jongoodwin wrote:What are the statistics like in the UK?

According to the Student BMJ:

Student BMJ wrote:About 15% of men in the UK are circumcised. The rate fell from 35% in the 1930s to 6.5% by the mid-1980s and is still falling.

Earwicker wrote:Because of this I see no problem with cutting it when very young.

Why?

because I'd rather this...

Adam CR wrote:... having your foreskin repeatedly slammed in a car door (for this is how the operation is most commonly carried-out under the NHS) ...

Happen to me while I'm too young to be able to remember.
As it did.
I just think it's a preventative measure. I don't understand why a couple of folks seem to be so morally opposed to it.

Adam CR wrote:(the operation)will preclude erections for months either side of the event.

I have heard of an instance where this was not the case. Let's face it - men can get boners over anything at anytime - Carol Smiley, Fiona Bruce, Bono.

Adam CR wrote:Clearly since they can never re-grow their foreskin, they can never make an educated choice in the matter.

I can only see benefits from it being done therefore if it can be done safely I don't have any problem at all with it being done. I know of not one person who has ever lamented the loss of their foreskin as if some life changing decision that was made without their choice.
Putting children in adverts - that fucks me off. If my parents had done that to me I'd be pissed.
Foreskin removed - I'm cool.

I imagine there is some consideration that it is traumatic but being born itself is traumatic. Maybe we should wait till everyone is old enough to make an educated choice into the matter of whether they want to be born before we squeeze em out.

Also the ladies seem to prefer it.

Adam CR wrote:That's a myth perpetuated by males who are seemingly unaware that the erect male member is pretty much identical whether snipped or not.

I'm sure there are some girls who don't care either way but those few I have 'known' have all said they prefer it because it is cleaner.
Sure they may be just saying it (though why they'd lie I don't know) but fella who started this thread said he had the unfortunate experience of a woman telling him she wasn't keen on his 'hood' so it's not just a myth.

Earwicker wrote:Sure they may be just saying it (though why they'd lie I don't know) but fella who started this thread said he had the unfortunate experience of a woman telling him she wasn't keen on his 'hood' so it's not just a myth.

I assumed that Stewie's remark related to the woman in question being American, and thus being 'unused' to the great unsnipped.

So then Earwicker, assuming you don't already have kids, will you have your sons circumcised?

If so based on what? The premise that it was done to you and that it isn't that bad and that you'd rather have a your kid's foreskin removed just in case he doesn't clean it properly?

If the tradition involved, say, snipping off a bit of earlobe I doubt the discussion would be as vigorous.

Adam CR wrote:

I suspect that problems with foreskin are fairly common and having foreskin can lead to other problems due to it not being as clean.

This isn't supported by research.

Are you completely discounting the articleI linked? I realize it isn't definite proof but the statistics seem pretty compelling.

How about answering the question?

AlBStern wrote:
Are you completely discounting the articleI linked? I realize it isn't definite proof but the statistics seem pretty compelling.

Yeah, I'm discounting that article at least in the context of modern, western countries since it's akin to stating that in case of sticking one's head into a blazing fire, having no hair might lessen the chances of one's head catching fire and thus one should keep one's head hairless.

Clearly not having unprotected sex with somebody who is infected with HIV is the simple answer to the AIDS problem.

BBC News wrote:"However, people who are circumcised can still be infected with HIV and any awareness campaign would have to be extremely careful not to suggest that it protects against HIV or is an alternative to using condoms."

source

AlBStern wrote:

Adam CR wrote:

I suspect that problems with foreskin are fairly common and having foreskin can lead to other problems due to it not being as clean.

This isn't supported by research.

Are you completely discounting the articleI linked? I realize it isn't definite proof but the statistics seem pretty compelling.

Looks like a partial solution to a specific problem. It still doesn't justify me having my son circumcised just in case he finds himself unable to apply sensible judgement when it comes to sex.

Adam CR wrote:
Clearly not having unprotected sex with somebody who is infected with HIV is the simple answer to the AIDS problem.

BBC News wrote:"However, people who are circumcised can still be infected with HIV and any awareness campaign would have to be extremely careful not to suggest that it protects against HIV or is an alternative to using condoms."

source

and not driving would be the simple answer to how to avoid being killed in a car accident. Seeing as how that might not always be practical, it's probably a good idea to wear a seatbelt. The fact that it won't save you 100% of the time shouldn't be the point.