yea. I never knew what circumcision was until a year ago. my friend told me about it.later

when i saw the uncircumsized dick i wass like wtf that guy dick looks fucking ugly i am glad my dick looks better and doesn't have that horrendous skin ( don't mean to offend anyone but that was what i actually thought). only to discover a year or 2 that this is how you are born and know what circumcision is. I am so happy that they circumsized me even though i don't like it that to date they didn't tell me anything about circumcision or tell me what they did. no offence to anyone intended

People just have cultural superiority complexes that are not correct. Many Americans grow up thinking it is normal to be circumsized and I have never once heard of anyone claiming memory of the procedure. I will take the issue as a problem the day a large proportion of circumsized males complain about problems due to the procedure. This obviously does not happen so the negative responses in this thread are really coming from people who feel their culture is superior and have to try to tell the world so.

Practice makes perfect

Well, being a nurse and witnessing dozens of circumcisions i can tell you a couple of things. Babies often times sleep through them. I understand it helps all the people saying this is inhumane to use words like mutilation and deform, but the fact of the matter if a baby IS crying its generally because we are restraining their legs and the confinement in a non "warm" way, like when we wrap in a blanket is what causes outbursts.

How do we solve these outbursts? A simple glucose and water solution on a pacifier puts the babies at ease, yes even with the "mutilation" in progress.

Using scary words like mutilation and disfigurement is easy and fun to sensationalize a very safe, very practical procedure.

To people saying "pulling back skin and washing is easy" It is, the same way as drinking 8 glasses of water a day, breathing deeply upright in bed is but people still get pneumonia and people still dont do these things every day because while its easy its not always done because as a society we pay attention to extremely apparent physical things which under your foreskin is not.

So yes, parents make an executive decision based on the information we give them of pros and cons. Cons being possible stimulation. Cons can include a possible mistake, just as any medical procedure. We are honest and as a medical profession who cares for countless readmmision of people not doing "easy" things, im completely in favor of a parent making an informed decision for their newborn BEFORE he can talk and rationalize or justify his choice which at that time would be traumatic to lose a part of your body, however small.

I hope all of you parents who want your kids to decide let them choose their meals, bedtimes and if they want to go to school. It must be very liberating for them to be in charge of such "serious" things at that age.

So you don't think a child gets to make a decision on something that will affect him his entire life? Very well, let's play with this:

You know, throat cancer is hard to get without a throat, so why not just rip those out at birth? After all, people can use those electronic voice boxes. Totally removes the risk of any chance there. How about bowel cancer huh? Kinda hard to get that if we tear out one's colon and leave them with colostomy bags. All in the name of NOT getting cancer, we have to cut ourselves up. See what kind of idiotic logic this is? You're willing to cut out PERFECTLY WORKING tissue in order to prevent the risk of something that is not likely to occur?

lol thats so hilarious +1, i agree like wtf are human rights activists telling parents what they can do and what they can't even if the thing they are doing is helping the child out. seriously i know that me as a child hated washing and that means that if i wasn't circumsized my dick would have been full of dirt in that age.

Once again, you sensationalize using an extreme case of removing vital organs for CANCERS. The removal of the foreskin limits the harboring of bacteria in dark, damp places. It needs to be cleaned daily if not more, it needs to be dried. It is something that has no effect on the function of the body by removing the foreskin. This isnt a cancer issue, its a comfort prophylacytic measure where the pros outweigh the cons. And again, its not being forced upon anyone.

The fact of the matter is people argueing against the right to CHOOSE to do this do so in very sensationlistic ways to try to either scare or justify their A) lack of knowledge and B) lack of argument. This isnt a fight to enforce this practice its a fight to preserve the right to this practice if one chooses. Those in favor of the former dont grasp the use of it as evidence by your analogy of removing vital organs to prevent cancer in an argument where we are removing essentially a skin tag to prevent the risk of infection.

The fact that youre comparing foreskin in functionality to the throat and bowels should have red flagged me to not even respond. but ive already typed and no sense in deleting it.

I understand the point, and I understand the study, but why is it only working in Africa. Why is it that in America, the rate of stds is most prevalent in the circumcised? It just points to there being some kind of mistake going on. I've been trying to find the actual article, the actual write-up for the methodology, but when I type in his name I just get quotes and other sites publishing that news. However, one of the quotes that I saw was "circumcision, in tandem with condom use lowers AIDS rate". Yet, the same circumstances exist in America and the case isn't the same. There is some flaw that I can't help but picture. Something is wrong with the study.

THe problem I have with the whole situation is really not about the hygeine or the mutilation for safety. It's a distinguishing mark used since before biblical times to tell one race or religious affiliate from another, and in general, just has very strong religious connotations.

EDIT: I just feel like it's shoehorned onto this idea of cleanliness when really, either way, there is no strong difference.