily for me other people have already debunked this study quite handedly, so all I have to do is share their findings.
What Dan did was look at the difference in the number of deaths between boys and girls in the US and decided that the difference was caused by circumcision. That’s it. I shit you not.
Gender-ratio data can help extrapolate a figure. Males have a 40.4% higher death rate than females from causes that are associated with male circumcision complications, such as infection and hemorrhage,4 during the period of one hour after birth to hospital release (day 2.4), the time frame in which circumcisions are typically performed (CDC, 2004). Assuming that the 59.6% portion is unrelated to gender, we can estimate that 40.4% of the 35.9 deaths were circumcision-related. This calculates to 14.5 deaths prior to hospital release.
In reality, males are more prone to death in general, a fact that feminist media loves to rub in our faces:
Debunking Bollinger’s claim becomes trivial when we look at other countries and compare their circumcision rates to the gender mortality disparity and see that it doesn’t correlate the way rabid anti-circumcision activist Bollinger has assumed, as was done in this study. Ipso facto his numbers are indefensible trash.
So what is the actual infant circumcision mortality rate for males, you may ask. It’s a bit difficult to say, frankly, because they are so incredibly rare. From what I have read the number is something less than 1 out of 100,000.
For example, this study from Iran found 31 deaths out of an estimated 5,000,000 procedures. Estimated because they don’t give the number, they just say that there was 500,000 circumcisions in 2011 and the 31 deaths are from an entire decade. So that works out to roughly 1 death for every 139,000 procedures. In Iran.
This meta study looks at a study that was done by the CDC which examined 100,157 circumcisions in the US and found no deaths. That same study noted 2 deaths in only 35,929 uncircumcised boys resulting from UTIs that may have been prevented by tip sniping.
I can almost hear the indignant skincel shrieking internally already. “But lp!”, he exclaims, “how many deaths from circumcision are acceptable to you? How many beautiful, innocent little angels should die because of a non therapeutic procedure that you advocate for primarily on the basis of increased sexual satisfaction later in life? Huh?”
Well, here’s the thing about that. If you think the 1 in x hundred thousands chance that you your kid will die from circumcision is a reason not to do it, then you definitely should circumcise your kid, because there are even higher chances that they will develop a UTI or penile cancer or some other condition that they would be much less likely to contract were they not riddled with dick cheese.
Even if we take the 1 in 139,000 which I think is honestly the most generously high number you can put on it, with scientific backing (it’s less than that but ok let’s say this is the real number). Your chances of getting penile cancer are about 1 in 100,000 (in the US where rates of circumcision are still relatively high) and there are about 380 deaths per year that result from this rare cancer. Way more than the zero deaths caused by circumcision, according to the CDC.
You see, it’s funny because when I mentioned penile cancer to Stefan he was very quick to point out how rare it is, then later started quoting an asininely fake stat about circumcision deaths, which even if it were true would still be only about 1 third of the deaths caused by penile cancer! Woops. Kind of talked yourself into a corner there, didn’t you?
Ok, I could go on and on about this but I think you get the point, the 1 in 11,000 number is rubish (which is where the 117-119 per year in the US bullshit comes from) and if molymeme has integrity he would issue a retraction, but let’s not hold our breaths for that, mmmkay?
Do women prefer cut dicks, and to what degree?
Stefan really came hard at me towards the end when I quoted a study as having shown that 90% of women preferred circumcised cock for sex, and then it turned out to be only 83%. The horror.
Well, I was wrong. Even after getting called out on this I said that I had seen the study in it’s entirety, and that the 90% was how many women preferred oral sex on a circumcised dick. Turns out that number is actually 83%. I was going from memory and I was wrong. Mea culpa.
It’s kind of funny how strongly he admonished me for this, though. Like what, you were about to change your whole position when you thought it was 90% but now that you know it’s only 83% you’re gonna stick with club nobcheese?
Another funny thing is how hard he hammered on this part of the study:
Even among women having sexual experience only with uncircumcised partners, only half preferred uncircumcised penises for sexual partners.
It’s funny because when I showed him that Uganda study which left him speechless and completely without a rebuttal, you know, the one that showed women were 13 times more likely to prefer sex with circumcised men than vice versa, after he had gone on and on about how great the foreskin is for fuckin’ – he said the sample size of 455 women was not very much. But then he wants to take this other study of 145 women, ignore 95% of them, and act like a sample size of 8 fucking women proves that only half of them prefer circumcision??
Consider the survey that was conducted by AdamandEve.com. 1,000 women were asked what they preferred and over 54% said circumcised. It doesn’t sound so bad if we stop there, but let’s keep going. 33% said no preference, 10% didn’t answer and 3% said they prefer uncircumcised.
So here’s another way to look at this. If you are circumcised 97% of women will be cool with your dick (we’re gonna include the 10% of non respondents as no preference) but if you are uncircumcised only 46% of women are cool with your dick. My 90% number doesn’t look so crazy now, does it?
I could go on but let’s leave it here. Thanks for reading if you made this far, consider supporting I,Hypocrite on patreon if you’re a fan, and if you’re just an angry ant eater here to yell at me in the comments, stay mad and get absolutely dunked on you faggot!