What a dumb comparison. There is a huge difference between the circumcision of women and men.

It's not hard to roll the skin back and wash it... to prevent disease.

I'd like a link for the botching statistic...to the best of my knowledge it is minimal.

As far as I know, that number is misleading, it includes both cut and uncut men. A better number to use would be 1 in ~45000 men. However, this number includes men of all ages, not just those prone to becoming infected with this cancer. If you just include men who are at risk, (and by risk I mean hovering around the age of 50) I believe the number rises to somewhere in the region of 1 in 1000-2000 (though, I would have to pull up the study).

Researching more on this topic has led me to contradictory views on the issue of pleasure...some people seem to experience more pleasure post circumcision than when the foreskin is intact.

And as for hygeine, that has to be initiated from day 1, when the foreskin is able to be retracted...ages 6-8. I don't know about you, but I defintely hated showering...5 minutes max. I don't think the average boy would put too much effort into cleaning in general, let alone around the penis and under the foreskin.

QFT.

If you were right about the above... all that would show is that you have zero substantiation that it helps.

Outside which... Penis cancer I could only imagine would be like Prostate cancer.  AKA an inevitability no matter what you do if you live long enough.

Prostate cancer is a 1 in 11 chance.

I'll bring up the info again at a later date.  About to head to work.

EDIT:

* A realistic complication figure is 2%-10%.
–Williams, N. Complications of Circumcision. British Journal of Surgery, vol. 80, October 1993, pp. 1231-1236.

Note that the United States is the only country to have male circumsisions without religious regions in any specific number... and even then the number is shrinking because Doctors widely just know better now.

The US doesn't have much lower rates of Penile cancer then the rest of the world... despite being the only country that does this on a normal basis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_binding

The similarities between this and cicurmcision are

-They involve immense pain and suffering for a minor

-They are forced upon the child without its consent

-They are horribly disfiguring

-The justification for subjecting people to both of these, instead of waiting for the people to be old enough to choose for themselves if they wish to be mutilated is that it has to be done young.

The difference between them is that circumcision is mostly done for religious reasons, as opposed to secular.

For some reason, people seem to be under the impression that monstrosities commited in the name of an imagined diety are a person's right, whereas monstrosities commited for other reasons are monstrous.

Well, you're the one being superficial about it.

Female circumcision fits my taste since there's no roast beef. You probably just haven't seen enough pussy, IMO.

To be fair, we might need to survey the women on this issue.

I think body modifications should be left to the individual. I some folk are getting their panties in a wad about this, but really, parents shouldn't have any more right to do that to their kid then stretching their lips out with plates or tying a board to their head so they turn into a cone head.

As an adult, you should be able to do to yourself pretty much what you want. So if an adult male wants to snip of an average of 13 square inches of his penis skin (Source - Dr. Dean Edell) he can. But it should be a choice one makes as an adult.

I agree with this.

It should be a individuals choice when said individual reach adulthood.