Mass Circumcision Party Seeks Guiness Book Record

What does boxing champ cum Philippine congressman Manny Pacquiao think of this bid in his native land to make it into the Guiness Book of World Records?

Hundreds of boys in a Philippine city turned today for a daylong "circumcision party" to provide a safe, free procedure for a rite of passage that most local males undergo as preteens.

Some boys cried in their mothers' arms while others bit their shirts to stifle sobs as doctors carried out the surgery on dozens of makeshift operating tables inside a sports stadium in Marikina city east of Manila. Outside, other boys lined up to await their turn.

"I'm a big boy now," one boy who had just finished the surgery bragged.

Officials said the event — touted in a press statement as a "circumcision party" — aims to promote safe circumcision and to offer to poor residents free surgery that would otherwise cost at least $40 (£25) in private hospitals.

As of mid-afternoon, nearly 1,500 boys aged 9 years and up had been circumcised while many were still waiting in line, city health officer Dr. Alberto Herrera said.

In the Philippines, preadolescent and adolescent boys traditionally are circumcised during summer school break from March to May. In rural areas, the surgery is sometimes performed by non-doctors using crude methods.

The city also hopes to establish a world record for the number of people attending a mass circumcision.

"We applied for the Guinness Book of World Records and we are recording everything so we can send all the data to them and hopefully it will be recognized," Vice Mayor Jose Fabian Cadiz said.

Cheap joke: Getting all the documentation in the envelope must be quite a procedure.

AP via UK Independent via Hot Air.

Estimates of male circumcision rates in the United States range from around 55 percent to 85 percent; most are performed in the hospital or shortly thereafter in a non-religious setting and procedure.

In a widely read 1996 Journal of Medicine and Philosophy article, longtime Reason contributing editor Thomas Szasz identifies routine, non-religiously linked circumcision with the "birth of the therepeutic state," arguing the ubiquity of the practice in the U.S. stems from quackish concerns over masturbation and other once-controversial behaviors.

Certainly it's more than a little interesting that most parents making the decision know virtually nothing about its history as a medical intervention (as opposed to a religious ritual). Between 1993, when my first son was born, and 2001, there appeared to be a shift in the default-setting of the procedure. After clarifying right after the birth that neither I nor my son's mother was an observant Jew, the first doctor (in California) assumed that it would happen in the hospital, noting that only Hollywood stars and Mexicans didn't automatically trim their boys. My second son was born in a small hospital in Ohio and delivered by a doctor who was a marvel of customer service, actually asked well ahead of the birth what we wanted to do and essentially said that all things being equal, you might as well because most boys are circumcised (as in California, there was a charge for the service).

Szasz thinks the health-based arguments for large-scale circumcision are unconvincing but, true to form, concludes that argument over coercion provides the best path forward:

If RNC [routine neonatal circumcision; Szasz's term for infant circumcision] is medically unjustifiable, does it constitute a from of child abuse? Persons unbounded by Jewish or Islamic religious rules might reach that conclusion (Brigman 1984). Should it therefore be illegal? Therein lies our ethical dilemma. We must balance the (relatively small) harm that RNC does to the individual against the (potentially vast) harm that strengthening the state does to everyone (especially the family). Because the family remains our most secure shield against the encroachments of the Therapeutic State, the dilemma calls for  compromise. [10] Preventing RNC does not warrant enlisting the coercive apparatus of the state against the religious values of parents. It does, however, warrant, enlisting the persuasive powers of physicians and the media in the task of informing parents of newborn males about the medically dubious and morally problematic nature of this ostensibly hygienic procedure.

Read more here.

This story caught my eye in part because it exists on the fringes of the ObamaCare debate: Should the same state that insists on universal coverage make providers pay for common procedures even if they are not medically necessary? How many other incredibly personal (if often generally uninformed) procedures might fall under a similar blanket? Abortion got trotted out a lot during the health-care debate but it hardly exhausts the issue. What about fertility treatments (for both men and women)? The list goes on. My biggest concern about the government taking over the regulation if not actual disbursement of the remaining 50 percent of money spent on health care is less about ruinous economics and more about the invasion of the state into every square inch of every citizen's body.

Now go get that second cup of coffee on a Monday!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Warty||

    This should be fun.

  • ||

    Yes. I eagerly await the people who tell me how my penis should be configured, the idiot who calls not wanting to have your penis mutilated anti-semitism, the guy who will claim that he got cut at 25 and it never effected his sex life, and the parents who think they should be able to cut the whole thing off if they wanted to, because you know abortion mumble, mumble.

    I should make a bingo card.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Don't forget the dragging out of 40 year old research studies about the risk, the "it's exactly like female genital mutilation," and the WHO conspiracy to fake data about AIDS.

  • ||

    I never get the arguement about "cleanliness" - soap it up and clean it 5 or 6 times a day. Thoroughly. Cleanliness is next to Godliness. Do make sure your not dehydrating...

  • Zeb||

    The cleanliness thing might have made sense before we had running water available in our homes, but now I think we have teh technology to deal with that potential problem.

    Also, "smegma" is a very funny word. And for some reason my spell checker doesn't know it.

  • Hugh7||

    A boy died in New York of circumcision last Tuesday. When it's unneccessary, how many deaths do you need? As a human rights violation, the difference between cutting baby boys' genitals and baby girls' genitals is one of sexism only. (The AAP flirted last year with allowing a token ritual nick of girls, "much less extensive than male genital cutting", but they were howled down.) WHO conspiracy? Fake data? Reference to any such claim, please. What we do say is that the science in the claim was poor, and took far too little account of cultural bias towards circumcision. In at least seven countries, more of the circumcised men have HIV than the non-circumcised, according to USAID: http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/CR22/CR22.pdf That certainly needs to be explained before proceeding with mass circumcision campaigns.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Hugh7

    WHO conspiracy? Fake data? Reference to any such claim, please. What we do say is...

    Who is the "we" of whom you speak. I was referring to the large number of uninformed people who typically comment on this topic on H&R threads. Are you their leader or something?

    the science in the claim was poor, and took far too little account of cultural bias towards circumcision. In at least seven countries, more of the circumcised men have HIV than the non-circumcised, according to USAID: http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/CR22/CR22.pdf That certainly needs to be explained before proceeding with mass circumcision campaigns.

    Why? 3 RCT's have been done and have found very large effect sizes. Is circumcision somehow worse than AIDS now?

  • Hugh7||

    "We" collectively call ourselves Intactivists, people who oppose unnecessary genital cutting (male, female or intersex). We have no leader, we are a grassroots movement, but you will find a variety of organisations at http://www.circumstitions.com/links.html

    The three RCTs were not independent; many of their authors have published jointly and have shown a prior disposition towards circumcision. Together 5,400 men were circumcised. All three trials were cut short after less than two years (cutting trials short is known to give a positive bias - "stopping while you're ahead"), when 64 of the circumcised men had HIV, 73 fewer than the control groups. That is the total of the "very large effect size" but it is actually a large relative difference in a small (HIV infection) effect. (We constantly hear about the 60% relative risk reduction but the absolute percentage differences were 1.55%, 1.79% and 0.90%)

    703 men, 273 of them circumcised, dropped out of the trials, their HIV status unknown. Finding you had HIV after a painful and marking operation to prevent it would be a strong incentive to drop out. (Changing your mind about wanting to be be circumcised would be an incentive to drop out of the control group - too late for the experimentals)

    Contacts were not traced; iatrogenic/nosocomial [medically-caused] transmission is high in Africa, but health providers are unwilling to admit it.

    WHO did not conduct the studies, but I/we maintain they have been hijacked by people with a circumcision agenda. They have moved from RCTs to circumcision campaigns (including of babies) without field trials, and without giving due consideration to other factors, such as "risk compensation" - men thinking they are immune because they're circumcised. See for example: http://allafrica.com/stories/201105050159.html

    You should be suspicious about claims of medical benefits for circumcision if only because they are so many and varied (and some are mutually contradictory). The impulse to circumcise is not rational.

  • ||

    Oh boy, circumcision. Can't we talk about something less divisive like abortion or Lady Gaga?

  • robc||

    Circumcision threads on the internet are far and away the worst.

    And no one has ever changed their mind on a circumcision thread, unlike Lady Gaga ones.

    Im open to arguments she might be talented.

    /Cut
    //No weird parental resentment
    ///Dont know what I would do if I had a son
    ////Way too many freak out over this issue

  •  ||

    no one has ever changed their mind

    And no one ever will. About anything.

    Anyway.

  • Zeb||

    I've actually changed my mind about circumcision before, and I am open to changing it again. But I'm not going to tell you what I think about it.

  • Rich||

    Sonia Sotomayor?

  • ||

    I'm guessing most adult males who get it done change their minds about .65 seconds into the procedure.

  • ||

    Make some autotuned Cher and Madonna songs, tone her body enough to distract from her face, throw red meat to the LGBTQQIAA crowd, put on some retarded outfits for women and fashion-obsessed gay guys, and then build a rabid fanbase through constant social media interaction...

    Lady Gaga is very talented at making the most of her lack of musical talent.

  • Tony||

    She's a better singer than either Cher or Madonna, and can play the piano quite well.

  • ola||

    saw her last night on HBO instead of local news, it was entertaining. she can sing.

  • SIV||

    Eventually I agree with everyone here about something.

  • Doc S||

    Seriously what happened to her face? That things awful.

  • the real oo||

    she's really a songwriter turned performer

  • AU H20||

    Seriously, why do the 4 biggest female artists, the ones who could fill arenas, all suck? I would probably identify those 4 as Gaga, Ke$ha, Katy Perry, and Taylor Swift, and of them, only Swift has even a modicum of talent.

    I get it- people these days just want to shake their ass to something, and they always probably have (see 1969 top song, "Sugar Sugar" by the Archies) but ugh... the next time I hear someone praise their music, I'm going to jail on the six o'clock news.

  • Zeb||

    Most popular music always sucks. It's one of life's great mysteries.

    I think they both suck, but from what I hear, Gaga is at least as talented as Swift.

  •  ||

    It's the tipping point.

  • Joe M||

    I see what you did there.

  • SIV||

    How is Lady Gaga divisive?

  • SIV||

  • proegg antichicken||

    support HOOP- Hands Off Our Penises!

  • ||

    You can take my foreskin from my cold, dead hands.

  • proegg antichicken||

    Truthfully, if sex were better with a foreskin, I would never know. That appears to be the only benefit. Also some percentage of American chicks think foreskins are gross. So if you're into receiving oral sex (or your parents suspect you will be) then cut is the way to go.

    But to suggest that it is a medical thing and not a cultural/aesthetic/plastic surgery thing is preposterous. Also, I'm Tim Pawlenty.

  • Doc S||

    Yeah, i'm glad I had mine chopped for the above reasons.

    FFFFL - Free From Foreskin For Life

  • ^^^THIS^^^||

    "some percentage of American chicks think foreskins are gross. So if you're into receiving oral sex (or your parents suspect you will be) then cut is the way to go."

    This alone is enough to throw out all other arguments, and it is the reason all males should be circumcised. Also, it's a lot more than "some percentage." I'd say it's a great majority.

  • Doc S||

    Yeah I've never had a girl "Well... I was going to blow you, but you don't have that foreskin I love so much"

    But I've def had friends tell me they lost out on blowies due to the FS

  • prolefeed||

    I'm gonna guess that some women are into foreskins. I'm also entirely certain that if an uncut adult male finds that that is interfering with his sex life, he can do something about it.

    Had it done on my son because it just seemed normal, but if I had the choice again, I'd leave it up to him to do it when he's old enough to consent.

  • AU H20||

    Okay, let me flip a mild shit right here...

    The only motherfucking reason that retarded ass American women prefer circumsized is because of the retarded shit that started to go down in the 40s and 50s where EVERYONE got circumsized. Seriously, it's called BATHING- ya know, what ya should do before you get laid?- and that's all you need to do to keep an uncircumsized dick clean.

    Although I've never had a chick go, "Ewww, a penis the way evolution, god, or whomever intended!" But if I did, I would be pretty goddamn pissed- and rightly so.

    See, the thing is, you're basically arguing- "Well, gosh, people LOVE seeing infidels heads cut off, so I guess I HAVE to bow to public opinion" instead of saying, "Wow, we shouldn't perpetuate a bad practice just because people like it."

    To go a little less apocalyptic... most Americans have knee jerk reaction of, "There oughta be a law." Should we encourage this knee jerkism by passing laws, because, well, gosh, people like them?

    All I'm saying is this- evolution put the foreskin there for a reason. It ain't a goddamn vestigal organ. So, why cut?

    Cultural or religious doesn't work for me, because modern society does ban certain cultural and religious practices. We take away the kids of Christian Scientists when they won't get their kid treated for cancer. It was cultural in certain places to marry young women to control their sexuality- we banned that to. It's cultural in North Africa to have anything ranging from full clitoral removal to hood removal to a simple prick.

    Now, obviously male circumscion is not on this level, but all of these restrictions tell us something- that the right of the parent is not unlimited, nor should it be.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    I have no formed opinion on this matter, however I take umbrage with your statement that the FS isn't vestigial. I would never deign to classify what is or isn't vestigial in such a complex organism as a human. While it is a pretty damn cool process, I don't think evolution is anywhere close to perfect. As a matter of fact, by definition, evolution is the bare fucking minimum. Is the appendix vestigial? Tonsils? Tailbones? While the arguments for are strong I don't think with any scientific certainty that one can state the appendix is completely useless...nor is it absolutly required.

    I have no idea whether the FS serves a purpose in some environment or not but I am not going to base an opinion of its removal on whether it is vestigial.

  • AU H20||

    Fair enough, Cliche Bandit. Good point.

  • Hugh7||

    Some boys are born without a foreskin and no other defect. If it were the slightest bit harmful it would have evolved away aeons ago. The same can not be said of the appendix, which is genetically linked to the rest of the intestine. Tonsils (and appendix) are now known to have immunological functions.

    If it did not have a function of contributing to sexual stimulation, placed just where it is and working as it does (see http://www.circumstitions.com/Works.html NSFW), what on earth was evolution thinking?

  • Alex||

    First off the foreskin is a protective tissue. It is a nerve laden tissue also. It would not be there is it did not have a function. EVERY male has a right to keep what he is normally born with and the right to make his own choice about his own body. EVERY father/mother must be make his/her son proud to be intact and avoid dealing with bitches who will not blow him because he kept what he is normally born with. Plain and simple.

    EVERY piece of underwear I have tried feels like sandpaper because I was cut and it's very desensitizing not to mention I rub that issue in my mothers face every chance I get and I was done at 3 1/2 and it was very traumatic physically and mentally.

    Any time circumcision is performed without a medical reason such as failed treatment to infections or reoccurring infections or abnormal conditions of the foreskin, it automatically falls in the category of male genital mutilations, for which females are protected against by law and males are not.

    Nothing is equal or peaceful about circumcision since it's done without a valid medical reason or informed consent.

    I would never subject my own flesh and blood to that kind of useless procedure. I truly think it's insane.

  • Robert||

    Well, AuH2O, bathing was similarly medicalized.

  • ||

    "...if sex were better with a foreskin, I would never know. That appears to be the only benefit."

    Once you make that statement, you can just stop. I'll keep mine thanks.

    As for the women - never had a complaint. When aroused, I doubt they noticed the difference.

  • AU H20||

    Yeah, I gotta say- If you can give a chick good oral to start with, you can get ANYTHING you want.

    How do you guys think I got my obligatory monocle and top hat, huh?

  • ||

    So if you're into receiving oral sex (or your parents suspect you will be) then cut is the way to go.

    And thus the original moralist arguments for circumcision are stood on their collective, uh, head.

    I know I sound like your mother, but if the presence of a foreskin is enough to make a woman not want you, she's probably not the type for you anyway. In that way a foreskin is a great hag detector.

  • nicole||

    In that way a foreskin is a great hag detector.

    This, folks. How good is someone going to be who isn't even down with spending some quality time with a natural penis? Man.

  • proegg antichicken||

    Sometimes you want sex with a girl that you wouldn't want to bring home to mother. Sometimes you don't really want sex with that girl, but a beej would be swell. There's all kinds of awful cultural reasons for it, but being cut helps you swing for the blowjob. Jus' sayin.

  • AU H20||

    Honestly, having had one night stands, and having had relationships, gotta say I prefer relationships. Especially friends with benefits- great thing to have around in between true significant others.

    Basically, while a one night stand is exciting for the novelty, the actual sex isn't that great. whereas if you've been with a chick a few times, you get a handle on what each other like, and the sex is more fun.

  • proegg antichicken||

    That's a whole 'nother argument. I agree with you, but for relationship purposes the whole cut/uncut argument is meaningless. The chick will dig whatever you're packing.

  • ||

    HOOP- Hands Off Our Penises

    That's gonna be a tough sell around here.

  • Matrix||

    I dunno if I can support such a thing.

  • proegg antichicken||

    Hands On Our Penises works too, funny thing, that is.

  • ||

    When you get a massage at a nice Asian paradise relaxation center, getting the hands on the penis always costs a little extra...

  • Barry Loberfeld||

  • Alex||

    I know 4 uncircumcised men, 3 of which are married and none have any of the disadvantages listed on that site. I on the other hand have experienced pain of the glands from being exposes to underwear which feels like sandpaper and almost complete desensitization and sometimes sex becomes painful.

    Here is a detailed video describing the function of the foreskin. I doubt ignorance can be cured even if seeing is believing.
    http://www.doctorsopposingcirc.....256k_D.wmv

  • rather||

  • Joe M||

    This story caught my eye in part because it exists on the fringes of the ObamaCare debate

    Uh, no, it caught your eye because the phrase "circumcision party" is one of the most abhorrent phrases to ever seen print.

  • rather||

    It caught the eye of a whole lot of plastic surgeons too ;-)
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1952714

  • proegg antichicken||

    I that's what I think it is, awesome. I would feel so much better about circumcision if I knew some poor schmoe was wearing my foreskin as an eye patch.

  • rather||

    It is. Kinda hot to know where it came from ;-)

  • Joshua||

    the problem is that after that surgery you'd be a little cockeyed

  • Abdul||

    The two biggest anti-circumcision people I know are both female. That always seemed strange to me. After all, they have no skin in the game, so to speak.

  • Colin||

    There is a perception that sex is better with a uncircumcised man.

  • AU H20||

    Well, when that man is me...

  • Joe R.||

    I'm pro-gay marriage but I'm not gay. What's the big deal about standing by your principles, even when they don't apply to you personally?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I just can't wrap my head around the idea of having extra skin wrapped around my head.

  • rather||

    when you're a big boy, you'll like it

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Foreskin grows back? Neat.

  • Hugh7||

    It's not extra, it's standard equipment. You were robbed.

  • proegg antichicken||

    Wasn't there an attempt to pass a law in San Fransisco banning circumcision for those under 18, but after 18 it's mandatory? Maybe my memory is fuzzy, but laws like that are good for places like San Fransisco. For sure, they enrich the experience of progressive-topia.

  • We call it||

    a Prince Albert, not "circumcision"

  • robc||

    Speaking as a circumcized southern baptist, I dont get the general pro-circumcision attitude of evangelical christians.

    One thing the NT is very clear about, gentiles DO NOT need to be circumcized. This was an argument in the early church and the position is made very clear in Acts.

    So, if anything, I would expect Tim Tebow to be glueing 3rd world foreskins back on, not chopping them off.

    I guess I will put that in the box with drinking and dancing labeled "Extra-biblical cultural things that make no sense to me".

  • ||

    I wonder if it's part of the "build the 3rd Temple, bring Jesus back" movement.

  • robc||

    No, I think it, as mentioned above, was an anti-masturbation tactic.

  • prolefeed||

    If that is an anti-masturbation tactic, I can attest from personal experience it doesn't work at all.

  • Lord Googoo||

    3,5,3,5,3,5,3,5

    (a very old joke's punchline)

  • prolefeed's mother||

    we tried

  • Hugh7||

    No, but when they used it as punishment for masturbation, the kids (boys and girls) made damned sure they weren't caught again, so the adults thought it worked.

  • ||

    Actually it was a plot on the part of lubricant companies. Would Astroglide even be in business if not for near-universal circumcison?

  • rather||

    yes

  • Pip||

    But enough about your well-trodden ass.

  • Juvenile Lurker||

    Q: Did you hear about the billfold made from foreskin?

    A: Rub it, and it turns into a suitcase.

  • Hugh7||

    Because the foreskin IS erogenous tissue.

  • 29InNet||

    Everyone wants a piece of history.

  • Polynikes||

    "Cut me, Mick. Cut me!"

    Somebody had to say it...

  • Doc S||

    This was an awful article to read right after breakfast.

  • ||

    Gillespie trots out 15 year old research to bolster his claim that it shouldn't be automatic?

    There is some (recent) research indicating that those who come in contact with HIV are slightly less likely to contract it. That alone is why many educated parents cut.

  • Abdul||

    My boys aren't circumcised, but I don't let them bang Africans without a condom, so I suppose the risks even out.

  • Doc S||

    Good thing you can control their sexual partners and their use of protection for the rest of their life then.

  • ||

    If we sewed up the vaginas of all 9-year-olds, pregnancy rates would plummet.

  • AU H20||

    And if we sewed the asshole of every man shut, AIDs in the gay community would also plummet.

    Sugarfree, perhaps we should collaborate on a pamphlet or newsletter expressing these views.

  • Doc S||

    Just cut off the dicks of all the guys and you can save a whole lot on stitching fees.
    all the guys except me that is.

  • ||

    Right, it's much better for you to trot out some unidentified research with weak conclusions. But it's recent at least.

  • Alex||

    Many educated parents need to teach their kids to use a condom. Plain and simple. http://www.doctorsopposingcirc.....256k_D.wmv

  • ola||

    "the ubiquity of the practice in the U.S. stems from quackish concerns over masturbation and other once-controversial behaviors."

    How does circumcision reduce masturbation? That can't be true. Or does it encourage masturbation? That must be it.

  • proegg antichicken||

    Since you can only circumsize once I can't imagine it being an effective deterrent. Maybe if you use it as a threat, "If I catch you fapping I'll get your goddamned foreskin cutoff!". Or maybe just snip a little at a time. If this wasn't for the children I'd definitely say it's worse than waterboarding.

  • ||

    You don't need lubricant if you're uncircumcised. Back when the only available lube for a teenage boy was likely to be vegetable oil, this would have been a decent deterrent.

  • Apple||

    I just had a son early this year and the advice of our doctor was something like, "Some parents do, some parents don't. Whatever you want." I don't think they're pushing the health benefits like they used to. Looking online for advice is a bitch too because all discussions seem to end up in hysterical rants.

  • Warty||

    Maybe you could consider letting your boy make his own fucking choices about how to modify his cock. Just maybe.

    Goddammit, and here I participated in this to-be disaster of a thread.

  • Apple||

    I asked him but he just kinda looked at me cross-eyed and took a shit.

  • rather||

    the trend is not too, and he may be more comfortable looking like the other boys.

    He can always get one later but can't reverse the cut without complex surgery.

  •  ||

    he just kinda looked at me cross-eyed and took a shit

    So where's the YouTube link?

  • Alex||

  • ||

    I heard how the SFSSR (San Francisco Soviet Socialist Republic) wants to ban circumcision for boys under 18, comparing it to African genital mutilation. The proposal has actually united the local Jewish and Muslim communities in their outrage and plans to fight the ban in court if it passes.

  • ||

    I must have seen at least a hundred European porno flicks when I was a youth. I'm 37 years old and I still find the sight of an uncircumcised penis bizarre.

  • ||

    Stop looking at my penis!

  • rather||

    I must have seen at least a hundred European porno flicks when I was a youth. I'm 37 years old and I still find the sight of an uncircumcised penis bizarre.

    How did you find the tits? ;-)

  • AU H20||

    They are right there, behind the bidet.

  • rather||

    Hmm, I keep mine on my chest. Chacun à son goût

  • ||

    I was circumcised when I was an infant. So was my son and hopefully his son will be as well.

    People with uncut penises are freaks and no self-respecting woman would ever give them a blow job. I've got uncut friends who say they've actually been refused head and sex from women who look at their dick and say, "hell no." Every woman I talk to about it says the same thing: Uncut dicks are icky and stink of smegma.

    BTW, welcome to /b.

  • proegg antichicken||

    BTW, welcome to /b.

    we crossed that bridge a long time ago.

  • prolefeed||

    And, knowing that they are missing out on a lot of sex, they choose to not do something to fix that?

    Weird.

  • ||

    They say their doc advised against it due to the pain and potential for infection at a later age.

  • wayne||

    Pain and infection are, of course, not a problem in infants.

  • ||

    Maybe if your friends would bathe, they could get laid, cut or uncut.

  • ||

    Actually, all it takes is one bad experienced with an au-natural membrum to turn them off of all of them.

  • AU H20||

    This sounds like it's the beginning of Uncle Tulpa's Story Time...

  • Robert||

    Maybe if your friends would bathe, they could get laid, cut or uncut.


    I parsed that sentence funny the 1st time. It seems to attribute a remarkable power to bathing!

  • ||

    If I have a son, I'm getting him circumcized so he'll get head from someone other than hippie chicks. I don't want him feeling obliged to become a progressive just so he can get a blow job.

  • AU H20||

    Hazel, I like you dearly,but let me say:

    Hazel, you ignorant slut. If this is your train of logic, then I believe you can never use the, "Well, if everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you?" argument on your kid.

    Because that's your exact argument- "Well, everyone else is doing it, so I HAVE to."

  • ||

    Do people seriously believe this? Given the current trends, the vast majority of men will soon be uncircumcised. Are chicks seriously going to stop blowing the majority of guys in the U.S.? Is fellatio no longer practiced in Europe (where most men aren't circumcised)? If guys are willing to go down on chicks, the least the chick can do is deal with a little foreskin.

  • Hugh7||

    Isn't it funny that throughout the rest of the developed world, non-religious circumcision is almost unknown and this is simply not an issue? Maybe they know something (about soap and water?) that Americans don't know.

  • Lord Googoo||

    This is pretty fucking gay.

  • ||

    Now go get that second cup of coffee on a Monday!

    After that story, make that a triple whisky. Straight.

  • rather||

    I love the circumcision threads. LMAO

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Under the next version of Obamacare, circumcisions will be mandatory. Since the state will be paying for your health care, the state has the right to tell you what "preventive" procedures you must have done, to reduce the costs for all.

  • Spencer||

    This is body modification without consent (in cases on infants). Would we let parents tattoo their kids? Would we let them remove their earlobes? NO! Even if 99% of women thought men without earlobes were more attractive, we would- hopefully- wait until the men were old enough to make the choice themselves.

    Also, a huge number of males think larger breasts are more attractive, but we don't see implants given to young girls before they can consent.

  • ||

    Also, a huge number of males think larger breasts are more attractive, but we don't see implants given to young girls before they can consent.

    How young are we talking here? (It will definitely shape my next comment.)

  • AU H20||

    Well, given that circumscion is performed normally in infancy- in infancy.

    Seriously, the youngest I've heard of a boob job is 14 or 15. And I thought it was a bit weird, and a bit young, but at least by that age you have some ability to think and reason, which an infant simply does not have.

  • ||

    I think infants are underestimated. They are not stupid, they just haven't learned the most basic things we take for granted, like learning an official language. Maybe we should just hold off on cosmetic surgery on their genitals (is this something we superior thinking adults really thought through) and just have respect for the little boys like we do for the little girls (in the U.S.), and wait until they are old enough to decide for themselves whether or not they would like to have part of their genitalia amputated.

  • ||

    Spencer, girls under the age of 18 do, in fact, get breast surgery. Both reduction and enhancement.

    And they can't get it without their parent's consent.

  • ||

    I would very much like to make an informed post about this. Is there a website where I could view data, such as pictures, to help form my opinion?

  • Coeus||

    /b

  • Robert||

    But there are parents, particularly Hispanic ones, who get their baby daughters' ears pierced.

  • AU H20||

    I'm against that practice as well, but at least if you don't want your ears pierced, the skin will grow back in a few years once you remove the piercings.

    Circumscion, not so much.

  • ||

    Look, goldwater. I live in a warm enough area where my dick doesn't need a turtleneck to star warm. I thank my parents for helping me get blowjobs at an early age.

  • Hugh7||

    What, sloopyinca, 8 days? Are you talking about metzitzah? http://www.youtube.com/user/me.....YLeVsafzfY (24") - they don't all use a glass tube.

  • Geoffrey||

    Circumcision is no more 'medically unnecessary' than is vaccination, indeed it has many times been described as a 'surgical vaccine'.
    All healthcare insurance providers cover vaccination as it is recognised as a preventative for diseases (which, however, the average person will not contract anyway).
    Circumcision is fully recognised by the Centre for Disease Control and the UN as a preventative for several STIs, most notably heterosexually acquired HIV/AIDS.
    Nobody is even vaguely suggesting that all boys must be circumcised, but it must be offered in the same way as vaccination is offered so that parents can make up their own minds as to whether to have their sons circumcised.
    Failure to include circumcision in all healthcare insurance plans puts the sons of poor people at a much greater risk of UTIs as a young child and of sexually transmitted infections in later life.

  • AU H20||

    Yes, circumscion reduces the rate of AIDs.

    On the other hand, want to know what else does that, without changing your child's genitalia entirely? A condom! Furthermore, condoms are more effective at preventing AIDs and STIs than circumscion.

    Now, admittedly, in certain places, circumscion may make sense- places without regular access to bathing and/or condoms. But in the USA? Teach your kid to wear a motherfucking condom.

  • rather||

    Teach your kid to wear a motherfucking condom.

    That must be a tad embarrassing brand to purchase

  • Spencer||

    It's a niche market, mainly found in the Mountains of TN.

  • AU H20||

    Spencer, that's there sister brand: The Cousin fucker.

  • rather||

    Do they have the grammar fucker?

  • ||

    Actually, circumcision has no effect, whatsoever, on HIV transmission rates in infants.

  • wayne||

    The arguments supporting circumcision on children are ludicrous:

    Do it so he looks like all the other boys. What kind of place do you live where all the boys are standing around examining each other's dicks?

    Do it so he will look like Daddy. As the father of two uncircumcised sons, I never saw their penises after the age of about three, nor did I ever haul out mine to show them what a real one looks like.

    Girls won't like them. European guys seem to do OK with girls. I suppose there are girls who have a strong preference, for or against, but I doubt there are very many.

    Hygiene, for God's sake. If they are not circumcised, their pee-pee will get infected and fall off after first grossing out everybody within 111 meters. Take a shower, use some soap, wash behind your ears. Teach your children these things and they will be much more pleasant to he around.

    Research indicates that circumcision reduces HIV infection rates. This research comes from a vocally pro-cricumcision group (pro-circ BEFORE they ever did the "research"), and was conducted in the absolute heart of the HIV pandemic area. Never addressed are questions like, "why is the Scandinavian rate of HIV infection much less than the rest of the world, despite negligible circumcision rates?". Also not mentioned is that circumcision has been practiced ritually for thousands of years, long before humans had any inkling of viruses much less the capacity to determine that circumcision reduces HIV infection rates by 1/2%.

    Face it, circumcision of children is an offshoot of ancient religious practices. It has no therapeutic value. Human males evolved with a foreskin for a reason.

    If you are an adult male (or female) and you want to modify your own outfit, then by all means go right ahead. If you think your child should be circumcised, then wait until said child is old enough to make that decision on his/her own.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Research indicates that circumcision reduces HIV infection rates. This research comes from a vocally pro-cricumcision group (pro-circ BEFORE they ever did the "research"), and was conducted in the absolute heart of the HIV pandemic area. Never addressed are questions like, "why is the Scandinavian rate of HIV infection much less than the rest of the world, despite negligible circumcision rates?". Also not mentioned is that circumcision has been practiced ritually for thousands of years, long before humans had any inkling of viruses much less the capacity to determine that circumcision reduces HIV infection rates by 1/2%.

    The World Health Organization is "a vocally pro-cricumcision group"? And, the research was done to find a way to address AIDS "in the absolute heart of the HIV pandemic area." And how is your Scandinavia comment relevant?

    Aye cu-rumba.

  • Hugh7||

    The WHO did not do the research.

  • ||

    LOL, looks like "Neu Mexican" is missing part of his wee wee ): aw so sad.

    You should read some of the new studies that are saying the mutilation INCREASES your risk of HIV. lol

    I feel bad for amputees like you

  • rather||

    Do it so he looks like all the other boys. What kind of place do you live where all the boys are standing around examining each other's dicks?

    Middle school gym

  • AU H20||

    Despite your fantasies, men do not inspect each others junk in locker rooms.

    Hell, the whole thing in locker room is never look below waist level if you can help it.

  • rather||

    What? Men don't rub each other down like women do? How do they dry the small of their back? Or, between their legs?

  • Spencer||

    also, let's not forget that the practice is performed on 55% of the newborn males, so there's plent of company for the uncut dick starer.

  • wayne||

    Really? Middle school gym is a nudist colony? Do you have any male children?

    Not when I attended middle school. Not for either of my sons.

  • rather||

    No, but I've heard it from a teacher friend. Woe is the boy who doesn't develop as fast as the others

  • wayne||

    Total BS.

    A young boy fixating on other boys' penises in the locker room has greater problems than his feelings of superiority brought about by his surgically shortened penis.

  • rather||

    ...and I hear they do it in the Reason jerk circle

  • rather||

    and of course epi had the smallest dick but then I knew that from his email

  • ||

    With regards to women's preferences, I would agree with those who have said the vast majority probably don't have a preference either way. I think young women are much less likely to watch porn, so the first dick we see is usually the first dude we bang. Whatever that looks like is what you'd probably assume was "normal" and absent any actual deformity, one is generally pretty into the junk belonging to the dude one is interested in fucking.

    I believe that unsolicited opinion on an issue involving bits I don't have qualifies as "femsplaining."

  • Robert||

    Now see? Your use of the word "junk" implies something to be thrown away.

  • AU H20||

    Dangy, that does not fempute!

  • Warty||

    femsplaining

    Femputer: Have you any idea how it feels to be a fembot living in a manbot's manputer's world?
    Bender: What?

  • ||

    Just taking back the night with my Female Gaze is all.

    And, the Femputer was voiced by Bea Arthur which is probably evidence of some Golden Girls conspiracy or other.

  • ||

    "Did you explain how the women's good fundamentals make up for their inability to dunk?"

  • robc||

    A friend of mine has season tix to UofL womens basketball. I get to say that line about 20 or 30 times per winter.

  • robc||

    BTW, their fundamentals suck.

  • Joe M||

    One other point: when fully erect, the difference between cut and uncut is virtually nil.

  • Hugh7||

    Don't be so sure: see http://www.circumstitions.com/comparison.html (NSFW)

  • ||

    Someone commented on a similar article to this elsewhere and stated something along the lines of "Why So Binary, Though? I bet you're a cis-sexist." I guess this has to do with the fact that its only talking about "boys" or persons that may or may not identify as "boys" or "boi" or what the fuck ever. I don't get 3rd wave feminism or its jargon.

  • Hugh7||

    I wrote to the Guinness Book of Records website and they replied:

    Dear Hugh,

    I can assure you that we are not recognizing this record attempt.

    Unfortunately it is out our hands when people advertise that they are attempting a Guinness World Records.  We definitely are not recognizing, nor do we condone this attempt.

    Thank you for your concern.

    www.guinnessworldrecords.com

  • ||

    I wonder if they would recognize my attempt at a World Record for Most Members of Parliament Beheaded With an Axe?

    I'd be willing to enter in both the "Total Number" and the "Most in One Hour" categories.

  • ||

    If only I had a high-powered machine gun. There would be about 2,000 dead Filipino parents

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement