Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register

Here’s The Real Reason Why You’re Circumcised

stock-penis-funnyTechnically, you’re circumcised because “the Nineteenth Century prude who invented Corn Flakes was trying to ruin your sex life.”

The indisputable tea has been spilled by comedian Adam Conover in College Humor’s latest “Adam Ruins Everything” skit, a semi-educational clip explaining that circumcision outside the Jewish and Muslim faiths is nothing more than old-school, prudish and Puritanical sex-shaming. According to it, the first doctors to perform genital mutilation surgeries (circumcision) on babies, did so because they believed it would squash the urge to masturbate.

You know, because masturbation is so bad. There really are no benefits at all to masturbation.

“But it’s cleaner!,” they say. “It helps reduce the risk of HIV transmission!,” they say.

They were wrong. Though circumcision may reduce the risk of transmitting HIV by a sliver, condoms do the exact same thing more effectively. And they don’t hurt half as much.

But don’t feel sad if you are circumcised. Take comfort in knowing you share at least one thing in common with Zac Efron.

On:           May 1, 2014
Tagged: , , ,
    • Cam

      Technically, you’re circumcised because “the Nineteenth Century prude who invented Corn Flakes was trying to ruin your sex life.”……they believed it would squash the urge to masturbate.

      It didn’t work.

      May 1, 2014 at 2:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • newfoundma

      You guys are terribly misinformed. Male circumcision protects HIV transmission by more than a sliver. This study from the Lancet found that circumcision cut the risk of contracting HIV in half. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673607603122

      There haven’t been any studies on circumcision’s protective effects on MSM (versatility may limit its effect). Saying any benefit from it can be gained by using condoms is like dismissing PrEP for the same reason.

      May 1, 2014 at 2:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • toberlin

      NIH-Studeie from 2007:Kenia:circumcised:53% less HIV Infektions/Uganda:48%.Cicumcision lower the Rates of Herpes Simplex(HSV-2)Infektions./No lower Rates in Syphilis Infektions.
      I think you loose sexual Sensations and I like my man uncut.These STI are Fun Killers.

      May 1, 2014 at 2:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • olivierpascal

      @newfoundma: Actually they’re right. The only place where male circumcision has been found to possibly reduce the risk of HIV infection is in sub-Saharan Africa. And even there, the three RCTs only showed an absolute HIV risk reduction(which is the figure that matters, not the relative HIV risk reduction you quote)after the operation of 1,31% (from 2.49% to 1.18%) and that’s only for adult men during unprotected vaginal sex (one of the rarest form of HIV transmission in the West) http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896.full.pdf

      May 1, 2014 at 2:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jason b.

      If its for prophylactic purposes then why shouldn’t we pop out those tonsils before they cause any issues or get rid of that appendix. Changing or cutting off a part of a human without permission from that person should always be illegal. If we say no genital mutilation that should apply to all sexes. There should not be any religious exemption for this, when you hit 18 you can honor your culture and have the procedure then.

      I am curious why no case has ever been brought against a hospital for performing this even with parents permission. I am pretty sure the hospital would not abide a parents wishes if they wanted a preventative appendectomy.

      May 1, 2014 at 3:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Evji108

      None of these studies were known in the 19th Century, so none of the new stuff tells us anything about why our grand and great grand parents were so into male genital mutilation. Why circumcision would make anyone less interested in jacking off is beyond me, if anything, reduction of sensitivity would make a boy work harder to get off. One thing we do know for sure about that time is that there was deep shame about sex in general. Mutilate the source of shame and perhaps assuage the guilt. Sounds plausible to me.

      May 1, 2014 at 3:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • barkomatic

      Automatic circumcision at birth is wrong on so many levels, regardless of whether it inhibits the spread of HIV a little or a lot. Babies aren’t having sex and if an adult wants to mutilate themselves that’s their business.

      May 1, 2014 at 3:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • newfoundma

      @olivierpascal: Thanks for attaching the link. It’s a good read, even if I don’t agree with all the points.

      I don’t understand why the relative risk isn’t important. That’s what compares your risk as a circumcised man to your risk as an uncircumcised man. I understand that these RCTs were done in Africa and tested heterosexual transmission (and I think that a study needs to be done to test the efficacy for men who have sex with men so we don’t have to infer), and I think that several million men infected in Africa via that transmission route don’t care that it is a less effective route of transmission than bottoming.

      Arguing that you need a high prevalence for circumcision to be worth the risks is an argument for gay men to be circumcised. Where I live in Baltimore, there are populations of gay men with HIV prevalence levels similar to or higher than the general populations of African nations.

      May 1, 2014 at 4:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Qjersey

      Yes the data is very clear, circumcision cuts the risk of man getting HIV from a women by half. The data on gay men is not as conclusive at all.

      This can all be explained by biology (if you even care). The foreskin is densely packed with Langerhans cells that HIV can infect directly through the CCR5 receptor. (These same cells are also highly concentrated in the rectal lining, the tonsils and the cervix).

      Take home point. A snarky blog shouldn’t be giving out HIV medical information.

      May 1, 2014 at 4:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • vive

      Then explain why uncircumcised Europe has lower rates of HIV than circumcised America.

      By the way, those African studies were cherry picked. Other studies showed no effect.

      I think it is deeply wrong on so many levels. Imagine we started promoting cutting off female clitoral hoods in infancy (the equivalent to male circumcision) and just see what happens. There would be an absolute explosion of shock at the very idea.

      May 1, 2014 at 4:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • kpj558

      @vive: That comparison is asinine.

      May 1, 2014 at 4:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Billy Budd

      I am circumcised and I hate it. I think it is wrong. I think it is a big mistake. My penis is less sensitive than uncircumcised penises. I enjoy sex less because of it. I would undo the operation if I could. I was circumcized when I was 3 YO and could not defend myself.

      I don’t care if it is easier to get HIV by being uncut. I USE CONDOMS and they protect me from everything.

      I want my foreskin back!

      May 1, 2014 at 5:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Verlaine

      I grew up with circumcised friends, never even saw an uncut man in the flesh until I was in my 50’s. So, what is familiar is what I consider attractive. It’s an aesthetic preference, I think. I just don’t find uncut to be visually appealing. Everyone to their own taste (so to speak..)

      May 1, 2014 at 5:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Miss Understood

      I’m completely against circumcision but everyone is ignoring the real issue. Why a Marilyn wig and an afro wig for 1985? That’s 50s and 70s. As a professional drag queen and costume stylist I’m shocked, appalled, offended, and just plain baffled by this thoughtless misuse of otherwise perfectly fine hairpieces.

      May 1, 2014 at 5:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Blackceo

      Well however it came about I’m grateful to be circumcised.

      May 1, 2014 at 5:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • toberlin

      Because uncut is much more common here cut looks a little like “plastic porn” /silicon titts to me.But If I like the man I like his D. …To the HIV -STATS(shortcut):(Robert Koch Institut / End of 2012) ca.80 Million people live in Germany,ca.78 000 with HIV:
      ca.51 000 MSM /ca.12000 Men heterosexual /ca.15 000 Women/200 Children
      I think HIV -Stats are still too high but lower than in the USA.People have better sexual Education here.Religious Groups have much less Influence on Parents and Politics(schools).Home schooling is illigal.We have Public Insurance.And we have a lot of UNCUT Men here.YEAH!

      May 1, 2014 at 6:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • newfoundma

      @vive: Because America is not Europe? There are plenty of differences between Europe and America besides circumcision.

      People who were circumcised in those trials were adults who volunteered.

      If you guys are so upset about having been circumcised as infants, take it up with your parents. It is ultimately their choice for a baby. I’m from America, and my parent’s OBGYN didn’t feel circumcision was necessary, so I’m uncut.

      May 1, 2014 at 6:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Billy Budd


      my parent’s OBGYN didn’t feel circumcision was necessary, so I’m uncut.

      LUCKY YOU.

      May 1, 2014 at 6:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • cubgrunt

      I am circumcised because I drove to the doctor and had it done at 21. I do not regret it.

      May 1, 2014 at 6:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

      “Nuff with all this technical talk here………….

      The real issue is just who is that in that pic and can I look down there too??? :p

      May 1, 2014 at 6:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hotboyvb81

      as I age- my foreskin has gotten longer- I’m cut,l but occassionally a guy will ask me if I am- it’s easier to jerk with more foreskin, but it does get funky up there- I didn’t have to pull back and clean for 30 years, now I do- and out of habit I don’t always remember (I always clean everywhere before and after sex)

      May 1, 2014 at 7:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hotboyvb81

      plus, I have a friend who’s uncut- but the skin was so tight around his head, it never pulled back- even limp- he had to get circumsized at 36 because of an infection.

      May 1, 2014 at 7:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ingyaom

      In my experience, (South) Koreans are usually cut. Maybe they get it from the Americans. Chinese and Japanese – not.

      May 1, 2014 at 8:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cagnazzo82


      Glad you joined the club :)

      I was circumcised as a baby, and I love the way my penis looks.

      I agree. I wouldn’t trade it for anything.

      Very much a lover of cut penises here. ;)

      May 1, 2014 at 8:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • samwise343

      All of you circumcision complainers should file a class action lawsuit against parents. See how far you get.

      May 1, 2014 at 8:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • toberlin

      Everybody would be happy here if the Parents just leave it uncut till the Kids are 18 and can go to the Doctor ..I mean you can’t tape it back…

      May 1, 2014 at 9:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sjguy

      Circumcised at 26 and so happy with the results. Foreskin was fine but cut just feels so much better. Particularly topping. Foreskin with a condom on =zero sensation. Having sex after getting cut was amazing. I actually enjoyed sex. If you think you are missing something because you were cut, I can assure you, you aren’t. Yes you are missing skin but sex and feeling isn’t diminished, for me it was enhanced. I think because the rolling action meant I was basically feeling my own foreskin on the head rather than my partners anatomy. ALSO being able to go on a hike or camp without a shower and still have someone blow you if the opportunity comes up, is great among all the other situations when a few day old foreskin gets a bit dank without a good scrubbing. I know this is the case, been with a lot of uncut guys in my time. You all know what I’m talking about.

      May 1, 2014 at 9:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • beachdrm

      I am a dermatologist. I can tell you that there is a much higher incidence of yeast infections, irritant dermatitis, and other causes of balanitis with uncircumcised males than there is with circumcised.
      However, when I cannot tell you is whether or not this is worth it.

      May 1, 2014 at 9:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • toberlin

      :)Do you really belive nobody in Europe has any idea of medicine?I have the same Backround so there are arguments for and against.You just cut here if there is a medical Indication and the Boys who learn to clean it have not all the time infections…If you are happy with your D I’m fine..

      May 1, 2014 at 10:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Faggot

      Please read Ali A. Rizvi’s article in the Huffington Post, “Male Circumcision and the HIV/AIDS Myth.” He’s a Canadian MD who examined the African “study”. In short, the men who were to be circumcised were told not to have sex for six weeks after the circumcision. They were provided with condoms and told that if they did have sex again after the waiting period that they MUST always wear condoms.

      Guess what the other (uncircumcised) group was told? Nothing.
      Did the intact guys get condoms? No.

      If circumcision helped reduced the spread of HIV, then men in the States would have nothing to fear. Instead, the HIV/AIDS rates in the USA are frightening. Intact Europe, by comparison, has very low HIV/AIDS rates. Their foreskins are not HIV magnets.

      Muslims are about 25% of the world’s religious population and they are the largest group of cutters worldwide. Jews are less than 1% of the world’s population. Americans are finally getting educated about circumcision and the rates are dropping drastically, especially in the western US.

      Scroll down for map of USA and circumcision rates by state:

      Canada’s circumcision rates are drastically lower than the USA. And the rest of America (Latin America, the Caribbean) does not circumcision. Neither does Europe or Asia (except for South Korea and the Philippines).

      Why the USA has to scare people into circumcision using the flimsy study of HIV in Africa is beyond most in the international medical community.

      Keep the prepuce! And lose the ignorance.


      May 1, 2014 at 10:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • truckproductions

      I can’t believe there are gays up in arms about circumcision.. You really need a hobby or something more important to occupy your time. Uncircumcised members are repulsive and the only people who like to look at them are fetishists.. Period.. Not go get yourselves cut and move on..

      May 1, 2014 at 10:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Aromaeus

      I’m a happily intact gay American. I personally am all for stopping circumcisions worldwide, even for religious reasons. I think more emphasis needs to be put on education for both parents and young boys entering puberty. My sister had to end up getting my nephew circumcised because she pulled the foreskin back to clean him because she didn’t know you aren’t supposed to do that while it’s still fused. Also in health class when we learned about condoms, they didn’t explain the proper way to put one on for intact boys.

      May 1, 2014 at 10:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Faggot

      @truckproductions: “I can’t believe there are gays up in arms about circumcision.. You really need a hobby or something more important to occupy your time.”

      And yet, here you are chiming in. Is this your hobby?

      Telling the readers to get circumcised is fine because they can either listen to you or not. They are all adults and have a choice. A baby and young boys (8-13 for Muslims) do not have choice when they are strapped down on a circumstraint and cut without anesthesia (and a baby’s or young boy’s skin is infinitely more sensitive than an adult’s). Ouch!

      What’s repulsive to us in most of the world is seeing the uncovered glans when the penis is not erect. This is simply vulgar and poor aesthetics. The ugly scarring on the penis doesn’t do much for the aesthetics either.

      May 1, 2014 at 11:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • doug105

      @newfoundma: @Qjersey: @newfoundma:

      Studies are conflicting for each sexually transmitted disease. Sexually transmitted diseases and circumcision involve behavior, hygiene practices, culture, and religion, and it is impossible to control all the confounding variables that affect sexual behavior and circumcision status. Circumcision may increase the risk of developing gonorrhea and chlamydia. A literature review concluded, “Based on the studies published to date, recommending routine circumcision as a prophylactic measure to prevent HIV infection in Africa or elsewhere, is scientifically unfounded.” In a study on transmission rates of HIV from infected males to uninfected females and from infected females to uninfected males in Uganda, the authors found that circumcision status was not a significant factor in the risk of transmission. Sexually transmitted diseases obviously cannot be transmitted until an individual engages in sexual activity. Therefore, a male may make a decision to be circumcised when he is older without losing this claimed benefit.


      May 1, 2014 at 11:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • doug105


      Questionable Results
      • All three of the clinical trials conducted in sub-Saharan Africa were terminated early. More than 700
      participants were lost to follow-up, their HIV status unknown; i.e., 4.5 times more participants were lost to
      follow-up than were reported to have been protected from HIV by circumcision. The study participants were
      paid, provided free condoms, and given extensive education and counseling, thus limiting the “real world”
      applicability of the studies.
      • No consideration was given to the probability that a significant number of HIV infections were contracted
      through means other than sexual conduct, calling into question the entire premise of the RCTs.4

      • All three RCTs were halted earlier than designed, including a study investigating the effect upon female
      In one study, circumcised men’s infection rates were increasing toward the intact men’s rate prior
      to the study being halted.6
      Following the study period, all participants in the “control” group were then offered
      circumcision, eliminating the possibility of any accurate follow-up study.
      • The studies showed that male circumcision offered no protection to women.7
      Rather, circumcising men
      infected with HIV appeared to increase transmission of the virus to female partners.8
      Male circumcision
      endangers women if sex is resumed before the male’s circumcision wound has completely healed,9
      and it
      places women at greater risk of unsafe sex practices if they or their male sexual partners believe or insist they
      are immune from HIV.
      • Circumcision does not protect men having sex with men.10,11
      • Circumcision is less effective, riskier, and more expensive than condom use. Researchers who modeled South
      African data on a computer reported that “circumcision had a limited impact in reducing both new infections
      (range 3%-13% reduction) and deaths (range 2%-4% reduction), and its impact was overshadowed when
      combined with the other interventions.”12 One analysis comparing the cost of circumcision with the cost of
      condoms found that condoms were 98% effective at hindering HIV transmission and reception, and 95 times
      more cost-effective than circumcision.13
      • The effects of researcher bias have not been considered as part of the RCT design or results. A Cochrane
      Collaboration Report from 200314 cautioned against such bias, stating: “Circumcision practices are largely
      culturally determined, so there are strong beliefs and opinions surrounding them. It is important to
      acknowledge that researchers’ personal biases and dominant circumcision practices of their respective
      countries may influence interpretation of findings.”

      May 2, 2014 at 12:00 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pistolo

      Pride is the only reason people continue to defend circumcision. Parents who made the cut, doctors, men who are circumcised themselves, people who associate it with spirituality but aren’t usually strictly devout otherwise which is just picking & choosing, really (like almost every religion, selective reading). Everyone on the pro-circumcision end just needs humility which no amount of data, no matter how convincing, can provide. The whole intactivism cause isn’t about shaming people into leaving the foreskin intact, it’s about just making the decision to *not continue* to do it. Why are some people so attached to cutting it off? You can always get circumcised but you can never get uncircumcised and for every rarity of a person who did it later in life, there are many more (including myself) who find it unthinkable in adulthood and love being uncut.

      But no. I shouldn’t feel that way, right? I’m an unhygenic, godless, and ugly in the pants, right? Well, thus far, I’ve had like 90% circumcised men and 0% of them had any issue with my foreskin. I also happened to enjoy the cut dick too but why not been at least given the option to have -more-? I at least can know what it’s like to be circumcised if I make that choice (or always keep my foreskin retracted) but, if you’re circumcised, good luck trying to grow back a foreskin.

      May 2, 2014 at 3:51 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • toberlin

      ca.45% of the people with HIV in Germany got infected abroad (Robert Koch Institute).So this argument for circumcision does not seem to make so much sense (to germans:)

      May 2, 2014 at 5:05 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Billy Budd

      The HIV argument in favor of circumcision is complete and UTTER BULLSHIT.

      I want my foreskin back. If I had a son, I would never mutilate him like my parents did to me.

      May 2, 2014 at 8:42 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • crixus

      @Billy Budd: Wow, you need some more hardship in your life if you have so much free time you have invented being mutilated.

      May 2, 2014 at 8:52 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • crixus

      Denying the positive medical benefits of circumcision means you are a science denier. You are no different than someone who thinks climate change is invented, vaccines are bad or that the earth is flat. Scientists have universally concluded circumcision is a necessary medical procedure.

      This is not contradicted by the junk science espoused by anti-circumcision loons who think this simple medical procedure is somehow equatable to female genital mutilation.

      May 2, 2014 at 8:55 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CI_Tony

      @crixus: One doesn’t have to deny the potential benefits of circumcision to be against circumcising healthy children. Ethics are involved. Saying “Science!” doesn’t grant an exemption from the violation that is removing healthy bits from a person who does not consent. Name a benefit. I’ll grant it as real. It’s still wrong to impose genital cutting on another person who doesn’t need it and can’t consent to its permanent imposition. Applying science to individuals requires ethics.

      Also, condoms, soap, and antibiotics are science. So is the healthy anatomy of a normal human being. Does the fact that you prefer the most radical intervention before it’s needed mean you’re a science denier?

      You’ll also have a very difficult time proving that “scientists have universally concluded circumcision is a necessary medical procedure.” Beyond a few dedicated propagandists, scientists aren’t inclined to make untrue statements like that. Words like ‘necessary’ have specific meanings that can’t be changed through question begging.

      May 2, 2014 at 10:26 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Billy Budd

      @CI_Tony: I agree and reaffirm every word you said. Thanks for sparing me the trouble of having to explain it to the crixus person.

      May 2, 2014 at 10:51 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • vive

      @jwrappapor, “the American Pediatric Association: the health benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks.”

      The APA doe not say this. They do not recommend for or against circumcision.

      May 2, 2014 at 11:30 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • crixus

      @CI_Tony: Tony, your entire response one could swap circumcision for climate change and no one would be the wiser. Your argument is baseless and founded upon junk science.

      Calling real scientists and doctors propagandists is no different then GMO fear mongers who says all the scientists are paid off.

      There is a doctor just a few posts above mine who lists a number of reasons why circumcision is both good and necessary. The proven (not just from one study) decrease in HIV transmission alone should be enough reason for anyone to see why circumcision is a good thing.

      May 2, 2014 at 11:49 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CI_Tony

      @crixus: Saying “nuh-unh” doesn’t disprove what I said. Again, name a benefit. I’ll accept it as real. I’m denying exactly zero of the scientific findings. But the findings don’t tell us what we should *or may* do to another (healthy) person. Ethics matter in how that science is applied to people. Proxy consent is not the same as consent.

      Instead, what you’re effectively saying is equivalent to “Climate change is real, therefore the only solution is to shut down society”. The first part doesn’t make the second part necessary. You’re mistakenly conflating science and the application of science. They aren’t the same concept. The latter requires ethics within non-therapeutic child genital cutting. (The former requires it, as well, and I can point to at least one study that is highly unethical. But that’s a tangent here.)

      Nor did I call real scientists and doctors propagandists. I said “Beyond a few dedicated propagandists”. Think Brian Morris, who engages in a perpetual “heads I win, tails you lose” interpretation of data. That’s a very specific accusation, not a broadside against anyone with an MD or science-oriented PhD. And it hinged, clearly, on your use of the word “necessary,” which non-therapeutic circumcision is definitionally not.

      Circumcision as a “good” thing for a healthy person is subjective to each person. You think the HIV benefit is compelling. Okay, good for you. You’re correct for you. I can think it’s a potential benefit without valuing it. I don’t value it. I’d prefer to have my foreskin and use condoms. (Especially when I still have to use condoms.) Or consider UTIs or penile cancer or whatever. I’d rather have my foreskin and a few minor risks that can be mostly mitigated or treated.

      May 2, 2014 at 12:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tham

      Please don’t give health advice Queerty…you’re full of a bunch of dumb asses

      May 2, 2014 at 12:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • vive

      @crixus, are you seriously not going to use a condom just because you’re circumcised?

      May 2, 2014 at 1:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • vive

      @crixus, in any case, if you want to bring up science over ethics, here is the conclusion of the Canadian paedriatic society based on the available evidence (probably someowhat less biased than any comparable document that might come out of the U.S.):

      “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.

      Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should NOT be routinely performed.”


      May 2, 2014 at 1:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • toberlin

      For sure you save a lot of lube uncut…

      May 2, 2014 at 1:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tookietookie123

      @truckproductions: The only repulsive thing is your response. If I ever met anyone like you, I would stop talking to you. I get being more attracted to cut penises rather than uncut penises, but when you specifically call uncut people repulsive, that’s where I draw the line. I’m not going to mutilate myself in order to sleep with someone, especially a person like you. Penises come in different shapes and sizes whether they be cut or uncut, I don’t see why people are so picky. What should matter is the person you’re sleeping with.

      May 2, 2014 at 2:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Billy Budd

      @toberlin: LOL LOL

      May 2, 2014 at 3:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Random

      It’s worth highlighting that here in the UK, male circumcision is NOT a widespread custom outside of Jewish and Muslim populations. The British Medical Association’s Guidance For Doctors states:

      ”The medical benefits previously claimed, however, have not been convincingly proven, and it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks…”


      ”At present, the medical literature on the health, including sexual health, implications of circumcision is contradictory, and often subject to claims of bias in research.”

      Also, I’m not aware of HIV infections running at a higher rate here than in the US but, in any case, given that circumcision was commonplace in the States long before HIV was even heard of, that’s clearly a bogus argument that people have latched on to in order to post-rationlise an act that is manifestly culturally, rather than scientifically, driven.

      Why not allow people to make the decision *themselves* when they’re old enough to review the relevant information and understand the implications of undergoing an irreversible procedure? If circumcision is as wonderful as its proponents claim it to be then young men will be lining up to have their foreskin removed.

      And yet…and yet…something tells me that that wouldn’t happen.

      You don’t have to look very hard online to find examples of men being furious that they were cut as a child but instances of men wishing they had been circumcised, other than for specific medical conditions such as, say, phimosis, are far, FAR, harder to come by.

      I have to say that it’s somewhat ironic that in America, land of the ‘free’, a large part of the male population are not afforded the right to choose how their genitals both look and function.

      May 2, 2014 at 6:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CI_Tony

      @Random: That’s exactly right. It’s mind-boggling how readily that’s overlooked here. A few weeks ago, Brian Morris put out another of his rehashed papers claiming without support that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks “100 to 1”. No support, because none is possible for that, just a naked claim. Media outlets regurgitated it without question, even though he said this in the press release for his paper: “… Delay puts the child’s health at risk and will usually mean it will never happen.“ Males won’t need or choose it, so we force it on them as infants to appease our own minds. It’s all so transparent and shameful.

      The Canadian Pediatric Society describes the reality: (http://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/handouts/circumcision)

      “Of every 1,000 boys who are circumcised: About 10 babies may need to have the circumcision done again because of a poor result.

      Of every 1,000 boys who *are not* circumcised: 10 will have a circumcision later in life for medical reasons…”

      May 2, 2014 at 6:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kangol

      Cut or uncut, a nice, thick dick is the way to go. Though I prefer the hood still on, but either way is the way.

      May 2, 2014 at 10:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mezaien

      @Billy Budd: NO! Billy B, the higher % of HIV+ in the world are the not circumcised in Africa, and the USA. I was Circumcised at 17Yo and I still, so fucking horny big time.

      May 3, 2014 at 12:53 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sejjo

      At least you are cleaner down there when circumcised. And it’s not as easy to get bad odors. To clean yourself properly when uncircumcised, you might as well use pure alcohol.

      May 25, 2014 at 1:19 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Hermes

      @newfoundma: No, I’m actually quite well informed. It would appear that circumcision reduces heterosexual transmission of HIV to MALES by about 50% and at the same time, doubles HIV transmission to females. Since most males don’t bother to count females as real people however, that is seen as a net plus, rather than what it actually is – a net MINUS leading to more transmission of HIV overall, since, after-all, the disease is primarily heterosexual in most of the world.

      Even however if it were true (and studies are ongoing) — let’s see — prevent breast cancer by cutting off breasts? Howe about preventing MRSA for people with diabetes by preemptively cutting off their legs? There is something seriously wrong with the idea that for some reason, prevention, easily and painlessly accomplished by condoms, which SHOULD BE WORN BY ALL SEXUALLY ACTIVE NON-MONOGAMOUS PARTNERS should instead be accomplished with the surgeon’s knife.

      I can’t help but wonder if the money made by pediatricians off circumcision and the religious beliefs of an international minority aren’t the reason that this particular “solution” finds itself pushed so strongly, when others are so available.


      Jun 16, 2014 at 5:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Hermes

      PS and yes, I’m aware that a 50% decrease in one gender and a doubling in the other gender is a rough “wash” between the two – but women have children, and somewhere between a few% of those children (with prophylaxis) and a third of them (without) will also have HIV. So increasing women’s infections while decreasing men’s in a wash – results in an overall increase as far as I can see.

      Jun 16, 2014 at 5:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Random

      @sejjo: Being clean has nothing to do with slicing off the foreskin and everything to do with regular washing.

      But perhaps your parents never taught you that….

      Jun 16, 2014 at 7:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dick Cheese

      Two words: DICK CHEESE! Yuck!!!

      Jun 18, 2014 at 12:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pax

      @Dick Cheese: Did you not understand what RANDOM wrote just before you?

      If you have excess “head cheese,” that means you’re just not washing and your overall personal hygiene probably needs some help. If you don’t know how to wash your lower body parts in a bidet or in the shower, perhaps you could have a nurse explain how to do this for you.

      The penis smells if it is unwashed with or without foreskin. Cleaning the glans of the normal penis takes only an extra second compared to those who have been cut.

      Jun 18, 2014 at 1:30 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Random

      It’s kind of weird that people who are cut have to denigrate those who have been left as nature intended, on the ground of hygiene. Shaming someone for being supposedly ‘dirty’ is the kind of thing you expect from religious nutters or children in the playground, not rational adults.

      To those who think the uncircumcised penis is unclean I put this scenario to you?

      Would you rather give oral sex to a washed and uncut penis, or to a circumcised penis that hasn’t seen soap and water for a day or two?

      It’s pretty obvious to me that the vast majority would choose the freshly washed penis over the uncut, unwashed one because, fundamentally (even if they won’t publicly acknowledge it) they know that a clean penis is a clean penis, regardless of circumcision status.

      Jun 18, 2014 at 5:37 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • uncutnine

      @newfoundma: no it does not . that is the most asinine’scenario’ honestly –

      umm lord have mercy – “t’s pretty obvious to me that the vast majority would choose the freshly washed penis over the uncut, unwashed one because, fundamentally (even if they won’t publicly acknowledge it) they know that a clean penis is a clean penis, regardless of circumcision status.”

      if you know the joy of washing your body and being clean then you know that the joy is 10 fold when washing your intact penis.

      i will leave you with this . proper research will always lead to the honest answer .
      please read this .


      Jun 23, 2014 at 2:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • uncutnine

      @newfoundma: no it does not . that is the most asinine’scenario’ honestly –

      umm lord have mercy – “It’s pretty obvious to me that the vast majority would choose the freshly washed penis over the uncut, unwashed one because, fundamentally (even if they won’t publicly acknowledge it) they know that a clean penis is a clean penis, regardless of circumcision status.”

      if you know the joy of washing your body and being clean then you know that the joy is 10 fold when washing your intact penis.

      i will leave you with this . proper research will always lead to the honest answer .
      please read this .


      Jun 23, 2014 at 3:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mokuhulu

      Yes, the risk was cut in half from 2% to 1% PER CONTACT. Would you stop using condoms for that 50% drop in risk? I wouldn’t.

      If an adult wants to be circumcised, it is their choice. If it is medically necessary, then that is fine too BUT circumcising infants for no compelling reason is wrong. Teach the child to take care of themselves and keep things clean. This is NOT a compelling reason.

      Jul 9, 2014 at 10:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Faggot

      An unwashed penis — intact or circumcised — is unhygienic, period.

      Chopping off the most sensitive skin of a natural penis doesn’t make it hygienic by default. One still has to wash.

      Keep the skin and keep washing, guys.

      Jul 10, 2014 at 12:18 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cagnazzo82

      The penis is more beautiful to me without the hoodie. (emphasis on ‘to me’).

      To each their own however. We all have our preferences.

      Jul 10, 2014 at 12:35 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Faggot

      To each his own? That’s the idea! You have your penis, and only YOU should be able to decide to with it. Imposing ritual infant circumcision on another should have nothing to do with one’s preference or aesthetics for another’s penis, though.

      If you believe that a cut and scarred penis with an ever-exposed (and dry) glans is more “beautiful,” (as you say) then you have the option of having yourself circumcised as an adult.

      Circumcision on infants is not about cosmetic surgery.

      Jul 10, 2014 at 1:00 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cagnazzo82

      @Faggot: I didn’t have any say when I was circumcised, but I’m very glad that I was. I like the way my penis looks.

      Also, in general I like the way the head of the penis looks so it’s not as fun when it’s covered up.

      But again, to each their own.

      In the US there’s a lot of cut penises to choose from thankfully :)

      Jul 10, 2014 at 3:43 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • James Whistler

      The HIV cover is crap. I’m uncircumcised and I always make my penetrator of the day wear a condom.

      Jul 18, 2014 at 11:06 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • snowboi

      I am all natural and my boyfriend is cut. He is jeoulous and wants his foreskin restored.

      Sep 11, 2014 at 11:30 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • esemple

      I am circumcised because my doctor was Jewish. I want my skin back.

      Sep 11, 2014 at 2:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cagnazzo82

      I’m circumcised because my parents are Catholic. And honestly I wouldn’t have it any other way.

      My doctor did a good job.

      Also circumcised penises are more beautiful to me.

      Sep 11, 2014 at 2:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pax


      Catholicism does not require circumcision. The world’s Roman Catholics are overwhelmingly uncut.

      And real Italians are never cut.

      Sep 16, 2014 at 6:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • J.T.

      I don’t mind that Ben Affleck and Orlando Bloom are circumcised.

      Oct 6, 2014 at 3:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Random

      @J.T.: Since you’re extremely unlikely to have sex with either Ben Affleck or Olando Bloom, their circumcision status has no bearing on you whatsoever.

      Oct 6, 2014 at 4:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • frenchjr25

      Your article has a serious technical flaw. According to the World Health Organization (www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/) cuts HIV infection by up to 60%. And here is the Centers for Disease Control report on circumcision: (www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/research/malecircumcision)

      And the religious argument about it only being a Jewish and Muslim faith is also false. Circumsision has always been a requirement in most Christian churches. And tribes in both Africa and South America have practice circumcision for thousands of year. Some of them didn’t have contact with the “outside” world until the late 19th century.

      Sadly this writer should have done more research and understood their subject matter before putting stuff like this out there,

      Oct 17, 2014 at 7:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Random

      The studies the WHO refer to are controversial and have been refuted by numerous scientists. One explanation is that studies were concluded too early, often before the participants had resumed sexual activity after their surgery thus, HIV infection could not occur.

      Among developed countries, the United States has the highest circumcision rate and the highest rate of heterosexually transmitted HIV. Whereas other countries have lower rates of HIV infection than the United States and do not practice circumcision.

      Regarding religion, historically, the Roman Catholic Church went as far as denouncing circumcision. And in Europe, where the majority of men are not circumcised, the predominant religion is Christianity so it’s not accurate to state it’s a ‘requirement in most Christian Churches’. It isn’t and never has been.

      Oct 17, 2014 at 9:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

      @J.T.: Orlando Bloom is from England so most likely he is uncut. Very few guys are circumcised in Europe. He is supposed to be hung like 9″+

      Oct 21, 2014 at 9:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jarrod

      I’d rather die a million times over than fuck or suck an uncut guy. My boys WILL be circumcised — it’s not even up for discussion.

      Oct 22, 2014 at 12:55 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kevin

      It may not be as barbaric as female genital mutilation. For females, they wanted to make sure that sex was painful. For men they just hoped to decrease sexual pleasure – and hopefully decrease frequency of, or prevent masturbation. Truly, I never could understand any reason that people were so very afraid of sexual pleasure.

      Nov 11, 2014 at 11:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jwtraveler

      If everyone had their ears removed at birth, we’d all think earless people were more beautiful and we’d find ears strange and repulsive. That would not be a rational argument for removing ears.
      If we’re concerned about preventing disease, we could remove the testicles at birth to prevent testicular cancer.
      In my experience, when men are having sex with other men, hygiene is not the first thing on their minds, or the second, or third.

      Dec 4, 2014 at 5:32 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pax

      @jwtraveler: “In my experience, when men are having sex with other men, hygiene is not the first thing on their minds, or the second, or third.”

      Hygiene is at the top of the list for me, and believe me, an unwashed cut penis is just gross. Most intact guys and are bit more hygienic when it comes to grooming needs.

      Dec 12, 2014 at 3:23 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Random

      @Jarrod: ***I’d rather die a million times over than fuck or suck an uncut guy.***

      Such a silly comment. Really, there’s something very odd about you if it means that much to you.

      Dec 12, 2014 at 6:18 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Faggot

      @Random: Treat Jarrod and his like with compassion. They need to justify their own circumcision to themselves and not see themselves as mutilated victims and inferior to intact men. It’s a long journey, and sometimes denial helps people cope with their shortcomings before they can be truly honest.

      Dec 16, 2014 at 12:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jlfbman


      Jan 29, 2015 at 2:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Daggerman

      …this is rubbish and I agree that this whole debate is flawed. Circumcision is a smart and useful procedure because for a start a lot of men have too much foreskin and/or have very tight foreskins–which means the head of the penis will harbor a dreadful odor. In real terms and taking into account the majority of boys, and men, aren’t that thorough in their personal hygiene when it comes to cleaning the glans (head of the penis) And then allowing it to dry naturally. But more importantly woman can get cervical cancer much more easily because of this and it basically signifies that disease is more readily spread around than a circumscribed one..

      Mar 17, 2015 at 6:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Random


      ***Circumcision is a smart and useful procedure because for a start a lot of men have too much foreskin and/or have very tight foreskins–***

      ‘Too much’ foreskin is not medically defined because isn’t considered to be a condition that needs treatment. Phimosis, otherwise known as a tight foreskin, only affects between 1-5% of men, so contrary to what you say, that isn’t by any measure, ‘a lot’ of men. In the first instance it can be treated with topical steroids which help soften the skin of the foreskin, making it easier to retract. If this isn’t successful, then circumcision is recommended.

      In the UK, where the overwhelming majority of men are not circumcised, the incidence of cervical cancer is 25% LOWER than in the US where a much larger percentage of men are circumcised.

      As for personal hygiene, you can only speak for yourself. I, and all the men with whom I’ve been intimate, certainly know how to clean ourselves thoroughly with soap and water.

      Mar 17, 2015 at 7:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • chuck

      @newfoundma: Breast removal might save lives too, should they be removed at birth?

      Jun 10, 2016 at 2:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

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

  • Copyright 2016 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.