hence England's reputation for poor hygiene.

the majority of the entire world, actually not just jolly ol England

Yes! finally someone who actually shares the same view as me! English girls do not like circumcised dick!!

I only thought it was Jewish people and people with medicinal reasons that were circumcised. Why would you intentionally have it removed (for no reason) otherwise?

you guys are retarded circumcised is da shot who wants to hav all that skin anyways. and since "English girls don't like circumcised dick" they can go eat a fat floppy dirty unhygienic dick! see how u like it

not to snipe the topic, but #54 you sound like an Idiot. I would rather be an "ignorant American" than a hate-spewing, stereotyping @$$hole. You sound no better than the people you are judging. The fact of the matter is this wouldn't have happened if 1) he would have used proper hygiene OR 2) if he would have been circumcised.

Suppressed - there is a wealth of medical literature that shows that the infection rate among circumcised males is less than their noncircumcised counterparts. Not only that, but two of the major risks for penile cancer are phimosis (which OP most likely has) and smegma, which is a collection of debris under the foreskin. Circumcised men by definition can have neither of these, so their risk of penile cancer is significantly decreased.

I hope you realize how ignorant your own Comment was. That intact, you stooped below those you are trying to be assholes to. Oh and by the way, most places (advanced, and not ass backwards) practice circumcision for the reasons listed above. If you want dick infections and cancer, enjoy, us "ignorant Americans" have enough fat issues that we don't need part of our dicks amputated. So enjoy that.

Nope there ain't. Evidence for both sides, most likely people are referring to the study conducted in African that was flawed on many levels. No leading medical organization has sided on a perspective. Besides, awful idea trying to propose such an idea as protection against STDs. Circumcision is also risky as complications can and do arise. As far as relation to prevalence of UTIs on the other hand, I'm not too sure. As for how a cancer can be tied into a matter of a flap of skin, I have no idea where that came from.

I never said STD or UTI, I said infection. The glans (head of the penis) can get infected from smegma. Chronic irritation of the glans from smegma can increase the risk of penile cancer. No smegma, no increased risk. Of course, meticulous hygiene will do the same thing. I'm not pulling this info out of my ass. I'm a surgeon, and I perform circumcisions. Complications are exceedingly rare. But phimosis is a real problem, as OP found out the hard way (pun intended).

Wow, a way of reducing the risk of penile cancer -- truly a scourge that kills millions of people. Oh, wait, it doesn't. What an ass-backwards justification for such a barbarism. You know, breast cancer kills a whole lot of women, but nobody proposes cutting the nipples off baby girls to prevent that.

probably would have got it when I was 9... I had sucky friends.

I think the OP still has the bit of connector skin that connects the foreskin and penis head. In which case, pulling the foreskin back to piss would ******* hurt (it would cut into the head.).

Ok, I'm a girl and that made me wince. Ow.

85 same here