Great replies on both pro and con circumcision. I have to agree completely w/ myboyhoodfears & kidneythis.

There's no rational way to associate a clitorectomy w/ taking a few square mm of foreskin. All of us know that the tip is the most sensitive part of the penis and that stays totally intact.

Forget all of the medical data on both sides if you want, here's one simple question. Do men/women prefer fellatio on a circumcised or uncircumcised penis? I know what my partners have said to a man/woman who had sexual experiences with both cut/uncut, including my wife who had a few uncut boyfriends in Europe.

Conversely, I have to respectfully disagree w/ King Tut and only partially w/ TJ Jeff.

King Tut, all of my Jewish family in the UK's been circumcised and they all have children. Insofar as I can tell, they enjoy sex and obviously orgasm.

TJ Jeff, I definitely agree w/ you that the parent's and in particular the father's have to talk w/ their boys about cut/uncut penises. However, the frequency of complications from a circumcision are minuscule. Doesn't help much if you're that one guy in twenty thousand, I understand.

However to answer your question about removing healthy body parts, medical practitioners do it all of the time. Hospitals frequently remove a woman's healthy breast or breasts to prevent cancer or a relapse. Doctors remove tonsils even if they are healthy and not causing problems when they take out adenoids. They perform hysterectomies along with/in addition to removing ovaries to prevent or remove cancerous growths.

So, that's my take on the posts to date. Agree or not, I think that everyone has been quite respectful to date and I hope that you feel the same about the tone of the topic.

Take care.

Jay

This is an interesting discussion. I'm not feeling at my sharpest, but here are my thoughts:

- Circumcision began as a largely religious ritual.

A child doesn't understand the concept of a deity and hasn't made an informed decision to be of a specific religion. It follows that conducting a ritual from a specific religion when the child may or may not ultimately choose to belong to that religion is immoral and lacks informed consent.

- Circumcision has crossed over as a tradition among the non-religious.

In my opinion circumcising a child because it has always been done, because it was done to you, or to make the child look like the other boys are also insufficient reasons. The first implies a lack of critical thought, the second, a lack of empathy, and the third, a lack of imagination. If the reasons for circumcising the child are not about the welfare of the child you've left the high road.

- Circumcision for the presumed personal and aesthetic preference of future sexual partners.

Entirely speculative and subjective and once again about someone else other than the best interests of the child. What if tastes change and uncircumcised penises are suddenly all the rage? Operating on a child for an issue of what's currently in fashion or the convenience of a future sex partner isn't about the welfare of the child.

- Circumcision is often touted for cleanliness and reduced infection.

On that score, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued a policy statement in 1999 saying that "the benefits aren't strong enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns" although in 2010 they astutely leave that decision up to the parents. There have been some studies suggesting that HIV transmission is potentially reduced by circumcision, but the jury still seems to be out on that. However, if boys are taught about the importance of using condoms in the first place, as all boys should be, the issue of differential HIV infection rates doesn't even come up.

And for those of you thinking that circumcision does the child no harm and doesn't affect sensation, or that the head of the penis is the most sensate, there is this to consider:



For circumcision to be warranted there has to be significant benefit to the child that outweighs the pain and risk of the surgery. I don't see sufficient evidence that the benefit is there in the studies I reviewed, and the risk to the child of reduced sensation at best and an irreparable surgical mishap at worst is, in my opinion, frankly unacceptable.

That said, I don't think foreskins are mystical, magical or sacred. They are just part of the human body that we're born with and it has less potential to harm us than our appendix does.

-efm

.

I'm not pro or con when it comes to circumcision. I understand and respect both sides of the argument.
One of my brothers and I are uncircumcised, my three other brothers are. The three are jealous we're uncut...until they remember how many infections my uncut bro and I had when we were much younger.
Am I going to circumcise my (future) sons? I don't know, but I know I'm going to be talking to my future wife/baby's-momma (and the doctor) about it.

I wrote a whole response to this detailing why I'm completely opposed to this incredibly painful act of non-consensual circumcision (aka forced genital mutilation) of babies. But instead, I'll leave you with a link to a video. Now if you are thinking of doing this to your children, you really should watch this, especially if you're posting here, and arguing that it's harmless and perfectly o.k. Go ahead, sit through the whole video, and please feel free to let us know if it didn't bother you:

http://www.can-fap.net/videos.shtml

The best part is when the doctor explains that the baby is "just relaxing" after he screams and shrieks his little lungs out, and is obviously suffering from complete exhaustion and paralized by the shock and pain. He also tries to explain that the pain is transient. I guess having being molested was just transient, so I don't really have a reason for being on this website. How about your childhood trauma? Was it just transient?

Infections in the foreskin and in the penis in general are not caused by having a foreskin; they are almost always caused by yeast infections. We naturally have Candida (yeast) all over our bodies, and more so on the moist and warm parts of our bodies, and they usually exist in a specific ratio with beneficial bacteria that keeps it in check. But if that ratio is thrown off, and the bacterial levels drop, the Candida can take over and cause an infection. This can be caused by antibiotics, drinking, smoking, HIV, poor diet, or even emotional stress, amongst other things. Most infections (yeast as well as bacterial) that are not associated with open wounds are almost always caused by these factors. Here's a link that has an even better explanation of male yeast infections:

http://www.yeastinfectionadvisor.com/maleyeastinfection.html



Here's a link to a list of myths and explanations about the problems with circumcision:

http://www.intactamerica.org/learnmore

In regards to the idea that it will have health benefits later in life:

Myth – Circumcising newborn baby boys produces health benefits in later life.
Fact – Despite common perception, there is NO conclusive link between circumcision and better health. In fact, performing medically unnecessary surgery on a baby boy's genitals creates immediate health risks. Circumcision-related risks include infection, hemorrhage, scarring, loss of part or all of the penis, and even death. These dangers exist in even the best clinical settings.

and the myth that it can be rationalized as the right of the parents because it's a religious tradition:

Myth – To oppose male circumcision is religious and cultural bigotry.
Fact – Many who oppose the painful, risky and permanent alteration of babies' or children's genitalia do so precisely because they believe in universal human rights. People of many different religious and cultural traditions agree that all children – regardless of race, ethnicity, or culture of origin – have the right to be protected from bodily harm. In our society, parents have the right to raise their children in accordance with their own cultural and religious standards. However, that right is not limitless. Parents must not (directly, or through the agency of a medical or religious practitioner) inflict irreversible harm on a child.

Did you know circumcicion can and does lead to death?:

THYMOS: Journal of Boyhood Studies, Vol. 4, No. 1, Spring 2010, 78-90

LOST BOYS: AN ESTIMATE OF U.S. CIRCUMCISION-RELATED INFANT DEATHS

- Dan Bollinger

"Abstract: Baby boys can and do succumb as a result of having their foreskin removed. Circumcision-related mortality rates are not known with certainty; this study estimates the scale of this problem. 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. Because infant circumcision is elective, all of these deaths are avoidable. This study also identifies reasons why accurate data on these deaths are not available, some of the obstacles to preventing these deaths, and some solutions to overcome them."

Everyone deserves a safe, and healthy childhood. Circumcicion is an elective surgery, and there are no medical organization that endorse it.

O.K., so I ranted anyway. But I feel passionate about this issue, and I can't and won't back down from it. I feel that we should be protecting our little baby boys just as much as we protect our little girls. So that's that.