<![CDATA[Circumcised.com - Debunked]]> https://circumcised.com/ Mon, 14 Sep 2026 01:35:25 +0000 MyBB <![CDATA[A Chat ( or Debate ) with Google's AI ( who is kinda pro-circumcision ) on the topic]]> https://circumcised.com/Thread-A-Chat-or-Debate-with-Google-s-AI-who-is-kinda-pro-circumcision-on-the-topic Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:29:53 +0000 FishyFirefly]]> https://circumcised.com/Thread-A-Chat-or-Debate-with-Google-s-AI-who-is-kinda-pro-circumcision-on-the-topic
1) Some Fake Facts - Some things that I found very much alarming that the prevalence of fake facts and trying to debunk the real facts is such a normal thing for the AI about Circumcision, the AI at first says "There is no difference in sexual pleasure" , but then I debunk it, and it says "Some people experience difference in sexual pleasure". Most cultures around the world do MGM before the child's first org@sm ( after puberty ) , they never feel what real pleasure is, those who are cut after their first org@sm usually do say they feel reduced pleasure, and many do feel more pleasure by restoring foreskin someday. Now Placebo can work up, but once again, assuming there is no reduction in pleasure ( atleast in the first moment of the chat ) is a wrong idea.
2) The FGM Comparison trigger : Supposedly the AI was openly telling the benefits of MGM and then it should be done on males to prevent those diseases , I then asked AI that 'What if for disease prevention or for health benefits on females, we remove those specific parts from female genitals which can harbour them, it would be good overall isn't it ?" , once again, I'm not supporting FGM, but if some Female Circumcision ( or a certain form of it ) had health benefits, will it be practiced? To this the AI obviously said " It will be FGM which is illegal in most parts of the world " , we all know Male Genitals and Female Genitals evolve from the same "base" form ( dont know the actual terms ) and hence they are very similar. The clitoral hood's inner skin is similar to foreskin's inner skin and has very high amount of cells which promote immunological growth and also catches diseases ( such as UTIs ) as they are resource rich and moist, and also the initial part of the vaginal tissue also is prone to STDs, so logically removing them is a health benefit, it prevents logically headaches of these infections such as UTIs which are much more prone in women. But even for health benefits, the world has a different views, they view this practice as cruel as its done without consent to women, and hence feminists movements strongly demand against it , and since feminism is well heard, the practice of these type of FGMs are under heavy scrutiny, and I honestly praise this move, cause gives us an idea/a plan, MGM is an issue for male rights, where a male child doesn't have bodily autonomy to permanent changes of its body because we label them legal due to those some "health benefits" (which are actually not true in some senses tho obv), but the pressure should be the PAIN, the DISCOMFORT, the COMPLICATIONS, the CONTROL over ONE'S BODY PART BEING TAKEN AWAY, CURBING MALE SEXUALITY and all these things even with the Anesthesia or so called 'MEDICAL PROCEDURES & GUIDELINES" don't make this procedure any good, it still remains a barbaric and painful way to torture childrens. One wise person once told me that Anything made by nature is normally in its best condition ( in your body ), any external hindrance can never make it better than its original state if not destroy it in most cases. Circumcision should not be a routine thing, it openly destroys a normal natural and healthy penis into a worsened one, with the risks and complications, even if there are benefits, we are not interested in it, let the child make a decision instead, and no child would prefer cutting it naturally unless they are brainwashed by society. Human evolution is there for a reason. And these points are very strong, they fall under Human Rights especially, and the right to Bodily Autonomy, the rest of the world lives care-free with an intact one, not regularly suffering with UTIs or HIVs or Penile Cancer which the Anti-Intactivists assume, the Benefits are just a cover, real reason is that they are stubborn and don't wanna change unless a large revolution, similar to anti-FGM one takes place.
Although this was at first an assumption, that what if the scenario is similar except a girl child is here instead of a boy, and the AI's reaction was a proof that system is definitely going wrong, although some sources ( not credible enough tho ) say that the Clitoral Hood can harbour infections and stuff. Source - www.reddit.com/r/Intactivisits/comments/1rqarxh/comment/o9qyqjd/ ( not a reliable source tho ) , but I think more reliable sources might be there on the internet, gotta find it ig.
3) The Analytical Breach : When I told the AI that there are studies that show no increase or decrease in HIV and STDs, infact Frisch et al. (2022) found higher STD rates for cut men, the AI said "Its because they assume that the circumcision provides protection and that's why they try to engage in more sexual activity and cause more STDs" , but isn't the purpose of the study ( i.e. trying to prove that HIV decreases on cutting ) not usually told to the people? even if its told, but it is in those cases where any such study has not been prominently done previously, in cases of circumcision, the studies have been done for a century rn, you usually don't tell the fact that " HIVs are reduced by cutting " or else it can become biased, people may do more actually, still, even if we dodge this point, another thing, that the WHO VMMC ( Voluntary Male Circumcision Program ) in Africa use the study of Africans where a reduction of 50-60% HIV, HPV and Syphillis was seen, but this is the analytical breach, it was a RELATIVE REDUCTION, that means, the difference of 50-60% can be small, like 10 men from cut and 25 men from uncut from a pool of 300 or 500 or 700 men potentially, or even more, the real datas are not shown tho ig. Plus there are factors such as reduced sensations and smoothness of glans which demotivates people to have sex also. So the thing is that they are using a form of data that is in itself is insufficient or showing it in a biased way, while calling other datas wrong. In other words, the AI is biased towards cutting favour, and yet, it doesn't justify or pass the point number 2, plus STDs can only take place if you can become hard and be able to do sex, which is not possible until you hit puberty.
In my opinion, If you want your penis cut as an adult, you can go ahead if you want, but imposing something on another person, who cannot speak, or who is not well informed, plus its a procedure painful and violent enough that its female counterpart was stopped even if some support for so called benefits seem to arise, people have already chosen their bodily autonomy over these so called benefits once. Intactivists will win, because naturally, any child/person who is not brainwashed by society, internet or bullies will choose not to cut their jewels, as they are their own and are very precious to them, and they do not want as well as justify any form of removal, especially these organs are used to born a new child into the world.
You can also think this way that an intact infant is taken to a country where Circumcision is very rare, he will grow up realizing he never needed a cut, and he will actually end up thinking a barbaric practice. Plus it also takes money
And overall due to this realization the world is transitioning to less being cut, which is a good sign. Many circumcising countries are now uncut, for some there are people such as Dr. Douglas who wrote a book against it and trying to stop it in UK. And countries like Australia and New Zealand, it naturally stopped after generations. Countries like America and South Korea where religiously/culturally/historically no cutting was done. Circumcision will also drop below 10%, slowly but someday for sure. Anything you wanna point out my fellow Intactivist friends ?]]>
1) Some Fake Facts - Some things that I found very much alarming that the prevalence of fake facts and trying to debunk the real facts is such a normal thing for the AI about Circumcision, the AI at first says "There is no difference in sexual pleasure" , but then I debunk it, and it says "Some people experience difference in sexual pleasure". Most cultures around the world do MGM before the child's first org@sm ( after puberty ) , they never feel what real pleasure is, those who are cut after their first org@sm usually do say they feel reduced pleasure, and many do feel more pleasure by restoring foreskin someday. Now Placebo can work up, but once again, assuming there is no reduction in pleasure ( atleast in the first moment of the chat ) is a wrong idea.
2) The FGM Comparison trigger : Supposedly the AI was openly telling the benefits of MGM and then it should be done on males to prevent those diseases , I then asked AI that 'What if for disease prevention or for health benefits on females, we remove those specific parts from female genitals which can harbour them, it would be good overall isn't it ?" , once again, I'm not supporting FGM, but if some Female Circumcision ( or a certain form of it ) had health benefits, will it be practiced? To this the AI obviously said " It will be FGM which is illegal in most parts of the world " , we all know Male Genitals and Female Genitals evolve from the same "base" form ( dont know the actual terms ) and hence they are very similar. The clitoral hood's inner skin is similar to foreskin's inner skin and has very high amount of cells which promote immunological growth and also catches diseases ( such as UTIs ) as they are resource rich and moist, and also the initial part of the vaginal tissue also is prone to STDs, so logically removing them is a health benefit, it prevents logically headaches of these infections such as UTIs which are much more prone in women. But even for health benefits, the world has a different views, they view this practice as cruel as its done without consent to women, and hence feminists movements strongly demand against it , and since feminism is well heard, the practice of these type of FGMs are under heavy scrutiny, and I honestly praise this move, cause gives us an idea/a plan, MGM is an issue for male rights, where a male child doesn't have bodily autonomy to permanent changes of its body because we label them legal due to those some "health benefits" (which are actually not true in some senses tho obv), but the pressure should be the PAIN, the DISCOMFORT, the COMPLICATIONS, the CONTROL over ONE'S BODY PART BEING TAKEN AWAY, CURBING MALE SEXUALITY and all these things even with the Anesthesia or so called 'MEDICAL PROCEDURES & GUIDELINES" don't make this procedure any good, it still remains a barbaric and painful way to torture childrens. One wise person once told me that Anything made by nature is normally in its best condition ( in your body ), any external hindrance can never make it better than its original state if not destroy it in most cases. Circumcision should not be a routine thing, it openly destroys a normal natural and healthy penis into a worsened one, with the risks and complications, even if there are benefits, we are not interested in it, let the child make a decision instead, and no child would prefer cutting it naturally unless they are brainwashed by society. Human evolution is there for a reason. And these points are very strong, they fall under Human Rights especially, and the right to Bodily Autonomy, the rest of the world lives care-free with an intact one, not regularly suffering with UTIs or HIVs or Penile Cancer which the Anti-Intactivists assume, the Benefits are just a cover, real reason is that they are stubborn and don't wanna change unless a large revolution, similar to anti-FGM one takes place.
Although this was at first an assumption, that what if the scenario is similar except a girl child is here instead of a boy, and the AI's reaction was a proof that system is definitely going wrong, although some sources ( not credible enough tho ) say that the Clitoral Hood can harbour infections and stuff. Source - www.reddit.com/r/Intactivisits/comments/1rqarxh/comment/o9qyqjd/ ( not a reliable source tho ) , but I think more reliable sources might be there on the internet, gotta find it ig.
3) The Analytical Breach : When I told the AI that there are studies that show no increase or decrease in HIV and STDs, infact Frisch et al. (2022) found higher STD rates for cut men, the AI said "Its because they assume that the circumcision provides protection and that's why they try to engage in more sexual activity and cause more STDs" , but isn't the purpose of the study ( i.e. trying to prove that HIV decreases on cutting ) not usually told to the people? even if its told, but it is in those cases where any such study has not been prominently done previously, in cases of circumcision, the studies have been done for a century rn, you usually don't tell the fact that " HIVs are reduced by cutting " or else it can become biased, people may do more actually, still, even if we dodge this point, another thing, that the WHO VMMC ( Voluntary Male Circumcision Program ) in Africa use the study of Africans where a reduction of 50-60% HIV, HPV and Syphillis was seen, but this is the analytical breach, it was a RELATIVE REDUCTION, that means, the difference of 50-60% can be small, like 10 men from cut and 25 men from uncut from a pool of 300 or 500 or 700 men potentially, or even more, the real datas are not shown tho ig. Plus there are factors such as reduced sensations and smoothness of glans which demotivates people to have sex also. So the thing is that they are using a form of data that is in itself is insufficient or showing it in a biased way, while calling other datas wrong. In other words, the AI is biased towards cutting favour, and yet, it doesn't justify or pass the point number 2, plus STDs can only take place if you can become hard and be able to do sex, which is not possible until you hit puberty.
In my opinion, If you want your penis cut as an adult, you can go ahead if you want, but imposing something on another person, who cannot speak, or who is not well informed, plus its a procedure painful and violent enough that its female counterpart was stopped even if some support for so called benefits seem to arise, people have already chosen their bodily autonomy over these so called benefits once. Intactivists will win, because naturally, any child/person who is not brainwashed by society, internet or bullies will choose not to cut their jewels, as they are their own and are very precious to them, and they do not want as well as justify any form of removal, especially these organs are used to born a new child into the world.
You can also think this way that an intact infant is taken to a country where Circumcision is very rare, he will grow up realizing he never needed a cut, and he will actually end up thinking a barbaric practice. Plus it also takes money
And overall due to this realization the world is transitioning to less being cut, which is a good sign. Many circumcising countries are now uncut, for some there are people such as Dr. Douglas who wrote a book against it and trying to stop it in UK. And countries like Australia and New Zealand, it naturally stopped after generations. Countries like America and South Korea where religiously/culturally/historically no cutting was done. Circumcision will also drop below 10%, slowly but someday for sure. Anything you wanna point out my fellow Intactivist friends ?]]> <![CDATA[What about smegma?]]> https://circumcised.com/Thread-What-about-smegma Thu, 18 Jun 2026 00:14:47 +0000 Old-guy]]> https://circumcised.com/Thread-What-about-smegma
Since most American men have been circumcised for several generations, they lack a foreskin and preputial sac and do not accumulate smegma, so they know little about it. In the absence of any actual experience, many Americans have come to believe myths about how gross, smelly, nasty, unsightly, and generally horrible smegma is alleged to be.

In reality, smegma is normal, natural, harmless, and beneficial. It is beneficial because the oil in the smegma contributes to the health of the mucosa that covers the glans penis and the inside of the foreskin. 

Circumcised men cannot enjoy the benefit of smegma because they lack a preputial sac to collect the smegma, but restored men have a preputial sac and can collect beneficial smegma.

Smegma does not hurt or itch. It may harmlessly remain in the preputial sac under the foreskin for extended periods of time. Humans evolved over a million years as did the foreskin and its health-giving functions. They did not have showers with hot and cold running water. They lived with smegma to bathe their glans penis in beneficial skin oil.

If left undisturbed for a long period of time, smegma may harden and become difficult to remove. In such cases, the smegma may be soaked with vegetable oil to soften it for removal.

When smegma is not removed for a very long time, bacteria may grow in the smegma and cause it to become smelly. It may easily be washed away with warm water.

Birley et al. (1993) recommended not using soap and restricting washing to prevent balanitis.

There is much false information on the Internet. It is falsely claimed that foreskinned men must retract their foreskin every day and use soap and water to wash away every but of smegma. This is very bad advice because soap removes every bit of healthy, beneficial skin oil. It fails to recognize the immunologic physiologic functions of the foreskin.

Circumcised men who have restored their foreskin will accumulate smegma in their preputial sac in the same manner as do intact men.]]>
Since most American men have been circumcised for several generations, they lack a foreskin and preputial sac and do not accumulate smegma, so they know little about it. In the absence of any actual experience, many Americans have come to believe myths about how gross, smelly, nasty, unsightly, and generally horrible smegma is alleged to be.

In reality, smegma is normal, natural, harmless, and beneficial. It is beneficial because the oil in the smegma contributes to the health of the mucosa that covers the glans penis and the inside of the foreskin. 

Circumcised men cannot enjoy the benefit of smegma because they lack a preputial sac to collect the smegma, but restored men have a preputial sac and can collect beneficial smegma.

Smegma does not hurt or itch. It may harmlessly remain in the preputial sac under the foreskin for extended periods of time. Humans evolved over a million years as did the foreskin and its health-giving functions. They did not have showers with hot and cold running water. They lived with smegma to bathe their glans penis in beneficial skin oil.

If left undisturbed for a long period of time, smegma may harden and become difficult to remove. In such cases, the smegma may be soaked with vegetable oil to soften it for removal.

When smegma is not removed for a very long time, bacteria may grow in the smegma and cause it to become smelly. It may easily be washed away with warm water.

Birley et al. (1993) recommended not using soap and restricting washing to prevent balanitis.

There is much false information on the Internet. It is falsely claimed that foreskinned men must retract their foreskin every day and use soap and water to wash away every but of smegma. This is very bad advice because soap removes every bit of healthy, beneficial skin oil. It fails to recognize the immunologic physiologic functions of the foreskin.

Circumcised men who have restored their foreskin will accumulate smegma in their preputial sac in the same manner as do intact men.]]> <![CDATA[Religious Liberty does not favor Infant Circumcision]]> https://circumcised.com/Thread-Religious-Liberty-does-not-favor-Infant-Circumcision Thu, 04 Jun 2026 22:05:17 +0000 random_dude]]> https://circumcised.com/Thread-Religious-Liberty-does-not-favor-Infant-Circumcision Religious liberty is often used as an argument for infant circumcision. Let me present an opposite view.

I believe my body is a very good thing. I believe that my sexual desires, including my desire for wholeness, and my desire for all the sensations that accompany a foreskin retracting over the glans, are a very good thing. I believe my body, including my foreskin, was literally made in the image of God, who has a perfected physical body. I believe that I intentionally chose to come to earth to receive a body because I knew that it would bring me closer to God. I believe that sometime after I die, I will be resurrected in a perfected, physical body—with a foreskin—and that I will be closer to God because of my whole body. I believe little children are born pure, worthy, and whole. And for me, personally, when a medical provider attached a plastabell device around my foreskin and pulled it tight, she or he separated me from one of the most divine parts of my creation. I am spiritually impacted by that. I believe God values consent, deeply, and that he is sad when parents violate the consent of a child on something so personal and long-lasting.
 
I believe God is deeply fair, values individual accountability, and will not damn a child because of the decisions of a parent, including the decision to protect the sacredness of a child’s body and leave it whole. I believe everyone should be allowed to practice whatever religion they want, according to their own beliefs. A belief system should not have authority to make permanent changes to a child's anatomy because that child may grow up and desire to change their religion and may not wish their body to reflect their prior belief system—I believe it is a violation of religious freedom to allow parents to permanently modify the anatomy of a child.
 
I believe the research that suggests there is a decrease in masturbatory pleasure*. I also believe foreskin play, like docking, is valuable to a lot of gay men. I do not believe religious freedom should include allowing parents to make masturbation less pleasurable or certain forms of gay sex physically impossible.

For other believing folks out there, are there ways in which you feel like your religious freedom was violated by your infant circumcision?

*see the attached source document.
.pdf
technical_note.pdf (Size: 80.02 KB Downloads: 2)
]]> Religious liberty is often used as an argument for infant circumcision. Let me present an opposite view.

I believe my body is a very good thing. I believe that my sexual desires, including my desire for wholeness, and my desire for all the sensations that accompany a foreskin retracting over the glans, are a very good thing. I believe my body, including my foreskin, was literally made in the image of God, who has a perfected physical body. I believe that I intentionally chose to come to earth to receive a body because I knew that it would bring me closer to God. I believe that sometime after I die, I will be resurrected in a perfected, physical body—with a foreskin—and that I will be closer to God because of my whole body. I believe little children are born pure, worthy, and whole. And for me, personally, when a medical provider attached a plastabell device around my foreskin and pulled it tight, she or he separated me from one of the most divine parts of my creation. I am spiritually impacted by that. I believe God values consent, deeply, and that he is sad when parents violate the consent of a child on something so personal and long-lasting.
 
I believe God is deeply fair, values individual accountability, and will not damn a child because of the decisions of a parent, including the decision to protect the sacredness of a child’s body and leave it whole. I believe everyone should be allowed to practice whatever religion they want, according to their own beliefs. A belief system should not have authority to make permanent changes to a child's anatomy because that child may grow up and desire to change their religion and may not wish their body to reflect their prior belief system—I believe it is a violation of religious freedom to allow parents to permanently modify the anatomy of a child.
 
I believe the research that suggests there is a decrease in masturbatory pleasure*. I also believe foreskin play, like docking, is valuable to a lot of gay men. I do not believe religious freedom should include allowing parents to make masturbation less pleasurable or certain forms of gay sex physically impossible.

For other believing folks out there, are there ways in which you feel like your religious freedom was violated by your infant circumcision?

*see the attached source document.
.pdf
technical_note.pdf (Size: 80.02 KB Downloads: 2)
]]> <![CDATA[Debunk this: It's cleaner/More hygienic]]> https://circumcised.com/Thread-Debunk-this-It-s-cleaner-More-hygienic Fri, 22 May 2026 17:03:33 +0000 Sylphy]]> https://circumcised.com/Thread-Debunk-this-It-s-cleaner-More-hygienic