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

It is a Saturday evening. I'm not about to load my PC up just to do links to explain or ones that will counteract (what has already been said endless times) or suggest otherwise just to be told the evidence provided is wrong/biased/unequal/not relevant (delete as appropriate). I will get back to you tomorrow prima. Enjoy your evening.

Primafacie

I was very pleased to read that there was a table setting out the rates, country by country.

However I was bitterly disappointed that it did not graph or indicate the circumcision rates vs. the infection rates. It is impossible to see if the graduations in infection rates mirror the graduations in circumcision rates, because whoever prepared the table took care not to provide sufficient information. There is only a "less than 20%/greater than 80% bar, Presumably there was some reason for omitting the information necessary to see what correlation exists.

The document says "Throughout the world, HIV prevalence is generally lower in populations that traditionally practice male circumcision than in populations where most men are not circumcised." However rather than show us "throughout the world" statistics they have chose only to show a very small range of countries in particular chosen parts of the world. I cannot imagine why the data does not conform to the text.

It would be extremely useful to see the circumcision vs. infection rates for developed nations, so that we could compare, e.g. US vs. UK vs. Sweden vs. Spain. I have tried to find the data but as a person with no particular experience I find it puzzlingly elusive.

According to the WHO there is a higher rate of HIV in the US than in the UK.

The US also has a much higher circumcision rate. That's a clear indication that keeping the foreskin reduces HIV transmission.

Isn't that's how you work it, Prima?

Piglet, I think once you start looking at Western developed countries, the data possibly becomes more difficult to interpret because of three reasons which affect overall HIV rates but may not be linked to circumcision: homosexual transmission, IV drug transmission, and population migrations (eg population from a high infection rate country immigrating into a low-infection rate country; one example could be Rwandan immigration following the war).

So where in African countries, transmission is mostly through heterosexual intercourse, these other factors are at play in, eg, USA or Sweden.

This being said, I have seen more detailed, country by country HIV and circumcision rates in the past. I will see if I can dig those up, and will post them if I do.

Cross post, Sally! It's like I can read your mind ;)

without wishing to be indelicate, do African men really become infected to such a high degree just by having anal sex with women?

Piglet, I may be wrong but I had always understood that transmission in Africa was mostly through heterosexual (vaginal) intercourse. Circumcision is shown by the large scale trials to be effective (up to a significant point, although not completely) against that mode of transmission, but one must be cautious when extrapolating their results to other contexts.

And good evening to you, Misspixie.

So what we are all seeing then is that there are so many differences between environment and behaviour, there is no direct comparison possible between countries and certainly not between continents.

Still wrong.

Beast - I'm not American, nor have I spent any significant amount of time I the US, except a few weeks of holiday in total over several decades.

Would it matter to you if I were?

No. That's just a distraction.
The basic fact remains that in Europe we have lower HIV rates than in the US or Africa, so it would be foolish to copy their circumcision practices for some spurious pseudo-medical reason.

I agree with you to the extent that we haven't had DS circumcised because infection rates are low in the EU. DH and I did debate it, though, and it could have gone either way.

However, the research is not "pseudo-scientific" (in fact, it is of high standards. I can provide the Lancet paper saying just that, if you require) and it certainly is not "spurious".

The reason why we started talking about the proven benefits of circumcision re infection rates is that some people were claiming that there is no reason to circumcise and no benefit to circumcision. (For examples, search thread for "no reason"). That is incorrect, as I certainly hope everyone here has understood by now.

Prevalence of the nastier diseases like HIV is still low enough in the EU for this to be a matter of individual risk assessment. That means you and I have made a perfectly valid choice in not circumcising, but the evidence is strong enough that nobody can say that those who have circumcised their DC are child-abusing idiots doing it for no reason whatsoever.

but the evidence is strong enough that nobody can say that those who have circumcised their DC are child-abusing idiots doing it for no reason whatsoever.

You are attributing a medical motive to their actions. But you and I know that the vast majority are not aware of any studies done in Africa.

They are doing it for religious reasons or custom-and-practice or (in the US) because the doctors push it to earn money.

In the US and in some other places where I know there are high rates of circumcision, there is the general perception that circumcision is "cleaner" and "healthier". It is not all just "It says so in my religion".

In places like Turkey, for example, all men are circumcised regardless of whether their families have anything to do with religion or not. I personally know quite a few atheists born to atheist families who are circumcised and who then go on to circumcise their own boys, including many members of my own family. No relation whatsoever to religion, but just that perception that it is "cleaner & healthier".

So to answer your post: You are right, most people have not heard about the actual studies, but their decision to circumcise their children can still be and often is influenced by their perception that it is the healthier & cleaner choice.

Cultural norms, like docking puppies' tails and clipping their ears.

You get used to the look, and then think the natural human body looks abnormal.

I'm not circumcised and have had no issues. Not known any man with issues.

Many places also genuinely believe that FGM is healthier for the woman and better for the marriage. Or that pierced ears on newborn girls is prettier. Most people in UK would disagree.

I've only read about four pages of this thread. I've seen some really odd statements.

Among my generation (UK, age 50-70 let's say) circumcision was routinely optional and around half of boy babies were circumcised. Having conducted an extensive personal survey of British penises my age, I noted that sensitivity was not linked to foreskin status in any way and that I prefer the look of circumcised. I'm also certain there are higher rates of infection with uncircumcised penises ... but much less certain that this may not be down to poor hygiene. Brits are absolutely shocking when it comes to willy-washing and, yes, this has been properly documented!

I'm too lazy to look up the stats, but it's a constant thorn in my side that studies so often limit their sampling to under-45s. You'll get firmer data by looking at the UK population of males over 45, who were between 40% and 60% circumcised depending on your source.

For pete's sake!

I'm fucking off right now, never fear. You just carry on deliberately misinterpreting posts in order to pick an argument. Seems to be the order of the day around here.

At this rate, I'll have more of MN hidden than visible

Prefer the LOOK of circumcised

"Having conducted an extensive personal survey of British penises my age"

Boney - Garlic did not quote stats and did not say all men should be circumcised because she prefers them that way.

If you are trying to attract CorusKate's attention with your unwarranted aggression, I'm afraid you are wasting your time. She only showers her love on me

Back to condescension cote how very you.

But I do wonder how much you post is to goad others in to responding.

But FWIW stats and research was referenced, it was just that the post CBA to either look them up or post them.