For skin or not?

I believe we are all adult enough here to discuss this. Do you think that it's ok that most men ( born in western countries) are circumcised without consent as an infant? It's not that I haven't thought about this before. I understand the ( limited) benefits, but to me its mutilation without consent. Not to mention the loss of natural protection, nerve endings and natural lubrication. There are some studies that seem to indicate that a circumcised man has a lowered chance of getting HIV. Not to mention ( for the lazy people out there...) it's easier to keep clean and a possible lowered chance of penile cancer. But, the same ( excluding the HIV thing and of course the penile cancer thing) can be said for removing the labia on women, yet you'll never see that being done to infant females ( in developed countries). Yet most will have no problem allowing someone to cut into their child's penis without anesthesia. Sure, there are more pressing matters in the world. I just like getting opinions on something that in other areas of the world they won't do until you can give consent, something ( although done to me) that I consider rather archaic.

I was born and raised in Mexico, and for anyone who doesn't know, Mexico does not practice circumcision.... and I think they still don't. I obviously have no idea on how to tell whats better, but I'm honestly glad that I dint get circumcised because you know.... Im all natural lol I don't wanna get my dick all sliced, I just feel like its morally wrong even if it lowers those health risks. Its like when I got my pit-bull puppy, they asked me to cut his ears and tail to make it look more intimidating, I was like fuck no!! He was born with them and hes gonna die with them. And then they asked me to cut his balls.... I was like... are you fucking sick in the head?... I would never cut my son's balls so I will never cut my dog's neither.

Well I felt the need to post. Perhaps its because I sway a little against forced circumcision on this subject. Benefits of circumcision and such... Lowered risk of disease as stated Those studies you are talking about are pretty accurate in the scenario they were used in. From what I recall reading up on them. However most benefits that occur from this typical skin removal can easily be gained via safe sex. However this form of skin removal carries its risk as well. Regardless of how many benefits it does seem to have. I will not go into detail over each but they are as follows Scarring from area where circumcision was done. Infection from the area could lead to numerous situations in a newborn baby. Difficulty Urinating Possible loss of or partially the penis. There are also deaths that happen from circumcision I might point out each year not just in third world countries mind you these happen in the best clinic settings. Based on what I read on the numbers around each year 100 or more males die in just the us from circumcision in the newborn period. Any kind of skin removal that causes this should in my view then at least be considered a option rather then a must. This brings me to the question as somewhat mentioned though why do we choose to do this to young male infants putting aside religion and the other main known reasons? Also If you need references for all my statements I will post citation as needed.

I don't particularly think the benefits outweigh the risks. I've seen what kinds of infections uncircumcised penes can contract, and I do think it's an effective form of protection in areas with high HIV infections. But it's not more effective or cost efficient than other methods that already exist. While @Yu is correct in that there are complications (what procedure doesn't have potential complications?), they are relatively minor when done in a clinical setting. Some 0.2%-0.4%, I believe either from CDC or WHO i can't remember. But ultimately, I don't think there's any evidence that provides a reason for like mandatory circumcision. Mostly nowadays it's used for aesthetic purposes or if a guy has like a tight opening. Which even then, the latter case, you could opt to not take the entire thing off, just the tip. I don't however think that male circumcision is quite comparable with female circumcision due to the differences between the medical procedures and biological differences like how diseases like HIV gets transmitted between the two, and the amount of tissue that is removed. Not to derail or anything because I agree with you @yaasshat up until that point, hahaha

@Xueli agreed but still lifes being lost regardless of the percent should be considered. Most procedures do have possible complications however what matters is if that procedure being done is worth it especially considering that circumcision would be done without choice for the most part. The problem is we have multiple little studies out there that say they do have benefits and it has become something of a value to our society that its not easy to just remove it. On the matter of female circumcision that I can agree with. If you are referring to the more primitive one , It can damage a female highly down there. There are some people out there that think this is the best way to deal with the whole male circumcision problem but thats more about you have to suffer like us too. Regardless of gender circumcision should be considered much more rather then by a automatic process.

Double post oh well but basically 1 out of 77 neonatal deaths are circumcision. Might as well use this double post for something.

@Yu I don't think I can actually find a number of deaths of male circumcision because I don't believe agencies track that number specifically. Just lob it into the number of complications. The only places that I've seen the 1 out of 77 number all lead back to intactamerica which is, to say the least, not exactly without agenda, hahaha

Well actually there are different accounts on the matter based on which you are using but I am sorry for not posting citation as needed since I said I would. However I have two different studies here so take your pick if you think either is right in this one it provides multiple sources that claim different numbers from different doctors and such the most trustworthy being the one that states there is a 1.3 % death rate via circumcision for infants in the us for neonatal deaths. http://www.cirp.org/library/death/ Or you could go by the examiner which states the 1 in 77 neonatal death. http://www.examiner.com/article/new-study-estimates-neonatal-circumcision-death-rate-higher-than-suffocation-and-auto-accidents less likely but then again it could be true seeing as that it was made via a doctor and overlooking other doctors accounts and such. I agree though to many stats everywhere but I am sure you can concoct a good view on just how many we are talking about each year. Still just something to point out in my opinion. On the matter of female circumcision though xueli which one are you referring to so to ensure I did not misread your context.