US circumcision rates drop to record low of 33%

[darkbond007]

Agreed, about the percentage of circumcised men in the world. It's definitely unknown, but 9 out of 10 Arabs and Jews are circumcised, and the majority of Americans, South Koreans, Malaysians, and Filipinos are, along with many Canadians and Africans. The guesstimates I've heard are between 15 and 25 percent.

25% seems rather high. I wouldnt think its more than 20% but really...who knows these things.

 

[darkbond007]

For the guy who mentioned a tight frenulum as him justifying his decision to get a circumcision, the ignorance on this issue is shocking, any other ligament on your body you stretch if it's tight, you never amputate it.

Have you ever had a short frenulum? You know the kind where you wank everyday and its sore as hell right after? And when you stretch it it tears and you actually start to see scar tissue there? I think you prove your own point on the ignorance on this issue...

 

[Tevye]

Tevye, here's some good info for you and your adolescent son who is being goaded, cajoled or coerced into seeking a circumcision by his peers and religious counselors. You know you can do a ritual sans cutting:

Jews Against Circumcision

Also the book Marked in Your Flesh by Dr. Leonard B. Glick.

Good point.

You seem to enjoy quoting out of context the first sign of a man without conscience or morals.

On my younger son he is not being goaded coerced or cajoled. He has been given all the information available and has decided to go this way his older brother given the same information chose not to be circumcised or for that matter to have his Bar Mitzvah but that is a topic for some other time. My younger son wants to do this and it is his choice he knows there is no turning back. Included information provded him are the levels of circumcision. Rare that it is there are men who will follow the origins of circumcision as first given where only the very tip of skin is cut leaving the majority of foreskin intact. This is different from the modern day circumcision at the Bris where Periah is done which takes away nearly everything of the foreskin. Which ever choice he makes his mother and myself will support him fully. For close now to 2 years we have spoken with him on this it is not a haste made deciscion for him.

 

[Mastur]

Halleluja! It's high time to wake up from their 'medi-evil' ways...!

US-circumcision-rates-drop-to-record-low-of-33"]US circumcision rates drop to record low of 33%[/URL]

 

[big_tits4big_dicks]

I live in CA. I'm a girl. I prefer uncut, but most girls I know are indifferent, but don't cut their children. Only my one girlfrend did, but the child's father was and she thought he would grow up traumatized. Whatever.

 

[t1ctac]

Had to comment as a mid 80's born male in the US being uncut. I say this, because at this point well over 90% of US born makes were cut. Its not myth, its true. Close to EVERY woman I have been with my age has said I was the only uncircumcised male they had been with.

Similar experience.

 

[B_dxjnorto]

This is different from the modern day circumcision at the Bris where Periah is done which takes away nearly everything of the foreskin.

All lost in the sands of time. That is why I referenced the book. It's as close to scholarship as you will find.

 

[spiritsong72]

Okay, let's change the subject a little bit. We've been talking about circumcision and whether it's cruel and inhumane or medieval and unnecessary and whether or not women (or men for that matter) find the uncut cock attractive.

But what about health? Specifically circumcision and HIV transmission. Take a look at this article:

Male Circumcision and Risk for HIV Transmission: Implications for the United States | Factsheets | CDC HIV/AIDS

Specifically this point:

Several types of research have documented that male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am cut and find cut penises more attractive than uncut ones. But I've NEVER kicked a man out of bed because he had a foreskin.

I guess my point in all this is if there is a reason for circumcision that isn't for religious or aesthetic reasons, this would be it.

 

[sdbg]

I'm cut and fine with it. Thanks mom and dad! L.O.L.!

I think that it's each family's decision to make when a male child is born. For some cultures, circumcision is a automatically done. For those that don't want their sons cut, it shouldn't be forced. For those who want to have it done, they should be able to get it done.

I've never seen an uncut penis in person - only in photos. I wouldn't mind checking one out sometime just to see what it's like.

 

[bigbull29]

This is REAL bad news. Many many will have absolutely no life if they can't bitch and moan about circumcision 24/7. Get out the Prozac :frown1:

They'll need the "NMACTS" group, which stands for "No More Anti- Circumcision Threads Support."

Maybe we shouldn't speak English to our children because we're taking away their right to choose their mother tongue when they're an adult. Once they learn English, they can't change their mother tongue as it's "irreversible." Many may lament that as adults.

Parents have no right in making decisions for their children, including mother tongue selection. Let your child grow up before he makes that choice.

 

[B_dxjnorto]

For those that don't want their sons cut, it shouldn't be forced.

Contradiction in terms. Parents', medicos' decisions forces sons and the men they become.

 

[B_dxjnorto]

I guess my point in all this is if there is a reason for circumcision that isn't for religious or aesthetic reasons, this would be it.

Perhaps if it was true, but there is no good argument for routine infant circumcision (RIC) because infants are not at any risk for STDs.

Besides, RIC is the longest running circ experiment in the modern world, and U.S. rates of HIV infection are higher than anywhere.

 

[spiritsong72]

Perhaps if it was true, but there is no good argument for routine infant circumcision (RIC) because infants are not at any risk for STDs.

Besides, RIC is the longest running circ experiment in the modern world, and U.S. rates of HIV infection are higher than anywhere.

While it is true that infants are not at risk for any STDs, those same infants grow up to be (hopefully) sexually active adults. And in sexually active adults, according to the CDC, the rate of transmission of HIV is lower in circumcised men than in uncircumcised men.

And it would seem to me that what is true in other parts of the world (i.e., sexual transmission of HIV in circumcised men vs uncircumsized men) would also be true in the United States. I mean, why wouldn't it? Circumcision is circumcision is circumcision, right?

I'm not trying to wave the banner of "CUT THAT FORESKIN OFF!!!" here. I'm just saying that IF there is a reason to circumcise outside of the religious or aesthetic, this would be it.

 

[Sapien]

While it is true that infants are not at risk for any STDs, those same infants grow up to be (hopefully) sexually active adults. And in sexually active adults, according to the CDC, the rate of transmission of HIV is lower in circumcised men than in uncircumcised men.

And it would seem to me that what is true in other parts of the world (i.e., sexual transmission of HIV in circumcised men vs uncircumsized men) would also be true in the United States. I mean, why wouldn't it? Circumcision is circumcision is circumcision, right?

I'm not trying to wave the banner of "CUT THAT FORESKIN OFF!!!" here. I'm just saying that IF there is a reason to circumcise outside of the religious or aesthetic, this would be it.

Even if it were true it is still not a good reason to cut the foreskin off non-consenting minors. STD transmission is also can be controlled by lifestyle choices and behaviour. If you are promiscuous and do not use protection you are at risk regardless of your intact or circumcised state. Suggesting that people are less likely to contract or transmit STDs because they are cut could actually make it more likely they will take risks. Also, the use of condoms are less desirable for circumcised men. They are more likely to have unprotected sex in higher risk situations then their intact counterparts.

Regardless of the accuracy of these studies it should be 100% up to the owner of the penis as to whether he wants to be circumcised or not. No one else should have the right to decide to alter this most personal part of ones body (unless necessary due to an imminent medical issue).

 

[spiritsong72]

Regardless of the accuracy of these studies it should be 100% up to the owner of the penis as to whether he wants to be circumcised or not. No one else should have the right to decide to alter this most personal part of ones body (unless necessary due to an imminent medical issue).

And on that point you'll get no arguement from me, my friend.

I wonder though how many men would voluntarily become circumcised because it lessens their chances of transmitting HIV. Again, you'll get no argument from me that it should be up to the man with the foreskin whether he gets it chopped off or not. I agree with you 100%. I just doubt the average uncircumcised Joe out there would get his foreskin removed to lessen the transmission of HIV. (ESPECIALLY if he's tested negative.) He'd probably just take more safer sex precautions. (Which we all should do regardless of the intact state of our foreskins!)

 

[B_dxjnorto]

would also be true in the United States. I mean, why wouldn't it? Circumcision is circumcision is circumcision, right?

You gotta take some statistics classes to get an understanding why. Different population, different result. African studies may have little to nothing to do with North America.

I'm just saying that IF there is a reason to circumcise outside of the religious or aesthetic, this would be it.

Only because you already find RIC normal, being from a circumcising culture. Is it fully justified that everyone be put in the position where they have to bargain with a higher authority to keep their body parts if they don't practice safer sex? At birth! And who says you (and the majority) will not be capable of being sexually responsible adults? It does NOT naturally follow that the parts should be cut off PROPHYLACTICALLY since everyone will certainly lapse at one time or another. This whole pre-emptive thing is really quite sick and UNnatural.

I have a treasured notion of a whole organism, a whole being, as biological perfection. You may readily accept that an antique ceramic Ming Dynasty vase is more valuable in dollars and cents in mint condition than if it is slightly chipped, but you may still be very willing to accept disfiguring a newborn kid.

And of course there is misandry. In cultures where they circumcise little girls, they use your reasons too.

I wonder though how many men would voluntarily become circumcised because it lessens their chances of transmitting HIV. Again, you'll get no argument from me that it should be up to the man with the foreskin whether he gets it chopped off or not. I agree with you 100%. I just doubt the average uncircumcised Joe out there would get his foreskin removed to lessen the transmission of HIV. (ESPECIALLY if he's tested negative.) He'd probably just take more safer sex precautions. (Which we all should do regardless of the intact state of our foreskins!)

Thank you for closing the circle with the argument that no one has any power to take genital parts away from adult men. Cowardly to pre-empt adult decisions in infancy, toddlerhood, prepuberty, adolescence and all the other scary permutations of this outmoded blood ritual.

 

[maxcok]

And it would seem to me that what is true in other parts of the world (i.e., sexual transmission of HIV in circumcised men vs uncircumsized men) would also be true in the United States. I mean, why wouldn't it? Circumcision is circumcision is circumcision, right?

Because personal hygiene is generally much better overall in the US compared to most other countries, for one significant factor. Though I have not looked at this particular study (and I frankly have no interest in covering this terrritory again) it's historically been the case that when increased rates of disease (marginally to barely significantly increased rates) have been shown to occur in populations of intact men vs. circumcised men, the studies have compared circumcised men in modern industrial societies like the US where circumcision is common, to uncircumcised men in less 'advanced' societies, often 'third world' countries where circumcision is uncommon, and where things like nutrition, general health, access to good medical care, proper hygiene, even regular bathing, and access to condoms and even something as basic as running water is comparatively much more problematic. One typically has to dig deep into these studies to find these contributing cofactors, not to mention differences in race, ethnicity, sexual practices, reporting methods, etc. that could be contributing factors and skew the interpretation of the data. Suffice to say, the numbers on the surface don't tell the whole story. In my experience these studies have typically been at best meaningless, if not downright deceptive.

 

[Sapien]

While it is true that infants are not at risk for any STDs, those same infants grow up to be (hopefully) sexually active adults. And in sexually active adults, according to the CDC, the rate of transmission of HIV is lower in circumcised men than in uncircumcised men.

And it would seem to me that what is true in other parts of the world (i.e., sexual transmission of HIV in circumcised men vs uncircumsized men) would also be true in the United States. I mean, why wouldn't it? Circumcision is circumcision is circumcision, right?

The studies indicate that circumcision reduces HIV transmission rates for heterosexual sex only. In Africa there is a large population of both male and female HIV positive people. In Africa, there is also a lack of knowledge of safe sex practices and a lack of access to condoms. In the USA the HIV infection is predominantly in gay men. Circumcision does not alter HIV transmission rates in gay sex.

I am not knowledgeable on HIV infection statistics in various parts of the world (please correct me if I am wrong) but I believe that the USA has one of the largest infected populations in the developed world. I also do not know statistics on percentages of gay Vs straight in different world locations. It would make sense the % would be similar regardless of location. If this is so, why the increased infection rate in the USA with a large percentage of circumcised men?

Could it be due to higher risk behaviour (more likely to have unprotected sex) exhibited by circumcised men because use of condoms exacerbates the lack of sensitivity/sexual response that circumcision causes? Intact men report that condom use is less of a detractor and thus are less likely to not use one in a high risk situation.

 

[Dave NoCal]

This whole "reduced likelihood" of transmission is bogus because, hopefully, sex isn't something that happes just once and, if you missed your transmission opportunity you are safe. Rather, sex is something couples have on a continuing basis with multiple exposure possibilities.
Let's say, theoretically, we have an HIV status discordant heterosexual couple and the female is HIV positive and the male is uncircumcised. They live together for a year and have sex one hundred times. If we arbitrarily say that 10% of coitus results in transmission from female to male, he got infected ten times. If we say that circumcision reduces transmission by 90% to 1% of sexual intercourse (highly doubtful), he still got infected. After this year of living together he is still infected even if he was circumcised. Meanwhile, circumsicion of males does not protect women from transission, at all, except indirectly in the form of theoretically lower prevalence of infection in males. I really have to doubt whether circumcision has any effect on the LIFETIME risk of transmission of HIV.
On the other hand, use of safer sex practices confers a high degree of protection to both partners.
Dave

 

[mandoman]

Similar experience.

Now tell us that your body is not perfect, exactly how it is.

I don't care if I'm the only uncut she has ever had. I would not trade that experience for anything. The slide of a foreskin over the head is like a light pair of lips, except that you can do it yourself.