How about the flip side, SMC...how does an uncircumsized male know that he experiences pleasures that a circumsized one doesn't? And it's only genital mutilation if you believe that a foreskin is a requirement. We are born with tonsils. Is it considered bodily mutilation to remove either that? The removal of skin can't automatically be called mutilation. And try to be civil. A comment isn't stupid because it doesn't agree with your viewpoint.

Tonsils are removed when they are infected and NEED to be. There is nothing "wrong" with an intact foreskin that requires it to be removed.

Far from stupid, Scm; I am glad we chose to circumcise. It fit our cultural / religious backgrounds, and as parents, it was our personal and private choice!

On other note, as far as hygiene is concerned, it turned out that it took an unbelievable amount of time to toilet train my son due to developmental delays he has (autism) - it just made it easier to keep him clean.

My husband and I decided to have both our sons circumsized due to a condition that my father developed in his late 50s which required him to be circumsized as an adult. Both the condition, circumsion, and recovery were extremely painful for him.

Further, if anyone has pre-teen and teenage sons knows, boys aren't always all that scrupulous about good hygiene. The circumsion helps them maintain better hygiene.

I wanted to circumcise, my husband did not. he was circumicsed as a baby. I let my husband make the decision, so we did not circumicse, and now I'm so glad we didn't!

The hygiene reason is just not good enough for me. Wouldn't cutting off a girls labia be more hygenic? there would be less moisture, wouldn't there?

Lets remove everyone's teeth because they may not take good care of them when they're teenagers. ridiculous.

Ever notice that many of those who choose not to circumcise are so emotionally unstable when discussing this subject? Whether one choose circumcision or not is an individual preference. I don’t really see those who chose concussion attacking those who did not.

Bingo, Ed!

Removing the labia has not been done or even suggested. Your comparison has nothing to do with the topic. One is an internal organ and the other is an external organ.

If you read my previous comment, men at a later age can develop a condition that causes the foreskin to tighten and restrict the flow of urine. My father suffered great pain. If this is genetic condition, we didn't want our sons to suffer later in life.

As an un-circumcised male, with 3 uncircumcised sons, the cleanliness issue is TOTAL BS. When people bathed weekly or even less, yes it was important. And if you are a slob who does not bathe 4 or more times a week, chop it iff. If, however, you are a person who rarely goes a day without a bath, leave it alone.

The hygiene reason isn't good enough for you, but your husband is circumcized, therefore you probably haven't had to suffer the effects of a non-circumsized penis, meaning hidden uncleanliness that can cause yeast and bacteria that is extremely bothersome to women after intercourse. And your comment about less moisture if labia were removed is ridiculous since the moisture comes out of the woman, not from the labia.

Again, I'm not for or against this, my husband really wanted our sons circumsized so after a lot of reading and advice from our son's doctors, we chose to have it done.

Ed, I agree, people who choose not to have it done are emotionally unstable and incapable of discussing this without juvenile insults slung in the direction of people who choose to circumsize. Time to grow up, people have a choice and this is a discussion forum, not a mud slinging contest.

Ed, CNJ Mom 1 -- I don't feel particularly emotionally unstable and neither is my uncircumsised son. You are lowering yourselves to the level those you are accusing of being attacking. It is a personal decision, both for and against. YesItIsSo had an excellent medical reason for, we had an excellent reason against (my son was premature and too small for the tools used for the procedure -- if we went forward he did stand a significant chance of mutilation). There is no cause for nastiness.

I guess the easiest thing is to say that circumcision is a personal choice and leave it at that, however whose choice is it. Mom and Dad make a "personal choice" but they are not the ones living with that choice. The practice of circumcision (both male and female) is in my view, barbaric and unnecessary. As far as hygiene goes, there is nothing about circumcision that guarantees that a man is going to be clean. That is also a "personal choice" Practices that are born out of superstition and ignorance (I include religious practices here) should be abandoned when science shows them to be unnecessary or even unsafe. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. I am glad that, at least in California, the state-funded health care (Medi-Cal) no longer funds this practice and if Mom and Dad make this "personal choice" for their son (assuming, I suppose, that he will be eternally grateful), they will have to pay for it themselves. So I guess, I am against the practice of circumcision, however I don't feel that I am "emotionally unstable or incapable of discussing the subject without juvenile insults being slung." (This statement in itself sounds like a juvenile insult to me.) As I said, Moms and Dads are free to make the choice to remove a portion of their son's anatomy on the off chance that he may grow up to be an unwashed slob. I choose not to have my sons circumcised and instead will teach them how to maintain a degree of personal hygiene. That way we all win.

They weren't saying that those who were uncircumsized are emotionally unstable "Let's be reasonable", they were saying that the ones who chose not to circumsize who then attacked those who chose to circumsize, were emotionally unstable. You have to admit, the nasty comments are coming from the anti-circumsizers!

Your reasoning, whether it be medical as in your infants case, or just your preference, should be respected, just as the people who choose to circumsize should be.

I believe it's a personal choice. My son was circumcised... he doesn't feel that he has been mutilated . He happens to be an intelligent and a well-mannered young man. Emotionally balanced despite having the foreskin removed. He does not suffer from long lasting pain nor he does not see himself as a freak. Matter of fact, he has told a health teacher it was none of her business and to butt out of the decisions that his parents makes for him since he's alive, healthy, and not suicidal. (she brought it to my attention)....

I think he also hit the nail on the head with his answer... the males, as a whole, are not suffering long lasting effects from having the foreskin removed. It has cultural and religious background. It does not hinder a male from being a productive member of society nor does it cause emotional instability... heck verbal abuse does more damage than removing the foreskin. but really... unless it's being forced on you... butt out.

I do find it interesting that those with the strongest emotional responses are those that don't believe that other parents should circumcised their sons. Then again I find it interesting how some people tie their own masculinity with their dog when refusing to fix them with the same emotionally intense response.

Lemonverbeena,

You are clueless. My husband is not circumcised, and cleanliness is not an issue. That's because the whole uncircumcised = unclean thing is a myth. It is a remnant of the Victorian fears about sex, and nothing more. There is no evidence in the medical literature that yeast infections and bacteria are more likely in intact men. You will, however, find that circumcised men are more likely to have asymptomatic yeast infections, which would make them more likely to go untreated and pass them along to their partners.

This is a procedure that can be done at any time during a mans' life. Everyone is saying it's a personal choice, but the person affected is not the one making his own choice if parents decide to have their baby undergo a medically unnecessary procedure. I have worked as a surgery tech, and have seen plenty of men come in a have the procedure. And I'm sure there were many different reasons. But at least they made the choice for themselves. And my son will make his own choice. He's 19, never had any cleanliness issues. I'm not and have never had any issues either. And as to the religious background, Christians have no reason to follow the Jewish law. Christ did away with the law... He fulfilled the law and our path to salvation is through him, not obedience to any law.

Smc is 100% correct

SMC31569: "Ridiculous. There is absolutely NO reason for this barbaric ritual of genital mutilation if you're not a Jew. And even then following a biblical mandate based on a fallacy doesn't justify it either."

So, I take it your a doctor?

I personally know 2 men who had serious infections due to not being circumcised, had they been they would have had no chance of infection. Folds of skin can harbor nasty stuff unless they are completely cleaned, theirs obviously wasn't clean enough. While anyone, on the other hand, being circumcised would have no skin to hold the infectious material. But your a doctor, right?

Oh one more thing circumcision was not invented by the Jews and they are not the only religious culture to use the practice. It started with the Egyptians.

It is sad to see how ignorant a lot of people are who circumcise/traumatize their newborn boys, reasons like "to fit in, family and friends pressure, religion.

And the medical "experts "who recommend it, are clueless. What they should be doing is a STUDY of european and other WOMEN who have had sex with uncut men and cut men. There is clearly a difference, the one's who are not cut have a much more INTENSE orgasm than someone who was circumcised, it is so obvious. Personally I prefer someone uncut, sex is better.

Circumcision on newborns should be banned. A man should be able to decide himself as an adult if he wants to cut the nerves on his penis.

It's even more sad to see all the ignorant ad hominim attacks by people who purport a freedom of choice for themselves but not others.

You don't want to circumcise? Don't do it.

Christina, how would you know whether orgasms are more intense unless you have had two penis' of your own? One cut, one not. I'm thinking it's not the medical experts that are clueless here.

how is he supposed to know he missed the "extra sexual pleasure" if he's always been circumcised. DUH

Did you ask your son what he wanted? What was his answer? When you mutilated him, were you present to hear his screams?

There is a procedure that is commonly done to young children, usually against their wishes or talked into as a rite of passage. When the child gets older, they do it just to fit in... This procedure mutilates a body part and causes instant pain that subsides after a bit but can still have throbbing pain for a few days afterwards... esp when touching wound. It runs the risk of infection if not taken care of and has a chance or causing permanent damage to the body part if something inserted at the site is yanked. It may have to be redone if proper care isn't done. As an adult, it can cost plenty of money to enhance the damage area... some in forms of 1000s of dollars. Also this is done for nothing more than to enhance the beauty... or make a public statement.... so when are earrings going to be banned for children under 18???

Oh and I'm sure of the person having sex with a circumcized male was any good... the guy will have an intense orgasm but that does take a bit of work.

I think the main issue concerning circumcision.. is who has the right to tell a parent what they can and can not do when there is no evidence of lasting issues or emotional trauma. All because you don't believe in their culture, theire religious beliefs, or some of the medical's world opinion (they that disagrees with you)... doesn't mean YOU have all the right answers in this and that YOU have a right to shove your viewpoint onto others... I'm sure if they gave you no choice but to follow their ideas.. you'd be madder than a hornet.

It is sad to see how ignorant a lot of people are who circumcise/traumatize their newborn boys, reasons like "to fit in, family and friends pressure, religion.

I am none of the above! I am not "ignorant" nor did I mutilate or traumatize my sons by having them circumcised! I don't even think anyone in my family asked or said anything about it to me! Nor was it a religious reason. The reasons are "my" reasons and only that!

My sons are 13 and 4 and neither one have any idea what was done! They are not harmed, suicidal, emotional traumatized, nor do they have bad dreams over it! They are happy, normal, boys with circumcised penis's. Your choice is yours...mine is mine. How dare you refer to me as ignorant for my choices!

Did you ask your son what he wanted? What was his answer? When you mutilated him, were you present to hear his screams?

I make a lot of choices for my kids! Don't you???

Did you ask your son if he wanted breast milk or formula or did you decide? Perhaps he didn't want breast milk. Did you ask??? I heard my son scream when they stuck his heal with the shots he needed shortly after birth. Should I have stopped those too? Or asked if he wanted the shots he needed?

You make lots of choices for your kids.

Oh, and btw.....my son's father was there when it was done!

To those guys who have been circumcised since birth and say they don't miss the pleasure, YOU HAVE NO IDEA!!! As a former photographer of nudists (waaay long ago and also going to nude beaches) I had the occasion to talk to many males, (I am NOT GAY) and met a few who had been cut as adults. To a man, they all regretted the decision. Two had made the decision to please a wife, who did not know better and had only read about how it was 'cleaner'. Unless you have had a foreskin first, there is no way to know what you have missed.

I'm sorry, Ed, did you say emotionally unstable? Sure, we may be emotional, but unstable? No.

You want to see someone destabilize? Delay circumsizing your next son until he's 20 years old or so and then tell him you've made the decision for his own good to have his foreskin cut off.

It's sort of difficult to know how your circumcised husband would know if he is experiencing less sexual pleasure since he obviously has been without a foreskin since infancy. My ex-husband was circumcised but my present husband isn't. My observation is: far more sexual pleasure with that foreskin..

CentralIA

We are born with tonsils. Is it considered bodily mutilation to remove either that?

CentrallA, are you suggesting that we remove tonsils at birth or as a routine elective surgery? If not then I'm not getting your point. If you are I am even more lost on your point.

They are happy, normal, boys with circumcised penis's.

LS, do you boys know that you permitted the doctor to remove healthy tissue from them for no apparent reason? Do you tell them that you like their penis' the way it is now? If you didn't then you are hiding the truth.

You do know that a circumcised penis is no longer normal, right? It's altered - just like spaying and neutering. Altered = not normal. It's not even functionally normal. Penis is supposed to glide during sex. A circumcised penis now only rams/plows/pistons/rubs. Kinda violent, actually.

You are also implying circumcision is as necessary as vaccinations and food. It obviously is not.

Of course my husband doesnt "miss" his foreskin cause it was ripped off of him when he was a couple days old. I gave my sons' the respect my husband was never given- An informed decision based on preserving my sons' bodily integrity. How can I decide to take that from them-especially if their is no compelling reason to do so?

It is 'interesting' to me to note that the VAST majority of those who would complain that OTHER people choosing to circumcise their children are taking away a child's right to decide for himself would also INSIST that a mother have the right to decide for herself whether her unborn child live or die. Where is their advocacy for the child in this instance? Just wondering.

As far as many people being 'passionate' or 'emotional' against circumcision, it generally stems from the anger people have against religious convictions. More than once I have seen 'religion' referred to as 'superstition'. However, my faith is more real than your science. I don't expect you to believe it, I don't expect you to accept it. But, once again, the truth exists independently of anyone's opinion.

As far as circumcision from a Christian standpoint, it reflects the medical opinion of this article. 'For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.' The parent is ultimately responsible for the child until they are an adult. Let them choose.

i vote yes for mutilation! yes for mutilation.

jeez i wonder if you were to remove something from woman's genitals what would happen.

european individuals don't get circumcised and i don't see them dropping like flies.

The labia is indeed removed by some practioners of female circumcision.

Female genital mutilation is classified into four major types:

• Clitoridectomy: partial or total removal of the clitoris (a small, sensitive and erectile part of the female genitals) and, rarely, the prepuce (the fold of skin surrounding the clitoris) as well.
• Excision: partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora (the labia are "the lips" that surround the vagina).
• Infibulation: narrowing of the vaginal opening through the creation of a covering seal. The seal is formed by cutting and repositioning the inner, and sometimes outer, labia, with or without removal of the clitoris.
• Other: all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, e.g. pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterizing the genital area.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/

CNJ Mom1,

How would your husband know if he's missing out on something if he was circumcised? If a man is circumcised as a man and has already had sex that is the man I would ask that question too and expect to get a realistic response from.

So if you happened to move to a country that practices female genital mutilation, would you have the girls in your family "done", to "fit in?"

That's hilarious, TC. I moved from another country as well. I was in sports and the only guy who wasn't circumcised in our locker room. Not a big deal or any deal at all. Such a strange reason to mutilate your sons in my opinion. I hope they appreciate it.

Most schools don't even do the communal shower thing anymore, so it's an archaic reason to cut your son.

Sorry Frank but I beg to differ.I'm not circumcised and my penis bears little resemblance to a dogs'. I find women are intrigued by it because it is not circumcised. As far as smelly smegma goes my dad taught me at an early age that it was mine and I could wash it as fast and often as I liked. So there!

dog's weiner is natural. They don't get yeast infections.

Of course you don't have any regrets because IT WASN'T YOUR PENIS TO START WITH. What would you care if your son hates his penis later in life.

Maybe that says more about the girls you've been with, Frank. Or maybe they just weren't telling you the truth.

As for smelly smegma, I agree with Mike. Are you so damn lazy that you have trouble washing regularly? Surely the tip of your penis isn't the only body part that needs washing? Are you implying you never brush your teeth or swab your ears either?

I originally didn't like the way intact ones looked (only seen pictures, none in person), but now that I've seen my son's intact one, and pictures of a circumcision being performed, I think my husband looks wounded.

Maybe he didn't do it because his friends told him of the horrors of having his manhood touched... I mean really, what man is going to do this in adulthood? Maybe if you had done this for him, he wouldn't have been faced with this decision in the first place. I'm a woman, and personally? I would never have sexual relations with someone who was not circumcized. Yeast, bacteria, etc., are terrible consequences the woman ends up paying the price for, no thanks, we have enough to deal with thank you.

A "real human"? Seriously? I guess the general public didn't know that circumcised men weren't real humans. Thanks for clearing that up.

Lemonverbeena: Getting circumcised as an adult isn't a big deal.

There are men who won't have sexual relations with women who haven't been circumcised. Doesn't make it right.

Let's face it, if you're worried about yeast and bacteria, isn't it the female genitals that have more of those and are harder to clean? We don't cut parts off baby girls though. (If we did though, then they wouldn't be "faced with thedecision").

So just because you were circumcised at birth its makes you 'unreal'? How do you know every man you ever met was real or not? Do you do checks?

A "real" human? As opposed to what? The two little "faux" human boys I have at home that are circumcised?

I am noticing that people are against circumcision are just ugly and vicious for no reason. As a mother who chose to cirumcise her sons, I have no reason to justify my decision anymore than those who choose not to circumcise do. My husband and I made what we felt was the best decision for our children. Period. That is what being a parent is all about.

You might try being respectful to others who made a different decision than you. Save your viciousness for people who abuse, neglect or starve their children.

Does a bath alone clean the area Mr. Osborn or does the skin have to be pulled back and cleaned thoroughly? From the reading I did, it said the foreskin had to be pulled back and cleaned under and in my opinion, and again, my OPINION, sitting in a bath would not take care of that.

"real human" seriously?... if you ever said such things in front of your son, he may not have gotten it done just to keep himself 'real' in your eyes and not because he agrees with you. If you are willing to label boys that had it done as unreal... do you really think he agreed with your opinion or just wanted to avoid the label in your eyes?

Mr. Lyndon, I will be frank, it's the only way I can explain this. No, a woman's genitalia is not snug like foreskin is. My sons were not circumsized in the hospital so I was able to see it, as well as seeing a grown man's uncircumsized penis.

I wouldn't expect you to know this being a man and I truly mean that nicely, but yeast is not something that is in the folds of the labia, it is inside the vagina, and when overgrowth occurs, from using perfume soaps or anything, yes, including an unclean penis, that disturbs the normal flora, causing an overgrowth of candida that can come to the outside and cause itching and swelling and well, misery for a woman. So no, labia is not the cause of yeast, introducing something unclean or perfumy that can upset the normal level of yeast in a woman's vagina (inside parts), does.

To respond to your attack post, so I don't have to post twice, how would a non-circumsized man know that sensitivity isn't felt by a circumsized man if you're intact? My husband has never complained of a numbness or lack of sensitivity resulting from the circumcision he had as a newborn, in fact, quite the opposite! Sorry if tmi, just trying to prove a point. And sure, my tonsils are part of my throat, but that doesn't mean the quality of my life will be altered if they're removed. Yes, it's a part of you, I understand that, and honestly, I'm not attacking here, but a decision was made for your sons that you had the right to make, I'm not disputing that, but seriously, I hardly think the reason for an adult man balking at having a circumcision is based solely on the fact it's a part of him, but probably 90% on the fact that men are extremely protective of their penises and would be too squeamish to have anyone touching them down there, and not because they feel they are losing a part of who they are. Let's face it, you don't even like to cough for the doctor!

A doctor who posted on here said there are many complications to having this done as an adult, including scarring and infection, that's kind of a big deal, wouldn't you say?

Again, I respect your decision to leave your sons intact, that's great. I'm sorry you don't respect my right to have my sons circumsized, but I live in the United States where as a parent, I have a choice. Trust me, I didn't circumsize my sons without a lot of thought and advice from my son's male pediatrician. This was not done before we left the hospital because my son's were small, not premature, but small so we had to wait until they were both about three weeks old.

Does a bath alone clean the area Mr. Osborn or does the skin have to be pulled back and cleaned thoroughly? From the reading I did, it said the foreskin had to be pulled back and cleaned under and in my opinion, and again, my OPINION, sitting in a bath would not take care of that.

And your opinion does not reflect reality. My intact toddler's foreskin in not retractable, and the only cleaning it needs is for him to sit in the bath tub. That's it. Once it retracts on its own, it still doesn't need to be "pulled back and cleaned thoroughly", just rinsed in the shower regularly once he hits puberty. I don't think most men have much trouble playing with themselves in the shower. Just like women don't need to use soaps to clean inside their vaginas, men don't need soaps to scrub the area under their foreskins. Washing either one is simple, and I'm not sure where people get the idea that it is so complicated.

Tonsils are removed ONLY WHEN THERE IS A MEDICAL REASON. I know tons of people who still have their tonsils, myself included, because there was never a need to remove them. Argument FAIL.

Lemonverbeena: glans of penis is an INTERNAL organ. Foreskin is external. If you remove foreskin a thicker layer of skin grows over the supersensitive glans and as rough if not rougher than your fingers.

Also - guys talk to each other... especially gay guys. You hear from one guy that most places on his penis are so sensitive to oral sex and another guy says that oral sex isn't pleasurable.

You also ask what man would want that sort of surgery later in life. I don't know. I can agree with you there. What BABY would want that if he could answer you? I doubt anyone would say yes. So why force it on him? You force it on him because he is incapable of responding? You force it on him because you're legally able to? I'd like your answer. Do you have a God Complex? You feel you're entitled to hurt your baby boy just because you CAN?

R.T .. FYI ...Some children had their tonsils removed just as a preventative. I had the procedure done by a doctor that would order the surgery with even minor swelling (which is normal when a child has a sore throat)... At the same time they removed my adenoids just as a standard procedure.

R.T .. FYI ...Some children had their tonsils removed just as a preventative. I had the procedure done by a doctor that would order the surgery with even minor swelling (which is normal when a child has a sore throat)... At the same time they removed my adenoids just as a standard procedure.

You had your tonsils removed before you ever had an infection in them? I highly doubt that. Doctors won't perform that surgery without a history of infection. Just like I can't take my son to the pediatrician and ask him to put tympanostomy tubes in his ears because I want them. I understand that sometime circumcision is necessary and should be done for medical reasons, but it shouldn't be done in the absense of medical reasons.

JLL You were not my doctor so doubt all you want. The fact is.. I had a SMALL infection and the doc had them removed... period. I recall the conversation quite well. It was the 3rd infection in my 10 years of life... The doc ordered them removed.. besides it was a nice little money maker... simple operation. Unneeded operations are done all the time today. If you need to have a hysterectomy, then Oophorectomy are attached to it as a standard procedure... even if your ovaries are healthy. My mother's appendix was removed when she needed gallbladder surgery... there again her appendix was fine but it was standard.

MKC - in your defense, there WAS a time from around the late 20s up until the mid 70s that prophylactic tonsillectomies were the norm. When ENT research acknowledged that tonsills were part of a normal immune system and that their inflammatory response to oropharyngeal pathogens was not a grave prognostic sign, the trend towards their surgical removal slowly ended. Today tonsillectomy is still performed on children with chronic inflammation refractory to conservative management but it's the final stop on the decision tree as opposed to the first. Peritonsillar abcesses which are surgical emergencies are one absolute indication for bilateral tonsillectomy/adenoidectomy. There ARE risks to this surgery as in all surgical intervention in young children but NO DECENT SURGEON would hesitate to perform the surgery when indicated. Just thought I'd shed some light on your early medical treatment. Today with M&M review and surgical pathology review ALONG with tumor boards such 'unecessary' surgery is highly frowned upon and if a surgeon is discovered to be excising health tissue too often - he is quickly censured by his specialty board and can have his/her surgical schedule held for review. No surgeon wants to go there. Don't be too quick to condemn your surgeon though - when you've been in a motor vehicle accident and your brain is swelling inside your skull, you're going to WANT that surgeon at your side, FAST, to make certain that you go home in a wheelchair to recover from your near lethal injuries and NOT off to the Nursing Home on a gurney with a feeding tube and diapers! We'll be there when you need us - rest assured. We got into this business to fix the damage, and we WANT to see you go home with your parts repaired and working as close to normal as possible.

wow... that's interesting buche... thanks for saying that.

"if a surgeon is discovered to be excising health tissue too often - he is quickly censured by his specialty board and can have his/her surgical schedule held for review."

that's a pretty conclusive damning of circumcision... baby foreskin is pristine, healthy tissue... valued by pharmaceutical companies and cosmetic companies...

There are no big pharma applications NOR cosmetic companies (IN THE US) which use discarded foreskins. The excised and superfluous hood is thrown into the medical waste and given that it is a biohazard, incinerated shortly thereafter. My post referred to the pathology review board which evaluates the organs removed by given surgeons who have done lots of lap choley's, APs, and the like which are found to be healthy. When this happens occasionally no one gets too concerned because a surgical abdomen can be a very difficult call. But if any one surgeon removes TOO many of these functional organs - the hammer can come down fairly hard on these guys. It's a way in which one's surgical peers can monitor their colleages. While I DO see the possiblity for stem cell application from these primordial cells, it is not yet a medical reality.

search the web. you can find where foreskin is sold. oprah has featured face creams made with foreskin. do your homework before you make uneducated assumptions, buche... your ignorance, arrogance and cultural prejudice is showing. you make many groundless statements.

infant foreskin is pristine and is used for its stem cells.

the time is coming, buche.

'you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.'

people have been in a trance, but they are waking up... superstitions of the past are falling away.

pat - I WAS the one who told YOU about epidermal stem cell and their use. They're harvested from many sites, not just your deified foreskin. You don't even have a fraction of the knowledge one requires to write about skin cell grafts. Epidermal stems cells have been used in grafts and in full cloning experiments for a very long time. Foreskin is nothing special. Umbilical cord blood has also been used in this manner. You are one of the most adamant but clearly clueless poster here with nary a fractured portion of genuine knowledge. In an effort to appear erudite the miniscule portion of the data you bandy about remains patently false. You have such a limited degree of awareness that you drift between fugue states one minute crying the blues about imaginary hordes of FGM women born and raised in the US and in the next moment you shreik about blood running in the streets and a novel you are ostensibly writing about this science fiction. I can hear and read in every comment you make that your lack intelligence but are long on fantasy. who and what gender you are or pretend to be - I am sad to have to report that you clearly a massively out of control and unmedicated rapidly cycling manic/depressive (bilpolar) person who either ran out of lithium or has a toxic level. I good basic read of genomic basics is beyond your ken - but you might just call YOUR sponsor and report that your crisis requires intervention, NOW.

Lemonverbeena, I would never have sex with a man I wasn't in love with, circumcised or not. If my husband had been intact, I would have loved him just the same as I do now.

Communication is key. Its necessary to explain to our children how to clean ourselves so as to not smell or get sick or irritated. Sometimes all you need is a little warm water and a little rub. I agree with the broken comment.

Girls get Urinary Tract Infections all the time, and we don't propose surgery to fix it. There is so much misinformation out there regarding circumcision it's sad. My son is uncircumcised, and it requires no special cleaning. In fact, my girls were harder to clean during diaper changes because they have nooks and crannies down there!

Our son was born in 1984 and the Obstetrician asked if we wanted him circumcised and we chose not to have it done. My husband wasn't circumcised and we just felt that it was the right thing to do. Our BS/BS medical insurance didn't cover the procedure because it was "elective". I left the decision to my husband for the most part, as he had the experience.

Two of my dearest friends are nurses in maternity departments at hospitals and they often have to prep the baby boy's for the procedure. They are very careful to apply enough of the topical anesthetic cream before the Dr. does the procedure.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, in fact, I respect both sides of the issue and parent's right to make the decision, but seriously, it's hardly getting part of your genitals cut off, it's foreskin, not your testicles or your actual penis, a little overstated, wouldn't you say? I have two sons, and at my husband's insistence, someone who has male genitalia, this was done for both. I'm not advocating this or against it btw. Reading what doctors said "at the time" is not really useful today as more research and studies have been conducted.

What!?! That's a bit like saying a girl's minor labia aren't part of her genitals.

Try asking an intact man if his foreskin is part of his penis.

In fact, the inner foresk1n (just below the rim) is by far the most sensitive part of the penis. It's not just some flap of skin which is only there to cover the glans. That's why intact men are so against circumcision. The glans isn't especially sensitive. Even on a circumcised man, the glans is not the most sensitive part (it's normally the scar line, or the frenulum if that wasn't removed).

That's why intact men aren't exactly rushing to get circumcised.

Even if you don't think it's a big deal, a newborn baby might in years to come, and it should be their decision, not anyone else's.

Excuse me ?? The foreskin is there for a reason. PROTECTION of the glans penis. There is NO sound medical reason for mutilating the penis for some asinine concept of "aesthetics" or religious ritutal. If the male is taught proper hygiene from day one there are no problems. It's no different than you having to pay special attention to washing/cleaning your vaginal area.... or maybe we should just start cutting the outer labia off female infants because according to you , hey....it's just a little extra skin, right ??

Think about it.... it's like having your eyelids removed. The foreskin offers protection from injury and serves to enhance sensitivity. It kills me that women like you are so uneducated and closed-minded. Men lose their sensitivity when the head of the penis is in direct contact with clothing etc on a regular basis. It "hardens" the skin...like a callous, desensitiszing it. More than half the world shuns this procedure.... Americans ( sad and uninformed as they usually seem to be), Jews and Muslims are the only ones who are stupid enough to continue this practice against sound medical advice to discontinue it.

Sorry... "tradition, aesthetics and ignorance " don't trump intelligence and education here. Circumcision is MEDICALLY UNNECESSARY and BARBARIC and IS mutilation in its most horrible form and without consent of the individual on which it's being performed. I learned this over 25 yrs ago after my son was born and the hospital made us attend a seminar before we made a decision. The INTELLIGENT women opted NOT to mutilate their sons and put them through the unbearable and unnecessary pain just to gratify their own selfish and irrational reasons to "follow tradition".

I agree that there is no sound medical basis for circumcision. It's something Biblical that has later been justified by those who want to continue the practice.

Dentists these days routinely remove wisdom teeth, whether they present a problem or not. I have my wisdom teeth, and I have had dentists who just couldn't stand that, and wanted to rid me of them "just because." After all, they are so hard to brush and so hard to work on... Even though I'm in my 50s now and they are fine. I got a new dentist!

I imagine it's the same way for circumcision. Cleaning is an issue, but hey, if you can learn to brush your teeth, you can learn to clean your penis.

Smc, my husband's glans is in no worse shape than yours, simply because he has no foreskin covering it. He has never had one single problem with his circumsized penis (I asked).

Wow, calling someone unintelligent because they choose to have their sons circumsized? Yikes buddy. Your tirade wreaks of anger and hostility and frankly sounds more uneducated than anyone who has posted previous to you. Mr. Lyndon explained his passionate thoughts on this matter without verbally attacking anyone, why do you feel the need to? I think taking an anger management course would help you greatly. I am a stay-at-home Mom and will remain so, until my children are in school full time, at which time I will return to my job as a clinical nutritionist, from the Master's degree I received from Purdue University. In addition to caring for two young boys, I am also working on my Phd. Watch who you call unintelligent.

As someone else stated, those that don't chose circumcision often lash out at those of us who do/did!

And you know what? If it weren't for articles such as this, this would not even be a discussion!

There was no exact finding...therefore, no article!

Isn't it a bit sick to cut off part of the penis of someone else, even worse that it is you own baby? You are removing parts of HIS penis that include the main male pleasure zones. This is nerves, blood vessels, protective covering and pleasure zones. The dynamics of the penis is changed for good.

Unfortunately, the main risk of circumcision is fully ignored. There is 100% chance that circumcision will damage the male genitals as to function and pleasure. Not mentioning this fact is tantamount to spreading misinformation. This surgery takes away main male pleasure zones including the mechanism to gain and maintain an erection.

The foreskin is not just skin and does not just protect the glans (head). Circumcision is now known to ablate the most sensitive parts of the male genitals. This surgery takes away the main male pleasure zones with about 20000 fine touch and stretch nerve endings amputated. The foreskin has several parts including the ridged band that is great for ones pleasure (that is why nutters like Kellogg wanted to chop em off, to curtail masturbation), Masturbation is important for a mans physical and mental health. The ridged band directly contacts the vagina for very great pleasure all around. The dynamics of sex and the actual mechanism of the penis are drastically changed by circumcision. The foreskin can normally be slipped all the way, or almost all the way, back to the base of the penis, and also slipped forward beyond the glans. This wide range of motion is the mechanism by which the penis and the orgasmic triggers in the foreskin, frenulum, and glans are stimulated. The only touch organ possessing as rich erogenous innervation as the foreskin is the clitoris. Circumcision deprives man of 2/3ds of the main erogenous zone constituted of the foreskin and the glans.

BTW, the other risks (besides loss of sexual function, ED, PE and loss of PLEASURE) include curved or misshapen erection, painful erection, botches of all sorts (many requiring redo) and death. Boys dies each year in the US from this sick practice.

Lemonverbeena said:

... but seriously, it's hardly getting part of your genitals cut off, it's foreskin, not your testicles or your actual penis, a little overstated, wouldn't you say?

This sort of ignorance is the major source of the problem, and I have this to say: Yes Ma'am, it is part of my genitals, and don't tell me otherwise.

This to me is like a man saying to a woman who's had a radical mastectomy: What's the big deal? It's not like anything necessary was cut off.

Google is not a scholarly source of literature review. But you copy nicely. The reason those nations no longer do routine circumcision is because the national health plans dropped it from their list of covered services. IF it were still covered, there would be far more circumcised boys, not less. When searching the literature, please try to refrain from citing 'google'. It brands you as sophomoric, pedestrian and obviously not grounded in science.

Most places never did this amputation in the first place. It is a real simpleton that thinks national health plans are why most of the men in the world are natural. The very few places that did do this to some extent and now do not realized that removing erogenous tissue from a baby is BAD for the child, unless there is some URGENT medical need.

The Western Civilization tradition is against mutilation of the human form. Circumcision is a mutilation of the human form. Catholic doctrine considers it a sin (if not medically needed).

In the US during the late 1800s early 1900s there was the thinking that sexuality was bad. Circumcision was pushed to curb male sexual pleasure (which it does) and to stop masturbation (it does not do that, but it makes it rather difficult). In Europe and in most of Asia, sexuality was and still is considered normal human thing that is not to be repressed.

Some American doctors got the idea that the biblical circumcision was actually healthier than the natural state (it is not) and they pushed it. Some still do (Dr Schoen). This is unfortunate as people against circumcision are against harming babies and have no religion or race issue. However, this barbaric practice would have died out if not for those trying to justify it by making up medical reasons to do it. There is no justification. It is now also known that the original old Testament did not even have circumcision in it and it is an ancient blood/marking sacrifice ritual that predates the Jews. The Europeans and most Asian nations (e.g., Japan) never allowed their medicine to be hijacked by sexual nuts or religious wackos.

The Europeans and most people of the world appreciate the function and pleasure that the natural penis (with foreskin) provides. The medical community in the US ignored this (basically after the puritanical/Victoran age and religious input, very few men were left in the medical community that appreciated the function and pleasure). The foreskin was essentially written out of the US anatomy books. Many in the US medical community still buy into the myths about hygiene (BS). They are operating on old wives tales. Many in the US do not know that the foreskin is not just skin and does not just protect the glans(head). Circumcision is now known to ablate the most sensitive parts of the male genitals. This surgery takes away the main male pleasure zones with about 20000 fine touch and stretch nerve endings amputated.

In Europe, almost no-one circumcises unless they're Muslim or Jewish, and they have significantly lower rates of almost all STI's including HIV.

Even in Africa, there are six countries where men are *more* likely to be HIV+ if they've been circumcised: Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, and Swaziland. Eg in Malawi, the HIV rate is 13.2% among circumcised men, but only 9.5% among intact men. In Rwanda, the HIV rate is 3.5% among circumcised men, but only 2.1% among intact men. If circumcision really worked against AIDS, this just wouldn't happen. We now have people calling circumcision a "vaccine" or "invisible condom", and viewing circumcision as an alternative to condoms.

The one study into male-to-female transmission showed a 54% higher rate in the group where the men had been circumcised btw.

ABC (Abstinence, Being faithful, Condoms) is the way forward. Promoting genital surgery will cost lives, not save them.

Circumcising at age 12 actually hurts less than circumcising a newborn btw. It's safer and gives better cosmetic results too. It's very rare to actually need to be circumcised anyway. About 1 in 100 in the UK, and getting rarer. It's very unlikely your husband's father would have been circumcised if he'd lived in Europe or South America.

There is no such thing as circumcising for "health reasons". The only "reasons" for circumcision are IGNORANCE and RELIGIOUS RITUAL.

PERIOD.

Informeddissent,

Of course, you are entitled to make your (and your sons' choice) but let's be real here. It is not "much more painful" at 12 years old, the patient just remembers the pain, unlike a newborn. I have witnessed hundreds, perhaps thousands of circumcisions, with and without EMLA (which theoretically numbs the skin) and in the procedure the infant is strapped down and when the surgeon performs the circumcision, the infant literally screams in shock and pain. This is not just because he is hungry or has gas. He is having living tissue surgically removed without benefit of anesthesia! Why don't they just waterboard the poor little guy and really make his day. Just because we have no waking memory of this procedure, does not mean that it is not traumatic and that it does not remain somewhere in our psyches. Could be. Who knows? Might explain a lot of things.

May I add, Fazool, that I have no memory of any pain while I was emerging from my mother's womb, but she certainly does! You're absolutely correct when you draw the distinction between memory and experience.

It has been noted here by a lay person with whom I must agree: those who are the most aggressive opponents of newborn circumcision are the patently angry, nasty and entirely intolerant of ANY view save their own. I find this position suspect and note that it comes almost exclusively uncircumcised men. Whatever your personal mind set - the foaming at the mouth by the unsnipped are suspect. Within the last year I had TWO patients, grown men (middled aged 42 and 39) who had NOT been circumcised. One had a melanoma of the lateral anterior glans which, although surgically treated, left him incontinent, impotent, and despite sentinel lymph node biopsy, is likely to end his life many years too soon. (Metastasis to the brain and spine confirmed) was one of the most tragic cases I've seen. Malignant melanoma is typically life threatening unlike basal cell and squamous (much less virulent).

The other fellow I recall vividly because his pain was 10 on the 1-10 scale when he presented with phimosis so severe he could barely speak. He wore a hat, 'world's best dad' and his suffering was clearly scaring the s--t out of him. Despite all appropriate interventions, his penis was experiencing near total infarct (loss of blood supply) as his foreskin could NOT BE RETRACTED....he happily and quickly agreed to emergency circumcision and both he AND his wife wept with relief at the positive outcome of his surgery. Postop he did well, had obvious discomfort while recovering but thanked us profusely for bringing and end to his long term problems. He admitted that he'd had chronic issues with balanitis for the entirely of his teen and young adult years but thought is was 'normal'. Long story short - discharged in 7 days, recovered fully and at his 1 month recheck - reported sexual pleasure heretofore unknown!! Wife was also pleased with his streamlined look and lack of malodour. This was not a foul smelling fellow - but increasing collections of smegma made for endless rinsing and cleaning folds of mucous membranes. Folks need to understand that it's not always a day at the beach for certain guys. There are many stories like this in urology/surgery practices. Some don't do well at all like the man with the melanoma. Who knows if he'd have discovered his melanoma earlier and might have had a better chance at survival. Fortunately, the latter patient is fine today, enjoying his newly circ'd penis and has ZERO complaints, but lots of RAVES.

I'd rather teach my sons to use a condom-alot safer practice than cutting off a piece of their genitals-and a bit more reliable huh?

@Buche de noel
Yes, it makes some of us who still enjoy all we were born with angry to think that anyone (who has never known it) thinks they have the right to cut that off a helpless baby.

Your anecdotes are striking, of course. We never get striking anecdotes from the literally billions of intact men who enjoy the many pleasures their foreskins confer and take them down to their graves in peace.

The first man's glandar melanoma did not necessarily have anything to do with his foreskin (circumcised men DO get penile cancer, which is very rare in any man). (Of course, to have any body part is to risk cancer in it.)

The second was a victim of the US's ignorance of the normal genitals. His balanitis could have been treated early without surgery and all his suffering avoided.

There is no such medical entity as 'glandar melanoma'. Again your lack of any rudimentary knowledge of penile anatomy AND your failure to comprehend what melanoma Is continues to render your response nonsense. That you are not a professional in this field seems to be your major flaw. You post complete fiction and have ZERO competence to make ANY diagnostic judgement. The foreskin did not cause the melanoma and I did not say it did. What I DID SAY - (and what you lack to cognition to read is that the foreskin obscured the abiity of this patient to SEE HIS LESION. Please, READ and READ twice before making opening yourself up to further ridicule.

The second patient WAS given conservative treatment by skilled and experienced urologists. I would DARE you to utter the imbecilic remark you just made to one of them. They'd eat you for lunch and spit you out for the fool that you clearly are. Balanatis can often be treated conservatively but when this option fails, circ is the only option which will salvage the penis. I guess you'd rather your penis fall off from a giant infarct rather than consider that a circ is often the ONLY way keep a patient's penis alive!! You are totally uneducated in the realm of medical/surgical male genitourinary care and THIS is a result of your own dissatisfaction with yourself. It is VERY CLEARLY the focus of your need to condemn what is a very important weapon in our surgical armamentarium. Having NEVER EVEN SEEN any of the surgical emergencies I reference, any comment you make is ludicrous. You know less about the manner in which melanoma affects the penis or the integument in general. Go back to school and LEARN the rudiments - THEN perhaps you will have a valid voice - until then, get an appointment with a urologist who will certainly set you straight!

in europe doctors teach people with phimosis to stretch the skin. american doctors get out the knife. how extreme! how unnecessary!

only one man in 10,000 is cut in europe for medical purposes.

it doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that cutting a baby's healthy genital tissue and interfering with nature's plan has the potential for a major ethical, psychological and biological disaster. children have DIED due to this barbaric ritual...

i know men personally who have had very bad outcomes from circumcision... chordee, skin bridges, scars, meatal stenosis (9% of all circumcised - and only circumcised boys get meatal stenosis!), ED, night terrors, rage, depression... and men can restore and reverse it all.

but PLEASE don't let another knife cut your penis again... some who have gone that route have lost even the last shreds of sensitivity... one man from australia brought photos to a conference and it was so sad... such a beautiful man and he lost it all. female surgeon too. clueless. totally clueless. he had been cut as an infant, suffered throughout his childhood in silence because he had SUCH a tight cut that every time his penis grew, he was in agony. i've also heard from men who bleed with every erection due to the scar opening.

take the slow route and tug the skin. it's the most gentle and most enduring way to restore. men who were cut as adults, then restore claim they regain 80% of their original sensation... a huge improvement over losing 80%. there are many tugging techniques. google. find kind, safe helpers to encourage you along the way.

Why is it more painful for a 12 year old? Because he'll remember it? Why do we persist in thinking an infant doesn't feel as much pain as an adult? My daughter was forced to endure mutliple heel sticks to check her blood sugar level, and for DAYS afterwards, she flinched when we touched her foot. And that was just her FOOT, and nothing was cut off!

This simply isn't true. See my earlier comment 8.1 :

Even in Africa, there are six countries where men are *more* likely to be HIV+ if they've been circumcised: Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, and Swaziland. Eg in Malawi, the HIV rate is 13.2% among circumcised men, but only 9.5% among intact men. In Rwanda, the HIV rate is 3.5% among circumcised men, but only 2.1% among intact men.

One study concluded the following:

"Conclusions: We find a protective effect of circumcision in only one of the eight countries for which there are nationally-representative HIV seroprevalence data. The results are important in considering the development of circumcision-focused interventions within AIDS prevention programs."

another :

"Results: … No consistent relationship between male circumcision and HIV risk was observed in most countries."

Something is very wrong here. The people promoting circumcision in Africa aren't primarily interested in fighting HIV, but in promoting circumcision (or sometimes anything-but-condoms), and their actions will cost lives not save them.

Diarrheal diseases and pneumonia kill almost twice as many Africans as AIDS btw.

Mr. Lyndon, in a country that is riddled with problems, HIV being a massive problem, if circumcision did not prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS, why would they bother? To promote circumcision alone? That's kind of a costly promotion, don't you think?

So you must live in Africa, then, if you are so concerned about HIV rates there affecting your child...

How do you respond about China? Compare incidence of HIV and circumcision. Low incidence of both. wow. talk about contradictory.

In the Africa studies, the guys who underwent the knife were given protection and told not to have sex until after healing. The intact guys.... given nothing it seems.

Also: your son didn't cry because he passed out from the pain. Did you know that babies can have myocarial infarctions from pain during cirucmcisions?

mp - you are clearly reading comic books. There is NOT ONE SHRED of scientific evidence for your 'myocardial infarction' comment. What in heaven's name are you referencing? I have seen MANY neonatal cardiac issues which come to light in the nursery. Often it takes a few days for them to manifest. Hypoplastic left heart, persistent fetal circulation, PDA, various chromosomal anomalies (Turners, Downs to name a few) and of course the transposition of the great vessels which, thanks to Dr. Helen Blalock and her team early in the 20th century= are now routinely repaired. NEVER in the history of medicine did any neonate have an MI 2ndary to Circumcision. If you knew ANYTHING about the procedure (and I have seen them done routinely by skilled pediatricians) you would know that yes, the babies cry. Yes, they are strapped to a 'circ board' so that they don't move during the procedure which takes perhaps 10 minutes in skilled hands. Immediately after the dressing is applied, the baby is given to his mother for feeding and cuddling. Guess what? The baby stops crying almost instantly and goes to sleep. NO MI, for heaven's sake. I think you need to get off the histrionic bandwagon you're riding for what ever reason and by all means feel free to post your obvious disdain for the newborn circ. But this MI remark simply brands you as maniacal and vapid. Did something go wrong with your circ? Please - get at least some of your facts straight. I stood by my son's circ done by a capable colleague in a sterile nursery. Afterwards, I nursed him at which time he dozed off. The concern post circ is that the newborn voids, thus ensuring all urethral, renal, and ureteral components are intact. I cannot imagine why you think it necessary to create fiction so ludicrous as postulating an MI. While they DO occur, critical care emergencies in newborns are always more likely to be of a RESPIRATORY nature; and when cardiac issues DO occur they are entirely congenital and NEVER the result of a circumcision.

Finally - std (all types) are rampant in the third world nations due to the refusal by MEN to wear them. Good LUCK working on reversing those age old superstitions.

my husband's glans is in no worse shape than yours, simply because he has no foreskin covering it.

no worse shape? Have you seen or touched an intact penis? Let me explain it to you: the glans of the penis of an intact male is shiny and smooth and super sensitive. the glans of the penis of a mutilated male is wrinkly and rough and not really sensitive at all because of keratinization.

you are clearly reading comic books. There is NOT ONE SHRED of scientific evidence for your 'myocardial infarction' comment. What in heaven's name are you referencing?

Here ya go:

http://www.cirp.org/news/stamfordadvocate2008-12-22/

oh and here ya go (an even better source!)

http://www.ejpress.org/article/14206

mp - While it's clear that you do NOT comprehend the cardiac/pulmonary link in neonatal medicine, your two links are basically tabloid rags, no better than National Enquirers. Despite this, the first 'article' substantiates MY earlier comment that neonatal cardiac disorders DO exist and did exist in this case but had NO connection to the circ. Did YOU even read more than the headline? Secondly - your 'better source', was patently ludicrous. Peer reviewed medical journals are what professionals seek to establish best medical practice. NOT the UK's TV guide. Its not even good enough to be considered anecdotal. Finally, a Mohel is not a doctor, and certainly NOT a surgeon. Whereas the Bris is a religious ceremony which I do NOT advocate, any 'mistakes' made by a mohel are not within the purview of Boards of Medicine and this thread is only about the circumcision done in the neonatal nursery and NOT in someone's living room. While their decision to wait until the seventh day of life DOES have validity inasmuch as newborn hepatic systems take approximately 7 days to synthesize Vitamin K (for optimal clotting). But the nursery standing admission orders administer Vitamin K in the first 24 of life, so this is not an issue in the United States.

The title of this article really says it all: Parents, you are on your own. I am entirely comfortable with parents making their own decisions and living with them. You, on the other hand, insist that EVERYONE accept your pseudoscience on the basis of a few secular and NONMEDICAL tabloid rages. Moreover you seem to lack the ability to see that CHOICE (both yours and that of others) is acceptable.

Finally your (mis)use of 'keratinization' in another post here, regarding the anatomy of the glans is once again incorrect. Keratinization of the glans, as any dermatologist will tell you, occurs with or WITHOUT circumcision. keratinization is merely the natural death and replacement of the epidermis, and is common to the entire integumentary system, without exception. You mistakenly assume that you HAVING a foreskin makes you an expert on circumcision. Following this flawed rationale - having teeth would makes us all dentists. You are no expert, sir. Only VERY opinionated. However, IF you are not too old, it's never to late to return to school. When you graduate medical school, I would welcome a legitimate discussion with you on the FACTS sans the snake oil references.

Until then I will regard your posts as fiction, and bad fiction at that.

Guess what? The baby stops crying almost instantly and goes to sleep.

Sleep peacefully? Or pass out from the trauma? Or sleep with the relief that they are back in the loving arms of the mother who didn't protect them from trauma.

If the shoe fits....

EXACTLY....the doctor was a muslim and therefore convinced you according to HIS religious views and NOT sound medical reasoning.

Muslims are one of the religous groups that circumcise, so your argument that it was not due to religious stupidity has no teeth.

I don't feel it's a personal decision at all. It's a decision to cosmetically alter an infant for no good reason. Also, circumcision in older children/adults is easier because the foreskin is retractable. In an infant, it is not.

Informed . . .

You are right about it being an "intensely personal decision" unfortunately you are making this personal decision for someone else. Once it is done, it is done. It cannot be saved to be sewn back on later. Regardless of whether you believe you are acting in the child's best interest or not, unless there is a demonstrable medical need to perform infant circumcision (which is extremely rare), then shouldn't this "intensely personal decision" be left up to the person affected?

I shouldn't have said that 'everybody does it' is the only remaining argument for circumcision. Jews and Muslims do it for religious ritual apparently. p.s. I think my son is gorgeous in his natural state!

and not you... (not mean to offend you Jorge) the parents don't have to live with it unless the child bleeds to death or the genitals are so scarred the penis needs reconstructive surgery or the child is SO angry about it later in life that the child wants his parents gone.

You have to wonder why they use straps if they're using anesthetics...

I have three daughters. I have breasts, they don't. I don't have to explain to them why I look different.

hilltown - the countries (including your own) that you mentioned don't routinely circ because it was removed from the list of procedures which were covered by your national health insurance years ago. It is most certainly possible for obtain a routine circ down under and across the pond, but patients will pay out of pocket. Here in the states, most insurances (Including Medicaid) pays for the circ. I suspect THAT is why these trends have emerged and NOT for science's sake or any other altruistic reason.

@Buche de noel
Circumcision was removed from the list of procedures covered by British and Commonwealth national health services because no benefits had been found for it. Doctors "hated doing it and were glad to give it up". A common public consensus is that it is "barbaric". There has been NO outbreak of any of the things it was supposed to be good for (and HIV is lower in all Commonwealth countries than the US). In New Zealand it is hard to find a doctor who will do it, outside the main cities. (The only people who still do it are Polynesians - except Maori - for cultural reasons, Muslims and Jews.)

Citations please, Hugh? Especially the 'common public consensus', 'barbaric' and 'doctor's hated doing it, glad to give it up." Thanks. but it remains a common and desired procedure here in the US with the skill set required part of the core curriculum of pediatric residency. Of course, urologic surgeons MUST be skilled in this surgery given the myriad need for it in adulthood when things go wrong with the foreskin.

@Bushe de noel
The "barbaric" is anecdotal of course, but two doctors (one my own GP) independently said they hated doing it and were glad to give it up.

Yes, the US is isolated in the developed world in still doing it.

"the skill set required part of the core curriculum of pediatric residency." Grand words for "they give it to interns to do for training" - they don't tell the parents that, do they?

A pediatrician from the US confirmed to me that the only thing they were taught about the foreskin was how to cut it off. In Finland, where circumcision has never been customary, the lifetime risk of circumcision is one in thousands. ("Myriad" literally means 10,000, so either you exaggerate or someone is scalpel-happy.)

I appreciate your correction re: myriad. I used it in the colloquial sense. I still stand by newborn circ based on my own experience and what I have seen in the medical context. But we all are entitled to our opinions and decisions in life as long as we have the courage of our convictions. I do. Are you a Finn? I love Finland in every way but Helsinki is SO expensive! Suspect that's the dollar hitting rock bottom overseas. Nonetheless - I spent some time in Keflavik during my years in Navy medicine. Had lots of trouble with prolonged dusk but LOVED midnight sun!!

I'm glad you left your son intact, but your doctor's views are very different from what other doctors think.

In the UK, only about 1% of males left intact ever actually need to be circumcised, and it's getting rarer. That means you'd need to circumcise 99 babies unnecessarily to prevent one circumcision later. Circumcising later in life isn't a big deal though - it's safer, hurts less, and the results are cosmetically better. No need for a "revision" or repeat operation either.

The risks of something "going wrong" are a lot less than 50% too. Depending on what you include, the rates of complications vary from about 3% to 35%.

If you look up the galleries of botched jobs, one thing that may surprise you is just how many jobs were botched cosmetically, rather than medically. Skin tags and skin bridges and hair growing half way up the shaft are not normal, but would not be counted as medical complications.

I agree with you! The more research I've done, the more I've seen that my doctor overstated complications! There are a lot of unnecessary circumcisions done because a boy gets one UTI! I have a daughter that's had 3 UTI's already, and no one suggested surgery for her!

I've seen the pictures of botched circumcisions. Why would we risk that? It's insanity.