Does circumcision contribute to prostate cancer?

[serendipity22]

I honestly don't know the answer to this, so I thought i might be good for discussion.

Research on circumcision tends to be by people
who support circumcision who are trying to prove a certain benefit. Very little has been done on possible harmful effects.

According a cancer statistics website the 3 countries with the highest rates of prostate cancer are the USA, Canada and Australia.

In these 3 countries almost all men in the age group for prostate cancer are circumcised.

About 15% of Aussie men die of prostate cancer. Even if circumcision contributed to only a small number of these, that would dwarf all the alleged benefits combined.

There are a number of possible mechanisms by which circumcision could contribute.

[Mrs Nietzsche]

They aren't related whatsoever.

Prostate cancer is genetic, it's diet-related, and it's age related.

[delirium]

They aren't related whatsoever.

Prostate cancer is genetic, it's diet-related, and it's age related.

:iagree:The reason that most men with prostate cancer are circed, is bc usually they are older men, and historically RIC was very common in past days.

USA, Canada and Aust are also western countries with poor diet etc.

I haven't seen any research to suggest that claim.

[serendipity22]

Genetics and diet could certainly be factors, and age certainly is.

The case is not closed yet.

Some researchers say that the chances are decreased with frequency of ejaculation during a man's lifetime, especially in early adult-hood.

If this is so, increased impotency in later life might be a factor. Also difficulty in masturbating in early adulthood could be too. (This is why circumcision was introduced in the 1800s of course, to prevent masturbation.)

Circumcision does not make masturbation impossible of course, but it can make it much more difficult for some young males. Some studies claim that circumcised older men have potency problems at a younger age than intact men, i am still looking into this.