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

Even if North American boys might look slightly different uncut, whatever happened to respect for diversity in our primary schools? are you going to tell me that after all this time spent welcoming kids with visible disabilities into primary school, boys are going to be freaked out because they are uncut?

In the UK, being cut is fairly unusual. But there were boys from jewish homes at primary school with DS1. DS1 knew not to take the piss because they had tiny little shiny naked willies. It was cultural and religious for them.

fatlazymummy
"My boys school primary school didn't even have a 'trough'. Just cubicles."

Never known a boy's toilets not to have a trough or urinals.

DS1 knew not to take the piss

LOL!

Thought I would stick my oar in so to speak.
I am male, and have a Penis (Yaay for me! lol).
It is uncircumcised. Every man I know is uncircumcised. (I am straight by the way so I don't have first hand experience of others members so to speak, only anecdotal). I can categorically state that I have never had any infection of my foreskin or even an STI during my 46 years.
If you don't wash it, it can get a bit yucky (but so do womens bits).
I have had thrush once or twice (caught off ladies), and once a case of NSU caused by a nice lady friend being somewhat too vigorous during a hj.
("Sanding a pool cue down"). I believe this would have happened to a circumcised bloke too.
That is all. I like it as it is. Never had any problems with it. Why mess with nature ?
The whole circumcision debate gets me fired up. I know FGM is totally different to circumcision so lets not go there. Analogies are useful tools to "drive a point home" so I will try to find a more direct analogy.

Imagine an alternative reality where God / Jehova/ Supreme being said that the Clitoral Hood should be removed as a sign of faith. (Clitoris is analogous to the Penis therefore the hood is analogous to the foreskin).

It would become the "Cultural Norm" in some countries. Girls who did not have it done would look "odd", or "yucky"... some would say they smelt.
"All those folds of skin" "unnecessary " "useless" "Harbouring Germs".
Then some quack in the 19th Century could say that removing the hood would desensitise it and discourage masturbation, and "Hysteria" etc etc..
The practice becomes more entrenched, and turns into a moneyspinner for these people... Imagine then it becomes under threat... People with vested interests then bring out reports "proving " that it is of medical benefit..
Parents would cut their girls because its "the done thing", "Mom looks like that".."She will get teased in the locker room".

Imagine that. Could you really tell me that routine circumcision of female infants (without anaethetic) would be acceptable for those reasons ?

As others have said, the UK and a lot of the world don't have an epidemic of penis infections and UTI's. Me and my friends aren't constantly down the doc's getting treated. It's all BS !!

Yes there are certain medical situations where it is NECESSARY. And that is fine. But doing it for the reasons given is just stupid.

Well said.

I am on a lot of facebook groups where circumcision is discussed and there are so many Americans who thin that uncircumcised = disease ridden etc.

They have been brainwashed into thinking that European men suffer all kinds of terrible problems.

This is all driven by money, by American medicine which charges a fortune per surgery. Of course they are going to promote it.

babybarrister

Not sure how that is supposed to make it better.
As those for circumcision are quoting the AAP its the bias of the research that is being called in to question.

But the question still stands.

How is that supposed to make it better?

Let me see if I understand that.

You mean that in the US, there is a lot of money to be made from snipping, and the trade recommends it.

In the UK there isn't and they don't.

Could the correlation be causative?

I think it could be piglet!

Anyone know yet, are intact European men as prone to problems with their foreskins as American men are (according to this study)?

I asked my DP about this. He's never had any problem or infection with his foreskin, and doesn't know anyone who has.
I think his is just lovely btw and I would be very sad if he had to lose it for some medical reason.

So if they aren't motivated by money in the UK...why do they charge?

Religious circs are free yes but the cultural ones aren't. The nhs doesn't do it unless there's a medical problem. If you want your ds done for non-medical reasons there's people that will do it...for a charge.

davros spot on great post.

baby please read my second post.

"Religious circs are free yes but the cultural ones aren't."

What is a 'cultural' circumcision that is not 'religious'?

If I were to do a circumcision, surely I would just contact whoever my Muslim friends have done theirs with, without mentioning that I'm not a believer.

"there's people that will do it...for a charge"

There are those too, but they are definitely not the scientists who put together and carry out scientific studies.

The point downthread that babybarrister is putting out of its misery here is the paranoia that "people with vested interests then bring out reports proving that it is of medical benefit".

There is no doubt - none whatsoever - that circumcision has a benefit re disease transmission & penile cancer. Whether those benefits are significant enough to circumcise your child is an individual assessment parents do for their own child. You may not agree with another parent's risk assessment on this subject but it is demonstrably untrue that (1) there are no benefits to male circumcision, or (2) myriad studies on this subject are done by "people with vested interests".

Cote

There are equally as many studies that go against your "demonstrably untrue" points, and as listed above there are many countries where the medical profession will not circumcise unless it is for a valid medical reason.

It might be true that circumcision provides a minor percentage protection against disease - it depends which study you choose to believe.
But if you are putting yourself at risk of disease transmission then the only satisfactory protection is the condom.

Cote that is what I'm trying to say. Ex was Roman catholic but its tradition/cultural for boys to be circ'd. (He's Nigerian - The Islamic areas are further north than him).

"There are equally as many studies that go against your "demonstrably untrue" points"

Which ones? Please quote them.

It will be fun to see if you manage to find an outlier study of 20 people, so I can point you in the direction of the tightly controlled Orange Farm study in South Africa of 3,273 men, Kenya study that involved 3,000 men and showed a 53% decrease in HIV infection among circumcised men, Uganda trial that involved 5,000 men and showed a 48% reduction of HIV infection among circumcised men. The results were so impressive and indisputable that studies were stopped for ethical reasons, the give the men in the control group the chance to be circumcised.

This is a good example of "Ooh but all studies show different results so none of it means anything" that Ben Goldacre talks about in his Bad Science. It is just not true. The vast majority of scientific evidence points in one direction - your position is ludicrous.