How can they possibly know? You either were circumcised as a baby or not.. you have no way of knowing how the other half lives.

Anything that reduces penile sensitivity to "improve" premature ejaculation for young men will result in an excessivel delay in ejaculation for men over 35.

Follow-up to Vincent Denali's: You're right

Teach your children to honor God's plan for a man and a woman - one partner for a lifetime - and this will nearly eliminate the diseases listed in the article. You don't have to be a believer to follow the best plan.

God bless America

Teach your children to honor God's plan for a man and a woman - one partner for a lifetime - and this will nearly eliminate the diseases listed in the article. You don't have to be a believer to follow the best plan.

How will it nearly eliminate the diseases? You only need one partner to get them. "God's plan"? Does every answer to every question come from the logic that there is an invisible man in the sky?

The latest research from the CDC showed a 60% reduction in the spread of HIV from circumcision. Better to get circumcised.

Eric... A 60% reduction in something that is something like a 1 in 10,000 chance for a guy penetrating someone who actually happens to have HIV in the first place is hardly significant.

You could go around screwing every woman in sight circumcised or not and have about as much chance contracting HIV as winnning the lottery. At least in the US.....

I never understand why that is the first thing every hypersensitive idiot worries about when it is the absolute least likely thing to happen. Having green stuff oozing out of you or sprouting red sores are far more likely...

I believe that study was done in Africa?

Where the odds of the person you'e about to have sex with having HIV is something like 50%.

You self-righteous males are forgetting that there are plenty of women who refuse to have sex with an uncircumcised male solely on the basis of cleanliness. I have a couple of friends who even ask the man if he is circumcised before the relationship progresses to the point of having sex.

UMGator - so you have female friends who are idiots... Nice to know. Maybe i'll ask the next woman I meet if she has had her clit sliced off....

If a woman breaks off a relationship with a guy they are interested in on the basis of a flap of skin, they are shallow and stupid. No wonder why they need to find so many men. Women and men with serious personality problems do the most dating...

Anyone who is making a health argument in favor of circumcision needs to start banging their drum loudly in favor of preventative radical mastectomies in girls. Making that a normal practice would save tens of thousands of lives annually. But i don't hear anybody cheerleading cutting off girls breasts, hmmm.

The CDC mentions recent studies that verify many other studies showing the health benefits of circumcision while critics justify their opposition by being concerned about a small momentary bit of pain. It seems the position of the opponents of circumcision is irrational at best and the more fanatical opponents throw out such terms as mutilation and barbarism, etc.

However, each to their own as this is America and you have a right to be irrational if you choose, just don’t impose your irrationality on others.

Wet Willy - I trust evolution over the opinions of modern medicine. They normally fail to see the wood for the trees and make five more problems in the effort to solve one... There is a good reason for a foreskin. The focus on STDs you shouldn't be contracting anyway if you practice safe sex and smell you won't have if you pull the skin back when you shower and piss is ridiculous...

Eric, no one is telling you to have or to condone circumcision if you don't believe in it for any reason you like. All that is required is that you refrain from a crusade against the procedure just because you don't believe in it. Please allow each person the right to make their own decision.

Sure. Any adult that wants one should be able to get one. Parents shouldn't have the right to mutilate their child for religious or shaky health reasons. If Jews and Muslims don't like their religious practice being banned, they are free to move back to their hell hole to act like barbarians all they wish.

I know my father waited until his twenties and it was because of a severe infection, the man is cleanliness personified but youre talking about one of the most bacteria-filled areas of the body, both good and bad (if you doubt that ask a woman about antibiotics, lol). But imagine having to go in for the surgery now.... the thought of MRSA there? O...M... gosh! Just like anything else, if I were a mother or father I would read up on both risks and benefits and make my choice.

Eric, yep, you’re one of the fanatics who just can’t grasp the concept of minding your own business. Why do you insistently claim your way is the only way and who exactly are you trying to convince? I suspect the one you’re most trying to convince is yourself.

I’ve known many men that lamented not being circumcised and had the procedure performed later in life. I have never met anyone that lamented being circumcised, but I wager you’ll claim that you know many.

As I stated, you are one of those fanatics that has deluded himself into believing he’s somehow championing the rights of someone else’s child. Pathetic.

Wet Willy - you are one of those fanatics who think it is your place to mutilate your child and force them to take part in crap they don't understand... Like baptism...

Wet Willy wrote " while critics justify their opposition by being concerned about a small momentary bit of pain"

Not a single Western medical association recommends circumcision because the immediate surgical risks to the infant exceed potential benefits.

"I’ve known many men that lamented not being circumcised and had the procedure performed later in life."

Strange. The adult circumcision rate is 3 in 10,000, and nearly all are requested grudgingly medical problem. Just how many people do you know?

Well, now another fanatic has chimed in. You people simply cannot stay out of other people’s business. What is with you people? Some kind of holy crusade? I’d bet that if you were vegans, you would crusade against people feeding their children meat. Not a single Western medical association recommends circumcision, eh? I suppose the CDC’s pointing out the future health benefits of circumcision are simply idle musing on their part.

Yes, I know several men that opted for circumcision later in life and as for you two; be comforted in the fact that most of the males born in this country get circumcised. Peddle your fanaticism somewhere else.

Its a bit of extra skin removed. They use pain medicine. Its not a big deal.

Don't care what "gods" plan is.

Wet Willy, not everyone has the choice. When my sons were born they didn't give me a choice or any information on it. Where I live it's common practice to just do it without having to have parental consent.

Tireofsilly, they do not use pain medicine on infants for this procedure.

"You people simply cannot stay out of other people’s business." Pot-kettle! What is cutting parts of babies genitals off but not being able to stay out of their business? "What is with you people? Some kind of holy crusade?" That's how non-therapeutic circumciision began, and now custom/convention/conformity keep it going.

Wet Willy: "Please allow each person the right to make their own decision." Listen to yourself.

If you are afraid of disease, then get circumcised yourself. It is not cool to cut off the end of the penis of someone who has no say. There is no rational argument you can make against this.

Comparing circumcision to genital mutilation in females is incredibly offensive. One is done in a sterile, surgical environment by a trained physician at an age which there will be no memory, often w/ pain control, and meant to prevent many future health issues The other is not done in a sterile environment by a trained physician, is done right around the age of puberty when the girl is quite aware, with no pain control, and meant to decrease sexual stimulation in girls so they'll remain pure for whatever guy they are given to as though they are property. It's absolutely disgusting to suggest these are on the same level, and degrading to the mutilated boys. Honestly, how many of the MILLIONS of circumcised men are complaining about it? Baby boys don't die from circumcision, some of these girls, do.

Shame on those who make this comparison.

There is no reason to continue this diatribe with fanatics that would impose their twisted views on others. Just look at some examples from the responses. One of the funniest responders equates the removal of a bit of skin to cutting off the end of the penis. This stuff can’t be made up, but enough of this. These fanatics will rant on about loving their little bits of skin ad nauseum.

@Saws: In Indonesia and Malaysia, baby girls are cut surgically, sterilely and quite minimally (as they used to be in the USA, but that's now illegal). Is that OK by you? If not, why the double standard? The reasons given for cutting girls are just as varied and irrational as for cutting boys. And boys DO die of circumcision: see

@Wet Willy: the foreskin is muscle, arteries, veins and thousands of nerves as well as "a bit of skin" and yes, it is at the end. It is those who want to cut parts off babies who "impose their twisted views on others. If it's so unimportant when it's in situ, why is it so important to cut it off?

It seems they don't like links here. Search "circumcision death" instead.

While no one should force parents to circumcise their male babies, there should be no restrictions on this procedure either.

Female circumcision is a barbaric tradition of (primarily Muslim) cultures that repress women and there is almost nothing in common with male circumcision besides the name of the procedure. The only reason it is brought up in the context of San Francisco's idiotic ban is as a lame attempt to justify denying the rights of Christian and Jewish (and make no mistake,there is an anti-semetic element to this outrageous overreach of Govco. influence on the private lives of citizens) parents to raise their children as they see fit in accordance with their religious traditions.

No restrictions on newborn genital surgery but restrictions on abortion? Isn't this a little unethical?

HUH? Where did that come from? Common Law follows in basic terms the laws of the Bible from where they are derived. In the bible under the Jewish interpretation which is the original source - the five books of Moses and the Talmud including the commentaries it is clear that life begins not at conception but at birth and prior to that point the fetus is considered "potential" life and has no rights. Abortion was permitted and in fact required if the life of the Mother was threatened. What this has to do with circumcision eludes me.

Circumcision is required for all Jews and is one of the 613 commandments we live with - not ten for us it is 613. It is not obligatory for non-jews. We - the tiny minority we are, wonder why non-jews do this but if you like it and your partners like it then by all means hey make yourself at home and meet the Moehel. Just don't get so all emotional about it. It's not that big a deal - really -I mean for us it is a foregone conclusion but for you well different strokes for different folks. If you don't want to do it - ok don't but please don't suggest as to what we should do. If some women demand or prefer that their partners be circumcised it happens to be their perogative as to what style of penis they want inserted in their bodies so try to be nicer.... I am sure that intact penises work fine - there are sure lots of them out there. It so happens that the circumcised penis works just fine too, we know it and we don't have a problem with it and given the history of the smothering protection of Jewish Mothers do you honestly think if they were concerned in the least about circumcision harming their eight day old sons that they would allow it? jewish Mothers know it does no harm to their sons and they know they like circumcised partners and that this is what they want for their sons and for their Daughters to Marry and enjoy. Now I know one non-Jewish friend who was circumcised at age 35 and he had lots of use under his belt each way and he likes it just fine and says it was no big deal. Just do us all a favour and stop being so emotional about it. Circumcised and uncircumcised penises have two functions - to copulate and to urinate - and they both work - OK? As to which one is better? You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine and you can justify yours any way you like. So there!

I can't reply to 2.1 without getting put in Newsvine timeout. Suffice to say you would never say it in the presence of my Jewish friends without a response from this not wise to piss off combat veteran.

Maybe I'm overreacting, but the double standard (that it's okay to make fun of Christians or Jews, but not okay to crack wise about anyone else) of the twisted times we live in really bothers me.

How can you possibly know what it feels like to not have it?

Ummm.... pull it back for awhile?

You have absolutely NO possible way to know if I am desensitized or not. You cannot pull it back while in your pants. I have absolutely no issues with have been cut. I have never once heard someone complaining because they were cut. And if it were desensitized, then I guess I would just last longer and be able to give more lasting pleasure than you ever will be able to fathom!

What Kool-aid have you been drinking. The studies done have all been conducted to benefit the medical community. If you would have been born somewhere other the USofA you, wouldn't have been circumcised. Unless it was later done as a religious rite.

Also with my first child they didn't even really ask me if I wanted my son circumcised, its all so "assumed". They shove a consent in your face and being only 20yrs old then, thinking they have my best interests at heart right? Wrong! My son was scarred in such a way he had to be "redone" at about the age of 2. After that I decided my second son could make the choice for himself. Heck Ill pay for it later if that's what he wants. Just be open minded and think of whats best for your child, not you.

Mark-423819

How can you possibly know what it feels like to not have it?

-and how do you know what it feels like to have a foreskin?

There is a reason for men and women both to be born with foreskin on their genital areas. Circumcision is a religious bs ritual of mutilation.

Mark, I have a male friend who was circumcised at age 40...it was required because of a rare medical problem he had. He is still mourning his foreskin...said sex was so much better WITH it.

Regardless of whether of not there is any religious motivation for this practice, it is simply a medically healthier way to live. Who cares if there is also some religious connections.

It's no more of a mutilation that when you cut an embilical cord. Please find one single human walking the earth with any memory of the proceedure that was performed in their first weeks of life. Otherwise, this is a pointless argument. If you want to doom your kid into having an ugly penis and more disease risk by not cutting off what evolution has yet to eliminate, so be it.

Sugar - that's a rarity tho, it's a pretty standard procedure with few complications, if you do your duty afterwards. It's not very much different than what you have to do with the umbilical stump.

Eric, while I agree that male circumcision is pointless your last statement is pretty rude. "rag monkeys in the desert"? really? You managed to make yourself out to be a racist in a thread about penises. Bravo.

A few tribes of primitive murderous thugs... What else were they? The Hebrews weren't exactly the highlight of civilization.

ray: You can't be serious! Comparing circumcision to female genital mutilation? They are two completely different things done for completely different reasons. Circumcision is done mostly for health reasons now, with the exception of Jews, and maybe some Christians and Muslims who do it for religious reasons. Doing it in no way affects a persons sexual feelings or ability or desire to perform. Female genital mutilation is done for the purpose of preventing women from getting the normal enjoyment out of sex (primitive religious claims to the contrary) that the Gods intended us to have.

For those who think circumcision is mutilation or "unnecessary" pain for the baby, that is nonsense. Just watch a baby being circumcised and then watch them get a shot. Pretty much the same reaction. Plus, they have no recollection of either. And, as I've said, it prevents a lot of potential problems down the road. I've never met a man who's said, gee, I'm upset that my parents had me circumcised. Yet, I have talked to men who have had problems and wished they had been as a baby. A lot less painful at that age.

Tracy... who's to say being circumcised after puberty has the same side effects as being circumcised before puberty... or when you're a baby.

Unanswerable.

Some decisions belong with the parents.

@Truth patrol "It's no more of a mutilation that when you cut an embilical cord." An umbilical cord has no nerves, no function after birth, and will dry up and drop off by itself if you don't cut it.

(I love how the circumcision opponents can compare male genital cutting with such transparently different things - umbilical cords, tonsils, appendixes, earpiercing, bedtime, French lessons, abortion, tooth straightening - but just dare to compare it with the most minimal and nearly comparable kind of female genital cutting and "Oh no, they're COMPLETELY different!")

"circumcision advocates" of course I meant.

Witchrunner: Comparing circumcision to female genital mutilation? They are two completely different things done for completely different reasons.

Prove that they are not the same thing! You can't.

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, in very rare cases, only the prepuce (the fold of skin surrounding the clitoris).
• 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, or 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.

For boys, there are a few but limited to the prepuce which is the equivalents to brit milah (partial circumcision), brit peri'ah (total circumcision). There are many men and boys that have had much more than a total circumcision including accidental amputations, etc.

The takeaway from this, if anything, should be that both boys and girls have a prepuce. In a girl, that prepuce is the clitoral hood. The clitoral hood is protected by law. It is prohibited to perform a prepucectomy for ANY REASON on a girl. In a boy, that prepuce is the foreskin. The foreskin is not protected by law. It is perfectly legal to do ANYTHING you want to a boy's foreskin for any reason you can imagine. Isn't this a little sexist?

Good choice. Circumcision places all of the risk, including infection, penile disfigurement, penile injury and even death, on an infant.

Adults, male or female, should be free to circumcise at will. Circumcisions exists in the US primarily for hospitals to make more money from male births.

Actually, throughout Europe and Latin America the majority of men are uncircumcised, and those that are circumcised are mostly due to extreme medical need or religious practices. Commonsense prevailed in Europe and Latin America in which why cut off something unnecessarily? What is the purpose of cutting and ripping off a baby boy's knob, when it's literally mutilation as the boy's foreskin is still quite attached to the glans for the 1st 3 years, and not after that does it offer any movement. On babies you don't need to wash inside his bits; just a quick rinse while bathing. On young boys, teens and men a good daily quick but gentle wash is enough w/o complications. So why in the US is it such common practice after WW2, when we are mostly a Christian country, as in Europe and Latin America? Is it so doctors and hospitals make more money; or so that within the male population one cannot be distinguished from the minority religions that do have such practice and were persecuted during WW2 and other periods before???

Vincent Denali

Good choice. Circumcision places all of the risk, including infection, penile disfigurement, penile injury and even death, on an infant.

I really would like to say what I want to say to ths comment, but it would get me banned.

However, some people really do need to go back to school. hint, hint

Circumcision reduces the spread of HIV by 60% in recent studies. HIV camps out on the foreskin.

Most diseases would camp on in the foreskin, but proper care would alleviate those concerns. That's of course not going to be consistent however.

Vincent Denali is being wholly irrational and sensationalist. Circumcision is a lot less dangerous than birth itself, and you're more likely to see complications from the umbilical cord than a circumcision.

Parents make decisions regarding their children and surgery. Everyone has to make it for themselves. Both my sons are circumcised, but I really considered not having it done. The health risks (and the fact that mine has never caused me any problems) decided it. Others can come to their own conclusions.

HIV still exists on the foreskin, its part of how it transmits successfully clean or not.

Cap Tripps wrote "Circumcision is a lot less dangerous than birth itself, "

Birth is necessary. Circumcision is elective and painful infant penis sculpting.

Eric wrote "Circumcision reduces the spread of HIV by 60% in recent studies"

If circumcised US had a lower HIV infection rate than comparable uncircumcised nations such as UK, Germany, France or any European Union country, you'd have a point. But the US does not have a lower rate.

Johns Hopkins University staff concludes that condoms/sexual practices are the main factors HIV transmission. They conclude that circumcision makes
no difference in HIV transmission, even in Africa.

LEVELS AND SPREAD OF HIV SEROPREVALENCE AND ASSOCIATED
FACTORS (2009)

http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/CR22/CR22.pdf
p.109 states that in 18 African countries and India, 10 showed more and 8 showed less HIV infection among circumcised men.

Eric-913730

Circumcision reduces the spread of HIV by 60% in recent studies. HIV camps out on the foreskin.

I suppose you are a believer of all the African men raping little kids and babies is a cure for HIV as well.

That is the belief in some African communities where grown men were told and led to believe that if they rape little kids they will be cured of their AIDS.

Arieus,

Not sure what your comment to ERIC was in releation to. He is correct in his fact. The foreskin has high concentration of Langerhan Cells which are an entry point fo the HIV virus into the body. Eric statement is based on scientific research ans study.

Your comment about men having sex with children in an effort to rid themselves of the disease is based in tribal folklore and superstition.

Therein lies the problem of ignorance and lack of education of those stuck in primitive, third world countries that believe in supernatural over reason and logic.

Your logic is flawed. When your a newborn baby and your parents decide to cut the tip of your penis off you don't exactly have a choice in the matter. I should know, I am circumcised.

I don't blame my parents I blame religion for making up this nonsense and the medical field for supporting the mutilation of newborn babies just so they can make an extra buck. I can understand religion spreading misinformation, that's there job, but a doctor who supports a "procedure" like this will never care for any of my loved ones.

I'll never get my foreskin back, I'll never know what it is to have a complete penis the way nature intended. To say this wasn't forced on me is pure ignorance in the face of the facts.

Cutting the foreskin is not cutting the "tip of your penis." That's a fact. But I can see that you are extremely upset and I wonder why most men could care less.

@janellect

Cutting the foreskin IS cutting "the tip of your penis", as that glans and foreskin of an infant are 1 until about age 3, when the two naturally separate. Circumcision involves cutting the foreskin, starving it of blood, sticking a metal probe and scrapping the foreskin from the inside to separate the foreskin from the glans, and ripping the foreskin off the infant. There's no gentle manner of doing it, since, again, the two are 1 at birth until about 3 years of age. Additionally, there are many circumcised men who are quite upset about this, but what true recourse do they have? Sue their parents for this, as they can't grow another true foreskin??? So please get your facts together!!!

Both I and my two male children are circumcised and very happy about it, as are our wives. I'd really be pissed if my parents had let me have to decide on it after I had grown up, as some have suggested. I know of no male who remembers the surgery at birth and neither does anyone else. And, contrary to #5.3's comment about circumcised men who are quite upset about this, is just BS. I served 4 yrs in the military and served with hundreds of men, none of which even mentioned it, much less upset about it.

I realize there are those that don't believe in vaccines either. But, I take the position that anything within reason that controls exposing your sexual partner to a potential health risk is well worth it. And, I think that most women would agree with that. At least those I've known would!

I am one of the males you say were not forced, and had my parents decided not to have me mutilated we might be on speaking terms. Any medical benefit that has been shown goes away if you practice good hygiene and wear a condom/wait till you get married. This is a case where there was a religious practice first, and then later someone wanted to justify it and found studies that agree with them and disregarded the rest. I have read as many studies that say that there is no measurable benefit to circumcision as say there is one.

I find your comment extremely inappropriate and rude.

Bob has made some good points and I've noticed that you have not been able to say anything worth proving in your defense. However the best you can come up with is an uneducated and ignorant response.

Gid, you are disgusting. Thanks for bringing threatening to rape a man's wife into the discussion.

He's got his facts straight, The foreskin is not the tip of the penis, it's loose skin from the shaft. I never even knew anything had been done to my penis until learning about it in Jr High health class. Both my sons have been circumcised, they were no worse for wear a few hours after the procedure. At 4 and 5, they're not showing any signs of PTSD, they aren't disfigured, etc.

Try to remember that you're opinions and emotions are not shared by everyone. When you decide to have children, you'll be able to make whatever decision feels right to you for your son.

Capt Tripps wrote "Both my sons have been circumcised, they were no worse for wear a few hours after the procedure"

Why would a parent order genital surgery on a newborn that is not recommended by any pediatric organization? All of your arguments also apply to the removal of the female foreskin.

Newsflash GID................

The uterus is sterile and the cleanest thing on the planet.............until it become infected by an penis filled with germs.

EHHHH, a virgin can get plenty of diseases.

boston7788 - wrong. Girls get urinary tract infections without the help of a penis. She gets an infection and she gets medication. Gawd forbid if a boy gets a UTI - he gets a circumcision.

mpmorin78,

Last time I checked a Uterus can't get a UTI.........2 different pathways and 2 different organs.

I didn't mention anything about a uterus. Bacteria get spread around my movement and sometimes under their own power. It is not unheard of to have the same pathogenic organism colonizing from the anus all the way around to the vaginal tract. I test for it all the time as a micro technologist.

it is ageist - discrimination based on age - because you are too young to answer or give consent - I will do whatever the heck I want to your body because it is what makes me happy. I don't care if you don't want it - if you didn't want it you should have spoken when I asked.

A little ridiculous? That's exactly what those who WANT to cut their boys think...

"circumcision lowers cases of hiv"

That is lowers the chance of a male contracting HIV from a female. In the US, nearly all cases of HIV, which are few in number, are from 1) anal-reception of HIV-infected sperm 2) intravenous reception of HIV-infected blood 3) vaginal reception of HIV infected sperm. Circumcision does nothing to reduce HIV infection in those cases. That is why circumcised US has STD rates comparable to uncircumcised Europe, though the US has a higher HIV infection rate.

plus in the free world we need more fathers/men to speak up instead of brain washed mothers/women taking over!

Johns Hopkins University staff concludes that condoms/sexual practices are the main factors HIV transmission. They conclude that circumcision makes
no difference in HIV transmission, even in Africa.

LEVELS AND SPREAD OF HIV SEROPREVALENCE AND ASSOCIATED FACTORS (2009)

http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/CR22/CR22.pdf

p.109 states that in 18 African countries and India, 10 showed more and 8 showed less HIV infection among circumcised men.

And you think a 10 to 8 ratio isn't significant?

comparative to America?

Of course your going to have a higher rate, because women don't like having sex with uncircumcised men, according to others on here.

then i guess i should stop wearing bras... they're desensitizing my nipples.

If you should decide to stop wearing bras and later decide to start wearing them again, you are free to do so. Your infant son does not have the choice to start wearing a foreskin ever, thanks to you.

Strange that some men are happy they don't have one. Unless you have had a circumcision as an adult, I don't really know how you could say things are worse for you/him. ???

An adult circumcision really can't be compared to an infant routine (not a treatment) circumcision because the latter has an additional 2-4 decades of additional drying, callousing and scarring.

But the study cited above compares neural sensitivity to touch on various parts of a circumcised and uncircumcised penis. Lighter touches with instruments can be surveyed.

@ janellect

Cutting the foreskin IS cutting "the tip of your penis", as that glans and foreskin of an infant are 1 until about age 3, when the two naturally separate. Circumcision involves cutting the foreskin, starving it of blood, sticking a metal probe and scrapping the foreskin from the inside to separate the foreskin from the glans, and ripping the foreskin off the infant. There's no gentle manner of doing it, since, again, the two are 1 at birth until about 3 years of age. Additionally, there are many circumcised men who are quite upset about this, but what true recourse do they have? Sue their parents for this, as they can't grow another true foreskin???

GOI, thats exactly what i was saying in post 1.1

janellect, why dont we cut the skin off your clit and see if it has any effect on womens sensitivity?

janellect

then i guess i should stop wearing bras... they're desensitizing my nipples. Just cut a one inch hole for each nipple and let those puppies breath!

Heathen I'll bet we could make a new fashion statement doing that

Very few men are fighting in the trenches of wars. Today, infections are treated with anti-biotics, not amputation.

Hmmm... so let's mutilate ALL baby boys in the 21st century just because back in WW2 some men did not have a good wash and thus instead had their knobs cut off??? or

Let's mutilate ALL baby boys in the 2st century just because back in WW2 some men of minority religions were being persecuted, and in order for that persecution not to occur in the present or future, with all boys having their knobs cut off no one would know what religion they belonged to???

Why in Europe and Latin America this barbaric practice does not occur as frequently as in the US???

So are all parents in Europe and Latin America totally bonkers for siding with reason and commonsense, as the circumcision of males is left to those that need it for extreme medical reasons or due to some ancient, yet ridiculous, religious practice???

I don't know about other males, but I sure as hell have enough sensitivity and can't imagine wanting anymore. And, since when have we considered European and Latin American medicine more advanced? A rather stupid argument. But, then again they don't bath as often as Americans either, so I guess that makes them cleaner. Perhaps those that feel they have better hygiene should spend some time there, as I have.

Why are parents in Europe and Latin American necessarily right? Because their decision agrees with your own?

@Ludvig: "Doc didn't do a good job and when my son was a teenager due to an infection had it done a second time. I can tell you, I had it done as a baby and remember nothing. My son remembers the 2nd time, but not the first. Do it as a baby and get it over with."

That's not what happend with your son, is it? In all probability if you hadn't had it done the first time he would never have needed it done the second time, either. That's what happens with the vast majority of intact men worldwide.

@Bob in Salt Lake City: "I don't know about other males, but I sure as hell have enough sensitivity and can't imagine wanting anymore."

Time after time circumcised men say this (intact men don't) as though circumcision leaves them with hair-trigger sensitivity. By removing the ~20,000 specialised nerve endings of the f0reskin, circumcising is like ripping out the accelerator pedal and leaving an on-off switch: you can still get there, but you don't enjoy the ride so much.

"And, since when have we considered European and Latin American medicine more advanced? A rather stupid argument. But, then again they don't bath as often as Americans either, so I guess that makes them cleaner. Perhaps those that feel they have better hygiene should spend some time there, as I have."

Well how about Scandinavia and Japan? They have excellent health, are very clean, and don't circumcise. Or Australia and New Zealand, which used to circumcise as avidly as the USA, but gave it up - now it's hard to find a doctor willing to do it - and have had no outbreaks of any of the diseases circumcision was supposed to be good for. New Zealand's HIV rate is one of the lowest in the world.

Ludvig, do you also support the use of date rape drug during molestation? In your own words: "Much better to get it done when you don't know what is going on."

Damn, that's funny!

Then there was the old rabbi who'd kept every prepuce he'd ever sliced off. Finally, one day he takes them all to a taxidermist and asks, "Vat can you make from diz shtuff?" The taxidermist says he will make of it ein suitcase, come back in a week. So a week later, the rabbi shows up to get his suitcase and the taxidermist brings forth what looks like a wallet..."Vat is dis? So tiny it is, dat is no suitcase!" "It's ok", says the taxidermist, "just rub it a little, it vill grow."

With Dr. John Kellogg (yes, the cereal king) heavily promoting that circumcision would prevent masturbation and lunacy!!!

Hmmm... this coming from the man who also heavily promoted sugar coated over processed corn meal as healthy and good for long life???

it's practised in the Philippines a generally not-Muslim country. Your population count should include females. not all people on earth arre males

Bet you can't eat just one!

OMG that is sacrilege!!! NOT!!!

How dare you speak so blasphemous!!! NOT!!!

In all seriousness, I just now walked past a burning bush and it spoke to me. It said "psst, hey mister, do you have some water, as it's a bit hot over here". Then it gave me the winning lotto numbers for tonight!!!

Are you pagan, atheist or agnostic?

The Unit Toad

Bet you can't eat just one! ... women have become addicted to eating mine.

The US is the only industrialized Western nation that continues its mass infant penis cutting program.

It's an instant money making machine to the tune of $300 a pop!

Besides, it helps hide minority religious members within the masses!

It helps hide minority religious members within the masses? You're implying that everyone walks around naked. With the exception of locker rooms, there's little chance we'd see each others penis conditions to root out those darn "religious minority members".... Strange, it's a "jewish" practice, but neither I, nor the few people I've ever really discussed this with to learn their "cut" status, were Jewish.....they just had parents who cared.

Money making machine? You mean like plastic surgery? Both are completely optional.

Same for me Willy except I'm 47. My parents had my brothers cut. Thanks Dad for shooting out a girl!!!!

".they just had parents who cared."
Actually, non-religious circumcision got to be customary because doctors did it without asking. After a generation of that, they could invoke "A boy should look like his father" (like they spend more than a minute in their lifetimes looking at each other's penises?). The "health benefits" that parents "care" about are like the protection garlic gives against vampires: "Ever been attacked by vampires?" "No". "Don't, whatever you do, stop wearing the garlic!"

can you spare some? I'd like mine back.

Bowen wrote "It's a personal decision. However, all agree that if it is to be done, it is better done when the boy is a baby. "

Infant circumcision is not a personal decision because it is forced on an infant unable to resist.

"Having a boy wait until he is 18 to decide makes the decision literally much more painful."

Adult circumcisions are rare and usually performed under medical necessity. When given a choice as adults, men and women do not circumcise themselves.

Just how do you know it is less painful ? No anesthic at birth ? But anesthetic at 18. Now Who feels the Pain ?

How is a personal decision if your parents made the decision. Circumcised as a baby wish I had a choice.

Are you anti-circumcision folks also pro-abortion?

You abort a child and you take everything they're ever going to be... circumcision is a trifle.

If pain were the guiding principal of child rearing, imagine all of the things we would never do for our kids... injections being top of the list.

Circumcision involves pain and harm to the infant, including common infection from urine and feces on an open wound, risk of penile injury and disfigurement and death. One source estimates 115 US infant deaths per year due to circumcision, although the formal causes are listed as infection and hemorrhage.

Most pro-life the only reason women would need a abortion is if her life was in danger or if the baby as defects that would not allow the child to live a normal life.

Vincent - name the source or don't make the claim. What a cheap trick to make a claim without the citation.

Every year in the US 100,000 neonatal (< one month old) boy infants die.
117 die from circumcision
115 die from SIDS
44 die from suffocation
8 die in auto accidents

This study finds that approximately 117 neonatal circumcision-related deaths (9.01/100,000) occur annually in the United States, about 1.3% of male neonatal deaths from all causes.

Lost Boys: An Estimate of U.S. Circumcision-Related Infant Deaths
JournalThymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies
IssueVolume 4, Number 1 / Spring 2010

Are you anti-circumcision folks also pro-abortion?

Is there any topic you people can't find a way to bring abortion into?

With the indignation about the pain and suffering caused, it's a fair question.

I'm pro-choice, but I also think this decision is nothing but the parent's.

Vincent... there were 1.2 million abortions in 2007.

it's a fair question.

Nope. It's irrelevant and a derail.

there were 1.2 million abortions in 2007.

Again, what the bloody hell does this have to do with the topic? I swear to God you people can inject your obsession with fetuses into any conversation.

I also think this decision is nothing but the parent's

This decision should be made by the person having or not having his foreskin removed--no one else. But that's just silly old me worrying about the post-born.

you shouldn't worry about abortion; think about it; abortion reduces the chance of HIV 100%.

Mark you are pro-choice on abortion, pro-parent-choice on circumcision. IOW you give the baby no choice in either case. Good show for adult choice. You also support adult choice on sexual abuse of children? Ever watch a bris that included mezziza b'peh? (That's when the mohel sucks on the wounded penis, supposedly to clear off the blood.) You cool with that too? Really, every circumcision is violent, sexual, child abuse; ever watch a VDO of a circ and see how they rub the little penis to get it an erection, supposedly to make it big enough to cut on. Wow, Mark, a lot for you to like - as long as adults options are protected, right?

@Bowen Houff: "It's a personal decision." Yes, very personal, and who is the person most directly concerned? That's the person who should make this very personal decision.

"However, all agree that if it is to be done, it is better done when the boy is a baby."
This is debatable. On a baby, any mistake is magnified when he grows up, like writing on a balloon. We now know that babies are acutely sensitive to pain, and sugar water is ineffective.

"Parents make decisions for their children; that is part of what parenting is all about." This is not a decision that parents even need to make, to a cut a normal, healthy, functional, irreplacable part of his body. There's no other such part it's even legal to cut off, and the most nearly corresponding parts of a girl get special protection.

"Having a boy wait until he is 18 to decide makes the decision literally much more painful." Once he's learnt how it works, he'll almost certainl decide to keep it.

" Finally, to be honest, about the last thing I want is to be MORE sensitive in that area, resulting in even shorter lovemaking time."
We hear this from circumcised men - but NOT from intact men - all the time. It is circumcision that has made you so hair-trigger. With its thousands of nerves, the foreskin is not just "more sensitive" but better sensitive, offering more feedback, and hence more control.

ricardo... I think it's none of my business what other people do... and none of anyone's business about my relationship with my son...

... and if my son feels it was wrong, he can elect not to do it to his son when he's older and break the cycle. I hope that my performance otherwise as a father will offset what is the best decision my wife and I could make with the information we had at the time. People make hard decisions on behalf of their children all the time... decisions that the child might not like when they're old enough to have a say.

One example would be surgical corrections of deafness, which many people in the deaf culture think is wrong.

Just because I'm pro-choice, doesn't mean I'm pro abortion... I just think it's disingenuous to abhor circumcision and be pro-choice on abortion... if one happens to be anti-both... my comment didn't apply to you.

or ear tubes...

or vaccines...

or what you feed them...

the list is probably infinite.

Personally, I wish my parents forced me to save for retirement when I started working at 15.

Mark, eat your words: you put out a stat now prove it. Don't by hypocritical here.

Personally, I am anti-circ AND anti-abortion.

Exactly culheath. I think that's what really pisses me off about it.

While they are at it: why not remove tonsils, appendix, heart, liver, kidneys, eyes, teeth and all other body parts that might get infected or become defected as they grow older? Since they are willing to mutilate a boy's penis, and remove and discard a perfectly good and functioning body part at birth, why not discard the rest???

Would you like your parents if they give you cheap less nutritious milk? Parents by instinct really own the lives of their babies. What a baby can do?

I've never had any problem with my having been circumcised. Perhaps some have had desensitizing; everyone is different, and I've never had any trouble with sensitivity or enjoyment.

Nevertheless, if parents teach their sons proper hygene and it's importance, I don't see what the hurry on circumcision is. I have family members who are uncircumcised, and they have never had any health problems from it.

IndigoBlue, your extreme argument is absurd.

... but that's just it - a body mod, without regard to the millions of years it took to evolve.

and strangely... one that nature has refused to get rid of in the millions of years of evolution of all male species!!!

And you still have you appendix too...which serves absolutely no purpose. nature has not gotten rid of that. You have your opinions fine. But DO NOT IMPOSE YOUR OPINIONS ON ME! PERIOD! You all speak of control, but yet you are just trying to control others and what they believe. So until you can leave it up the the family to chose, you are a hypocrite. I was cut, have not a single issue. My boys were cut, they could care less. They could care less, because they do not remember a thing about it. I would rather have it done then and have them not remember, than risk disease later and possible more pain that they will remember. If you say, well that is a gamble. You are right, but it is one that has paid off so far, times 4 boys...

@Ippster. You imposed it on yourself. Science isn't as smug as you stating that the appendix has no purpose. You what, guilty you did it on your kids?

"The data is in. Circumcision protects against disease."

Circumcision for disease prevention is a flop. Use a condom. If circumcised US had a lower STD rate than comparable uncircumcised nations such as the UK or Germany, you'd have a case. Instead, the STD rates are comparable, though the US has a higher HIV infection rate. Circumcision plays no role in HIV infection in the Western world.

"Circumcision protects against disease. End of argument." No and no. Why don't the parents be parents and teach their child to properly wash themselves instead of taking the easy way out and not talking about that evil thing in his pants.

Protects against Disease ? Very simple... quick putting it in ever hole you meet .

There definitely is a difference in hygiene effort ...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080809052145AAhLnyb

I did not want to subject my son to a circumcision, but his dad insisted. They use EMLA local anesthetic and he has no permanent emotional damage. In fact I suffered more pain from giving birth!

Obviously, cutting the foreskin is not equivalent to female circumcision.... please convince me with a logical argument!

It is most definitely less "smelly" which is a plus in some relationships!

"In fact I suffered more pain from giving birth!"

How is your pain related to procedural and healing pains for your son?

"cutting the foreskin is not equivalent to female circumcision"

When the female circumcision is the pin-pricking or removal of the female foreskin (clitoral hood), it is comparable.

Though, you are justifying the removal of the most sensitive part of the penis with a reduction in odor? Doesn't soap and water help men just as it helps women with their genital odor problems?

Well, they were both optional.

No, honestly, that's what his father wanted. I was against it. It's obvious to me that, unlike most women, circumcised men have no problems achieving orgasm. Most literature states that female circumcision includes the removal of the clitoris.

As for the pain, they used an anesthetic.

" I was against it."

Was a circumcision performed without a maternal consent form?

"they used an anesthetic"

Even today, most circumcisions are performed without any anesthetic. Even when used, the anesthetic is typically inadequate and wears off after a few hours, providing no pain relief during the week of healing.

janellect, there is nothing in this world more smelly than an unwashed and over-ripe vagina. A single one can empty an entire room in minutes. I've never had the occasion to get intimate with such a woman.

If you smelled an unwashed and smelly foreskin, you were far too intimate with one nasty guy. You have my sympathy. Face it, you ladies have much more to do to smell fresh and clean down there than a man or boy pulling back his foreskin and washing up in the shower.

Your parents probably taught you the virtues of cleanliness for your own good and to prevent them from extreme embarrassment. Can you, as a parent, do no less for your son instead of permanently mutilating his genitals?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision

Only an adult undergoing circumcision can attest to whether or not it makes a difference, and the results are mixed.

Why would a parent choose an optional medical procedure that no medical association recommends?

"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision."
American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)

"After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys."
Canadian Pediatrics Society

“the RACP does not recommend that routine circumcision in infancy be performed.”
Royal Australasian College of Physicians

“There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene."
Royal Dutch Medical Association

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/research/male-circumcision.htm

Status of CDC Male Circumcision
Recommendations
"... CDC has not yet determined if male circumcision should be recommended for any population,"

It's more of a hygienic effort because of the anaerobic environment, and this pertains to females too.

No, that wasn't my yahoo question, but it underscores the fact that's why a lot of people believe in performing it. I mean, the Jewish religion had it right on with their handwashing and pork eating rules...

There is really no right answer, it really is personal. If it truly was proven to hurt someone, I would totally jump on the anti bandwagon. I could take it or leave it.

janellect wrote " it really is personal."

Personal for the parents but not personal for the child.

Why isn't girl infant foreskin removal a personal choice?

"I mean, the Jewish religion"

Circumcision in the Jewish religion has nothing to do with hygiene. It is a bodily sacrifice to form a male-only Covenant with God. In Jewish tradition, women are unworthy of a Covenant with God.

Consent? Yes. The father should have a say, and since he has more experience, I deferred to him. They used EMLA cream (lidocaine, prilocaine).

As a circumcised man, I refused the circumcision of my son despite the hospital's persistence. You'd think the maternity ward nurses operated were paid for circumcision persuasion.

If your husband is a circumcised man, he, like circumcised me, has no experience with a foreskin.

US culture, particularly female, pressures fathers into believing circumcision will help them gain female acceptance of their evil genitals. In the US, baby boys start their lives with filthy genitals, but is remedied within the first days of life by cutting off the most sensitive part of their penis, an area of nerve-laden skin that functions to protect the head of the penis.

In fact I suffered more pain from giving birth!

Oh cry me a river. Did your son make the decision for you that you were going to have sex, get pregnant and give birth, the way you made the decision to chop off his foreskin?

(BTW, before I have to endure any accusations of misogyny, I am a woman--a woman who is sick of hearing complaints about labor and delivery, and sick of parents acting like they own their children.)

Circumcision for disease prevention is a flop. Use a condom.

Cleanliness works too.

It is most definitely less "smelly" which is a plus in some relationships!

Like I said, try cleanliness. Take a shower.

the Jewish religion had it right on with their handwashing and pork eating rules...

And they think snipping the foreskin establishes some covenant with god. Go figure.

Pastafarian, don't you have any responsibility to your children, I mean in some other ways other than circ?

To gordy, If you have not read or believed the verses in the Genesis of Old Testament, you are right.

Pastafarian, was I stating anything that was not true? I was trying to relate the perspective of circumcision pain as a traumatic event.

In fact I was two weeks late, induced labor with no pain relief for 16 hours and then an emergency c-section. The pain was definitely more than the pain of a circumcision. I actually get my crowns done without local, and to tell you the truth, my menstrual cramps are more painful.

NO ONE is asking for your empathy.

@janellec

If the smell of the male penis is a justification for circumcision, you must be in favor of female circumcision as well. The worst smelling uncircumcised penis, will never smell as bad as the best smelling vagina after a day of work. The female labia are a heaven for smegma formation... but smegma is not a problem for the vast majority of women. Neither it is for the vast majority of uncircumcised males. You think that ONE post in Yahoo answers really means there is an odor problem with uncircumcised penises?

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=225863

@janellect: "...circumcised men have no problems achieving orgasm..."
Sadly, circumcised men often say that, implying that "achieving orgasm" is the be-all and end-all of sex for them. With its thousands of nerves, a foreskin would have enabled them to enjoy the journey more, not just the destination.
"...unlike most women"
Most women, or just most women with circumcised partners? Maybe the one is the cause of the other.

Hugh... if by "enjoy the journey more" you mean, take 5 seconds rather than 10. yea thats so much better.

Sort of, until insurance industry milks the rest of us. Then there's Big Pharma, for-profit hospitals, AND insurance ganged up together to milk us. You'd think they'd be happy a lot opt for no circumcision: initial cost saved, all the expenses of the many do-overs, and BIG expenses of major complications. But NO, don't you see, they pass the costs of all that on to all policy holders whether they wanted circumcision or not. So they make money on the ancient middle-East blood ritual masquerading as modern medicine.