Sexual Relationships 
Sexual Health 
This has been the debate in the west for the past century relating to circumcised vs uncircumcised. Many males with their dicks chopped at birth have ragged on those with those who are O' Natural and I am here to tell you they are 100% wrong.
While religious circumcision has been practice in the middle east for a milenia, no one in the west had even considered it until the late 19th century. This is in fact one of the main inhibitory junctures of sex in which people were freightened into not inhibiting sexual intercourse but to be more abstinant. Masturbation was also a factor to getting an uncircumcised penis for the child, with the parents being under the assumption that they would not masturbate.
WATCH THE VIDEO:
To conclude this, circumcision is a brutal practice that should really only be used for religious purposes. It has very little benefitting factors attributed to it and is more of a fad pushed on us from our parents. If you are hurt because you have a circumcised dick, then I understand your frustration with this artical. However when you have a boy or girl when you become a parent, there is no need to follow societies judgements, and to think outside the box when pertaining to a relatively brutal invasion of an individuals life such as, the practice of circumcision.
What Girls & Guys Said
22 51I see no reason for it.
https://intaction.org/10-myths-about-circumcision/
Found this interesting
Any man who circumcised his son solely because of in inner body image temper tantrum, along with any woman who stayed quiet and let it happen to emotionally coddle him, both deserve zero respect. Circumcised guys get real loud about this issue because they think you're attacking their dick. It's like dude, your dick and your generation happened already. If you don't want your son to have EVERY freedom you can grant him, and if you take it away for petty personal reasons, you are not a fit parent.
I'm not attacking some old guys dick, I'm protecting a baby's freedom of choice about his body.
@jjmarvin I mean I don't agree with it, but I don't think parents who choose circumcision are unfit parents who deserve zero respect as human beings. Parents do it because they think its good for their child and they are ignorant to the facts. They don't do it out of ill will. So I think you're going too far with that.
I wasn't talking about the uneducated. I was talking about the emotionally childish. But i do think the line is clear cut. If you ever take the choice of someone's body away from them, especially the voiceless, you have irreversibly robbed them off their freedom. And if you did it for your own body image, emotional safety, or personal penis preferences, you are emotionally unfit to raise an emotionally healthy adult. It just sets the stage for their whole parenting life.
@jjmarvin I'm too realistic to agree with you. One decision doesn't define the core of a person. Its so kindergarten to think one bad choices makes someone "bad." People aren't so black and white. But you're free to disagree.
On the subject of personal freedoms i do see gray areas, just not many.
Well your opinion is slanted from the start. Circumsized guys are usually NOT the guys doing the "ragging". A simple google search will yield you a PLETHORA of organizations and whiners who HATE circumcision. That's first.
Second... google it... but circumcision has proven to yield a significant effect in preventing the spread of HIV and other STD's.
Third... nothing wrong with being UNCUT... as long as you wash that shit. And a lot of my GF's who've been with uncut guys say that the dick is only clean if the GIRL cleans it. Guys are, by nature, a lot less inclined toward cleanliness than girls are. Google it... but the US has spent MILLIONS of dollars on programs to teach uncircumcised men in Africa how to WASH THEIR OWN DICKS. So you cannot deny the fact that a lot of uncut guys LOVE their uncut dicks... but don't like WASHING them properly.
Forth... why should you care about this TRIVIAL practice at all? Unless you are a control freak seeking to control what others do?
I think you PROTEST TOO MUCH.
WHY AS A GUY, ARE YOU SO INTERESTED IN THE DICKS OF OTHER MEN?
No i think that you are quite misguided my friend. I would say that people who want to have such control over their children's genitalia are the ones who are control freaks. Your entire argument is based on emotion and false facts hoping something ominous will cause me to change my mind when you say google it... nothing happens except the fact I am more in the right when I read study after study compounding my facts. And no there is no significant effect of preventing STD's, and as long as all dudes wash themselves thoughourly as they should nowadays. The last comment was really immature basing on the straw man argument instead of taking decisive action to keep this civil and mature. Oh and by the way turning the caps lock on makes you look like an idiot.
Wait... you're calling the parents (who have a STAKE in their children) ... "control freaks". But you're NOT one even though you have no "dog in the hunt". Brother - do what you will WITH YOUR KIDS. But unless you are willing to feed, clothe and educate MINE - then you're opinion is not required or desired. "as long as the dudes wash themselves" ... and I told you in my original post there is a serious problem with a lot of guys keeping their dicks clean. So you if you google it - you will find that circumcision has proven a significant factor in reducing the spread of HIV. Nothing you've said changes that. And no... it's not a straw man. I seriously question guys who are concerned about other guy's penises. Is this a fixation you have? Are you trying to VALIDATE you're own "uncut" status? Why did you say that circumcised guys "rag" on uncut guys? I have never not once seen that happen. Me and my mates do not sit around and talk about it.
This is the WHO brother... not some activist organization...
"There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%."
So the practice is LEGIT. I'm not saying you have to do it - or you should do it. It's up to you. But please, don't say there is no legit reason for parents to do this... because the WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION disagrees with you.
https://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/
And I never said what you should do with your kids nor am I your brother, you did that all on your own. So then dudes need to wash their dicks. That has nothing to do with this, and again saying search for it on google does jack because there is little proof to back up the claim that it actually changes the way you catch an STD. If you fuck a hooker who is infected with an STD circumcised or uncircumcised you are an idiot because you need to put on a condom. Next if you fuck her and do not wash either circumcised or un you are an idiot. So strap on a rubber regardless. If you do that circumcision becomes irrelevant and the entire practice is ridiculous unless for medical reasons or religious purposes.
Rebuttal>> I am not your "mates" and you knew you were going to get hurt when you came here. The only reason you wrote a paragraph above is because you are hurt and don't have any evidence to back it up. So in reality its just a speech filled with emotion, and that gets nowhere. If you bring tangible evidence to support your claims, and you are no longer butthurt I can consider it valid proof but until such a time I suggest to can it.
Look - your "my take" is titled... "To crush the debate" ... you obviously did not crush it because I've given you a link to the World Health Organization statement that says circumcision can provide up to 60 percent protection from MF HIV.
Your REFUSAL to acknowledge that this is a LEGITIMATE reason why SOME parents might opt for circumcision for their sons SAYS TONS ABOUT YOUR TRUE MOTIVATION for writing this "my take".
You should have done more research before posting this beyond quoting hysterical "progressive" media. Had you done your research, you would have found that circumcision actually helps prevent the spread of HIV.
And... here's another link you should have studied...
www.cnsnews.com/.../feds-spent-800000-economic-stimulus-african-genital-washing-program-0
We are spending this $$$ in Africa because HIV is a PROBLEM because those men have a problem washing their penises. Now - unless you're an outright RACIST - you have to admit that if they're having problems... then men of most races are also having problems keeping it clean.
Tangible evidence... you are hilarious. I brought you data from the WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION brother - the people who eliminated smallpox. You posted a comical video. You're in fantasyland. Get back to me when you have some concrete scientific studies - as I do.
Another study...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1614986/
"CONCLUSIONS. Uncircumcised men were more likely than circumcised men to have syphilis and gonorrhea and were less likely to have visible warts."
^^ Legit studies are ALL OVER the internet if you care to look. And I'm not quoting progressivist orgs... I'm quoting medical organizations and scientists.
You cannot say... with a straight face - that there is no legitimate reason to circumcize. I've proven you wrong. Completely wrong.
Still, this doesn't mean that parents SHOULD circumcise. It's up to them. I'm not judgmental. But when you come on here with a comical video saying you are, with your 20 years of wisdom, capable of passing judgement on other parents.
You've got your reasons for not doing the procedure... other parents have their reasons TO perform the procedure. Their opinion is just as valid as yours - you DID NOT "crush" the debate my friend.
I already "crushed" the debate when you simply got hurt over what I said, being older doesn't mean you are wiser. Lets look at this logically for a second... hundreds of years ago people didn't have the relative amenities that we now have, they simply couldn't always wash themselves and the like whenever they please. Now Circumcision/HIV Claims are Based on Insufficient Evidence An article endorsed by thirty-two professionals questions the results of three highly publicized African circumcision studies. The studies claim that circumcision reduces HIV transmission, and they are being used to promote circumcisions. Substantial evidence in this article refutes the claim of the studies. Examples in the article include the following: Circumcision is associated with increased transmission of HIV to women. Conditions for the studies were unlike conditions found in real-world settings. Other studies show that male circumcision is not associated with reduced HIV transmission. ...
The U. S. has a high rate of HIV infection and a high rate of circumcision. Other countries have low rates of circumcision and low rates of HIV infection. Condoms are 95 times more cost effective in preventing HIV transmission. Circumcision removes healthy, functioning, unique tissue, raising ethical considerations. References... Green, L. et al., "Male Circumcision and HIV Prevention: Insufficient Evidence and Neglected External Validity," American Journal of Preventive Medicine 39 (2010): 479-82.
To say that there is a legitimate reason to circumcise is based upon your personal beliefs. What i take issue with, is the fact that the child has little to no say in the matter; they are simply dragged along with their parents beliefs. Now by saying that I am not restricting your beliefs in anyway, I am simply challenging them. As you can read the other comments young males wish their parents had not made that choice for them and older males enjoy the fact that they were able to make the choice to do so at an older age.
Yes Mr. 20 year old... tell me all the FACTS that you have learned in your brief life. Like I'm going to go with you over the World Health Organization, the National Health Institute of the US and NHI of the UK. Listen, the science proves you wrong. All you have done throughout this discussion is parrot progressive hysterical urban legends that you have no science to back up. I have posted the links and the REAL SCIENTISTS say there's a 60% reduction in the Female to Male spread of HIV. You say - the scientists are BULLSHIT. You're not even old enough to be a junior college but... yeah - you're smarter than the experts. GO FOR IT DUDE. Again - if you really believed the uncut penis was so superior you would be encouraging other guys to MUTILATE themselves so you'd get more women. The fact that you have to come on here and seek validation - then get mad when a guy like me dares to post the scientific links that prove you wrong is pretty indicative of your envious state of mind.
Man you are full of it, i certainly have nothing to learn from you, must be mid life crisis or something. we are done here
We're done here, not because of my mid-life crisis (that was over when I was 40 - I am WAY BEYOND mid-life) ... we're done here because you were presented with links to non-biased medical orgs that prove you wrong. And you have no response now but to quit. Seeya.
Next time, try to adopt an "I'm okay / you're okay" kind of attitude and quit posting trolling "My Takes" trying to shore up your obvious inferiority complex. People can do what they want - this is a trivial issue - and your judgement is no more valid here than someone who disagrees with you.
Just be quiet and be a man of your word instead of talking more like you just did.
What "word" ... I have given you no word. You're the one that said we're done... why are commenting?
Why not write your own MyTake on this or something?
I would have my sons circumcised.
Is it because of the benefits or religious purposes?
Because of the health benefits.
what if they grow older and wished you hadn't done it?
Half of the world isn't circumcised and they are perfeclty normal. When a woman has a vaginal of labial infection, what do they do? go to the doctor and get medicine for it. Now consider the same for women, cut the labia off cause there is a slight chance it may infect in the future or whatever. There are no health benefits of having a part of a sexual organ being chopped off your body without your consent. THAT IS GENITAL MUTILATION and shouldn't ever be acceptable ESpecially for religious reasons. If men get ill, they get treatment just like women do.
Fun fact @mikemx55: Women do get a form of circumcision. It's usually to remove the sheath covering the clitoris and is ONLY used for medical reasons. I do agree with you, just wanted to tell you female circumcision exists. Just used for legit health reasons.
Your sons do not deserve such a curse.
Your sons do not deserve such unjust eternal torment. They will grow up, vengeful of your mutilitation without consent. And they shall not obey your commands.
You should let them decide for themselves when they're older.
Funny thing, I'm uncircumcised and I'm perfectly fine... But circumcised people are missing their foreskin, so they aren't exactly "fine" by an objective standard. Derp.
@cityboy773 actually female circumcision is typically used for "religious" reasons. Such as in places in africa, where they remove the entire clit to discourage women from having sex.
I don't agree with male circumcision, but female circumcision is a problem as well and is more brutal. It just doesn't occur in western society
The foreskin prevents more health issues than it causes. It's there for a reason.
@OrdinaryGentlman, to me that's like asking what if when my kids get older they wish I hadn't vaccinated them. This is for their health.
Suddenly on GAG everyone is an expert in medical procedures and male circumsision. 😂 My kids will be fine. Worry about your kids. I can tell by the responses you people are working off of 2% of the information. Comparing male circumstances to female genital mutilation? GTFO.
@SilenRose its really not, the fact is they can put on a condom. A condom negates nearly any and all risks of having sex. So regardless your sons are going to be wearing one... at least I hope for their sakes. If you plan on your boys being unintelligent then sure by all means snip em. A mans pleasure is taken away so he won't feel much, and you essentially rob him of an essential right to decide what he can do with his body. A shot is a terrible example, a shot is simply a prick in the arm and it is over, circumcision is genital mutilation. I still have to ask myself why I argue with some people on this subject over a child's body and their free will, but there is no use in filling a cup that is already full. I know I am certainly not going to change your view and neither is anyone else. But think about the fact that you kids will not have a decision over what you chose to do to their body for the rest of their life. Not that you are going to be a mother yet anyways.
A vaccine is a terrible example? Have you been ignoring the vaccine debate? The parents who refuse to vaccinate their children use the same type of argument you and the others use about "choice". I know the pro's and con's of circumcision and you are only focusing on the negative that will only happen if the Doctor makes a mistake. Obviously you are set in your opinion so I'm not trying to change yours either.
Have you been paying attention to it? The vaccine debate is another animal, and kids are being over vaccinated, if you read scientific American a majority of the time vaccines do not work and if you over vaccinate a child it simply creates a stronger virus. If you have bacteria with the 99.9% sanitizer, that surviving.1 percent of bacteria on your hand develops a resistance to what ever chemical was used... same thing with most vaccines... same thing with anti-viral pills with the fact that they are running out of ways to hold back a virus. When you inject Anti-whatever into the child's system they develop a weak immune system because it is not used to any conflict. But I understood you were one of those idiots who enjoys being force fed all these ridiculous notions so I shouldn't be surprised when you simply repeat what you are told. Anyways we are done here.
@RachelBrigs, You're thinking of something else, genital mutilation to be exact. I'm talking about clit hood removal. A type of "circumcise" but only used for medical purposes.
Why are we still mutilating perfectly healthy baby boys? Let's not forget evolution--if foreskins weren't beneficial, men wouldn't have them.
Most people who practice circumcision happen to not believe in evolution. :P
Yes, just like the appendix and wisdom teeth...
Wisdom teeth were very useful before dental hygiene, when people's teeth rotted and fell out by the time they reached maturity. And there is still speculation as to what purpose the appendix serves.
While being circumcised has never negatively affected my life in any way, shape, or form, I will not have part of my son's dick chopped off for no reason. Unless he is born with some kind of penile condition that requires circumcision to correct it, I will not have him circumcised.
Thats a nice choice, give him the option to do it later in life
Nice take, I approve.
Haha well you didn't really crush anything because eveyrone will still have their stuborn point of views but it was a good piece. Sad that we have to use satire in today's world to talk about anything remotely controversial to prevent people from getting offended/defensive.
i just have to laugh at all the people here who are saying that having a foreskin is unclean. you do realise that you can pull the foreskin all the way back to reveal the head, allowing us to wash properly.
I think it's terrible to cricumcise your kids.
Its bad an useless... makes no sense to cut off skin from a dudes penis. They man loses a lot of sensation because of it, plus morally they should have a say when it comes to their own body
Circumcisiin is stupid, there is no point to it. Its how we are born, why does man made religion play any part in a naural part of life
Sorry, i have turned off the autocorrect on my phone, its become annoying
It might have not been religious to begin with but for aesthetic appeal.
Maybe, but im not sure that any guy would just snip off the end of his skin like that withoit some high level of conviction to something.
I chose not to have my son circumcised. That's his decision to make when he's older.
That's great Amanda! Just shows how much you care about your son and you won't give in to societal pressure to do something you know is wrong.
Personal body freedom ftw
Same here
A real mother.
I don't think it was ever a fad in Europe, except in Britain.
huh? im British and as far as im aware its never been popular.
@TJ-Laser Good to know ^^ I thought all fads started by the upper class were quickly copied by everyone.
I read about 1/3 born before 1950 are circumcised.
i dont know about the older generations, but i can definitely say that its not popular now. I have never known anyone to be circumcised and i was in the army for 7 years which meant I've seen a lot of naked men lol.
@TJ-Laser I read the rapid decline since 1950 had on part to do with your health care not covering the costs for circumcision anymore. Oh, and I didn't know guys in the army checked their co-workers's bits out that closely lol
1/3 before 1950. You mean before the NHS.
It is completely wrong, to chop off part of someone elses body that serves a purpose.
Parents to be take note... If mine had circumcised me, i would hate them for it now.
It should only be done if it is medically necessary, you dont have the right to start shaping other peoples anatomy, it takes 10 seconds to wash in the shower, and for that i get much greater sexual feelings for life.
Is circumcision big in the US? Here in England almost no one is circumcised unless for a health or religious reason. Isn't this just another way for US doctors to charge more?
Yes, and I guess it's just considered the "norm." But it is changing. I remember when I actually found out about it, I was quite shocked. I thought all penises looked circumsized.
Unfortunately
I can't even believe this is still a hotly debated issue, how sick do you have to be to believe it's right to mutilate the genitals of someone who cannot give consent?
www.nhs.uk/.../Advantages-and-disadvantages.aspx
and
www.nhs.uk/.../Why-is-it-necessary.aspx
I think these articles are fair and balanced. It's not that big of a deal, as far as sensitivity is concerned, it's not that big of a difference, if any. Circumcised men enjoy sex and are just as stimulated during it as uncircumcised men are. Is circumcision medically necessary? Probably not. As for the "dicks being chopped" comment, that's a very juvenile way of describing it. Circumcision is a low risk procedure. Let's not obsess over nothing.
How could you know if they are just as stimulated plus nerves are in there and the reason for the foreskin is to protect your nerves, and act as a natural lubricant. I wouldn't go the route of being PC for pure fact, that is in fact quite juvenile to dis-wade the truth just to keep others feelings in tact.
How do you know how much of a loss they have then? Your just taking little facts and blowing them out of proportion. Dicks being chopped, sounds more like amputation rather than circumcision. Which is removal of the foreskin around the glans. There are pro's and cons, you are just stating the cons and calling it mutilation. Circumcision is also a treatment used for certain medical conditions. If you don't want to circumcise your kid that's fine, just don't sit here ranting about a minor medical procedure.
There are much more dangerous medical procedures that occur every day, with much higher rates of risk.
I am not ranting I am stating fact, you are the one controlled by emotion, and if you want to argue over terminology of weather a sarcastic comment was placed into the video do it on your own time. There is a slight decrease in transmission of HIV, nothing drastic. I will give you one thing you are right about, some medical conditions need something like that. But If I can't talk to you about facts because you get hurt over it why are we even talking.
It didn't come from the video, it came from your mytake. Plus your using a video from college humor. No one's hurt about it, I could care less if people choose to circumcise or they don't. Europe doesn't circumcise for the most part, USA, the Arab world, and Africa mostly do. The men in those countries are doing perfectly fine. It's not like female "circumcision" where the clitoris is removed entirely, and the vaginal opening stitched. Some forms of female circumcision are extreme, and cause life long complications. Male circumcision doesn't cause lifelong complications, in the majority of cases. Every surgery carries risk.
Not to mention they perform on those girls in a non-medical setting. Often times using a sharp stone or a knife.
How could YOU know what a circumcised guy feels? Natural lubricant? You mean the cheese that develops under the foreskin that's CHOCK FULL of bacteria? Yeah... I suppose that "lube" would be the only real benefit of that... if you can stand the smell and the increased risk of STD infection. If you have "lubricant" under there - you aren't clean bro. There's no magical "secretion" glands in there.
@Thor696 And you think every circumcised dick is unwashed like we live in the dark ages like I or anyone else cannot take a shower? Its funny you get so heated about this and resolve to cheap shots not based on really anything except dick cheese. And as for the WHO I was simply stating that they are sometimes wrong in the African study especially which if you followed my reference you would have found that a majority of scientists and medical professionals question it greatly. But you believe that since getting your foreskin chopped at birth you think there is a benefit? I am sorry for the stupidity and lack of knowledge you carry but we live in a day in age where people can clean and groom themselves. Where you can strap on a condom and prevent STD transmission 95% of the time. A circumcised penis can prevent HIV 60% of the time but only HIV... as we know there are far more STD's than just HIV. Since you pointed that earlier. So we arrive at the same conclusion
no need for circumcision.
Tell that to the World Health Organization. In Africa (ever been to Africa? Me? Many times - got back just a month ago) ... they are encouraging African men (and even newborns) to get circumcised in order to stem the epidemic of HIV there. For some reason (surprise!) the African men don't want to use condoms. They're trying to teach them to use condoms... they are also trying to teach them how to wash their dicks if they are uncircumcised. But they are also encouraging circumcision. I've been there and seen it. So to you... there may be no reason to do it... but to these internationally known medical experts (the same experts who eliminated smallpox) - there is. And that is not debatable. You can say "no reason" ... but how much weight do you think that really holds with people like me who have talked to these experts?
Oih this is like the third take I've seen on this today, folks it's a scientific fact that it's better health wise and the benefits outweigh the risks. But if you want to take on science be my guest.
But if its not needed why get it? Use a condom, regardless and avoid nearly any problems. It really only boils down to difference of parenting, some people want it to happen and some don't, case dismissed.
Some of the healthier aspects of it don't have anything to do with sex or needing a condom my friend.
I was gonna say otherwise you can simply wash yourself, not difficult, and takes an extra 10 seconds.
Well of course you can and should, but being healthier is being healthier and I won't complain in regards to any boost in that area. Honestly though I don't have a problem with it, it's really all up to personal preference men in general are no better off or worse regardless.
Do you think parents should make that choice though for their children?
I mean looking from an outside perspective.
It's within their right to do if that's what you mean I mean they did create the child after all.
That is true, thanks for weighing in on the 3rd circumcision take of the day
Lol no problem.
Now I'm gonna lay down and forget this day I've had more then my fair share of weenie's today.
@Phoenix98 I will second this opinion, I am never making something like this again, mistake and a half
Hahaha probably a wise decision.
What science?
All the science you have been spoon feed is deeply floored and backed by American health bodies who make good money out of this wicked form of child abuse. The figures they use are based on research done in south African 3 nation country's. With poor sanitation no sexual health education and no birth control i. e. condoms. With all this in mind it was spotted that some tribes who circumcised had much lower cases of diseases and infection rates. These people don't have enough water to drink litlle lone wash. You Americans don't look deep enough into the facts you are being spoon feed by whom and why? These figures have no bearing on countries like yours where people may shower twice or more a day are educated about personal hygiene and can get condoms as easy as sweets.
Actually even in most medical conditions which are reasons for circumcision there are possible ways around it which often can avoid circumcision itself.
I was just a case with having a too tight foreskin and the doctors wanted to circumcise me. My mother was like "hell fucking no" and so a different doctor explained that it can be - like any other skin - stretched over time. Said and done. Avoided an unnecessary procedure.
Exactly I have the same problem. But i am glad to have avoided the proceedure
Ooops. That was actually meant as a reply to @Bowchikawowow Whatever, its relevant all the same.
Oh I know, I'll make sure to explore all the alternatives before deciding anything. I view circumcision as the last resort rather than the only possible option.
@Bowchikawowow I am from Germany - unfortunately we missed the opportunity to ban circumcision altogether mainly due to jewish pressure (because of Germanys past). Still almost all european medical organisations say that the disadvantages of circumcision far outnumber the advantages and most say it is ethically questionable. For example the munich university-clinic (the second best in Germany) is not doing any circumcision altogether anymore, if it's not an absolute medical necessarity.
While I don't think you should circumcise at birth for the sake of doing it...
There is no black and white, "circumcision is bad" or "circumcision is good" argument. Taking a step back, you can observer there are benefits and disadvantages to each, and some aren't as big of a deal as people think.
The CDC did extensive research on the benefits and disadvantages of circumcision:
www.cdc.gov/.../...n_research_malecircumcision.pdf
To sum up, the benefits:
-Reduces risks of STD's, including HIV and HPV.
-Reduces risks of certain cancers in both men and the women they have sex with.
The downsides:
-Sexual pleasure MIGHT be negatively affected. However, out of the studies done there was no conclusive evidence. After circumcision, some reported worse pleasure, some reported better pleasure (seriously), however, MOST reported no change.
"Carcinogenic subtypes of human papillomavirus (HPV)—which are believed to cause 100% of cervical cancers, 90% of anal cancers, and 40% of cancers of the penis, vulva, and vagina [26]—have also been associated with lack of circumcision in men." It only reduces the risk when certain viruses are already contracted. Otherwise circumcision plays no part. But well put I like the way you stepped out and looked at this from an outside perspective.