I would definitely, definitely get in the references to the 3 studies published in the British Journal of Urology -- the two Taylor ones and the most recent Sorrells one. Emphasize peer-reviewed.<br><br>
I would go in swinging with the structure and function of the foreskin, emphasize how a normal penis is meant to work. Probably everyone's heard the ethical issues before and thinks circ "isn't that bad" if it prevents disease, yadda yadda, because after all the foreskin is a 'useless piece of flesh.' What people really don't know is that all circs have the 100 percent complication rate of the loss of the foreskin and they have no idea that it's hugely important to normal sexual functioning.<br><br>
I think if you lead with that, emphasize the positives of being intact, then it's easier to dispel the myths re: disease and cleanliness, because you've put a huge weight on the other side of the scale to balance all that crap with. After all, no one even considers cutting off female tender bits to prevent HIV because we all grok how important all the female tender bits are. If you can establish how important the foreskin is, and how much the circed male is missing and doesn't even know it, then you've gotten people to think "why is it worth a slight decrease in xyz when you have the huge loss of the foreskin that outweighs that minor benefit?"
