A New Study in Favor of Circumcision Draws Fierce Criticism



Bris began as a permanent way of visibly marking a man as a Jew, a cultural identifier. Jewess ladies do not give it up to those uncut gentiles!
Catholics and later Christians picked it up. Here we are, jew or not.


A highly effective way to reduce breast cancer would be to perform radical bilateral mastectomies in all girls/women. (Or men for that matter). Who really needs nipples? There’s perfectly nutritious infant formula on the market. Or, perhaps in a compromise, we could just perform this procedure on everyone once they reach an age with a reduced probability of needing to breastfeed.


All of my friends have herpes.


cutting off the tip of an infant's penis

i'm not sure you did your homework on this one


(first line is quote from article, formatting didn't make it through)


Australia (Morris' home), like the US, has a long history of promoting male circumcision and has seen circumcision rates declining in recent decades. There seems to be an odd resistance to abandoning this practice in these countries, perhaps because it has just been the cultural norm for so long.

It's unnecessary for the vast majority of males, and clearly a violation of bodily autonomy when done on babies. And who would want to get it done as an adult unless absolutely needed?

Regarding the spread of HPV: Not only would vaccinations for girls (and boys, don't forget them, please!) help to curb cervical cancer, they would help to stop the outbreak of throat and oral cancers occuring in the people (mostly men) who go down on HPV-having women.

Win-win. And no need to take a scalpel to a baby's junk.


This is the perfect example of the cross between insane liberals, and insane Republicans.
Using the government to ban religious practices is wrong. This is why we live in America.
Unfortunately the comparison between female mutilation which is not even comparable to a simple circumcision attempts to blur the lines between what is legal and what should be legal.
When liberals in California want to ban the practice of circumciscion, and using the "consent' argument when consent for an underage individual is given to the parent, you give the Right another argument against Big Government tyranny that is evident in this push to restrict the rights of individuals.


Funny how you never see studies of Chinese or Indian men when talking about the "benefits" of circumcision. Maybe it's because that would highlight the fact that majority of human males do not get circumcised and their communities haven't perished from horrible disease as a result.
The easiest lesson to teach a boy is to take care of his dick. It's not like he's gonna forget about it.


As a non-circumcised person who grew up in the 80s, I can attest that you will get made fun of by your peers for not being circumcised, and as an adult, a reasonable number (10-25%?) of women are "weird" about an uncircumcised penises. So the idea that a dad would want their kid to 'look like' other kids seems very natural. Maybe things are slightly different now but as an idea, it makes sense.


One of my exes got circumcised as an adult, for medical reasons. Not a bundle of fun for him. I didn't have an opinion on it either way; I was much more unhappy that he used his hospital time to grow a beard.


Every anti-circumcision activist I've interacted with has been ludicrously intense about demanding that I consider myself, as a circumcised man, "maimed" et.al...
And I just can't do that for them.


Circumcision does not cut off the tip of the penis. For god's sake, Katie, how could you possibly miunderstand such an important detail, considering you supposedly talked to medical experts?


Seems like "don't mutilate the genitals of babies" would be a pretty simple thing to go with, but for some weird reason, certain populations just fight so hard to ensure as many people as possible mutilate the genitals of their children for no reason, other than it being a semitic blood sacrifice ritual from the stupid ages.

Of course, they found a way to profit from it, naturally:


Yeah, better make sure you mutilate and butcher your baby's penis so someone can sell it and make some cash! It would be just too weird to NOT cut off chunks of flesh off of your infant so a company could make some money.


"Maim" is an apt claim. Circumcision regularly ablates 75% of the penis' nerve endings, which is comparable to the sensitivity loss from female circumcision (clitorectomy). Clearly, there is a double standard in play.


Circumcision is genital mutilation that removes the most sensitive part of the penis. Maimed is certainly the correct term. Anyone with even a basic understanding of what the foreskin is and how it functions would understand this. Look at the analagous tissues on a female (from watching a female develop) no one wouldever cut this!


Never once have I missed my foreskin, and people using terms like "maim" and "genital mutilation" strike me in the same way as someone lamenting the loss of their tonsils or appendix. If it's true that having it still would make me 75% more sensitive down there... that sounds highly unpleasant for daily life. It's bad enough going for a long jog and having a sweaty shirt rubbing on superfluous man-nipples, I can't imagine riding a bike or even going for a walk in the wrong kind of pants with phallic sensitivity at 175%.


I found a doctor who would cut off the labia of my infant girl, so that it's cleaner and she looks like her mother. I presume nobody who supports male circumcision will find this objectionable.


Morris just lost ALL credibility with
When asked about these claims, Morris defended his work. In an email, he called the allegations against him “scurrilous ad hominem attacks” and compared his critics to the “anti-vaccination lobby and others who deny the benefits of a variety of evidence-based public health interventions.”
If his work has merit he would have said he stand by his work.


the real question is what they do with all that foreskin material. It's not disposed of. It is auctioned off at a cosmetic clearinghouse to be macerated into super high end facial cream. I just want my cut of the proceeds. That's all.


@SirWalterRaleigh The government already does ban some religious practices.
Polygamy - child brides - bride death - etc


@15. I'm a gay man and have significant experience with penis', both circumcised and not. Circumcision DOES NOT remove the most sensitive part, it removes a layer of skin that COVERS the most sensitive part. After a nearly scientific study, I can assure you that men who are uncircumcised have much more sensitive glans (heads)... probably because it's protected by the skin on a daily basis.


@Laserwulf Good for you, but I have experienced sex play involving my foreskin that I would not want to miss.


"According to the Old Testament, the alleged God allegedly promised Jewish patriarch Abraham that his descendants would prosper if—and only if—their foreskins were cut when they reached the ripe old age of eight days."

How can anyone read those sorts of things in their holy book and not instantly think this is a load of horseshit.

Why is the All Powerful Creator of the Universe so obsessed with baby boys' cocks?

Do religious folks not ask these questions?


Brian Morris associates with pedophiles and often references HIMSELF as a source in his flawed studies trying to promote his infant dick fetish. Fact is he likes the way they kids ducks look and he tries to use scare mongering and lies to trick good willing parents into mutilating their children for his pleasure. He's a perverted sicko on the greatest of levels and shouldn't be taken seriously.


I'm surprised that a source from Alberta was quoted but no stats were gathered for the current rate of circumcision of baby boys in Canada. You know, that place just north of (most of) you. Not Europe or other less scalpel-happy places. In Canada it is 32%, significantly lower than in the U.S. (though, IMO, both countries' rates are still high).

If you discard the practice done for religious reasons, then there is still one old-fashioned myth ... that it would cut down (or prevent) boys from masturbating. Or, if not that, then touching themselves for the purpose of cleaning underneath. There are also the risks associated with the "Oops!" that may occur. Even if rare, male babies are left with too little foreskin that makes erections painful; and then there are the truly horrible cases where half the penis is cauterized off, in which case that one wrong is followed by the "convenient" fix of convincing the parents to let them amputate completely and turn the boy into a girl (at least physically), because this whole male identification with a penis means it's either all or nothing.

As for the benefits, men who are uncircumcised and PIV-partners don't need to use lubricant, as the extra skin promotes the gliding action back and forth without any annoying drying-out. For SS activity there's "docking". If you're unfamiliar with the term, look it up.

I'd certainly vote for increased access to the vaccine and good hygiene over the commercial harvesting of foreskins.


This is funny.


Oh woe is me I could only spend two nights a week with my second to last girlfriend because it’d shut her down whatever am I to do with my lost pleasure.


The circumcised, aka 'one pump chumps'. Ladies know what's up.


If a parent can decide to rip off their child's foreskin, then they should be allowed to decide not to vaccinate them, too.


If foreskins weren't sought after and sold at a massive profit to make anti-aging creams, injections, god knows what else etc., by some miracle all women start accepting themselves as they are, their cries in support of cutting off parts of babies penises would disappear!