Percentage of Males who are circumcised in Each country

[floridarob]

Interesting to know....never gave much thought that most of Africa is cut 🧐
 

 

 

[xpaulo]

37 minutes ago, floridarob said:

most of Africa is cu

In North Africa it would be because most men are Muslim. Surprised it's so low in Canada. I'm a late boomer and I think most boys were circumsized because it was considered cleaner. I guess there's been a big change.

 

 

 

[macaroni21]

I have read that even in the African countries without a high Muslim population there has been a push to circumcise boys and men because it was seen as offering some protection against HIV. How much protection, I don't know. 

[khaolakguy]

Entertaining but take with a pinch of salt as the pinkish colour of Thailand suggests around  one third of males are circumcised while, my research suggests a much lower proportion. 

I am willing to undertake more research and will be setting up a funding page to facilitate that.

[reader]

Another factor is that fathers who are circumcise will opt to have their sons circumcised so that both look anatomically alike. 

[bucky13]

It's a brutally horrific sexual mutilation, completely unnatural and unnecessary and needs to be stopped.  

What gives anyone, parents or not, the right to chop something off of a newborn. 

One of the most barbaric idiotic thing humans do and it alone proves the stupidity of any man-made-up religion that condones it.  

[unicorn]

55 minutes ago, bucky13 said:

It's a brutally horrific sexual mutilation... One of the most barbaric idiotic thing humans do...

Your response is hysterical and devoid of thoughtful consideration. 

There are legitimate medical considerations for male circumcision, including a marked decrease in infant urinary tract infections, as well as other well-known medical problems such as STI's (including, but not limited to HIV), balanitis, phimosis/paraphimosis, penile cancer, and so on. Infants are now routinely anesthetized for the procedure (when done in a medical rather than a religious setting). Serious complications when done in a medical setting are rare. Most medical societies (at least in the US) feel it's appropriate to inform parents of the risks and potential benefits, and feel that either choice is fine. The CDC published a recent summary:

https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/58456Heah benefits of neonatal male circumcision:
o The estimated risk of urinary tract infections (UTIs) in uncircumcised males:
• aged 0.1 years is 1.3% (uncircumcised), 0.3% (circumcised)
• aged 1–16 years is 2.78% (uncircumcised), 0.4% (circumcised)
• aged >16 years is 28.2% (uncircumcised), 8.3% (circumcised)
• over a lifetime is 32.1% (uncircumcised), 8.8% (circumcised)
o Male circumcision reduces the risk of UTIs in circumcised males:
• aged 0–1 years by 90%
• aged 1–16 years by 85%
• aged >16 years by 71%
• over a lifetime by 23

 

Informed decisions should be guided by science and actual facts, rather than by hysterical reactions. One of the conclusions:
"The American Academy of Pediatrics Taskforce on Circumcision states that the health
benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the benefits of
newborn male circumcision justify access to this procedure for families who choose it." 

Please also not that the scientific summary notes:

Considerations for the timing of male circumcision:
• Neonatal male circumcision is safer, less expensive, and heals more rapidly than
circumcision performed on older boys, adolescent males, and men.
• Most of the health benefits of male circumcision occur after sexual debut (i.e. after
becoming sexually active).
• Male circumcision can also be conducted in adulthood when the individual can
make the decision for himself. However, male circumcision after sexual debut could
result in missed opportunities for:
 HIV and STI prevention during the window period between sexual debut and
circumcision
 Prevention of UTIs during infancy.
 

Considerations for the timing of male circumcision:
• Neonatal male circumcision is safer, less expensive, and heals more rapidly than
circuConsiderations for the timing of male circumcision:
• NeonaConsiderations for the timing of male circumcision:
• Neonatal male circumcision is safer, less expensive, and heals more rapidly than
circumcision performed on older boys, adolescent males, and men.
• Most of the health benefits of male circumcision occur after sexual debut (i.e. after
becoming sexually active).
• Male circumcision can also be conducted in adulthood when the individual can
make the decision for himself. However, male circumcision after sexual debut could
result in missed opportunities for:
 HIV and STI prevention during the window period between sexual debut and
circumcision
 Prevention of UTIs during infancy.
tal male circumcision is safer, less expensive, and heals more rapidly than
circumcision performed on older boys, adolescent males, and men.
• Most of the health benefits of male circumcision occur after sexual debut (i.e. after
becoming sexually active).
• Male circumcision can also be conducted in adulthood when the individual can
make the decision for himself. However, male circumcision after sexual debut could
result in missed opportunities for:
 HIV and STI prevention during the window period between sexual debut and
circumcision
 Prevention of UTIs during infancy.
mcision performed on older boys, adolescent males, and men.
• Most of the health benefits of male circumcision occur after sexual debut (i.e. after
becoming sexually active).
• Male circumcision can also be conducted in adulthood when the individual can
make the decision for himself. However, male circumcision after sexual debut could
result in missed opportunities or:
 HIV and STI prevention during the window period between sexual debut and
circumcision
 Prevention of UTIs during infancy.

Obviously, each parent should be given the information needed to make a rational decision as to what's best for their baby. Hysterical statements, devoid of factual data, do not help further rational discussion. 

 

[macaroni21]

The data for the graphic-map seems to be taken from this table: https://pophealthmetrics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12963-016-0073-5/tables/1

How exactly this article got its estimates (and that's the word they used) is unclear. Frankly, not only Thailand, (23%)  but I also find the percentages for China (14%), Hong Kong (28%) and Japan (9%) hard to believe. Way too high.

[10tazione]

Does the sensitivity change? One would assume, if you remove the protection from the glans, the glans must become less sensitive, no? And that again could result in less condom usage and therefore increase std risk? Any serious studies about this?

[bucky13]

2 hours ago, unicorn said:

Your response is hysterical and devoid of thoughtful consideration. 

It's a brutally horrific sexual mutilation...One of the most barbaric idiotic thing humans do.

I stand by MY 'factual' and 'thoughtful' observation.  

You've drunk some of that farcical koolaid attempting to spin desecration of the human body for no reason other than religious lunacy.

 

[kokopelli3]

21 hours ago, reader said:

Another factor is that fathers who are circumcise will opt to have their sons circumcised so that both look anatomically alike. 

Easy money for the doctors in the USA to perform circumcisions.

[unicorn]

4 hours ago, 10tazione said:

Does the sensitivity change? One would assume, if you remove the protection from the glans, the glans must become less sensitive, no? And that again could result in less condom usage and therefore increase std risk? Any serious studies about this?

These questions have been studied scientifically multiple times. Not difficult to do, since one need only ask men who've had the procedure done as adults. The studies consistently show no loss of sensitivity or sexual function. As for the STD risk, this question has also been studied with multiple diseases many times, They've consistently shown that for every STD which has been looked at, circumcised men have a much lower risk of STD's. The link in my prior post references many such studies. As for the sensitivity issue, this article reviews the studies which have been done:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1743609515301727

Conclusion

The highest-quality studies suggest that medical male circumcision has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, sexual sensation, or satisfaction. Morris BJ and Krieger JN. Does male circumcision affect sexual function, sensitivity, or satisfaction?—A systematic review. J Sex Med 2013;10:2644–2657.

[unicorn]

4 hours ago, bucky13 said:

...I stand by MY 'factual' and 'thoughtful' observation.  

You've drunk some of that farcical koolaid attempting to spin desecration of the human body for no reason other than religious lunacy.

I'm glad you put those two words in quotes, because you form your opinions while ignoring the facts and the studies used to find those facts. You decry what you perceive as "religious lunacy" yet use a religious term ("desecration") to put down a procedure simply because of your cosmetic preferences. You're certainly providing no scientific evidence to counter the evidence I presented, but simply post hysterical ramblings. You're no better than those who go around screaming about a "stolen election" from 2020, although all of the actual evidence points to the fact that Biden won fair and square. Screaming and bombastic language don't change the facts.

In my over 3 decades working as a family physician, I never once saw a complication from a circumcision. I did see a number of boys and men develop medical conditions which wouldn't have happened had they been circumcised. That being said, obviously most men do fine even when they're not circumcised. However, there are documented medical reasons which might want parents to get their boys circumcised. Professional societies and the CDC agree on this. If you know of bona fide medical studies which show you're right and medical professionals are wrong, please post a link to the studies. Otherwise, your choices are to shut up, or to continue mouthing off like some MAGA idiot who believes what he wants to regardless of the facts. 

[TMax]

5 hours ago, 10tazione said:

Does the sensitivity change? One would assume, if you remove the protection from the glans, the glans must become less sensitive, no? And that again could result in less condom usage and therefore increase std risk? Any serious studies about this?

From my own perspective, being cut I can say my cock is very sensitive, sometimes I wish it wasn't quite so sensitive even when wrapped in a condom.

[Keithambrose]

1 hour ago, kokopelli3 said:

Easy money for the doctors in the USA to perform circumcisions.

The fees are poor, but the tips are great!

[macaroni21]

I think this question has been overlooked: should parents have the right to make such decisions for children?

Here's an analogous question: are parents allowed to tattoo their children?

[vinapu]

Brilliant ! 

[Keithambrose]

2 hours ago, macaroni21 said:

I think this question has been overlooked: should parents have the right to make such decisions for children?

Here's an analogous question: are parents allowed to tattoo their children?

Good point. I don't know what the answer is. Tattooing is a physical assault, so to speak, and, like circumcision, permanent.  All I would say is that if done on birth it is near enough risk free, but in a number  of societies it is done at puberty, which is painful, and more risky. In the UK, where I am from, it was done as a matter of course 70 years ago, nothing to do with religion, but now quite rare, other than religious reasons. My GP, who was Jewish, was anti circumcision, at a later stage, on the grounds that any operation carries a risk.  It is interesting  that Jews and Muslims circumcise, another example of how close the 2 religions are, or should be!

 

On sensitivity, as a circumcised guy, I have plenty of sensitivity!

[reader]

5 hours ago, kokopelli3 said:

Easy money for the doctors in the USA to perform circumcisions.

Easy money anywhere. 🙂

Ask any circumcised guy if he wishes he had the skin back.  Don't think you'll find any.

Buy ask a guy with a mook if he'd do it all over again and the results would be a lot different.

[floridarob]

3 hours ago, reader said:

Ask any circumcised guy if he wishes he had the skin back.  Don't think you'll find any.

a friend of mine's father had to get circumsized, as an adult....later I asked which he preferred.....he said uncut, the sensation of the foreskin going back and forth over the glans was incredible.  So something that cut guys will NEVER know about......

That being said, I was cut as a baby, for all the pro lifers there saying parents can't make that decision, they shouldn't be able to make that one either...for pro choice, choice should be the child's, lol

I can remember the first time I was with an uncut guy, I was like a kid with a new toy, playing with his dick all night,

Now I've only been with uncut mostly, was why Indonesia was a good change of pace...some nice clean non monster looking dicks, some uncut dicks remind me of the movie Alien when it bursts out of the guys chest....Manila, was different, roll of the dice if you got a clean circumsision or some with so much loose skin was like a double chin on their cock, 😱

[unicorn]

9 hours ago, macaroni21 said:

I think this question has been overlooked: should parents have the right to make such decisions for children?

Here's an analogous question: are parents allowed to tattoo their children?

Tattooing is not analogous to a circumcision because there are multiple well-documented health benefits to circumcision, and obviously none for tattooing. Obviously, infants lack the capacity for informed consent for medical procedures, and the parents are entrusted to make these decisions. No one would expect to get consent from an infant, or even a 5 year-old, to ask whether he wants to get his shots or his blood drawn, and so on. I do remember one patient I had who became a complete terror when it came to getting his shots once he turned 8 or 9. At that age, it would have required several people to pin him down, so we just gave up, even though his parents wanted him to get his shots also. I kept asking him every year, and it wasn't until he was 18 or 19 that he finally let us give his overdue HPV shot, tetanus shot, and flu shot. 

To answer your question on tattooing of children, that may vary according to jurisdiction, but here in California the answer is no.

https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/laws/how-old-do-you-have-to-be-to-get-a-tattoo-in-california/#:~:text=California law requires that a,is charged as a misdemeanor.

California law requires that a person be at least 18 years of age in order legally to get a tattoo. In fact, according to Penal Code 653 PC, it is a criminal offense to “ink” or administer a tattoo to a minor under the age of 18.

A violation of this code section is charged as a misdemeanor.

The crime is punishable by:

• custody in the county jail for not more than six months; and/or,
• a maximum fine of $1,000.

...

Is it legal to tattoo a minor with the parent’s consent?

No. California law prohibits tattooing minors across the board. Penal Code 653 PC does not provide a “parental consent” exception.

Now, I did see in my career a number of parents who got their babies' ears pierced. That did give me a twinge of discomfort, since there are obviously no health benefits to getting one's ears pierced. Rarely did I see complications from those piercings, though--one infection and a few allergic reactions--none serious. Not a big deal. 

One nice benefit from the no tattoos on minors law is that if you see a photo of a young man with a tattoo, and are worried if it might be possible he's under 18, the presence of tattoos provides strong evidence the man is not, in fact, a minor.

[numerito]

9 hours ago, unicorn said:

Now, I did see in my career a number of parents who got their babies' ears pierced. That did give me a twinge of discomfort, since there are obviously no health benefits to getting one's ears pierced.

I see your point, @unicorn, but, unlike tattoos -whose appeal totally escapes me- and circumcision -I was cut as an infant and I have never complained-, ear piercing is not permanent. If you leave a pierced ear without a stud, an earring or such, the piercing will heal and close.

[kokopelli3]

It seems like some posters are in favor of circumcision does that also apply to female gential mutilation FGM aka female circumcision?  Since the parents consent to FGM then it must be good for girls same as male circumcision of infant boys. If it's good for the gander it must be good for the goose!

I might add that a young Thai man I know had to be circumcised as part of a medical procedure to remove an oil injection he had into his penis. He very much regretted the loss of his foreskin.

 

[10tazione]

On 3/9/2024 at 9:15 AM, unicorn said:

On 3/9/2024 at 4:14 AM, 10tazione said:

less condom usage and therefore increase std risk? Any serious studies about this?

These questions have been studied scientifically multiple times. Not difficult to do, since one need only ask men who've had the procedure done as adults.

I don't at all think that's easy to do. You overlook that the group of men who gets circumcised as an adult is a highly biased one. Either they had a medical circumstance (phimosis, balanitis, condyloma, or it was for religious reasons. You won't find many men who get circumcized just to see if there is a change in sensation, would you?

[10tazione]

22 hours ago, Keithambrose said:

On sensitivity, as a circumcised guy, I have plenty of sensitivity!

The question is, do you remember how it was before and can you compare it?