Being Circumcised is cleaner: This is one of the biggest myths out there, and perhaps the single biggest 'excuse' for circumcising boys. To put it simply, and to make it as direct as possible, WE HAVE SHOWERS these days, people. Boys can clean themselves very easily, and cleaning under the foreskin is no more difficult than cleaning behind the ears or any other body part. It's just an excuse to say a foreskin needs to be removed to make him more hygienic. I'd hate for him to have dirty nose or ears if that's the logic... When a boy is pre-pubescent, wash his penis without retracting, especially when a baby. As he comes into his teenage years, if he can, retract to clean. Simple as that.


He needs to look like his father: Argh! Where does one begin with this stupid excuse! First, I'd hate for the father to be an amputee. Second, when a boy is young enough, as in he's at the age where parents bath him or shower him, he won't question the differences between his father's genitals and his own. I don't know many three-years olds who ask their father why they they are intact and he's not. And when a boy does come to the age where he will ask such things, like about the pre-teen/teen years, I'd hope father isn't bathing him by that stage. To be frank, boys want to be like other boys. These days, most boys are intact. Even in America, the circumcision rate is down to 30% or so according to latest figures. Think about it. In the locker room, your little Johny will be in the majority if he has a foreskin. For a boy, that's more important than looking like his old man, that's for sure. 


Foreskins cause AIDS: No, unprotected sex does. I don't know too many babies copulating with each other in nurseries, do you? Teach your son to be a responsible adult. Teach him about safe sex. Having him circumcised is just ridiculous because of an unfounded fear of catching AIDS. If he roots around without a condom, whether he's circumcised or not, he will more than likely get an STD. Again, logic, people. Don't believe the pro-circ propaganda.

 
Circumcision prevents penile cancer: first, let's put the scare mongering aside so we can discuss this rationally. Penile cancer is a VERY, very, very rare form of cancer. It affects circumcised and uncircumcised men in equal measure. But just to help clear it up, cancer is non-discriminatory. Anyone can get it. Any age. Any race. Any gender. Any socio-economic background. If you have a family history of cancer, of any sort, then you will be in a higher risk group. Simple as that. Don't believe the pro-circ hype. The foreskin does not harbor cancer. It makes no sense to suggest that it does. It would be like saying the liver should be removed because people get liver cancer. Or the breasts of women should be removed because of breast cancer. Ludicrous! 

A circumcised penis looks better. Say what? Since when is a part of something more attractive than the whole of something? What rubbish, and how fickle is it to say a surgically altered penis is more attractive than a natural one. That's like saying half a finger, cut off by a machine, is more attractive than a complete one. Simply stupid. Just goes to show the minds of the pro-circ group, doesn't it? They will spread anything to try and convince you to get your son/yourself circumcised. Having a foreskin is not about fashion. Its about having the whole of you. A whole that is functioning, and in its own special way, beautiful.  

A Baby feels no pain during a circumcision and actually falls asleep because it is so minor. What a load of crap! I have never heard such a thing in all my life! Ask any nurse who has to witness a circumcision. They will tell you in no uncertain terms how a baby reacts. Those who do look asleep are in deep shock. I know I would be if a doctor took a scalpel to me and didn't use any anesthetic. Don't believe me. Watch this video (link opens in a new window) WARNING: not for the squeamish. I can't even watch it! click HERE.  

They circumcised young men in the army. Think about this. You are in the desert, no showers available, not much water at all, and no way to change your clothes, sometimes for weeks. Which man would fare better? An intact man or a circumcised one? Well, knowing that the foreskin protects, it would be the intact man, hands down. That's how it was in the the army all those years ago (WWII). As one medical officer has famously said: "Why would we circumcise our men? My medical staff have enough wounds to worry about without adding any more." (or words to that effect). In fact, war time led to some rather unique ways to clean the penis. Intact men would pinch the end of their foreskin closed when they urinated, letting out just enough to make the skin balloon. They would then swish around the fluid with manual movement and let go of their foreskin. Any built up bacteria, dead skin, smegma, dirt, sand, whatever would be washed away. They would then finish urinating as per normal. Circumcised men didn't fare so well. They got a lot more infections, simply because the foreskin wasn't there to protect them. Here is an account that sums all this up rather nicely: 
"Jack Middleton elucidated: You'd get the cheese under your foreskin. What you had to do was hold on to your penis [foreskin ahead of the glans] and urinate and squeeze it and give it a bloody good wash and then let it go. Some who didn't do that, ooh, they were in a hell of a state. We decided that when we'd come back to Maadi, we'd all go and get our foreskins cut off. Rob from Paeroa, he was the one that was so bad he was in the camp hospital by this time. He had gone and been circumcised. We went to see him one day and he was just about crying in pain. It was all bandaged up and he had a bit of a hard-on and, oh Christ. So all the fellas wouldn't go and get it done." Martyn Thompson, Our War: the grim digs:New Zealand soldiers in North Africa, 1940-1943, Penguin, Auckland, 2005
Makes sense, doesn't it? Why would the army put out of commission all of their men, regiments at a time, for two weeks or more, simply to give them another wound. 

Girls won't like him if he's got a foreskin. Again, what complete and utter rubbish. If a girl is only worried about the appearance of her boyfriend's penis, then I'm sure as grass is green that she's not worth giving the time of day to. In fact, a penis, intact or not, doesn't make the man. The man does that. The way he behaves and the way he treats others and himself. All of those qualities make him likable, not what he's got in his pants. Besides, intact men don't exactly have signs on their heads to say they are intact. Most men like to get to know their partners if they are serious about them before they get into bed with them. By then it shouldn't make any difference whatsoever whether he's got a foreskin or not. Anyway, having a foreskin will certainly lead to fun times.

Being circumcised never hurt anyone. Yeah, except the person who got the circumcision (especially without their consent). At least when a boy is an adult and he chooses to get a circumcision for whatever reason he will be anesthetized, given pain medication and post-op care. Yes, it will still hurt, especially when he gets an erection and the stitches are still in place, but really, that's nothing compared to how the operation goes when he's a baby. He gets strapped to a restraint and a sugar-coated dummy after the operation and that's it. Tell me how that wouldn't hurt! And don't try and tell the baby won't be affected because he won't remember. Bullshit. 70% of baby boys have difficulty breastfeeding after being circumcised. They just cannot settle, sometimes for days. If that isn't about hurt, I don't know what is.

Circumcised men enjoy sex better. Who would have told you this? A circumcised man, no doubt! Research shows that men who have been circumcised in adulthood become LESS sensitive. In other words, they have lost the function of their foreskin. It's as simple as that. The foreskin is there to help with intercourse, and contrary to what the pro-circ crowd will say, an intact man isn't just 'masturbating' inside the vagina because his foreskin covers his glans. The foreskin performs the gliding motion during intercourse and as such, makes it enjoyable for the man and his partner. Also, the foreskin DOES NOT stick to the wall of the vagina (or anything else for that matter), either. If skin stuck to skin in such a way then humans wouldn't be able to touch each other. Period. Don't believe the pro-circ lies. They are good at using negative propaganda to feed their agenda. If being circumcised is so good, why are thousands of men restoring? Why are the majority of the world's men intact?

Smegma is bad. NO. NO. NO. This is one of the biggest mis-conceptions out there. Smegma is good. Suffice it to say, without smegma, the human race (and mammals as a whole) wouldn't exist. Yes, excess smegma needs to be cleaned away in your daily shower, but the best way to think of this substance is to imagine it's the oil inside a car's engine. It lubricates and stops things sticking so all the parts function properly. The same with smegma. Ever wondered why circumcised dicks look dry and cracked? Well, without smegma, the penis is no longer lubricated in a natural way. Makes sense, doesn't it?  

The foreskin is just a flap of skin. Well, okay, if it is, why does it do so much? There are three main functions to this 'flap of skin.' 

1) To protect the glans (which is an internal organ)
2) To aid in intercourse by providing tactile sensation and the gliding motion.
3) To help with lubrication.

For so long too many have said the foreskin is useless. How wrong they are. Let's face it, in today's times, why should there be a need to circumcise? It is a violation of basic human rights. You certainly wouldn't let your child get any other unnecessary surgery when they've just been born, would you? Why send them in to make their penis cosmetically different and alter its function?