Huggies Forum

Okay...... Lock Rss

Posted by: Tysmoo
Thanks for that although reading it the percentages of contracted stds are higher in the uncircumcised men because there were less of them iykwim?? It would be interesting to read an article where the ratio of circumcised to noncircumcised was the same.


The uncircumcised men make up the majority of the group.

Now if Im doing my maths correctly (hahahahahhahahahhaha) then the study is pretty much even. There are approx 3x as many uncirced men but about 3x lower the incidence in STDs in circed men.

Ok correct me on my maths lol
Posted by: Tysmoo
Yeah makes perfect sense I guess im just saying that the numbers could have been identical but the percentage will always be higher in the lesser amount does that make sense?? Like I said Im purely reading out of interest as I dont plan on having anymore children and well Tys is almost at the age where he can chose himself whether or not he wants his foreskin removed lol


I think I misread your first comment. Do you mean higher amount?? There were less men in the study who were circumcised. The larger group was the uncircumcised men.

Now I'm getting really confused, lol. That's my queue to stop using my brain for today I think!!


[Edited on 20/11/2008]
Posted by: **Jus**
Posted by: Tysmoo
Thanks for that although reading it the percentages of contracted stds are higher in the uncircumcised men because there were less of them iykwim?? It would be interesting to read an article where the ratio of circumcised to noncircumcised was the same.


The uncircumcised men make up the majority of the group.

Now if Im doing my maths correctly (hahahahahhahahahhaha) then the study is pretty much even. There are approx 3x as many uncirced men but about 3x lower the incidence in STDs in circed men.

Ok correct me on my maths lol


I can't correct you, coz I suck at math, LOL.

It ends up being all relative imo. It doesn't matter how many people are in each group, because you're still going off the percentage of that number?? YK??

Bugger it, I give up. I'm about to burst a vessel!! lol.
Ok so back to the original post

If these 'reasons' are not good enough for you then what would be a good reason?

I dont have a son as yet (I may do in a couple of weeks but who knows) but DH and I have decided we would like it done.
Posted by: benmar7982
Posted by: **Jus**
Posted by: Tysmoo
Thanks for that although reading it the percentages of contracted stds are higher in the uncircumcised men because there were less of them iykwim?? It would be interesting to read an article where the ratio of circumcised to noncircumcised was the same.


The uncircumcised men make up the majority of the group.

Now if Im doing my maths correctly (hahahahahhahahahhaha) then the study is pretty much even. There are approx 3x as many uncirced men but about 3x lower the incidence in STDs in circed men.

Ok correct me on my maths lol


I can't correct you, coz I suck at math, LOL.

It ends up being all relative imo. It doesn't matter how many people are in each group, because you're still going off the percentage of that number?? YK??

Bugger it, I give up. I'm about to burst a vessel!! lol.


Ok I will correct the maths here - well I will try anyway.
Just because there are three times as amny men it doesnt make any difference because even if you double the amount of men (or half it) the PERCENTAGE will always stay the same - if it is 1.3% of 1000 men then 13 men will have been infected but if it was 1.3% of 50 men then only 6.5 men (yes i know it not possible to have half a man LOL) will have been infected. The actual number of cases of infection will change depending on the number of men but the percentage will always be the same. Dunno if that makes sense - it's hard to explain.

Therefore the study gives figures of 3.4 percent and 8.5 percent at age 25. even if the triple the number of men the percentages should still be close to that figure.
Sorry, can't be bothered reading the whole 4 pages but my responce to the OP is, they all seem valid enough for me! What does it matter to you? And why should anybody "validate" to anyone else their reasons for doing it or not?

3 Gorgeous Girls!

Good lord Sarah haha i lost you at the start!
Posted by: Denae
Good lord Sarah haha i lost you at the start!


LOL I got what she was saying but in my world the figures work HAHAHHAHAHHAHAAHHAHAHAHHAHAHA God I hate maths and it shows
Yeah I jumbled up what I was trying to say lol. I know what I meant in my head but somewhere between there and translating it to script it got all screwed up lmao
Posted by: danny.zuko.memmi
and if he ever wanted to join the defense force they have to b circumsised to go to war (due to risk of infections)

Sorry, not true.
I just checked with DF who was in the Army for 12 years including a few years in recruiting.
And he didn't want his son curcumcised either.
I come from a military family and I think that's is partly why there are several generations of circ'd men. I think those that faught in the trenches etc. and saw the problems that uncirc'd men had with poor hygeine conditions came home vowing to have their sons circ'd. Possibly the same for Americans with their history of civil wars.
Just my conclusion though.

Michelle- 3 boys-17,13 & 9 -2 girls-3 & 1


My son is done his sperm donor isnt circ'd thoe...i got him done at 6 months its cleaner,less hassles and i find that the skin is filthy!
my dads done,brothers are done and 2 of the brothers had a son each there done too..alot of my cousins are done so there for i did it...my ex is so against it..but then again im my sons mum smile my choice...
When we were pregnant with bub we did alot of research into it and hubby maded the final decision. He said No and i agreed after watching a clip on how it done. I was crying.
Hubby not done and that didn't come into making our decision. We only get it done for medical reason and hopefully that will not happen.
Little man will not be done either.

I don't know why this subject gets so heated.




Sign in to follow this topic