Hey guys the foreskin causes increased risk of HIV so we should cut it off; also if you remove womens' breasts then they have a lower risk of breast cancer so we should cut them all off too.

Okay I hope nobody is taking that seriously, but anyways, I can understand that one might not mind that they are circumsized, but why the hell would anyone defend it so vehemently as people in this thread are doing? As if it was your God-given right to chop off parts of your kid's body when he's born. Christ, in any other context it would be considered mutilation and you'd be thrown in jail forever for torturing babies. Why is this one thing still acceptable?

people who failed high school biology ITT

it is my OPINION and you have no right to argue against it because it is my OPINION and OPINIONS are always right because they're OPINIONS.


The foreskin's evolutionary function is to prevent UTIs. Which it does, in spite of common belief, and doctors have been telling people they have it backwards since the 1970s at least. The foreskin is meant to retract during intercourse, so it shouldn't interfere in that area either. The glans is covered in a mucous membrane; the reason circumcision results in a less-sensitive and less-prone-to-infection glans is because when the mucous membrane dries out it forms a callous. Whether you consider that a beneficial addition or not is really up to you, but you get a similar effect with a sheepskin condom.

The body has its own natural flora and fauna which fill the biological niche that would otherwise be filled by the organisms you are talking about. Actually, what's suspected to be a human male pheromone is produced when bacteria break down chemicals in our sweat (which is one of the reasons we have pubic hair - to trap the sweat and the bacteria and help to release the pheromone into the air). No, body temperature is not sufficient to destroy bacteria and I have never heard of a bacteria that dies at what is basically the ideal temperature for all terrestrial life.

The fluid secreted by the glans (again, mucous membrane) is a bodily fluid. The smell he was describing was probably due to poor diet if anything else. Taking a blowdrier to his genitals several times a day didn't work because the moisture was not the problem.


I don't really expect any of you to read this, since you have an OPINION which is groundless and illogical but it's automatically correct and beyond reproach because it is your OPINION. Let's all play with bunnies and pick flowers because all OPINIONS are correct. Hurf durf hop aboard the downstrain, let's all pat each other on the back because our parents mutilated us.

It's not the same thing. Breasts serve a fairly important purpose, being the feeding of young. The forskin, too, serves a purpose, but as far as my current understand of human anatomy goes, there is far less of an impact if removed.

I'm not attempting to promote circumcision or saying everyone should have it done. I just get annoyed when people attack it like it's the same as hacking off a childs arm when they're born. Basically what it comes down to is this: there are medical reasons for removing the foreskin, and for keeping it. It's fairly half-and-half. It ends up your OPINION whether you're for it or not.

Heh, that wasn't that hostile of a response, actually. Sorry about the *** post earlier. I can see where you're coming from with that last point if you frame it in that way.

There's a lot of ideas being thrown around, which is great and all. The only thing I can say comes from my education. I'm a medical student, which is not to say that "LOL I'M RITE" by any means, but just to say that what we are being taught is that circumcisions are beneficial overall for quite a few reasons, such as prevention of UTI's, testicular infections, and the incredibly rare penile cancers.

There's also the odd condition that it won't retract, but that can be solved w/o circumcision anyway. Just in general though, the benefits seem to outweigh the risks, although on both sides of the scale there is nothing that "heavy". But as we both can agree it's not just a fold of skin, it does other things, but the reason I'm for removal is the (paltry, though extant) health benefits.

And it feels just fine to me.



Because it's not mutilation as it really isn't visible, is a very safe procedure that is easy to do, and there are indeed benefits.

Why not prophylacticly remove the tonsils, appendix, ect? Because those are more invasive procedures. Breasts removal is obviously disfiguring. Out of any body alteration, circumcision is the easiest to do and the least disfiguring.

i voted for don't care...

and i won't bother answering the "cut or uncut" question... some here already know


they've seen me smile

The penile cancer one is easy (I mean, you can stop most kinds of mucous membrane cancers if you kill the mucous membrane).

The UTIs and testicular infections aren't so much. Every study I've heard of/seen has indicated that the UTI prevention argument is a classic case of correlation not implying causation. Namely, in the studies that indicated a beneficial correlation between circumcision and neonatal UTI rates, they did not account for the fact that premature infants do not generally get circumcized and tend to have compromised immune systems.


Obviously I would prefer to defer to the greater experience of someone actually studying for a career in a medical profession, but all evidence I've seen that supports the theory that circumcision prevents UTIs is specious at best. Even if it does help, you're talking about a 0.5% prevention rate.

Not to mention the fact that (much like the vagina), the glans and foreskin combine to produce a low pH environment while the mucous membranes lining the glans and the urethra help to protect against urine's corrosive effect. I would certainly argue that this helps to prevent UTIs later in life.

eh, it doesnt really matter to me. i am, and don't miss it. i do think it should be up to the parent, unless there is some really good medical reason NOT to have it done. now i know it can be botched and then that would be horrible, however that has more to do with the individual doctor that the procedure.

I just wanted to say that even though they're both circumcision, the differences between males and females on this are huge. A male doesn't have nearly the amount of side effects as a female does with circumcision. Does cutting off the foreskin cause increased chance of complete stimulation loss from sex and even infertility? Yeah...I just wanted to make that point.


Exactly. Doucheing changes the pH balance and causes fun stuff like yeast infections.


Actually that doesn't lower the risk at all. That's a misconception and unfortunately some doctors do recommend women who have a family history of breast cancer to get their breasts removed. If you're going to get it, breasts or not, it's going to form. Flat chested women are at risk for breast cancer too! *I shoudl probably note that if the cancer is in said breasts though, then removing them is (so far) the best option. This does not mean the cancer will still come back, however.

Wow, the thought of a doctor suggesting a patient proactively have their breasts removed to prevent cancer just baffles me. I don't even know what else to say about that.

reply with "you might get testicular cancer... chop em off now before it happens"

It's been suggested to a lot of girls I know, actually. :/

Personally, I've never have been circumised, but it is supposed to prevent infection down there. My dad actully had it done to him (because of my grandmother's traditionalist approach to bringing my dad and his sisters up). Its a practice thats hardly ever done now. But I think it does have a useful purpose depsite the tremendous pain that has to be endured during the operation. Thats what I think anyway :).

Everything you said is 100% correct as usual. We do it for that 0.5%. Yes, it seems silly. Yes, the studies go ALL over the place, so I can't yell from any pulpit that circumcision is the holy truth.

Heh, this reminds me of something; medical policy doesn't always choose the best possible path to take... for example, the fact that everything nowadays is enriched with folate. It's great that protects against neural tube defects, but it also covers up vitamin b12 deficiency until it turns into a neural problem. B12 deficiency was always more common that NT defects due to folate deficiency, but that was sorta swept under the rug. So now instead of an anemia, the b12 guys present with sensory and motor loss, if not cognitive impairment.

I think it's sorta the same here were there is one definite benefit, but penile cancers are so rare anyway. Anyway, I have to get more reading done. Really quick, I found this, a commentary. Biased, of course to pro circumcision, but after reading the citations these two seemed fairly strong:

RCT for HIV (it seems to be cited a lot and IMHO is a well run RCT)

One case control versus HPV (Interesting in that it mentions effects on partners)

Edit: I found a direct retort to the HPV paper more or less.

These papers I think are open to read and free.

There are a decent amount of anti-circumcision papers out there too, which is why I'm not all OMG CIRCUMCISION IS THE BEST right now. I'll link some of the more interesting ones later, sorry for only presenting one side now. Heh, this is all biology and statistics so they are fairly easy reads to pick up.

Oh, by the way: <3 Pubmed. Basically a database of medical research. I like it better than ovid and the gang, plus it's free so you can search anywhere. At least you can view abstracts if the full articles aren't free.

Think about how your parents have to wash you 52+ times per year (assuming a weekly bath) for the first 5-8 or so years of your life. At least, in my house anyway.

I imagine it would be easier and faster for them to wash and dry the penis when it is without a foreskin (I wouldn't know -- I met mr knife after birth), not to mention less awkward from having to finger play around down there to dry out inside the skin.

Oh, and that doesn't even cover how many times they have to change daipers and wipe you down then either.

So make it easy on your parents -- get a circumcision!

Weekly bath? :/

I don't mind being circumcised, but I think that was probably the worst reasoning ever for having it done

Apparently the first time my mom ever saw my dad cry was when he saw me get circumsised as a baby.

Like others have said, unless there's some pressing medical reason not to, leave it up to the parents. The only reason I'm circumsised (don't mind at all, it's not like I could possibly know the difference now) is because my dad was and it would save on interesting explanations until a bit later.

I'll assume for a second that any of the "circumcision has health benefits" arguments are at all valid. None of them make a difference until later in life (STDs etc). By that point, the person is old enough to make the decision about whether or not they want part of their dick whacked off.

To me, it's more about violating rights than it is about health.

But children never get rights, you know that.

Alright, even if I were uncircumcised and the choice were left to me once I come of age, and I decided that I DO want to be circumcised, there's no way I'd do it. I'd definitely chicken out. Much rather have it done as a baby.

Not cut because I actually wash down there. There's no risk of bacteria growing if you keep yourself CLEAN and know how to use a towel :\

Whose fault is that?

The myth that women prefer it one way or the other is misleading. I'd argue that more than half of the women that claim to prefer circumcised penises make the claim while never having encountered an uncircumcised male before. I, myself, am uncut and the most common comment I get is, "I've never seen one before." I'm not trying to promote one or the other, I'm just saying that women don't know what they're talking about because they're crazy and uninformed.

All I can say is that if you had a foreskin and lost it later in life you'd miss it. They're bloody brilliant.

I didn't want to imply that women should douche. I was explaining that douching makes them smell fine. It isn't good, though. I prefer the sent of undouched ginas, anyway. The point was that smell shouldn't be a factor.

I'm circumcized and am somewhat bothered by it because of two reasons:
1.) I was raised Catholic, which really pisses me off because I became Atheist anyway.
2.) I had no choice, it was done right after birth.

The smell has near nothing to do with douching.

You suck at knowing things about vaginas.

Nobody's looked at my junk due to the fact that I am uncircumcised, and I try to keep it that way. I'm not usually very self-conscious about many things, but that fact that almost every time someone sees the snake, it's always shed it's skin.

Or maybe I just have an issue with chicks looking at it. All I know is that if I have to keep the floor dry in a urine-related emergency, I'm glad I have a small water balloon I can fill up to give me an extra .5-2 seconds of run time.

(And yes, I've had to run through a house like that .()

[Edit: And I voted for pro-choice because I like a parent's ability to do things their children may hate them for to be intact.]

More BS/radical/flawed logic:

You don't get a right to chose whether or not you're born; why should you have the right to chose whether you get cut?

If we shouldn't have circumcision to control what we look like, we shouldn't shave or cut hair either.

If I'm lazy for being circumcised, you're lazy for driving a car without a gearshifter.

Banning circumcision would be an infringement on religious rights (ok, so that one's not really bad logic, nor is it being discussed right now, but whatever, it's still a valid argument)

Grr, I am procrastinating too much... exam, on Jews Christians and New Testament, in 4 hours.... agh!

Things that are blatantly child abuse (involuntary circumcision is abuse) should be banned and religion should not get special rights.

This has got to be the most ridicules reason for outrage ever. Wow.

Mutilation is actually a rather good reason to be outraged. You only think it's ridiculous because you don't know what you're missing. Literally.

What about spanking your kids? Should that be banned too?

Or, actually, (for you pro-abortion anti-circumcision folk) what if you circumcised your child before birth? Would it be acceptable to do this if you so chose to do so? (assume it to be true that the fetus does not become a person until it exits the woman... same premise as partial birth abortion)

(not to turn this into an abortion debate thread, but let's take a moment because I'm curious...)

Mu·ti·la·tion
n.

[L. mutilatio: cf. F. mutilation.]
The act of mutilating, or the state of being mutilated; deprivation of a limb or of an essential part.


The foreskin is not even close to essential. You might as well start a crusade against body piercings and tattoos. None of you have had experience being both circumcised and uncircumcised, so none of you know weather it would make a difference to you or not. Regardless I doubt very much weather any of you have thought about before you read this thread.

Maybe circumcision isn't as useful as we used to think. Fine, don't have it done to you kids. You haven't been scarred for life (irony :p ), so to speak, so quit whining.

If tatooing or piercing infants became an accepted practice I would be outraged against it. I'm not opposed to adults opting in to have their foreskins removed, adults can do whatever they like to their own bodies. I'm opposed to removing part of the body of someone who is in no position to stop it happening.

Quite frankly I like the feel of having a foreskin. not to mention some rather likely medical benefits to haveing one. Also, anybody with any comprehension of physics should be able to imagine why a foreskin lowers the force required for sex. I am not whining because I personally have nothing to whine about, I wasn't born in a country where mutiliation of infants is considered the norm. What I am doing is arguing a moral point.

Circumcisions are not very feasible when you get older. Seriously, think how much that'd hurt once you grow up. That's why they're done when you're born. Even if they're aren't necessary, it's not really that big a deal. If you're circumcised when you're little, it really doesn't bother you. It's not really much of an inconvenience at all. Sure maybe, it's an unnecessary practice, but there are way bigger things to worry about.

The only reason parents do it because they think it will help their kids, and the decision has to be made at an early age. Parents have to make all kinds of decisions like that for their kids, that's just the way it works.

Anesthesia.


Have you ever seen one? It's horrific. The child goes through terrible pain. Sure, it doesn't exactly matter since they won't remember it, but calling it a "not really much of an inconvenience" is disgusting.

Of course parents think it will help their kids. I wasn't suggesting that parents enjoy the thought of removing parts of their children's body. But the only real argument in favour of circumcision is that everyone else does it and you wouldn't want your kid to be left out and bullied for being different. It's an argument I can sympathise with, but you should really be raising a child to have a backbone rather than just giving into a barbaric tradition.

Of course it doesn't bother adults that they've been circumcised if they were circumcised just after birth, they've literally never known anything else. But that's not an excuse, it's just a reason why so many people in this thread have voted the first option.

This is a bit off topic, but I know it's very common out here for babies (2 weeks, sometimes younger) to get their ears pierced. I can think of quite a few people who probably get their babies tattooed, given the chance. (Actually, I'm fairly certain that some people have succeeded in that.) I don't agree with these two things and would personally never do that to my child. Of course, this comes from a state where it's the norm to bottle feed your infants Coke or Pepsi. Yay, New Mexico!

Overall, this thread has been making me think about when I have children. I always thought, if I have a son, that it would be best to have him circumcised. After reading all the complaining from you circumcised guys, I'll probably think twice whenever the time comes. Afterall, I'm not religious so I really don't have a reason for it other than thinking I was doing the best for my son. Now I might not so I don't have a 18 year old yelling at me for not respecting his rights as a child, yadda, yadda. >_> So yeah, I still have my selfish reasons for *not* circumcising possible-future-child.

I'm not even really angry with my parents or anyone, it just seems pointless when I think about it. I don't have foreskin because......... that's what they do? Makes me very envious.