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

I don't thinkgarlics figure is correct. The highest figure I found was 32% and it declined after the war. Perhaps she is going on personal experience.
I am aged 54 and I most of the men I know are uncut, as were most of the men I saw as a nurse.

Boney - You just went off the rail against Garlic's 1st post on this thread with a bunch of straw man arguments and told her to fuck off.

And you think I'm the one who has an attitude problem

I wasn't being condescending at all, Boney, although you are making it hard to stay civil with your aggressive posts and badmouthed attacks. I just warned you that Corus is not going to come and tell you how terrible she finds your writing style, because that is a privilege she reserves for me. And it is.

By the way, those of you who think the studies quoted so far are only about African penises might find <a class="break-all" href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?hl=en&q=www.researchgate.net/publication/12592127_Circumcision_and_genital_dermatoses/file/5046352a0c167b0552.pdf&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm2bg9a_XMrm6haOMeT2UkuASfz-SQ&oi=scholarr" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">this UK study interesting.

thanks, Cote.

It's lovely to see a 14-year old survey from America with some UK figures in it, but, again, I am puzzled that they show a table of the rates of problems, detailed in various ways, but they take care only to show figures for intact men.

I can't understand why the circumcision lobby avoids showing comparative figures for circumcised and uncircumcised men in developed Western nations. There must be some reason for it, what could it possibly be?

Actually Cote you have been condescending most of the way through the thread.

You may find Garlic's posts amusing but I do not, as for your last post it is just another attempt at getting someone who disagrees with you to leave the thread.

FYI, your last link does not work.

Now that the link has finally connected.

Why when the vast majority of the ailments occur after an age at which the person consent to being circumcised why do they circumcise babies?

I can't see where Boneys posts are aggressive

caruthers - Do you know what ODFOD is short for? And if you do, would you not say that it is rather aggressive to tell someone who has just posted her 1st post on a thread to Fuck Off?

I don't see it as aggressive no.

It's used here a lot and other posters don't seem to make a song and dance about it.

Piglet - "It's lovely to see a 14-year old survey from America with some UK figures in it"

It would be even lovelier if you would actually read it and see that it is a UK study carried out at Chelsea & Westminster Hospital in London, England.

"I am puzzled that they show a table of the rates of problems, detailed in various ways, but they take care only to show figures for intact men."

Again, you would be much less puzzled if you properly read that table. The figures for circumcised men are there, too. Here, I will read some examples for you:

There were 94 cases of Psoriasis. 68 of those men were uncircumcised (so 26 were circumcised) which means 72% of men with Psoriasis were uncircumcised.

There were 58 cases of Infections (= HPV, herpex simplex, molluscum, candidiasis). 49 of those men were uncircumcised (so 9 were circumcised) which means 84% of men with those infections were uncircumcised.

There were 27 cases of Zoon Balanitis, all of whom were uncircumcised men. There, 0 was the figure for circumcised men.

There were 52 cases of Lichen Sclerosus. 51 were uncircumcised (so 1 was circumcised). That means 98% of men who had Lichen Sclerosus were uncircumcised.

Now, if I say anything about how frustrating it is when people here can't even be bothered to read something before they criticise it, I will be called 'condescending'. So I leave it to your imagination, Piglet.

caruthers - It's also deleted around here a lot.

Funny how you perceive people differently when they agree with you. If I told someone to fuck off here, you lot would crucify me.

I did read the table, and I can see the column headed "Uncircumcised Patients"

Perhaps I am too dense. What does it mean then?

Piglet - Sorry but I don't know how much clearer I can say this. I'll try.

Look at Psoriasis (line 3).

Second column ("No") says that there were 94 patients with Psoriasis.

Third column ("Uncircumcised patients, No. %") says that 68 out of 94 patients were uncircumcised, and that these uncircumcised patients were 72% of the total of 94. They don't provide a separate column for circumcised patients because they assume we are capable of calculating 94 - 68 = 26. Obviously, the number of circumcised psoriasis patients was 26.

All this was clear in my last post. I can only assume that you didn't properly read that one, either.

I am taking the time to write down all this, for the second time now, and it would be really good if you could focus for 30 seconds and understand it this time.

All from <a class="break-all" href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?hl=en&q=www.researchgate.net/publication/12592127_Circumcision_and_genital_dermatoses/file/5046352a0c167b0552.pdf&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm2bg9a_XMrm6haOMeT2UkuASfz-SQ&oi=scholarr" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">this UK study, if anyone is interested.

Peace and love all please

so when the column heading says "Uncircumcised Patients" it actually means:

Patients
of which
uncircumcised/total circ+uncirc (percentage of total who were uncircumcised)

I apologise for my stupidity in thinking that a column headed "Uncircumcised Patients" meant "Uncircumcised Patients"

It means what it says. As you would have easily figured out if you had taken more than 1 second to understand that table before coming back here to rubbish it and go off on a tangent about how "the circumcision lobby avoids showing comparative figures for circumcised and uncircumcised men".

Now that you can read that table, do you now believe that circumcised people have far lower rates of infection and genital skin diseases, not only in Africa but in London, UK?

I don't think you will read that paper, but I hope you would. Information is a good thing to have in these debates.

calm down, it's only an advert.

What is an "advert", Piglet?

Please answer the question: Do you now understand that circumcision significantly decreases risk of infection & general skin diseases, not only in Africa but in London, UK?

Before that question is answered we would need to know the following:-

What is the total percentage of sufferers of these diseases in the UK?

What percentage of men in the UK are circumcised?

And is it still relevant to discuss diseases that adults get when talking about the circumcision of babies?

Surely if these men are old enough to have sex they are old enough to discuss the "benefits" of circumcision?

Cote

I don't think I know the answer to the question, because I have still not been able to find a table comparing circumcision rates and infection rates in comparable developed western nations; nor have I seen figures for circumcised and uncircumcised men in e.g. UK with their infection rates. The table in that report comes at it from the other direction.

This Panorama show www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b041drpn tomorrow night may give some food for thought to everyone on here who seem to think that doctors in the UK are above any bias or influence - whereas their evil American counterparts are just in it for the money.

Primafacie

I don't think that anyone has said that UK doctors/researchers are any less biased or influenced, just that much of the research shown is not indicative of the UK or other western countries.