Ha! Brilliant!

You advocate destroying a person's future sex life via genital mutilation due to "less bacteria?" - on children who are far too young to give consent to such a horrific act?

On the contrary: http://www.cirp.org/library/death/ - reports show that in the 1940s between 16 and 19 babies died each year due to infections relating to circumcisions within the UK, and over 100 infants in the US - but due to underreporting estimates in the US are over 220 each year; again, directly related to infection caused by circumcision. And you would have to imagine this number was substantially higher when sanitation was not taken as seriously. The history has nothing to do with "bacteria" as humanity wasn't aware of bacteria until quite recently; additionally, the medical rationale was not developed until after the practice became widespread in the English world, it's largely a form of apologetics to justify a barbaric and disgusting ritual.

Circumcision became widespread in the English world during a time when the climate of attitude toward sexual pleasure was negative, especially concerning masturbation. It's designed to repress sexual stimulation. It causes tremendous damage to the erogenous nervous tissue for several reasons: 1. keratinization of the glans/head, 2. the loss of important tissue, 3. the loss of thousands of sensory nerve endings, 4. Loss of reciprocal stimulation of foreskin and glans, and 5. Loss of the gliding mechanism. Children who have had this inflicted upon them have had the opportunity to have a full sexual experience revoked from them when they reach adulthood.

If someone used that same argument on a baby girl, removing the labia and clitoris on baby girls for the reason of "less bacteria," - as someone who I assume is from the English world - you would consider them to be a loathsome excuse of a person; anyone who actually DID this, should be charged with sexual assault.

Anyway, we can't stay serious in this forum (isn't it against the rules?),

So:

And YES, that is the guy who played President Kim in The Interview.

No, thankfully I'm not genitally mutilated. And I always find amusing the human capacity to transform loss into some virtue.

Did you guys know if you cut off your own balls and toes, that can also prevent a lot of chances for infection, cancer etc.?

Huh huh.

I'm actually shocked about the result of this thread. in all my life and 100 of locker rooms I visited, I saw maybe 1 circumsized dick (even then I didn't realized it, I thought wtf why has the a dude half errect penis). none of my friends is circumsized besides my cousin for medicial reasons (which he was rather recently and he doesn't really feel different).

Did you know that if women get a mastectomy there's a greatly reduced chance of breast cancer? 

Whether this thread comes up you always get two kinds of people.
"I am circumcised/uncircumcised and chilled discussion"
"I am NOT mutilated/have a gross *****, insert strawman arguement and shame on you for not being like me"

This post is so wrong. 

Literally not a single person has criticized others for being circumcised. Nobody is saying that it's inherently bad, they have a problem with the PROCEDURE BEING DONE TO CHILDREN. because it IS a form of genital mutilation, it is a decision that affects people their whole life, and it should not be done on infants for anything other than medical reasons. That should be the end of the discussion, but apparently it's not. 

If you grow up and CHOSE to get circumcised, then that's completely up to you. your body and all. If you wanna pierce your dick or get subdermal implants, that's up to you. Your body, and all. you shouldn't have such a major choice forced upon you for no good reason. I pierced my dick (apadravya, if anyone's curious) but that doesn't mean I should pierce my kid's dick. My friend pierced her ears, doesn't mean they should pierce their kid's ears without the kid wanting it. you shouldn't be mutilating and modifying someone else's body, especially not part of their body that will be VERY important to them as they grow up and especially not before they have the cognitive function to have a say in the matter. 

The argument has always boiled down to: If you don't circumcise and your kid grows up to want to be, then he can be. If you do circumcise and your kid resents that decision, then they can't reverse it in any meaningful way; too bad for them. 

Considering you are an adult for 3x as long as you are a child/teen on average, it's stupid to make a permanent, life-long decision on behalf of someone else for a period of their life that will likely comprise about 1/4 of their total life. 

YES I am. And I do hate that I am...

@Runa216

Super late response but at work and saw this in notifications. 

First off to be honest most people have not said what I have claimed but I did see a few, to be honest didn't bother me but calling out someone having it done for medical reasons as mutilation is a bit short sighted

Which still leads me to my other point, while solely religious or cosmetic reasons on children is in my and a lot of people's opinion not good I still think people do overlook the fact that it does have medical benefits which when done when the child is older can cause more problems.

Which still leads me to my arguement of the appendix and tailbone. While people will use the arguement of evolution etc. (if its still there there must be a reason) the tailbone and appendix almost "literally" (correct me if I am wrong) exist just to be a burden for a few unlucky people.
Thus in the future we found a safe way to remove these, would we not want to this to our children when it is risk free at that point?

To be honest, most people will thankfully never need to get circumcised but since it does not take away from pleasure etc. while removes the risk of phimosis and other conditions, I don't really think it deserves the title of mutilation if done of these reasons

I wouldn't buy the "prevention of phimosis" argument either. It's incredibly rare. It's like cutting off their testicles and removing their prostate as well to prevent some forms of cancer that are far more common.