It was a warm July day when I took my lunch break in downtown Seattle and found nearly 20 people walking the street in white pants with faux blood stained crotches.

Although it was prior to Labor Day, I found their fashion choices distasteful.

I was confused until a woman sporting mini-forests under her arms walked by with a sign that said, “Say yes to foreskin.” I looked further down the street only to find that the furry woman was one of many sign bearers protesting the circumcision of young boys.

While skin skeptics operate on both sides of the spectrum, there are some that find the surgery a necessary evil and others that deem it genital mutilation.

Seventy-six percent of American men are circumcised compared to the 30 percent of men globally, according to 2012 statistics from the World Health Organization.

So much for loving the skin you’re in, America.

As men age, the implications of being cut or uncut impede their sex lives both physically and psychologically. As they say, there are two sides to every groin.

Health-wise, men who remain uncut must be more hygienically conscious in order to prevent infection and odor. For men that don’t clean very well, build-up can serve as a deterrent to oral sex.

In fact, a 1977 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that uncircumcised men engaged in less heterosexual oral sex than their cut brethren.

Although they stand at an oral disadvantage with the outside world, they can’t be too sensitive.

Or can they?

Men who aren’t circumcised often report a higher level of sensitivity during sexual intercourse and in turn, experience a higher level of sexual satisfaction. However, scientific studies remain inconclusive on the validity of this claim.

Scientists are also split on the issue of disease.

A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association reviewed 500 studies and found that circumcision reduces risk of HIV transmission in heterosexual men by 60 percent. The same study also revealed that circumcision cuts the rate of transmission genital herpes by 30 percent and cancer-causing strains of HPV by 35 percent.

Clinical research has found an increased risk of urinary tract infection among uncircumcised men as well.

However, much like the sensitivity research mentioned previously, there is compelling evidence on both sides. Collectively, study findings remain too inconclusive to determine a superior option.

While researchers continue to explore the pros and cons of being cut or uncut in terms of disease transmission, the sexual reality for many men exists not in the head of their penis, but rather the one attached to their neck.

Psychological implications can be daunting in the context of American culture.

A survey from AdamandEve.com revealed that 54 percent of its female respondents preferred a cut man, 33 percent were neutral, and 3 percent preferred an uncircumcised partner. The remaining 10 percent refused to answer.

Naturally, these preferences serve as a source of anxiety for uncircumcised men entering sexual relationships.

However, it doesn’t always take two.

While partner interaction is a factor for uncut men, the ghost of foreskin’s past haunts a small percentage of circumcised men. What they lack in skin, they make up for in sorrow.

Men from the Circumcision Resource Center described the surgery as an issue of ‘having something taken from them.’

One man was quoted saying, “Circumcision: it’s taught me how to hate.”

Another said, “The single most traumatic event of my life with the greatest psychological damage was my circumcision as an infant.”

Regarding the future, there is hope for both sides. Fewer and fewer newborn boys are being circumcised right out of the gate in comparison to previous generations.

Decades from now, we might see a 50-50 breakdown in this county.

I look forward to that banana split. But until then, enjoy your sundae, plain or with a cherry on top.