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

Shakshuka Sorry but no. There is absolute no need for it to be done at birth.

And no, we would never get to the point where adenoids and tonsils were removed at birth. Never.

I'm sure you could say 'half the people with eyes will have an issue with their eyes in their lifetime'

The argument for mutilation doen't hold up

Ugh. This is a very biased study, based on poor research - do a little googling and there's articles out there already refuting it. The HIV/STI link is based on studies of men in Africa, which has a completely different landscape of HIV/STIs than the US, and the two populations cannot be compared.

And if you think it's acceptable to remove a part of your child's body without their permission, just think if they grew up to resent you for it.

www.mendocomplain.com/

shakshuka but research doesn't show that does it so you don't need to be astonished.

Little boys don't need bits chopped off them routinely any more than people don't need an appendectomy at birth just in case

Little girls are just fine too.

www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/

It's not just HIV - it's a combination of conditions, some very serious, others not.

I can understand that this is repulsive if circumcision is not part of your culture. I honestly don't give two hoots what anyone does - your baby, your choice and all that. What really grates me though, on all circumcision threads, is the majority's refusal to engage in a reasoned debate, to even consider the evidence. Most lines of arguments revolve around the following:

• it's all because of American doctors, they're in it for the money and therefore biased
• I don't know anyone who publicly admits to foreskin/STI problems, therefore they don't exist and the studies are wrong as my anecdotal evidence is much more reliable
• if you do it for religious reasons, you should quit your faith instead
• it's mutilation/abuse.

Meh. I think I'll bow out now.

It's very telling how you dismiss the 'mutilation/abuse' aspect. That's the reason I'm against it and many others. Why else would we be against it

I'm not interested in you debating health 'benefits' that can be prevented as an adult by different means anyway - rather than jumping the gun and making your baby have a medical procedure at birth.

You clearly think that you can trust whatever the NHS decrees as health policy. I don't. I think the NHS is often shortsighted, and does not systematically puts the well being and health of patients at the heart of its decision making.

Actually primafacie I do have a lot of faith in our NHS. It has its faults, most of which are due to political interference and lack of resources. I genuinely believe it unlikely that the entire NHS would conspire together to deprive half the population of a routine surgical operation that would improve their health and save costs in the long term.

I think it even less unlikely that every other national health service in Europe would fail to recognise the alleged benefits of MGM, join the same conspiracy, and deprive their populations of it.

You know better of course, so I will let you go on your way. But I can assure you that in the absence of a medical requirement, no child of mine will have such an operation until he is of an age to choose it for himself.

One man in three, in the world, is circumcised. Are you saying that one parent in three is an abuser? That one man in three is mutilated?

I think using such emotionally charged words, to describe and express judgement on something that is so mainstream, is disrespectful to circumcised males, who do not want to be perceived as mutilated. It also devalues the reality of actual child abuse, which it frankly bears no relation with.

If you live in a place where one form or another of mutilation is common, then we quite understand that you consider it normal.

But in what way do you feel that cutting parts off a human body is not mutilation?

All the arguments you have made, primafacie, are used in various places by proponents of various degrees of female genital mutilation.

And many men do object to having been mutilated this way at birth. My dh among them.

So we're changing tack now. Let's find another reason for cutting our babies...
If circumcision is not required for medical reasons, let's carry on doing it because it's customary, or for religious reasons. That'll make it OK.

It always amuses me on circumcision threads on MN that often male genital mutilation is OK because 'we' do it. But female genital mutilation is not because that is done by 'them' I.e. barbaric savages.

They are the same goddamned thing. If the genitals in question are not your own and there is nothing actually medically wrong with them that requires treatment then just leave them the funk alone.

If adult people wish to mess with their genitals for any reason then no objections from me.

They rarely do though do they? Funny that.

DH is very angry over having been circumcised.

It took him a long time to forgive his parents.

And it will always effect their relationship. They cut off part of his body. That is a pretty big betrayal.

That video is absolutely disgusting. I've heard babies cry in pain a lot but there's a whole new level in that cry

I couldn't bring myself to watch it. Just those comments make me feel sick.

I couldn't watch it I just couldn't.

Barbaric and disgusting.

Is it actually recorded if any adult anywhere had volunteered to have their genitals cut without a me vocal reason and without anaesthetic?

N

No thought not.
Vile vile vile.

As others have said, of course men with foreskins can have trouble with them. Much like hearts, toes, arms, lungs etc. if you have one (or indeed two for some things) you could have a medical problem with it.

I disagree with circumcision for anything other than medical reasons. Vehemently disagree with babies experiencing it without anesthetic.

As it goes I've dated a circumcised man. He couldn't orgasm through penetrative sex. Orgasm was not easily achieved through other methods either. Quite the eye opener for my younger self. I'm not saying he is representative of all circumsised men but that's my anecdotal experience - sex being arduous and slightly frustrating for both parties.

It further irritates me when they do it with their teeth (this is still practised apparently) major risk of infection and bloody vile