To get this sub forum started, I'd like to throw out phrases I see in my own activism attempts and invite you all to provide your own insight.

This is one of the most ridiculous. I've learned that questions drive engagement:
How do women clean the same tissue that exists in the same environment?
You believe you needed surgery to clean yourself?
What equipment, substances, and/or time are required to clean while intact?

The problem with this argument (and don’t get angry) is that technically it is cleaner and more hygienic, and yes its easier to clean. They hear that, or they just have to imagine a foreskin and hear the stories about unclean ones and BOOM thats locked in and supported by common sense and anecdotal evidence.
But, the important details are not whether it is cleaner, but whether an intact one is that unhygienic that is warrant being cut. Yes it might be cleaner but a maintained foreskin is not that dirty or unhygienic in the first place and not difficult to. Wash.
So they are technically right on a shallow level which is why this reason is so pervasive.

Won't get mad. We need to play devil's advocate every time. That's how you strengthen your argument.

Shall we cut off eyelids to keep the eyes clean?

Or cut off the ears to make them easier to clean behind?

Is the c

 Is the circumcised penis more hygienic?

The answer is no, the foreskinned, intact penis is more hygienic.

Hygiene actually refers to health, not cleanliness.

The typical advice given to intact men found on the Internet and elsewhere is to fully retract their foreskin while taking a shower and to use soap and water to scrub away every trace of dirt and smegma. It does not consider medical science, the protective and immunological functions of the prepuce, and is totally wrong.

In the nineteenth century, medical doctors believed that the foreskin (used for masturbation) caused men to think immoral thoughts, which was then believed to cause brain injury! Feeblemindedness, masturbatory insanity, and other mental illness were thought to result from having a foreskin and using it for masturbation. When they spoke of “hygiene”, they did not mean physical cleanliness; they were thinking of mental hygiene.

The human foreskin evolved over a very long period at a time when humans did not have hot and cold running water. They lived in desert tents, caves, grass huts, igloos, and other places that lacked bathing facilities. The foreskin provided improved survival because of its health-giving qualities. Men with foreskins were more fit to survive because the foreskin prevented trauma and infection.

Fleiss et al. (1998) reported numerous immunological functions of the foreskin:

·         The preputial sphincter closes to keep out contaminants and pathogens.
·         Smegma provides oil and lubrication to protect the mucosa of the preputial sac.
·         Glans in the inner prepuce provide substances such as lysosomal enzymes, cathepsin B, chymotrypsin, and neutrophil elastase, which attack pathogens. Washing removes these protective substances.

One should also note that the prepuce is highly vascularized, so it provides lots of infection-fighting white blood cells.

Boys are born with the inner foreskin fused with the underlying glans penis. This is nature’s protection. No attempt should be made to retract a boy’s foreskin. Forcible retraction will cause injury and pain. Wright (1994) advised the foreskin of a boy should not be retracted until the boy does it for himself, which may not occur until the boy approaches puberty or ever later.

Birley et al. (1993) reported excessive washing and the use of soap has been found to cause balanoposthitis. Adult males should wash with warm water without soap before and after sex and as necessary to occasionally remove accumulated harmless smegma.
 
 
Is the circumcised penis more hygienic?

@Old-guy Excellent points! Note also that the very same "hygiene" claims are often made by advocates for FGM, in countries where that is commonly practiced. And they're sort of right in a sense that a body part that's bee amputated no longer has to be cleaned, not that any sane person would ever consider it in any other context. Cutting off toes would certainly cut down on prevalence of athlete's foot, right?

@Old-guy Excellent points!  Note also that the very same "hygiene" claims are often made by advocates for FGM, in countries where that is commonly practiced.  And they're sort of right in a sense that a body part that's bee amputated no longer has to be cleaned, not that any sane person would ever consider it in any other context.  Cutting off toes would certainly cut down on prevalence of athlete's foot, right?

Circumcision actually increases the risk of disease. The foreskin creates a protective envelope for the penis that protects the penis and the urethra from contaminants and pathogens. It has infection-fighting functions, so when it is removed risk of infection increases.

Moreover, infant circumcision creates an open wound subject to infection inside a feces-laden diaper.

Sterile urine flowing out through the acroposthion keeps the foreskin flushed out so no additional cleaning is necessary of infant boys.

Fendereski et al. (2024) reported that circumcised boys have three times as many penis complaints in the first five years of life when compared with intact boys.

The only beneficiary of child circumcision is the bank account of the physician who does the surgical amputation.