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

My son was circumcised when a baby as the foreskin was incomplete. It didn't join at the back of the glans. I'd never have thought of it otherwise.

I'm very sceptical of this report given the vast majority of European men are not circumcised and seem to be fine.

Interestingly Denmark and Finland have some of the lowest rates at just over 1%.Denmark and Finland are 2 of the countries I use as a litmus test of what is the right way to do things (along with The Netherlands and the rest of Scandinavia given they always top all health, wealth, and good life lists)

I know that circumcising can help reduce STD transmissions - but hey, just use a condom!

Actually it doesn't. It reduces the transmission of HIV but increases the transmission of other STDs. That is the purpose of a foreskin, to protect the penis.

From what I read the article only looks at uncircumcised males and assumes that circumcised males do no get UTIs or other infections in childhood, surely there should be a comparison? Or have I misread it?

My 2 DS's have had minor medical issues with their foreskins as young children, but one cured with AB cream and another was fine and self healed... so yes I can believe between physical problems that need surgery, infections that need ab, injuries from zippers that self heal etc it could be 50%.... but that doesn't equate to cicumcision in my mind.

Not sure what stats are for appendicitis... another "unused" body bit... if the stat was 50% (I knowit isn't, I'd guess 20%) would they do that surgery at birth, or wait and see which 50% needed it?

RhondaJean "glansectomy. Extreme case but I don't thinksmy people realise how common it is "

so how common do you think it is then?

Sashh that's bollocks - circumcision reduces the risk of HPV, HIV, herpes, syphilis, genital ulcer, and many other conditions. The foreskin has no 'purpose' - there is no medical condition that uncircumcised men are less likely to get than circumcised men.

I posted a link to the study above. It details all the conditions included by the authors. 'Caught in zipper' isn't one of them.

What do people make of this is it biased?

My poor DH was so upset when he needed to be circumcised thanks to complications before he was diagnosed with diabetes which then explained a lot.

He was more than aware of many of the opinions that have been raised on this thread and thought he'd be less of a man because of it.

I can tell you, sex isn't really any different for me, I can't tell the difference. For him though, he is more sensitive and it feels better for him. It's easier for him to keep clean too. It looks smaller when limp though which he was very self conscious about at first.

I certainly wouldn't advocate routine circumcision but for those with men in their lives who are just as upset as my DH was, please don't worry about the effects on your sex life

Missingwellies how dies foreskin give the female sexual satisfaction when its pulled back? Bolony.
I'm pro circumcision, however, I never push my views or opinions on others. Your child, your decision.

I love the fact that everyone just skimmed over elahs post. That sounds awful. How is Dh now? The STI/STD thing is bollocks. I know of two circumcised males (Ex-boyfriends from many years ago) who went on to contract STIs.

I love the fact that everyone just skimmed over elahs post.

I did try to slip it in quietly.

He's exH. Haven't seen him/spoken to him for about 10 years. Left him because he was an EA twat. He walked away from DS when he was 1 and never looked back.

He was a dickwad. I'm glad his cock exploded. Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

ExH mum actually mentioned that she messed around with it a lot when he was a baby. Cleaning it with cotton buds and suchlike.

However, I still mention it as a warning to people. There really is no need to chop, slice, rip off and Frisbee away random parts of your body.

Just leave it alone.

:)

The foreskin has no 'purpose'
How strange then that humans evolved to have them in the first place, and still have them after millions of years.

If it's not acutely medically required, then again bollocks to 'your child, your choice'. If the individual wants to have body parts snipped of with no urgent medical need, they should choose that for themselves when old enough to do so.

joysmum I think your DH's increased sensitivity may be due to it being a recent-ish circumcision?

I have known (ahem) a few men who had been circumcised as babies / children and in all cases their glans in particular was much less sensitive than an uncircumcised man - I believe because it will have had many years of exposure to textiles etc so the nerves became desensitised. In a couple of these cases, sex was quite frustrating for them as they needed very high levels of stimulation (more than you get from normal intercourse) to get off.

I would never circumcise a child of mine unless medically unavoidable.

Four boys here, ds1 had to be prescribed some cream to help his foreskin stretch at 12yrs and then it was fine. The consultant said to use the cream and encourage him to fiddle lots in the bath!

Ds2 had one infection sorted with antibiotics, ds3 and ds4 have had no issues,

Its perfectly normal for the foreskin to remain fused or partially fused until puberty.

I can believe the statistics, but that does not mean circumcision is a good idea, for all the above reasons.

In my time I have known 2 children need it done for medical reasons (dribbling issues) and one adult male admitted as an emergency in the night with a serious infection. was amazed he was actually happy to tell the world about it! DS had balanitis when he was about 18months and was screaming in pain and needed antibiotics. These issues are probably a lot more common than you think because most people won't tell and most parents wont tell if its their DC either.

I'm loving some of the "logic" on this thread. How long before someone invokes Godwin's law, do you think?

Avid then what are huge stats on botched circumcisions? I have a birth month group on a mostly-American forum and out of the 10 or so circumcisions of boys in that group, two had complications, one which required further surgery under GA to correct. (Funnily enough, the mum of that one left her second boy intact.)

In the Middle Ages Jewish writers were quite open about the purpose of circumcision. It was to diminish sexual pleasure so that men would not be tempted to sin.

In the 18th century, which is when the custom of routine circumcision took root in the US, the purpose of circumcision was quite clear - the prevention of masturbation.

In the 50s it was done because it was 'cleaner' - the same reason women were encouraged to douche with Lysol, until people realised that cleanliness for genitalia does not work in exactly the same way as for kitchen surfaces.

Nowadays conservatives and religious maniacs can't get away with these arguments, so we get the specious arguments about HIV (turns out if you live in sub-Saharan Africa and never use condoms, circumcision will reduce your chances of getting HIV) and the supposed health risks.

The real reasons in no particular order are:

1. God told me to (apparently an omniscient omnipotent God created humans, but wants us to make some last-minute adjustments ).
2. Everyone else does it.
3. Sexual pleasure is wrong. Sexual wellbeing is wrong, because it might lead to sexual pleasure.

The foreskin has no purpose neither does the appendix. Thankfully surgeons dont go around whipping them out Willy nilly . No issue with people doing it for medical or religious reasons even if I do disagree with it. I have every issue with people doing it because it is 'tradition' or as a result of not properly researching the issue. I was pressured to do my Ds and resisted. He is now 5 and very healthy around the nether regions area.

it was to diminish sexual pleasure so that the men would not be tempted into sin . Leftover that's the same argument used for FGM too :(

I really wish I didn't know this but my elderly father has had big problems retracting his foreskin after a series of uti's. Am guessing that's the kind of thing they mean. But am also thinking that in USA people earn lots if money from procedures that may not be strictly necessary.

willy nilly

actually snort out loud at that - best un intentional pun EVER!

elahrairahforprimeminister same thing happened to my STBX! He went on a long haul flight 5 days after circumcision (against medical advice) and his penis practically exploded mid-air! Couldn't have happened to a nicer bloke Medivacced off the flight and very I'll for days.

One anecdote does not data make but I've recently started dating again and new man is 'whole' and the sex is much better - but maybe that's because he's a nice bloke and not an abusive shit . . .

ill not I'll . . .

Just a thought the mayo clinic is pushing this to make money! As a nurse and mum to a DS I know of no benefit to being circumcised unless medically indicated!