I always hate when I see these studies, as they are so flawed its not even funny.
I agree with the UK, the US medical professions do seem to have an addiction to circumcision, they have been using it as a cure all for everything for decades.
If you look at the history in the past they've said it cures everything from masturbation to insanity, all of which have been proven wrong, only after millions of infants, boys, and men, are subjected to the practice.
Actually, those are pretty stupid things to suggest a linkage to.
Of course- it was NOT adopted for any of those reasons, but to combat the spread of syphilis and gonorrhea. And, In fact, during the period in which it was most prevalent- 15 years after adoption, the US did have the lowest rate of tranmission of those diseases in any western country.
And what they don't tell you is that the US has one of the highest HIV rates, and one of the highest circumcision rates historically overall, now how would you explain that?
In point of fact the US has nowhere near the highest HIV rates, in the heterosexual community, its among the lowest.
The high rates in the gay community are well understood to relate to the combination of secondary infections, drug use, and rampant promiscuity that defined the gay community in the 70s, when the disease spread the fastest.
Epidemiological studies show clearly that widespread sterile circumcision reduces transmission rates ( for example- Israel has one of the lowest HIV rates of all )
The risk factors that raise the rates are intravenous drug use... and promiscuity.
Africa is greatly plagued simply because in most African cultures it is fairly normal for a man to have a wife AND at least 2 concurrent mistresses.
Whereas in the west most infidelity is short lived and sporadic.
This may not seem like a big difference, but its at least 2 orders of magnitude an increase in the number of pathways for transmission to progress.
Like having the critical number of interlinked computers that allows a virus or worm to spread like wildfire.
My theory on this that is just my personal opinion, is that due to the higher circumcision rate, it makes guys penis's less sensitive to sensation which makes guys less inclined to use condoms every time they have sex. I know from personal experience the VERY few times that I have had unprotected sex, that it was a MUCH more pleasurable experience than with a condom.
Okay, in the second paragraph you CONDEMN people for making stupid excuses and association regarding the benefits of circumcision...
And yet in this paragraph you opt to make the exact same kind of unsupported and hyperbolic associations regarding the detriments of circumcision.
Try working from a fact based argument. Unless you were circumcised AFTER you became sexually active, you have no basis on which to form any belief about a loss of sensitivity.
You have no basis on which to suggest that circumcision results in less frequent use of condoms.
No basis on which to suggest it results in greater masturbation.
Its just shit you said that reflects an insupportable bias on your part.
Most men who get circumcised later in life report INCREASED sensitivity, not decreased. However... a great many of these men are seeking circumcision because they have phimosis or some other malformation of the foreskin that complicates their sexual performance.
i.e.- given the common reasons for late circumcision, you would EXPECT the data to show a bias for men who think it has improved their sexual function.
Thus, since the foreskin is as vestigial in humans as is the appendix or wisdom teeth, we can fully expect a very high rate of complications in these no longer really useful structures, as genetic drift sets in.
For many, their wisdom teeth come in with no problems- for others, they must be cut out or pulled to prevent a host of painful conditions.
For the appendix... many have it their entire lives... but for some, having it removed is a matter of life and death.
Likewise, the foreskin is a feature with a high complication rate born of its high genetic variability. (i.e. no useful function providing selection pressure to keep its formation within a functional range )
For many men circumcision is enormously beneficial... for other it may make little or no difference.
But we absolutely KNOW that the foreskin is vestigial, and unnecessary. And we absolutely know that its removal DOES reduce transmission rates of certain select STDs.
I think its fine for everyone to have their preference and their opinion.
However, the pressure to OUTLAW it is pure busybody fascism of the worst sort.
And the fact that these movements to outlaw it tend to resort to lies, misrepresentations and unsupported anecdote, rather than actual hard data, is just more proof that these people are are as unethical and as intellectually dishonest as their arguments..
Those opposing it have ZERO evidence of any long term harm. They simply have a foreskin fixation they demand other's adopt at the point of the law.
As with any hotly debated issue without any compelling public interest either way...
the only Rational position respectful of the rights and opinions of others is to leave it up to them.
Do as YOU please, but keep your foreskin fixations outta my business.
The State should never be allowed to enact laws that it can not prove are in the compelling interest of the people.
At least, not if you want to preserve any form of freedom.