WTF? "Half of all uncircumcised males will, over the course of their lifetime, develop some kind of medical issue related to their foreskin."

[missingwelliesinsd]

Question as a Brit in the USA. I just read this news article on the never-ending debate (in the USA at least) of whether it's better to circumcise male babies. Some paper just issued by the Mayo Clinic concluded that the benefits out weigh the risks 100-1 and it would be unethical to not circumcise a male baby just it it would be if you don't get immunizations for your child. WTF?

I know that circumcising can help reduce STD transmissions - but hey, just use a condom! What I can't believe is that "50% of non-circumcised males have medical issues with their foreskins." That would make 50% of most of the male population of Europe having foreskin issues at some point. Can this be right? I tend to think it's just American prejudice against foreskins after decades of snipping. I'm TTC and if I do and we have a boy, no way am I snipping the poor thing.

Here's the article:
jezebel.com/circumcision-rates-decline-in-the-u-s-1557539810

On another note, I love it when people say circumcision is minor. It's being played down because the people having it done to them are babies are unable to complain. I'm sure it wouldn't be 'minor' if a grown man had his removed in the same way a baby does.

I commented a number of pages back.

My DH had to be circumsised 8 years or so ago as an adult due to medical complications.

Yes, the physical operation was minor. He wasn't expecting it to be. He was warned of the risks.

Yes the mental issues were serious. He was well aware if some of the nasty opinions about circumcision. He feared being less of a man.

Yes it's much easier to keep clean.

No, it's no less satisfying for me and he's more sensitive without the foreskin.

Completely missed the point there joysmum. I said if they had it removed in the same way a baby does. Ie whilst awake no pain relief.

Joysmum

No one on here has a problem with removal of the foreskin due to medical needs.

"50% of non-circumcised males have medical issues with their foreskins"

American males I presume?

Is this the same as European males?

Could it be that American men have lost the art of washing their cocks?

Wow! Never realised just how badly 'designed' and inefficient the human penis is. How did we ever manage before circumcision

To be fair, for a generation, science told us that our babies were better off with formula than breast milk. And many of us believed it!!

So its no surprise to see that the human penis is badly 'designed' and the recommendation that it should be routinely altered at birth (with government funding)

Ormirian, this is just one of a very long list of design flaws of the human body. Full (if humorous) list here: design flaws

Of which most are down to evolution, and either 1. have reasons behind them or had reasons behind them, so they're hardly 'design flaws'.

Primafacie

Do you have any evidence that this is a "design flaw"?

that could only be true if you believed the "un intelligent design" myth

It has functions therefore it isn't one is it BBF

It protects infants from UTI's
Prevents tightness in erection
Helps with trying to get pregnant, the foreskin creates a 'seal'
Keeps the glans soft and moist
Protects the glans (from sunburn too!)

The foreskin is important embryologically in the formation of the end of the penis and the urethra. If there is no foreskin the urethral opening is not at the end of the penis where it should be, but somewhere on the underside of the penis - Dr Edgar Schoen

Oh and apparently it can be used to store M&M's. Job done.

Good point piglet

It also doesn't do much for an omniscient god.

loved the "design flaw" link, especially, "If you take care of it, your spine will get you through to about 40 or 50," said Latimer. "After that, you're on your own."

nursey M&M storage? and . I am normally not easily put off any form of chocolate, but...

BOB Apparently it's called a 'pouch off', males compete to see how many they can fit in there....

Or even Cheetos

imgur.com/Xfjv0

Another circumcision thread. Is it that time already?

A summary:

Study after study after study has proven that circumcision doesn't reduce penis sensitivity & sexual pleasure. Some men circumcised as adults actually report an increase in sensitivity, while many report no appreciable difference; virtually none noted any notable decrease. Men circumcised as adults also almost universally report no adverse effect in overall sexual satisfaction following the procedure. (That fits with Slate's findings when it asked readers for their circumcision stories a few years ago.) And genital sensitivity in response to erotic stimulation is identical in circumcised and uncircumcised men. Don’t trust individual studies? A systematic review of all available data on circumcision came to the same conclusion.

Any questions?

Perhaps not safe for work?

Please tell me there isnt a female equivalent. though, clearly, we could raise the stakes to include certain types of fruit and such.

I'm worried if I click on Cote's links pictures of happy, sensitive and fully aroused circumcised penises will pop up on my screen.

cote thanks. So maybe it does not great harm. But would you, if you had no faith reason to circumcise, be convinced it was worth doing?

I thnk that's the question for many of the British folk posting here who have no relevant faith affiliation. I'm not convinced on the medical benefits so I wouldn't do it just because.

Not safe for work Beast

The sensitivity factor has never been an issue in this argument for me.. that's not why I'm against it. I don't care about that.

One of my friends has a penis that is so tight from his circumcision that its own skin bends it over a bit, and you can't really 'wank' it. You have to use loads of lube and slide your hands over it as though it were a pipe, there is no movement whatsoever.

He's annoyed about it. Had it done as a baby because his parents thought it was a good idea. He would rather have at least some foreskin.

Obviously, if I had reached the point of having sex with someone, I wouldn't then reject them on the basis of having no foreskin, but if I could choose beforehand, I would prefer to spend the rest of my sexing days (nights) with a man who has one.

People who have no experience of foreskins, or say they serve no function should, IMO, at least look into and consider the sexual function before just lopping it off a child if it's not a medically necessary circumcision.

Nursey protects the glans from sunburn. .