I really doubt the issue would even come up. Not once have I ever had some one ask or care weather I was circumcised or not.

Because THAT'S a usual topic.

You don't have lots of sex. Women prefer mutilation, and guys in the locker room also make fun of foreskin.

That isn't the only real argument. In fact, no one serious has used it here. This isn't about conformity at all. Where in the thread did you pick this idea up?

It's not just about STD's either, although that is rather important. Put it this way, no one here has been able to demonstrate any real justifiable benefit of a foreskin that has been proven. There have been great probably correct ideas, but I'm talking as far as real true blue medical studies that say "without a foreskin, there has been an increase in X,Y, and Z". The research is all over the place in reality, with both camps having good arguments. It is fairly evolutionarily conserved, but there are a few species without foreskins. That does go to prove it has some use, however what the magnitude of the "use" is, is up to question.

However, there are proven risks associated with foreskin, minute as though they are (there are other speculated ones that relate to UTI's and the like, but they are about as proven as the benefits of foreskin. I'm also talking about irrespective of reasonable hygiene). There are real justifiable medically proven reasons to take them off. Especially in regaurds to STDs.

This has been discussed before. To just say, after all the banter that has taken place, "the only real argument in favor of circumcision is that everyone else does it" is ridiculous. Plus there is a crapload of literature out there. Did you regard any of it before you said that?

(I'm talking about neonatal circumcision, not adult)

Nearly all literature that you speak of mentions the likelyhood of their data being incorrect due to moral and religious reasons.

That is, those who are circumcised tend to be of religious morals that they don't have sex. Those with foreskin tend to not be of religions that enforce no pre-marital sex. Thus, the consensus' are disproven. There are no none-consensus proofs of foreskin being harmful.

Also: we've already mentioned that condoms solve any issues foreskin might pose. And the burden of proof is NOT on us. The burden of proof is on YOU. Give me 5 good reasons that it should be ok to remove foreskin. AIDs isn't a good one, becuase condoms are the equalizer. Cleanliness isn't an issue because a child should be clean. Religion shouldn't be an issue because it's unfounded in religion, and it's also a breech of a child's future religious rights. Last but not least, image is a horrible reason, because people should be proud of how they're born, and if they want to change it, they can.

Sources?

Anyway, that argument is rather stupid; of course by removing something you remove the problems associated with it. How about removing everyone's appendix at birth so they don't get appendicitis? It's a safe procedure and will make even less difference to the person than circumcision. Men don't need 2 testicles, lets remove one at birth to half the risk of testicular cancer.

Eh, I had large and angry posts here. I'm gonna cool off a bit. You guys though should really think about what you're saying.

Even if circumcision had proven medical benefits for preventing the transmission of STDs, why does it need to be done when the person is a child? Let them make that decision for themselves when they are of age.

Because that's not the only reason. There are others stated in the thread.

Or maybe you should start reading on the subject. Maybe start here.

Or possibly here.

Also, why do we vaccinate children without their permission*? STDs put an entire population at risk. An easy measure, such as circumcision, could help prevent the spread of numerous infections among a community. Especially in poorer, less educated ones that proper education about the risks of STDs may be in question.

Circumcisions later in life are also associated with more complications.

*Edit: Some of you may be lost in this question. The answer lies here. This is of course only part of the reason for both vaccination and a prospective one for circumcision.

STDs? That could be argued either way (http://www.malehealth.co.uk/userpage1.cfm?item_id=1352): "Genital warts are now more common in circumcised men" (http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/vanhowe1/)

Circumcisions are still an operation. You really think it's painless? "If a baby boy needs to be circumcised, he will usually be given a local anaesthetic" (http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/articles/article.aspx?articleId=649§ionId=32787)
and, like any medical procedure there are risks (http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/articles/article.aspx?articleId=649§ionId=32790)


Ironically, for those who were arguing that it's a prevention of possible problems:
"Only around one in every 100 men need a circumcision for medical reasons"
(http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/articles/article.aspx?articleId=649§ionId=32786)

"It is generally accepted that there are serious complications in perhaps 2% of medical circumcisions"
(http://www.malehealth.co.uk/userpage1.cfm?item_id=1352)

AIDS is an acronym (for Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome). All the letters are capitalised, not just the first three. I've seen you type it like this all throughout the thread so I assume it's not just a mistype.

Sorry, but making it so people can be just a bit more lazy in their day to day bathing routine is a bit different than a vaccination. I honestly don't care either way, but this increased risk of ____ going either way is just bull cookies. It's honestly not that hard to take care of.

I'd just like to add, AIDS has nothing to do with this issue. It's HIV, Human Immunodeficiency Virus, which is spread through uprotected sex. Not AIDS.

how in the world can we have a 4 page argument about penises? what is wrong with you people.

I think they're just looking for an excuse to whine about their rights being violated.

Just the usual nerd homoerotica, I guess.

I think this argument should be shifted to what the hell is wrong with the top picture on the "foreskin" wikipedia page.

I really do hope that that isn't normal.

I was surprised that Wikipeadia allows nude pics.

Why were you suprised?

First I want to thank you for the good post. Actual articles to back up claims, what a concept.

The first article just makes light of the fact there are contentions. Yeah, pretty much, like anything there are. They don't touch on ANY of the childhood issues, which I find very suspect. It seems to have an overall negative tone, and their inclusion of "sexual disfunction" under complications underscores their own bias. There is absolutely NOTHING to support that, but they include it anyway and put disclaimers on everything else.

The second article is interesting but seems to be leading it's own conclusions, in that if a country has more prevalence of circumcisions, of course there will be more raw cases of penile cancer in them. The incidence that he calculates is equal in both circ and non, and he's "adjusted" the data outside of the paper's own requirements to show it as such. Eh, but anyway, there are other papers that refute those claims, and show decreases. If anything it just goes to show how contentious the research is.

As far as stds, look at one of the papers he cites himself: http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/cook1/

A quick jump to conclusions reads:

So uncirc men, as used by this guy's own evidence on his own site, have a greater occurrence of STDs, sans warts caused by HPV. So, does that mean uncirc men are protected from HPV? There's contention. Not only the paper I citied in page 3, but another paper as well shows INCREASED HPV in uncirc men, as this paper states:



So, what was their inclusion criteria? Heterosexual and lived in King County. Indeed they have a rather inclusive criteria, except geographical selection. In other words, they don't know why the two don't match. Exclusion of homosexual and bisexual populations is questionable because it decreases the external validity of the study, which doesn't help it. So it's still up in the air.

On to the other points:

I never said circumcisions were painless, but you don't need general anesthesia for them like your other examples. Medically, that's a HUGE DIFFERENCE, as general anesthesia has added complications. Anyone who compares circumcision to appendectomy needs to seriously recheck that logic from a procedural prospective.

Ok, I'm unsure what the NHS actually means when they say that only a few men need circumcisions. I mean, for STDs and UTIs, you don't need to remove the foreskin. It just increases risk, they are still treatable, etc. That's a bit of a foggy sentence, and has little meaning on its own. If they mean for Phimosis, fine, but they aren't including all possible reasons for a circumcision, medically speaking.

The last point is true, and I've heard higher numbers. It depends on the complications, most are benign like a bit of localized tissue necrosis (due to anesthetic) or swelling. There are more serious complications, but those are about as rare as can be. It just boils down to to the complications incurred there are benign and much more acute than the risks of going uncircumcised.

I work as a life guard. I go into a locker room a lot. I have never overheard a discussion on the subject even once. When I was smaller, on a swim team, it never came up. The worst I ever heard was some idiot going, "OMG ur nekkid loz!!" Go figure, it's a locker room. Anyway.