The Truths About Circumcision!

[GuillaumeBordeaux]

Hey board,
as an inactivist and one who has done significant research on this, it my obligation to share everything I know with the board!

Introduction
Ever hear someone say "i'm cut" or "I'm uncut"?
Cut means circumcised (duh) and uncut means you are intact as nature intended!

Circumcision and what it does to your penis!
Let's go over the facts.
1) In infancy and childhood, the penis isn't fully developed. Circumcising you at birth can mean you don't have enough skin to grow into, so erections can be quite painful for some!

2) If not enough skin is left over, the scrotum will be drawn up onto the penis to give it more skin, giving you a turkey neck on your penis.

3) With that scrotum skin comes hair, so many guys will have hair up to halfway down their penis! This isn't natural and makes sex uncomfortable

4) the penis head is meant to be covered and moisturized by the foreskin, removing it makes your head dry and as you age, the skin thickens and you eventually will barely feel your penis anymore, and won't be able to ejaculate as easily, and in many cases, not at all!

5) scarring can occur. many cut guys have a brown scar circling their penis. sometimes one can have an uneven scar and that can lead to a bend in the penis as a result.

6) Uncircumcised penises have the foreskin and all 20,000 sexual nerve endings that come with it, cut guys don't. You're missing 2/3-3/4 of your sexual pleasure.

The Foreskin
The anatomy of the foreskin.! :D
Ok, so the foreskin actually isn't JUST skin.
It covers the penis and comes to a taper on the end. That taper is because of the elastic band type structure that makes it pull together, and that is attached to the penis with the frenulum! The frenulum runs from the underside of the penis head (the glans) to the foreskin and attaches to the ridged band, the rubber band of the penis. Cut guys often get all the frenulum removed and it is very sensitive and sexual in natural and uncut men.

What does the foreskin do?
1) The foreskin is meant to protect the penis head.

2) It glides back and forth on the penis to stimulate it during masturbation.

3) During intercourse, it catches at the opening of the orifice, and holds there and stimulates the penis as it withdraws and enters.

4) it is self lubricating and aids in lubrication for intercourse!

5) it bunches up at the entrance of the orifice and helps to retain the natural lubrication of the orifice.

Misconceptions about getting cut!
1) It's prevents UTI's
-cutting your foreskin reduces the likelihood of getting a urinary tract infection, but you can still get them. Females get more UTI's on average than any intact male does.

2) it's cleaner
-if you don't wash yourself, you will be dirty. Intact or otherwise

3) it helps prevent HIV/AIDS and other STD's
-false. If you have unprotected sex, you will get an std, regardless of a foreskin or not. Also, why is HIV/AIDS so huge here (in the US) where 50-60% of male children are cut? Doesn't make sense, does it? On the flip side, HIV/AIDS is far less prevalent in western europe and other civilized places that DON'T circumcise every or many children at all. In Wester Europe, circumcision is down to less than 10% in every country.

4) it looks better
-the human body is naturally weird looking, so why force a child into looking a certain way because someone else isn't going to like it? Genitals arent meant to be pretty.

5) it doesn't affect sexual capabilities
-false. It was directly implemented in the US for stopping masturbation in the late 19th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg
Scroll down to "views on sexuality" and "drastic measures"
Also I listed a load of sexual affects it has.

Any questions?
I'll be happy to answer anyone's questions!
ALSO, can a mod please make this a sticky or something! It's important!

[Rubik580]

5) it doesn't affect sexual capabilities
-false. It was directly implemented in the US for stopping masturbation in the late 19th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg
Scroll down to "views on sexuality" and "drastic measures"
Also I listed a load of sexual affects it has.


It was not directly implemented in the US for stopping masturbation. Read Genesis 17:9-27 It is common for people to be circumcised because of religious views (Usually Judaism).

[Gigablue]

Good post, though I must take exception to this one part.

3) it helps prevent HIV/AIDS and other STD's
-false. If you have unprotected sex, you will get an std, regardless of a foreskin or not. Also, why is HIV/AIDS so huge here (in the US) where 50-60% of male children are cut? Doesn't make sense, does it? On the flip side, HIV/AIDS is far less prevalent in western europe and other civilized places that DON'T circumcise every or many children at all. In Wester Europe, circumcision is down to less than 10% in every country.

Circumcision doesn't prevent HIV, but it does reduce the risk of transmission, specifically female to male transmission, by about 50%. Also, if you have unprotected sex with someone with an STI, you're not guaranteed to get an STI. HIV isn't that easy to transmit, and the chance of transmission from having sex once is fairly small.

By removing the foreskin, the skin underneath becomes tougher and thicker. This prevents the virus from being able to enter the body.

HIV is prevalent in the US, and circumcision can't stop it, because female to male transmission isn't the main route of transmission of HIV in the US. Male to male transmission is a far more significant problem.

Circumcision won't prevent all cases of HIV, and it shouldn't be used as protection, but it does reduce the risk of transmission of HIV.

[PinkFloyd]

I wish My parents left my fuckin dick alone! :mad:

I mean it's my body. What gave them the idea that this would be okay?!

Thanks for the article. Im glad i have more understanding.

[GuillaumeBordeaux]

It was not directly implemented in the US for stopping masturbation. Read Genesis 17:9-27 It is common for people to be circumcised because of religious views (Usually Judaism).

genital cutting for religious reasons is a fallacy. Women are federally protected in most parts of the world against this, but men aren't. FGM (female genital mutilation) has been done just as long as male circumcision, and for the same reasons: hygiene, aesthetics and control. It doesn't make it okay.

Good post, though I must take exception to this one part.



Circumcision doesn't prevent HIV, but it does reduce the risk of transmission, specifically female to male transmission, by about 50%. Also, if you have unprotected sex with someone with an STI, you're not guaranteed to get an STI. HIV isn't that easy to transmit, and the chance of transmission from having sex once is fairly small.

By removing the foreskin, the skin underneath becomes tougher and thicker. This prevents the virus from being able to enter the body.

HIV is prevalent in the US, and circumcision can't stop it, because female to male transmission isn't the main route of transmission of HIV in the US. Male to male transmission is a far more significant problem.

Circumcision won't prevent all cases of HIV, and it shouldn't be used as protection, but it does reduce the risk of transmission of HIV.

The study that "proved" that was absolutely convoluted and false on so many levels.
Here's a break down:
Two groups of men were part of the experiment.
One group to get cut
another to stay whole

the cut group had their operations and were told no sex for a month, so they didn't.
The uncut group is still out there having sex.
The cut group returns for follow ups and are cleared for sexual activity, BUT they are at a sexual health clinic and so given some small tips on safe sex and given condoms.
The uncut men were there at the beginning to sign up for the experiment and weren't given those tips, or forgot them because they were told them once.
Then the mediators of the experiment waited to see how long it took for everyone to get HIV/AIDS.

Why would someone go along and believe that experiment?

Also, if any fluid from one person is transfered to another carrying the HIV/AIDS virus (semen, blood) then the virus will transfer. The thickening of the skin following circumcision isn't a protection as it also becomes dried out and micro tears occur often, essentially making the penis a giant open wound. :l And where there are wounds, there will be blood and transfusion of the virus.

@Rob5454 I understand your pain! I am extremely empathetic to your situation!

[Gigablue]

The study that "proved" that was absolutely convoluted and false on so many levels.
Here's a break down:
Two groups of men were part of the experiment.
One group to get cut
another to stay whole

the cut group had their operations and were told no sex for a month, so they didn't.
The uncut group is still out there having sex.
The cut group returns for follow ups and are cleared for sexual activity, BUT they are at a sexual health clinic and so given some small tips on safe sex and given condoms.
The uncut men were there at the beginning to sign up for the experiment and weren't given those tips, or forgot them because they were told them once.
Then the mediators of the experiment waited to see how long it took for everyone to get HIV/AIDS.

Why would someone go along and believe that experiment?

What do you mean "the" study. There are many studies, some of which are provided below. I couldn't even find the one you're referring to, can you give the link.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22382150
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22210632
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19936044
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16231970
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17321310
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19770623

Also, if any fluid from one person is transfered to another carrying the HIV/AIDS virus (semen, blood) then the virus will transfer. The thickening of the skin following circumcision isn't a protection as it also becomes dried out and micro tears occur often, essentially making the penis a giant open wound. :l And where there are wounds, there will be blood and transfusion of the virus.

In order to be transmitted, the virus needs to be absorbed through a mucus membrane or the blood, and needs to be able to infect its target cells. The foreskin is a mucus membrane and also has many CD4+ cells, which are targeted by HIV. The thicker skin also contains more collagen, which makes it harder for the virus to be absorbed.

[GuillaumeBordeaux]

Above the circumcision scar, there is still mucosal skin left (above or below, whichever viewpoint you are looking at it) the are nearest to the head of the penis. That is what remains of the inner foreskin.

Also, the insignificant margins by which transmission of certain STD's is decreased isn't enough to warrant routine infant circumcision and no medical organization in the world actually says that routine infant circumcision should be done. The AAP recently came out with a policy that is slightly accepting of RIC (in males, see that double standard? :L) But it doesn't come right out and say do it to every child.

[Gigablue]

Above the circumcision scar, there is still mucosal skin left (above or below, whichever viewpoint you are looking at it) the are nearest to the head of the penis. That is what remains of the inner foreskin.

Also, the insignificant margins by which transmission of certain STD's is decreased isn't enough to warrant routine infant circumcision and no medical organization in the world actually says that routine infant circumcision should be done. The AAP recently came out with a policy that is slightly accepting of RIC (in males, see that double standard? :L) But it doesn't come right out and say do it to every child.

There is still mucosal skin left, but there is far less, and the risk of HIV transmission is therefore reduced.

I don't think that circumcision should be done to prevent HIV, except maybe in areas where HIV is endemic and female to male circumcision if the main route of transmission. I also definitely don't think that it should be done for infants, since they can't consent to it, and it's not medically necessary. There is also a huge double standard, where people accept to for males, but not for females. I am not in favour of routine infant circumcision, and didn't mean to come off that way. I just wanted to point out that one of your points was incorrect.

[GuillaumeBordeaux]

I brought up the faults in the study that is the most widely accepted and the oldest on the matter. Those other studies are new to me, and interesting to read, but it doesn't change the fact that abstinence or protection are the only means of prevention in getting an STD and genital cutting is not applicable here. If you remove a body part, you won't get an infection in it, it's understood. Also, the reduced transmission of whatever diseases doesn't and shouldn't give people the right to permanently alter the physiology of a child, and directly adversely affect their lifelong sexual functioning.

[Gigablue]

I brought up the faults in the study that is the most widely accepted and the oldest on the matter. Those other studies are new to me, and interesting to read, but it doesn't change the fact that abstinence or protection are the only means of prevention in getting an STD and genital cutting is not applicable here. If you remove a body part, you won't get an infection in it, it's understood. Also, the reduced transmission of whatever diseases doesn't and shouldn't give people the right to permanently alter the physiology of a child, and directly adversely affect their lifelong sexual functioning.

I had never seen the study that you mentioned. And it seems like a bad study, but there are many others that seem good. I don't disagree that abstinence and protection work far better than circumcision for HIV prevention, but circumcision seems to have some effect. Circumcision should never be used as the sole means of protection against HIV or any other STI.

I completely agree that you shouldn't remove something unless absolutely necessary, especially for a child or infant. I don't think that infant circumcision makes any sense at all, and it seems highly unethical.

[GuillaumeBordeaux]

Very unethical and extremely biased.

[hollisterboi95]

This is very useful information and glad to have read this. Many of my friends are cut. Sometimes I feel like I might be the only uncut guy around here.

[GuillaumeBordeaux]

You're welcome! I am glad someone was spared! :] You should tell you friends a bit about what can happen later in life!

[Sean4U]

Very interesting OP.....but for those of us able to be on this site and READ this it is a mute point, as we have either been circumcised, (as I am) or have been left natural. Therefore, for those of us reading this it is important to understand the differences that you mention and make the right choices if/when we become parents. Personally, I have already determined that I will not circumcise my son. As of this point I have not idea whether or not my sexual pleasure has been impaired (I think that is the word) as I have intense orgasms and extreme pleasure. This may change as I get older and I will not put my son through it. THANK YOU Guillaume for your post.

[GuillaumeBordeaux]

You are welcome Sean4u, also, there is a way to grow shaft skin and eventually it will do everything a foreskin did except for the nerve endings in it! Pm me for details, or I may make a thread about it!

[Gigablue]

You are welcome Sean4u, also, there is a way to grow shaft skin and eventually it will do everything a foreskin did except for the nerve endings in it! Pm me for details, or I may make a thread about it!

Is regrouping it really worth it? I since it can't regroup the nerves, what's the point? I guess it covers it and might allow more movement, but I don't really see the point.

[GuillaumeBordeaux]

It covers the glans, the glans becomes moisturized once again and gets it's full sensitivity back, and you have the full range of masturbation gliding. It becomes self lubricating once more as it was meant to be.

[Irishperson15]

I think that getting cut is stupid. Ok, if thats your religious view or whatever ok, but thats all rubbish about how its 'cleaner'! I shower evry 1 or 2 days nd im uncut nd my penis is fine. In my opinion being 'cut' has no advantages and as for all that stuff about std/sti whatever, if your careful it will decrease the chances of getting it, cut or not!!

[GuillaumeBordeaux]

Thanks Irish! We need more intact perspectives! Thanks!
Also, yeah, getting cut is stupid. :l It's shameful to do it to children who haven't had their life to experience it yet, and it takes away loads of sexual pleasure!

[Irishperson15]

Thanks Irish! We need more intact perspectives! Thanks!
Also, yeah, getting cut is stupid. :l It's shameful to do it to children who haven't had their life to experience it yet, and it takes away loads of sexual pleasure!

If someone wants cut, thats ok but it has no purpose unless religion and as u said already the benefits of being uncut including its natural purposes

[GuillaumeBordeaux]

Also, do you think a child should be able to choose whether they are circumcised for religious purposes or just let the parents do it anyway? That kind of takes away the religious right of the child to choose their religion. :l

True they can leave islam or judaism, but they will never get that part back that religion took from them.

[dingo006]

Can I be honest about this? When you people talk about circumcision you come off like those people who say that vaccines cause autism (also false and done for bias reasons).

Most of what GuillaumeBordeaux posted is untrue. False. I also find his attack on religion foolish.

I can post the medical stuff (from actual doctors not activists or retired teachers) but at the end of the day it elimates UTI (to a risk of to 0.1%) and some cancers completely. It reduces the potential for aids by 50-60%. It also shows huge reduction in genital herpies, and HPV as well as a significantly lower bacterial infection rate for woman and it has been proven repeatedly by groups like the AMA and Doctors without Boarders to the point where the UN is funding circumcisions in africa. if there was no evidence of that then why would they be spending drastically large funds to do so?

More importantly .. the sex stuff ...
medical research from Johns Hopkins "found no reduction in sexual satisfaction or male performance in any of the studies. Indeed, they add, circumcised men in the trials, the gold standard of medical evidence, reported no difference or even increased penile sensitivity during intercourse and enhanced orgasms compared to uncircumcised men".

After a "comprehensive review of the scientific evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics found the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks".

They join groups like The American Medical Association, Canadian Paediatric Society, the United Nations, Royal Australasian College of Physicians, and on and on. So seriously. Who do you believe? the VAST majority of doctors or certain inactivist activist organizations with clear biases?

I could post medical stuff I barely understand from Oxford University, Yale medical, Jons Hopkins, the AAP and the AMA but honestly, stick to medical websites when you do the reading on this and you can figure it out.

[GuillaumeBordeaux]

Can I be honest about this? When you people talk about circumcision you come off like those people who say that vaccines cause autism (also false and done for bias reasons).

Most of what GuillaumeBordeaux posted is untrue. False. I also find his attack on religion foolish.

I can post the medical stuff (from actual doctors not activists or retired teachers) but at the end of the day it elimates UTI (to a risk of to 0.1%) and some cancers completely. It reduces the potential for aids by 50-60%. It also shows huge reduction in genital herpies, and HPV as well as a significantly lower bacterial infection rate for woman and it has been proven repeatedly by groups like the AMA and Doctors without Boarders to the point where the UN is funding circumcisions in africa. if there was no evidence of that then why would they be spending drastically large funds to do so?

More importantly .. the sex stuff ...
medical research from Johns Hopkins "found no reduction in sexual satisfaction or male performance in any of the studies. Indeed, they add, circumcised men in the trials, the gold standard of medical evidence, reported no difference or even increased penile sensitivity during intercourse and enhanced orgasms compared to uncircumcised men".

After a "comprehensive review of the scientific evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics found the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks".

They join groups like The American Medical Association, Canadian Paediatric Society, the United Nations, Royal Australasian College of Physicians, and on and on. So seriously. Who do you believe? the VAST majority of doctors or certain inactivist activist organizations with clear biases?

I could post medical stuff I barely understand from Oxford University, Yale medical, Jons Hopkins, the AAP and the AMA but honestly, stick to medical websites when you do the reading on this and you can figure it out.

As far as saying my opposition for circumcision due to religious reasons is foolish, is it then acceptable to alter the genitals of female children for religious reasons?

And those long term sensitivity effects take a long time to happen, decades, so individuals who experience them don't often understand that it is caused by circumcision. In the short run, the sensation will be better as the glans hasn't adjusted to the outside environment quite yet. Over time it dries out and begins to build a layer of keratin (thick skin) to protect itself. That skin pushes the sensory receptors farther and farther out of reach over time, dulling the sensation.
Also, all of the long term facts and scarring, and stretching of skin and scrotal skin migration is readily available, simple search for it.
And as far as "vast majority" of doctors, that is completely false. No country aside from the US, Indonesia, Malaysia and Israel circumcise on such a large scale, so of course the doctors in these countries will advocate for it. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, the 85% of the rest of the population and all those doctors can and do concur that there is no medical necessity to circumcision and the risks outweigh the benefits. 'Cause you know, hemorrhaging, disfiguration and death are really severe side effects of this procedure. Your medical benefits are all from American organizations. Although the World Health Organization does site the reduction in UTI's, the HPV reduction and the laughably insignificant change in AIDS/HIV transmission, they do not advocate the routine circumcision of infants.

Also, we have protections from religious rights of others that would take away our rights. People cannot do us harm if their holy books says so, they cannot steal our belongings, they cannot rape us, our children, spouses and family because their books say so. If we are protected from anything else that is harmful that someone's religion says to do, why then are children subjected to a risky procedure that is permanent and unnecessary?

[dingo006]

Is it acceptable to alter female genitals for religious reasons? depends on the alteration. If you read the UN reports (i had to when my global class did a women's rights in Africa report) the vast majority of female genital mutilation that is being fought is vastly different from cliteral hood circumcision. if it was just that (id have to take a peek at a study) but yeah id probably be OK with that. But even the most liberal example involve scarification of the clit with the point of a pin. So that is why the two things are not compatible.

im not a doctor so im going to ignore most of the skin conversation (because most of the studies involve ADULT men and show NO difference) . You say even in countries where circumcision is uncommon the medical opinions are different ... this is not true, the medical opinions are shifting towards the US view and at best acknowledge the recent studies but the amount done stand by the cultural norms of society.

No country aside from the US, Indonesia, Malaysia and Israel circumcise on such a large scale.

This is a lie. the US circumcision rate is the same or higher in South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey and most of the Arab World. When you tell lies in a fact based argument people are more likely to not believe your entire argument.
So lets look at medical opinions from outside the US. Even the ones that supposedly dont agree with me.

Canadian Paediatric Society’s most recent position states “There is evidence that circumcision results in a reduction in the incidence of penile cancer and of HIV transmission: . And “The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns. “ It does support it’s coverage by insurance (Which Canada currently does not) . They have also said that it is currently reviewing the medical literature on the subject and shall update it’s stance in the next year.

A survey of Canadian maternity practices done in 2007 by the national public health agency found a newborn circumcision rate of 31.9% which isn’t much lower than the US.



Even group that give qualified support (IE does not recommend all babies get circumcised) acknowledge that there are medical reasons for circumcision that you are completely dismissing. Hell even the The Royal Dutch Medical Association admits that uncircumcised men are twice as likely to get HPV.

You said hemorrhaging, disfiguration and death are really severe side effects of this procedure. Which might have been true in the 50s and 60s but those side effects are so rare that it would be like me citing Penile cancer death and UTI kidney damage leading to death as reasons for circumcision. A spokeswoman for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said the agency did not keep track of deaths from infant circumcision because they are exceedingly rare. In the agency’s last in depth mortality report, which looked at all deaths in the country in 2010, no circumcision-related deaths were found. I mean sure all of those things happen but in America? For Circumcisions being done by a medical professional in a hospital setting (which all circumcisions should be done) its super rare.

Just for fun tho not circumcising KILLS PEOPLE !!!! /sarcasm. The facts are 10% of uncircumsized males will get a UTI before they turn 16 and a UTIs common in male infants can cause Urosepsis and severe sepsis has a reported mortality rate of 20 to 42%. Deaths from Urosepsis are recorded in the 2010 CDC report. So yeah, it happens, not often but it happens.

British Medical Association's statement clearly says “here is a spectrum of views within the BMA’s membership about whether non-therapeutic male circumcision is a beneficial, neutral, or harmful procedure or whether it is superfluous, and whether it should ever be done on a child who is not capable of deciding for himself. The medical harms or benefits have not been unequivocally proved except to the extent that there are clear risks of harm if the procedure is done inexpertly. The Association has no policy on these issues. “ – that is the most current British Medical association statement. In the past the BMA was directly opposed to infant circumcision. The medical community is not set in stone and reacts to their most current information.


Nobody advocates the routine circumcision of Infants because it is supposed to be left up to the parents discretion. Doctors give the parents advice and evidence and the parents make the choice. You have seen a softening on circumcision in the medical field since 2005, when these studies were done on a scale to make them reputable. Most of the hysteria is driven by Antisemitism in Europe and fear mongering in France because of a rare death.

Edit : there was tons of cutting and pasting from articles in this post

[GuillaumeBordeaux]

D whoops :P I mistyped when I listed the countries. When referencing Malaysia and Indonesia, I was referring to the high concentrations of Islamic individuals, the same with Judaism and Israel as it is central to the religious practices (doesn't make it okay.) It is unfortunate that I made this omission. I am well aware of the countries that do it on such a large scale.
Note: I didn't lie, I made an error of omission, one that I accept and apologize for.

Also I can tell there is a ton of copy and pasting. Thanks for the footnote though.

Point of interest: if you cut something off, you can't get cancer in it, that's common sense. Why then, do we not remove all breast tissue from female children? More women die of breast cancer than men do of penile cancer, seeing as penile cancer is extremely rare.

[Pipo]

I haven't got anything cus I'm uncut and over 16 lalalala...

why not just have safe sex and stop arguing who get's STI easier??

seriously?

[dingo006]

I haven't got anything cus I'm uncut and over 16 lalalala...

why not just have safe sex and stop arguing who get's STI easier??

seriously?

Um, thats not all we are talking about, we are talking about being more likely to get certain diseases (including infections) if you are circumcised. I also pointed out a bunch of stuff that Guillaume said was undisputed fact (like sensitivity and frequency) that was untrue.

GuillaumeBordeaux was coming at it from a sort of biased position like it was fact when clearly it wasnt (like comparing female genital mutilation to circumcision ... the actual things being very different) and i had to um give the other side at least.

[Emiil]

thank God I live in Europe, everyone here is uncut except if you are a jew or muslim
when i wank it's the tip of foreskin that's sensitive, im glad i have it

[crumbs]

Can I be honest about this? When you people talk about circumcision you come off like those people who say that vaccines cause autism (also false and done for bias reasons).

Most of what GuillaumeBordeaux posted is untrue. False. I also find his attack on religion foolish.

They join groups like The American Medical Association, Canadian Paediatric Society, the United Nations, Royal Australasian College of Physicians, and on and on. So seriously. Who do you believe?

Um, not you, because that's a blatant lie. The RACP do NOT recommend it whatsoever. They have repeatedly stood by their statement that's it is completely unnecessary (which it is).

Your so called "facts" are utter nonsense. Please give it a rest.

[GuillaumeBordeaux]

I'm very aware of the severity of genital mutilation, in both men and women. And differences in practice do not make one more acceptable than the other as both, if done without the consent of the individual being performed on, is a clear violation of one's rights.

@Crumbs thanks for pointing that out! :]

@Emil thank you for providing some insight on where natural pleasure comes from! :]

[dingo006]

Um, not you, because that's a blatant lie. The RACP do NOT recommend it whatsoever. They have repeatedly stood by their statement that's it is completely unnecessary (which it is).

Your so called "facts" are utter nonsense. Please give it a rest.

Are you saying that the RACP does not acknowledge that there are benefits to circumcision that the original poster dismisses?

Royal Australasian College of Physicians from 2010

"Recent studies have found that circumcision may provide relative benefits including the potential prevention of UTIs (urinary tract infections) in infancy. Among adults in developing countries where the prevalence of sexually transmitted disease is high, circumcision reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS, syphilis and chancroid. In developed countries, circumcision may decrease the lifetime risk of penile cancer in men and cervical cancer in women among high-risk populations later in life."

Facts. Royal Australasian College of Physicians acknowledges Circumcision provides some protective benefits and says that In New Zealand and Australia at the present time, newborn and infant male circumcision is legal and considered an ethical procedure (unlike The Netherlands for example). They do not go as far as recommending it for all males (and thus leave it up to the informed consent of the parents) due to the prevalence of medical help and the repetitively low incidences of the STDs prevented (and other measures like the amount of HPV vaccine in girls) but look it up, they do not dispute the medical findings, just their medical need.

So lets face facts, there has been a change in the medical science. I am sorry if it makes you uncomfortable.

Cmon bro are vaccines a violation of a baby's rights because they dont consent to them? Parents give Informed Consent FOR children, its basic law. there is nowhere in the world where medical circumcisions are being done without informed consent.

So, in conclusion, Children have a right to be protected from unnecessary procedures according to the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, by stating unequivocally that the circumcision of males is an ethical procedure they acknowledge it has medical worth and thus Non-therapeutic circumcision of male children is ... medical beneficial if not without risks. those risks (although rare) should continue to discourage the practice of routine circumcision in newborns. They also stress that parents MUST be informed the of the potential advantages and disadvantages of the circumcision.

[MusicalBoy]

I'm glad I'm cut. I personally think it looks better and a lot of my friends who are girls won't touch a guy with a foreskin. Circumcision prevents smegma buildup, which is really nasty. And more people with foreskins complain of pain than people without. And foreskin restoration surgery is dangerous and many people leave unsatisfied. I'm defiantly circumcising my son. But the information you provided was interesting. Thanks.

[Luke91]

Since I was circumcised at 13, I know what it was like to have a foreskin and I now know what it is like to be cut. "The Truth About Circumcision" for me is, I like being cut much better.

[Info]

Facts about being cut:
1: It IS cleaner. Yes an uncut person can wash it however they would have I wash it more than 2 times a day to keep it as clean as a cut person.
2: It is PROVEN that it reduces the chance of getting STD's and UTI's


Your making it seem that if your circumsised that they mutilated your penis! :D
Yes, the forskin has many nerves but you still feel the same EXACT pleasure. You just have more of your body feeling the pleasure. It's kind of like having a bigger penis since you have more penis getting pleasure.

They both have their ups and downs so don't be so biased.

[Info]

Also, do you think a child should be able to choose whether they are circumcised for religious purposes or just let the parents do it anyway? That kind of takes away the religious right of the child to choose their religion. :l

True they can leave islam or judaism, but they will never get that part back that religion took from them.

A baby is not going to choose their religion at such a young age... If it wasn't for tradition and people passing down what their parents tell them, everyone would be atheist or believe in science...
Their parents are hoping that they will stay the religion they teach their kid. Besides, if the kid were to stay the same religion, they would be saving them pain later on their life. As a baby you don't remember the pain.

[GuillaumeBordeaux]

And if someone roofies someone and sexually assaults them, they don't remember it, doesn't make it okay, now does it? :l

[IAMWILL]

Although I personally disagree with circumcision at birth, I have to say if you want this post and for that matter all of your posts to be credible, and this goes for both sides of the argument, stop being so emotional, picky and opinionated.

Logic and credible sources will always persuade better than emotion and vague claims. Learning how to type and paragraph correctly helps as well.