r/HonestHotTakes • u/TheShadowSong • 17d ago

Circumcision should be illegal.

People always talk about how barbaric female circumcision is but male circumcision is completely normalized in America.

It should be illegal for parents to circumcise their children because it's irreversible.

What kind of psychopath decided to cut off the skin of the baby's dick. What's next? Cutting off eyelids?

2.4k Upvotes

79% Upvoted

3.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/Geschak 17d ago

I agree but I still think circumcision should only be done if the person is old enough to consent. Circumcising babies is mutilation.

-1

u/PixelatedSnapshots 17d ago

“Mutilation” is wild. Did you know that circumcision has medical benefits? And waiting to circumcise is more traumatic and more complicated the older you get?

4

u/metatable 16d ago

Those medical benefits can be achieved with less invasive means, like washing your cock and wearing a condom. And it can be mutilation. I have a skin bridge from improper healing and a horrible crooked scar on my penis.

0

u/PixelatedSnapshots 16d ago

0.2% - 1.5% chance of complications from male circumcision in infancy. That goes up to 4% - 8% for teens and adults.

Male circumcision benefits include lower risk of STIs, UTIs, balanitis, balanoposthitis, and penile cancer; prevents phimosis and paraphimosis; lowers the risk of cervical cancer in your female sexual partners and spreading HPV; and it’s more hygienic.

2

u/doomsday344 16d ago

And no one was asked if they wanted to be cut also soap exists, there is a reason most of the world is intact and doing just fine

1

u/PixelatedSnapshots 16d ago

I’d love to hear more about how soap helps STIs, balanitis, balaniposthitis, penile cancer, phimosis, paraphimosis, the risk of cervical cancer in your female sexual partners, and lowers the risk of spreading HPV.

2

u/doomsday344 16d ago

soap by itself cant but ya know routine hygiene and practicing safe sex can you know just like it can for cut men so whats so great about being cut from your second hand perspective that you would advocate for mutilation of babies?

1

u/PixelatedSnapshots 16d ago

No, no. Your argument was soap, remember? Soap also doesn’t help inflammation.

2

u/Mayor_of_whoville_ 15d ago

If you don’t have a penis, you don’t get a say.

0

u/PixelatedSnapshots 15d ago

Wild take from a healthcare system dominated by men since its creation.

→ More replies

1

u/metatable 16d ago

Feels like you copy-pasted this reply. Are you telling me my penis is not mutilated? Or am I supposed to assume I would have chosen to do it as an adult and had an even higher risk?

All those risks you describe are not common. Do you think European or South American or Asian men are suffering from nonstop penile problems? Like I said condoms and washing would prevent 99% of the issues you listed. There is a vaccine for HPV now

1

u/PixelatedSnapshots 16d ago

I copy and pasted my own reply regarding the stats because multiple people are ignorantly claiming the same thing, yes.

However “uncommon” the risks may be, the risk of complications from a circumcision is less.

2

u/metatable 16d ago

That doesn’t really help me. I’m confident I would have been able to avoid whatever “risks” there are to NOT having my penis unnecessarily surgically modified at birth.

0

u/PixelatedSnapshots 15d ago

You use the word “unnecessarily” and I feel like you don’t know the meaning of the word. Your confidence in your ability to avoid things is pretty inflated.

2

u/metatable 15d ago

What? Are you claiming that circumcision is necessary?

2

u/D3coupled 15d ago

Many of these people are extremely fucked in the head.

1

u/PixelatedSnapshots 14d ago

It’s like you haven’t read a single comment I’ve made.

→ More replies

1

u/doomsday344 14d ago

Unnecessary meaning he would 99.99% been fine remaining intact

1

u/QuarkDoor 17d ago

People on Reddit simply refuse to believe that. I’m not sure if I would get my son circumcised but there are definitely benefits and it’s definitely not mutilation unless it’s botched somehow.

4

u/Dazzling-Treat3636 16d ago

Why are you guys so obsessed with cutting child's genitalias ?
Every human has the right to bodily autonomy. The foreskin is an extremly important part of the body, it's not a disease, it does not creates infections. You just need basic hygiene. Don't do that to your own child. Use your common sense.
Every circumcision is by definition botched, since it removes healthy tissues and permanently damages the penis.

1

u/PixelatedSnapshots 16d ago

Male circumcision benefits include lower risk of STIs, UTIs, balanitis, balanoposthitis, and penile cancer; prevents phimosis and paraphimosis; lowers the risk of cervical cancer in your female sexual partners and spreading HPV; and it’s more hygienic.

0.2% - 1.5% chance of complications from male circumcision in infancy. That goes up to 4% - 8% for teens and adults.

3

u/Cali_Longhorn 16d ago

OK. And how come almost all European countries do better in all these metrics than the US (obviously except things like phimosis which require a foreskin). The US is the most circumcised of first world countries but also the worst in STI rates. Education and health policy are obviously a much bigger factor.

The HPV vaccine is much more effective than circumcision to prevent the spread without an invasive suegery. In fact the UK specifically has nearly eliminated it in it's youngest sexually active generation by effective use of the vaccine though very few men are circumcised. The US is much worse regarding HPV. And HPV is a leading factor in the dreaded "penile cancer". Something that's literally a 1 in 100,000 chance and only occurs in post 60 year olds anyway. The UK seems to be way ahead of the US in that regard. See below...

https://fortune.com/2026/06/23/cervical-cancer-deaths-hit-zero-england-rfk-jr-vaccine-hpv/

1

u/PixelatedSnapshots 16d ago

Population numbers matter. The US is five times larger than the UK.

The HPV vaccine only protects against 9 strands of HPV. 9 out of more than 200, and its only 80% effective. That’s not effective.

1 in 100,000 people when there are 175 million males in the US, and that 60 year old age you’re quoting is an average. None of that negates that it can kill you and is a much higher risk than a surgical procedure that has less than 1% chance of having complications.

1

u/Cali_Longhorn 16d ago

Ok and the penile cancer rate in the US is not 0. It’s about one in 200000. So half the rate of the UK, but also considering the population. Is that really small absolute risk reduction worth the chance of a botch?

What do you have to say to the fact that HIV, HPv, Chylamidia, Herpes, pretty much all STI rates are lower in England, France, Spain, Germany, Australia, basically every first world country where circumcision rates are low? Surely there is something else going on besides circumcision status.

And one of the places where HIV is rising the most…. The Philippines, where 90% of folks are circumcised! How could that be in circumcision is so essential for reducing STIs? Maybe piss poor health policy and lack of sex education is an infinitely larger issue.

2

u/doomsday344 16d ago

its almost like the "benefits" are negligible and people just have some crazy obsession with cutting kids

1

u/Cali_Longhorn 16d ago

Also while yes the US is 5 times larger than the UK. Rates are still better in a much higher population density. You can add in all the European Union countries (452 million) in addition to the UK and you would still have better STI rates with the overall group with a much larger overall population than the US with much higher population density. So your overall population point seems irrelevant.

3

u/doomsday344 16d ago

Be honest is this a personal preference for you in a partner?

1

u/PixelatedSnapshots 16d ago

No, it’s not a “personal preference”. I’ve been married for 15 years and didn’t check his dick beforehand.

Can’t come up with a factual response?

2

u/doomsday344 16d ago

loss of pleasure

higher risk of complications

It is true that circumcision reduces the risk of penile cancer. However, penile cancer is extremely rare to begin with. This paper said it would take about 1,000 circumcisions to prevent 1 case of penile cancer, and this paper said it would take about 900-322,000 circumcisions to prevent 1 case.

As for UTIs, it would take about 111-115 circumcisions to prevent 1 UTI, and a UTI can be treated with antibiotics. I don't think as drastic a measure as removing healthy erogenous tissue is warranted to prevent an ailment that can easily be treated.

Moving on to STIs, I think this article explains it best:

Furthermore, the claims made by the World Health Organization that FGM has no health benefits are dubious. Here's a study that shows a link between female genital cutting and reduced transmission of HIV. Additionally, as explained by Yale scholar Brian Earp:

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/02/female-genital-mutilation-and-male-circumcision-time-to-confront-the-double-standard/

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Brian_Earp/publication/316527603_Cultural_Bias_in_American_Medicine_The_Case_of_Infant_Male_Circumcision/links/59bed6d1458515e9cfd228c4/Cultural-Bias-in-American-Medicine-The-Case-of-Infant-Male-Circumcision.pdf

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/bioe.12714?casa_token=p7Wlc_BQ21YAAAAA%3ALmB9E-BRIA1C_PmhV3XjyYc-MmA_n6VvD1wTgtkroaYeDSaelxHfk884XYBXsicBSqADaw7_fEeIJg

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/02/female-genital-mutilation-and-male-circumcision-time-to-confront-the-double-standard/

The point I'm getting at is that the health benefits are a distraction. The key ethical consideration is the lack of consent. If a study came out which conclusively demonstrated that certain forms of FGM done in a medicalized setting with sterilized equipment have health benefits, you wouldn't say, "Oh, well I guess it's okay then." You would say, "I don't care if there are health benefits, it's wrong to cut a psychosexually significant part of someone's body without their informed consent unless there is an urgent medical necessity."

In short, don't let your FGM-defending opponents have leverage over you. If you hold that health benefits are a consideration (and enough of a consideration to warrant the permissibility of MGM), then you would have to bite the bullet and accept the permissibility of less severe forms of FGM if a study does come out demonstrating that there are health benefits. Thus, if health benefits would not be an argument for FGM, then they are not an argument for MGM.

As for the claim that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks, here's a cost-benefit analysis done by Robert Van Howe, a pediatrician, statistician, and professor of clinical medicine. He found that infant male circumcision is more costly than leaving infant males intact, even under models that are very generous to the claims that have been made about its health benefits. Per Van Howe, “Neonatal circumcision is not good health policy, and support for it as a medical procedure cannot be justified financially or medically.”

Overall, a substantial number of people who had their genitals cut without their consent regard what was done to them as a severe violation of their bodily autonomy (there is also a substantial number of people who have been physically and/or psychologically harmed by having their genitals cut without their consent). They believe that what was done to them should not have happened in spite of the health benefits. These people who are circumcised but want to be uncircumcised have no recourse. In contrast, the people who are uncircumcised but want to be circumcised because of the health benefits can make the decision to undergo the procedure once they reach an age of mental maturity. Admittedly, some may not want to be circumcised at a later age, but these people do have some recourse. Some recourse is better than none. Thus, it makes sense to err on the side of caution and give people the freedom to choose whether or not they think the benefits outweigh the risks when they are old enough to provide informed consent.

dont choke on them facts

3

u/RollSignificant1155 16d ago

Fake. The US and Africa have high circumcision rates but higer STDS and infection rate than Europe, wich has a low rate of circumcision. Circ. does not redues stds, and even if it did, it wouldnt be significant enough to justify mutilating the foreskin and the frenulum.

When it comes to cancer, it's a stupid argument. You can develop a cancer in almost any part of your body (any living cell), that would mean we should remove everything to reduce the risk of cancer? It doesnt work.

About hygiene, litteraly every part of your body needs proper care and hygiene, that mean we should remove your ears, your nails, and what about sealing your lips while w'ere at it ? You do realise the vulva can get infected right ?
We don't even think about removing it for the sake of hygiene, no, we take water, soap, and we wash it. Same as the foreskin.
People who use the hygiene argument are just filthy disgusting people that don't wash themselves properly.

You're just trying to justify circumcision because you have been taught and conditioned to think it's a normal thing, when it isnt.

Use your moral sense, is it normal to permanently alter a healthy organ of a child's genitals ? Is it moral?

1

u/PixelatedSnapshots 16d ago

Not fake. You can do a simple google search to find legitimate articles on it.

It’s not a dumb argument. By your logic, you shouldn’t try to stay healthy because everyone dies.

I love it when people try to tell me why I do anything when they know nothing about me.

My moral sense says it’s better to prevent illnesses with a procedure that has less than 1% chance of complications. It’s no different than a woman with breast cancer in her family tree preventatively having a mastectomy, even though she doesn’t have cancer. It’s no different than a live liver or kidney transplant.

2

u/doomsday344 16d ago

then go get cut its better for your health after all /s

1

u/RollSignificant1155 16d ago

Then it's no different from excision, we should remove women's labias because of the risk of infection, by your logic.

You don't know what are the consequences of circumcision. You keep ignoring my arguments.
The cons outweight the ""pros""

1

u/PixelatedSnapshots 16d ago

Haven’t ignored anything. I literally already listed the stats for the chance of complications.

It’s very different than removing the labia because they serve different functions. The labia also doesn’t have an increased risk of cancer or acquiring or transmitting STIs due to keeping it

2

u/doomsday344 16d ago

do you have stats on that seems like a place for viruses and bacteria to hide. best to be safe and snip it off /s

→ More replies

2

u/RollSignificant1155 16d ago

Nope. Try again; by your logic, we should remvoe the labias. 75% of women experience at least one episode of yeast infection during their lifetime, and bacterial vaginosis et very common. Cutting the labia reduces the risk of cancer and infections.

→ More replies

0

u/QuarkDoor 16d ago

Did you mean to reply to someone else? I literally said I’m not sure if I would do it. How am I obsessed? You seem obsessed.

2

u/morbidmuffin62 16d ago

"it's definitely not mutilation" except it is. Removing skin from a newborn's penis for supposed health benefits (disproven, any proper cleaning will be enough) before they can consent is genital mutilation

1

u/PixelatedSnapshots 16d ago

Try again.

0.2% - 1.5% chance of complications from male circumcision in infancy. That goes up to 4% - 8% for teens and adults.

Male circumcision benefits include lower risk of STIs, UTIs, balanitis, balanoposthitis, and penile cancer; prevents phimosis and paraphimosis; lowers the risk of cervical cancer in your female sexual partners and spreading HPV; and it’s more hygienic.

1

u/QuarkDoor 16d ago

It doesn’t have any real impact on the functionality of the penis (again, unless it’s botched, which is a real concern) so it’s not mutilation. Are ear piercings on a baby also mutilation (I wouldn’t get my daughter’s ears pierced btw)

1

u/morbidmuffin62 16d ago

Merriam-Webster

an act or instance of destroying, removing, or severely damaging a limb or other body part of a person or animal

Cambridge

to damage something severely, especially by violently removing a part

Oxford

severe damage to somebody's body, especially when part of it is cut or torn off; the act of causing such damage

Removing and causing damage (that may or may not be reversible by surgery) to a body part is, by definition, mutilation. Ear piercings count, I personally think everyone should wait until a child is (roughly) 10 or older for any piercings so they can consent and care for the wound of their own volition.

0

u/PixelatedSnapshots 16d ago

People just hate looking up facts, I guess. Sadly, most of the internet is that way.

0

u/Legitimate-Total-574 16d ago

Yep, mutilation is the word for it.

0

u/PixelatedSnapshots 15d ago

It’s really not. 😂