Did he have, like, a really fancy one or something? Maybe with scalloped edges, or little heart cutouts?

I can't imagine caring that much about a useless piece of skin.

That would be amazing.

Actually now that I think about it, the sign may have said ASK ME ABOUT MY FORESKIN, because I remember it was a trick question. The answer was, "I don't have one. [circumcision rant]"

I don't really remember, I should have taken better notes.

You gotta tap into your emotions, man.

This is my life in one sentence. Chronic-migraine sufferers unite! But later. When I can actually see again. And light/noise doesn't make my teeth and hair hurt.

We can meet up and softly discuss our outrage over the lack of research in our disease. Don't wear any perfume though. Perfume assaults my nose and makes me vomit. We can meet under cover of darkness, as both vampires and migraineurs avoid the harsh light of our sun.

Oh my god.

That's what we are. Vampires.

I swear if it wasn't so painful all the light-halos and trails would be a real fun trip. And being able to hear the inside of your head.

Vampires on Acid. Really painful Acid.

I'm reading this as I pointedly ignore the knife going into my right temple so strongly my teeth ache, so I strongly support this plan.

I'm conflicted. On the one hand, I agree completely with the points you made, on the other, circumcision does significantly lower the chances of contracting a venereal disease and cancer. Going a long ways towards preventing an HIV/AIDS diagnosis is a pretty big pro on the side of circumcision.

Ive seen headlines which touted a "50% drop in transmission rates" but actually indicated a change from a 2% transmission rate to a 1% transmission rate for males having unprotected sex with HIV positive partners. So yes, 1% is 50% of 2%, but it isn't that much, and it is still not in the same neighborhood as putting on a condom. Sure, there are a few clear benefits that are scientifically proven... like cancer. You can't get cancer in something that is cut off, yet nobody goes around saying everyone should have a preventative double mastectomy, although that would be more indicated by data as being beneficial to health than circumcision.

I'd say a 50-60% drop is a 50-60% drop regardless and I question that transmission rate- is it per contact? I remember when the original study was done they stopped it to try and get all the men in the control group to get circumcised as so many were getting infected with HIV while the group who had been circumcised were not and they felt it was unethical to continue with the knowledge they now had. You're also not taking into account that once a man is infected his likelihood of infecting other women is not at such a low transmission rate- especially if he's not circumcised. I don't think you understand penile cancer. It's not that it's cancer of the foreskin, it's that having a foreskin makes a male more likely to get HPV in particular, which makes him more likely to develop cancer of the penis than a man who didn't have a foreskin and therefore had less chance of becoming infected with HPV.

It reduces the chances in some populations, but not significantly. And there are other, better, more effective, less invasive ways of preventing transmission of STIs. As to the question of sexual function, it's one that hasn't been resolved, but even though we can harmlessly prevent other forms of cancer by preemptively removing healthy body parts, we don't, at least not before people are capable of giving their informed consent to irreversible procedures. But I find it peculiar that so many people accept as self-evident that certain aspects of physical appearance, despite having no implications for physical health, are vitally important to a person's wellbeing, but reject outright assertions that certain other aspects can be too. There are a lot of issues at play when it comes to discussions of male infant circumcision, but the fact that (some) men are voicing anger or sadness *about their dicks* is causing (some) people to respond with a knee-jerk reaction of amusement and ridicule instead of considering that people have feelings about their bodies and about irreversible things that are done to them that are perfectly legitimate, even if they seem extreme or people think they're less important than other issues.

That's not was circumcision is. Foreskin isn't a "dick tip."

Dude, if that's your pic in the icon, you should know this. I'm a woman and I know what it is.

thanks for womansplaining circumcision to me.

Yes, curse me for using facts. Darn, sexist science.

It's a matter of time till the rest of the crowd rolls in so let's go ahead, lift you out of the grey, and address this head on.

This habit you anti-circumcision folk have of bringing up ending infant circumcision and framing it as some great controversy so you can adopt a defensive, put-upon attitude is incredibly bad faith. You want to get Jezebels opinion on circumcision, fucking ask about it. Anything less is the actions of a coward who knows they don't have a leg to stand on.

Oh god, having a two color penis! Brilliant!

Grow one that is really long and you can tie it in a knot. you'll always have a condom.