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 am not speaking as an ignorant brit. I was with and married to a Nigerian for 8years. Where such practices are cultural and normal back home. We talked and discussed and researched at length.

And in all that extensive research, you never found out that Africa is not actually a country? Or about the relative HIV and circumcision rates in African countries?

First of all. Don't be so bloody patronising. Secondly. It is fact not argement. Thirdly you have asked for links throughout this thread and when people like sallyingforth have provided them. You have dismissed them as biased. Try again.

*argument.

Bollocks!

God made the penis and foreskin in perfect form!!

Primafacie what the fuck are you going on about? Of course I'm aware Africa is made up of many countries like err? Nigeria. Stick to your 'facts' or your argument is pointless.

No primafacie I just have two SIL's who have been midwives there for the last 30years and hold a cutting clinic on the same day as the baby is born. But you're right what the fuck do I know? Sally has given you the links you chose not to read them or Did and declared them bias anyway so why would I bother linking just for you to do the same to me. I don't plan on spending my Sunday morning on pointlessly trying to educate the ignorant.

He made the Bollocks too Animation well I never! I noticed how you omitted to mention my FGM comment Prima. Is that because it is used with the same premise circumcision is amongst cultural circles?

Miss, I will go back and read the thread again as I don't recall Sally linking to any evidence, but maybe I missed it. I have also posted several links to reasoned, reputable scientific papers, which no one on this thread apparently bothered to read. I'm sorry but I just cannot accept that you have done substantial research yet still came up with your gem above.

Circumcision threads are quite robust. If you feel patronised, you may need to harden up a bit.

What an absolute load of exaggerated bollocks.
There is no way I would mutilate my sons genitals unless there was an absolute medical necessity.
Like a previous poster stated, there's no profit in leaving things alone, so they will trot out this bullshit.

I'm going to skim over the snarky comment (stick to your 'facts') I believe it was her that linked to the nhs but yes yes you are right. It isn't very reputable is it?

"Similarly athletes foot mostly affects people who haven't had all their toes amputated."

No primafacie you linked to papers and others linked to other reputable scientific papers refuting the barmy no circ - hiv link. You really ought to read the thread.

Luckydayinhell exactly! I've got no issues with medical and religious reasons. I've got every issue with people doing it for cultural reasons and assuming the rest of us are just ignorant toffee nosed white brits who couldn't have the first inkling about another culture.

I didn't say I felt patronised I said don't be so patronising. I've been around MN for quite a while. I'm well averse to 'Robust' thanks. again can we stick to the apparent 'facts'?

Hmm maybe we should all get out appendix removed as babies too on the off chance it might get infected.

Indeed Bodicea

I don't agree with circumcision. I also think it is mutilation.

However, I have thought of a way tha it could be considered acceptable by the majority of MNers - figure out a way to remove the foreskin before the baby is born.

I work in the NHS, but maybe I should start a lucrative sideline in private newborn packages.
My highly professional team and I will remove babies foreskin, appendix, tonsils and wisdom teeth in just one operation saving you all sorts of time, money and problems.
Now just need approval from the ethics committee . . . .

I've got no issues with medical and religious reasons. I've got every issue with people doing it for cultural reasons
Can you explain the difference between cultural and religious reasons please? They seem very similar to me - both are non-medical and optional and equally wrong.

Can you explain the difference between cultural and religious reasons please? They seem very similar to me - both are non-medical and optional and equally wrong

Exactly. If it is wrong it is wrong. How can someone say it is mutilation when done by someone for 'cultural' reasons but not mutilation when done by someone with an imaginary friend.

Strange way of thinking.

I can't really sally. I see what you mean but religiously there's a valid (albeit questionable) reason. Cultural is just an outright excuse. I.e DCs fathers family is predominantly Roman Catholic yet circ is widely practiced as tradition (culture).

And for fuck sake, the glans is meant to sensitive, that is what makes it pleasurable. How can desensitising sexual organs, which can obviously decrease sexual pleasure, be defended.

If we defended doing painful things to females which prevented them from enjoying sex we would call it cruel, barbaric and mutilation.

Oh wait!

We do.

I thought it was commonly accepted for a long time how a foreskin can increase sexual pleasure for women also.

Recently, MRI scans taken while a couple are having sex, have clearly shown the natural role the retracted foreskin plays in stimulating the labia and clitoris.

Also, less sensitivity of the glans can make a situation where circumcised men have to thrust rougher, harder and longer which is not always what women want.

As a male I can categorically say that circumcision for cultural/religious/fashion reasons is obscene and should be stopped.

It's needless mutilation end of.

Thank you caruthers. That puts it very succinctly.