Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
slices of life

How Alan Cumming Saved America From Becoming Over-Circumcised

In 2006, some 56 percent of all boys born in America were circumcised. By 2009, that figure dropped to 32.5 percent — ultimately reversing the 1980s and 90s trend of two-thirds. Does this mean Alan Cumming’s campaign worked? Or just that Manhunt.net is going to have to update its maps in a generation?

By:           Matt Debord
On:           Aug 17, 2010
Tagged: , , , ,
  • 51 Comments
    • Erin
      Erin

      Uncircumsized men are DISGUSTING. They should be ASHAMED of themselves.

      Aug 17, 2010 at 2:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Blaine Ward
      Blaine Ward

      I for one am not a fan on uncut, stinky cheese dicks. Keep it clean, fellas. Poor hygiene looks/smells good on no one!

      Aug 17, 2010 at 2:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Phil
      Phil

      Good thing uncut is not synonymous with unclean, right guys?

      Aug 17, 2010 at 2:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AnotherWIGay
      AnotherWIGay

      @Erin: WTF. How can you say that when you have been with what? A handful of uncircumcised gay men? That’s rude.

      Aug 17, 2010 at 2:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Henry Holland
      Henry Holland

      Great, more boys will grow up with shrunken/deformed cockheads. Nice work! Let those cockheads breath the air of freedom.

      Aug 17, 2010 at 2:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike
      Mike

      Uncut is best.

      Regarding hygiene – well it takes about 5 seconds to wash under the foreskin.

      Mutilating little boys for imaginary hygiene needs is barbaric

      Aug 17, 2010 at 2:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Devon
      Devon

      Oh boy, here we go!

      Aug 17, 2010 at 3:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • pete
      pete

      Cut, uncut, it doesn’t matter to me. As long as he’s got one, and knows what to do with it!

      Aug 17, 2010 at 3:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Daveny
      Daveny

      I don’t know what kind of men theses guys that are complaining about guys with “cheesy dick” are dating but it sounds like they are going after some dirty guys. It has nothing to do with being uncut or cut! its about the guys cleanliness believe me there are a lot of “cut” guys that smell like shit down there. Bottom line the parents make what I think is a decision they have no right to make, They are altering the kids body without the their permission.

      Aug 17, 2010 at 3:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • whatever
      whatever

      I never understood the practice of having males in the US circumsized. If you’re not Muslim or Jewish and your religion demands it, why even bother with it?

      It’s it a way doctors can bill insurance cos for an added procedure and line their pockets even more? I think so.

      Aug 17, 2010 at 3:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • uu
      uu

      @Henry Holland: Source? Seems unlikely.

      Aug 17, 2010 at 4:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • truthteller
      truthteller

      Bullshit!

      Those of you who bash uncut guys do it out of envy because you were denied over 20,000 pleasure nerve-endings.

      Your lame excuse that is smelly doesn’t pass the smell test:

      Your ass gets smelly if you don’t clean it, yet you lick and fuck it. Why don’t you just cut it off?

      Your mouth gets smelly if you don’t wash it
      Why don’t you just have it surgically removed? And take your teeth with it.

      Your armpits, feet, balls–your entire body will stink if you don’t wash.

      If you’re bitter about having been butchered deal with that in a productive way instead of lashing out at those who were not.

      Aug 17, 2010 at 4:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tallskin
      Tallskin

      Jeez, ANOTHER thread about uncut cocks on queerty!!

      How many is this in the past 4 weeks??

      Aug 17, 2010 at 4:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Enron
      Enron

      Personally, I don’t mind either. But I definitely agree with TRUTHTELLER, the sensations you experience with an uncut penis is like nothing else in this world, its like your personal vagina/ass. When you mix it up with either pre-cum or spit, you would swear you had died and gone to heaven.

      Keeping clean is no problem, just skin it over, ladder up with a little soap and water in the shower and use your hand to gently scrub and remove any smegma around the crown. Its that simple, that’s what you call proper hygiene. Unless your parents thought you were going to be lazy.

      Aug 17, 2010 at 4:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Enron
      Enron

      Personally, I don’t mind either. But I definitely agree with TRUTHTELLER, the sensations you experience with an uncut el pepe is like nothing else in this world, its like your personal vaj-j/love hole (had to change these since Queerty flagged them. When you mix it up with either pre-cum or spit, you would swear you had died and gone to heaven.

      Keeping clean is no problem, just skin it over, ladder up with a little soap and water in the shower and use your hand to gently scrub and remove any smegma around the crown. Its that simple, that’s what you call proper hygiene. Unless your parents thought you were going to be lazy.

      Aug 17, 2010 at 4:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael
      Michael

      Don’t get me wrong I love both uncut and cut cocks – because to me it’s about the big thing attached to that cock called a MAN that I’m really interested in. If he’s circumcised he likely had no say in the matter so I’m not certainly not going to criticize *him* for it.

      BUT (and this is why I don’t like the “I’m going to be neutral and say it doesn’t matter to me either way” comments) what I said above about loving a person regardless of their circ status doesn’t stop me from criticizing the practice in general.

      Circumcision is a very stupid practice (even for religious reasons although many would disagree with this even if they’re against circumcision for everyone else) and it has no real benefits – medical or otherwise. The only benefits circumcision is “proven” to have are those of subjective value which are nothing more than cultural brain-washing. For example, that uncut penises are “not normal” or that they are “dirty” or that they “look funny.” After all, because of this trend reversal (which I didn’t not know had changed THIS drastically in recent years!!), the readers of Queerty-like blogs in 30 years will be saying the same things some of you are saying about uncut guys – except they’ll be talking about circumcised penises.

      Being uncircumcised myself, I can let those of you who are cut know that it takes me umm… maybe 1 second? to clean my dick in the shower and I’d be willing to bet my life that it takes a cut guy the same. It’s not like you’re opening up the hood of a car and scrubbing it down with a hose and sponge. It’s a small area that is so easy to care for with a wipe of your washcloth once a day. As some of my boyfriends have told me, they didn’t even realize for a couple minutes that I had a foreskin. But OH how I realized that theirs was missing…

      This doesnt’ convey many differences between the two types of penises but just in terms of trying to describe the difference in function – it’s like trying to slide down a grassy hill without a slip and slide. Sure, you can get lubes for penises. But that’s like a slip and slide that runs out of water after a couple slides or a slip and slide that just barely trickles water.
      Haha that’s an interesting comparison but kind of accurate – I think I’ll keep it.
      ;)

      Aug 17, 2010 at 4:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rock in Sunny FL
      Rock in Sunny FL

      It’s kind of strange…..

      They circumcise girls in 3rd world countries and there is a global outcry about mutilation.

      This happens to baby boys all over the world (and some older males) and people fall back on that myth of ‘hygiene’ which no one has been able to prove conclusively.

      Aug 17, 2010 at 7:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ly
      Ly

      @Rock in Sunny FL:

      Female genital mutilation/so-called “female circumcision” can involve girls having their clitorises and labia REMOVED and their genitals almost completely SEWN UP, leaving a small hole for blood and menstrual fluid. It’s basically designed to remove all possibility of sexual pleasure. Whatsoever. It’s completely brutal.

      Male circumcision removes the foreskin. It’s not great, and it reduces sexual sensation, but it’s not comparable to FGM. It doesn’t mean that you have no enjoyment of sex. It doesn’t severely impair your ability to orgasm.

      As an uncut guy, I do think it’s a shame that baby boys are circumcised, and I’m very glad I’ve got a foreskin, but can we please stop comparing circumcision to FGM?

      Aug 17, 2010 at 8:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • That Bitch Téa Delgado
      That Bitch Téa Delgado

      If uncut guys are offended if somebody says it’s disgusting, I wish they would realize us cut guys are offended when they say we’re mutilated.

      I am not mutilated.

      Aug 17, 2010 at 9:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael
      Michael

      @That Bitch Téa Delgado: but the thing is…you are. You see – being called unclean is offensive (but I’m not really OFFENDED by it…really just annoyed when it comes down to a matter of debating hygiene because it’s both subjective and actually usually false) …but anyway it’s considered offensive because it is a criticism of us as individuals and how we take care of our bodies. It implies that we are naturally “nasty” people who can’t or don’t get rid of our “nastiness” when in fact being labeled as “nasty” is potentially just as applicable to guys who are cut as it is to those who are uncut, therefore it’s also irrelevant in this big debate over circumcision.

      Now what is not irrelevant is the damage done to the penis during circumcision. (It isn’t irrelevant because it’s not a place of neutral ground! Circumcised men have lost something despite how you want to phrase that loss while the uncircumcised male has not.) If the word “mutilated” is offensive, I’m all for using other words even though circumcision actually fits under the definition for mutilation. My MacBook dictionary says “inflict a violent and disfiguring injury on.”

      If you don’t think it’s violent, let’s go circumcise someone together and see how he reacts. …or go watch the videos on the internet of infant circumcisions. You may not see it as disfiguring, but it certainly is a disfigurement of the penis in its natural state – just like, as others above have pointed out, excising part of the tongue or some of the teeth would also be an alteration of the natural state ESPECIALLY when done so for cultural, hygienic, or otherwise aesthetic reasons. The penis can still function, yes! But there is absolutely no question to the fact that the penis is altered and nerves and protective skin are lost. Because of the alteration of the organ which affects the function and sensitivity of the organ, it is a mutilation. You’ll probably still have a fantastic sex life! But that doesn’t make it right! It doesn’t make it okay!

      I totally agree that the word “mutilation” is harsh. It is, unfortunately, accurate – but I would be in favor of using another word as I did above, like “disfigure.” I would absolutely see that “mutilation” would have negative impact on one’s psyche if they are themselves circumcised and that this word is favored by those (like myself) who oppose circumcision because of its harsh tone. While it is difficult to minimize emotion from this and other debates of this kind, we must be persistent in the search for truth even if it violates who we are or what we believe.

      However, I don’t have a load of sympathy for these people who don’t like “mutilation” and react due to heavy emotion because they can actually do something to (sometimes almost entirely) “fix” their “disfigurement” by restoring their foreskins – which I realize is a bizarre or downright disgusting suggestion to some, but it would be a wonderful possibility just as, for example, tattoo removal would be a wonderful option if a child had been tattooed by their parents across their chest as an infant. But of course, if the majority of children were tattooed at birth, the majority would often react in this same way saying “It’s offensive that you criticize that my parents made a choice to alter my body at birth! I’m fine I turned out great!” …but did you have the CHOICE?

      Aug 17, 2010 at 9:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jim Miles
      Jim Miles

      @Blaine Ward:
      Are you really that dumb????????????????????? Yes you are. For you we should mutilated baby boys.

      Aug 17, 2010 at 9:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • adam
      adam

      @truthteller: You’re an idiot. All the foreskin is is SKIN. More skin on your penis does not add to pleasure, other than the possibility – which is both supported and not supported by some studies – that the head of the penis is more sensitive because it’s covered and doesn’t have contact with anything else. The foreskin itself is never suggested to add to pleasure.

      All I ever see in these threads are uncutfags who have somehow fabricated some delusional superiority that makes no sense in real life and cutfags who defend circumcision in a very rash manner. Get over it, circumcision really makes practically no difference, so most of you are arguing over nothing.

      Aug 17, 2010 at 9:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • truthteller
      truthteller

      @That Bitch Téa Delgado:

      Look, verbal bullies only understand aggressiveness. So if someone’s going to go all evil and try to make others feel ashamed because of the poster’s own stupidity, they should be prepared for retaliation with facts and a strong response.

      I make no apologies for giving the ignorant a taste of their own medicine. My comment was only targeted to those two fools, Erin and AnotherWIGay.

      Aug 17, 2010 at 10:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Restoring Tally
      Restoring Tally

      It’s about time that the circumcision rate went down. I just wish it happened about 50 years ago. Maybe I would still be intact and be able to enjoy my whole dick.

      Aug 17, 2010 at 11:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • byufag
      byufag

      Sorry– but those numbers are bullshit. The trend is downward, but there is NO WAY the drop off was that steep in just a few years. Watch for the final numbers. Take it from someone who circumcises for a living…

      Aug 18, 2010 at 12:53 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Flare
      Flare

      The very notion of circumcising penises being described as ‘mutilation’ is just nonsensical. A misuse of the word ‘mutilate’ and silly attempts to bolster one’s own position with a word easy to connote to genuine destruction and such negativeness.

      Anyhow it’s not a serious matter. Uncut penises are obviously fine and cut ones have minor (and some potential) benefits at no great cost.

      Aug 18, 2010 at 2:18 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TonyD
      TonyD

      Ok, I haven’t read the article attached to the pic of the knife cutting the carrot-penis, but I cross my legs when I look at this pic!

      Aug 18, 2010 at 2:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • adman
      adman

      BYUFAG? Circumcises for a living? I don’t even want to know, seriously.

      Aug 18, 2010 at 4:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marvster
      Marvster

      Hmmmm.
      Well we gotta get that # back up!
      When I have a baby boy, I’ll make sure he’s circumcised! ;)

      Aug 18, 2010 at 5:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nicodemus
      Nicodemus

      @That Bitch Téa Delgado:

      Thank you. These guys are exactly like gays who respond to homophobic people of color using racism, less than unhelpful. How can you get your point across by telling your audience that they’re inferior in some way?

      Aug 18, 2010 at 5:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael
      Michael

      @That Bitch Téa Delgado: but the thing is…you are. You see – being called unclean is offensive (but I’m not really OFFENDED by it…really just annoyed when it comes down to a matter of debating hygiene because it’s both subjective and actually usually false) …but anyway it’s considered offensive because it is a criticism of us as individuals and how we take care of our bodies. It implies that we are naturally “nasty” people who can’t or don’t get rid of our “nastiness” when in fact being labeled as “nasty” is potentially just as applicable to guys who are cut as it is to those who are uncut, therefore it’s also irrelevant in this big debate over circumcision.

      Now what is not irrelevant is the damage done to the penis during circumcision. (It isn’t irrelevant because it’s not a place of neutral ground! Circumcised men have lost something despite how you want to phrase that loss while the uncircumcised male has not.) If the word “mutilated” is offensive, I’m all for using other words even though circumcision actually fits under the definition for mutilation. My MacBook dictionary says “inflict a violent and disfiguring injury on.”

      If you don’t think it’s violent, let’s go circumcise someone together and see how he reacts. …or go watch the videos on the internet of infant circumcisions. You may not see it as disfiguring, but it certainly is a disfigurement of the penis in its natural state – just like, as others above have pointed out, excising part of the tongue or some of the teeth would also be an alteration of the natural state ESPECIALLY when done so for cultural, hygienic, or otherwise aesthetic reasons. The penis can still function, yes! But there is absolutely no question to the fact that the penis is altered and nerves and protective skin are lost. Because of the alteration of the organ which affects the function and sensitivity of the organ, it is a mutilation. You’ll probably still have a fantastic sex life! But that doesn’t make it right! It doesn’t make it okay!

      I totally agree that the word “mutilation” is harsh. It is, unfortunately, accurate – but I would be in favor of using another word as I did above, like “disfigure.” I would absolutely see that “mutilation” would have negative impact on one’s psyche if they are themselves circumcised and that this word is favored by those (like myself) who oppose circumcision because of its harsh tone. While it is difficult to minimize emotion from this and other debates of this kind, we must be persistent in the search for truth even if it violates who we are or what we believe.

      However, I don’t have a load of sympathy for these people who don’t like “mutilation” and react due to heavy emotion because they can actually do something to (sometimes almost entirely) “fix” their “disfigurement” by restoring their foreskins – which I realize is a bizarre or downright disgusting suggestion to some, but it would be a wonderful possibility just as, for example, tattoo removal would be a wonderful option if a child had been tattooed by their parents across their chest as an infant. But of course, if the majority of children were tattooed at birth, the majority would often react in this same way saying “It’s offensive that you criticize that my parents made a choice to alter my body at birth! I’m fine I turned out great!” …but did you have the CHOICE?

      Aug 18, 2010 at 5:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Hugh7
      Hugh7

      @Mike (#6): “it takes about 5 seconds to wash under the foreskin.”
      But most intact guys take longer. Hmm.

      @Marvster (#): “When I have a baby boy, I’ll make sure he’s circumcised! ;)”

      Giving no more reason than a winkie? That’s why it should simply be made unavailable. Doctors and nurses should just say “We don’t do that any more” (as they ethically should, and do in most of the English-speaking world). No need to make it illegal. Once it’s sufficiently out of fashion, the ordinary laws against maiming will kick in.

      @That Bitch Téa Delgado (#17) “I wish they would realize us cut guys are offended when they say we’re mutilated.”
      Hardly anyone ever says that. Circumcision passes the duck test for mutilation. We can’t help it if you connect the dots and take it personally. Many cut guys say themselves that they are mutilated. And many ARE mutilated by the loosest definition of that term: http://www.circumstitions.com/Botched.html.

      @Nicodemus (#24) “These guys are exactly like gays who respond to homophobic people of color using racism, less than unhelpful.”

      Bad analogy. They are actually opposite sides of the same coin, not two unconnected prejudices. But at least you acknowledge that calling intact guys “dirty” (as #1 and #2 do) is just prejudice.

      “How can you get your point across by telling your audience that they’re inferior in some way?”

      How can we say that circumcision diminishes the quality of sex without implying that a circumcised penis has been reduced in quality? What’s striking is the exaggerated denial from guys who don’t know what they’re missing.

      Aug 18, 2010 at 6:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Hugh7
      Hugh7

      Going back on topic: Those figures are seriously out of line with all other available figures. The circumcision rate in the US has been falling slowly, but at last report it was still about 56%. The study on which the story above is based seems to be intended to scare the US back into recommending circumcision (and restoring Medicaid funding in the 16 states that don’t give it).

      And Alan Cumming lent his support to the campaign about yesterday, and has barely been heard of in the maternity wards of the US, so it has NOTHING to do with the case.

      Aug 18, 2010 at 6:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nate
      Nate

      @Ly: Your only partially right you see many forms of female genital mutilation are not as extreme as you have described with quite a few being as physically and psychologically damaging or less physically and psychologically damaging as the form of male circumcision performed in countries such as the U.S.

      Aug 18, 2010 at 6:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nate
      Nate

      @Hugh7: The 32.5% rate everyone is hearing about is the rate of circumcisions in hospitals, clinics etc. on non-consenting children so that is the main reason why there is such a huge gap between the total number of males circumcised and this newest figure.

      Aug 18, 2010 at 7:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • truthteller
      truthteller [Different person #1 using similar name]

      @Nicodemus:

      “These guys are exactly like gays who respond to homophobic people of color using racism,..”

      This is nothing like racism. This is a group bitch-slapping one of their OWN GROUP, so your analogy is not only ridiculous and illogical, it is a lame attempt at winning an argument by using the race card.

      Those gay guys who hurl vile and dehumanizing comments at those who are uncircumcised deserve to be bitch-slapped in the worse manner.

      Those gays need to look into their soul and find out why they are lashing out. It has everything to do with themselves and nothing to do with someone whose peanus is whole; you know the way nature created them.

      I think certain situations require patience and love, others require a swift verbal kick to the ass. This is one of those cases.

      PS. I don’t appreciate you using the race card.

      Aug 18, 2010 at 8:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Blaine Ward
      Blaine Ward

      @Mike: It may take only 5 seconds to wash it but, once you put your clothes on, and the normal body heat takes over, it stinks. Period. There’s no avoiding that. So are you trying to tell me that you rush to the washroom to clean yourself every single time you sleep with someone? In the heat of the moment, while making out, you suddenly excuse yourself to go and clean your cock? Come on! And now I’m being crucified because I have hygiene standards? Good for you if you enjoy sucking on a stinky cheese dick. I don’t. And btw, I keep myself quite clean, thank you. I’ve never had any complaints about that. If you prefer a guy whose dick stinks to a more hygienic one, then you have more issues that you think. Some guys actually get off on dirty, unwashed cocks and bodies. You must be one of those freaks.

      Aug 18, 2010 at 8:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Terrwill
      Terrwill

      My brother had to get his 3 year old son circumcised because the foreskin was strangling his penis and cause a serious infection.

      Aug 18, 2010 at 9:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • truthteller
      truthteller [Different person #1 using similar name]

      @Blaine Ward:

      Blaine, this is total BS. “It may take only 5 seconds to wash it but, once you put your clothes on, and the normal body heat takes over, it stinks.”

      You are either ignorant or making up lies to win an argument. You are advocating chopping a part of your body off because it might smell, if you are too lazy to bathe? Your position is ludicrous.

      I have posted this before, but I’ll do it again. Your anus will stink if you don’t wash it, yet you lick it and fuck it. Your mouth will stink if you don’t wash it, yet I don’t see you advocating for surgery to remove it…every part of your body will stink if you don’t clean it, yet you don’t advocate for it’s amputation…why the penaus?

      “And now I’m being crucified because I have hygiene standards?”

      What are you saying? that you are the only person in the world with hygienic standards? that uncircumcised people don’t have hygienic standards?

      From Circumsision.com:

      Inside the genital folds of both males and females – and the area is much greater in females – a very small amount (~1-2 cubic mm – ~1/16,000-1/8000th of a cubic inch – per day) of a pasty substance forms, called “smegma” (Greek for “soap” – it washes out easily)…If it is left, smegma develops a characteristic aroma, commonly compared to fish in women, cheese in men. People are conditioned to dislike these smells (except when they arise from cheese or fish).

      The notion that any healthy part of the body should be cut off for “hygiene” would be considered outrageous and outlandish if it were not already customary. And remember, that is not why circumcision became customary; it was originally done to “cure” masturbation, then to prevent it – … “Hygiene” to early proponents of “medical” circumcision meant “moral hygiene” and in fact Kellogg advocated infibulation, which would have made physical hygiene impossible. “To make it cleaner” is one reason female circumcision is done, where that is customary.

      Why are you not advocating for female circumcision? It would be more “hygienic,” wouldn’t it?

      You got any research or links to back up your assertions?

      Aug 18, 2010 at 9:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Avid
      Avid

      @truthteller: Truthteller, is there not something else *much* more significant for you to get on some phony perch and posture to the town square about than a centimeter of foreskin cut from the penises of other men? I know that you’re having a good time right now, thinking that Jesus Christ is speaking directly through you, but seriously shut up.

      Aug 18, 2010 at 10:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Aaron in Honolulu
      Aaron in Honolulu

      Cut or uncut, it doesn’t matter to me, I LOVE PENIS!!!! yyaayyyy!!!!

      Aug 19, 2010 at 8:03 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BigE
      BigE

      That study is a load. First how do you tell. The number of Nerve Ending is still the same. THe penis head is still the same. The phallus is still the same.

      The only way they could find out is if a bunch of guys who are uncut agreed to be cut for science. And you know that didn’t happen. It is an anti-circumcision campaign.

      Next point, they HIV PPV and Herpes issue. 60% could be saved from diseases. If there was a pill we could issue that would prevent that it would be a no brainer.

      The rise of childhood penis infection is also on the rise.

      And finally the CDC and the AAP are going to give a recommendation for infant circumcision which is less evasive and safer than adult circumcision. They have found several health benefits.

      Research has spoken.

      Aug 20, 2010 at 7:46 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Seth
      Seth

      Different strokes I suppose. I prefer men who are circumcised but if I have a good connection with a guy, who turns out to be uncut, I’d make an exception.

      Sep 8, 2010 at 4:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Frank OHara
      Frank OHara

      @ Big E: “That study is a load. First how do you tell. The number of Nerve Ending is still the same. THe penis head is still the same. The phallus is still the same. ”

      Actually, a Wisconsin Doctor/pathologist disected the foreskins of cadavers to get this result. The foreskin is enervated with exactly the same kind of nerve endings as the lips. Think your lips aren’t sensitive.

      The head/glans is primarily a pressure sensitive receptor, not a tactile receptor.

      “It is an anti-circumcision campaign.”

      Nope, it is based in sound medical research that is accepted by the medical profession.

      “Next point, they HIV PPV and Herpes issue. 60% could be saved from diseases.”

      If that is true, explain why The US has and 80% adult male circumcision rate and the highest HIV infection rate of all industrialized nations. You must be very gullible.

      It is estimated that 70% of Americans have been infected with the human papilloma virus (HPV, not PPV). How is that possible if circumcision is such a wonderful prophylaxis?

      “The rise of childhood penis infection is also on the rise.”

      Show some proof of that! I don’t believe you can.

      “And finally the CDC and the AAP are going to give a recommendation for infant circumcision”

      What is your source of this information???? I’ve been following the work of The Taskforce and the most likely outcome is NO CHANGE from their previous policy statement.

      “infant circumcision which is less evasive and safer than adult circumcision.

      Again, show me the proof. Both remove the foreskin so they are both equally invasive (NOT “evasive”). Also show me how they are “safer.” More than 100 infants die every year from circumcision. As far as I have found, there has only been ONE adult circumcision death in the past 100 years. Show me the proof!

      “They have found several health benefits.”

      Ummm . . . In a word, “No.” Sure, they’ve tried for more than 130 years to find a health benefit but have so far failed. I don’t think they will be anymore successful this year. Essentially they are desperate to find a justification for all the deaths they have caused and to find a way to restore the (almost) $1 billion in annual revenues they see disappearing. Please supply a source for your information.

      May 28, 2011 at 9:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • James Mac
      James Mac

      I support without limitation the right of adults to modify their own bodies in any way they see fit.

      But interfering with and cutting the genitals of forcefully restrained children is both an aggravated assault and sexual abuse upon vulnerable individuals completely unable to defend themselves.

      Fact is, these days, unless you’re born in a Islamic or Jewish culture – or an American hospital – it’s highly likely you will have and enjoy a complete set of sexual organs.

      May 28, 2011 at 10:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bronwyn
      Bronwyn

      actually erin, YOU should be ashamed of yourself. you’re calling 80% of the penis’s on the planet disgusting. whatev. foreskin has a purpose and nobody has the right to amputate any other persons sexual tissue without their consent.

      May 30, 2011 at 9:53 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Adam J
      Adam J

      @Erin: Well I’m un-cirmcumcised and am not ashamed, also it’s easy to wash. If anyone should be ashamed Erin it’s you for claiming that men who have foreskins are disgusting as the same could easily be said for circumcised men. If a man wants to remain uncut it’s HIS CHOICE.

      Mar 31, 2013 at 2:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Adam J
      Adam J

      @Marvster: I’m not telling you how to raise your future son but when he’s born wait til he’s the correct age to understand what circumcision is and the health/sexual benefits to having a foreskin and let him decide for himself. It’s his body, not yours.

      Mar 31, 2013 at 2:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Hugh
      Hugh

      @Erin: Very good. Now try that with “gay people…” or “black people…” You realise you’re saying that something over 3/4 of the men in the world, including most of the European soccer, film and music stars you most admire, are disgusting and ought to be ashamed?

      Apr 1, 2013 at 3:41 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Hugh
      Hugh

      @Adam J: OR rather, it should be his choice. Very, very few men choose to have (the best) part cut off.

      Apr 1, 2013 at 3:43 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Hugh
      Hugh

      @BigE: Yes, the AAP has spoken and 38 senior paediatricians, speaking on behalf of 22 associations in 17 countries from Iceland to Lithuania, have replied that it hasn’t proved its case. The reductions are so slight, in diseases that are so rare, of such late onset or so easily prevented or treated, that leaving babies’ genitals alone is a much better option than cutting anything off.

      Apr 1, 2013 at 3:47 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • QUEERTY DAILY

     


    POPULAR ON QUEERTY


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.