New estimate puts global male circumcision rate at 37 percent.

[windinghighway]

What percentage of the worlds males are circumcised? The foreskin lover organizations and websites are wedded to one number: 20 percent. They have clung to this mysterious number like religious dogma for years.

For example:

The so-called Circumcision Resource Center claims "Over 80 percent of the world's males are intact". TLCTugger claims "Four fifths of the world's men are intact".
The so-called Mothers against Circumcision claim "82 percent of the world's men are intact"
Circumstitions shows a pie chart with about a fifth of the male population uncircumcised.

Where does this number come from? Its hard to tell, but perhaps foreskin fanatics add up the male population of the USA, Israel, and muslim countries to get there. They probably overlook the huge muslim minorities in countries like India and China, and the many non-muslim countries where circumcision exceeds 80 percent, like Ethiopia, Philippines, Congo, South Korea, Madagascar, Angola, etc.

Yet much better information has been available for some time from a very reliable source, the World Health Organization. In 2007 the WHO put the actual circumcision rate at 30 percent. They cautioned, however, that this figure probably underestimated the true extent of male circumcision. Here is the reference: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007/9789241596169_eng.pdf

This statistic has been publicly available for five years, so have ANY of the foreskin lover websites updated their estimate with a the more reliable number?

Of course not.

And now there is a new and even more reliable estimate, based on the best and most up to date information from the individual countries of the world. This estimate puts the circumcised male population of the world at 37 percent -- with a caution that this, too, is probably an underestimate. Thats over 1.3 billion men enjoying the many benefits of circumcision! Here is the reference, which shows the data for each country: http://www.circs.org/index.php/Reviews/Rates/Global

Now, will ANY of the foreskin lover websites bite the bullet and update their unsupportable low estimate with the latest information?

Not a chance. They will stick to 20 percent, because they are not interested in facts -- only in propaganda.

Of course, these are the same organizations and websites which, for the same reason, continue to deny that there is any link between foreskins and HIV -- facts be damned.

[HansLufta]

In Europe there is much immigration from Turkey, Morocco, Algeria, other circumcised muslim nations. They have many more children than Europeans. Maybe in 100 years most European countries will be mainly circumcised, maybe less than 100 years.

[i***@gmail.com]

On Thursday, November 15, 2012 8:17:26 AM UTC-5, HansLufta wrote:
"...Maybe in 100 years most European countries will be mainly circumcised, maybe less than 100 years."

Europeans will not be duped! The vast majority of them live with intact genitals and enjoy their full sexual function. Denmark, Sweden and Germany have already began bills/laws to make cutting boys less than 18 illegal. England has a similar history with circumcision as the U.S. It began in the mid-1800s as punishment for masturbation and since has been a cure in search of disease. However, England has national health care, which found cutting off part of babies' penises to be a waste of money. So their circ rate fell to nearly 0% overnight in the 1950s. Meanwhile, many Americans continue in their state of slumber and denial.

[Uckister777]

Post by i***@gmail.com
"...Maybe in 100 years most European countries will be mainly circumcised, maybe less than 100 years."
Europeans will not be duped! The vast majority of them live with intact genitals and enjoy their full sexual function.

I see you include "intact" in your screen name -- the true sign of an obsessed fanatic. Maybe that's whey you missed the point that HansLufta made.

He didn't dispute that most Europeans are circumcised. He pointed out that the muslim population of Europe is growing much faster than the native European population, thanks to immigration and higher birthrates. In fact, the birthrate of some native European peoples is actually declining because they are not having enough children to replace themselves (which means they must rely on even more immigrants who are mostly from muslim Turkey, North Africa, and the middle east.) Muslims don't give up circumcision in any country where they settle, so circumcision will become more and more popular in Europe.

Mohammed is already the most popular boy's name in the four largest Dutch cities. In Brussels five of the seven most popular names are muslim. By 2050 a fifth of European men will be muslim, and after that the portion of muslims will rise more rapidly as the older native European population shrinks. So it is quite possible, even probable, than within a 100 years muslims will be a majority in Europe and most European men will enjoy the many benefits of circumcision.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/5994047/Muslim-Europe-the-demographic-time-bomb-transforming-our-continent.html

[TrentT]

Post by windinghighway
This estimate puts the circumcised male population of the world at 37 percent -- with a caution that this, too, is probably an underestimate. Thats over 1.3 billion men enjoying the many benefits of circumcision! Here is the reference, which shows the data for each country: http://www.circs.org/index.php/Reviews/Rates/Global

1.3 billion foreskins gone! That's a huge number and just from men and boys alive today. I wonder if you put them end to end they would stretch to the moon and back?

[i***@gmail.com]

"1.3 billion foreskins gone! That's a huge number and just from men and boys alive today. I wonder if you put them end to end they would stretch to the moon and back?"

These poor males will never know their full sexual function and all the pleasure that was their birth right. In the U.S. alone, circumcision is a $2+ billion industry annually. No baby/child can consent to this permanent, painful, unnecessary surgery.

[Uckister777]

Post by i***@gmail.com

"1.3 billion foreskins gone! That's a huge number and just from men and boys alive today. I wonder if you put them end to end they would stretch to the moon and back?"

These poor males will never know their full sexual function and all the pleasure that was their birth right

Rubbish. Every reputable study shows no difference in sexual satisfaction in cut and uncut men. Millions of men have been cut in adulthood and know what it's like before and after. If they suffered any loss of pleasure you can be sure we would hear all about it. The only studies that show anything different are the fake studies that a little fanatical group conducts, using their own members as subjects to get the results they want.

[farmboi]

Well... in fairness, the WHO's rates are actually overestimates even according tot he data they give in their report. for example, they state that they arrived at the 30% stat partly by assuming ALL muslim and jewish males are cut, and then comparing that to the estimate of those religions in each country. Except they already affirmed this was not true; earlier int he same report, they mention numbers showign that the rate of Muslim males is well below 100% in some regions and its full prevalence across the islamic world is, frankly, unknown. It's common in many muslim regions, but less so in others. then they cite DHS numbers for the rate of circ in a few places, but those sometimes included muslim and jewish males. so there's double counting in some cases.

Also, the whole thing is misleading overall, because their report is only on males 15 and up; that sor tof misstates the current trend, given that it was actually more common in America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand int he past than now. for some of those, like Australia, they cite numbers that were from a particular generation and extrapolate it, and for New Zealand,t hey explicitly state that infant circ is COMMON there, when in fact it once was, but hasn't been for decades. the trend is actually away from circ, and the anti-circ groups are correct when they report numbers around 20%, because they're referring to estimates of the current rate of non-therapeutic circ on infants and children. And it makes sense from their standpoint; after all, they believe its somethign that was thought beneficial in the past but should be ended, they want people to stop it, so they cite the current trend. why would they care to try and influence people with the rate among men who are 50-80 years old? even the parents having kids today wont care about that, and that's the anti-circ people's target demo.

So, even if the WHO's numbers are spot on, it wouldnt matter, because the two groups' numbers are measuring different things, and dont conflict. im not defending the anti-circs, just pointing out the subtleties of statistical reporting.

Post by windinghighway
What percentage of the worlds males are circumcised? The foreskin lover organizations and websites are wedded to one number: 20 percent. They have clung to this mysterious number like religious dogma for years.
The so-called Circumcision Resource Center claims "Over 80 percent of the world's males are intact". TLCTugger claims "Four fifths of the world's men are intact".
The so-called Mothers against Circumcision claim "82 percent of the world's men are intact"
Circumstitions shows a pie chart with about a fifth of the male population uncircumcised.
Where does this number come from? Its hard to tell, but perhaps foreskin fanatics add up the male population of the USA, Israel, and muslim countries to get there. They probably overlook the huge muslim minorities in countries like India and China, and the many non-muslim countries where circumcision exceeds 80 percent, like Ethiopia, Philippines, Congo, South Korea, Madagascar, Angola, etc.
Yet much better information has been available for some time from a very reliable source, the World Health Organization. In 2007 the WHO put the actual circumcision rate at 30 percent. They cautioned, however, that this figure probably underestimated the true extent of male circumcision. Here is the reference: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007/9789241596169_eng.pdf
This statistic has been publicly available for five years, so have ANY of the foreskin lover websites updated their estimate with a the more reliable number?
Of course not.
And now there is a new and even more reliable estimate, based on the best and most up to date information from the individual countries of the world. This estimate puts the circumcised male population of the world at 37 percent -- with a caution that this, too, is probably an underestimate. Thats over 1.3 billion men enjoying the many benefits of circumcision! Here is the reference, which shows the data for each country: http://www.circs.org/index.php/Reviews/Rates/Global
Now, will ANY of the foreskin lover websites bite the bullet and update their unsupportable low estimate with the latest information?
Not a chance. They will stick to 20 percent, because they are not interested in facts -- only in propaganda.
Of course, these are the same organizations and websites which, for the same reason, continue to deny that there is any link between foreskins and HIV -- facts be damned.

[windinghighway]

Post by farmboi
Well... in fairness, the WHO's rates are actually overestimates even according tot he data they give in their report. for example, they state that they arrived at the 30% stat partly by assuming ALL muslim and jewish males are cut, and then comparing that to the estimate of those religions in each country. Except they already affirmed this was not true

The WHO took the lower rates among a few muslim populations (mostly local African tribes whose members are only nominally muslim) into account in reaching their estimate. Thats why they specified them in their report. So theres no overestimate. WHO statisticians are not idiots.

Post by farmboi
earlier int he same report, they mention numbers showign that the rate of Muslim males is well below 100% in some regions and its full prevalence across the islamic world is, frankly, unknown. It's common in many muslim regions, but less so in others.

Not "some regions" -- just a few muslim-majority African countries with unassimilated tribal populations. Circumcision is virtually universal among Muslims elsewhere. Circumcision is a public ceremony in all these countries -- its absence would be noticed and would be a scandal. It would be practically impossible for an uncircumcised Arab or Pakistani Muslim man to find a wife if he was uncircumcised. He could not attend the hammam. He would be ritually unclean at a mosque.

Post by farmboi
then they cite DHS numbers for the rate of circ in a few places, but those sometimes included muslim and jewish males. so there's double counting in some cases.

No, the DHS numbers are for non-religious circumcisions (usually for therapeutic reasons, sometimes for esthetics). They are not double counting. WHO estimates that these circumcisions apply to about 5 percent of males in societies where they would not normally be circumcised for religious reasons.

Post by farmboi
Also, the whole thing is misleading overall, because their report is only on males 15 and up

Practically all demographic reports on any health statistic distinguish between adults (conventionally, 15 and up) and children (below 15). For practical purposes most people are interested in the percent of the adult population that is circumcised.

Post by farmboi
that sor tof misstates the current trend, given that it was actually more common in America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand int he past than now.

This is a global survey, and four countries do not make a global trend. In many African countries circumcision is becoming more common because of government policies. In Europe it is becoming more common thanks to Muslim immigration. The global trend seems to be going in the opposite direction, actually.

Post by farmboi
for some of those, like Australia, they cite numbers that were from a particular generation and extrapolate it, and for New Zealand,t hey explicitly state that infant circ is COMMON there, when in fact it once was, but hasn't been for decades.

They cite the most current numbers for all countries that were available when they did the survey. The decline in numbers for Australia and NZ is negligible in the global context anyway.

Post by farmboi
the trend is actually away from circ

No, it isnt. And in any case, the WHO estimate is a survey of the global incidence of circumcision, not of trends. A survey of trends is a different subject entirely, and even that would need a baseline of global incidence to base the trends from.

Post by farmboi
, and the anti-circ groups are correct when they report numbers around 20%, because they're referring to estimates of the current rate of non-therapeutic circ on infants and children.

Actually they dont "report" any numbers, or "refer to estimates of the current rate" of anything. They have been using the same estimate for at least ten years.

Post by farmboi
And it makes sense from their standpoint; after all, they believe its somethign that was thought beneficial in the past but should be ended, they want people to stop it, so they cite the current trend.

Again, they dont "cite the current trend". They dont cite ANYTHING, let alone a current trend. Thats the whole point about the 20 percent figure they keep offering, year after year. Its a propaganda number, not a fact- based estimate.

Post by farmboi
why would they care to try and influence people with the rate among men who are 50-80 years old? even the parents having kids today wont care about that, and that's the anti-circ people's target demo.

Yeah well, they do use their number "to try and influence people" rather than accept an accurate, up to date number. You got that right.

Post by farmboi
So, even if the WHO's numbers are spot on, it wouldnt matter, because the two groups' numbers are measuring different things, and dont conflict.

No, they are not measuring different things. Both purport to be an estimate of the percentage of circumcised males in the world. Neither purports to estimate trends. The difference is that the the foreskin-lover estimate of 20 percent is way out of date and lacks credible demographic references. The WHO estimate of 30 percent is more up to date and is based on credible demographic references.

Also, you have ignored the more recent estimate CircsOrg estimate of 37 percent, which is based on the most careful and up to date references of all.

Post by farmboi
im not defending the anti-circs, just pointing out the subtleties of statistical reporting.

Indeed.

[Casaman]

Post by windinghighway
Circumcision is virtually universal among Muslims elsewhere. Circumcision is a public ceremony in all these countries -- its absence would be noticed and would be a scandal. It would be practically impossible for an uncircumcised Arab or Pakistani Muslim man to find a wife if he was uncircumcised. He could not attend the hammam. He would be ritually unclean at a mosque.

I can vouch for that having lived and worked in Arab countries my entire adult life. I've known two Englishmen and a Frenchman who married arab girls.They were expected to convert to Islam before the marriage but it was a wink and nod, just so long as they went through the motions. Actually one of them refused to convert but he was allowed to get married anyway (this was in Morocco). What they absolutely HAD to do was to get circumcised otherwise the family and local imam would not allow the marriage.There's a real taboo on uncircumcised penis especially in sex.

I always had Arabs trying to find out indirectly if I am circumcised, they would ask, Do the English practice "ghitan" (circumcision)? and I would say, some do and some don't, but I'm circumcised. I'm convinced this improved my status in their eyes.

[o***@rocketmail.com]

Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world therefore circumcision will increase.

[Quentin P]

Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world therefore circumcision will >increase.

As an anthopologist working in Kyrgystan in Central Asia, with some knowledge of Muslim groups in Central Asia in particular, I can add two comments about the impact of Muslim population growth on world circumcision rates.

PERSISTENCE. Male circumcision persists in Muslim-origin groups even when they become secularized. In Central Asia under Soviet rule religion was suppressed and mosques were closed. After many decades of this the countries of Kyrgystan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan,and Uzbekistan became largely secularized. Today most mosques remain empty and unused. The populations pay lip service to Islam but you will never see a veiled local woman and outside of Turkmenistan even head scarfs are rare. Alcohol is freely available in all these countries. Yet one ritual was kept alive all through the Soviet years,circumcision. Today the circumcision rate even among nominal muslims is 100 percent. The same phenomenon can be observed among third and fourth generation Bangla and Pakistani men in the UK, who often do not practice the religion but who are all circumcised and will circumcise male offspring as a matter of course. Circumcision in Muslim-origin groupsa always persists as a deeply engrained cultural practice even when the religion is abandoned. (The same is true incidentally of Jews. Secularized Jews who do not practice the religion almost universally circumcise male offspring)

MULTIPLIER EFFECT In multi-ethnic societies containing Muslims or Muslim-origin group, circumcision tends to be spread to the other noncircumcising groups, either through intermarriage or imitation. In Central Asia almost all boys of Muslim-Christian marriages are circumcised and even the Russian-origin populaton here has signficant circumcision (unlike Russians in Russia, where circumcision is almost unknown). The same effect can be observed in many other countries, e.g. Egypt where circumcision spread from the Muslims to the Copts, Philippines where it spread from Muslims in the South to Catholics elsewhere, Nigeria where it spread from Muslims in the North to Christians in the South. In every case a noncircumcising population was converted to a 100 percent circumcising population. Expressed differently, circumcision exhibits greater resilience in the presence of non circumcision than vice versa.

Somebody raised the question here of what would happen to the circumcision rate in the USA where it is declining because although whites are still circumcising, immigrants from Asia and Latin America are not. I would predict that through intermarriage and imitation the rate among ethnic Asians and Latin Americans will rise toward the white American norm over time as these groups become fully acculturated.

[Casaman]

In Central Asia under Soviet rule religion was suppressed and mosques were closed. After many decades of this the countries of Kyrgystan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan,and Uzbekistan became largely secularized. Today most mosques remain empty and unused. The populations pay lip service to Islam but you will never see a veiled local woman and outside of Turkmenistan even head scarfs are rare. Alcohol is freely available in all these countries. Yet one ritual was kept alive all through the Soviet years,circumcision. Today the circumcision rate even among nominal muslims is 100 percent.

I looked at the summer temperatures there and they go as high as 50C so it's no big surprise they circumcise there! Many years ago I worked with a French engineer in Egypt where it wasn't even that hot and he used to curse and complain in the summer that his foreskin was always itching. In that kind of climate it seems foreskins are a disadvantage.

[i***@gmail.com]

"I looked at the summer temperatures there and they go as high as 50C so it's no big surprise they circumcise there! Many years ago I worked with a French engineer in Egypt where it wasn't even that hot and he used to curse and complain in the summer that his foreskin was always itching. In that kind of climate it seems foreskins are a disadvantage."

I wonder how females fare in that climate with all their folds and secretions. We can never be sure, but the French man you knew may have had a bacterial imbalance from using soap beneath his foreskin or yeast infection. Proper intact care for men is retract, rinse, replace. That's it! Just as using soap inside a woman's vagina or douching can upset the ecology, so too can soap beneath a man's foreskin. Both are mucous membrane and self-cleaning with the help of some plain water. We all have prepuce (male=foreskin; female=clitoral hood).

[Uckister777]

Post by i***@gmail.com

"I looked at the summer temperatures there and they go as high as 50C so it's no big surprise they circumcise there! Many years ago I worked with a French engineer in Egypt where it wasn't even that hot and he used to curse and complain in the summer that his foreskin was always itching. In that kind of climate it seems foreskins are a disadvantage."

I wonder how females fare in that climate with all their folds and secretions. We can never be sure, but the French man you knew may have had a bacterial imbalance from using soap beneath his foreskin or yeast infection. Proper intact care for men is retract, rinse, replace. That's it!

So why do they usually stink?

[t***@gmail.com]

Post by Casaman
Many years ago I worked with a French engineer in Egypt where it wasn't even that hot and he used to curse and complain in the summer that his foreskin was always itching. In that kind of climate it seems foreskins are a disadvantage.

in my home Madagascar which we call Malagasy we have a hot climate and ALL 18 tribes circumcise boys. A Malagasy woman will not sleep with a Malagasy boy if uncircumcised .
We have this problem, many French tourists who come for sex holidays because we are a poor country with prostituion. Some prostitutes are so desperate they sleep with uncircumcised French. These women are ashamed and disgusted but they are so poor they do it. They are are lowest of the low nobody will associate with them if they know they slept with Frenchmen. Probably they can never find a Malagasy husband.
It is disgusting how Frenchmen can be public in town squares or beach with three four tive young girls around them just for the money which for the French is like nothing, 3 euros, 5 euros.. You see many like this any day or night.

[FlyingDutchman]

Post by Quentin P
MULTIPLIER EFFECT In multi-ethnic societies containing Muslims or Muslim-origin group, circumcision tends to be spread to the other noncircumcising groups, either through intermarriage or imitation. In Central Asia almost all boys of Muslim-Christian marriages are circumcised and even the Russian-origin populaton here has signficant circumcision (unlike Russians in Russia, where circumcision is almost unknown). The same effect can be observed in many other countries, e.g. Egypt where circumcision spread from the Muslims to the Copts, Philippines where it spread from Muslims in the South to Catholics elsewhere, Nigeria where it spread from Muslims in the North to Christians in the South. In every case a noncircumcising population was converted to a 100 percent circumcising population. Expressed differently, circumcision exhibits greater resilience in the presence of non circumcision than vice versa.

In Netherlands and in Germany also this is happening. Muslims circumcise boys even if they have been here two generations or three. Even if they gave up religion or converted to another (they are not muslim then but usually Moroccan or Turk by origin). If there is a mixed marriage the sons are circumcised always, or almost always. Also the Muslims breed much faster than Dutch or German who are shrinking populations. I believe it will never be 100 percent here but if you advance some decades you will find most men in these countries will be circumcised.

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by FlyingDutchman

Post by Quentin P
MULTIPLIER EFFECT In multi-ethnic societies containing Muslims or Muslim-origin group, circumcision tends to be spread to the other noncircumcising groups, either through intermarriage or imitation. In Central Asia almost all boys of Muslim-Christian marriages are circumcised and even the Russian-origin populaton here has signficant circumcision (unlike Russians in Russia, where circumcision is almost unknown). The same effect can be observed in many other countries, e.g. Egypt where circumcision spread from the Muslims to the Copts, Philippines where it spread from Muslims in the South to Catholics elsewhere, Nigeria where it spread from Muslims in the North to Christians in the South. In every case a noncircumcising population was converted to a 100 percent circumcising population. Expressed differently, circumcision exhibits greater resilience in the presence of non circumcision than vice versa.

In Netherlands and in Germany also this is happening. Muslims circumcise boys even if they have been here two generations or three. Even if they gave up religion or converted to another (they are not muslim then but usually Moroccan or Turk by origin). If there is a mixed marriage the sons are circumcised always, or almost always.

We had a similar situation here in Ireland on a much smaller scale. In my area we took in hundreds of Bosnian refugees during the genocide war there in the 1990s. They are supposedly a muslim people but they didn't seem to practice any islam except for male circumcision. They didn't trust any local doctors with circumcision (probably rightly!) so they took sons to London or later on back to Bosnia where it was done when the boys were in their teens. Most of the refugees have gone back now but some have settled and the boys are still known to get circumcised in UK or Bosnia. Normally Irish boys are not circumcised.

[i***@gmail.com]

"In Netherlands and in Germany also this is happening. Muslims circumcise boys even if they have been here two generations or three. Even if they gave up religion or converted to another (they are not muslim then but usually Moroccan or Turk by origin). If there is a mixed marriage the sons are circumcised always, or almost always. Also the Muslims breed much faster than Dutch or German who are shrinking populations. I believe it will never be 100 percent here but if you advance some decades you will find most men in these countries will be circumcised."

Thankfully, for the sake of protecting children's rights to bodily integrity and genital autonomy, people are waking up! There is movement in the right direction toward protecting children from the harm of elective, unnecessary surgery they cannot consent to nor comprehend, which permanently diminishes sexual function and pleasure. See here:
~ German Court Bans Male Circumcision
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/06/29/german-court-bans-male-circumcision/
~ Leaders of Dutch party's youth division seek circumcision ban
http://www.jta.org/2014/03/07/news-opinion/world/leaders-of-dutch-partys-youth-division-seek-brit-milah-ban#ixzz3HyT0a69W
~ Dutch doctors urge end to male circumcision
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/23/us-dutch-circumcision-health-idUSTRE78M3R620110923

[i***@gmail.com]

"As an anthopologist working in Kyrgystan in Central Asia, with some knowledge of Muslim groups in Central Asia in particular, I can add two comments about the impact of Muslim population growth on world circumcision rates...PERSISTENCE... MULTIPLIER EFFECT..."

Thankfully countless people and organizations, including myself, are working tirelessly to raise awareness and change public opinion - ideally with a change in laws (i.e. making FGM laws gender neutral) - about cutting healthy genital tissue off children. A child cannot consent to this permanent, elective surgery, yet they live with the scars and altered, diminished function for the rest of their lives. ALL children have a right to their intact genitals.

[i***@gmail.com]

"There's a real taboo on uncircumcised penis especially in sex... I'm circumcised. I'm convinced this improved my status in their eyes."

May you learn what you're missing without having your whole penis, and refuse to cut your own children. We all have prepuce (male=foreskin; female=clitoral hood). As for religious freedom: one person's religious freedom ends where another person's body begins. Babies and children grow into adults who choose their own religion. Cutting off a significant part of a child's penis in the name of the parents' religion/culture is the ultimate religious imposition.

Here are some great resources:
*** How Foreskin Works (many functions explained and a brief video animation)
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=76c_1314310545
*** Global Survey of Circumcision Harm (including how an intact penis looks and functions)
http://circumcisionharm.org/gallery.htm
*** Intact or Circumcised: A Significant Difference in the Adult Penis
http://www.drmomma.org/2011/08/intact-or-circumcised-significant.html
*** Circumcision - Penis Sensitivity Test by Morris L. Sorrells, M.D.

*** Sex as Nature Intended It
http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com/
*** The National Organization of Restoring Men
http://www.norm.org/
*** Circumcision - Does the Qur'an Approve it?
http://www.quranicpath.com/misconceptions/circumcision.html

[j***@gmail.com]

WindingHighway,

You are totally obsessed with foreskins! Don't you think you should do something about it?

Thanks for you consideration,
Jack

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by j***@gmail.com
WindingHighway,
You are totally obsessed with foreskins! Don't you think you should do something about it?
Thanks for you consideration,
Jack

Jack, you refer to women as "pussy" and gay men as "pansies". Don't you think you should do something about it? Thanks for your consideration. Maureen.

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by j***@gmail.com
WindingHighway,
You are totally obsessed with foreskins! Don't you think you should do something about it?
Thanks for you consideration,
Jack

Jack, you refer to women as "pussy" and gay men as "pansies". Don't you think you should do something about it? Thanks for your consideration. Maureen.

I was referring to pussies as pussy because we're talking about the odor of genitalia. If we were talking about armpit smell I would ask, Do you have any experience with armpits?

And the pansies are people who are afraid to get up close and personal with normal, moist and smelly genitalia, be that smelly genitalia penis or vagina.

You are looking for someone to confirm your anger and slashing at phantoms.

[MOOSE]

Post by windinghighway
And now there is a new and even more reliable estimate, based on the best and most up to date information from the individual countries of the world. This estimate puts the circumcised male population of the world at 37 percent -- with a caution that this, too, is probably an underestimate. Thats over 1.3 billion men enjoying the many benefits of circumcision! Here is the reference, which shows the data for each country: http://www.circs.org/index.php/Reviews/Rates/Global

It's so inconvenient to circumcise billions of boys one at a time. Even tho that is what the public wants. Wouldn't it be better to do some genetic engineering so the species would be born without foreskins? That would have all the advantages of circumcision without the risk of pain etc. Just a thought.

[States449@….]

CIRCUMCISIONS TO HELP PREVENT AIDS ARE ON THE RISE

New York Times December 2, 2013

Circumcision for AIDS prevention is increasing rapidly in eastern and southern Africa, according to newly released figures.

Unaids, the United Nations agency fighting the disease, said about 3.2 million African men had been voluntarily circumcised since word began spreading in 2007 of studies showing that it lowered the risk of infection by about 60 percent. The goal is to circumcise more than 20 million by 2015.

Many news reports have quoted women saying they believe that circumcised men are “cleaner” or “safer.” Health ministry campaigns encourage that: A poster in Uganda, for example, shows an attractive woman gazing downward in shock, saying, “You mean you’re not circumcised?”

American taxpayers have paid for about two million procedures through the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. A recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked at 1,600 sites in nine African countries where 536,000 circumcisions were done in 2012. Complications arose in fewer than 1 percent of cases.

All of those circumcisions were done surgically, although Rwanda announced plans last week to circumcise 700,000 men using PrePex, a new rapid, bloodless and anesthesia-free method that uses an elastic band.

The circumcision efforts have also led millions of men to have H.I.V. tests, offered before the procedure.

Circumcision is currently recommended for uninfected heterosexual men in countries where more than 1 percent of the population has H.I.V. It does not protect gay men engaged in receptive anal sex, believed to cause most infections in the United States.

Some infected men who requested circumcisions were given them, a C.D.C. official said. While it did not prevent them from passing on H.I.V., it did protect against other diseases, including HPV, which can cause cervical cancer in women.

[a***@gmail.com]

Post by States449@….
CIRCUMCISIONS TO HELP PREVENT AIDS ARE ON THE RISE
New York Times December 2, 2013
Circumcision for AIDS prevention is increasing rapidly in eastern and southern Africa, according to newly released figures.
Unaids, the United Nations agency fighting the disease, said about 3.2 million African men had been voluntarily circumcised since word began spreading in 2007 of studies showing that it lowered the risk of infection by about 60 percent. The goal is to circumcise more than 20 million by 2015.
Many news reports have quoted women saying they believe that circumcised men are “cleaner” or “safer.” Health ministry campaigns encourage that: A poster in Uganda, for example, shows an attractive woman gazing downward in shock, saying, “You mean you’re not circumcised?”
American taxpayers have paid for about two million procedures through the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. A recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked at 1,600 sites in nine African countries where 536,000 circumcisions were done in 2012. Complications arose in fewer than 1 percent of cases.
All of those circumcisions were done surgically, although Rwanda announced plans last week to circumcise 700,000 men using PrePex, a new rapid, bloodless and anesthesia-free method that uses an elastic band.
The circumcision efforts have also led millions of men to have H.I.V. tests, offered before the procedure.
Circumcision is currently recommended for uninfected heterosexual men in countries where more than 1 percent of the population has H.I.V. It does not protect gay men engaged in receptive anal sex, believed to cause most infections in the United States.
Some infected men who requested circumcisions were given them, a C.D.C. official said. While it did not prevent them from passing on H.I.V., it did protect against other diseases, including HPV, which can cause cervical cancer in women.

The reduction in STDs is a derivative of the healing time after circumcision which is a maximum of 8 weeks in teens and adults, time during which they can not have sex, and the incubation period for an STD before it shows up to be positive in a antibody test which is usually 3-6 months for HIV. So circumcision only delays exposure to STDs because of healing time and the incubation period of an STD after exposure to show up as positive.

[Lancelot3000]

Post by a***@gmail.com
The reduction in STDs is a derivative of the healing time after circumcision which is a maximum of 8 weeks in teens and adults, time during which they can not have sex, and the incubation period for an STD before it shows up to be positive in a antibody test which is usually 3-6 months for HIV. So circumcision only delays exposure to STDs because of healing time and the incubation period of an STD after exposure to show up as positive
.

What a stupid argument! If you were right then there would be only a negligible 8 week maximum difference in infection rates between circumcised and uncircumcised men in the African tests. (The incubation period is irrelevant because it's the same for both groups.) Actually the 60 percent reduction in HIV infection in circumcised men lasts for years. WHO recommends circumcision for countries with high HIV rates because so many studies have proved circumcision works. Uncircumcised men are more likely to get HIV because the foreskin shelters the virus, which can directly infect the langerhans cells of the foreskin.

Countries or areas in Africa that circumcise almost always have much lower HIV rates than countries or areas that don't. The highest rates in the world are in uncircumcised African countries. Many of the lowest rates in the world are in circumcised African countries.

[i***@gmail.com]

"What a stupid argument! If you were right then there would be only a negligible 8 week maximum difference in infection rates between circumcised and uncircumcised men in the African tests. (The incubation period is irrelevant because it's the same for both groups.)"

A lot can happen in the life of a promiscuous person in 8 weeks! Depending on one's immunity, it can take only one HIV+ sexual partner to contract the virus. These RCTs were stopped early because too many women were being infected. Many of these men had rarely if ever seen a doctor before these trials. Education and condoms prevent STIs, including HIV; not cutting. Money is much better spent and more effective on the former than the latter. Men who volunteer to get cut have the misconception that they are immune from HIV are are much more likely to engage in risky sex.

"Actually the 60 percent reduction in HIV infection in circumcised men lasts for years. WHO recommends circumcision for countries with high HIV rates because so many studies have proved circumcision works."

The absolute risk reduction from the RCTs is 1.3% - statistically insignificant. All of the researchers had known bias toward circumcision. Cutting off foreskins is very profitable.

Countries or areas in Africa that circumcise almost always have much lower HIV rates than countries or areas that don't. The highest rates in the world are in uncircumcised African countries. Many of the lowest rates in the world are in circumcised African countries.

Not true. See here:
*** Don't Get Stuck with HIV
http://dontgetstuck.org/circumciseion-intact-living-with-hiv/

The studies that tout 60% reduction in HIV transmission from circumcision are extremely flawed. These explain why:
*** When bad science kills, or how to spread AIDS
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/05/when-bad-science-kills-or-how-to-spread-aids/
*** The Use of Male Circumcision to Prevent HIV Infection
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html
*** Male Circumcision - A Dangerous Mistake in the HIV Battle
http://www.intactamerica.org/dangerousmistake
*** Circumcision and HIV infection
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/

[Uckister777]

Post by i***@gmail.com

"What a stupid argument! If you were right then there would be only a negligible 8 week maximum difference in infection rates between circumcised and uncircumcised men in the African tests. (The incubation period is irrelevant because it's the same for both groups.)"

A lot can happen in the life of a promiscuous person in 8 weeks! Depending on one's immunity, it can take only one HIV+ sexual partner to contract the virus.

Jeez, you don't have the slightest idea how an RTC works. You have never read these studies and frankly i don't think you would understand them if you did. Yes a lot can happen to somebody in eight weeks but it's equally likely to happen in either of the groups. That's the whole point of an RTC! Also infection is not dependent on somebody's "immunity" as you seem to think. It's dependent on several variables the most important of which is the viral load of the infected partner.

Post by i***@gmail.com
These RCTs were stopped early because too many women were being infected.

What??? Where do you get this drivel??

Actually the RTCs were stopped because the uncircumcised men were getting HIV at a significantly higher rate than the circumcised men so it was ETHICALLY OBLIGATORY to stop the experiments and offer circumcision to the uncircumcised group. This is basic scientific ethics in any medical experiment that involves serious or lethal disease. For example if an experimental drug is given to half the group and it does markedly better (or worse) than the other half you cannot allow the experiment to keep going, knowing that half your subjects will get sicker or die. It's standard scientific procedure.

Post by i***@gmail.com
Many of these men had rarely if ever seen a doctor before these trials.

So what? What has that got to do with an RTC? You don't know, you just plucked this from some fanatic website and stuck it in here because you think its sounds important. It doesn't matter in the least if they had seen a doctor before or a dentist or an architect or an aerospace engineer. It's all irrelevant to the experiment.

Post by i***@gmail.com
Education and condoms prevent STIs, including HIV; not cutting.

No, all three help prevent STDs. It is well known that education doesn't always work and that condoms often are not used.

Post by i***@gmail.com
Money is much better spent and more effective on the former than the latter.

Wrong. Try to think before you write! Circumcisions can be done very cheaply in undeveloped countries and it's a one time cost that offers some protection over a life time. Condoms have to be supplied and used for every sex act over a lifetime and that is vastly more expensive. And less effective too, because in practice the condoms will often not be used.

Post by i***@gmail.com

"Actually the 60 percent reduction in HIV infection in circumcised men lasts for years. WHO recommends circumcision for countries with high HIV rates because so many studies have proved circumcision works."

The absolute risk reduction from the RCTs is 1.3% - statistically insignificant.

A garbage statistic you copied from somewhere and you don't even know what it means. The risk reduction is 60 percent which is why the WHO recommends circumcision in all countries with high HIV rates. If it was statistically insignificant the WHO, the US Govt, the Gates Foundation, the Clinton Foundation, etc, wouldn't be funding and supporting it. Perhaps they have a better grasp of statistics than you do?

Post by i***@gmail.com
All of the researchers had known bias toward circumcision. Cutting off foreskins is very profitable.

Uh huh. So all these international epidemiologists risked their reputations and careers to falsify a series of studies and experiments, just so some pediatricians who they don't even know could get paid to snip foreskins? Do you really believe that?

Post by i***@gmail.com

Countries or areas in Africa that circumcise almost always have much lower HIV rates than countries or areas that don't. The highest rates in the world are in uncircumcised African countries. Many of the lowest rates in the world are in circumcised African countries.

Not true.

LOL you are such a fool. `You don't know the first thing about any of this stuff. You just uncritically copy and paste garbage from fanatic websites.

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by States449@….
CIRCUMCISIONS TO HELP PREVENT AIDS ARE ON THE RISE
New York Times December 2, 2013
Circumcision for AIDS prevention is increasing rapidly in eastern and southern Africa, according to newly released figures.
Unaids, the United Nations agency fighting the disease, said about 3.2 million African men had been voluntarily circumcised since word began spreading in 2007 of studies showing that it lowered the risk of infection by about 60 percent. The goal is to circumcise more than 20 million by 2015.
Many news reports have quoted women saying they believe that circumcised men are “cleaner” or “safer.” Health ministry campaigns encourage that: A poster in Uganda, for example, shows an attractive woman gazing downward in shock, saying, “You mean you’re not circumcised?”
American taxpayers have paid for about two million procedures through the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. A recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked at 1,600 sites in nine African countries where 536,000 circumcisions were done in 2012. Complications arose in fewer than 1 percent of cases.
All of those circumcisions were done surgically, although Rwanda announced plans last week to circumcise 700,000 men using PrePex, a new rapid, bloodless and anesthesia-free method that uses an elastic band.
The circumcision efforts have also led millions of men to have H.I.V. tests, offered before the procedure.
Circumcision is currently recommended for uninfected heterosexual men in countries where more than 1 percent of the population has H.I.V. It does not protect gay men engaged in receptive anal sex, believed to cause most infections in the United States.
Some infected men who requested circumcisions were given them, a C.D.C. official said. While it did not prevent them from passing on H.I.V., it did protect against other diseases, including HPV, which can cause cervical cancer in women.

Cause god knows eastern Africa is a model society for the rest of the planet to emulate.

[saurabh]

Circumcision rates continue to decline in the USA. The official data estimates 55% of newborn males in USA were circumcised in 2012. Western states like Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Arizona, California reported a rate of 15-20% while the Midwestern states reported rates of 70-75%. Many attribute the decline in circ rates to the rising population of Hispanics and Asians who generally don't circumcise. But it's worth noting that only 17% of Americans share Hispanic roots.

This trend compels me to believe that very soon, most Americans will decide against it. If 55% boys are circumcised, it implies that just over half of the newborn males were snipped. So circumcised boys are not an overwhelming majority. This will prompt more and more parents to question the practice as is evident by the comments on parenting websites.

I'm aware that the official figures don't consider religious circumcisions but Jews constitute just 2.5% of the American population and Muslims just over 0.8% So this won't have a signifcant effect on the overall circumcision rate.

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by States449@….
CIRCUMCISIONS TO HELP PREVENT AIDS ARE ON THE RISE
New York Times December 2, 2013
Circumcision for AIDS prevention is increasing rapidly in eastern and southern Africa, according to newly released figures.
Unaids, the United Nations agency fighting the disease, said about 3.2 million African men had been voluntarily circumcised since word began spreading in 2007 of studies showing that it lowered the risk of infection by about 60 percent. The goal is to circumcise more than 20 million by 2015.
Many news reports have quoted women saying they believe that circumcised men are "cleaner" or "safer." Health ministry campaigns encourage that: A poster in Uganda, for example, shows an attractive woman gazing downward in shock, saying, "You mean you're not circumcised?"
American taxpayers have paid for about two million procedures through the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. A recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked at 1,600 sites in nine African countries where 536,000 circumcisions were done in 2012. Complications arose in fewer than 1 percent of cases.
All of those circumcisions were done surgically, although Rwanda announced plans last week to circumcise 700,000 men using PrePex, a new rapid, bloodless and anesthesia-free method that uses an elastic band.
The circumcision efforts have also led millions of men to have H.I.V. tests, offered before the procedure.
Circumcision is currently recommended for uninfected heterosexual men in countries where more than 1 percent of the population has H.I.V. It does not protect gay men engaged in receptive anal sex, believed to cause most infections in the United States.
Some infected men who requested circumcisions were given them, a C.D.C. official said. While it did not prevent them from passing on H.I.V., it did protect against other diseases, including HPV, which can cause cervical cancer in women.

Cause god knows eastern Africa is a model society for the rest of the planet to emulate.

[Casaman]

Circumcision rates continue to decline in the USA. The official data >estimates 55% of newborn males in USA were circumcised in 2012.

It is my understanding that there is no "official data" on circumcision rates in the USA, i.e. no government body collects and publishes such comprehensive data. There are lots of partial data which draw on different sources and vary from one state to another. I have found widely different numbers on different websites, depending on the biases of the websites themselves.

Many attribute the decline in circ rates to the rising population of Hispanics and Asians who generally don't circumcise. But it's worth noting that only 17% of Americans share Hispanic roots.

Yes but the hispanic population is much younger and hispanic families have more children than American whites, therefore hispanics represent a much higher proportion of births than they do of the general population. I have read that in some California hospitals 80 percent of the births are hispanic. Hispanics and Asians will soon be a majority in California.

This trend compels me to believe that very soon, most Americans will decide against it. If 55% boys are circumcised, it implies that just over half of the newborn males were snipped. So circumcised boys are not an overwhelming majority. This will prompt more and more parents to question the practice as is evident by the comments on parenting websites.

Parenting or other websites do not represent the whole population, they represent the kind of people who show up there! If you went by the comments on some of those websites that are run by circumcision foes you would conclude that 100 percent of Americans are against circumcision! From what I read I agree that circumcision rates will probably decline in the USA but you cannot be sure of that because when hispanics become personally more familiar with circumcised penises (I mean, by having sex with their owners)this may change their minds and they may come to prefer circumcision.

I'm aware that the official figures don't consider religious circumcisions but Jews constitute just 2.5% of the American population and Muslims just over 0.8% So this won't have a signifcant effect on the overall circumcision rate.

Agreed, the Muslim influence is likely to be much greater in Europe where circumcision rates will rise sharply as large Muslim populations there grow from immigration and higher birth rates. Globally it doesn't matter much what happens in the USA as the USA is less than 5 percent of world population.

[i***@gmail.com]

"Globally it doesn't matter much what happens in the USA as the USA is less than 5 percent of world population.

That's true, but what does matter is every life lost to complications of circumcision. Hemorrhage and infection are common; more than 100 babies die annually in the U.S. as a result of complications from this unnecessary, painful surgery. What also matters is the experience of each and every man - and there are hundreds of thousands - who is angry and upset about what was taken from him without his consent, forever leaving a scar where the most erogenous part of his body was and permanently diminishing his sexual function and pleasure.

*** How Foreskin Works (many functions explained and a brief video animation)
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=76c_1314310545
*** Global Survey of Circumcision Harm (including how an intact penis looks and functions)
http://circumcisionharm.org/gallery.htm
*** Intact or Circumcised: A Significant Difference in the Adult Penis
http://www.drmomma.org/2011/08/intact-or-circumcised-significant.html
*** A Short History of Circumcision in North America: In the Physicians' Own Words
http://www.noharmm.org/docswords.htm
*** Myths about Circumcision You Likely Believe: Circumcision does great harm to babies (6 part series)
http://www.psychologytoday.com/ blog/moral-landscapes/201109/myths-about-circumcision-you-likely-believe

[Uckister777]

Post by i***@gmail.com

"Globally it doesn't matter much what happens in the USA as the USA is less than 5 percent of world population.

That's true, but what does matter is every life lost to complications of circumcision.

Oh i love how you don't give a shit about all the millions who have died of HIV or cervical cancer because somebody in their life had a foreskin, but here you are weeping about the negligible number who have died from circumcision.

Post by i***@gmail.com
Hemorrhage and infection are common; more than 100 babies die annually in the U.S. as a result of complications from this unnecessary, painful surgery.

More nonsense. Death from complications of circumcision is actually extremely rare and when it happens it is a significant news story. You know where your exaggerated number comes from? It's from somebody called Dan Bollinger, who I see used to post here quite often. At that time he admitted at least twice that he is not a scientist. Then guess what? He rebranded himself as "independent researcher" and started doing "studies" against circumcision. One of them was a "study" of infant mortality due to circumcision. He couldn't find much in the way of deaths due to circumcision in hospital records -- so he arbitrarily decided that babies who died of other causes had really died of complications of circumcision! For example he included meningitis which is usually contracted via an ear or nose infection -- all without any evidence at all that the infection came via circumcision. He finally came up with a number of 117 by this ridiculous speculation which made him a laughing stock in the medical community but of course the anti-circumcision fanatic websites, which is where you found this nonsense, drool over it.

If you really want to talk about infections in newborns, why don't you research the rates of urinary tract infections in circumcised vs uncircumcised babies? Fortunately infant UTI is easily cured in the developed world with antibiotics but throughout history UTI has been a major cause of infant mortality in uncircumcised boys. Are you sorry for them?

[j***@gmail.com]

Circumcision is only a human rights abuse when one person forces it on another--which is almost always the case, because a grown man rarely chooses to have any part of his penis removed.

[Uckister777]

Post by j***@gmail.com
Circumcision is only a human rights abuse when one person forces it on another--which is almost always the case, because a grown man rarely chooses to have any part of his penis removed.

Who are you to talk about human rights when you call women "pussy" and gays "pansies" and whine about how straight white men get a rough deal compared with women and minorities?

Why don't you explain how you didn't really mean what you said, and tell us what you really meant when you didn't really mean what you said? Your explanations are very revealing!

[j***@gmail.com]

You are welcome to re-post what i said that you interpreted to mean that straight white men have a hard time compared with women and minorities.

I recall making the point that one reason circumcision is not seen as a crime is that we're not used to seeing men portrayed as victims (we are more used to seeing women and minorities portrayed as victims.)

That you take offense at the suggestion that men are, indeed, victimized (or as you say "have a hard time") exemplifies this very point.

[Uckister777]

Post by j***@gmail.com
You are welcome to re-post what i said that you interpreted to mean that straight white men have a hard time compared with women and minorities.

This is what you said: "Only women and children and minorities have issues. Men are the perpetrators, so it is still thought. This will change, maybe, in about 50 years."

You contrasted "men" with women and minorities. "Minorities" includes nonwhite men. When a white man complains about how "men" are not getting the same respect as "women and minorities" everybody knows he means women and people of color, including men of color. You aren't fooling anybody.

I see you didn't invite me to repost your comments on "pussy" and "pansies". Actually you have denied in the past that you ever made them so obviously it's not something you want to expose yourself to again.

When challenged earlier though, you explained that you think "pussy" is the appropriate term to use when talking about genital odor;

"I was referring to pussies as pussy because we're talking about the odor of genitalia'" That's an interesting usage, Jack. What word would you substitute when you are not talking about genital odor, I wonder?

You explained that you were using "pansies" in your own totally original sense. You claim you didn't mean it as a derogatory term for gays as the rest of the world understands it, Oh no, YOU use it to mean "all people who are afraid to get up close and personal with normal, moist and smelly genitalia"

Who do you think you are fooling?

I suggest you at least admit your prejudices, and then either apologize for them or defend them. You would get more respect that way than denying your statements or pretending they meant something different.

[j***@gmail.com]

I don't know where you're from, but in the United States the word pansy does not refer to homosexuals. In the US, the word pansy is synonymous with wimp or weakling.

[Uckister777]

Post by j***@gmail.com
I don't know where you're from, but in the United States the word pansy does not refer to homosexuals.

Wrong yet AGAIN, Jack. According to American dictionaries, the word pansy DOES refer to homosexuals.

Here are some AMERICAN dictionary definitions:

Miriam-Webster dictionary:
Pansy:
Usually disparaging : a male homosexual

Dictionary .reference.comSlang.
Pansy:
Extremely Disparaging and Offensive. a contemptuous term used to refer to a male homosexual.

The Free Dictionary:
Pansy:
An effeminate or homosexual man or boy

Collins American Dictionary
Pansy:
An effeminate male homosexual (often a contemptuous term)

American Heritage Dictionary:
Pansy:
Used as a disparaging term for a gay man.

Green's Dictionary of Slang
Pansy:
(US ) of a homosexual man

[j***@gmail.com]

I did not know that pansy had any connotation regarding sexual orientation. I have never heard that usage. Thank you for informing me.

[Casaman]

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by States449@….
CIRCUMCISIONS TO HELP PREVENT AIDS ARE ON THE RISE
New York Times December 2, 2013
Circumcision for AIDS prevention is increasing rapidly in eastern and southern Africa, according to newly released figures.
Unaids, the United Nations agency fighting the disease, said about 3.2 million African men had been voluntarily circumcised since word began spreading in 2007 of studies showing that it lowered the risk of infection by about 60 percent. The goal is to circumcise more than 20 million by 2015.
Many news reports have quoted women saying they believe that circumcised men are "cleaner" or "safer." Health ministry campaigns encourage that: A poster in Uganda, for example, shows an attractive woman gazing downward in shock, saying, "You mean you're not circumcised?"
American taxpayers have paid for about two million procedures through the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. A recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked at 1,600 sites in nine African countries where 536,000 circumcisions were done in 2012. Complications arose in fewer than 1 percent of cases.
All of those circumcisions were done surgically, although Rwanda announced plans last week to circumcise 700,000 men using PrePex, a new rapid, bloodless and anesthesia-free method that uses an elastic band.
The circumcision efforts have also led millions of men to have H.I.V. tests, offered before the procedure.
Circumcision is currently recommended for uninfected heterosexual men in countries where more than 1 percent of the population has H.I.V. It does not protect gay men engaged in receptive anal sex, believed to cause most infections in the United States.
Some infected men who requested circumcisions were given them, a C.D.C. official said. While it did not prevent them from passing on H.I.V., it did protect against other diseases, including HPV, which can cause cervical cancer in women.

Cause god knows eastern Africa is a model society for the rest of the planet to emulate.

What on earth is that snide comment meant to mean? What don't you like about East Africa, that is black, or poor, or has high rates of disease or what? Have you ever been there? I have, I worked on an irrigation project in Tanzania in the 1970s and got to know the people and culture. AIDS was already present then but it wasn't recognized as such, it was called "slim disease". Perhaps if you saw the horrifying effects of this disease on a decent, friendly, hard working people you would not be so contemptous of their attempts to control it. Shame on you Jack.

[S]

Post by Casaman

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by States449@….
CIRCUMCISIONS TO HELP PREVENT AIDS ARE ON THE RISE
New York Times December 2, 2013
Circumcision for AIDS prevention is increasing rapidly in eastern and southern Africa, according to newly released figures.
Unaids, the United Nations agency fighting the disease, said about 3.2 million African men had been voluntarily circumcised since word began spreading in 2007 of studies showing that it lowered the risk of infection by about 60 percent. The goal is to circumcise more than 20 million by 2015.
Many news reports have quoted women saying they believe that circumcised men are "cleaner" or "safer." Health ministry campaigns encourage that: A poster in Uganda, for example, shows an attractive woman gazing downward in shock, saying, "You mean you're not circumcised?"
American taxpayers have paid for about two million procedures through the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. A recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked at 1,600 sites in nine African countries where 536,000 circumcisions were done in 2012. Complications arose in fewer than 1 percent of cases.
All of those circumcisions were done surgically, although Rwanda announced plans last week to circumcise 700,000 men using PrePex, a new rapid, bloodless and anesthesia-free method that uses an elastic band.
The circumcision efforts have also led millions of men to have H.I.V. tests, offered before the procedure.
Circumcision is currently recommended for uninfected heterosexual men in countries where more than 1 percent of the population has H.I.V. It does not protect gay men engaged in receptive anal sex, believed to cause most infections in the United States.
Some infected men who requested circumcisions were given them, a C.D.C. official said. While it did not prevent them from passing on H.I.V., it did protect against other diseases, including HPV, which can cause cervical cancer in women.

Cause god knows eastern Africa is a model society for the rest of the planet to emulate.

What on earth is that snide comment meant to mean? What don't you like about East Africa, that is black, or poor, or has high rates of disease or what? Have you ever been there? I have, I worked on an irrigation project in Tanzania in the 1970s and got to know the people and culture. AIDS was already present then but it wasn't recognized as such, it was called "slim disease". Perhaps if you saw the horrifying effects of this disease on a decent, friendly, hard working people you would not be so contemptous of their attempts to control it. Shame on you Jack.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/u-s-circumcision-rates-are-declining/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0



It says that 58% boys are circumcised today and in 1979, the rate was 64.5%. This implies that circumcised baby boys were not an overwhelming majority in the USA since the 70's. In the 60's the rate was a staggering 95%.

[i***@gmail.com]

"It says that 58% boys are circumcised today and in 1979, the rate was 64.5%. This implies that circumcised baby boys were not an overwhelming majority in the USA since the 70's. In the 60's the rate was a staggering 95%."

You might be interested to learn more about the history of circumcision in the U.S. Here are some relevant resources:

*** http://circumcisiondecisionmaker.com/circumcision-facts/history/
*** A Short History of Circumcision in North America: In the Physicians' Own Words
http://www.noharmm.org/docswords.htm
*** American Secret: One Nation under Knife
http://americansecret-themovie.com/

[i***@gmail.com]

CIRCUMCISIONS TO HELP PREVENT AIDS ARE ON THE RISE... Circumcision for AIDS prevention is increasing rapidly in eastern and southern Africa, according to newly released figures.

Only condoms, education, and availability of regular testing prevent STIs, including HIV; not cutting. The RCTs these programs are based on had numerous flaws. Circumcision is extremely profitable! Follow the money and the bias...

The studies that tout 60% reduction in HIV transmission have an absolute reduction of 1.3% - statistically insignificant. These explain this bogus "science":
*** When bad science kills, or how to spread AIDS
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/05/when-bad-science-kills-or-how-to-spread-aids/
*** The Use of Male Circumcision to Prevent HIV Infection
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html

[a***@gmail.com]

Post by MOOSE

Post by windinghighway
And now there is a new and even more reliable estimate, based on the best and most up to date information from the individual countries of the world. This estimate puts the circumcised male population of the world at 37 percent -- with a caution that this, too, is probably an underestimate. Thats over 1.3 billion men enjoying the many benefits of circumcision! Here is the reference, which shows the data for each country: http://www.circs.org/index.php/Reviews/Rates/Global

It's so inconvenient to circumcise billions of boys one at a time. Even tho that is what the public wants. Wouldn't it be better to do some genetic engineering so the species would be born without foreskins? That would have all the advantages of circumcision without the risk of pain etc. Just a thought.

Then there would not money to be made from cutting it or selling it to make consumer cosmetics and hair implants.

[Lancelot3000]

Post by MOOSE

Post by windinghighway
And now there is a new and even more reliable estimate, based on the best and most up to date information from the individual countries of the world. This estimate puts the circumcised male population of the world at 37 percent -- with a caution that this, too, is probably an underestimate. Thats over 1.3 billion men enjoying the many benefits of circumcision! Here is the reference, which shows the data for each country: http://www.circs.org/index.php/Reviews/Rates/Global

It's so inconvenient to circumcise billions of boys one at a time. Even tho that is what the public wants. Wouldn't it be better to do some genetic engineering so the species would be born without foreskins? That would have all the advantages of circumcision without the risk of pain etc. Just a thought.

Then there would not money to be made from cutting it or selling it to make consumer cosmetics and >hair implants.

Yes, and no money to be made from treating all the diseases spread by foreskins. That's hundreds of billions of pounds/euros/dollars that doctors and hospitals would lose if there were no more foreskins.

[i***@gmail.com]

Post by Lancelot3000
Yes, and no money to be made from treating all the diseases spread by foreskins. That's hundreds of billions of pounds/euros/dollars that doctors and hospitals would lose if there were no more foreskins.

The majority of the world's men are intact (with foreskin) and they're not dropping like flies for "all the diseases spread by foreskins." Females also have foreskin (aka prepuce/clitoral hood). Females have higher incidence of urinary tract infections, bacterial and yeast infections, sexually transmitted infections, and cancer (breast), yet no one suggests cutting as a cure. Circumcision is a $2+ billion industry annually in the U.S. Medical professionals are not trained in normal male sexual physiology and development. Doctors are often misinformed and biased, especially if they profit. Misinformation and premature forced retraction cause problems, not foreskin.

[i***@gmail.com]

"It's so inconvenient to circumcise billions of boys one at a time. Even tho that is what the public wants. Wouldn't it be better to do some genetic engineering so the species would be born without foreskins? That would have all the advantages of circumcision without the risk of pain etc. Just a thought."

Since we all continue to be born with prepuce (male=foreskin; female=clitoral hood), it would stand to reason that we are supposed to have it. Evolution/nature/god surely would've gotten it right by now. To be born without foreskin is actually a birth defect called aposthia. Here are some great introductions to the value and functions of foreskin:

*** How Foreskin Works (many functions explained and a brief video animation)
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=76c_1314310545
*** Global Survey of Circumcision Harm (including how an intact penis looks and functions)
http://circumcisionharm.org/gallery.htm
*** Intact or Circumcised: A Significant Difference in the Adult Penis
http://www.drmomma.org/2011/08/intact-or-circumcised-significant.html
*** Circumcision - Penis Sensitivity Test by Morris L. Sorrells, M.D.
http://youtu.be/PDh63jVkNVg
*** Sex as Nature Intended It
http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com/
*** The National Organization of Restoring Men
http://www.norm.org/

[Uckister777]

Post by i***@gmail.com

"It's so inconvenient to circumcise billions of boys one at a time. Even tho that is what the public wants. Wouldn't it be better to do some genetic engineering so the species would be born without foreskins? That would have all the advantages of circumcision without the risk of pain etc. Just a thought."

Since we all continue to be born with prepuce (male=foreskin; female=clitoral hood), it would stand to reason that we are supposed to have it. Evolution/nature/god surely would've gotten it right by now.

LOL! Do you really think that all the species on earth have reached their final form and evolution has come to an end in our own time?

Evolution is a continuous process of constant modification and if you came back in a few million years most current species would have disappeared or would have evolved further, sometimes into new species you wouldn't even recognize.

Human cultural evolution is moving much faster than biological evolution. We no longer have a use for foreskins now that we wear clothes. it will take a very long time for foreskins to disappear though. It's like fish that get trapped for eons in caves that have no light. They have no use for their eyes and gradually the eyes disappear until the fish are blind. If we are still around a couple of million years from now, we surely won't have foreskins because we don't need them to survive. We will probably be changed in some other ways too.

[i***@gmail.com]

"foreskin fanatics" - More and more people are waking up to the horror of forced genital cutting on children. The more you know about it, the worse it is. Here's the truth: you were born with foreskin, too. We all are! It's called prepuce (male=foreskin; female=clitoral hood).

"very reliable source, the World Health Organization" - Have you ever considered that this organization has its own biases? According to the WHO, "Female genital mutilation (FGM) includes procedures that intentionally alter or cause injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons... FGM is a violation of the human rights of girls and women." The same exact thing can be said about MGM (male genital mutilation), which is typically more destructive to healthy, functional, erogenous tissue, yet you won't hear that from WHO. Why? Profit and denial. Who wants to admit that bad news to so many men? Why dry up the cash cow, if the money's still flowing?

"Thats over 1.3 billion men enjoying the many benefits of circumcision!" - You've been duped by bogus science. How has nature/god/evolution made a mistake after all this time? We're all born with prepuce because we're meant to have it. Countless men among these supposed 1.3 billion are angry about what was taken from them without their consent, leaving a scar where the most sensitive part of their body was and forever changing their sexual function. The penis is designed to glide in and out of its own sheath and have room for expansion. It's not meant to be like a broomstick with taught skin. See both: http://circumcisionharm.org/gallery.htm and
*** How Foreskin Works (many functions explained and a brief video animation)
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=76c_1314310545

"not interested in facts -- only in propaganda" - We're interested in human rights and protecting children from the harm of forced, elective surgery on healthy tissue that they cannot consent to nor comprehend. Once again, we are ALL born with foreskin (prepuce) - that's a fact. It's unfortunate that the way we are born needs defending. For instance, would you like to live without your eyelids? I'm certain no one could convince you to cut them off. Yet you believe your penis is enhanced by missing 15 sq. inches of skin laden with fine touch nerve endings, smooth muscle, blood vessels, immune cells, estrogen receptors, natural lubrication, etc.

"continue to deny that there is any link between foreskins and HIV" - If you think you're safe to have casual sex without condoms because you're cut, you're severely mistaken! Condoms and education prevent STIs, including HIV, not cutting. Besides, babies don't have sex. If a grown man wants to have this significant part of his penis cut off, so be it. See these resources:
The studies that tout 60% reduction in HIV transmission from circumcision are extremely flawed. These explain why:
*** When bad science kills, or how to spread AIDS
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/05/when-bad-science-kills-or-how-to-spread-aids/
*** The Use of Male Circumcision to Prevent HIV Infection
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html

[i***@gmail.com]

Post by i***@gmail.com
"foreskin fanatics" -

More and more people are waking up to the horror of forced genital cutting on children. The more you know about it, the worse it is. Here's the truth: you were born with foreskin, too. We all are! It's called prepuce (male=foreskin; female=clitoral hood).

Post by i***@gmail.com
"very reliable source, the World Health Organization" -

Have you ever considered that this organization has its own biases? According to the WHO, "Female genital mutilation (FGM) includes procedures that intentionally alter or cause injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons... FGM is a violation of the human rights of girls and women." The same exact thing can be said about MGM (male genital mutilation), which is typically more destructive to healthy, functional, erogenous tissue, yet you won't hear that from WHO. Why? Profit and denial. Who wants to admit that bad news to so many men? Why dry up the cash cow, if the money's still flowing?

Post by i***@gmail.com
"Thats over 1.3 billion men enjoying the many benefits of circumcision!" - You've been duped by bogus science. How has nature/god/evolution made a mistake after all this time? We're all born with prepuce because we're meant to have it. Countless men among these supposed 1.3 billion are angry about what was taken from them without their consent, leaving a scar where the most sensitive part of their body was and forever changing their sexual function. The penis is designed to glide in and out of its own sheath and have room for expansion. It's not meant to be like a broomstick with taught skin. See both: http://circumcisionharm.org/gallery.htm and

*** How Foreskin Works (many functions explained and a brief video animation)
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=76c_1314310545

Post by i***@gmail.com
"not interested in facts -- only in propaganda" -

We're interested in human rights and protecting children from the harm of forced, elective surgery on healthy tissue that they cannot consent to nor comprehend. Once again, we are ALL born with foreskin (prepuce) - that's a fact. It's unfortunate that the way we are born needs defending. For instance, would you like to live without your eyelids? I'm certain no one could convince you to cut them off. Yet you believe your penis is enhanced by missing 15 sq. inches of skin laden with fine touch nerve endings, smooth muscle, blood vessels, immune cells, estrogen receptors, natural lubrication, etc.

Post by i***@gmail.com
"continue to deny that there is any link between foreskins and HIV" -

If you think you're safe to have casual sex without condoms because you're cut, you're severely mistaken! Condoms and education prevent STIs, including HIV, not cutting. Besides, babies don't have sex. If a grown man wants to have this significant part of his penis cut off, so be it. See these resources:
The studies that tout 60% reduction in HIV transmission from circumcision are extremely flawed. These explain why:
*** When bad science kills, or how to spread AIDS
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/05/when-bad-science-kills-or-how-to-spread-aids/
*** The Use of Male Circumcision to Prevent HIV Infection
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html

[Uckister777]

Post by i***@gmail.com
Here's the truth: you were born with foreskin, too. We all are!

No shit?

Post by i***@gmail.com

Post by i***@gmail.com
"very reliable source, the World Health Organization" -

Have you ever considered that this organization has its own biases?

I would trust the World Health Organization before I would trust you. It draws scientists from all over the world and it is humanity's main bastion against infectious disease especially epidemics. You are just an uninformed fanatic.

Post by i***@gmail.com
MGM (male genital mutilation), which is typically more destructive to healthy, functional, erogenous tissue, yet you won't hear that from WHO. Why? Profit and denial. Who wants to admit that bad news to so many men? Why dry up the cash cow, if the money's still flowing?

Oh, now the WHO is part of some conspiracy to make money off circumcision? I suppose you think the tiny number of doctors who get paid to do circumcisions is able to dictate policies to this world body and all the scientists it employs and all the research it relies on? The idea is preposterous, and anyway, cutting off foreskins REDUCES the incidence of numerous diseases -- so actually, most doctors LOSE money because of circumcisions. See how fanaticism leads you to into nonsense?

Post by i***@gmail.com

Post by i***@gmail.com
"Thats over 1.3 billion men enjoying the many benefits of circumcision!" - You've been duped by bogus science.

I suppose you have to say it's bogus, because all the reputable science is against you.

Post by i***@gmail.com
How has nature/god/evolution made a mistake after all this time? We're all born with prepuce because we're meant to have it.

God realized he had goofed, didn't he, when he told his chosen people to cut it off? He sure didn't want them stuck with a foreskin. As for nature/evolution, the foreskin served a purpose when we were running around naked. It protected the sensitive head of the penis from cuts and insect bites etc. But now we we wear clothes and we don't need it any more. In fact now its a big disadvantage because it spreads diseases. Also these days we don't just use sex for quick breeding. People like oral sex and who wants to suck on a foreskin? Face the truth, they usually stink even when the owner tries to clean them.

Post by i***@gmail.com
Countless men among these supposed 1.3 billion are angry about what was taken from them without their consent,

"Countless" men? You mean "uncounted" men. In fact you mean you don't have any numbers at all to back up your speculation. If countless men didn't like their circumcision the practice would soon die out because they wouldn't get their sons circumcised. Obviously countless men love being circumcised.

Post by i***@gmail.com
leaving a scar where the most sensitive part of their body was and forever changing their sexual function.

Complete rubbish. Every reputable study has shown no difference in sexual satisfaction in cut and uncut men. The only studies that show anything different are the fake studies that a little fanatical group conducts, using their own members as subjects to get the results they want.
For instance, would you like to live without your eyelids? I'm certain no one could convince you to cut them off.
Of course not. Eyelids have an essential function so nobody would cut them off. Foreskins are nasty and have no useful function so nearly 40 percent of the world cuts them off. If circumcision was easier and didn't involve painful surgery I bet over 90 percent of men would get rid of them in a heartbeat.

Post by i***@gmail.com

Post by i***@gmail.com
"continue to deny that there is any link between foreskins and HIV" -

If you think you're safe to have casual sex without condoms because you're cut, you're severely mistaken! Condoms and education prevent STIs, including HIV, not cutting.

Condoms, education, AND circumcision can prevent HIV, It is well established that education often doesn't work and condoms often are not used.

Post by i***@gmail.com
*** When bad science kills, or how to spread AIDS
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/05/when-bad-science-kills-or-how-to-spread-aids/
*** The Use of Male Circumcision to Prevent HIV Infection
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html

Those are not "studies", they are silly propaganda by pro foreskin groups, not scientists. (The "doctors opposing circumcision" aren't even doctors and they know jack shit about medicine.) The real studies, which you obviously have never read, are the 30 +studies in individual countries and the three standard experiments with uncut and uncut men that have proved beyond any doubt that foreskins help spread HIV.

It's hard to believe that there are still a few people who resist this fact -- just because of their love of foreskins. It's really irresponsible to spread this misinformation about a lethal disease.

[j***@gmail.com]

Uckister777

Post by i***@gmail.com
Here's the truth: you were born with foreskin, too. We all are!

No shit?

Post by i***@gmail.com

Post by i***@gmail.com
"very reliable source, the World Health Organization" -

Have you ever considered that this organization has its own biases?

I would trust the World Health Organization before I would trust you. It draws scientists from all over the world and it is humanity's main bastion against infectious disease especially epidemics. You are just an uninformed fanatic.

Post by i***@gmail.com
MGM (male genital mutilation), which is typically more destructive to healthy, functional, erogenous tissue, yet you won't hear that from WHO. Why? Profit and denial. Who wants to admit that bad news to so many men? Why dry up the cash cow, if the money's still flowing?

Oh, now the WHO is part of some conspiracy to make money off circumcision? I suppose you think the tiny number of doctors who get paid to do circumcisions is able to dictate policies to this world body and all the scientists it employs and all the research it relies on? The idea is preposterous, and anyway, cutting off foreskins REDUCES the incidence of numerous diseases -- so actually, most doctors LOSE money because of circumcisions. See how fanaticism leads you to into nonsense?

Post by i***@gmail.com

Post by i***@gmail.com
"Thats over 1.3 billion men enjoying the many benefits of circumcision!" - You've been duped by bogus science.

I suppose you have to say it's bogus, because all the reputable science is against you.

Post by i***@gmail.com
How has nature/god/evolution made a mistake after all this time? We're all born with prepuce because we're meant to have it.

God realized he had goofed, didn't he, when he told his chosen people to cut it off? He sure didn't want them stuck with a foreskin. As for nature/evolution, the foreskin served a purpose when we were running around naked. It protected the sensitive head of the penis from cuts and insect bites etc. But now we we wear clothes and we don't need it any more. In fact now its a big disadvantage because it spreads diseases. Also these days we don't just use sex for quick breeding. People like oral sex and who wants to suck on a foreskin? Face the truth, they usually stink even when the owner tries to clean them.

Post by i***@gmail.com
Countless men among these supposed 1.3 billion are angry about what was taken from them without their consent,

"Countless" men? You mean "uncounted" men. In fact you mean you don't have any numbers at all to back up your speculation. If countless men didn't like their circumcision the practice would soon die out because they wouldn't get their sons circumcised. Obviously countless men love being circumcised.

Post by i***@gmail.com
leaving a scar where the most sensitive part of their body was and forever changing their sexual function.

Complete rubbish. Every reputable study has shown no difference in sexual satisfaction in cut and uncut men.
.................

Self-reporting is notoriously unreliable. And self-reporting is the only way to measure "sexual satisfaction." Though brain imaging may provide direct insight.

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by j***@gmail.com
Uckister777

Post by i***@gmail.com
Here's the truth: you were born with foreskin, too. We all are!

No shit?

Post by i***@gmail.com

Post by i***@gmail.com
"very reliable source, the World Health Organization" -

Have you ever considered that this organization has its own biases?

I would trust the World Health Organization before I would trust you. It draws scientists from all over the world and it is humanity's main bastion against infectious disease especially epidemics. You are just an uninformed fanatic.

Post by i***@gmail.com
MGM (male genital mutilation), which is typically more destructive to healthy, functional, erogenous tissue, yet you won't hear that from WHO. Why? Profit and denial. Who wants to admit that bad news to so many men? Why dry up the cash cow, if the money's still flowing?

Oh, now the WHO is part of some conspiracy to make money off circumcision? I suppose you think the tiny number of doctors who get paid to do circumcisions is able to dictate policies to this world body and all the scientists it employs and all the research it relies on? The idea is preposterous, and anyway, cutting off foreskins REDUCES the incidence of numerous diseases -- so actually, most doctors LOSE money because of circumcisions. See how fanaticism leads you to into nonsense?

Post by i***@gmail.com

Post by i***@gmail.com
"Thats over 1.3 billion men enjoying the many benefits of circumcision!" - You've been duped by bogus science.

I suppose you have to say it's bogus, because all the reputable science is against you.

Post by i***@gmail.com
How has nature/god/evolution made a mistake after all this time? We're all born with prepuce because we're meant to have it.

God realized he had goofed, didn't he, when he told his chosen people to cut it off? He sure didn't want them stuck with a foreskin. As for nature/evolution, the foreskin served a purpose when we were running around naked. It protected the sensitive head of the penis from cuts and insect bites etc. But now we we wear clothes and we don't need it any more. In fact now its a big disadvantage because it spreads diseases. Also these days we don't just use sex for quick breeding. People like oral sex and who wants to suck on a foreskin? Face the truth, they usually stink even when the owner tries to clean them.

Post by i***@gmail.com
Countless men among these supposed 1.3 billion are angry about what was taken from them without their consent,

"Countless" men? You mean "uncounted" men. In fact you mean you don't have any numbers at all to back up your speculation. If countless men didn't like their circumcision the practice would soon die out because they wouldn't get their sons circumcised. Obviously countless men love being circumcised.

Post by i***@gmail.com
leaving a scar where the most sensitive part of their body was and forever changing their sexual function.

Complete rubbish. Every reputable study has shown no difference in sexual satisfaction in cut and uncut men.
.................
Self-reporting is notoriously unreliable. And self-reporting is the only way to measure "sexual satisfaction." Though brain imaging may provide direct insight.

There is a total lack of intellectualism here, I can't begin to comprehend how these people even managed to learn human language.

''Satisfaction' and sensitivity' are not the same and should not be conflated. In addition, the same arguments keep getting repeated. 'Lots of men do it, therefore there must be something good about it', completely ignoring cultural pressure, traditions, ignorance, myths and control over other people's sexuality. The exact same logic can be used to justify female circumcision, but funnily enough none of these pro-circers are rushing to defend that.

I've also seen this before:

'God realized he had goofed, didn't he, when he told his chosen people to cut it off? He sure didn't want them stuck with a foreskin. As for nature/evolution, the foreskin served a purpose when we were running around naked. It protected the sensitive head of the penis from cuts and insect bites etc. But now we we wear clothes and we don't need it any more. In fact now its a big disadvantage because it spreads diseases. Also these days we don't just use sex for quick breeding. People like oral sex and who wants to suck on a foreskin? Face the truth, they usually stink even when the owner tries to clean them.'

This is abject horseshit:
-Clothes do not protect the penis from keratinisation
-foreskin does not 'spread disease, I've already debunked this several times in these threads. On the other hand, a significant majority of cervical cancer cases begin in the labia; use your same logic to come to a conclusion on this.
-foreskin stimulation is an important part of oral sex. Guys love it. It also plays an important role in sex.

For example.

[u***@gmail.com]

Post by m***@gmail.com
There is a total lack of intellectualism here, I can't begin to comprehend how these people even managed to learn human language.

ROFLMAO!!!!! Look who's talking! LOL!!!

Post by m***@gmail.com
-foreskin does not 'spread disease, I've already debunked this several times in these threads. On the other hand, a significant majority of cervical cancer cases begin in the labia.

"A significant majority of cervical cancer cases begin in the labia"?? Holy shit, what foreskin-lover website did you copy and paste THAT one from?

Nope. Cervical cancer by definition is a cancer that starts in -- wait for it -- the cervix!! If you had half a wit you could have checked this first before spewing garbage from foreskin-lover websites as fact... but then you never do. Here, let me help you with a quote from the US Centers for Disease Control:


"When cancer starts in the cervix, it is called cervical cancer."

http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/cervical/

Oh wait, I forgot. You don't trust the CDC -- you think they are incompetents because the are totally convinced that foreskins spread HIV.

OK here's an unimpeachable source, the World Health Organization... Oh wait, you think "the WHO is an idiot" because they are also totally convinced that foreskins spread HIV.

You sure are picky Michael but here are some more sources for you:

The American cancer society says:

"Cervical cancer starts in the cells lining the cervix."

(http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cervicalcancer/detailedguide/cervical-cancer-what-is-cervical-cancer)

Web MD says:

"Cervical cancer occurs when abnormal cells on the cervix grow out of control."

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/cervical-cancer/cervical-cancer-topic-overview


The National Cancer Institute says:

"The disease begins on the surface of the cervix."

http://www.cancer.gov/publications/patient-education/cervix.pdf


The National Cervical Cancer Coalition says:

Cervical cancer is a cancer that starts in the cervix."

http://www.nccc-online.org/hpvcervical-cancer/cervical-cancer-overview/


The Institute of Human Virology says:

"Ninety percent of cervical cancers arise from the flattened or "squamous" cells covering the cervix. Most of the remaining 10% arise from the glandular, mucus-secreting cells of the cervical canal leading into the uterus."

Honestly Michael your ignorance and credulity continue to amaze me.

As for your assertion that "foreskin does not spread disease, I've already debunked this several times".. No, you have not. But Let me tell you what you have done.

What you have actually done is reveal that you uncritically copy and paste drivel from amateurish foreskin-lover websites; that you have never the read original research papers that you dismiss; that you don't understand even the basics of scientific research; that you can't tell good evidence from bad; that you have no understanding of statistics; that you can't even interpret a simple table; and that you suffer from defective reasoning processes.

We who toil away in science always have to contend with ignorant amateurs who feel entitled to a full hearing and a time-consuming response when they wave some "evidence" at us to "prove" that --

The moon landings didn't happen.
Evolution is false.
Vaccines cause autism.
The earth is 6000 years old
Space aliens built Stonehenge
HIV doesn't cause AIDS
Global warming is a myth
Foreskins don't spread STDs
The flu vaccine is the cause of flu

and so on.

Sorry Michael, but like it or not, some things are just settled science. The reason people here are ignoring your crap about HIV and circ is that they just can't be bothered to reply to the same tired old misinformation yet again. I'm very busy right now with research and classes starting soon but if I can find time in the next week or so I will make a special exception and reply to all your points, OK?

In the meanwhile, why are you wasting your presumed insights on this little forum? Right now several major organizations are encouraging men in 15 cooperating countries to get their foreskins snipped off to reduce the spread of AIDS. So far about 10 million lucky volunteers have been circumcised, apparently to their great satisfaction, but a further 10 million are still awaiting the kindly cut. Don't you want to save those precious foreskins by advising the organizations that you've proved their their science is wrong?

Look, I will make it easy for you to alert them. Send your "debunking"
proofs to each of these organizations and demand that they stop the campaign immediately.

WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION: http://www.who.int/about/contact_form/en/

US CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/dcs/ContactUs/Form

UNITED NATIONS JOINT PROGRAMME ON AIDS: http://www.unaids.org/en/aboutunaids/contactunaids

US PRESIDENT'S EMERGENCY PLAN FOR AIDS RELIEF: http://www.pepfar.gov/about/contact/index.htm

BILL AND MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/

THE CLINTON FOUNDATION: https://www.clintonfoundation.org/

Please share their responses with us. I'm sure everyone here will be interested.

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by u***@gmail.com

Post by m***@gmail.com
There is a total lack of intellectualism here, I can't begin to comprehend how these people even managed to learn human language.

ROFLMAO!!!!! Look who's talking! LOL!!!

Post by m***@gmail.com
-foreskin does not 'spread disease, I've already debunked this several times in these threads. On the other hand, a significant majority of cervical cancer cases begin in the labia.

"A significant majority of cervical cancer cases begin in the labia"?? Holy shit, what foreskin-lover website did you copy and paste THAT one from?
"When cancer starts in the cervix, it is called cervical cancer."
http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/cervical/
Oh wait, I forgot. You don't trust the CDC -- you think they are incompetents because the are totally convinced that foreskins spread HIV.
OK here's an unimpeachable source, the World Health Organization... Oh wait, you think "the WHO is an idiot" because they are also totally convinced that foreskins spread HIV.
"Cervical cancer starts in the cells lining the cervix."
(http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cervicalcancer/detailedguide/cervical-cancer-what-is-cervical-cancer)
"Cervical cancer occurs when abnormal cells on the cervix grow out of control."
http://www.webmd.com/cancer/cervical-cancer/cervical-cancer-topic-overview
"The disease begins on the surface of the cervix."
http://www.cancer.gov/publications/patient-education/cervix.pdf
Cervical cancer is a cancer that starts in the cervix."
http://www.nccc-online.org/hpvcervical-cancer/cervical-cancer-overview/
"Ninety percent of cervical cancers arise from the flattened or "squamous" cells covering the cervix. Most of the remaining 10% arise from the glandular, mucus-secreting cells of the cervical canal leading into the uterus."
Honestly Michael your ignorance and credulity continue to amaze me.
As for your assertion that "foreskin does not spread disease, I've already debunked this several times".. No, you have not. But Let me tell you what you have done.
What you have actually done is reveal that you uncritically copy and paste drivel from amateurish foreskin-lover websites;

mhmm. Alright, go on then; what have I copied and pasted?


that you have never the read original research papers that you dismiss; that you don't understand even the basics of scientific research; that you can't tell good evidence from bad; that you have no understanding of statistics;

You mean the statistics that say that in the (very bad) South African study 10 years ago, 1.19% of men who underwent circumcision had HIV at the end of the study whereas 2.49% of intact men had HIV? Yeah, not impressive, is it? I've gone through this a lot more in other posts I've made in response to people citing the 'circumcision reduces your chances of contracting HIV by 60%' meme. Just look for it, it's in one of the top four of these threads.

To give you an idea, the researchers did not take sexual habits or drug use into account, nor cultural differences in the regions the studies took place. The circumcised men were also given sex ed lessons and told to refrain from sex for six weeks whereas the intact men were left to run free.

that you can't even interpret a simple table; and that you suffer from defective reasoning processes.

Post by u***@gmail.com
Sorry Michael, but like it or not, some things are just settled science.

Is that why the highly unscientific studies have shown nothing conclusive?


but a further 10 million are still awaiting the kindly cut. Don't you want to save those precious foreskins

Here's the playground peurility again.

by advising the organizations that you've proved their their science is wrong?

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by u***@gmail.com

Post by m***@gmail.com
There is a total lack of intellectualism here, I can't begin to comprehend how these people even managed to learn human language.

ROFLMAO!!!!! Look who's talking! LOL!!!

Post by m***@gmail.com
-foreskin does not 'spread disease, I've already debunked this several times in these threads. On the other hand, a significant majority of cervical cancer cases begin in the labia.

"A significant majority of cervical cancer cases begin in the labia"?? Holy shit, what foreskin-lover website did you copy and paste THAT one from?
Nope. Cervical cancer by definition is a cancer that starts in -- wait for it -- the cervix!! If you had half a wit you could have checked this first before spewing garbage from foreskin-lover websites as fact...

This website has nothing to do with foreskin. Really, you're fond of your wicker men.
https://m.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/4lcc1x/islamic_female_circumcisionfacebook_community/d3n7o36

Please don't reply with just a 'that's a muslim site'. Try at least browsing the sources listed.

Post by u***@gmail.com
"When cancer starts in the cervix, it is called cervical cancer."

Yup, I meant vulval.


Authority is not infaliable. Nobody's infaliable, see above R.E. cervical cancer. Arguing from authority is really weak.

Post by u***@gmail.com
Honestly Michael your ignorance and credulity continue to amaze me.

I'm amazed that you took it seriously.


The arguments supporting FGM here are about as 'strong' as arguments supporting MGM on grounds of preventing the spread of HIV and HPV. HIV can survive in the labia according to some studies, and HPV can be transmitted through cunnilingus on an intact vagina. The point is that there are arguments to be made in support for FGM based in science, but how many people here supporting MGM would support FGM on the same grounds? I'm curious; so far everyone's avoided answering the question, possibly to avoid cognitive dissonance.

Vaginas are problematic, but rather than cutting them up to prevent them, we have sections of supermarkets dedicated to feminine hygiene. Why the double standard?

In regards to the WHO et al; good idea, it hadn't crossed my mind.

P.S. should I just copy and paste my refutation of the South African studies? I doubt anybody'll bother looking for it. Also, nobody's ever tried to refute my refutation.

[m***@gmail.com]

Here you go.

"You seem fixated on the role of foreskin in HIV transmission. I'm wondering what this is based on. Is it the studies that were done in Africa, the same ones that WHO bangs on about? If so, then I can reassure you that your concerns are unfounded.
I'm sure we've all heard the 60% figures, which I'll admit sound impressive when taken at face value. 'Circumcision can reduce the risk of HIV transmission by 60%? Wow!' Unfortunately, this is completely misleading. The study in question, that being the one in Kenya and Uganda (and South Africa, unless I've misremembered) was poor for many reasons. I'll list a few:
- the men in the study were not representative of the larger population. They were men from nearby who, due to the fact they chose to participate freely, were more concerned with sexual health that people generally are.
- the group of men who were circumcised were told to refrain from sex for six weeks to allow their penis to heal. In addition, they were also encouraged to use condoms and were given sex ed lessons. The men who were left intact received no condoms or sex ed and had no six-week restriction on sexual activity.
-the final results did not take personal differences into account; there was no information on individual hygiene or sexual practises, i.e. no information on whether participants were having regular sex with one or two people, or whether they were much more promiscuous than that, or even whether they visited sex workers. Who was encouraged by their church to be faithful to their wives? In other words, there was no context to the results.
- there was significant attrition, i.e. lots of people dropped out of the study. How many of the circumcised men contracted HIV and became disillusioned with the study?
- there is little correlation between circumcision and HIV rates in Africa. Tribes that don't practise MGM can have high or low rates of HIV, just like those that do practise it.

Among others.
Anyway, the final results showed that 2.49% of men left intact had contracted HIV by the end of the study, whereas 1.19% of the circumcised men had contracted it. So yes, there's a difference of around 55%, but it's not at all impressive when seen in this light. When all of the points I've made are taken into account, the effect of foreskin can be seen as, at best, negligible and likely non-existent.

Further points:
In developed countries, HIV is not a big problem anymore, as long as people know their status and receive proper medicine. Proper medication makes the viral load undetectable and as good as not there. It's actually far safer to have unprotected sex with a HIV+ person who knows their status and is medicated than it is to have unprotected sex with somebody who doesn't know whether they're + or -.

If MGM were to have any effect on HIV contraction, it would not protect a receiving partner.

IN addition, studies (that doubtlessly are as flawed as the one I've discussed above) also suggest that labia might play a role in HIV contraction. Funny how nobody's rushing to promote FGM because of them. People can also get HPV from intact vagina, and according to at least one study, around 50% of vulval cancer begins in the labia. It baffles me how people are so willing to defend and justify cutting up babies' penises, yet FGM was made illegal the day we found out about it.

[Uckister777]

Post by m***@gmail.com
Here you go.

Here we go indeed. Michael has posted this identical statement several times now under two different topics in alt.circ. Although practically everything in it is misinformation copied from amateurish foreskin lover websites, he is very proud of it. He seems to think it's his finest hour in this debate -- that he has hereby "torn apart" the scientific evidence for the protective effect of circumcision on HIV.

So let's take a look.

Post by m***@gmail.com
"You seem fixated on the role of foreskin in HIV transmission. I'm wondering what this is based on.

I'm sure you are wondering, as you have obviously not read a single original research report.

Post by m***@gmail.com
Is it the studies that were done in Africa,

Dozens of international studies have shown a link between foreskins and HIV.
[For a list see for example Wamai et al, J Law Med. 2012 Sep;20(1):93-123.]

Post by m***@gmail.com
the same ones that WHO bangs on about? If so, then I can reassure you that your concerns are unfounded.

Ah, the WHO, the world's leading epidemiological organization. The one that is humanity's guardian against epidemic disease. The one whose expertise eliminated smallpox and has almost eliminated polio. The one that stopped SARS and Ebola in their tracks. The one we rely on now to stop typhoid in Haiti and Yellow fever in Central Africa. The one that is coordinating the research and international response to Zika. That one.

The organization you have called "an idiot" because it recognizes and acts on the overwhelming scientific evidence about foreskins and HIV,

Read on, we will see who is an idiot.

Post by m***@gmail.com
I'm sure we've all heard the 60% figures, which I'll admit sound impressive when taken at face value. 'Circumcision can reduce the risk of HIV transmission by 60%? Wow!'

Yes it is impressive.
Here we go!

Post by m***@gmail.com
- the men in the study were not representative of the larger population.

Aha! Right here we have the crux of Michael's naive misunderstanding of the science. He doesn't know the difference between a SURVEY, which draws on a representative sample of the population at large, and an EXPERIMENT, which draws on volunteers who are then randomly divided into two groups, one of which is subjected to the experimental procedure while the other serves as the control for comparison.

If you THINK about it you can see how ludicrous the demand for a study "representative of the larger population" would be. Among the larger representative population would be:

-- men who couldn't be included because they were not sexually active (sick, dying, too old, etc);
-- men who couldn't be included because they were already circumcised.
-- men who couldn't be included because they were already HIV positive.
-- men who couldn't be included because they were not remotely interested in undergoing a surgical procedure just because some researchers call them up and ask them to join their project (whether its for circumcision or a hip replacement or a nose job or a hearing implant or artificial lenses or anything else).

So, by the time you have thrown out all the people you can't use who are "representative of the larger population" what do you have left? An UNREPRESENTATIVE sample of course -- DUH!!! What a stupid objection.

Post by m***@gmail.com
They were men from nearby

OF COURSE they were from nearby (in one case, a city, in the second, a suburban area, and in the third, a rural community). The experiments were conducted at local hospitals or clinics which the men were expected to attend regularly for counseling, free condoms, HIV testing etc. Why on earth would the clinics want all the inconvenience (travel time, cost, poor attendance) of having them from somewhere else??? What a stupid objection.

Post by m***@gmail.com
who, due to the fact that they chose to participate freely, were more concerned with sexual health that people generally are.

OF COURSE they were concerned with sexual health. Who do you expect to show up for a circumcision study -- men concerned with poor eyesight or rheumatism? If you run an experiment on a kidney or heart procedure, you expect and WANT people who are motivated about hearts or kidneys to show up don't you? What a stupid objection.

Post by m***@gmail.com
- the group of men who were circumcised were told to refrain from sex for six weeks to allow their penis to heal. In addition, they were also encouraged to use condoms and were given sex ed lessons.

OF COURSE they were. They had just had surgery and might have open wounds that would make them highly susceptible to HIV infection, thereby ruining the experiment! What a stupid objection.

Post by m***@gmail.com
The men who were left intact received no condoms or sex ed

False. Both groups were advised right from the start that they should practice safe sex, both were given the same sex counseling, and both got free condoms, right through the end of the experiment. Try reading the originals?

Post by m***@gmail.com
and had no six-week restriction on sexual activity.

Newsflash: when you run an experiment, the experimental group gets the variable (circumcision in this case) and the control group doesn't. The two groups can never be the same in that respect. In this case it means the control group had a potential, unavoidable, six week lead to get infected. If that had actually happened, it would show up in the regular HIV testing results, with the circumcised group showing the same infection rate six weeks later throughout the study. But that didn't happen so the six week lead obviously wasn't long enough to make a difference. Why bring it up then? Ignorance?

Post by m***@gmail.com
-the final results did not take personal differences into account; there was no information on individual hygiene or sexual practises, i.e. no information on whether participants were having regular sex with one or two people, or whether they were much more promiscuous than that, or even whether they visited sex workers. Who was encouraged by their church to be faithful to their wives? In other words, there was no context to the results.

Utter nonsense, and this where your scientific illiteracy really shows! These studies were RCTs. Let me explain. RCT stands for Randomized Controled Trial. It means the subjects are RANDOMLY divided into two groups so that whatever characteristics they have are RANDOMLY distributed between the two groups and so cancel each other out. There were approx 15000 subjects in these trials. Whatever their characteristics -- promiscuity, big dicks, religious belief etc -- it's practically a statistical certainty that half ended up in one group and half in the other. So the "personal differences" DON'T MATTER. DUH. What an ignorant, inane objection.

Now Michael before you write some tirade against RCTs, you should know that they are the experimental basis for just about every medical procedure or drug you use. If you use statins or blood pressure pills or viagra or heartburn meds or HIV antivirals or asthma meds -- they were ALL tested in RCTs just like these which "did not take personal differences into account". In each case researchers in hospitals or clinics got local volunteers, randomly divided them to even out their differences, and got the results you and the rest of us rely on in our daily lives.

Post by m***@gmail.com
- there was significant attrition, i.e. lots of people dropped out of the study.

No there wasn't significant attrition. You have no idea at all what "significant" attrition is, so let me tell you. In all RCTs some people drop out for various reasons (they get sick, get bored, move away, lose interest, etc). In an RCT like these an attrition rate of 5 percent would be meaningless, while an attrition rate of 20 percent might warrant investigation if some unusual reason was suspected. In these RCTS the attrition rate was below 10 percent (8 percent in the SA study that you focus on). That's not significant, in fact it's quite normal and can be ignored.

(By contrast, the RCTs for the HIV antivirals that you keep touting had much higher attrition rates, from 13 percent to over 40 percent... but I don't see complaining about THAT!)

Also, researchers anticipate attrition and so enroll more subjects than they need to compensate. You didn't know that, did you? What a stupid objection.

Post by m***@gmail.com
How many of the circumcised men contracted HIV and became disillusioned with the study?

This is a stunningly dishonest argument. One might as well ask, "how many of the uncircumcised men contracted HIV and became disillusioned with the study?" The number in both groups who dropped out was almost exactly the same. You are getting really desperate now! What a stupid objection.

Post by m***@gmail.com
- there is little correlation between circumcision and HIV rates in Africa.

Nonsense. Clear and consistent correlations have been demonstrated repeatedly and already pointed out to you as in this list from the US Centers for Disease Control:

"International Observational Studies

"Multiple cross-sectional, prospective, and ecologic
(population-level) studies have identified lack
of male circumcision as a risk factor for HIV
infection.

"A systematic review and meta-analysis that
focused on heterosexual transmission of HIV in
Africa was published in 2000 [6]. It included 19
cross-sectional studies, five case-control studies,
three cohort studies, and one partner study. A
substantial protective effect of male circumcision
on risk for HIV infection was noted, along
with a reduced risk for genital ulcer disease.
After adjusting for confounding factors in the
population-based studies, the relative risk for HIV
infection was 44% lower in circumcised men. The
strongest association was seen in high-risk men,
such as patients at sexually transmitted disease
(STD) clinics, for whom the adjusted relative risk
was 71% lower for circumcised men.

"A review that included stringent assessment of 10
potential confounding factors and was stratified
by study type or study population was published
in 2004 [7]. Most of the studies were from
Africa. Of the 35 observational studies included
in the review, the 16 in the general population had
inconsistent results. The one large prospective
cohort study in this group showed a significant
protective effect, with the odds of infection being
42% lower in circumcised men [8]. The remaining
nineteen studies were conducted in high-risk
populations. These found a consistent, substantial
protective effect, which increased with adjustment
for confounding. Four of these were cohort
studies: all demonstrated a protective effect, with
two being statistically significant .

"Ecologic studies

"Ecologic studies also indicate a strong association
between lack of male circumcision and HIV
infection at the population level. Although links
between circumcision, culture, religion, and risk
behavior may account for some of the differences
in HIV infection prevalence, the countries
in Africa and Asia with prevalence of male
circumcision of less than 20% have HIV-infection
prevalences several times higher than countries
in those regions where more than 80% of men are
circumcised [9].

"International Clinical Trials

Three randomized, controlled clinical trails have
been undertaken in Africa to determine whether
circumcision of adult males will reduce their risk
for HIV infection. The study conducted in South
Africa [10], was stopped in 2005 and those in
Kenya [11] and Uganda [12] were stopped in 2006
after their interim analyses found that medical
circumcision reduced male participants’ risk of
HIV infection.

"In these studies, men who had been randomly
assigned to the circumcision group had a 60%
(South Africa), 53% (Kenya), and 51% (Uganda)
lower incidence of HIV infection compared to men
assigned to the wait list group to be circumcised
at the end of the study. In all three studies, a few
men who had been assigned to be circumcised
did not undergo the procedure, and vice versa.
When the data were reanalyzed to account for
these deviations, men who had been circumcised
had a 76% (South Africa), 60% (Kenya), and
55% (Uganda) reduction in risk of HIV infection
compared to those who were not circumcised.

"References

"1 Fink AJ. A possible explanation for
heterosexual male infection with AIDS. N
Engl J Med. 1986 Oct 30;315(18):1167.
2 Alanis MC, Lucidi RS. Neonatal
circumcision: a review of the world’s oldest
and most controversial operation. Obstet
Gynecol Surv. 2004 May;59(5):379-95.
3 Patterson BK, Landay A, Siegel JN, Flener
Z, Pessis D, Chaviano A, et al. Susceptibility
to human immunodeficiency virus-1
infection of human foreskin and cervical
tissue grown in explant culture. Am J Pathol.
2002 Sep;161(3):867-73.
4 Szabo R, Short RV. How does male
circumcision protect against HIV infection?
BMJ. 2000 Jun 10;320(7249):1592-4.
5 Weiss HA, Thomas SL, Munabi SK, Hayes
RJ. Male circumcision and risk of syphilis,
chancroid, and genital herpes: A systematic
review and meta-analysis. Sex Transm Infect.
2006 Apr;82(2):101-9; discussion 10.
6 Weiss HA, Quigley MA, Hayes RJ. Male
circumcision and risk of HIV infection in
sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review
and meta-analysis. AIDS. 2000 Oct
20;14(15):2361-70.
7 Siegfried N, Muller M, Volmink J, Deeks J,
Egger M, Low N, et al. Male circumcision
for prevention of heterosexual acquisition of
HIV in men. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.
2003(3):CD003362.
8 Gray RH, Kiwanuka N, Quinn TC,
Sewankambo NK, Serwadda D, Mangen FW,
et al. Male circumcision and HIV acquisition
and transmission: cohort studies in Rakai,
Uganda. Rakai Project Team. AIDS. 2000
Oct 20;14(15):2371-81.
9 Halperin DT, Bailey RC. Male circumcision
and HIV infection: 10 years and counting.
Lancet. 1999 Nov 20;354(9192):1813-5.
10 Auvert B, Taljaard D, Lagarde E, SobngwiTambekou
J, Sitta R, Puren A. Randomized,
Controlled Intervention Trial of Male
Circumcision for Reduction of HIV Infection
Risk: The ANRS 1265 Trial. PLoS Med.
2005 Nov;2(11):e298.
11 Bailey RC, Moses S, Parker CB, et al. Male
circumcision for HIV prevention in young
men in Kisumu, Kenya: a randomized
controlled trial. Lancet 2007; 369:643-656.
12 Gray RH, Kigozi G, Serwadda D, et al. Male
circumcision for HIV prevention in men in
Rakai, Uganda: a randomized trial. Lancet
2007;369:657-666."

Also if you look at this 1996 article by Caldwell in Scientific American. 1996 Mar;274(3):62-3, 66-8. you will see a map of Africa showing the geographical distribution of HIV and lack of circumcision. THEY OVERLAP ALMOST PERFECTLY.

Jump forward to 2016 and look at this article with an additional 20 years of data: https://pophealthmetrics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12963-016-0073-5 You will find two maps, one showing distribution of HIV and one showing lack of circumcision. THEY OVERLAP ALMOST PERFECTLY.

Here is more information in tabular form:

CIRCUMCISION RATES IN AFRICAN COUNTRIES WITH LOWEST HIV RATES

COUNTRY........CIRC %............HIV RATE

Algeria..............98.0.............. 0.1
Benin................98.0...............1.1
Burkina Faso.....89.0...............1.0
Congo DR..........97.0...............1.0
Djibouti..............99.0...............1.3
Egypt................94.6...............0.1
Eritrea...............99.0.............. 0.7
Ethiopia.............92.0...............1.3
Gambia..............98.0...............1.3
Ghana...............96.0...............1.4
Guinea...............99.0 ..............1.7
Liberia...............94.0...............0.9
Libya.................96.6...............0.3
Mali...................99.0...............0.9
Mauritania..........99.1 ..............0.4
Morocco............99.0...............0.1
Niger.................99.0...............0.5
Senegal.............98.0...............0.5
Sierra Leone......94.0...............1.5
Somalia.............99.0...............0.5.
Tunisia..............99.5...............0.1



CIRCUMCISION RATES IN AFRICAN COUNTRIES WITH HIGHEST HIV RATES

COUNTRY........CIRC %...........HIV RATE

CAR................55.0................4.7
Lesotho............48.0 ..............23.1
Mozambique......60.0...............11.1
Tanzania...........69.0................5.1
Uganda.............25.0................7.0
Botswana..........14.0...............23.0
Malawi.............21.0...............10.8
Namibia............21.0...............13.3
South Africa......35.0...............17.9
Swaziland..........8.0...............26.5
Zambia........;...13.0...............12.7
Zimbabwe...;.....10.0...............14.7


I can see a correlation Michael. Are you SURE you can't?

In fact if you examine the sources below, you will find that:

ALL countries with very high rates of HIV -- over 6 percent -- have low circumcision rates -- below 35 percent.

ALL countries with high circumcision rates -- over 95 percent -- have very low rates of HIV -- below 2 percent.

[The sources are: http://www.photius.com/rankings/2015/population/hiv_aids_adult_prevalence_rate_2015_0.html; http://www.photius.com/rankings/circumcised_men_country_ranks.html; http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007/9789241596169_eng.pdf; circs.org estimate reproduced https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/alt.circumcision/H_mYGEYXYPs.
I can't be bothered to look up newer data for you but you can find a more recent estimate of circumcision rates at https://pophealthmetrics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12963-016-0073-5, although the numbers will hardly change. You might get a newer HIV rates at the UNAIDS website, which would no doubt show some decline in newly circumcising African countries.]

Post by m***@gmail.com
Anyway, the final results showed that 2.49% of men left intact had contracted HIV by the end of the study, whereas 1.19% of the circumcised men had contracted it. So yes, there's a difference of around 55%, but it's not at all impressive when seen in this light. When all of the points I've made are taken into account, the effect of foreskin can be seen as, at best, negligible and likely non-existent.

Right now the WHO is sponsoring circumcision campaigns in 15 African countries. Ten million men there have been circumcised as a result, and ten million more are likely to have the procedure. The WHO estimates that this campaign will save several million lives. The WHO gets financial and other support for this campaign from:

The World Bank
The US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief
The US Centers for Disease Control
The United Nations Joint Program on AIDS
The Clinton Foundation
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

It's possible I suppose that the WHO and all of these organizations don't know what they are doing, and that all their statisticians have got their sums wrong. But isn't it much more likely that you just don't know what you're talking about?

Now Michael, who is the idiot? The WHO, or you?

[j***@gmail.com]

Uckister777

Post by m***@gmail.com
Here you go.

Here we go indeed. Michael has posted this identical statement several times now under two different topics in alt.circ. Although practically everything in it is misinformation copied from amateurish foreskin lover websites, he is very proud of it. He seems to think it's his finest hour in this debate -- that he has hereby "torn apart" the scientific evidence for the protective effect of circumcision on HIV.

So let's take a look.

Post by m***@gmail.com
"You seem fixated on the role of foreskin in HIV transmission. I'm wondering what this is based on.

I'm sure you are wondering, as you have obviously not read a single original research report.

Post by m***@gmail.com
Is it the studies that were done in Africa,

Dozens of international studies have shown a link between foreskins and HIV.
[For a list see for example Wamai et al, J Law Med. 2012 Sep;20(1):93-123.]

Post by m***@gmail.com
the same ones that WHO bangs on about? If so, then I can reassure you that your concerns are unfounded.

Ah, the WHO, the world's leading epidemiological organization. The one that is humanity's guardian against epidemic disease. The one whose expertise eliminated smallpox and has almost eliminated polio. The one that stopped SARS and Ebola in their tracks. The one we rely on now to stop typhoid in Haiti and Yellow fever in Central Africa. The one that is coordinating the research and international response to Zika. That one.

The organization you have called "an idiot" because it recognizes and acts on the overwhelming scientific evidence about foreskins and HIV,

Read on, we will see who is an idiot.

Post by m***@gmail.com
I'm sure we've all heard the 60% figures, which I'll admit sound impressive when taken at face value. 'Circumcision can reduce the risk of HIV transmission by 60%? Wow!'

Yes it is impressive.
Here we go!

Post by m***@gmail.com
- the men in the study were not representative of the larger population.

Aha! Right here we have the crux of Michael's naive misunderstanding of the science. He doesn't know the difference between a SURVEY, which draws on a representative sample of the population at large, and an EXPERIMENT, which draws on volunteers who are then randomly divided into two groups, one of which is subjected to the experimental procedure while the other serves as the control for comparison.

If you THINK about it you can see how ludicrous the demand for a study "representative of the larger population" would be. Among the larger representative population would be:

-- men who couldn't be included because they were not sexually active (sick, dying, too old, etc);
-- men who couldn't be included because they were already circumcised.
-- men who couldn't be included because they were already HIV positive.
-- men who couldn't be included because they were not remotely interested in undergoing a surgical procedure just because some researchers call them up and ask them to join their project (whether its for circumcision or a hip replacement or a nose job or a hearing implant or artificial lenses or anything else).

So, by the time you have thrown out all the people you can't use who are "representative of the larger population" what do you have left? An UNREPRESENTATIVE sample of course -- DUH!!! What a stupid objection.

Post by m***@gmail.com
They were men from nearby

OF COURSE they were from nearby (in one case, a city, in the second, a suburban area, and in the third, a rural community). The experiments were conducted at local hospitals or clinics which the men were expected to attend regularly for counseling, free condoms, HIV testing etc. Why on earth would the clinics want all the inconvenience (travel time, cost, poor attendance) of having them from somewhere else??? What a stupid objection.

Post by m***@gmail.com
who, due to the fact that they chose to participate freely, were more concerned with sexual health that people generally are.

OF COURSE they were concerned with sexual health. Who do you expect to show up for a circumcision study -- men concerned with poor eyesight or rheumatism? If you run an experiment on a kidney or heart procedure, you expect and WANT people who are motivated about hearts or kidneys to show up don't you? What a stupid objection.
.............

Michael's point here is a good one - was the risk-taking behavior of men who volunteered for the study different from that of the control group (via self selection).

To eliminate this possibility, you would have to put all the volunteers into a pool and randomly assign participants to either the experimental or the control group.

What you cannot do is use the larger population as the control.

[Urban Kaletsky]

Post by windinghighway
http://www.circs.org/index.php/Reviews/Rates/Global

That link is broken but here are the data that it referred to:

The global prevalence of circumcision in all males is estimated using published data. It is estimated that of a total of 3492497084 males, 1306411547 are circumcised -- a global circumcision rate of 37.4%.

Methods

Recorded circumcision rates were extracted from published papers; these were entered by hand into a CSV file. Where more than one study provided rates, the mean was used. The results are shown in Table 2.

Population data were downloaded from CIA.gov[1]; as were data for the sex ratio[2]. These data were combined to produce estimates for the male population by country.

Data for the percentage of Jews by country were obtained from a publication by the Jewish Virtual Library[3], and were entered by hand into a CSV file.

Data for the percentage of Muslims by country were obtained from a Pew Forum report[4], and were entered by hand into a CSV file.

For each country that lacked an estimate for the percentage of circumcised males, this figure was estimated from the sum of the numbers of Jewish and Muslim males. If none of these figures were available, the country was excluded from further calculations. Excluded countries are shown in Table 3.

The number of circumcised males was estimated for each country, using the estimated male population and circumcision rate. The results are shown in Table 1.

The global circumcision rate may therefore be calculated as the sum of circumcised males in all included countries, divided by the sum of male populations.

All data processing was automated using a simple Python script.

Reliability

The true circumcision rate is unknown: it can only be estimated. Nevertheless, some estimates are more reliable than others. This is believed to be the most thorough analysis yet conducted, but it is not ideal.

Limited availability of studies providing reported circumcision rates has meant that the rate for many countries had to be estimated using the prevalence of religious faiths in that country. This is not completely accurate because i) while most Muslims and Jews circumcise, the number is less than 100%, and ii) a certain percentage (typically 5-10% in developed countries) of males are circumcised for medical reasons such as phimosis or balanitis.

Predicting circumcision rates based upon religion is therefore an approximation at best. It is instructive to examine the countries for which both predicted and reported circumcision rates are available. The following histogram shows that the reported circumcision rates generally exceed the religion-based predictions for these countries. This might suggest that the actual circumcision rate is greater than the figure predicted here.


The average non-religious circumcision rate was estimated from Table 2 by finding the best fit using a least-squares approach (weighted by male population). It was found to be 21.1% -- that is, 21.1% of males not already circumcised due to religious reasons are expected to be circumcised. If predicted rates were adjusted to reflect this the global circumcision rate is estimated to be 40.3%.

Results

Table 1: Circumcised males by country

Country Muslim % Jewish % Circumcised % Total males Total circ'd males Notes
Canada 2.0 1.2 43.6 16843423 7343732
Sao Tome and Principe 0.1 0.0 0.1 89753 90 d
Fiji 6.3 0.0 6.3 441563 27818 d
Guernsey 0.1 0.0 0.1 31700 32 d
Turkmenistan 93.1 0.1 93.1 2473512 2304076 d
Lithuania 0.1 0.1 0.2 1664887 3163 d
Cambodia 1.6 0.0 3.5 7200841 252029
Ethiopia 33.9 0.1 92.0 44744937 41165342
Aruba 0.2 0.0 0.2 50264 101 d
Swaziland 0.2 0.0 8.0 681769 54542
Wallis and Futuna 0.1 0.0 0.1 7775 8 d
Argentina 1.9 0.5 2.4 20566819 489490 d
Bolivia 0.1 0.1 0.2 5008237 7512 d
Cameroon 17.9 0.0 93.0 9904679 9211351
Burkina Faso 59.0 0.0 89.0 8333638 7416938
Ghana 15.9 0.0 96.0 12395537 11899716
Saudi Arabia 97.0 0.0 97.0 14089444 13666761 d
Cape Verde 1.0 0.0 1.0 250069 2501 d
Northern Mariana Islands 0.7 0.0 0.7 22190 155 d
Slovenia 2.4 0.1 4.5 974404 43848
Guatemala 0.1 0.1 0.2 6806969 10210 d
Bosnia and Herzegovina 40.0 0.1 40.0 2275887 911493 d
Kuwait 95.0 0.0 95.0 1573727 1495041 d
Holy See (Vatican City) 0.1 0.0 0.1 418 0 ad
Jordan 98.2 0.0 98.2 3317942 3258219 d
Spain 1.0 0.1 2.0 22900302 458006
Liberia 12.2 0.0 94.0 1893382 1779779
Netherlands 5.7 0.2 5.9 8338418 490299 d
Micronesia, Federated States of 0.1 0.0 0.1 53150 53 d
Jamaica 0.1 0.1 0.2 1419703 2130 d
Oman 87.7 0.0 87.7 1670130 1464704 d
Tanzania 30.2 0.0 69.0 21157418 14598618
Seychelles 1.1 0.0 1.1 45253 498 d
Gabon 9.5 0.0 94.5 784371 741231
Saint Pierre and Miquelon 0.2 0.0 0.2 2914 6 d
Monaco 0.4 0.0 0.4 14878 60 d
Samoa 0.1 0.0 0.1 99394 99 d
New Zealand 0.9 0.2 26.7 2134394 569883
Yemen 99.1 0.1 99.1 12245072 12140989 d
Jersey 0.1 0.0 0.1 46364 46 d
Pakistan 96.3 0.0 96.3 96838991 93255948 d
Albania 79.9 0.0 79.9 1526693 1219828 d
West Bank 98.0 6.6 100.0 1309459 1309459 d
Macau 0.1 0.0 0.1 274564 275 d
Congo, Republic of the 1.6 0.0 97.0 2111301 2047962
United Arab Emirates 76.2 0.0 76.2 3539707 2697257 d
Kosovo 89.6 0.0 89.6 939403 841705 d
India 13.4 0.1 10.7 617455163 65758975
Azerbaijan 99.2 0.1 99.3 4122437 4092755 d
Lesotho 0.1 0.0 48.0 947787 454938
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 1.5 0.0 1.5 52702 791 d
Kenya 7.0 0.1 83.0 20637634 17129236
Belarus 1.0 0.2 1.2 4455866 53025 d
Tajikistan 84.1 0.0 84.1 3794436 3191121 d
Greenland 0.1 0.0 0.1 30467 30 d
Turkey 98.0 0.1 98.0 39782801 39007036 d
Afghanistan 99.7 0.0 99.7 15281542 15235697 d
Bangladesh 89.6 0.0 99.0 76409636 75645540
Mauritania 99.1 0.0 99.1 1581306 1567074 d
Solomon Islands 0.1 0.0 0.1 288776 289 d
Turks and Caicos Islands 0.1 0.0 0.1 23167 23 d
Saint Lucia 0.1 0.0 0.1 78707 79 d
Gaza Strip 98.0 6.6 100.0 844824 844824 d
San Marino 0.1 0.0 0.1 15416 15 d
Mongolia 5.0 0.0 5.0 1566659 78333 d
France 6.0 0.8 14.0 31989673 4478554
Rwanda 1.8 0.0 10.0 5656644 565664
Slovakia 0.1 0.1 0.2 2653823 3981 d
Somalia 98.5 0.0 99.0 4962820 4913192
Peru 0.1 0.1 3.7 14697230 543798
Laos 0.1 0.0 0.1 3205892 3206 d
Nauru 0.1 0.0 0.1 4638 5 d
Norway 1.0 0.1 1.1 2322228 24383 d
Malawi 12.8 0.0 21.0 7899728 1658943
Cook Islands 0.1 0.0 0.1 5750 6 d
Benin 24.4 0.0 98.0 4662516 4569266
Western Sahara 99.4 0.0 99.4 251019 249513 d
Cuba 0.1 0.1 0.2 5515807 8274 d
Bahamas, The 0.1 0.1 0.2 153459 307 d
Montenegro 17.7 0.0 17.7 329241 58276 d
Saint Kitts and Nevis 0.1 0.0 0.1 25157 25 d
Togo 12.2 0.0 97.5 3334433 3251072
Virgin Islands 0.1 0.3 0.4 51947 187 d
China 1.6 0.1 11.4 687825775 78219547
Armenia 0.1 0.0 0.1 1397618 1398 d
Antigua and Barbuda 0.6 0.0 0.6 41629 250 d
Dominican Republic 0.1 0.1 5.0 5051895 252595
Ukraine 1.0 0.2 1.2 20737568 242630 d
Bahrain 81.2 0.0 81.2 672426 546010 d
Tonga 0.1 0.0 0.1 52692 53 d
Finland 0.5 0.1 7.1 2575959 182893
Libya 96.6 0.0 96.6 3379443 3264542 d
Indonesia 88.2 0.0 92.5 122806522 113596033
Central African Republic 8.9 0.0 55.0 2450013 1347507
United States 0.8 1.8 79.0 154231006 121842495
Sweden 2.0 0.2 2.2 4498461 97617 d
Vietnam 0.2 0.0 0.2 45047184 90094 d
British Virgin Islands 1.2 0.0 1.2 13001 156 d
Mali 92.5 0.0 99.0 7008437 6938353
Russia 11.7 0.2 11.9 63745356 7560199 d
Bulgaria 12.2 0.1 12.2 3399033 416382 d
Mauritius 16.6 0.0 16.6 641932 106561 d
Romania 0.3 0.1 0.3 10671448 37350 d
Angola 1.0 0.0 97.0 6735303 6533244
Chad 55.8 0.0 82.5 5155328 4253146
South Africa 1.5 0.1 35.0 24378890 8532612
Cyprus 22.7 0.0 22.7 571230 129669 d
Liechtenstein 4.8 0.0 4.8 17073 820 d
Qatar 77.5 0.0 77.5 564399 437409 d
Malaysia 60.4 0.0 60.4 14435768 8719204 d
Senegal 96.0 0.0 98.0 6290131 6164328
Mozambique 22.8 0.0 60.0 11358526 6815116
Uganda 12.1 0.0 25.0 17392225 4348056
Hungary 0.2 0.5 0.7 4752993 32796 d
Niger 98.6 0.0 99.0 8234443 8152099
Isle of Man 0.2 0.0 0.2 41464 83 d
Brazil 0.1 0.1 7.4 100687463 7450872
Guinea 84.4 0.0 99.0 5300505 5247500
Panama 0.7 0.2 0.9 1747362 15027 d
Guyana 7.2 0.0 7.2 372384 26812 d
Congo, Democratic Republic of the 1.4 0.1 97.0 35676250 34605963
Costa Rica 1.0 0.1 1.1 2299665 24376 d
Luxembourg 3.0 0.1 3.1 247819 7732 d
American Samoa 0.1 0.0 0.1 33954 34 d
Andorra 1.0 0.0 1.0 43847 438 d
Gibraltar 4.0 2.4 6.4 14550 931 d
Ireland 0.5 0.1 0.6 2323752 12781 d
Palau 0.1 0.0 0.1 11118 11 d
Nigeria 50.4 0.1 96.5 79129508 76359975
Ecuador 0.1 0.1 0.2 7465965 11199 d
Czech Republic 0.1 0.1 0.2 4964463 7447 d
Brunei 67.2 0.0 67.2 200945 135035 d
Saint Helena, Ascension, and Tristan da Cunha 0.1 0.0 0.1 3888 4 d
Australia 1.7 0.5 58.7 10883356 6388530
Iran 99.4 0.1 99.5 39331210 39114888 d
Algeria 98.0 0.0 98.0 17584521 17232831 d
El Salvador 0.1 0.1 0.2 2925777 4389 d
Tuvalu 0.1 0.0 0.1 5192 5 d
Pitcairn Islands 0.1 0.0 0.1 24 0 ad
Marshall Islands 0.1 0.0 0.1 34250 34 d
Chile 0.1 0.1 0.2 8359083 19226 d
Puerto Rico 0.1 0.1 0.2 1911460 2867 d
Belgium 3.0 0.0 3.0 5109295 153432 d
Thailand 5.8 0.1 12.4 33023106 4094865
Haiti 0.1 0.0 0.1 4810875 4811 d
Iraq 99.0 0.0 99.0 15424413 15270169 d
Hong Kong 1.0 0.0 1.0 3469940 34699 d
Sierra Leone 71.3 0.0 94.0 2598891 2442958
Georgia 9.9 0.1 10.0 2184893 218052 d
Denmark 2.0 0.1 11.7 2737015 318862
Philippines 5.1 0.1 92.8 50916969 47225489
Moldova 0.5 0.1 0.6 2055541 12539 d
Morocco 99.0 0.0 99.0 15740767 15584933 d
Croatia 1.0 0.1 1.1 2160589 22686 d
French Polynesia 0.1 0.0 0.1 151763 152 d
Guinea-Bissau 42.2 0.0 98.0 777868 762311
Kiribati 0.1 0.0 0.1 49604 50 d
Switzerland 4.3 0.2 4.5 3761808 170786 d
Grenada 0.3 0.0 0.3 54746 164 d
Korea, North 0.1 0.0 0.1 11915188 11915 d
Belize 0.1 0.0 0.1 162930 163 d
Portugal 0.1 0.1 0.2 5242200 7863 d
Estonia 0.1 0.1 0.2 585701 1464 d
Uruguay 0.1 0.5 0.6 1611850 10155 d
Equatorial Guinea 4.0 0.0 96.0 332434 319137
Lebanon 59.3 0.0 59.3 2029274 1203359 d
Korea, South 0.1 0.1 83.2 24377329 20269749
Uzbekistan 96.3 0.1 96.3 13993625 13482858 d
Egypt 94.6 0.1 94.6 41646318 39418240 d
Djibouti 96.9 0.0 99.0 350045 346545
Bermuda 0.8 0.0 0.8 33277 266 d
Timor-Leste 3.8 0.0 3.8 597620 22710 d
Dominica 0.1 0.0 0.1 36846 37 d
Colombia 1.0 0.1 6.9 22136885 1527445
Burundi 2.0 0.0 7.5 5056498 379237
Taiwan 1.0 0.0 8.7 11650106 1013559
Nicaragua 0.1 0.0 0.1 2833151 2833 d
Barbados 0.8 0.0 0.8 138919 1111 d
Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) 0.1 0.0 0.1 1578 2 ad
Madagascar 1.1 0.0 98.0 10908019 10689859
Italy 1.0 0.1 1.1 29885782 313801 d
Bhutan 1.0 0.0 1.0 371081 3711 d
Sudan 71.3 0.0 71.3 22856614 16296766 d
Nepal 4.2 0.0 7.5 14396024 1079702
Malta 0.2 0.0 0.2 203141 406 d
Maldives 98.4 0.0 98.4 230416 226729 d
Suriname 15.9 0.1 16.0 244758 39039 d
Cayman Islands 0.2 0.0 0.2 25168 50 d
Anguilla 0.3 0.0 0.3 7314 22 d
Venezuela 0.3 0.1 0.4 13678297 49242 d
Israel 16.7 75.2 91.9 3736526 3433867 d
Iceland 0.1 0.0 0.1 155529 156 d
Zambia 0.4 0.0 13.0 6940668 902287
Austria 4.2 0.1 4.3 4003290 172542 d
Papua New Guinea 0.1 0.0 0.1 3183906 3184 d
Cote d'Ivoire 36.7 0.0 96.0 10910979 10474540
Trinidad and Tobago 5.8 0.0 5.8 619829 35950 d
Zimbabwe 0.9 0.1 10.0 5757443 575744
Germany 5.0 0.1 10.9 40115573 4372597
Vanuatu 0.1 0.0 0.1 114484 114 d
Kazakhstan 56.4 0.1 56.4 7479693 4222287 d
Poland 1.0 0.1 1.1 18626336 195577 d
Eritrea 36.5 0.0 99.0 2939745 2910348
Kyrgyzstan 86.3 0.1 86.3 2736707 2363146 d
Montserrat 0.1 0.0 0.1 2583 3 d
New Caledonia 2.8 0.0 2.8 128138 3588 d
Macedonia 33.3 0.1 33.3 1038664 346394 d
Paraguay 0.1 0.1 0.2 3245596 4868 d
Latvia 1.0 0.4 1.4 1019381 14577 d
South Sudan 0.0 0.0 17.5 4150793 726389 abc
Japan 0.1 0.1 0.2 61616349 92425 d
Syria 92.2 0.1 92.2 11425262 10539804 d
Burma 3.8 0.0 3.5 26864224 940248
Honduras 0.1 0.0 0.1 4092040 4092 d
Mexico 1.0 0.1 10.0 55701662 5570166
Tunisia 99.5 0.0 99.5 5341034 5314916 d
Singapore 14.9 0.1 15.0 2309590 345284 d
Serbia 3.2 0.1 3.2 3561552 115750 d
Comoros 98.3 0.0 98.3 393328 386641 d
United Kingdom 2.7 0.5 15.8 31032523 4903139
Gambia, The 95.0 0.0 98.0 898930 880951
Greece 3.0 0.1 3.0 5270271 160743 d
Sri Lanka 8.5 0.0 8.5 10479896 890791 d
Namibia 0.4 0.1 21.0 1079135 226618
Botswana 0.4 0.1 14.0 1037837 145297
Niue 0.1 0.0 0.1 659 1 ad

Notes:
a Unknown sex ratio; substituted global average
b Unknown Muslim percentage; substituted zero
c Unknown Jewish percentage; substituted zero
d Unknown circumcision percentage; substituted sum of Muslim and Jewish percentages

Table 2: National circumcision rates

The following data were extracted from published studies documenting the actual circumcision rate in a sample taken from the respective country.

Country % circumcised Source(s)
Canada 43.6 43.6%[5]
Brazil 7.4 7.4%[6]
Madagascar 98.0 98.0%[7]
Bangladesh 99.0 99.0%[7]
Liberia 94.0 94.0%[7]
Guinea 99.0 99.0%[7]
Nepal 7.5 7.5%[7]
Congo, Democratic Republic of the 97.0 97.0%[7]
Cambodia 3.5 3.5%[7]
France 14.0 14.0%[8]
Malawi 21.0 21.0%[7]
Ethiopia 92.0 92.0%[7]
Rwanda 10.0 10.0%[7]
Tanzania 69.0 69.0%[7]
Somalia 99.0 99.0%[7]
Peru 3.7 3.7%[9]
Swaziland 8.0 8.0%[7]
Nigeria 96.5 96.5%[7]
Cameroon 93.0 93.0%[7]
Burkina Faso 89.0 89.0%[7]
Benin 98.0 98.0%[7]
Ghana 96.0 96.0%[7]
Australia 58.7 58.7%[10]
Togo 97.5 97.5%[7]
Zambia 13.0 13.0%[7]
Djibouti 99.0 99.0%[7]
Cote d'Ivoire 96.0 96.0%[7]
Slovenia 4.5 4.5%[11]
Zimbabwe 10.0 10.0%[7]
China 11.4 11.6%[12], 19.9%[13], 17.0%[14], 2.7%[15], 5.7%[16]
Thailand 12.4 12.3%[17], 12.5%[7]
Dominican Republic 5.0 5.0%[18]
Germany 10.9 10.9%[19]
Sierra Leone 94.0 94.0%[7]
Spain 2.0 2.0%[6]
Eritrea 99.0 99.0%[7]
Indonesia 92.5 92.5%[7]
Uganda 25.0 25.0%[7]
Denmark 11.7 5.3%[20], 18.0%[21]
Philippines 92.8 92.5%[6], 93.0%[7]
Finland 7.1 7.1%[22]
Central African Republic 55.0 55.0%[7]
United States 79.0 79.0%[23]
Gabon 94.5 94.5%[7]
South Sudan 17.5 17.5%[7]
Guinea-Bissau 98.0 98.0%[7]
Mali 99.0 99.0%[7]
Namibia 21.0 21.0%[7]
New Zealand 26.7 26.7%[24]
Niger 99.0 99.0%[7]
Burma 3.5 3.5%[7]
Angola 97.0 97.0%[7]
Congo, Republic of the 97.0 97.0%[7]
Chad 82.5 82.5%[7]
Mexico 10.0 10.0%[25]
Equatorial Guinea 96.0 96.0%[7]
India 10.7 8.3%[26], 13.0%[7]
Korea, South 83.2 78.0%[27], 88.3%[28]
South Africa 35.0 35.0%[7]
United Kingdom 15.8 15.8%[29]
Lesotho 48.0 48.0%[7]
Senegal 98.0 98.0%[7]
Gambia, The 98.0 98.0%[7]
Mozambique 60.0 60.0%[7]
Colombia 6.9 6.9%[6]
Burundi 7.5 7.5%[7]
Kenya 83.0 83.0%[7]
Taiwan 8.7 8.7%[30]
Botswana 14.0 14.0%[7]
Table 3: Excluded countries

12 countries were excluded due to lack of data. These were:

Country Total males
Saint Martin 14752
Cocos (Keeling) Islands 299
Saint Barthelemy 3924
Norfolk Island 1090
Tokelau 695
Christmas Island 704
Akrotiri 7889
Faroe Islands 25694
Svalbard 1015
Curacao 65326
Dhekelia 7889
Sint Maarten 17935
References

Central Intelligence Agency. Country comparison: Population. Retrieved from: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2119rank.html
Central Intelligence Agency. Field listing: Sex ratio. Retrieved from: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2018.html
Jewish Virtual Library. The Jewish Population of the World. Retrieved from: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/jewpop.html
Pew Forum. Mapping the Global Muslim Population. Retrieved from: http://pewforum.org/newassets/images/reports/Muslimpopulation/Muslimpopulation.pdf
To T, Agha M, Dick PT, Feldman W. Cohort study on circumcision of newborn boys and subsequent risk of urinary-tract infection. Lancet. 1998 Dec 5;352(9143):1813-6
Castellsague X, Peeling RW, Franceschi S, de Sanjose S, Smith JS, Albero G, Diaz M, Herrero R, Munoz N, Bosch FX. Chlamydia trachomatis infection in female partners of circumcised and uncircumcised adult men. Am J Epidemiol. 2005 Nov 1;162(9):907-16
Halperin DT, Timberg C. Update of chart in 'Male Circumcision and HIV Prevention: 10 Years and Counting' Circs.org. 2012; available at: http://www.circs.org/library/HalperinTimberg
Manix. Circoncision. Retrieved from: http://www.manix.net/enjoy/sex-news/sex-stat-1/index.cfm?i=1132
Guanira J. Lama JR. Goicochae P. Segura P. Montoya O. Sanchez J. How willing are gay men to "cut off" the epidemic? Circumcision among MSM in the Andean region. Sydney, Australia: 4th IAS Conference on HIV Pathogenesis, treatment and Prevention; Jul 22-25, 2007
Richters J, Smith AM, de Visser RO, Grulich AE, Rissel CE. Circumcision in Australia: prevalence and effects on sexual health. Int J STD AIDS. 2006 Aug;17(8):547-54
Klavs I, Hamers FF. Male circumcision in Slovenia: results from a national probability sample survey. Sex Transm Infect. 2008 Feb;84(1):49-50
Ruan Y, Qian HZ, Li D, Shi W, Li Q, Liang H, Yang Y, Luo F, Vermund SH, Shao Y. Willingness to be circumcised for preventing HIV among Chinese men who have sex with men. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2009 May;23(5):315-21
Sullivan SG, Ma W, Duan S, Li F, Wu Z, Detels R. Attitudes towards circumcision among Chinese men. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2009; 50: 238-240
Yang C, Liu X, Wei GH. Foreskin development in 10 421 Chinese boys aged 0-18 years. World J Pediatr. 2009; 5: 312-315
Ben KL, Xu JC, Lu L, Yao JP, Min XD, Li WY, Tao J, Wang J, Li JJ, Cao XM. [Promoting male circumcision in China for preventing HIV infection and improving reproductive health]. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue. 2008 Apr;14(4):291-7
Lau JT, Yan H, Lin C, Zhang J, Choi KC, Wang Z, Hao C, Huan X, Yang H. How Willing are Men Who Have Sex with Men in China to be Circumcised for the Sake of Protecting His Female Sex Partner? J Sex Med. 2010 Nov 22. doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.02050.x. [Epub ahead of print]
Tieu HV, Phanuphak N, Ananworanich J, Vatanparast R, Jadwattanakul T, Pharachetsakul N, Mingkwanrungrueng P, Buajoom R, Teeratakulpisarn S, Teeratakulpisarn N, Methajittiphun P, Hammer SM, Ann Chiasson M, Phanuphak P. Acceptability of male circumcision for the prevention of HIV among high-risk heterosexual men in Thailand. Sex Transm Dis. 2010 Jun;37(6):352-5
Brito MO, Caso LM, Balbuena H, Bailey RC. Acceptability of male circumcision for the prevention of HIV/AIDS in the Dominican Republic. PLoS One. 2009 Nov 2;4(11):e7687
Kamtsiuris P, Bergmann E, Rattay P, Schlaud M. [Use of medical services. Results of the German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Children and Adolescents (KiGGS)]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2007 May-Jun;50(5-6):836-50
Frisch M, Lindholm M, Gronbaek M. Male circumcision and sexual function in men and women: a survey-based, cross-sectional study in Denmark. Int J Epidemiol. 2011 Jun 14. [Epub ahead of print]
Svare EI, Kjaer SK, Worm AM, Osterlind A, Meijer CJ, van den Brule AJ. Risk factors for genital HPV DNA in men resemble those found in women: a study of male attendees at a Danish STD clinic. Sex Transm Infect. 2002 Jun;78(3):215-8.
Schoen EJ, Colby CJ, To TT. Cost analysis of neonatal circumcision in a large health maintenance organization. J Urol. 2006 Mar;175(3 Pt 1):1111-5
Xu F, Markowitz LE, Sternberg MR, Aral SO. Prevalence of circumcision and herpes simplex virus type 2 infection in men in the United States: the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 1999-2004. Sex Transm Dis. 2007 Jul;34(7):479-84
Fergusson DM, Boden JM, Horwood LJ. Circumcision status and risk of sexually transmitted infection in young adult males: an analysis of a longitudinal birth cohort. Pediatrics. 2006 Nov;118(5):1971-7
Lajous M, Mueller N, Cruz-Valdez A, Aguilar LV, Franceschi S, Hernandez-Avila M, Lazcano-Ponce E. Determinants of prevalence, acquisition, and persistence of human papillomavirus in healthy Mexican military men. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005 Jul;14(7):1710-6
Reynolds SJ, Shepherd ME, Risbud AR, Gangakhedkar RR, Brookmeyer RS, Divekar AD, Mehendale SM, Bollinger RC. Male circumcision and risk of HIV-1 and other sexually transmitted infections in India. Lancet. 2004 Mar 27;363(9414):1039-40
Ku JH, Kim ME, Lee NK, Park YH. Circumcision practice patterns in South Korea: community based survey. Sex Transm Infect. 2003 Feb;79(1):65-7
Shin HR, Franceschi S, Vaccarella S, Roh JW, Ju YH, Oh JK, Kong HJ, Rha SH, Jung SI, Kim JI, Jung KY, van Doorn LJ, Quint W. Prevalence and determinants of genital infection with papillomavirus, in female and male university students in Busan, South Korea. J Infect Dis. 2004 Aug 1;190(3):468-76
Dave SS, Fenton KA, Mercer CH, Erens B, Wellings K, Johnson AM. Male circumcision in Britain: findings from a national probability sample survey. Sex Transm Infect. 2003 Dec;79(6):499-500
Ko MC, Liu CK, Lee WK, Jeng HS, Chiang HS, Li CY. Age-specific prevalence rates of phimosis and circumcision in Taiwanese boys. J Formos Med Assoc. 2007 Apr;106(4):302-7

[h***@yahoo.com]

Post by Urban Kaletsky

Post by windinghighway
http://www.circs.org/index.php/Reviews/Rates/Global

The global prevalence of circumcision in all males is estimated using published data. It is estimated that of a total of 3492497084 males, 1306411547 are circumcised -- a global circumcision rate of 37.4%.
Methods
Recorded circumcision rates were extracted from published papers; these were entered by hand into a CSV file. Where more than one study provided rates, the mean was used. The results are shown in Table 2.
Population data were downloaded from CIA.gov[1]; as were data for the sex ratio[2]. These data were combined to produce estimates for the male population by country.
Data for the percentage of Jews by country were obtained from a publication by the Jewish Virtual Library[3], and were entered by hand into a CSV file.
Data for the percentage of Muslims by country were obtained from a Pew Forum report[4], and were entered by hand into a CSV file.
For each country that lacked an estimate for the percentage of circumcised males, this figure was estimated from the sum of the numbers of Jewish and Muslim males. If none of these figures were available, the country was excluded from further calculations. Excluded countries are shown in Table 3.
The number of circumcised males was estimated for each country, using the estimated male population and circumcision rate. The results are shown in Table 1.
The global circumcision rate may therefore be calculated as the sum of circumcised males in all included countries, divided by the sum of male populations.
All data processing was automated using a simple Python script.
Reliability
The true circumcision rate is unknown: it can only be estimated. Nevertheless, some estimates are more reliable than others. This is believed to be the most thorough analysis yet conducted, but it is not ideal.
Limited availability of studies providing reported circumcision rates has meant that the rate for many countries had to be estimated using the prevalence of religious faiths in that country. This is not completely accurate because i) while most Muslims and Jews circumcise, the number is less than 100%, and ii) a certain percentage (typically 5-10% in developed countries) of males are circumcised for medical reasons such as phimosis or balanitis.
Predicting circumcision rates based upon religion is therefore an approximation at best. It is instructive to examine the countries for which both predicted and reported circumcision rates are available. The following histogram shows that the reported circumcision rates generally exceed the religion-based predictions for these countries. This might suggest that the actual circumcision rate is greater than the figure predicted here.
The average non-religious circumcision rate was estimated from Table 2 by finding the best fit using a least-squares approach (weighted by male population). It was found to be 21.1% -- that is, 21.1% of males not already circumcised due to religious reasons are expected to be circumcised. If predicted rates were adjusted to reflect this the global circumcision rate is estimated to be 40.3%.
Results
Table 1: Circumcised males by country
Country Muslim % Jewish % Circumcised % Total males Total circ'd males Notes
Canada 2.0 1.2 43.6 16843423 7343732
Sao Tome and Principe 0.1 0.0 0.1 89753 90 d
Fiji 6.3 0.0 6.3 441563 27818 d
Guernsey 0.1 0.0 0.1 31700 32 d
Turkmenistan 93.1 0.1 93.1 2473512 2304076 d
Lithuania 0.1 0.1 0.2 1664887 3163 d
Cambodia 1.6 0.0 3.5 7200841 252029
Ethiopia 33.9 0.1 92.0 44744937 41165342
Aruba 0.2 0.0 0.2 50264 101 d
Swaziland 0.2 0.0 8.0 681769 54542
Wallis and Futuna 0.1 0.0 0.1 7775 8 d
Argentina 1.9 0.5 2.4 20566819 489490 d
Bolivia 0.1 0.1 0.2 5008237 7512 d
Cameroon 17.9 0.0 93.0 9904679 9211351
Burkina Faso 59.0 0.0 89.0 8333638 7416938
Ghana 15.9 0.0 96.0 12395537 11899716
Saudi Arabia 97.0 0.0 97.0 14089444 13666761 d
Cape Verde 1.0 0.0 1.0 250069 2501 d
Northern Mariana Islands 0.7 0.0 0.7 22190 155 d
Slovenia 2.4 0.1 4.5 974404 43848
Guatemala 0.1 0.1 0.2 6806969 10210 d
Bosnia and Herzegovina 40.0 0.1 40.0 2275887 911493 d
Kuwait 95.0 0.0 95.0 1573727 1495041 d
Holy See (Vatican City) 0.1 0.0 0.1 418 0 ad
Jordan 98.2 0.0 98.2 3317942 3258219 d
Spain 1.0 0.1 2.0 22900302 458006
Liberia 12.2 0.0 94.0 1893382 1779779
Netherlands 5.7 0.2 5.9 8338418 490299 d
Micronesia, Federated States of 0.1 0.0 0.1 53150 53 d
Jamaica 0.1 0.1 0.2 1419703 2130 d
Oman 87.7 0.0 87.7 1670130 1464704 d
Tanzania 30.2 0.0 69.0 21157418 14598618
Seychelles 1.1 0.0 1.1 45253 498 d
Gabon 9.5 0.0 94.5 784371 741231
Saint Pierre and Miquelon 0.2 0.0 0.2 2914 6 d
Monaco 0.4 0.0 0.4 14878 60 d
Samoa 0.1 0.0 0.1 99394 99 d
New Zealand 0.9 0.2 26.7 2134394 569883
Yemen 99.1 0.1 99.1 12245072 12140989 d
Jersey 0.1 0.0 0.1 46364 46 d
Pakistan 96.3 0.0 96.3 96838991 93255948 d
Albania 79.9 0.0 79.9 1526693 1219828 d
West Bank 98.0 6.6 100.0 1309459 1309459 d
Macau 0.1 0.0 0.1 274564 275 d
Congo, Republic of the 1.6 0.0 97.0 2111301 2047962
United Arab Emirates 76.2 0.0 76.2 3539707 2697257 d
Kosovo 89.6 0.0 89.6 939403 841705 d
India 13.4 0.1 10.7 617455163 65758975
Azerbaijan 99.2 0.1 99.3 4122437 4092755 d
Lesotho 0.1 0.0 48.0 947787 454938
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 1.5 0.0 1.5 52702 791 d
Kenya 7.0 0.1 83.0 20637634 17129236
Belarus 1.0 0.2 1.2 4455866 53025 d
Tajikistan 84.1 0.0 84.1 3794436 3191121 d
Greenland 0.1 0.0 0.1 30467 30 d
Turkey 98.0 0.1 98.0 39782801 39007036 d
Afghanistan 99.7 0.0 99.7 15281542 15235697 d
Bangladesh 89.6 0.0 99.0 76409636 75645540
Mauritania 99.1 0.0 99.1 1581306 1567074 d
Solomon Islands 0.1 0.0 0.1 288776 289 d
Turks and Caicos Islands 0.1 0.0 0.1 23167 23 d
Saint Lucia 0.1 0.0 0.1 78707 79 d
Gaza Strip 98.0 6.6 100.0 844824 844824 d
San Marino 0.1 0.0 0.1 15416 15 d
Mongolia 5.0 0.0 5.0 1566659 78333 d
France 6.0 0.8 14.0 31989673 4478554
Rwanda 1.8 0.0 10.0 5656644 565664
Slovakia 0.1 0.1 0.2 2653823 3981 d
Somalia 98.5 0.0 99.0 4962820 4913192
Peru 0.1 0.1 3.7 14697230 543798
Laos 0.1 0.0 0.1 3205892 3206 d
Nauru 0.1 0.0 0.1 4638 5 d
Norway 1.0 0.1 1.1 2322228 24383 d
Malawi 12.8 0.0 21.0 7899728 1658943
Cook Islands 0.1 0.0 0.1 5750 6 d
Benin 24.4 0.0 98.0 4662516 4569266
Western Sahara 99.4 0.0 99.4 251019 249513 d
Cuba 0.1 0.1 0.2 5515807 8274 d
Bahamas, The 0.1 0.1 0.2 153459 307 d
Montenegro 17.7 0.0 17.7 329241 58276 d
Saint Kitts and Nevis 0.1 0.0 0.1 25157 25 d
Togo 12.2 0.0 97.5 3334433 3251072
Virgin Islands 0.1 0.3 0.4 51947 187 d
China 1.6 0.1 11.4 687825775 78219547
Armenia 0.1 0.0 0.1 1397618 1398 d
Antigua and Barbuda 0.6 0.0 0.6 41629 250 d
Dominican Republic 0.1 0.1 5.0 5051895 252595
Ukraine 1.0 0.2 1.2 20737568 242630 d
Bahrain 81.2 0.0 81.2 672426 546010 d
Tonga 0.1 0.0 0.1 52692 53 d
Finland 0.5 0.1 7.1 2575959 182893
Libya 96.6 0.0 96.6 3379443 3264542 d
Indonesia 88.2 0.0 92.5 122806522 113596033
Central African Republic 8.9 0.0 55.0 2450013 1347507
United States 0.8 1.8 79.0 154231006 121842495
Sweden 2.0 0.2 2.2 4498461 97617 d
Vietnam 0.2 0.0 0.2 45047184 90094 d
British Virgin Islands 1.2 0.0 1.2 13001 156 d
Mali 92.5 0.0 99.0 7008437 6938353
Russia 11.7 0.2 11.9 63745356 7560199 d
Bulgaria 12.2 0.1 12.2 3399033 416382 d
Mauritius 16.6 0.0 16.6 641932 106561 d
Romania 0.3 0.1 0.3 10671448 37350 d
Angola 1.0 0.0 97.0 6735303 6533244
Chad 55.8 0.0 82.5 5155328 4253146
South Africa 1.5 0.1 35.0 24378890 8532612
Cyprus 22.7 0.0 22.7 571230 129669 d
Liechtenstein 4.8 0.0 4.8 17073 820 d
Qatar 77.5 0.0 77.5 564399 437409 d
Malaysia 60.4 0.0 60.4 14435768 8719204 d
Senegal 96.0 0.0 98.0 6290131 6164328
Mozambique 22.8 0.0 60.0 11358526 6815116
Uganda 12.1 0.0 25.0 17392225 4348056
Hungary 0.2 0.5 0.7 4752993 32796 d
Niger 98.6 0.0 99.0 8234443 8152099
Isle of Man 0.2 0.0 0.2 41464 83 d
Brazil 0.1 0.1 7.4 100687463 7450872
Guinea 84.4 0.0 99.0 5300505 5247500
Panama 0.7 0.2 0.9 1747362 15027 d
Guyana 7.2 0.0 7.2 372384 26812 d
Congo, Democratic Republic of the 1.4 0.1 97.0 35676250 34605963
Costa Rica 1.0 0.1 1.1 2299665 24376 d
Luxembourg 3.0 0.1 3.1 247819 7732 d
American Samoa 0.1 0.0 0.1 33954 34 d
Andorra 1.0 0.0 1.0 43847 438 d
Gibraltar 4.0 2.4 6.4 14550 931 d
Ireland 0.5 0.1 0.6 2323752 12781 d
Palau 0.1 0.0 0.1 11118 11 d
Nigeria 50.4 0.1 96.5 79129508 76359975
Ecuador 0.1 0.1 0.2 7465965 11199 d
Czech Republic 0.1 0.1 0.2 4964463 7447 d
Brunei 67.2 0.0 67.2 200945 135035 d
Saint Helena, Ascension, and Tristan da Cunha 0.1 0.0 0.1 3888 4 d
Australia 1.7 0.5 58.7 10883356 6388530
Iran 99.4 0.1 99.5 39331210 39114888 d
Algeria 98.0 0.0 98.0 17584521 17232831 d
El Salvador 0.1 0.1 0.2 2925777 4389 d
Tuvalu 0.1 0.0 0.1 5192 5 d
Pitcairn Islands 0.1 0.0 0.1 24 0 ad
Marshall Islands 0.1 0.0 0.1 34250 34 d
Chile 0.1 0.1 0.2 8359083 19226 d
Puerto Rico 0.1 0.1 0.2 1911460 2867 d
Belgium 3.0 0.0 3.0 5109295 153432 d
Thailand 5.8 0.1 12.4 33023106 4094865
Haiti 0.1 0.0 0.1 4810875 4811 d
Iraq 99.0 0.0 99.0 15424413 15270169 d
Hong Kong 1.0 0.0 1.0 3469940 34699 d
Sierra Leone 71.3 0.0 94.0 2598891 2442958
Georgia 9.9 0.1 10.0 2184893 218052 d
Denmark 2.0 0.1 11.7 2737015 318862
Philippines 5.1 0.1 92.8 50916969 47225489
Moldova 0.5 0.1 0.6 2055541 12539 d
Morocco 99.0 0.0 99.0 15740767 15584933 d
Croatia 1.0 0.1 1.1 2160589 22686 d
French Polynesia 0.1 0.0 0.1 151763 152 d
Guinea-Bissau 42.2 0.0 98.0 777868 762311
Kiribati 0.1 0.0 0.1 49604 50 d
Switzerland 4.3 0.2 4.5 3761808 170786 d
Grenada 0.3 0.0 0.3 54746 164 d
Korea, North 0.1 0.0 0.1 11915188 11915 d
Belize 0.1 0.0 0.1 162930 163 d
Portugal 0.1 0.1 0.2 5242200 7863 d
Estonia 0.1 0.1 0.2 585701 1464 d
Uruguay 0.1 0.5 0.6 1611850 10155 d
Equatorial Guinea 4.0 0.0 96.0 332434 319137
Lebanon 59.3 0.0 59.3 2029274 1203359 d
Korea, South 0.1 0.1 83.2 24377329 20269749
Uzbekistan 96.3 0.1 96.3 13993625 13482858 d
Egypt 94.6 0.1 94.6 41646318 39418240 d
Djibouti 96.9 0.0 99.0 350045 346545
Bermuda 0.8 0.0 0.8 33277 266 d
Timor-Leste 3.8 0.0 3.8 597620 22710 d
Dominica 0.1 0.0 0.1 36846 37 d
Colombia 1.0 0.1 6.9 22136885 1527445
Burundi 2.0 0.0 7.5 5056498 379237
Taiwan 1.0 0.0 8.7 11650106 1013559
Nicaragua 0.1 0.0 0.1 2833151 2833 d
Barbados 0.8 0.0 0.8 138919 1111 d
Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) 0.1 0.0 0.1 1578 2 ad
Madagascar 1.1 0.0 98.0 10908019 10689859
Italy 1.0 0.1 1.1 29885782 313801 d
Bhutan 1.0 0.0 1.0 371081 3711 d
Sudan 71.3 0.0 71.3 22856614 16296766 d
Nepal 4.2 0.0 7.5 14396024 1079702
Malta 0.2 0.0 0.2 203141 406 d
Maldives 98.4 0.0 98.4 230416 226729 d
Suriname 15.9 0.1 16.0 244758 39039 d
Cayman Islands 0.2 0.0 0.2 25168 50 d
Anguilla 0.3 0.0 0.3 7314 22 d
Venezuela 0.3 0.1 0.4 13678297 49242 d
Israel 16.7 75.2 91.9 3736526 3433867 d
Iceland 0.1 0.0 0.1 155529 156 d
Zambia 0.4 0.0 13.0 6940668 902287
Austria 4.2 0.1 4.3 4003290 172542 d
Papua New Guinea 0.1 0.0 0.1 3183906 3184 d
Cote d'Ivoire 36.7 0.0 96.0 10910979 10474540
Trinidad and Tobago 5.8 0.0 5.8 619829 35950 d
Zimbabwe 0.9 0.1 10.0 5757443 575744
Germany 5.0 0.1 10.9 40115573 4372597
Vanuatu 0.1 0.0 0.1 114484 114 d
Kazakhstan 56.4 0.1 56.4 7479693 4222287 d
Poland 1.0 0.1 1.1 18626336 195577 d
Eritrea 36.5 0.0 99.0 2939745 2910348
Kyrgyzstan 86.3 0.1 86.3 2736707 2363146 d
Montserrat 0.1 0.0 0.1 2583 3 d
New Caledonia 2.8 0.0 2.8 128138 3588 d
Macedonia 33.3 0.1 33.3 1038664 346394 d
Paraguay 0.1 0.1 0.2 3245596 4868 d
Latvia 1.0 0.4 1.4 1019381 14577 d
South Sudan 0.0 0.0 17.5 4150793 726389 abc
Japan 0.1 0.1 0.2 61616349 92425 d
Syria 92.2 0.1 92.2 11425262 10539804 d
Burma 3.8 0.0 3.5 26864224 940248
Honduras 0.1 0.0 0.1 4092040 4092 d
Mexico 1.0 0.1 10.0 55701662 5570166
Tunisia 99.5 0.0 99.5 5341034 5314916 d
Singapore 14.9 0.1 15.0 2309590 345284 d
Serbia 3.2 0.1 3.2 3561552 115750 d
Comoros 98.3 0.0 98.3 393328 386641 d
United Kingdom 2.7 0.5 15.8 31032523 4903139
Gambia, The 95.0 0.0 98.0 898930 880951
Greece 3.0 0.1 3.0 5270271 160743 d
Sri Lanka 8.5 0.0 8.5 10479896 890791 d
Namibia 0.4 0.1 21.0 1079135 226618
Botswana 0.4 0.1 14.0 1037837 145297
Niue 0.1 0.0 0.1 659 1 ad
a Unknown sex ratio; substituted global average
b Unknown Muslim percentage; substituted zero
c Unknown Jewish percentage; substituted zero
d Unknown circumcision percentage; substituted sum of Muslim and Jewish percentages
Table 2: National circumcision rates
The following data were extracted from published studies documenting the actual circumcision rate in a sample taken from the respective country.
Country % circumcised Source(s)
Canada 43.6 43.6%[5]
Brazil 7.4 7.4%[6]
Madagascar 98.0 98.0%[7]
Bangladesh 99.0 99.0%[7]
Liberia 94.0 94.0%[7]
Guinea 99.0 99.0%[7]
Nepal 7.5 7.5%[7]
Congo, Democratic Republic of the 97.0 97.0%[7]
Cambodia 3.5 3.5%[7]
France 14.0 14.0%[8]
Malawi 21.0 21.0%[7]
Ethiopia 92.0 92.0%[7]
Rwanda 10.0 10.0%[7]
Tanzania 69.0 69.0%[7]
Somalia 99.0 99.0%[7]
Peru 3.7 3.7%[9]
Swaziland 8.0 8.0%[7]
Nigeria 96.5 96.5%[7]
Cameroon 93.0 93.0%[7]
Burkina Faso 89.0 89.0%[7]
Benin 98.0 98.0%[7]
Ghana 96.0 96.0%[7]
Australia 58.7 58.7%[10]
Togo 97.5 97.5%[7]
Zambia 13.0 13.0%[7]
Djibouti 99.0 99.0%[7]
Cote d'Ivoire 96.0 96.0%[7]
Slovenia 4.5 4.5%[11]
Zimbabwe 10.0 10.0%[7]
China 11.4 11.6%[12], 19.9%[13], 17.0%[14], 2.7%[15], 5.7%[16]
Thailand 12.4 12.3%[17], 12.5%[7]
Dominican Republic 5.0 5.0%[18]
Germany 10.9 10.9%[19]
Sierra Leone 94.0 94.0%[7]
Spain 2.0 2.0%[6]
Eritrea 99.0 99.0%[7]
Indonesia 92.5 92.5%[7]
Uganda 25.0 25.0%[7]
Denmark 11.7 5.3%[20], 18.0%[21]
Philippines 92.8 92.5%[6], 93.0%[7]
Finland 7.1 7.1%[22]
Central African Republic 55.0 55.0%[7]
United States 79.0 79.0%[23]
Gabon 94.5 94.5%[7]
South Sudan 17.5 17.5%[7]
Guinea-Bissau 98.0 98.0%[7]
Mali 99.0 99.0%[7]
Namibia 21.0 21.0%[7]
New Zealand 26.7 26.7%[24]
Niger 99.0 99.0%[7]
Burma 3.5 3.5%[7]
Angola 97.0 97.0%[7]
Congo, Republic of the 97.0 97.0%[7]
Chad 82.5 82.5%[7]
Mexico 10.0 10.0%[25]
Equatorial Guinea 96.0 96.0%[7]
India 10.7 8.3%[26], 13.0%[7]
Korea, South 83.2 78.0%[27], 88.3%[28]
South Africa 35.0 35.0%[7]
United Kingdom 15.8 15.8%[29]
Lesotho 48.0 48.0%[7]
Senegal 98.0 98.0%[7]
Gambia, The 98.0 98.0%[7]
Mozambique 60.0 60.0%[7]
Colombia 6.9 6.9%[6]
Burundi 7.5 7.5%[7]
Kenya 83.0 83.0%[7]
Taiwan 8.7 8.7%[30]
Botswana 14.0 14.0%[7]
Table 3: Excluded countries
Country Total males
Saint Martin 14752
Cocos (Keeling) Islands 299
Saint Barthelemy 3924
Norfolk Island 1090
Tokelau 695
Christmas Island 704
Akrotiri 7889
Faroe Islands 25694
Svalbard 1015
Curacao 65326
Dhekelia 7889
Sint Maarten 17935
References
Central Intelligence Agency. Country comparison: Population. Retrieved from: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2119rank.html
Central Intelligence Agency. Field listing: Sex ratio. Retrieved from: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2018.html
Jewish Virtual Library. The Jewish Population of the World. Retrieved from: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/jewpop.html
Pew Forum. Mapping the Global Muslim Population. Retrieved from: http://pewforum.org/newassets/images/reports/Muslimpopulation/Muslimpopulation.pdf
To T, Agha M, Dick PT, Feldman W. Cohort study on circumcision of newborn boys and subsequent risk of urinary-tract infection. Lancet. 1998 Dec 5;352(9143):1813-6
Castellsague X, Peeling RW, Franceschi S, de Sanjose S, Smith JS, Albero G, Diaz M, Herrero R, Munoz N, Bosch FX. Chlamydia trachomatis infection in female partners of circumcised and uncircumcised adult men. Am J Epidemiol. 2005 Nov 1;162(9):907-16
Halperin DT, Timberg C. Update of chart in 'Male Circumcision and HIV Prevention: 10 Years and Counting' Circs.org. 2012; available at: http://www.circs.org/library/HalperinTimberg
Manix. Circoncision. Retrieved from: http://www.manix.net/enjoy/sex-news/sex-stat-1/index.cfm?i=1132
Guanira J. Lama JR. Goicochae P. Segura P. Montoya O. Sanchez J. How willing are gay men to "cut off" the epidemic? Circumcision among MSM in the Andean region. Sydney, Australia: 4th IAS Conference on HIV Pathogenesis, treatment and Prevention; Jul 22-25, 2007
Richters J, Smith AM, de Visser RO, Grulich AE, Rissel CE. Circumcision in Australia: prevalence and effects on sexual health. Int J STD AIDS. 2006 Aug;17(8):547-54
Klavs I, Hamers FF. Male circumcision in Slovenia: results from a national probability sample survey. Sex Transm Infect. 2008 Feb;84(1):49-50
Ruan Y, Qian HZ, Li D, Shi W, Li Q, Liang H, Yang Y, Luo F, Vermund SH, Shao Y. Willingness to be circumcised for preventing HIV among Chinese men who have sex with men. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2009 May;23(5):315-21
Sullivan SG, Ma W, Duan S, Li F, Wu Z, Detels R. Attitudes towards circumcision among Chinese men. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2009; 50: 238-240
Yang C, Liu X, Wei GH. Foreskin development in 10 421 Chinese boys aged 0-18 years. World J Pediatr. 2009; 5: 312-315
Ben KL, Xu JC, Lu L, Yao JP, Min XD, Li WY, Tao J, Wang J, Li JJ, Cao XM. [Promoting male circumcision in China for preventing HIV infection and improving reproductive health]. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue. 2008 Apr;14(4):291-7
Lau JT, Yan H, Lin C, Zhang J, Choi KC, Wang Z, Hao C, Huan X, Yang H. How Willing are Men Who Have Sex with Men in China to be Circumcised for the Sake of Protecting His Female Sex Partner? J Sex Med. 2010 Nov 22. doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.02050.x. [Epub ahead of print]
Tieu HV, Phanuphak N, Ananworanich J, Vatanparast R, Jadwattanakul T, Pharachetsakul N, Mingkwanrungrueng P, Buajoom R, Teeratakulpisarn S, Teeratakulpisarn N, Methajittiphun P, Hammer SM, Ann Chiasson M, Phanuphak P. Acceptability of male circumcision for the prevention of HIV among high-risk heterosexual men in Thailand. Sex Transm Dis. 2010 Jun;37(6):352-5
Brito MO, Caso LM, Balbuena H, Bailey RC. Acceptability of male circumcision for the prevention of HIV/AIDS in the Dominican Republic. PLoS One. 2009 Nov 2;4(11):e7687
Kamtsiuris P, Bergmann E, Rattay P, Schlaud M. [Use of medical services. Results of the German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Children and Adolescents (KiGGS)]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2007 May-Jun;50(5-6):836-50
Frisch M, Lindholm M, Gronbaek M. Male circumcision and sexual function in men and women: a survey-based, cross-sectional study in Denmark. Int J Epidemiol. 2011 Jun 14. [Epub ahead of print]
Svare EI, Kjaer SK, Worm AM, Osterlind A, Meijer CJ, van den Brule AJ. Risk factors for genital HPV DNA in men resemble those found in women: a study of male attendees at a Danish STD clinic. Sex Transm Infect. 2002 Jun;78(3):215-8.
Schoen EJ, Colby CJ, To TT. Cost analysis of neonatal circumcision in a large health maintenance organization. J Urol. 2006 Mar;175(3 Pt 1):1111-5
Xu F, Markowitz LE, Sternberg MR, Aral SO. Prevalence of circumcision and herpes simplex virus type 2 infection in men in the United States: the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 1999-2004. Sex Transm Dis. 2007 Jul;34(7):479-84
Fergusson DM, Boden JM, Horwood LJ. Circumcision status and risk of sexually transmitted infection in young adult males: an analysis of a longitudinal birth cohort. Pediatrics. 2006 Nov;118(5):1971-7
Lajous M, Mueller N, Cruz-Valdez A, Aguilar LV, Franceschi S, Hernandez-Avila M, Lazcano-Ponce E. Determinants of prevalence, acquisition, and persistence of human papillomavirus in healthy Mexican military men. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005 Jul;14(7):1710-6
Reynolds SJ, Shepherd ME, Risbud AR, Gangakhedkar RR, Brookmeyer RS, Divekar AD, Mehendale SM, Bollinger RC. Male circumcision and risk of HIV-1 and other sexually transmitted infections in India. Lancet. 2004 Mar 27;363(9414):1039-40
Ku JH, Kim ME, Lee NK, Park YH. Circumcision practice patterns in South Korea: community based survey. Sex Transm Infect. 2003 Feb;79(1):65-7
Shin HR, Franceschi S, Vaccarella S, Roh JW, Ju YH, Oh JK, Kong HJ, Rha SH, Jung SI, Kim JI, Jung KY, van Doorn LJ, Quint W. Prevalence and determinants of genital infection with papillomavirus, in female and male university students in Busan, South Korea. J Infect Dis. 2004 Aug 1;190(3):468-76
Dave SS, Fenton KA, Mercer CH, Erens B, Wellings K, Johnson AM. Male circumcision in Britain: findings from a national probability sample survey. Sex Transm Infect. 2003 Dec;79(6):499-500
Ko MC, Liu CK, Lee WK, Jeng HS, Chiang HS, Li CY. Age-specific prevalence rates of phimosis and circumcision in Taiwanese boys. J Formos Med Assoc. 2007 Apr;106(4):302-7

That table is very hard to read, I hope somebody can give us a version that is easier on the eye? Even so it is very interesting. I have read that male circumcison has always been the most common surgery on earth just as it is today. Surely this proves there must be good reasons for it? So many different tribes and peoples in various parts of the world down all the centuries have done this. Yet for most it must have been very painful and dangerous. They still thought it was worth doing. People REALLY wanted to remove foreskins it seems!!

[j***@gmail.com]

***@yahoo.com
- show quoted text -
That table is very hard to read, I hope somebody can give us a version that is easier on the eye? Even so it is very interesting. I have read that male circumcison has always been the most common surgery on earth just as it is today. Surely this proves there must be good reasons for it?
--------

Everything that is common is good.

Post by h***@yahoo.com
So many different tribes and peoples in various parts of the world down all the centuries have done this. Yet for most it must have been very painful and dangerous. They still thought it was worth doing. People REALLY wanted to remove foreskins it seems

---------

Especially the foreskins of children who cannot resist.

[p***@yahoo.co.uk]

Circumcision will get more popular because the muslims are breeding faster than most other groups. They will outnumber christians in a few decades.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3023597/Muslims-outnumber-Christians-worldwide-2070-Islam-major-religion-increase-faster-worlds-population.html

[o***@gmail.com]

Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk
Circumcision will get more popular because the muslims are breeding faster than most other groups. They will outnumber christians in a few decades.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3023597/Muslims-outnumber-Christians-worldwide-2070-Islam-major-religion-increase-faster-worlds-population.html

Also it is increasing because it reduces risk of AIDS and other STDs

[p***@yahoo.co.uk]

It looks as if there'll be a million or so muslim refugees arriving in Europe this year. Which means probably 3 million next year, 7 million the year after and so on. After all they're being accepted for settlement no questions asked and their own countries are getting worse and worse with war and poverty so why not move? They have a lot more kids than Europeans who aren't even having enough babies to replace themselves so it won't be too long before most of Europe is muslim. I don't know about all the other implications but one is very likely, male circumcision rates are going to go up really fast in Europe until most Europeans are circumcised.

[Quentin]

Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk
It looks as if there'll be a million or so muslim refugees arriving in Europe this year. Which means probably 3 million next year, 7 million the year after and so on. After all they're being accepted for settlement no questions asked and their own countries are getting worse and worse with war and poverty so why not move? They have a lot more kids than Europeans who aren't even having enough babies to replace themselves so it won't be too long before most of Europe is muslim. I don't know about all the other implications but one is very likely, male circumcision rates are going to go up really fast in Europe until most Europeans are circumcised.

The EU gets all the immigrants and publicity but Russia may have the highest muslim population of any European nation. They don't keep very good statistics but estimates are anywhere from 16 million to 20 million. There are supposedly 2 million muslims in Moscow. Ethnic Russians are not circumcised except many from the regions ending in -Stan. Other ethnic Russians have a negative birth rate but the muslims have a high birth rate so the circumcised percentage in Russia will increase.

[p***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by Quentin
The EU gets all the immigrants and publicity but Russia may have the highest muslim population of any European nation. They don't keep very good statistics but estimates are anywhere from 16 million to 20 million. There are supposedly 2 million muslims in Moscow. Ethnic Russians are not circumcised except many from the regions ending in -Stan. Other ethnic Russians have a negative birth rate but the muslims have a high birth rate so the circumcised percentage in Russia will increase.

There's an article about muslim pop of Europe in today's Daily Mail. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3319890/The-Paris-attacks-drawn-renewed-attention-Europe-s-growing-Muslim-population.html

It says the total muslim pop is about 44 million. Russia has the biggest total pop but Bulgaria has the biggest pop by percent 13.7 followed by France 7.5 and Holland 6.0. There's 1.7 million muslims in Paris.

All multiplying like crazy. They have 4, 5, 6 or 7 kids plus they bring in wives from the home country thru arranged marriages. Europeans have less than 2 kids so just extend the lines far enough and Europe will have muslim majority.

[p***@yahoo.co.uk]

Talking of muslims again there's a report they will soon outnumber jews in the USA, by 2040 will be the second biggest religion there. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/01/06/a-new-estimate-of-the-u-s-muslim-population/ There are 47 countries with a muslim majority, by 2030 a quarter of the world pop will be muslim http://www.pewforum.org/2011/01/27/the-future-of-the-global-muslim-population/

I don't care for any religions myself so I don't think this is good news esp as islam is more crazy than most of them. One good thing tho, it means circumcision is here to stay. No foreskin probs for billions and billions of guys and their partners as far as you can see in the future!!

[David Edwards]

Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk
I don't care for any religions myself so I don't think this is good news esp as islam is more crazy than most of them. One good thing tho, it means circumcision is here to stay. No foreskin probs for billions and billions of guys and their partners as far as you can see in the future!!

Suits me Parker cuz I'm gay and those muslim boys are always up for gay sex no matter what their stooopid religion says about it. I'm blue blond which they LOVE and I got hit on non stop when I did gigs in Albania Kosovo & Bosnia. [And Turkey but the Turks are about the ugliest people on earth so that wasnt much use] .Last summer I was in Beirut for a week & it was the gayest place I ever been! The muslim guys can't get at women so the boys do each other & get quite the taste for it!! And 100 percent circumcised too yummy

[c***@yahoo.com]

Post by David Edwards
Suits me Parker cuz I'm gay and those muslim boys are always up for gay sex no matter what their stooopid religion says about it.

David I thought from earlier contributions that you are bisexual? I am always entertained by your liberated ways as my romantic life has been so been so boring by comparison. There was lots of sex among the boys at my British boarding school but I was not much of beauty so I got left out usually. It all stopped pretty sharply once we left school. That was the middle of the last century when it was quite normal in boys private boarding schools. I doubt if it happens now. Many of those schools accept girls now which must change the atmosphere completely. Then I met my wife at university and she is the only woman I have ever been with.

I must agree with you about muslims and gay sex, or at least arabs in the North Afican countries where I have spent almost my entire working life as a water engineer, Egypt, Tunisia, and Morocco. (I do not know Algeria well and although I had a most generous consulting contract to work on a huge aquifer in Libya that fell by the wayside along with the mad dictator.) I would say that in the aforementioned three countries it is routine for adolescent boys to have sex with their friends and many adult men are bisexual. It is all roundly condemned in the mosques of course just like churches in Europe condemn premarital and extramqrital sex but it happens all the time. Much like those British boardng schools of my youth, if girls are not availa

[Casaman]

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by David Edwards
Suits me Parker cuz I'm gay and those muslim boys are always up for gay sex no matter what their stooopid religion says about it.

David I thought from earlier contributions that you are bisexual? I am always entertained by your liberated ways as my romantic life has been so been so boring by comparison. There was lots of sex among the boys at my British boarding school but I was not much of beauty so I got left out usually. It all stopped pretty sharply once we left school. That was the middle of the last century when it was quite normal in boys private boarding schools. I doubt if it happens now. Many of those schools accept girls now which must change the atmosphere completely. Then I met my wife at university and she is the only woman I have ever been with.
I must agree with you about muslims and gay sex, or at least arabs in the North Afican countries where I have spent almost my entire working life as a water engineer, Egypt, Tunisia, and Morocco. (I do not know Algeria well and although I had a most generous consulting contract to work on a huge aquifer in Libya that fell by the wayside along with the mad dictator.) I would say that in the aforementioned three countries it is routine for adolescent boys to have sex with their friends and many adult men are bisexual. It is all roundly condemned in the mosques of course just like churches in Europe condemn premarital and extramqrital sex but it happens all the time. Much like those British boardng schools of my youth, if girls are not availa

(continued) ...Much like those British Boarding schools of my youth, if girls are not available the boys try other boys. The difference is that when the boys left the boarding schools they could get girls so they stopped carrying on with each other, but in these arab countries women are still hard to get even for adult men so they still go after men. Some of our younger European male staff were constantly harassed for sex by locals. One from Holland who worked in Saudi Arabia actually asked to be transferred because of it.

[David Edwards]

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by David Edwards
Suits me Parker cuz I'm gay and those muslim boys are always up for gay sex no matter what their stooopid religion says about it.

David I thought from earlier contributions that you are bisexual?

Hi Casa, yeah technically I'm bi & I really like to fuck girls but I can go 4 months without that, no sweat. I have to have dick nearly every night tho! It's gotta be circumcised tho I cannot stand uncut dick.
Seems like you have an interesting career. I never knew there were aquifers there! Take care, David

[m***@gmail.com]

I must agree with you about muslims and gay sex, or at least arabs in the North Afican countries .. I would say that in the aforementioned three countries it is routine for adolescent boys to have sex with their friends and many adult men are bisexual. It is all roundly condemned in the mosques of course just like churches in Europe condemn premarital and extramqrital sex but it happens all the time.

I grew up nominally Muslim and from my experience it's true what you say. Even devout boys had sex with each other. There was no shame to if you didn't get caught. It would be more shameful actually to get caught jerking off alone. It's like the western world where teen boys and girls fuck even if they aren't supposed to. Everybody knows it happens but mostly pretend not. Sometimes somebody gets made an example with harsh punishment (Saudi and Iran usually). That's just to state the official rules, then things go back to normal.

Saudi Arabia sends imams all over the world to teach in madrassas .They are worse than Catholic priests, can't keep their hands or dicks off boys and get away with it every time. Anybody who got stuck in a madrassa knows this but they keep their mouth shut.

[Quinton Pereira]

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-04/ehs-ncd041416.php


More research proves that circumcision doesn't affect penile sensitivity

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by Quinton Pereira
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-04/ehs-ncd041416.php
More research proves that circumcision doesn't affect penile sensitivity

Thank you for the timely report. If anyone can access the journal article, please post.

Three observations:

(1) According to the authors, there ARE 'specialized sexual nerves,' a proposition often pooh-poohed by pro-circumcision posters in this forum: "The authors reported that the pain, warmth detection, and heat pain stimuli likely activate NERVE FIBERS MORE RELEVANT TO SEXUAL PLEASURE than touch thresholds, which has been the focus of previous research."

(2) Sensitivity to pain, warmth, and heat pain at the forearm were used as a control. Yet, men typically do not seek sexual arousal via forearm stimulation. Therefore, something other than sensitivity to pain, warmth, and heat pain give rise to sexual arousal. What is this something? The authors acknowledge this important gap when they say: "Methodology and results from this study build on previous research and imply that if sexual functioning is related to circumcision status, this relationship is not likely the result of decreased penile sensitivity stemming from neonatal circumcision," observed Ms. Bossio.

(3) Of course, cutting off the foreskin eliminates all sensitivity in that body part. So, considering the penis as a whole, rather than as a collection of parts, sensitivity is likely reduced.

[Kim]

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by Quinton Pereira
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-04/ehs-ncd041416.php
More research proves that circumcision doesn't affect penile sensitivity

Where does the phrase "specialized sexual nerves" appear in the report?
"The authors reported that the pain, warmth detection, and heat pain stimuli likely activate NERVE FIBERS MORE RELEVANT TO SEXUAL PLEASURE than touch thresholds, which has been the focus of previous research."

Obviously the penis has nerve fibers relevant to sexual pleasure or there would be no sexual pleasure from the penis. That does not mean there are specialized sexual nerves. They are the usual nerves that respond to heat, touch, pressure, pain etc, but they appear in different concentrations on the penis. None of them is specialized for "sexual pleasure".

Post by j***@gmail.com
(2) Sensitivity to pain, warmth, and heat pain at the forearm were used as a control. Yet, men typically do not seek sexual arousal via forearm stimulation.

Therefore, something other than sensitivity to pain, warmth, and heat pain give rise to sexual arousal. What is this something?

It's the brain. The brain receives the signals and interprets them as sexual or not. If somebody you find sexually attractive touches your penis, your brain interprets this as sexual. If a person you find sexually revolting touches your penis in exactly the same way (stimulating exactly the same nerves) your brain interprets it as non sexual. If that person is holding a knife and expresses an intent to slice off your entire penis, your brain will interpret exactly the same nerve signals as threatening and will instruct your penis to shrink, not to enlarge.

Post by j***@gmail.com
(3) Of course, cutting off the foreskin eliminates all sensitivity in that body part. So, considering the penis as a whole, rather than as a collection of parts, sensitivity is likely reduced.

Sensitivity is not the same as pleasure. Your eyeball is very sensitive to touch but touching it is not pleasurable. Google "foreskin pain". You will see hundreds of thousands of complaints about pain caused by foreskin sensitivity.The foreskin is a protective covering designed to detect potentially painful threats to the penis and is endowed with nerve fibers suited for that purpose. It is not necessary for sexual satisfaction which as the study demonstrates is not affected by circumcision.

[j***@gmail.com]

Kim

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by Quinton Pereira
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-04/ehs-ncd041416.php
More research proves that circumcision doesn't affect penile sensitivity

Where does the phrase "specialized sexual nerves" appear in the report?
"The authors reported that the pain, warmth detection, and heat pain stimuli likely activate NERVE FIBERS MORE RELEVANT TO SEXUAL PLEASURE than touch thresholds, which has been the focus of previous research."

Obviously the penis has nerve fibers relevant to sexual pleasure or there would be no sexual pleasure from the penis. That does not mean there are specialized sexual nerves. They are the usual nerves that respond to heat, touch, pressure, pain etc, but they appear in different concentrations on the penis. None of them is specialized for "sexual pleasure".
......... . . . .......

"Relevant" and "specialized" are nearly synonymous in this context. For that reason, I disagree with you.

Post by j***@gmail.com
(2) Sensitivity to pain, warmth, and heat pain at the forearm were used as a control. Yet, men typically do not seek sexual arousal via forearm stimulation.

Therefore, something other than sensitivity to pain, warmth, and heat pain give rise to sexual arousal. What is this something?

It's the brain. The brain receives the signals and interprets them as sexual or not. If somebody you find sexually attractive touches your penis, your brain interprets this as sexual. If a person you find sexually revolting touches your penis in exactly the same way (stimulating exactly the same nerves) your brain interprets it as non sexual. If that person is holding a knife and expresses an intent to slice off your entire penis, your brain will interpret exactly the same nerve signals as threatening and will instruct your penis to shrink, not to enlarge.
..... . . .. . .....

And why do you suppose a forearm cannot acheive orgasm?

Post by j***@gmail.com
(3) Of course, cutting off the foreskin eliminates all sensitivity in that body part. So, considering the penis as a whole, rather than as a collection of parts, sensitivity is likely reduced.

Sensitivity is not the same as pleasure. Your eyeball is very sensitive to touch but touching it is not pleasurable. Google "foreskin pain". You will see hundreds of thousands of complaints about pain caused by foreskin sensitivity.The foreskin is a protective covering designed to detect potentially painful threats to the penis and is endowed with nerve fibers suited for that purpose. It is not necessary for sexual satisfaction which as the study demonstrates is not affected by circumcision
...... .. . . . .....

You're clearly wrong - a quote from an author explictly says their study did not address sexual satisfaction. Re-read it.

[Kim]

Post by j***@gmail.com
......... . . . .......
"Relevant" and "specialized" are nearly synonymous in this context. For that reason, I disagree with you.

Twisting meanings to defining "relevant" as equivalent to "specialized" just because it suits you is not a sustainable argument especially without supporting scientific evidence. If you believe there are "specialized" nerves for sexual pleasure you must provide the scientific name for these nerves because so far as I am aware nobody else has ever discovered them.

I note that you have already dishonestly attributed to the authors as a direct quote that there are "specialized sexual nerves", a statement that does not appear in the report. Sir, you are intellectually extremely untidy,

Post by j***@gmail.com
And why do you suppose a forearm cannot acheive orgasm?

Because a forearm is not designed by nature, or its distribution and concentration of various nerve cells, to achieve orgasm. Sir,if you are so ignorant of physiology you should not waste our time here!

Kindly note that if the forearm is stroked by the right person in the right way, the brain may interpret this stimulus as sexual and cause an erection in the penis even if the penis is not touched. This does not mean that the forearm or the penis has has "specialised sexual nerves". It means that the brain interprets forearm signals as sexual which in another context it would interpret as non sexual, then sends appropriate signals to the penis.

Post by j***@gmail.com
Sensitivity is not the same as pleasure. Your eyeball is very sensitive to touch but touching it is not pleasurable. Google "foreskin pain". You will see hundreds of thousands of complaints about pain caused by foreskin sensitivity.The foreskin is a protective covering designed to detect potentially painful threats to the penis and is endowed with nerve fibers suited for that purpose. It is not necessary for sexual satisfaction which as the study demonstrates is not affected by circumcision
...... .. . . . .....
You're clearly wrong - a quote from an author explictly says their study did not address sexual satisfaction. Re-read it.

I did re-read it, and the study measured: "intercourse satisfaction, orgasmic function, sexual desire, and overall satisfaction".

It then concluded: "No differences between the groups were observed on any of these measures, suggesting that sexual functioning may not differ across circumcision status".

I suggest you re-read it, and not try to conjure novel meanings to words just to fit your own prejudices.

Sir, when one loses a debate it is better to retire gracefully that to keep coming back with ever more petty arguments in an attempt to retrieve a lost position.

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by Kim

Post by j***@gmail.com
......... . . . .......
"Relevant" and "specialized" are nearly synonymous in this context. For that reason, I disagree with you.

Twisting meanings to defining "relevant" as equivalent to "specialized" just because it suits you is not a sustainable argument especially without supporting scientific evidence. If you believe there are "specialized" nerves for sexual pleasure you must provide the scientific name for these nerves because so far as I am aware nobody else has ever discovered them.
I note that you have already dishonestly attributed to the authors as a direct quote that there are "specialized sexual nerves", a statement that does not appear in the report. Sir, you are intellectually extremely untidy,

I see how you would think I attributed "specialized sexual nerves" to the authors. It looks like it, the way I wrote it. If you followed this forum long enough, though, you'd see that phrase used here pretty often here. I was quoting this forum, not the authors (obviously, since they don't say it).

Post by Kim

Post by j***@gmail.com
And why do you suppose a forearm cannot acheive orgasm?

Because a forearm is not designed by nature, or its distribution and concentration of various nerve cells, to achieve orgasm. Sir,if you are so ignorant of physiology you should not waste our time here!
Kindly note that if the forearm is stroked by the right person in the right way, the brain may interpret this stimulus as sexual and cause an erection in the penis even if the penis is not touched. This does not mean that the forearm or the penis has has "specialised sexual nerves". It means that the brain interprets forearm signals as sexual which in another context it would interpret as non sexual, then sends appropriate signals to the penis.

Post by j***@gmail.com
Sensitivity is not the same as pleasure. Your eyeball is very sensitive to touch but touching it is not pleasurable. Google "foreskin pain". You will see hundreds of thousands of complaints about pain caused by foreskin sensitivity.The foreskin is a protective covering designed to detect potentially painful threats to the penis and is endowed with nerve fibers suited for that purpose. It is not necessary for sexual satisfaction which as the study demonstrates is not affected by circumcision
...... .. . . . .....
You're clearly wrong - a quote from an author explictly says their study did not address sexual satisfaction. Re-read it.

I did re-read it, and the study measured: "intercourse satisfaction, orgasmic function, sexual desire, and overall satisfaction".

Well, you're right, the survey portion of the study asked questions about sexual satisfaction. Of course, asking survey questions does not measure intercourse satisfaction.

The author, then, concedes a limitation of the study: that it measured only sensitivity and not sexual functioning.

"Methodology and results from this study build on previous research and imply that if sexual functioning is related to circumcision status, this relationship is not likely the result of decreased penile sensitivity stemming from neonatal circumcision," observed Ms. Bossio

Post by Kim
It then concluded: "No differences between the groups were observed on any of these measures, suggesting that sexual functioning may not differ across circumcision status".
I suggest you re-read it, and not try to conjure novel meanings to words just to fit your own prejudices.
Sir, when one loses a debate it is better to retire gracefully that to keep coming back with ever more petty arguments in an attempt to retrieve a lost position.

The point of a discussion is not to win. At least, not to me. Discussion is how people learn and refine their views. You've helped me refine my views on the study. You've helped me be critical of the study and of myself in ways I would not have been otherwise.

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by j***@gmail.com
I see how you would think I attributed "specialized sexual nerves" to the authors. It looks like it, the way I wrote it.

It surely does! You wrote: " According to the authors, there ARE 'specialized sexual nerves,'" You flat out attributed a quote to them that is not in the article and which does not reflect their view. You blatantly put your ignorant, incorrect view in their mouths!

You got caught in a dishonest misrepresentation but then you didn't admit it and came up with an excuse that just makes you look even worse:"If you followed this forum long enough, though, you'd see that phrase used here pretty often here. I was quoting this forum, not the authors" Quoting the forum????? You quoted "a forum", stuck it in the mouths of authors who don't believe it, and you think that's OK? And you think anybody would buy that excuse? You are really, really stupid.

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by Kim

Post by j***@gmail.com
You're clearly wrong - a quote from an author explictly says their study did not address sexual satisfaction. Re-read it.

I did re-read it, and the study measured: "intercourse satisfaction, orgasmic function, sexual desire, and overall satisfaction".

Got that one wrong, too, didn't you? I think you have serious problems with reading comprehension!

Post by j***@gmail.com

Post by Kim

Post by j***@gmail.com
The point of a discussion is not to win. At least, not to me.

On the evidence I've seen so far nearly all your posts are repeated attempts to win a lost argument!

[p***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by j***@gmail.com
The point of a discussion is not to win. At least, not to me.

On the evidence I've seen so far nearly all your posts are repeated attempts to win a lost argument!

Mehdi, Jack is a drunk. I was a bartender for years and I know these bastards inside out. Saw them arguing about nothing for two or three hours straight because they have to have the last word. Then come back the next night and the next and have the same argument over again. He's just a DRUNKEN FOOL.

[j***@gmail.com]

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by j***@gmail.com
The point of a discussion is not to win. At least, not to me.

On the evidence I've seen so far nearly all your posts are repeated attempts to win a lost argument!

Mehdi, Jack is a drunk. I was a bartender for years and I know these bastards inside out. Saw them arguing about nothing for two or three hours straight because they have to have the last word. Then come back the next night and the next and have the same argument over again. He's just a DRUNKEN FOOL.
..............

You seem oddly invested in the image of "jack pine" that you have created. You'e even attached images from your own past to this jack pine from usenet. Consider, if you would Parker, that there can be a huge gulf between the images you've conjured and the reality of who someone is. Here are a few data points you might use to modify your impressions: I drive to my grandparents' house once a week to mow their lawn and weed their garden; my girlfriend is from South Asia; I'll have my M.A. by next spring if all goes as planned; I do drink some beer but not so much any more; I like to teach; I always brake for squirrels; last summer I was doing 14 mile runs once a week.

[p***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk
Mehdi, Jack is a drunk. I was a bartender for years and I know these bastards inside out. Saw them arguing about nothing for two or three hours straight because they have to have the last word. Then come back the next night and the next and have the same argument over again. He's just a DRUNKEN FOOL.
..............
You seem oddly invested in the image of "jack pine" that you have created. You'e even attached images from your own past to this jack pine from usenet. Consider, if you would Parker, that there can be a huge gulf between the images you've conjured and the reality of who someone is.

This "Jack Pine from usenet" has the same email and ISP addresses as you -- are you saying it's not you? Yes I've attached images from my bartender past to you. Images of belligerent boring drunk arguing endlessly about stuff they know nothing about. But it's an accurate image of you, Jack.

How do I know? You've forgotten this because you were blotto at the time, but YOU POSTED HERE THAT MY IMAGE WAS CORRECT!!! Here is what you wrote in one of your maudlin, drunken moments -

"***@gmail.com 6/28/15 I am crying because I drank 17 beers. Like when you were a bartender--I am one of them. "

As for any other "images" of you, they don't come from me, they come direct from YOU and your writing here and that other miserable self-pity group you go to where you whine and snivel about how horrible your life is, how you have problems getting girls, how you want do do drugs, how you cant keep a job, how you are afraid of being homeless, how you drink drink drink, how you insult women online but fear them in real life, how you use spiteful sarcastic one liners when you lose a debate just so you can have the last word, how you are afraid to leave your house, how other people don't relate to you, how you use big words you don't understand to try to seem smart, how your apartment is disgusting, how you come in here so drunk you actually black out and forget the stupid shit you write and then flat out deny you wrote it, how you insult others nonstop then cry like a baby when they insult you back, how you brag about much alcohol you can drink, how you fake citations and so on. It's all there Jack on the record for everybody to see! Don't try to blame me mate.

Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk
Here are a few data points you might use to modify your impressions: I drive to my grandparents' house once a week to mow their lawn and weed their garden

After your 17 drinks whine you wrote: "Actually, I am drinking even more tonight and I can still solve quadratic equations, no prob." I bet you think you can safely drive drunk too, right?

Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk
my girlfriend is from South Asia"

I bet it would be news to her that she's your girlfriend. You're always bleating to your self pity group that you can't get a girl. You're afraid to kiss one. Another won't call you back. Another prospect says your apartment "smells like a skunk..it's making my eyes water". Jack -- any girl that would hook up with somebody who admits he spends "all day drinking vodka from a paper cup" in a stinking apartment would be a SKANK. Good luck finding one mate.

Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk

I'll have my M.A. by next spring if all goes as planned.

ROFLMAO! You mean if you can get a job, keep a job, and save enough from your beer money to buy a £20 mail order diploma from Donald Trump University? I never got to uni myself and I know the standards in the usa are really low, but you need a BA to get an MA, and no way could you even get a BA, you are just too gormless. You told your self-pity group you have "been in food service for a few years, though there are some janitorial duties associated" which I suppose means you sweep floors at Macdonalds. Do they require a BA for that Jack?

Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk
I do drink some beer but not so much any more

Jesus another alcoholic who thinks he can cut down and just have "a few beers". You are unbelievably stupid.

Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk
I like to teach

Would that be like your postings here which almost every time turn out to be wrong in information or logic?

Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk
last summer I was doing 14 mile runs once a week.

Is that how you remember your pub crawls?

[Quentin]

Parke, this Jack is an easy target, but why waste time on a drunk? In my view far too much time in this group is spent in correcting his errors of fact, flaws of reasoning, and ignorance of science. May I remind you of a message I posted to you here over a year ago?

Park, I have seen many of Jack's posts now and he is clearly an internet "troll" who wants to draw attention to himself no matter how rude or irrelevant his comments are. Such people usually have personality issues in real life (they are often social isolates, shy, insecure et cetera) but online they can assume the opposite roles. The object is to be noticed, nothing more. By repeatedly challenging him you are just encouraging him to continue the behaviour. Frankly it would be better just to ignore him.

Most people DO ignore him. I just checked the last 20 threads he initiated and not a single one of them elicited a comment from anybody. All got only a handful of views, typically less than a dozen -- no doubt from newbies who don't know him. You and a few others routinely make a fool of him but obviously he doesn't care -- he craves attention, even negative attention. Why give it to him? If just wastes space and time.

Quentin

[Uckister777]

Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk
Mehdi, Jack is a drunk. I was a bartender for years and I know these bastards inside out. Saw them arguing about nothing for two or three hours straight because they have to have the last word. Then come back the next night and the next and have the same argument over again. He's just a DRUNKEN FOOL.
..............
You seem oddly invested in the image of "jack pine" that you have created. You'e even attached images from your own past to this jack pine from usenet. Consider, if you would Parker, that there can be a huge gulf between the images you've conjured and the reality of who someone is.

This "Jack Pine from usenet" has the same email and ISP addresses as you -- are you saying it's not you? Yes I've attached images from my bartender past to you. Images of belligerent boring drunk arguing endlessly about stuff they know nothing about. But it's an accurate image of you, Jack.
How do I know? You've forgotten this because you were blotto at the time, but YOU POSTED HERE THAT MY IMAGE WAS CORRECT!!! Here is what you wrote in one of your maudlin, drunken moments -
As for any other "images" of you, they don't come from me, they come direct from YOU and your writing here and that other miserable self-pity group you go to where you whine and snivel about how horrible your life is, how you have problems getting girls, how you want do do drugs, how you cant keep a job, how you are afraid of being homeless, how you drink drink drink, how you insult women online but fear them in real life, how you use spiteful sarcastic one liners when you lose a debate just so you can have the last word, how you are afraid to leave your house, how other people don't relate to you, how you use big words you don't understand to try to seem smart, how your apartment is disgusting, how you come in here so drunk you actually black out and forget the stupid shit you write and then flat out deny you wrote it, how you insult others nonstop then cry like a baby when they insult you back, how you brag about much alcohol you can drink, how you fake citations and so on. It's all there Jack on the record for everybody to see! Don't try to blame me mate.

Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk
Here are a few data points you might use to modify your impressions: I drive to my grandparents' house once a week to mow their lawn and weed their garden

After your 17 drinks whine you wrote: "Actually, I am drinking even more tonight and I can still solve quadratic equations, no prob." I bet you think you can safely drive drunk too, right?

Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk
my girlfriend is from South Asia"

I bet it would be news to her that she's your girlfriend. You're always bleating to your self pity group that you can't get a girl. You're afraid to kiss one. Another won't call you back. Another prospect says your apartment "smells like a skunk..it's making my eyes water". Jack -- any girl that would hook up with somebody who admits he spends "all day drinking vodka from a paper cup" in a stinking apartment would be a SKANK. Good luck finding one mate.

Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk

I'll have my M.A. by next spring if all goes as planned.

ROFLMAO! You mean if you can get a job, keep a job, and save enough from your beer money to buy a £20 mail order diploma from Donald Trump University? I never got to uni myself and I know the standards in the usa are really low, but you need a BA to get an MA, and no way could you even get a BA, you are just too gormless. You told your self-pity group you have "been in food service for a few years, though there are some janitorial duties associated" which I suppose means you sweep floors at Macdonalds. Do they require a BA for that Jack?

Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk
I do drink some beer but not so much any more

Jesus another alcoholic who thinks he can cut down and just have "a few beers". You are unbelievably stupid.

Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk
I like to teach

Would that be like your postings here which almost every time turn out to be wrong in information or logic?

Post by p***@yahoo.co.uk
last summer I was doing 14 mile runs once a week.

Is that how you remember your pub crawls?

LOL!!!

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by windinghighway
What percentage of the worlds males are circumcised? The foreskin lover organizations and websites are wedded to one number: 20 percent. They have clung to this mysterious number like religious dogma for years.
The so-called Circumcision Resource Center claims "Over 80 percent of the world's males are intact". TLCTugger claims "Four fifths of the world's men are intact".
The so-called Mothers against Circumcision claim "82 percent of the world's men are intact"
Circumstitions shows a pie chart with about a fifth of the male population uncircumcised.
Where does this number come from? Its hard to tell, but perhaps foreskin fanatics add up the male population of the USA, Israel, and muslim countries to get there. They probably overlook the huge muslim minorities in countries like India and China, and the many non-muslim countries where circumcision exceeds 80 percent, like Ethiopia, Philippines, Congo, South Korea, Madagascar, Angola, etc.
Yet much better information has been available for some time from a very reliable source, the World Health Organization. In 2007 the WHO put the actual circumcision rate at 30 percent. They cautioned, however, that this figure probably underestimated the true extent of male circumcision. Here is the reference: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007/9789241596169_eng.pdf
This statistic has been publicly available for five years, so have ANY of the foreskin lover websites updated their estimate with a the more reliable number?
Of course not.
And now there is a new and even more reliable estimate, based on the best and most up to date information from the individual countries of the world. This estimate puts the circumcised male population of the world at 37 percent -- with a caution that this, too, is probably an underestimate. Thats over 1.3 billion men enjoying the many benefits of circumcision! Here is the reference, which shows the data for each country: http://www.circs.org/index.php/Reviews/Rates/Global
Now, will ANY of the foreskin lover websites bite the bullet and update their unsupportable low estimate with the latest information?
Not a chance. They will stick to 20 percent, because they are not interested in facts -- only in propaganda.
Of course, these are the same organizations and websites which, for the same reason, continue to deny that there is any link between foreskins and HIV -- facts be damned.

Genital mutilation is a serious problem. And there is literally no reason to make a difference between boys, intersex or girls.

This difference is completely cultural biased.

Don't you think it's time to actually protect the boys and the intersex kids the same way we already protected girls?

[Uckister 777]

Post by windinghighway
And now there is a new and even more reliable estimate, based on the best and most up to date information from the individual countries of the world. This estimate puts the circumcised male population of the world at 37 percent -- with a caution that this, too, is probably an underestimate. Thats over 1.3 billion men enjoying the many benefits of circumcision! Here is the reference, which shows the data for each country: http://www.circs.org/index.php/Reviews/Rates/Global

That website is no longer available but an expanded version of the data was published in March of 2016: https://pophealthmetrics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12963-016-0073-5

This is the most exhaustive survey to date of circumcision statistics worldwide. It covers 237 countries and territories and estimates 37-39 percent of the world's men are circumcised.

[Uckister777]

What percentage of the worlds males are circumcised? The foreskin lover organizations and websites are wedded to one number: 20 percent. They have clung to this mysterious number like religious dogma for years... Yet much better information has been available for some time from a very reliable source, the World Health Organization. In 2007 the WHO put the actual circumcision rate at 30 percent...And now there is a new and even more reliable estimate..This estimate puts the circumcised male population of the world at 37 percent..Now, will ANY of the foreskin lover websites bite the bullet and update their unsupportable low estimate with the latest information?

I thought I would check the answer to that question. Guess what I found!

Have any of the foreskin lover websites updated to the latest (2016) estimate of 37-39 percent?

Nope.

Have any of the foreskin lover websites updated to the earlier (2011) estimate of 37 percent?

Nope.

Have any of the foreskin lover websites updated to the even earlier (2007) estimate of 30 percent?

Nope.

So what have they done?

They have either made up their own new number without a citation or have just dropped all mention of a number completely!!

Being so fundamentally dishonest, they found themselves in a tough spot. They can't keep claiming 20 percent in the midst of all the publicity about much higher numbers. They can't list the higher numbers because they hate to admit circumcision is so popular (and probably getting more so).So look at their solution:

TLC TUGGER (who previously claimed "Four fiths of the world's men are now inact") now states:

"Most of the world is intact (uncircumcised)." No citation given.

CIRCUMCISION RESOURCE CENTER (which previously claimed "Over 80 percent of the world's males are intact") now states:

"Circumcision is nearly universal among Muslims who do it for cultural or religious reasons. Aside from Muslims, only about 10 percent of the world's males are circumcised." No citation given.

CIRCUMSITIONS (which previously had a chart showing 80 percent of men circumcised) now states:

"Most men in the world and the great majority of men in Europe, Scandinavia, Central and South America and Asia are not circumcised." No citation given.

MOTHERS AGAINST CIRCUMCISION (Which previously claimed "82 percent of men are intact" is at least consistent. It now states;

"82 percent of men are intact" and in this case --the ONLY case -- it has a citation!!! Whoopee!! But what's the citation? A bit of a letdown, I'm afraid. It's 1999 estimate -- yes, 17 years old -- by the "Mother" who runs the website. In other words, she took a guess 17 years ago and is still citing herself today.

I've looked through every anti-circumcision, pro-foreskin, intactivist site I can find. All of them claim to provide information on circumcision but not ONE of them now gives a referenced estimate of the percentage of men on earth who are circumcised. The more the estimates go up, the less they want people to know about it.

Here's the reference again for the latest study, which covers 237 countries and territories and estimates 37-39 percent of men are circumcised. https://pophealthmetrics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12963-016-0073-

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by Uckister777

What percentage of the worlds males are circumcised? The foreskin lover organizations and websites are wedded to one number: 20 percent. They have clung to this mysterious number like religious dogma for years... Yet much better information has been available for some time from a very reliable source, the World Health Organization. In 2007 the WHO put the actual circumcision rate at 30 percent...And now there is a new and even more reliable estimate..This estimate puts the circumcised male population of the world at 37 percent..Now, will ANY of the foreskin lover websites bite the bullet and update their unsupportable low estimate with the latest information?

I thought I would check the answer to that question. Guess what I found!
Have any of the foreskin lover websites updated to the latest (2016) estimate of 37-39 percent?
Nope.
Have any of the foreskin lover websites updated to the earlier (2011) estimate of 37 percent?
Nope.
Have any of the foreskin lover websites updated to the even earlier (2007) estimate of 30 percent?
Nope.
So what have they done?
They have either made up their own new number without a citation or have just dropped all mention of a number completely!!
"Most of the world is intact (uncircumcised)." No citation given.
"Circumcision is nearly universal among Muslims who do it for cultural or religious reasons. Aside from Muslims, only about 10 percent of the world's males are circumcised." No citation given.
"Most men in the world and the great majority of men in Europe, Scandinavia, Central and South America and Asia are not circumcised." No citation given.
MOTHERS AGAINST CIRCUMCISION (Which previously claimed "82 percent of men are intact" is at least consistent. It now states;
"82 percent of men are intact" and in this case --the ONLY case -- it has a citation!!! Whoopee!! But what's the citation? A bit of a letdown, I'm afraid. It's 1999 estimate -- yes, 17 years old -- by the "Mother" who runs the website. In other words, she took a guess 17 years ago and is still citing herself today.
I've looked through every anti-circumcision, pro-foreskin, intactivist site I can find. All of them claim to provide information on circumcision but not ONE of them now gives a referenced estimate of the percentage of men on earth who are circumcised. The more the estimates go up, the less they want people to know about it.
Here's the reference again for the latest study, which covers 237 countries and territories and estimates 37-39 percent of men are circumcised. https://pophealthmetrics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12963-016-0073-

Why are you so bothered by people wanting genital integrity? I'm honestly astounded by how much pro-circers are bothered by men not wanting to be cut up against their will and wanting the same legal protections against genital mutilation that women and girls have.

I'm curious. Why is this an issue for you? And why is the exact number of men who've been circumcised important to you? You're not trying to suggest that popular ideas are necessarily right, are you?

Also, you keep saying 'foreskin lovers' as if to belittle arguments against male genital mutilation. That's not how you have a productive discussion and it's intellectually lazy. You're getting close to ad hominems.

[Uckister777]

Post by m***@gmail.com
I'm curious. Why is this an issue for you? And why is the exact number of men who've been circumcised important to you? You're not trying to suggest that popular ideas are necessarily right, are you?

I'm a scientist. I'm interested in FACTS and TRUTH. A more interesting question is: Why is the exact number of circumcised men such an issue for the foreskin lover websites? For years almost every one of them claimed -- prominently and without any evidence at all -- that only 20 percent of the world's men are circumcised. Then as soon as FACTS started coming out that showed they were wrong, they didn't correct the error. Instead ALL of them fudged the numbers or dropped all reference to world circumcision rates. Why do think this is such an issue for them that they must ALL try to hide the truth?

Post by m***@gmail.com
You're not trying to suggest that popular ideas are necessarily right, are you?

No but a world circumcision rate of nearly 40 percent sure takes some explaining away if you're a foreskin lover, doesn't it?

Post by m***@gmail.com
Also, you keep saying 'foreskin lovers' as if to belittle arguments against male genital mutilation. That's not how you have a productive discussion and it's intellectually lazy. You're getting close to ad hominems.

If I say "nature lovers" nobody thinks it's an insult.
If I say "dog lovers" nobody thinks it's an insult.
If I say "art lovers" nobody thinks it's an insult.

But if I say "foreskin lovers" people get all upset.

Hmmmmmm. I wonder why.

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by Uckister777

Post by m***@gmail.com
I'm curious. Why is this an issue for you? And why is the exact number of men who've been circumcised important to you? You're not trying to suggest that popular ideas are necessarily right, are you?

I'm a scientist. I'm interested in FACTS and TRUTH.

A more interesting question is: Why is the exact number of circumcised men such an issue for the foreskin lover websites?

The numbers aren't relevant to any argument I'm making.

For years almost every one of them claimed -- prominently and without any evidence at all -- that only 20 percent of the world's men are circumcised. Then as soon as FACTS started coming out that showed they were wrong, they didn't correct the error. Instead ALL of them fudged the numbers or dropped all reference to world circumcision rates. Why do think this is such an issue for them that they must ALL try to hide the truth?

Post by Uckister777

Post by m***@gmail.com
You're not trying to suggest that popular ideas are necessarily right, are you?

No but a world circumcision rate of nearly 40 percent sure takes some explaining away if you're a foreskin lover, doesn't it?

I've said this time and time again; culture, tradition, pressure, superstition, dogma and religious bullshit. For example;

'Among the Dieri of Central Australia....the Great Council of the Dieri would also keep a stockpile of boys' foreskins in constant readiness, because of their homeopathic power to produce rain (do penises not 'rain' urine - surely eloquent evidence of their power?).

-Richard Dawkins, 'Unweaving the Rainbow', p 182

In the last 130-ish years, circumcision's been hailed as the cure for epilepsy, bedwetting, seizures and masturbation, joined in the last 15-odd years by HIV, all of which is utter bullshit (including HIV).
In addition to that, it's a visually prominent part of what has been a highly important part of many cultures and religions for millenia; modification of the penis is a direct result of that.

Post by Uckister777

Post by m***@gmail.com
Also, you keep saying 'foreskin lovers' as if to belittle arguments against male genital mutilation. That's not how you have a productive discussion and it's intellectually lazy. You're getting close to ad hominems.

If I say "nature lovers" nobody thinks it's an insult.
If I say "dog lovers" nobody thinks it's an insult.
If I say "art lovers" nobody thinks it's an insult.
But if I say "foreskin lovers" people get all upset.
Hmmmmmm. I wonder why.

Because it's just playground peurility.

It's not an insult. I'm a huge fan of intact penis, but you still seem to be trying to pooh pooh any arguments I and others make with the whole 'foreskin lovers' schtick.

You've also just given a false equivalence and strawmanned my whole point, I'm sure you know that very well, you're just trying to be clever.
This might serve you well, if you claim to be a scientist.
https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/

[Uckister777]

Post by Uckister777
A more interesting question is: Why is the exact number of circumcised men such an issue for the foreskin lover websites?
The numbers aren't relevant to any argument I'm making.

Sure they are. You asked why the numbers are relevant to me. I told you, I am interested in FACTS and TRUTH. Then I asked you why the foreskin lover websites are going to such lengths to hide the true numbers. Suddenly you don't want to talk about it. But everybody here knows why.

Those foreskin lover websites, from which you copy and paste your endless stream of ignorance and misinformation, are notorious for their rejection of science and their outright dishonesty. For example:

The "Mothers against circumcision" site, last updated in 2014, says it's a "myth" that circumcision helps prevent HIV infection -- but gives no sources later than 1999! ALL the contrary information is deliberately omitted including ALL the important research of the past 18 years. Some "mothers" huh?

The "Circumcision Resource Center" website gives ONLY anti-circumcision references and nothing else. In fact when the American Academy of Pediatrics endorsed circumcision on scientific grounds the "resource center" simply denounced science itself: "The underlying flawed assumption is that the way to to evaluate circumcision is to perform medical studies". Some "resource center", huh?

The "Doctors Opposing Circumcision" didn't like the American Academy of Pediatrics endorsement of circumcision either, so what did they do? Did they produce an informed critique of the underlying science? Nope. They ducked and instead clamored for a new non-scientific statement by "volunteers, some medically trained and some not, from historically non circumcising cultures". Some "doctors" huh?

You know, there's a professor called Stephen Moreton who opposes circumcision. He wanted to get more information to support his position. When he checked out the various foreskin-lover websites, books, and other resources he was appalled at the fanaticism, dishonesty and near hysteria that he found in practically everything he looked at. He became convinced that this stream of nonsense was undermining the case against circumcision because it made the foreskin lovers look like crackpots. Nobody was taking them seriously. So he started a blog where he examined "intactivist" arguments and data in a dispassionate, scientific manner. He hoped he would improve the quality of the anti-circumcision arguments -- but predictably, he was just attacked by fanatical foreskin lovers instead. This is the blog, it's a real eye-opener: https://thecaseagainstintactivism.wordpress.com/

Post by Uckister777

Post by Uckister777
No but a world circumcision rate of nearly 40 percent sure takes some explaining away if you're a foreskin lover, doesn't it?

I've said this time and time again; culture, tradition, pressure, superstition, dogma and religious bullshit.

Sloppy thinking. You aren't answering the question, you are just restating it. WHY have so many cultures come up with "culture, tradition, pressure, superstition, dogma, and religious bullshit" to justify cutting off mens' foreskins? WHY FORESKINS?? Why CUT THEM OFF, rather than, for example, hang garlands of flowers around them?

Cutting off foreskins (a painful and dangerous practice until very recently) has been the most common surgery on earth from time immemorial. Men, the owners of foreskins, who know all about them, chose to cut them off. Not an earlobe. Not a testicle. Not a nipple. Not a slice of toe. Not a nick from a nostril. Not even a little snippet of glans. Just foreskins, over and over again, culture after culture, century after century, country after country. All these peoples decided, usually quite independently, to cut the things off. Why?

In science we follow the principle of Occams Razor -- that the simplest of competing theories should be preferred to more complex and hypothetical ones. What is the simplest explanation for the historical, cross-cultural reality of circumcision as the most popular surgery of all time?

Simple. Men don't like foreskins and think they are much better off without them!

If you have a better explanation I would love to hear it. But this time don't mistake the original REASONS for circumcision with the subsequent CULTURAL SUPPORTS for the practice because these are not the same. Please try to think clearly.

Post by Uckister777

Post by Uckister777

Post by m***@gmail.com
Also, you keep saying 'foreskin lovers' as if to belittle arguments against male genital mutilation. That's not how you have a productive discussion and it's intellectually lazy. You're getting close to ad hominems.

If I say "nature lovers" nobody thinks it's an insult.
If I say "dog lovers" nobody thinks it's an insult.
If I say "art lovers" nobody thinks it's an insult.
But if I say "foreskin lovers" people get all upset.
Hmmmmmm. I wonder why.

Because it's just playground peurility.

More sloppy thinking. Once again, you aren't answering the question of why "foreskin lover" seems like an insult --. you are just restating it. Again, please try to think clearly. Why is it "playground puerility?"

I have many gay friends who would be happy to be called "penis lovers"(or music lovers or art lovers) but I don't have any who would want to be called "foreskin lovers". It's something about foreskins -- isn't it?

Hmmmmmmm what could it possibly be????

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by Uckister777

Post by Uckister777
A more interesting question is: Why is the exact number of circumcised men such an issue for the foreskin lover websites?
The numbers aren't relevant to any argument I'm making.

Sure they are. You asked why the numbers are relevant to me. I told you, I am interested in FACTS and TRUTH. Then I asked you why the foreskin lover websites are going to such lengths to hide the true numbers. Suddenly you don't want to talk about it. But everybody here knows why.
The "Mothers against circumcision" site, last updated in 2014, says it's a "myth" that circumcision helps prevent HIV infection -- but gives no sources later than 1999! ALL the contrary information is deliberately omitted including ALL the important research of the past 18 years. Some "mothers" huh?
The "Circumcision Resource Center" website gives ONLY anti-circumcision references and nothing else. In fact when the American Academy of Pediatrics endorsed circumcision on scientific grounds the "resource center" simply denounced science itself: "The underlying flawed assumption is that the way to to evaluate circumcision is to perform medical studies". Some "resource center", huh?
The "Doctors Opposing Circumcision" didn't like the American Academy of Pediatrics endorsement of circumcision either, so what did they do? Did they produce an informed critique of the underlying science? Nope. They ducked and instead clamored for a new non-scientific statement by "volunteers, some medically trained and some not, from historically non circumcising cultures". Some "doctors" huh?
You know, there's a professor called Stephen Moreton who opposes circumcision. He wanted to get more information to support his position. When he checked out the various foreskin-lover websites, books, and other resources he was appalled at the fanaticism, dishonesty and near hysteria that he found in practically everything he looked at. He became convinced that this stream of nonsense was undermining the case against circumcision because it made the foreskin lovers look like crackpots. Nobody was taking them seriously. So he started a blog where he examined "intactivist" arguments and data in a dispassionate, scientific manner. He hoped he would improve the quality of the anti-circumcision arguments -- but predictably, he was just attacked by fanatical foreskin lovers instead. This is the blog, it's a real eye-opener: https://thecaseagainstintactivism.wordpress.com/

Post by Uckister777

Post by Uckister777
No but a world circumcision rate of nearly 40 percent sure takes some explaining away if you're a foreskin lover, doesn't it?

I've said this time and time again; culture, tradition, pressure, superstition, dogma and religious bullshit.

Sloppy thinking. You aren't answering the question, you are just restating it. WHY have so many cultures come up with "culture, tradition, pressure, superstition, dogma, and religious bullshit" to justify cutting off mens' foreskins? WHY FORESKINS?? Why CUT THEM OFF, rather than, for example, hang garlands of flowers around them?

Why labia? Why clitorises? It's estimated that 200 million women in the world have had their genitals mutilated. Explain that. It's the same logic you're using, and it can be used to explain and even justify FGM.

I've already answered this with the example about the Australian aborigines. The Abrahamic myths are another example of superstitions.

Post by Uckister777
Cutting off foreskins (a painful and dangerous practice until very recently) has been the most common surgery on earth from time immemorial. Men, the owners of foreskins, who know all about them, chose to cut them off. Not an earlobe. Not a testicle. Not a nipple. Not a slice of toe. Not a nick from a nostril. Not even a little snippet of glans. Just foreskins, over and over again, culture after culture, century after century, country after country. All these peoples decided, usually quite independently, to cut the things off. Why?

Penis can generally function without foreskin. Not as well (and they look a total mess), but it can generally be done without too much damage. Not everybody has earlobes and ears don't have a central role in the creation of life, nor is there anything specifically male or female about them.

Some cultures go further than circumcision; a rite of passage among a native American tribe was to cut the length of a penis and make the man stand over a fire with his penis sliced open like a sausage.

Power and control over other people is one. Cultural pressure is another. And in America we get the 'he has to look like me' all the time.

Anyway, you're the one making a positive claim , i.e. that there must be some reason why people have chosen foreskin as THE thing to cut off. The burden of proof is surely on you, not me.

I'd like to add that several cultures have vehemently opposed circumcision; the Greeks and the Romans thought it a barbaric practice, and the Greeks were especially fond of a long acroposthion. So if you're going to call me picky, you might want to check your own arguments.

Post by Uckister777
In science we follow the principle of Occams Razor -- that the simplest of competing theories should be preferred to more complex and hypothetical ones. What is the simplest explanation for the historical, cross-cultural reality of circumcision as the most popular surgery of all time?
Simple. Men don't like foreskins and think they are much better off without them!

Plenty of men like foreskin; they're a lot of fun to play with. So it's not as simple as 'men don't like them'.

Occam's razor is about getting rid of bullshit, over-complex explanations for things, not necessarily about the 'simplest answer being the correct one'.

'God created the universe'. Simple. Next!

Post by Uckister777
If you have a better explanation I would love to hear it. But this time don't mistake the original REASONS for circumcision with the subsequent CULTURAL SUPPORTS for the practice because these are not the same. Please try to think clearly.

Post by Uckister777

Post by Uckister777

Post by m***@gmail.com
Also, you keep saying 'foreskin lovers' as if to belittle arguments against male genital mutilation. That's not how you have a productive discussion and it's intellectually lazy. You're getting close to ad hominems.

If I say "nature lovers" nobody thinks it's an insult.
If I say "dog lovers" nobody thinks it's an insult.
If I say "art lovers" nobody thinks it's an insult.
But if I say "foreskin lovers" people get all upset.
Hmmmmmm. I wonder why.

Because it's just playground peurility.

More sloppy thinking. Once again, you aren't answering the question of why "foreskin lover" seems like an insult --. you are just restating it. Again, please try to think clearly. Why is it "playground puerility?"
I have many gay friends who would be happy to be called "penis lovers"(or music lovers or art lovers) but I don't have any who would want to be called "foreskin lovers". It's something about foreskins -- isn't it?
Hmmmmmmm what could it possibly be????

You're trying to get at something, why don't you just say it and stop being annoying? Yup, I love foreskin; intact genitals work a lot better than mutilated ones. They also look far better. I'm not ashamed of it, but you're trying to use it as an insult and to dismiss my position which I'm sure you're well aware of and it's annoying.

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by Uckister777

Post by Uckister777
A more interesting question is: Why is the exact number of circumcised men such an issue for the foreskin lover websites?
The numbers aren't relevant to any argument I'm making.

Sure they are. You asked why the numbers are relevant to me. I told you, I am interested in FACTS and TRUTH. Then I asked you why the foreskin lover websites are going to such lengths to hide the true numbers. Suddenly you don't want to talk about it. But everybody here knows why.

I don't want to talk because I've had these same discussions time and time again and always we return to the beginning. No headway is made in any direction because people don't want to question their views. I wonder whether the majority of people here are men who have been circumcised either against their will or because of cultural pressure, vilification of natural penis and therefore don't want to face the very real possibility that circumcision is no benefit, especially if they've then inflicted it upon their sons.

The reason I can't really be bothered to talk about numbers is because numbers aren't relevant. It's like saying that the majority of Americans believe evolution is false, therefore evolution's false.
Please give me one incidence of my 'ignorance and misinformation', then explain why it is misinformed information. Provide evidence.

Post by Uckister777
The "Mothers against circumcision" site, last updated in 2014, says it's a "myth" that circumcision helps prevent HIV infection -- but gives no sources later than 1999! ALL the contrary information is deliberately omitted including ALL the important research of the past 18 years. Some "mothers" huh?
The "Circumcision Resource Center" website gives ONLY anti-circumcision references and nothing else. In fact when the American Academy of Pediatrics endorsed circumcision on scientific grounds the "resource center" simply denounced science itself: "The underlying flawed assumption is that the way to to evaluate circumcision is to perform medical studies". Some "resource center", huh?
The "Doctors Opposing Circumcision" didn't like the American Academy of Pediatrics endorsement of circumcision either, so what did they do? Did they produce an informed critique of the underlying science? Nope. They ducked and instead clamored for a new non-scientific statement by "volunteers, some medically trained and some not, from historically non circumcising cultures". Some "doctors" huh?
You know, there's a professor called Stephen Moreton who opposes circumcision. He wanted to get more information to support his position. When he checked out the various foreskin-lover websites, books, and other resources he was appalled at the fanaticism, dishonesty and near hysteria that he found in practically everything he looked at. He became convinced that this stream of nonsense was undermining the case against circumcision because it made the foreskin lovers look like crackpots. Nobody was taking them seriously. So he started a blog where he examined "intactivist" arguments and data in a dispassionate, scientific manner. He hoped he would improve the quality of the anti-circumcision arguments -- but predictably, he was just attacked by fanatical foreskin lovers instead. This is the blog, it's a real eye-opener: https://thecaseagainstintactivism.wordpress.com/

This was really a blog against extremism. You seem to be strawmanning everything. A scientist really should know better.

[Uckister777]

Post by m***@gmail.com

You know, there's a professor called Stephen Moreton who opposes circumcision. He wanted to get more information to support his position. When he checked out the various foreskin-lover websites, books, and other resources he was appalled at the fanaticism, dishonesty and near hysteria that he found in practically everything he looked at. He became convinced that this stream of nonsense was undermining the case against circumcision because it made the foreskin lovers look like crackpots. Nobody was taking them seriously. So he started a blog where he examined "intactivist" arguments and data in a dispassionate, scientific manner... This is the blog, it's a real eye-opener: https://thecaseagainstintactivism.wordpress.com/

This was really a blog against extremism. You seem to be strawmanning everything. A scientist really should know better.

Yes Michael, it was a blog against extremism. And the extremism that Moreton was attacking is EXACTLY the nonsense you keep writing about circumcision!

Here is an example. A foreskin lover organization, The National Coalition For Men (NCFM), wrote a typical hysterical, misinformed, badly sourced letter to the Gates Foundation, protesting their support of African circumcision programs. The ignorant, pseudoscientific arguments used by NCFM are exactly those you employ. Here is a link to the NCFM letter, with Moreton's careful, detailed, cited annotations to show what utter crap that letter was -- and how it dishonestly manipulated, obscured, and misrepresented data. http://www.quackdown.info/article/debunking-anti-circumcision-pseudoscience/


And here is Moreton's advice to people like you:


"I am against non-religious circumcision of infant boys. I don’t do it myself. I want parents to know that it isn’t necessary....

"Intactivism is RUINING a good cause. What do I mean by that? Intactivism has only gotten more extreme, and extremism is ruining the movement. Extremism is what causes people to promote lies and phony statistics. Extremism is WHY there is so little science regarding this issue.

"Extremist intactivists don’t threaten me, or pro-circumcision people. Nobody is running scared from you. My blog exists to counter your bullshit because I actually am against circumcision, and people like you are ruining the movement. No mainstream scientists bother to try to get funding for the issue or bother trying to counter your lies or butt heads with you because you are a joke. Nobody takes you seriously. You need to understand that.

"You want circumcision to go away? Stop screaming at the CDC or the doctors of the AAP. Quit using your quacks to come up with junk science and torturing bullshit out of data.. Nobody takes you seriously. Please, understand that... Taking something seriously means you respect the topic and yourself enough to know what you’re talking about and tell the truth... It means you throw facts, not shit.

"Take this damn topic seriously...You have started to parody yourselves. Learn from your mistakes and move on. It’s long past time."

[https://thecaseagainstintactivism.wordpress.com/2015/03/14/the-truth-about-the-case-against-intactivism/}

[j***@gmail.com]

If I say "nature lovers" nobody thinks it's an insult.
If I say "dog lovers" nobody thinks it's an insult.
If I say "art lovers" nobody thinks it's an insult.

But if I say "foreskin lovers" people get all upset.

Hmmmmmm. I wonder why.
............

Because of the context. You use it as an insult. "Dog lovers" could be used with a negative connotation: "I wish all these dog lovers would clean up after their pets! The sidewalks are a mess!"

You use "foreskin lovers" as a label to create a composited enemy on which you ascribe all the worst you can find from the websites you scour.

[j***@gmail.com]

I've looked through every anti-circumcision, pro-foreskin, intactivist site I can find.
...........

Why the obsession?