Doctors and circumcision

1. I like cut guys and I think most women do also.

Since around 66% percent of males worldwide are not circumcised, there must be lots of unhappy ladies in the world according to your reasoning.

Or else there is no logic to the statement unless you seriously qualify it with 'most women in my socio-cultural circles ...'

But, as I mentioned, most U.S. physicians will recommend a prophylactic or hygienic circumcision if a foreskin is still present.

Another way of saying this is they are circumcision obsessed. Any old excuse will do.

if his foreskin extends beyond the tip of the glans in the flaccid state.

How and when flaccid? A flaccid penis can still shrink or expand without becoming erect, this due to fluctuations in temperature, exhaustion and/or emotional states. How would this be objectively measured? The emotions caused by a routine examination may be enough to shrivel a penis into a much smaller length. Probably just as statistically probable as getting an erection.

Isn't it mystifying how the large majority of men in the world seem to get along just fine without circumcision?

I confirm that I can live without a foreskin and without big toenails, mine are regularly damaged when I go hiking. Well, they grow back, but it takes a year, just for the start of the next season, even though my foreskin has never grown back.

I had a big toenail removed once, but it never gave me any trouble walking once the post-op pain ended. I guess I must not have gone hiking enough ... 😃

I am an RN and I favor circumcision for the following reasons:

1. Circumcised men have a markedly lower incidence of STD transmission

2. In later years circumcised men have fewer problems around the glans with fungal infections and fewer UTI's.

Subjective:

1. I like cut guys and I think most women do also.

1. I'm not circumcised and I've never had nor transmitted an STD infection.

2. I've never had a fungal infection around my glans or a UTI. Women seem more affected by Thrush and UTI's than men.

3. And I'm sure most women like a man because of his personality and his looks. The fact that his penis is cut or not cut is I expect irrelevant to most of them.

On another note...It must be difficult for a circumcised man to masturbate without having the foreskin to use, particularly in later years when erections are not so reliable and sensitivity is diminished. I've tried masturbating without the foreskin and it just doesn't do anything for me to be honest...

Https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/fact-sheets/hiv/male-circumcision-HIV-prevention-factsheet.html

This is what the research indicates in regard to circumcision.

Https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/fact-sheets/hiv/male-circumcision-HIV-prevention-factsheet.html

This is what the research indicates in regard to circumcision.

It is a very concise and easy-to-inderstand document. It well summarizes the key reasons for why it is so necessary for every male to have a circumcision.

A number of posts have been relocated here from another thread due to going off-topic on a tangent -

https://en.zity.biz/index.php?mx=forum;ox=display;topic=122396

Can we please avoid having every thread in this cell duplicating the same discussion, and instead keep to the specifics of the individual topic.

It well summarizes the key reasons for why it is so necessary for every male to have a circumcision.

No. It's confirmation bias supporting a cultural preference for a 'style choice', nothing more. If my wife is correct, and she did research this some time ago when she wanted to understand why the US has had this preference, she found that the article was based in limited data from certain parts of Africa where good hygiene is difficult to maintain and where other protection was unavailable or hard to get.

Strangely, most of the rest of us outside the US in the uncircumcised world are still here and experiencing no ill-effects despite not undergoing supposedly 'necessary' preventive surgery.

she found that the article was based in limited data from certain parts of Africa where good hygiene is difficult to maintain and where other protection was unavailable or hard to get.

Not to mention different notions on sexual promiscuity than in other parts of the world.

Strangely, most of the rest of us outside the US in the uncircumcised world are still here and experiencing no ill-effects despite not undergoing supposedly 'necessary' preventive surgery.

Why are there apparently no other government reports on the matter of circumcision from other nations? If anything, European nations (especially those in the EU) love to churn out endless government reports about all manner of (health) issues, but nothing with similar conclusions as the US reported in the link cited below.

If circumcision did offer such health protection, it would be standard policy. But instead, virtually all Nordic/Scandinavian countries wish to ban all non-medical underage circumcision outright, though proposals have not made it into law (yet).

No. It's confirmation bias supporting a cultural preference for a 'style choice', nothing more. If my wife is correct, and she did research this some time ago when she wanted to understand why the US has had this preference, she found that the article was based in limited data from certain parts of Africa where good hygiene is difficult to maintain and where other protection was unavailable or hard to get.

Ruminating on this, that the data was from Africa, that seems to impart no small bit of lack of integrity. Why present research in Africa as being applicable for the US? Sounds like data was cherry picked or research parameters were intentionally set up to get the results a biased person wanted.

Not really very honest.

Circumcision in Spain is not a common practice. In my case I only have the frenulum cut, I was 20 years old when it happened. At that time my medical curiosity focused on enemas, but that operation gave me many fantasies, it was performed with local anesthesia and was performed by a doctor (man) and a nurse (woman).

Ruminating on this, that the data was from Africa, that seems to impart no small bit of lack of integrity. Why present research in Africa as being applicable for the US? Sounds like data was cherry picked or research parameters were intentionally set up to get the results a biased person wanted.

Not really very honest.

Classic example of the phrase: “Statistics never lie, but liars use statistics”. One can manipulate their “conclusions” by manipulating the sample space.

Https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/fact-sheets/hiv/male-circumcision-HIV-prevention-factsheet.html

This is what the research indicates in regard to circumcision.

In the end it doesn't take any scientific research to see how circumcision prevents HIV spreading ... look how HIV infections developed in the U.S. in the 1980s ... and look the percentage of intact males there in that decade ...

I am not circumcised, but it was recommended by a dr after she examined me and concluded my foreskin was tight. I was 7 at the time and this was mid 1970s. The dr was possibly early 30s, female. There were a number of boys at school who had circumcisions performed after such examinations by this doctor.

Circumcised at 27 for a combination of medical benefit and aesthetics. Could other means have solved some of the medical trouble? Probably, but I wanted it done. My Catholic parents don't really believe in circumcision but I've always kinda wished I'd been snipped at birth, saved me the time and hassle all those years. No doctor ever initiated the subject but once I asked about it I found most were agreeable to the idea.

@Woyzeck You have right .

In USA and Canada it very easy to get circumcision without preoperative exam but it not free.

My parents paid 1200$ for my circumcision.

My parents paid 1200$ for my circumcision.

And that's the low end of the price range. Puberty adds another zero.

My parents paid 1200$ for my circumcision.

And that's the low end of the price range. Puberty adds another zero.

Well, here is one answer why so many doctors in the US push so hard to find any old excuse to circumcise: as procedures go, it is easy and low risk, quick to perform, but given the prices quoted above (even for the low end range) it is very lucrative.

To compare, I found these prices for a medical circumcision in France:

€120 (US$130), half of which is reimbursed by social security.

For a circumcision who is not necessary for medical reasons: €600 - 1000.

@agracier well i think we must be careful before to compared the price of circumcision.

You have some clinic whit a low price. Baby without anestesia for example it less expensive.

As a teen or adult you can get circumcision by some religious and it free but you risk to feel some pain.

I'm very happy to be circumcised whit a good anestesia and whit a good doctor.

@Mikael22

You have some clinic whit a low price. Baby without anestesia for example it less expensive.

I know all the cruel facts about itfor decades. However I still get shocked every single time I stumble upon them. This is middle ages, not high developed ... ah wait: they didn't have efficient desinfection in the middle ages.

I'm very happy to be circumcised whit a good anestesia and whit a good doctor.

I completely understand you and would completely agree if I ever had to be circumcised.

@Woyzeck Isn't it more expensive than that? Also, I think that if it's medically indicated, then the reimbursement is 70%, and typically you have a "mutuelle" for going to 100%.

Isn't it more expensive than that? Also, I think that if it's medically indicated, then the reimbursement is 70%, and typically you have a "mutuelle" for going to 100%.

@Jacana I suppose that a preoperative exam and postoperative care are not included and the circumcision is made only with a local anaesthesia.

Above all, I wanted to say that doctors practicing circumcision under these conditions have no financial interest in performing it. These are probably the prices charged in public hospitals. Ritual circumcisions are certainly more lucrative.

Above all, I wanted to say that doctors practicing circumcision under these conditions have no financial interest in performing it. These are probably the prices charged in public hospitals. Ritual circumcisions are certainly more lucrative.

Even for a hospital, that's quite a hefty sum. I had an appendectomy a few years ago and my hospital bill was around 200 euro for a single-bed room.

But hey, make circumcision even more expensive and maybe that is why the prevalence of the procedure is diminishing in the US ...

@Woyzeck I read somewhere, perhaps here, that some ritual circumcisions are camouflaged as medical ones for medical insurance purposes.

I read somewhere, perhaps here, that some ritual circumcisions are camouflaged as medical ones for medical insurance purposes.

Of course. That routinely happens in Belgium and France (and probably in the Netherlands and Germany). There are many Muslim babies born in both countries and it would cause no end of trouble if Muslim parents were refused medical insurance coverage on their newborn's circumcision ... so oddly enough there sure are a lot of newly born phimosis diagnosed ... ha ha

Doing it any other way would be highly confrontational and cause no end of trouble. So everyone, from doctors, to medical insurance and government ministries just let the issue slide ...

I know that some Scandinavian countries want to ban infant circumcision outright, no matter hell or high tide, but they haven't managed to do so yet and I think they never will. It just isn't worth the social uproar it would cause in Muslim communities.

@Woyzeck I read somewhere, perhaps here, that some ritual circumcisions are camouflaged as medical ones for medical insurance purposes.

Unfortunately the price is being paid by the community, which in my honest opinion is not correct.

But yeah, we're going off topic ...

@Woyzeck I read somewhere, perhaps here, that some ritual circumcisions are camouflaged as medical ones for medical insurance purposes.

I read this about Germany

@Ikonos

@Woyzeck

I read this about Germany

Looking back to the past (talking about the 2nd half of the 20th century) I guess you are surely right. Nowadays I guess this practice has become more and more uncommon in Germany, since in 2012 Germany enacted a specific law (no joke!) clarifying the circumstances under which a minor boy is allowed to be circumcised (and by whom) if no medical indication is given. Furthermore I know that many children's wards in clinics have become more and more sensitive regarding manipulation or circumcision of the foreskin before puberty since it becomes harder to miss the fact that an unretractable foreskin in a child does typically not require immediate invasive action.

However, as far as I know it must be considered a true fact that in the past (as defined above) in Germany it was at least quite easy for doctors who were more keen and open-minded for circumcision (be it because of their own religious orientation or origin) to refer a boy for circumcision upon the expressed will of his parents. Given the required mindset it is quite easy to overdiagnose a naturally long and more or less naturally still tight foreskin of a child as "phimosis".

Needless to say that doctors who were more keen about circumcision (and also those doctors ready to perform the cutting) could easily be found for parents, simply by word-of-mouth recommendation within social circles sharing respective interests.

The reasons for this (in the end unlawful) mispractice lies in the German medical insurance standards. Generally people benefit a lot (mostly really in a positive way!) from the German public health insurance by not having to pay for basic medical treatment individually. This requires the explicite prescription of the treatment by a doctor, and it requires the treatment once having been acknowledged as effective common medical standard for the giving indication. One of the biggest disadvantages of the German public health insurance system (besides its inefficient overmanagement and its insufficient adaptation to the state of the art of medical practice and science) is its intransparency. Nothing more need to be said ...

Sorry if this contribution has become too extensive and also maybe a bit off-topic.