Chili

Why not! Would you be in favor of female circumcision if males reported the same thing? The point here is that if 'sport' is the decisive factor your pain should not be limit my gain in a hedonistic society.

MilitantModerate

OK I don't know how you define "most practical option" but something that is recognized as having no statistically significant benefits, is not funded, and only praticed by a fringe elements is not what I would call practical, popular, logical or any other kind of "option".

MilitantModerate

PS. Actually the average 30 years ago was sub 50% and falling fast (under 40% by 1977). Again not what I would call "the norm". Stats again:

http://www.courtchallenge.com/refs/yr73p-e.html

MadPhatCat

Yes, let me tell you what happens to me and everyone I know all the time. They are about to get busy with some hottie, but just before the main event starts, she whips out a flashlight and a magnifying glass and examines the pee pee, and then gives it a rating using a complicated formula... any rating below a 6 is an instant dumping... the dudes with the foreskin always score lower than 6. :Cheeky:

Anyway...

Exactly. We don't cut off women's breasts at age 20 even though the risk of breast cancer is so damn high so what reason is there to cut off some foreskin when the increased risk of keeping it is almost nonexistant? The only reasons, are non-medical ones: tradition and/or religion.

Chili

But over 55% in '73 and 'unheard' of in Brooks at that time. In a small town all it takes is for one doctor to speak against it for reason that may not even exist in the city, such as sanitation or travelling distance should complications arise later on.

Toto

The discussion here seems more suited to Science and Skepticism.

BioBeing

The miscellaneous aspect of this discussion has been split to MD here. Lets keep this one on the science/medical aspects, please.

Thanks,
BioBeing
S&S Moderator

DCC

I'm hoping someone else remembers this so I don't have to dig through magazines, but I do recall reading in Science News a few months ago that a study had been published reporting that HIV infection rates were reduced in circumcised males.

For what it's worth, I am vehemently anti-genital mutilation.

But, data is data.

Haener

Well, there might be many reasons for an apparent connection between HIV infection rates and circumcised males. For instance they might come from a cultural background that leads them to have fewer sexual partners.

Besides, other sources claim that:

When I'm at university tomorrow and if I find the time I might be able to access several medical journals that are referred to in the above source.

Cynthia of Syracuse

This it? Better-Off Circumcised? Foreskin may permit HIV entry, infection. (sorry, not a subscriber, so I can't get to the article.)

Some other references:
Circumcision in men and the prevention of HIV infection: a 'meta-analysis' revisited. "The results from this re-analysis thus support the contention that male circumcision may offer protection against HIV infection, particularly in high-risk groups where genital ulcers and other STDs 'drive' the HIV epidemic.";
Male circumcision for prevention of heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men. "REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: We found insufficient evidence to support an interventional effect of male circumcision on HIV acquisition in heterosexual men."