A lot of sweeping statements have been made in this Forum as the the frequency of male neonatal circumcision in various countries around the world. Here are the most reliable statistics, as set out in www.circinfo.net and other sources available on Google: Worldwide - approximately 33% United States - 79% (2007), with 88% for non-Hispanic whites, 73% for blacks, 42% for Mexican-Americans, and 50% for Others.(Asians, etc.) For whites born before 1890, the rate was 55%; in the 1890s, 44%; 1900s, 46%; 1910s, 52%; 1920s, 61%; 1930s, 72%; 1940s, 80%, 1950s, 90%; 1960s, 93%; 1970s, 94%; 1980s, 88%. In 2004, the overall U.S. rate of neonatal circumcisions was 57.46%, with 66.4% in the Northeast, and the lowest in the West, 31.7%, where there is a substantial Hispanic population. UK - In 1990, 21.9% of males were circumcised overall, with 26.4% cut if born between 1946 and 1955, 15.8% if born between 1956 and 1965, and 12.56% if born between 1966 and 1974. "Newborn circumcision was dropped by the British NHS in 1949 in respose to the famous physician Douglas Gairdner, who was opposed to it..." The NHS in Scotland, which offers circumcision routinely, gives an annual rate for 0-13 year olds of 4%. Canada - about 50% circumcised overall, which varies by region and age group. Quebec and the Atlantic provinces have the lowest rates, and Alberta the highest (67% from 1971-1979). The overall rate was about 20% of those born in 1996-1997, and 9.2% in 2005. Australia - a survey of over 10,000 men done in 2001-2 of men aged 16-59 found 59% circumcised (69% for those born in Australia). The rate among males aged 16-20 was 32%. Another study found that 65% of those born between 1941 and 1967 were circumcised, 50% of those born between 1971 and 1982, and 31.6% of those born between 1982 and 1986. New Zealand - The circumcision rate for men born in 1972 was 40%. It was 95% in the 1940s, but declined to under 1% by 1995. The new 25 year New Zealand STD study just released, which shows a 50% greater chance of getting an STD if uncut, may change this trend. Africa - 62% circumcised, with different rates for various regions and tribes. Philippines - 93% Taiwan - 9% Spain - 2% Slovenia - 1.7% for Catholics, 92% for Muslims, 7% for persons with no religious affiliation. Finland - 7% Denmark - 1.6% Mexico - 10-30%, depending on the region and ethnicity. Brazil and Colombia - 7% Thailand - 13% I have seen other studies which set out similar circumcision rates to those stated above.
Dude, are you still ranting about circumcision. Obviously, you have a trauma about it. Which clearly proves that circumcision is not good from a psychological point of view. Get over it boy. You were cut, you lost something, they threw it away. You will never get it back.
I state facts - you rant and insult. You are a very unpleasant, super-opinionated person. You must be a piece of work up close.
yes circumcision has become a cultural thing in the U.S., one that is dying out as more people realize the truth philipenne circumcisions are different, they don't actually remove anything, they cut it so the skin doesn't cover the head.
Oh Cutted, you are back at your fanatic 'cut-it-off' routine. I fear your % for Australia is way off. The rest of the world is waking up, just as you are dozing off. The US bought into circumcision as a way of making sex less attractive for the Victorians. That alone oughtta tell anybody but you something. And don't accuse others of ranting, Mr "4skins are evil!"
Are you three "natural" guys spouting off again? Hey, I've still got mine - it just doesn't hide the good parts.
the good parts are only hidden until needed, keeping them in good shape when needed, not rough and dried out like exposed ones
Ask most cut guys, and they don't consider their glans "rough and dried out". Can you say they are "rough and dried out" from personal experience?
because what do they have to compare it to?, unless they are gay they are unlikely to have had any close up experience with an intact penis to compare it to from my personal experience from restoring I had no idea it would make such a difference, if you asked my before restoring if it had been rough and dried out I would have said no, it's fine, but now I know better
