My dad is circumcised and has a yeast infection

[smeep]

Well there goes the ridiculous "circumcision protects against yeast infections" theory! Hah! I was visiting the other day and noticed probiotics, a large container of plain yogurt, and keifer in the fridge. Having dealt with thrush in the past it took me two seconds to figure it out. Turns out my dad has a yeast infection. He is circ'd but left my two brothers intact and encouraged me to leave DS intact because he wished he had been given the chance to decide for himself, so when I made the discovery I laughed and said, "Well, I guess circumcision doesn't protect against infections like everyone wants to think!" to which he laughed.

Just thought I would share that. You know, since everyone always has the "Well so-and-so was uncircumcised and they got a yeast infection and had to go get circumcised" stories, so here's one for the flip side.

[2lilsweetfoxes]

"so-and-so was uncircumcised and got a yeast infection and had to get circumcised"--um, don't they know that yeast infections can be cured? Without surgery? Monistat works on boys too...Thank goodness my (intact) son's pediatrician knew that and told us to put either Monistat or Lotrimin for jock itch on it rather than saying: "circumcise this boy now!"

Sad thing is, though, that a lot of times, doctors won't even think yeast infection when circ'd guys present with yeast infection symptoms.

[smeep]

Originally Posted by 2lilsweetfoxes

Sad thing is, though, that a lot of times, doctors won't even think yeast infection when circ'd guys present with yeast infection symptoms.

Yup, it's like VPDs. A doctor won't even think mumps, regardless of symptoms, if someone is vax'd for mumps.

Just because yeast infections are reduced by the removal of the foreskin doesn't mean they're eliminated. And, sheesh, all the other infections that rise with the removal of the foreskin...yeah, I'd rather some nasty yeasties that are usually easily treated over all kinds of nasty bacterial infections that would be increased.

[2lilsweetfoxes]

Originally Posted by 2lilsweetfoxes

Sad thing is, though, that a lot of times, doctors won't even think yeast infection when circ'd guys present with yeast infection symptoms.

And why some women, married to circ'd partners don't understand why they keep getting yeast infections all the time! When you treat the woman, treat her partner, too, regardless of status.

[brant31]

Originally Posted by smeep

Just because yeast infections are reduced by the removal of the foreskin doesn't mean they're eliminated. And, sheesh, all the other infections that rise with the removal of the foreskin...

The Laumann study released around the time of the last AAP statement found effectively no statistical difference between circumcised and non-circumcised men with regard to STIs. However, the authors thought it was noteworthy that not a single case of chlamydia had been reported among the intact cohort. Only in circumcised men.

[eepster]

When a guy is circ'd he doesn't get yeast infection he gets jock itch. Sure, they are the exact same thing, but it just sounds more manly, doesn't it.

[smeep]

Originally Posted by brant31

However, the authors thought it was noteworthy that not a single case of chlamydia had been reported among the intact cohort. Only in circumcised men.

Really? How many intact men were in the study?

[smeep]

Originally Posted by eepster

When a guy is circ'd he doesn't get yeast infection he gets jock itch. Sure, they are the exact same thing, but it just sounds more manly, doesn't it.

THAT is what jock itch is??? Well, sheesh! I had no idea! Though I'm not a guy and I had never even had a vaginal yeast infection (that I know of) until a year or so after DS was born and we battled a nasty case of thrush, so pretty much my sole experience and exposure to candida was boob/mouth related. lol

[brant31]

Here is part of a paragraph from the Laumann (University of Chicago) study:

"Several instructive features of the data ... deserve attention. First, circumcision status does not appear to lower the likelihood of contracting an STD. Rather, the opposite pattern holds. Circumcised men were slightly more likely to have had both a bacterial and a viral STD in their lifetime. While these differences are not statistically significant, they do not lend support to the thesis that circumcision helps prevent the contraction of STDs. Indeed, for chlamydia, the difference between circumcised men and uncircumcised men is quite large. While 26 of 1033 circumcised men had contracted chlamydia in their lifetime, none of the 353 uncircumcised men reported having had it."

JOURNAL OF THE AMA, Volume 277, Number 13: Pages 1052-1057, 02 April 1997

The study also found that circumcised men engaged in more unusual and more varied sexual practices in general, which the authors concluded was because circumcised men needed greater and more varied stimulation to achieve sexual satisfaction and climax. No two were quite alike, possibly due to how each body adapts and "rewires" neurologically following circumcision. The intact men were sort of boringly... consistent.

[eepster]

Originally Posted by smeep

THAT is what jock itch is??? Well, sheesh! I had no idea! Though I'm not a guy and I had never even had a vaginal yeast infection (that I know of) until a year or so after DS was born and we battled a nasty case of thrush, so pretty much my sole experience and exposure to candida was boob/mouth related. lol

Well, possible I shouldn't have said they were the exact same thing, but they are basically the same. Jock itch can be caused by candida, but is more often caused by other fungi (you can look them up if you want to.) Also, jock itch tends to rapidly spread to the scrotum, and sometimes the surrounding area as well.