So on the internet there seem to be major propaganda by both pro-circ website (such as
circlist and
http://www.circinfo.net/circinfo), who militate for circumcision, and inactivists (such as
https://www.circumstitions.com/ or
http://www.nocirc.org/), who militates to either ban or limit cricumsision as much as possible.
This is extremely confusing as both groups calls each other liars, fetishists, etc... And in the end, I'm fairly certain both groups hold some truth but some lies too. But I could be wrong, just like anyone can be wrong, and I'm no doctor so their arguments might mislead.
Most use testimonies that could just as well be completely made up, and even if they were real this would be anecdotal evidence, so of no actual scientific value - only thousands of converging opinions can have actual scientific value.
I'll just state some of their arguments and say who I think is right on each point. If anyone has different opinions or anything else to add, please do so.
Pro-circ lobbies : Circumcision can prevent AIDS transmission.
Anti-circ lobbies : Condoms or fidelity in love is what actually prevent AIDS.
Me : Clearly, the anti-circ are right here. If circumcision might slightly lower the risk of AIDS transmission in some underdeveloped African countries, this doesn't apply to the developed world and this argument is beyond silly when we have much more reliable ways to prevent AIDS and other sexually-transmissible diseases to spread
Pro-circ lobbies : Sex is better without foreskin
Anti-circ lobbies : Sex is better with foreskin
Me : Nobody can know for sure, except maybe couples who tried to do it both before and after, with the same person, and even there, strong bias would apply, such as the man doing it because he or his partner likes in the 1st place. Apparently, scientific studies concluded that there was no difference whatsoever. So both lobbies appear to be liar here. And the (possibly forged) testimonies of women describing how amazing it was to discover an intact man after having several circumcised ones, or the other way around, are of no value. First it's perfectly normal those women prefer their last boyfriend, because they probably left the others and went with a new one for a reason. Secondly, with sexuality when discovering something new it always feels wicked. And last, this is anecdotal evidence.
Pro-circ lobbies : Women prefer it without foreskin
Anti-circ lobbies : Women prefer it with foreskin
Me : As a straight male, you don't care how women in general like it, you care how your girlfriend or wife likes it. So this would rather give a point to anti-circ, if only women's opinion would matter then it's better to be kept intact 'case if you find one who prefer intact penises and you don't have the foreskin anymore, you can't satisfy her on that point. Oh and about a girl wearing a "I only date circumcised guys"; seriously WTF ? Do you really think those exist in the real life?
Pro-circ lobbies : Foreskin play little role in sexual pleasure
Anti-circ lobbies : Foreskin plays a major role in sexual pleasure and contains X-thousands of nerve endings. Removing it removes pleasure.
Me : This time it's clearly the pro-circ lobby who is right. The foreskin is sensitive, but not sexually so, you can touch it all you want it will have no arrousing effect. Removing it might have an indirect effect on pleasure, even though it appears scientific studies there's no definite effects. The number of nerve endings is irrelevant, for example we pierce ears and it doesn't how many nerve endings there is there.
Pro-circ lobbies : Circumcision is good for a kid's health, and anti-circ lobbies uses babies images in an emotional way
Anti-circ lobbies : It's kid's right to have his body intact
Me : It's true it's not very ethical to do irreversible acts on someone's body. However this doesn't say anything about circumcision at latter age, such as teenage, adult, or even early-teen. So I'd say anti-circ are mostly right on this one.
Pro-circ lobbies : Circumcision is harmless.
Anti-circ lobbies : Circumcision can lead to death, is like torture, will trumatise kids, etc..
Me : When done without anesthetic, anti-circ lobbies are right. When done with them, then the harm felt will be the side-effects of anesthesia which aren't negligible, but nothing catastrophic either. So depending on context, any of them are right.
Pro-circ lobbies : Circumcision can prevent penile cancer
Anti-circ lobbies : Penile cancer is anecdotal, and it's silly to remove a body part preventively to prevent an extremely rare cancer, when other cancers are very common.
Me : Clearly, penile cancer, however awful is it to have that illness, is fortunately extremely uncommon. It'd be silly to do a surgical operation for that.
HOWEVER Prostate cancer is very common, and then
if circumcision at a young age would have high chance to prevent the very common but alas very painful prostate removal surgery at a latter age, then it'd be clearly worth it! But also we should understand why would circumcision prevent prostate cancer in the 1st place.
Pro-circ lobbies : Circumcision can prevent Phimosis and Paraphimosis
anti-circ lobbies : It's possible to cure those without circumcision
Me : Both arguments aren't contradictory. Removing a part on a child when you have no idea whether those relatively unlikely illnesses will happen is silly. However, once they are diagnosed, it's up to the patient to decide how he'll be cured.
Pro-circ lobbies : Urine splatter can be better controlled without foreskinMe :[/b] Sure, but you can also pull up and urine, so no need for a surgical operation just for this, although that would make it a little bit easier.
Pro-circ lobbies : Up to 20% (or whatever high proportion) of uncircumcised men will require circumcision latter anyway
Me : I'm having big trouble to believe that number, especially with the word "require". At best there are countries where it's common to do this at teen-age, and they count that and inflate the numbers. At worse it's just lies as usual in this debate.
Pro-circ lobbies : It's easier to wash your wee-wee without foreskin, and cleaner. Young boys can have trouble retracting, etc...
Anti-circ lobbies : Young boys don't need to retract in the first place, and for washing, well you can retract (once you're sufficiently old) to wash.
Me : The anti-circ lobby is mostly right, you can retract to wash, and when you're young and you can't the dirt also can't go there, so you shouldn't force a retract as a youg person ! However, for adults, I still think it can be cleaner to be retracted, but this would have to be proved to be actually cleaner and not just an increase feel of cleansness. So pro-circ also get a point on this one.
Finally, it all boils down to 2 things : Does circumcision (1) prevent infections and prostate cancer, and (2) increase sexual pleasure. If either answer is yes, then it should be encouraged on teenagers/adults. If both are no, then it should only be for those who wants it done I think. All other argument is either invalid, lies or moot.
I'm probably wrong all the way so I'd like to learn more.