patrick.net

"urinary tract infections, increased chances of STDs including HPV, HIV and others, as well as reduction in penile cancer. And even these are hotly debated. None are a direct threat and all are contingent on possibility, not probability"

Sounds like pretty good reasons to me.

"Circumcision leads to suicide – The story of David Reimer"

Noteworthy precisely because it's such a rare case.

Circumcision causes less complications than childhood ear piercing, which most people don't think twice about and has no health benefit whatsoever. Circumcision has anti-HIV and anti-HPV benefits, as well as olfactory and ease of maintenance. It all but eliminates nasty smegma and penile cancer. Imagine! The only circumcised person in about half a century to develop penile cancer in the US was a man who wasn't until he was in the US Army in North Africa in his 20s and had to have it done because he developed a nasty, penis-threatening infection. There might be one guy who was circ'd at birth and developed it in his 80s. That's it, but there are thousands of penile cancer diagnosis every year, and it almost always results in castration and/or death.

If this was a vaccine, it would be a no-brainer and mandatory. The Anti-HPV benefits for WOMEN are so great (30-40% lower transmission rate) it ought to be a public health issue.

During WW2 tens of thousands of British Soldiers also had to be emergency circumcized because of the desert conditions trapping bacteria infested sand under their foreskin, as a result they had an epidemic of phimosis, UTIs, sub-foreskin infections (the gritty sand was trapped and made tears while they marched, and the bacteria on the sand got into the abrasions) and other problems since they couldn't bathe or shower frequently to clean their stuff.

In Scandinavia, thousands of pre-pubescent boys (not known for their hygiene) go to the doctor because so much shit builds up down there they can't retract their foreskin each year.

There's a reason why 2/3rd of historical human civilizations circumsized, including most Indians, New Guineans, Middle Easterners, Africans, many Asians, and even some Europeans.

Anti-Circ activists love to include sub-saharan witch doctor flint knife in a dirt floor hut circumcision numbers in their tallies because they know if they only looked at Western Medical Care providers, they'd have no leg to stand on in terms of dismissing it on complications and risks.

The vast majority of women prefer circ'ed penises because they smell nicer. Sweat, Bacteria and general genital Schmutz exposed to the open air dries out. Trapped under the foreskin, it doesn't. Hence the stink. If you could walk with your armpits facing out on your shoulders, you'd have less stink as well. This question was asked, however, in less frequent bathing Europe.

As for asking men, most men have far inferior noses to women (probably biological in origin) and don't smell themselves well, and certainly don't sniff their genitalia regularly.

Delaying to adulthood is no solution because circumcision risks, pain, and recovery times dramatically increase with age, but complications are very rare in infants, and pain is minimal because the nerves haven't developed much yet.

P N Dr Lo R says

"Circumcision leads to suicide – The story of David Reimer"

Noteworthy precisely because it's such a rare case.

Exactly. Circumcision has about .3-.6% complication rate; the complication rate for ear piercings is 3-5%. The most common complication is bleeding that lasts a bit longer than normal, considered minor needing only topical treatment. The second most common complication for ear piercings is infection, requiring antibiotics and sometimes hospitalization. There are more deaths and amputations annually from ear piercing, with no medical benefits at all, than circumcisions.

Ban child-teen piercing before banning circumcision.

Foreskins make good skin grafting doner tissue.

No matter which way the argument goes and what you believe, don't you think it better if you would have had a choice as to whether you were circumcised or not? Circumcision on an infant, besides being painful and traumatic, robs a person of this choice.

We used to believe the tonsils and the appendix were useless parts of our body but now we know better that they are both important in increasing our immunity. Would it not be right that all men be able to make the decision for themselves if they want to go with either what nature provides or to have a man-made intervention on one of their bodily organs?

SAVE THE DOGGY DICKS! LET THE PRICK FLAGS FLY! THIS IMPACTED SMEGMA IS FOR YOU!

Chicks dig it when they squeeze your foreskin and a cocktail of rancid jism, urine and fermenting smegma squishes out like toothpaste.

Indiana Jones says

don't you think it better if you would have had a choice as to whether you were circumcised or not?

No. And another point (no pun intended) is that when it's ready for business it looks uncircumcised for all practical purposes anyway.

Thunderlips is Tovbot2 says

and certainly don't sniff their genitalia regularly.

Speak for yourself.

This thread is begging to be made into an Adam Ruins Everything episode regardless of which side has more merit.

Strategic Renter says

I recently watched shameless in an episode that they inferred women prefer a cut penis.

I suspect that women prefer whatever is the cultural norm in their society. In countries that don't circumcise, women probably thinks circumcised penises are freaky.

Someone who is attentive to cleanliness could go either way. I know Africans are big on it, but they don't do it until the teen years. Being cut is part of becoming a man and they're expected to tough it out like a man when the knife comes. Of course some don't follow through, but those can be expected to be caught by roving bands of older boys who hold them down and literally skin the offending penis by circumlocution and then ripping off the skin. That's got to hurt, but I heard it from a Ugandan man so shit must be real.

FLAY THE FORESKINS! FLAY THEM ALL!