Studies have shown that snipped is safer for diseases. Also, unsipped looks funny.

The Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons considers that "Neonatal male circumcision has no medical indication. It is a traumatic procedure performed without anaesthesia to remove a normal and healthy prepuce."

The Canadian Paediatric Society recommends that "Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely (i.e.,in the absence of medical indication) performed."

The British Association of Paediatric Surgeons (BAPS) recognises that male circumcision is required in certain religious and cultural groups and that decisions concerning the legality or otherwise of performing the procedure must lie with society and be determined by Parliament. Not withstanding this, it is the majority opinion that the practice should be discouraged by education.

When my son was born in 1983, this was a question I'd never considered. I naively thought "all boys" were circumcised. But when the doctors asked me if I wanted it done or not, I decided to ask some questions before I decided. One of the people I discussed it with was my father, who told me the story of an infant who died in the hospital from a staph infection resulting from his circumcision. That was the deciding factor for me and I chose not to have it done.

Nearly 25 years later, my opinion of circumcision has only become stronger. I believe that it is nothing more than the mutilation of infant boys, mostly performed for nothing more than archaic religious custom or ridiculous - and false - aesthetics.

Lifestyle and grooming are greater factors in disease and infection than the presence of a natural bit of skin. I can see no valid, clinical reason to have it done.

Do you have links to back up your "statements"?

No, well I do - http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

"Multiple cross-sectional, prospective, and ecologic (population-level) studies have identified lack of male circumcision as a risk factor for HIV infection."

"Lack of male circumcision has also been associated with sexually transmitted genital ulcer disease, infant urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and cervical cancer in female partners of uncircumcised men."

We chose not to have this done for our son (now 14). Never a single infection, never any problem whatsoever. We taught him proper hygiene and care. As for it "looking funny," if 1/2 of all infants are now not being circumcised...well, it's all about what you're accustomed to seeing. If not circumcising becomes the norm, there may come a day when a circumcised penis "looks funny." I've seen both on an adult male and when they are erect, they look the same.

Both of my boys had it done as a part of our religious tradition. I would have done it either way. I know about current AAP neutrality but there is still a body of research out there that says it is healthier and helps prevent disease. I am relatively sure that any future sons will have it done too.

The link is:

http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/

Ooops - God made a mistake? Thank goodness tradition didn't call for castration or very few would be enjoying this article. New Rule - hands off my tool until I am old enough to decide.

The question should not be whether this is good or bad. The question should be why males do not get a choice in the matter.

My body my choice should not just apply ro females.

Thanks for the link - a link completely devoid of any scientific discussion.

Any comments on the medical benefits are from the 1970s, 1980s, or 1990s. The CDC link is from 2007 (a bit more recent).

Many of the "statements" against are for moral reasons and not medical. Doctors should keep out of moral decisions and only discuss medical.

My sons were circumcised when they were eight days old for religious reasons. I definitely would have the procedure done today if I had another son. If I had no religious requirement, I very likely would not have it done and would teach my sons proper hygiene (which I did anyway).

Have you ever seen the British Association of Paediatric Surgeons' teeth? They don't believe in fluoride either.
Besides, uncut is so gross looking.

Worn out silly old traditions are why we are at war around the world right now. This old Jewish Grampa thinks circumcision is silly. Not stupid, just silly silly silly.

My son was circumsized for religious reasons, so for me it was not really a choice, lacking a somewhat compelling (i.e., medical) reason NOT to.

No circumcision = no oral sex from me.

Talk about Post Traumatic Stress Syn at an early age.Whoofda!

To an infant, he does not understand the pain. It is a quick and harmless procedure. My boys cried for less than a minute. I can assure you, that 36 years after getting it done, I suffer no loss or regrets.

On the other hand, there is a risk of increased STD's - especially AIDS transmission, increased cervical cancer for one's partner, ripping of the foreskin during intercourse, with resulting infections, and smegma build-up.

Just get it done. Being born is painful enough for the mother and the child. Having one safe procedure (it's been done for 5700 + years) is not going to do any harm.

There is no way that I would circumsize my son. My husband is uncut and I can tell you from my experiences with other men that the sexual sensasations are totally different for him than for cut men. I would never want to take that away from my son(s). If you teach your children proper hygiene, then there aren't any problems. My husband has never had any with his. In his culture, they do not circumsize babies. I can't imagine doing that to one of my kids.

Poster

"If you teach your children proper hygiene, then there aren't any problems."

There are plenty of men with hygiene problems!

My wife and I just had our first son. We did a lot of research into whether or not we should have him circumcised, and ultimately we decided not to do so based on one factor and one factor only -- we decided that it shouldn't be our decision; it should be our son's. Circumcision is permanent -- and optional.

Of course, if we had found evidence that circumcising our son was necessary to protecting his life or medical well being, then we would have done it, just as we would have approved any other necessary medical procedure. In that case, we would have done so believing that we were making the same decision that our son would make if he were old enough to do so.

However, we didn't find any evidence to suggest that circumcision is medically necessary. That does NOT mean that we didn't find some evidence that certain infections are more highly associated with uncircumcised men. As a scientist, I will say that some of the "evidence" I found for increased infections was not convincing. There are a lot of unsupported statements floating around the Internet, in addition to some medical studies of dubious credibility. But there are also a few very credible studies, including one recent report showing a much higher incidence of HIV infections among uncircumcised men in Africa than among their circumcised peers.

Of course, speaking facetiously for a moment, it also could be the case that people without noses get fewer nose infections, people without ears get fewer ear infections, and women without labias get fewer vaginal infections. Actually, each of those statement may or may not be true, but I'm trying to make a point, which is that every part of our bodies is susceptible to some kind of problem, but that doesn't mean that it is medically indicated to cut that body part off.

As with noses, ears and vaginas, my wife and I discovered that if boys and men learn to properly clean and care for their foreskins, most if not all potential foreskin problems can be avoided. Keep it clean. Don't use too much soap (which can cause yeast infections, just like in women). And keep it dry. In that small percentage of cases where problems still occur, circumcision remains an option. Perhaps if my son was growing up in Africa or elsewhere where HIV is rampant, I would have him circumcised him out of fear of AIDS, but in my own set of circumstances, I think that education will be even more effective.

A majority of sexually active men who become circumcised report enjoying sex less after the procedure than they did before. And this is the way "God" or "Mother Nature" made us.

Thus, my wife and I decided to leave our son as he was born, knowing that if he wants to make a different choice when he becomes older, he will be able to do so.

The funny thing I've noticed on this topic is that most of the women I talk to, unless it's a religious tradition, either don't care about circumcision one way or the other or find the whole idea of "creepy." Men, however, seen to be outspokenly in favor of their kids penises looking just like theirs - circumcized men can't imagine not circumsizing their sons, and uncircumsized men can't imagine doing so.

Also, "foreskin ripping during sex?" I've never heard of that happening.

My son was born in 1992 and I asked our pediatrician "Would you have your son circumcised?". His answer was NO and that was our deciding factor. 15 years later and no infections, no problems, and no complaints from our son. We have no regrets.

BTW, the link provided in an earlier post regarding HIV and circumcision is based on a study done in AFRICA.

"No circumcision = no oral sex from me."

HERE, HERE!!!!!

uncut = ewwwww! Yuck! disgusting! I'm not going to have sex with you. Unfortunately, you only have your parents to blame.

My husband was going to have to decide on that one if DD had been a boy. I really think foreskins are yicky, but wasn't going to make the call.

"If you gave birth to a son today, would you circumcise him?"

Yes. He's Jewish.

Next question?

We debated about it for a while with our son; I wasn't thrilled with the idea of cutting on my brand-new, perfect little baby, but I allowed my husband to make the final decision as I hadn't the slightest frame of reference for it. The decrease in transmission of HIV and other STDs was a point in it's favor. My son's circ. was perfect - even the nurses said so - and he was fine in about a day.

Jean Louise - While they don't use general anesthesia, the doctor does apply topical numbing agents. He told me the number of injections that would be required for a local (since they would all be placed at the root of the penis and the sheer number of nerves there require lots of anesthetic) would be more painful and take more time than the actual procedure.

My father wasn't circ'ed when he was born in the 1940's. He apparently had some major discomfort most of his life and eventually had the procedure done in his late 20's. He's said he wished his parents had done it when he was a baby.

If I have another son I'll probably have it done for him as well.

If you decide to have your newborn circumsized, make sure that you pull the skin back during each diaper change for a few days after the operation. My wife forgot to do this and the skin reattached making it necessary for another operation.

Although the insurance didn't charge us for the second circumcician, I couldn't help myself and told the doctor he could "keep the tip".

It was like winning the lottery discovering my husband, born in the midwest in the 70s, had not been butchered like the rest of his age group. Mmmmmm, natural. Our sons, needless to say, will also be allowed to keep all their parts.

If you allow the boy to "choose" then as some PPs have said, there is a much higher incidence of long-term dicomfort associated with the procedure. If my next kid is a boy, I will have the procedure done. Just because the study was done in Africa doesn't mean that it's not applicable here. Are black men's DNA so different from white men are you saying???

And as far as the "God gave me my foreskin" argument goes, God gave us poop, boogers and facial hair too - should we all try to keep that as well? Lol.

Back again.

True, the increased risk for AIDS is based on studies in Africa, but the methods of transmission, (via vaginal fluids and foreskin skin cells) and the risk factor remains the SAME. As far as a foreskin ripping or getting cut, call a urologist, it DOES happen.

Hopefully, our sons will be educated enough to understand the importance of protection and condoms.
And the only reason G-d gave us foreskins is because we were born naked into the wild. It is how we evolved. The foreskin used to be needed for protection of the penis. But with underwear and pants, we don't exactly have to worry about some bear taking a swipe at our genitals. And since a person snipped at birth and one who was left uncut at birth have no basis for comparison, the question of sexual sensation is ludicrous. I'd just be concerned that it would freak out most American women if it were left uncut. But to each their own. Respect and Peace.

Lil husky

"If you decide to have your newborn circumsized, make sure that you pull the skin back during each diaper change for a few days after the operation. My wife forgot to do this and the skin reattached making it necessary for another operation."

Your wife is a nurse and she FORGOT????

"Lil husky

"If you decide to have your newborn circumsized, make sure that you pull the skin back during each diaper change for a few days after the operation. My wife forgot to do this and the skin reattached making it necessary for another operation."

Your wife is a nurse and she FORGOT????

Posted by: pATRICK | July 23, 2007 09:41 AM "

Someone hijacked my name, this was not my post. Get your own name-THE REAL pATRICK, btw Hi, Lil Husky.

I had the operation at 23.

If the skin is retracted before the adhesions that at birth and for a while after break on their own it's likely the child will develop scar tissue leading to phimosis, a tight foreskin.

Mine was always tight, during sex it barely retracted. And more scar tissue developed, finally reaching the point that it bled and the skin split during sex. It was an embarrassing situation; I was in the hospital overnight. And went back to work the next week with bandages around it. And three days later looked down to see blood all over my pants.

If you're going to leave your son uncircumcised, hopefully your Dr. will tell you not to peel the skin back to see what's underneath.

"Also, "foreskin ripping during sex?" I've never heard of that happening."

Happened to a friend in college.

As for keeping all the parts as G-d made us, what about taking out adnoids to prevent ear infections? The adnoids are perfectly fine but having them can cause ear infections. Removal significantly decreases ear infections. How about ear tubes? We were made with intact eardrums but surguries help inner-ear infections.

As a cut male, I have no problem with my sexual satisfaction. Feels great and I have intercourse as often as my wife allows.

And to Paul, let's talk severity of disease to procedure. Removal of a nose to prevent nose infections is a major "cost" with a minor "benefit". Removal of a small piece of skin (small cost) to significantly reduce chances of HIV (major benefit) is worth it.

I had a son this year and chose to go ahead with the circumcision based on the studies various folks have cited among other personal reasons. Coming from the middle of the country I was surprised at the level of discussion and my family there was surprised we were even debating the issues as there the rates continue to be very high. I am happy with my choice and the drs left it completely up to us as a personal choice for what that's worth.

I can't believe this is still debated in this day and age in the West. I would never do this to my child. I have no right to alter his body. And as a woman, I can tell you the experience with an uncut man is better than with a cut man!

These arguments are the same that many in other parts of the world use to justify female circumcision. I have done work on this topic and the methods used to conduct it are just as barbaric and heartbreaking. How educated, enlightened Westerners can condemn female circumcision yet happily mutilate their sons, I will never understand. Hopefully, this practice will be discarded as archaic like foot binding has been.

The Canadian Paediatric Society recommends that "Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely (i.e.,in the absence of medical indication) performed."

The British Association of Paediatric Surgeons (BAPS) recognises that male circumcision is required in certain religious and cultural groups and that decisions concerning the legality or otherwise of performing the procedure must lie with society and be determined by Parliament. Not withstanding this, it is the majority opinion that the practice should be discouraged by education

Sorry, don't take advice from socialized medicine. My friend was in England and hurt her hand, they wanted to put a soft splint on it. She said well shouldn't you get some xrays or an MRI? nope, too expensive and not approved by the govt. She immediately went to her doctor in the us when she got home and got them done and the doctor was aghast.

How educated, enlightened Westerners can condemn female circumcision yet happily mutilate their sons, I will never understand. Hopefully, this practice will be discarded as archaic like foot binding has been.

You are truly ignorant. Female circumcision is done to decrease her sex pleasure and is part of the misogyny of the third world. Male is done for health reasons, see many posts above. Last time I checked YOU were the adult parent, you have every right to make decisions for your children.

When our son was born in 1997, my wife did not want him to be circumsized. I did. Being that it is more of a guy issue, I won that argument.

Actually, Cindy, if you were even semi-knowledgeable, you'd know that male circumcision only really arose in this country around 1900. And it was done for dubious medical/health reasons. Specifically, people thought that smegma was a sign of poor penile hygiene, which of course is absurd. This would be like saying that the natural secretions of the vagina, which actually protect the vagina from infection, were disgusting and, therefore, the vagina should be dried out.

Moreover, circumcision was also advocated in this country because it was believed to reduce masturbation, which, at the time, was considered a truly horrible sin that must be stamped out in all males.

Since then, the practice has been kept alive by idiots like you changing the rationale for it and pretending that the current rationale has ALWAYS been there, which is blatantly not true.

The only potential health benefit has been (perhaps -- we're still not sure) a reduced risk of contracting HIV. As noted, we're still not sure about this, and, to be frank, this has really only been noted in Africa, where AIDS is a true epidemic (HIV affects a very, very, very small number of people in this country, in comparison).

Anyway, keep your uninformed comments to yourself in the future.

Anonymous posted at 8:07:

"No circumcision = no oral sex from me."

I take it that this was posted by a female. And I take it that this female is not circumcised herself. And I also take it that this female does not receive oral sex. Because it's gross. Because her own clitoris also has foreskin (in the form of a hood).

What's gross about it? It's skin. If you clean yourself, you don't have a build-up of smegma (men, women, and children have this and you wash it off when you bathe). You're also expected to brush your teeth before a date, right?

This is just about good hygiene. Not being circumcised does not mean that you're dirty.

"You are truly ignorant. Female circumcision is done to decrease her sex pleasure and is part of the misogyny of the third world. Male is done for health reasons, see many posts above. Last time I checked YOU were the adult parent, you have every right to make decisions for your children."

Circumcision is not done for health reasons. There are studies coming out now that indicate there may be health benefits, but if you know anything about the topic you should realize that the practice is a lot older. And if you ask people who support female circumcision, I bet they won't say it's just to decrease the pleasure of a woman either... most likely will say it's cultural, or for health reasons.

Cindy, don't be so hard on bryan, he's probably had women laugh at his small, uncut, smega filled penis his whole life and is just bitter at his parents.

Cindy-

get facts

And if you ask people who support female circumcision, I bet they won't say it's just to decrease the pleasure of a woman either... most likely will say it's cultural, or for health reasons.

Yep, especially if those people are the taliban. A noted group for women's rights...

I'm really surprised by how many comments I'm seeing that describe an uncircumcised penis as "gross" or "funny looking". As an american women who has been with an equal number of circumcised and uncircumcised men, I find an uncircumcised penis MUCH more attractive.

"And as a woman, I can tell you the experience with an uncut man is better than with a cut man!"

How big was the sample and how did you control for all those other factors - after all skill in providing your partner pleasure involves a lot more than just the male member?

For all those against circumcision because it should be the childs choice...would you or have you gotten your daughter's (or son's) ears pierced at a young age? This is a permanent change/hole in the body, just not in a private area? WHat is the difference between each?

I had my ear pierced as a teen and it hurt. It can get infected, as many do and even if you stopwearing one for more than 13 years it never fully goes away.

How immature some people are about this... "No circumcision = No oral sex?" as is: "Eww...gross. I'm not going to have sex with you!?" Grow up! Ironically, the people who posted these statements are probably the same that speak up for abortion rights. Let the guy decide when he's an adult when he wants to mutilate his genitals... think about this the next time you make these comments or speak up for "women's choices."

Bryan says to date about to have oral sex:

"you'd know that male circumcision only really arose in this country around 1900. And it was done for dubious medical/health reasons. Specifically, people thought that smegma was a sign of poor penile hygiene, which of course is absurd. This would be like saying that the natural secretions of the vagina, which actually protect the vagina from infection, were disgusting and, therefore, the vagina should be dried out.

Moreover, circumcision was also advocated in this country because it was believed to reduce masturbation, which, at the time, was considered a truly horrible sin that must be stamped out in all males.

Since then, the practice has been kept alive by idiots like you changing the rationale for it and pretending that the current rationale has ALWAYS been there, which is blatantly not true.

The only potential health benefit has been (perhaps -- we're still not sure) a reduced risk of contracting HIV. As noted, we're still not sure about this, and, to be frank, this has really only been noted in Africa, where AIDS is a true epidemic (HIV affects a very, very, very small number of people in this country, in comparison)."

Door slams as date walks out after seeing his smega filled uncut penis.....

Bryan: "Hey, wait where are you going?, but, but...

Bryan strikes out again but makes a nice speech

I had my first son snipped by an inexperienced Dr. and it was a nightmere. He had to go back under a month later. Being a new mom, never around an infant boy before, I did not know what to look for and trusted my pediatrician that he was competent. I seriously debated whether or not to snip my second son, but, because of the increased risk of disease, decided to get his done also. It wentlike a breeze with an experienced, knowledgable physician. Find the right Dr.!

"Someone hijacked my name, this was not my post. Get your own name-THE REAL pATRICK, btw Hi, Lil Husky."

How rude. What's going on pATRICk and lil' huskey?

I am getting my son's penis circumcised. I knew a lady who didn't get her son's penis circumcised and he got a nasty infection and had to have it done anyway.

Hi Irish Girl, weird that someone hijacked me. How are you?

"Hi Irish Girl, weird that someone hijacked me. How are you?"

I had a scare over the weekend, but the baby is okay. I go back to the doctor today. Funny, that I had to come track you down over here, but I understand why you left the other blog.

Hope things are going good for you.

The circumcision question was a tough one because of course my wife and I didn't want to put our sons through a painful and maybe unnecessary procedure. But we did have them both circumcised, for a few reasons: a) I'm circumcised and I like it (though of course I have no other experience to compare it to); b) my best man and pal had a foreskin splitting incident when he was in the Air Force and was getting busy with his fiancee; after they were married and had two sons, they had them circed without thinking twice; and c) we wondered if all the other American boys on their future teams and in their gym classes would be circed, and we want them to fit in, and I suppose we even considered what their future sexual partners might think (which seems odd to wonder about now, but when my wife and I were new parents, we worried about darn near everything). So yes, we had our baby boys circed. The reasons for it don't seem that compelling in hindsight, but man, there are so many decisions to make about these kids! I think you can only hope to be right about 80% of the time.

Irish Girl,I will pray for you and your baby. I hope everything is ok. I still read OB but the damn trolls are overrunning everyone. At least here we talk about kids which is a little nicer. BTW tell CATLADY i am dying for her virtual flan. LOL!!

My husband is from Poland, where circumcision is performed only on Jewish boys. He is not Jewish, and therefore not circumcised. Our son was born in 2004 and we did not have it done to him.

As far as looking funny, it's all what you're used to. The first time I saw my husband naked, I was a little surprised by how he looked. Now when I change my nephew's diaper (he is circumcised), I think HIS looks funny. It seems so...exposed, raw, uncovered.

And these people saying the won't have sex with an uncircumcised man don't know what they're talking about. Once you retract the foreskin, the penis is exactly the same as any other. It's just covered up when not in use. Not gross or icky at all.

Circumcision is not common in European countries. When we had to decide for our son, a Swedish friend of ours asked "But why? No men here are circumcised". So apparently they have a handle on controlling infections, keeping it clean, etc. And the women there certainly accept their uncircumcised men. Although I am American, and I'm circumcised, we opted to not do this to our son. We just could not come up with an answer to "why?" that didn't sound like B.S.

And these people saying the won't have sex with an uncircumcised man don't know what they're talking about. Once you retract the foreskin, the penis is exactly the same as any other. It's just covered up when not in use. Not gross or icky at all.

Unless it cracks and bleeds.......nothing says romance and like a cracking bleeding
penis

I absolutely would not do it. My husband is uncircumsized and I find nothing wrong with it, and think it is medically unnecessary. He is only uncircumsized because he was a sickly preemie at birth, and the doctors recommended no additional medical "trauma." As for sexual matters, cleanliness is always the way to go, whether circumsized or not!

My son's circumcision is not right. The OB did it in the hospital. It kind of grew back. He's not in any pain or discomfort (now 2), and they said he'll probably grow into it, but it definitely makes me question whether or not we would do it again if we had a nother son. Our son may need to have his re-done.

Thanks pATRICK, the baby is okay as of today. The doctors here are not as good it seems as the ones in VA. I was worried all weekend, but go back to today to see a different doctor.

I'm circumcised and I really, really enjoy sex. If I enjoyed sex much more than I already do, it might become a problem. I'd hate to think of being 14 again and in that state.... Just saying.

Seriously, though, being Jewish, I don't really give a hoot what gentiles want to do with their foreskins. Stretch 'em out and put a Prince Albert in there for all I care. For me, it's a question of tradition and culture.

That said, my wife and I do feel conflicted on the question (we've dodged the bullet thus far by having a girl).

On the one hand, in a secular sense it's a not-very-necessary invasive surgical procedure. On the other hand, while I can't imagine a grown young man deciding of his own volition to cut off part of his penis, shouldn't a young Jewish man feel like his body is the way Torah says it should be? It seems it would be almost cruel to tell our son he's Jewish, but to then deny him a body that conforms to the law.

Also:

"Men, however, seem to be outspokenly in favor of their kids penises looking just like theirs - circumcized men can't imagine not circumsizing their sons, and uncircumsized men can't imagine doing so."

---

Yes, in my experience this is the trend (although I wouldn't go as far as to say "can't imagine"). However, I do not see why this is a problem.

And finally, here's the definition of "mutilate":

1 : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect
2 : to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of : CRIPPLE
See MAIM.

Please note that the circumcised penis is not widely regarded as an "imperfect" appendage, nor is the foreskin an "essential" part of the penis.

A penis functions perfectly well with or with out the foreskin, and (as above commentary supports) many folks even find it to be more perfect when clipped.

My point in taking difference with the word "mutilate" is that by implicit comparison it almost legitimizes the actual genital mutilation that commonly occurs in some other cultures. Opponents of circumcision may indeed have a very good point, but let's not make that point by comparing a moil to a misogynistic butcher.

Whats with all the judgements in here? I think every parent has the right to make this call when their son is born....they have the right to do what they think is best in their son's interests.
My only problem is that when you make the decision to do something, then your doctor decides its against his/her religion (as did happen in my case with my infant son). Then why are they practicing and exactly who asked for their opinion anyway?

For some history on the relationship between circumcision and the medical profession, see:

Robert Darby, A Surgical Temptation: The Demonization of the Foreskin and the Rise of Circumcision in Britain.

More info at:
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/152740.ctl

My only problem is that when you make the decision to do something, then your doctor decides its against his/her religion (as did happen in my case with my infant son). Then why are they practicing and exactly who asked for their opinion anyway?

I completely disagree with you. EVERY person has the right to live by THEIR moral code. Having said that, the doctor should make a referral. That is the trade off to living in this world.

For some reason, I'm not thinking a book with "The Demonization of the Foreskin" in the title is going to provide a very impartial review of the research.

When our son was born in 2001, my wife deferred to me on the decision of whether or not to have him circumsized. At that time, the debate was about where it is today -- proponents and opponents citing various medical studies, cultural reasons (religion was not a factor in our home), and "the norm." Ultimately, I decided to have him circumsized. It was a very close call, with (I almost hate to admit this) the balance tipped by the fact that he will grow up looking like is father and grandfather and uncles and cousins. To this day, I cannot say whether I made the "right" decision. He's a healthy and happy 6 year old, who I believe would have been fine either way.

I am now divorced and in a loving relationship with a woman, who, btw, agrees with those of you who say "no oral sex" to those who are uncircumsized. Is this, in fact, the prevailing view out there?

I didn't have either my son or daughter circumsized. I don't think one is worse than the other. Just because its been done historically is never a good reason for me for anything.

"By the way, I have never ever heard any complaints about being snipped. Except,"My mouth is starting to ache." "Can I stop now?"

And, "My hand is getting tired...."

I didn't have either my son or daughter circumsized.

Where do you live that girls are circumsized?

If you are into anal sex a lot, it is better for the man to be circumsized.

When deciding if you want your son to be circumsized, consider the following:

1. I've never met a man who got circumsized during infancy and regretted it, though I have heard from men that didn't get circumsized and had the operation later in life.
2. I've never met a man or his wife that was interested in grafting the missing skin back on.
3. I've never met a woman that claimed a circumsized man was a deal breaker, though I've heard plenty of women that claimed that the uncut variety was a no-can-do.

But if you want to save $200 that the insurance doesn't cover and justify it on an anonymous blog, to gain respect from the crowd that frequents this column, may I suggest you invest that money in a company that manufactures personal hygene products and use the profits to go toward his future college tuition payments. :-)

Touche! Lil Husky! WELL DONE! lol

"EVERY person has the right to live by THEIR moral code. Having said that, the doctor should make a referral. "

Sometimes the referral also violates a doctor's moral code.

"uncut = ewwwww! Yuck! disgusting! I'm not going to have sex with you. Unfortunately, you only have your parents to blame."

That's precisely what men in certain cultures say about women whose genitals have not been mutilated.

Anyway, fortunately for everyone, genital mutilation of girls and boys is disappearing quickly. Here in the U.S. many medical workers are now refusing to do it, and within a decade it will be practiced only by a few as a religious rite.

Someday almost everyone will enjoy an incredulous laugh at the ignorant arguments in favor of "medical" circumcision (like most everyone outside the U.S. already does).

I can only imagine the guilt of having done it to my boy; no wonder the arguments in favor are sounding so desperate.

I had done a lot of research/work on female genital multilation in college and when my son was born, my husband and I decided that it ultimately needed to be our son's choice and that we weren't willing to cut his penis just because this society says we should.

I have to say that I always find it amusing, yet wholly frustrating at some of the comments people make without (it would seem) thinking first.

To start, I am male, I am somewhat educated (PhD), I am a scientist, I used to be a Catholic (gave it up for lent years ago), I am circumcised, I have actually read some of the scientific papers addressing this issue, and I can truly say that I am still not sure as to whether or not I would circumcise my child if I were to have one.

Many points have been made in this thread, both sound, and as mentioned, inane.

"It looks funny" is not an argument for or against circumcision... it merely highlights ones shallowness, intolerance, and pettiness.

"All the studies were done in Africa" shows that one has not read and/or understood the literature. Many, not all, of the studies have been done in Africa for one major reason. Several African nations exhibit the highest infection rates in the world due to a multitude of reasons, the two major ones being lack of education on the subject and lack of sufficient medication.

In executing a scientific study, two factors are key in obtaining meaningful (statistically significant) results; the first is a large sample size, the second is the ability to minimize the possible effects of extraneous variability.
Accordingly, and sadly, Africa affords the ideal locations for studies on AIDS. Distinct religious and cultural differences between tribes, villages, and even countries allows for substantial "replicates" of both circumcised and uncircumcised men, and the aforementioned high infection rate ensures that comparisons between infection rates of cut and uncut men will be accurate and representative. Furthermore, since most/many of those involved in the studies do not have access to medications, the largest confounding variable (besides abstinence), is virtually eliminated.
This "ideal" situation in Africa... and by ideal, I mean ONLY from an experimental design perspective... gives researchers "cleaner" data, and therefore more significant and meaningful results which can then be applied to societies/countries where such studies would be difficult to carry out.

The scientific data show that circumcision does MINIMIZE... not prevent... the possibility of contracting AIDS and other STDs; and common knowledge shows that a well-cleaned johnson is less likely to develop staph infections and the like.

Ergo, for decisions made outside of the religious arena, it really comes down to weighing the odds. If, for whatever reason, you feel that your son is likely to eschew the enlightenment of sexual education and wield his willie willy-nilly, then circumcision will increase his otherwise dismal odds of not contracting a disease. Likewise, if he is likely to maintain an unhygenic lifestyle, he would be a great candidate for circumcision. If neither of the above is the case, odds are that your son will grow to old age and die without ever knowing the agony of AIDS, STDs, or any other penile pustulations.

But just like it is in Vegas, even the best of odds can yield disappointment.

"EVERY person has the right to live by THEIR moral code. Having said that, the doctor should make a referral. "

Sometimes the referral also violates a doctor's moral code."

I would think that that person would have to reconsider their profession at that point. No one lives on an island.

All other arguments aside, I find this much completely irrefutable:

An intact man can always choose to change the decision his parents made, but a circumcised man cannot.

And most intact men would never, ever do that to themselves; just ask them.

I wish my parents had at least given me the option, and as the procedure gets less common, more men will share that wish.

Didn't circ my son at birth, he'd been in the NICU for 10 days from b-strep infection (almost died of whole-body sepsis). I just couldn't have him circ'd after all that trauma. However, at 19 months we did HAVE to. He had three infections of the penis. Imagine seeing his little tool all swollen & red. Not nice. So don't just slide over those comments about circumcision improves male hygiene. It can.

AND the male equivalent of female "circumcision" would be taking off the head of the penis, not just the foreskin, since in girls usually the clitoris is totally removed, often without any sterile technique. Lots of girls die or can never live a normal life again. The idea is to make her an asexual being and to give the husband an extra thrill on first intercourse.

I'm circumsized, but decided against having it done for both of our boys, even thought the hospital still billed the insurance company both times, very odd.

Personally, I've never met anyone who cared at all about whether or not they had a foreskin, but then you get on the internet and you have crazies for both sides chiming in? Why do most of you people care anyway what others are doing?

I was circumcised as an adult (it tore), after pretty adequate sexual history.

Folks, skipping details, the sensation is reduced greatly, and it is different.

Those circumcised as babies would never know the difference.

A somewhat similar example: surgeon A keeps his scalpels in their special tray, surgeon B in a toolbox with hammers, pliers and nails.

Who will have the sharper instrument, be able to perform more skillfully and better enjoy the "operation"?

I'm glad I drove the 911 as long as I did.
;-)

The STD argument is a straw man on multiple levels. It is difficult to imagine how an infant would aquire HIV through sexual intercourse. If the hypothosized protection later in life is desired then the child can make the decision to get circumcised as an adolescent or an adult. At a point when he is able to give informed consent.

Circumcision is ritual genital mutilation. Conducting this elective surgery for no legitimate medical reason on infants who are unable to give their consent should be just as illegal as cutting off a baby's earlobes or labia due to a parent's whim. It's sick.

Hey, I just noticed a little bit of cheese under my toenails.

Now to get some clippers and mutilate my toes...

When we found out we were having a boy back in 2003 we read up on the whole circ thing. My husband, born in the midwest in the '70s is cut. I queried our European and American male friends about their foreskin or lack thereof. I heard the horror stories of the late childhood and adult circumcision. I also heard a lot of angry circ'd men who wish they hadn't been.
I also had the dubious pleasure of being invited to the Muslim equivalent of a bris carried out at the parents home. I actually watched the circ being performed - I nearly passed out and I don't even mind the sight of blood. Anyone who thinks the little babies are not in pain is delusional. That poor little boy screamed and cried for about 45 minutes.

In the end we decided to leave it alone and do our best to teach ourselves and him how to care for the foreskin. Not sayin it's right for everyone, just right for us.

Chris

"Why do most of you people care anyway what others are doing?"

They don't. The Net provides a "voice" for the lonely, the bored, and those with grandiose egos.

They are all here today.

"In the end we decided to leave it alone and do our best to teach ourselves and him how to care for the foreskin"

Double yuckie poo!

I suspect that alot of you that refer to circumcision as "mutilation" have never had it done to your son(s). It's not a big deal, and I haven't met a guy yet who remebers the pain of having it done a few days after he was born.

Hardly the same as female genital mutilation in third-world countries. Lighten up!

"And as a woman, I can tell you the experience with an uncut man is better than with a cut man!"

And as a woman, I would say the opposite. Maybe it just depends on the man?

"And as a woman, I can tell you the experience with an uncut man is better than with a cut man!"

"And as a woman, I would say the opposite"

Maybe a 3-way would reveal which type of man is better.

If it was good enough for Jesus...

I am circumcized (of the gentile persuasion, so it was a snipping of choice, by my parents ... ), and have always enjoyed a pleasurable and active sex life. My wife and I are expecting, so the question of cutting may be upon us - but we don't know the gender yet.

Though not feeling like I'm mutilated or missing an vital appendage, I really don't know what I've missed.

I think it comes down to wanting a son to have a choice for himself. If he one day feels deficienct on the receiving end of oral sex from a reluctant partner, the option is always on the out-patient table, as it were. Let's leave it up to him.

When my son was born, the choice was simple. His had to look like his dad's.
BTW-I'm not Jewish.

I once knew a guy who HAD to have it done in his thirties. Said the pain was indescribable!

I need to "mutilate" my hair today and cut it. THE HORROR, THE HORROR!!!lol

It's great to see so many of you having a good debate today. And thanks to the majority of you who are keeping your comments clean and adhering to The Post's commenting policy. Let's continue to keep the personal attacks at bay.

Thanks.

What is it about the Jewish faith that requires or recommends that newborns have their penises lacerated for no good reason at all, other than it is a religious ritual dreamed up by some sexpossessed zealot before concern for hygiene was even entertained? Shakespeare said it best, "It is the unkindest cut of all."

Stacey

"Let's continue to keep the personal attacks at bay."

Too late. The personal attacks and the attacks on the Jewish faith are inevitable.

As if you didn't know.

Hey Vic:

It goes back to the Bible. To solidify Abraham's covenant with G-d, he was snipped. And so are all Jewish males today. Of course, we are also very well endowed, so we can afford to give some skin away. By the way, that skin is often saved and used for ICU burn victims. The skin cells of an infant's foreskin are invaluable in grafts on adults. Just so you don't think it is all in vain.

"And so are all Jewish males today. Of course, we are also very well endowed, so we can afford to give some skin away."

Smart - yes!
Well endowed - no!

You are confusing Jewish men with Black men!

pATRICK AND Lil Husky:

How often do you need to trim the other?

Does it grow back as fast as your toenails and hair?

pATRICK AND Lil Husky:

How often do you need to trim the other?

Does it grow back as fast as your toenails and hair?

Posted by: | July 23, 2007 01:50 PM

Depends on the woman...................:)

Yes. And I am both Jewish and African-American. Got the best of all worlds.

"And so are all Jewish males today. Of course, we are also very well endowed, so we can afford to give some skin away."

If my first husband (Jewish) was very well endowed, we would still be married today...

"And so are all Jewish males today. Of course, we are also very well endowed, so we can afford to give some skin away."

"If my first husband (Jewish) was very well endowed, we would still be married today..."

If I hadn't caught my first husband (Jewish) in bed with my best friend, we would still be married today.

Sorry to hear that. But it probably wasn't the penis, but the man attached to it.

"If I hadn't caught my first husband (Jewish) in bed with my best friend, we would still be married today."

You shouldn't have blabbed to your best friend about the size of your first husband's penis!

If my first husband (Jewish) was very well endowed, we would still be married today

why? Do you have a large vagina?

This debate is just like evolution vs. creationism. One side is manifestly correct, the other is flailing about in an effort to refute the obvious.

Each of the arguments above in favor of circumcision embarrasses its author, with the sole exception of "God demands it" which (ironically) at least has a certain logic to it.

A person's body should not be surgically altered without his or her consent, other than to address a real and urgent medical problem. Period.

"If my first husband (Jewish) was very well endowed, we would still be married today"

"why? Do you have a large vagina?"

No, a large anus.

What's not a better reason to have a medical operation performed to prevent infection and spread of disease?

Jewish rituals also involved purification of food and cleansing of hands before meals. Silly religious practice?

For all you people who like to showcase your vocabulary by sprinkling your posts with words like "mutilate" and "lascerate", it would be in your best interest to pull your head out of the sand, read the memo, and come to the logical conclusion that the practice of circumcisian was not born out of some arbitrary religious ritual, but rooted in better health standards for the whole community.

And now thousands of years have passed since circumcisian had begun and modern scientific evidence clearly shows the benefits of the practice. No surprise to me!

I have to say....this is starting to degenerate and a little too fast.

I shower daily, practice common sense. I had my children vaccinated, circumcised, and we're all healthy. I hope we stay that way.

But in the end, people still get cancer, heart problems, have accicdents, etc. They still die early and things don't always turn out as planned. And we never know when our time is up. Carpe Diem!

Let's just live each f---ing day for what it's worth, and not attack each other over personal preferences or religion. If anyone wants to attack Jewish rituals, might I refer you to the actions of one Mr. Meyer Lansky and his attitudes towards anti-semites. Shalom.

From ask Alice

Alice,
Maybe this is a weird question, but my boyfriend is uncircumcised. If he hasn't taken a shower right before we make love, his penis smells. I assume it is the secretions getting stuck under the foreskin. Have you had any other questions about this? I'm really very curious to know if this is a problem.

-- Foreskin curious

Dear Foreskin curious,

The foreskin is a fold of skin that covers the glans of the penis (a.k.a., the head). Circumcision removes the foreskin from the penis. Men with uncircumcised penises need to pull back their foreskin and wash the area underneath at least once a day.

Smegma, a cheesy substance that can have a "particular" scent, is secreted from tiny subcutaneous glands beneath the foreskin. This is probably what you are noticing on your boyfriend's penis. The area under the foreskin is also ripe for bacterial growth. Infections can easily develop under the foreskin if it isn't pulled back and washed. A yeast infection, which has symptoms that include redness, swelling, and a pasty discharge, is also a possible occurrence when the uncircumcised penis is not cleaned properly.

Shower or bathe together before sex. Wash his penis, pulling the foreskin back. Or tell him that you're concerned about getting a vaginal infection, and ask that he please wash before having sex. As a last resort, take the super-direct route: "Your penis stinks -- let's give him a bath." Choose which approach you think will work best. Alice bets one of these will work.

Alice

I can respect religious reasons for circumcision. It is what it is.

Social reasons are understandable, but it makes me sad that someone would make such a choice based on social pressure. Cut or uncut men, if they are good people, have no problems getting laid, and uncut and cut men both can have physical problems and pain with their penis.

It's very interesting comparing this argument to the never ending breast feeding debate. One involves tons of people fighting against archaic meaningless social rules and the other involves completely bending over to archaic meaningless social rules.

I respect most the parents who let the child choose. It shows an attitude that they are already looking at their child as a unique individual who will one day need to make such choices for themselves- NOT just a clone for them to mold. And that's a mindset I'd love to see all parents have.

LIZ D. see above post

Alice

"As a last resort, take the super-direct route: "Your penis stinks -- let's give him a bath."

Wrongo, bongo approach! What guy doesn't want his partner to help him give his penis a bath?!

My father and uncle were both born at home (1933 and 1930), so neither was circumcized. DH was born in '57, and got snipped. My brother was born in '63, also snipped.

My husband's nephew was born in '90, and my wonderful SIL (she's influenced my family in so many wonderful ways!) didn't have it done.

My sons were born in '92 and '97, and are unaltered from the perfection of their birth-state. (If it ain't broke, don't fix it!)

My nephew, also born in '97, is the only one of his generation who's missing a piece of skin.

So far, in our immediate family anyway, there doesn't seem to be much/any difference from a health perspective. None of the boys is going to "look like his dad" until he's nearly an adult anyway.

I can't see a good reason to change the decisions that were made.

""If my first husband (Jewish) was very well endowed, we would still be married today"

"why? Do you have a large vagina?"

No, a large anus."

She doesn't have a large anus. Didn't you read her post? She divorced her large anus (her now ex-husband). (HAR HAR)

Tom S. writes very well.

http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Gallery1.html

Yuck, no offense, but yuck. Don't look at work.

I have two sons. They were not circumcised when newborns. When he was four and five, my older son had discomfort - he would tell me he had a burning sensation. We had both of them circumcised then, and it was a painful operation. I wish I'd had it done in the first place.

This debate is just like evolution vs. creationism. One side is manifestly correct, the other is flailing about in an effort to refute the obvious.

Posted by: Acceptance | July 23, 2007 02:09 PM

Acceptance (love the irony, dude), I so respect your willingness to identify yourself as someone flailing about in an effort to refute the obvious - that you are a condescending nincompoop.

I thought I would add another dimension to the debate regarding circumcision. Historically, the height of neonatal circumcision (the percentage of male infants circumcised) occurred in the 1950's and 1960's. This influences the current debate because the majority of men living in America today are circumcised. However even a few generations ago this would not have been the case. It is also interesting to note that the rise of circumcision as a routine medical practice coincided with social debate in the US regarding masturbation in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Circumcision was viewed as a cure or deterrent for the crime of "self-abuse" which many people believed caused many forms of physical and mental illness. Circumcision was seen as preventitive because it made the glans less sensitive. Increased circumcision was tied to the anti-masturbation campaigns proposed by people like Graham and Kellogg.

For more information see the work:
Michael, Robert T, John H. Gagnon, Edward O. Laumann, & Gina Kolata. (1994). Sex In America: A Definitive Survey. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.

Peculiar. You'd think Kellogg et. al. might just have asked someone who was circumcised: "Hey, do you like masturbating?" Because Josh (circa 10th grade) could have taught a spider monkey a thing or two about taking advantage of oneself.

Just saying.

Hey, Stacey, why do you delete my posts but you allow this:

Cindy, don't be so hard on bryan, he's probably had women laugh at his small, uncut, smega filled penis his whole life and is just bitter at his parents.

Posted by: Jenna | July 23, 2007 10:24 AM

Gee, Stacey, you're not biased or anything? Maybe you'll delete this, too. Always better to eliminate the voice of those you disagree with.

"self-abuse" which many people believed caused many forms of physical and mental illness. "

Uh-oh. Now you tell me...

Bryan, you are so sensitive. lol- Pun intended

The "little snip" takes, on average, 51% of the surface area of the penis. The foreskin is a complex structure that has its own specialized nerves, glands, and cells. It has a function. (And just like the female genitalia, certain excretions that have a "certain smell.") Cutting the foreskin off can cause a variety of long-term problems and impairments (setting aside the excruciating pain the infant goes through).

People who have lost theirs, or had their son's cut off, are of course going to be defensive about all this.

Anyway, as I said before, the debate is really over in terms of intelligent people worldwide; it's just a mattter of time. The only defenders of "medical" circumcision nowadays belong to that peculiar American tradition that brought you "evolution is a hoax."

Anyway, as I said before, the debate is really over in terms of intelligent people worldwide; it's just a mattter of time. The only defenders of "medical" circumcision nowadays belong to that peculiar American tradition that brought you "evolution is a hoax."

Posted by: Acceptance | July 23, 2007 04:19 PM

The flailing self important blowhard is back. Yawn, eyes shutting, finding it hard to stay awake, Acceptance putting me to sleep with his boring smugness.....

pATRICK - blowhard or not, Acceptance is right.

pATRICK - blowhard or not, Acceptance is right.

Posted by: dctony | July 23, 2007 04:40 PM

Nope,he isn't. But isn't that what a blog is all about?

...this is beyond stupid. The women here that say "Well -I- had sex with both, and I can tell you that MY concept of aesthetic wins because so THERE!!" are just...dumb. I prefer men cut. I do. My aesthetic leans towards it. You don't have to if you don't want to. My husband and I agree that should we have a son, we will circumcise him, since we both come from religions that require male circumcision, and we believe the health benefits, while not massive, are good enough to remove a small piece of skin. As for sensitivity, the cut guys never seemed to have a problem with getting off, while the uncut guys whimper and moan a lot after sex and usually "couldn't be touched" after they got off, which is obnoxious to me.

Acceptance said "The "little snip" takes, on average, 51% of the surface area of the penis."

Now we know why he's so defensive. His foreskin is 51% of total area - that's one small penis.

Anyway, as I said before, the debate is really over in terms of intelligent people worldwide; it's just a mattter of time. The only defenders of "medical" circumcision nowadays belong to that peculiar American tradition that brought you "evolution is a hoax."

Posted by: Acceptance | July 23, 2007 04:19 PM

Geez - what an insufferable, sanctimonious bore. Bet you'd be fun to kick around politics and sports with, too.

I can hear it now: "The debate is over in terms of intelligent people worldwide; it's just a matter of time before everyone is a Cowboys fan." *retch*

"Jewish rituals also involved purification of food and cleansing of hands before meals. Silly religious practice?"

The Jewish religion also has very important rules about the sanctity of the body and the importance of not mutilating it.

Some Judaism scholars believe that circumcision is a curious anomaly in the context of the rest of the faith, and there's a theory that the practice was written into Jewish religious texts much later, perhaps to contend with (or justify, depending on who wrote it in) the forcible circumcision of Jewish slaves.

If your male child prefers the extremely slight protection circumcision gives him from sexually transmitted diseases rather than the nearly complete protection a condom would give him, circumcised or not; then by all means let him decide to get his body part amputated when he's old enough to make adult sexual decisions for himself. I do think aware informed consent by the mature owner of the foreskin is a minimum requirement for its removal. There is no health benefit to an infant in having the foreskin removed, only health risks. Circumcising females has also been shown to reduce AIDS transmission; would any of you ladies like to sign up for that. The mucosa of your inner labia is quite vulnerable to AIDs.
Anyone who tells you to pull your son's circumcised foreskin remainders back, or rub vaseline on it to prevent adhesions at each diaper change should consider whether or not it would be acceptable to fiddle, pull, and rub vaseline on someone's clitoris/vagina at all diaper changes; it's a little perverted. An uncircumcised penis can be kept clean very easily with minimal handling; NEVER try to retract an unretractable foreskin. A circumcised penis is at risk for adhesions which might require additional skin removal and for meatal stenosis which requires surgical dilation of the urethra. There will be, at every circumcision, a loss of skin and nerves (the most sensitive area of the penis in fact) bleeding, sometimes excessive; risk of infection, loss of penis, or death. There will be pain akin to removing a fingernail, sometimes without anesthesia; a shocky reaction that may cause the baby to pass out for hours (some call it "falling asleep right after") and pain during the healing period, all in the first weeks of life. What a tragedy for so many American boys.
If anyone thinks circumcised men do not get AIDS, they need to look at the fact that Amerca has had SUCH an AIDS epidemic in spite of having the highest rate of circumcision in the industrialized world. It's not done routinely in any other nation except America except for religious covenant reasons. AIDs prevention the worst, least defensible arguement yet for circumcising infants.

I didn't have my son circumcised...I think it is cruel to take off part of his body for no good reason and without his permission. If he wants to be circumcised as an adult, I'll pay for it to be done. Chances are, at that age he won't want part of his penis amputated.

I can't believe people would take the chance of their son's penis being permanantly damaged just so it wouldn't look "wierd".
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,141642.shtml
Article about a circ where the glans(head) was removed completely.

I didn't have my son circumcised...I think it is cruel to take off part of his body for no good reason and without his permission. If he wants to be circumcised as an adult, I'll pay for it to be done. Chances are, at that age he won't want part of his penis amputated.

I can't believe people would take the chance of their son's penis being permanantly damaged just so it wouldn't look "wierd".
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,141642.shtml
Article about a circ where the glans(head) was removed completely.

I just couldn't read anymore of this. I had to post quickly before I got too sick at my stomach. There is a HUGE misunderstanding about this AIDS and circumcision speculation. First of all, researchers funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation went to a Country where the circumcision rate is already SKY HIGH on both genders and they have the highest rate of HIV/AIDS than anywhere else in the world. The study was quickly halted after a 14 month period. This study was criticized for having methodology flaws and overly optimistic conclusions. People with money, and I think you already know who I'm talking about, are selling their stories. And people are buying it!!! The news DO NOT report that the research clearly stated that their findings were "flawed and inconclusive".

There is a danger that people who have been circumcised feel they are protected against HIV/AIDS. Circumcision should NEVER be a substitute for condom use.

There are other studies, recent studies, that have yet to be reported by the media. The multi-country Mishra study concluded that circumcision may actually increase transmission of the AIDS virus, however, which is what many earlier studies found. The Brewer Study published in March, 2007, also concluded that circumcision in Kenya, Lesotho, and Tanzania increases the transmission of AIDS.

The foreskin has unique functions that play an important roll in protecting the meatus (where the pee comes out) and the glans (head of the penis). The newborn is born with the foreskin tightly attached to the glans just as the nail is attached to the finger. Smegma, found in both genders, is essential for the natural separation of the foreskin to the glans, thus allowing retraction to occur. This normally happens at age 3 or 4 about the age when they're toilet trained. This is natures way of protecting the delicate glans from soiled diapers. And full retraction sometimes doesn't occur until puberty.

The foreskin contains a special protein called, lipopolysaccharides,LPS. This is the key that fights off foreign pathogens. Only the intact male has this.

Being a Jew doesn't mean you have to circumcise. The way the Hebrews preformed it back then is dramatically different than the procedure that is practiced today. For one thing, they never separated the foreskin from the glans. My son's pediatrician is a Jew he told us that circumcision isn't necessary.
http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/

To the lady who wrote "uncircumcised= no oral sex from me!" You really should think about whats in between your legs before making such a statement. Women trap loads more smegma and other fluids similar to the intact male. Would you want some guy saying, "uncircumcised= no oral sex from me!" to you?

The entire dynamics of sex with an intact male is very different than his cut cousin. There is far less friction and cushions the woman thus increases her chances for vaginal orgasm. When the two different penises are erect they look the same, except for one thing, the cut penis has a scar.

As for me, I would NEVER alter my son's penis to an arbitrary reductive surgery. This is clearly fueled by money. Money can be the root of all kinds of evil. "Prenum Non Nocre", a Doctor's number one sacred dictum, the Hippocratic Oath - "First Do No Harm".

Ruthe said:
"Circumcising females has also been shown to reduce AIDS transmission; would any of you ladies like to sign up for that. The mucosa of your inner labia is quite vulnerable to AIDs."

But failed to provide the link. So I thought I would help her out and dig it up.
http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138

This was recently discussed in:

http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_2115519,00.html

"A Tanzanian study had found that female circumcision reduced HIV transmission. Biologically, the explanation for this was probably the same as for male circumcision.

If female circumcision was medicalised in a similar way to male circumcision, it could be made safer and less damaging."

I am so horrified by the willingness to even entertain removing a part of someone elses body. Someone so vulnerable and tiny! Someone who completely trusts you and you let him get strapped down and cut within hours of birth! You protected him and nurtured him for 9 months and now -often for purely aesthetic reasons- are willing to let some complete stranger take a knife to him!
I was raised in the UK, and don't know a single man who's foreskin tore or who opted to get this done later.
The arguement that it 'smells' or is 'icky' is so juvenile, do you think YOUR bits smell like roses?
The whole arguement is preposterous. The number of boys being MUTILATED is dropping, and eventually the natural evolution will be that it is not done anymore.

RE: HIV and Circumcision
So we all should believe the press about a dubious study that was terminated early and was not published in a single respected peer-reviewed scientific journal?

When a doctor cuts off 1/3rd to 1/2 of the skin off your penis, removing up to 20,000 nerve endings, you are not going to be able to have sex for 6 or more weeks. Do you think you would be having more or less sex after such a surgery?

Women have foreskin too. The female prepuce = clitoral hood. Would it be OK for anyone to remove any part of a girl's genitals in this country at birth for any "medical" reason whatsoever? How about to reduce smegma, which women produce much more of than men do? What about because her dad had been with circed women his whole life and wanted his daughter's genitals to suit his ideals of what a sex partner should look like?

Any guy who wanted to cut his daughter to match his own sexual tastes would be labeled a creep and a pervert. And yet we think nothing of women wanting to slice their baby's penis to suit their cultural norm -- or of men wanting to slice their baby's penis to "look like them."

FYI, circumcision is far more than a "snip." Technically, it's more like ripping, cutting, crushing, and slicing. At birth, the foreskin is adhered to the head of the penis exactly like the fingernail is to the finger. So first the doctor inserts a blunt probe and breaks all those adhesions. Then s/he picks up a pair of fine-nosed scissors and slices the foreskin open and peels it off the head of the penis. Then s/he crushes the foreskin with a clamp to stop the bleeding. Then s/he slices it away with a scalpel.

It's not like it's just hanging there like a hangnail, folks. And if you've ever watched a baby being being strapped down and circumcised -- well, it's as bad as anything prohibited by the Geneva Conventions. Don't believe me? Google circumcision video and see for yourself.

Here's a description of one method, so you don't have to google it yourself.
Watch this and then tell me it's 'just a little snip'

http://www.cirp.org/library/procedure/plastibell/

By the way, that skin is often saved and used for ICU burn victims. The skin cells of an infant's foreskin are invaluable in grafts on adults. Just so you don't think it is all in vain.

Posted by: Member of the Tribe | July 23, 2007 01:46 PM

Sorry to burst your bubble, but quite often that foreskin is sold to pharmaceutical companies, and used to make anti-aging creams.

http://www.nbc10.com/health/1808693/detail.html

Vanity thy name is barbarity.

If not circumsizing my son will keep him from having any type of relationship with shallow women who think "Ewww", then that is even more reason to leave him intact.

Who knew that a foreskin could be an idiot repeller?

My husband is uncut. The sex is better for both of us, as scientific studies of sensitivity have mentioned. Our son is intact, and perfectly happy with no problems... unlike some of his circumcised friends with adhesions and urinary problems.

About ethics and HIV. Why are you operating on infants to allegedly "reduce the risk of infection" with HIV? Infants are not sexually active. HIV is frequently transmitted by dirty needles in the USA. And, the USA has both the most HIV + men and the most circumcised men of any developed country.

Risks of infant circumcision include significant pain, severe infection, meatal stenosis, and even death. Read the consent form provided by the hospital. It says "cosmetic surgical procedure". See pictures here: http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/

Many mothers who allow their sons to be circumcised regret it greatly. Many adult men also regret their parents decision to circumcise them. And many doctors in Canada, and the western part of USA, are refusing to do it.

FACT: The HIV/AIDS situtation in Africa is extremely unique. It is not duplicated anywhere in the world, and a lot of the variables for why the continent has been so hard hit by the disease have not been pinned down.

FACT: Africa is already the continent that circumcises most, and also the one that still has been hit the worst by HIV/AIDS. Compare Senegal's HIV prevalence rate (.9 percent) to Guinea-Bissau's (3.7 percent). Both countries have circumcision rates of over 90 percent, so why is Guinea-Bissau's rate more than triple Senegal's? Circumcision never has been the answer. Plenty of graves are filled with circumcised men who died from HIV.

FACT: The majority of men in Europe and Latin America. In fact just for example, both Ireland and Brazil have lower rates than the US, which circs most of its men! Foreskin = HIV infection.

FACT: Condoms are more effective than circumcision at preventing HIV. A condom does not work better or worse on a circumcised penis.

Circumcision is unnecessary and my son was not circumcised. America is the last country to struggle with this issue.

It's genital mutilation, pure and simple. I'm due to deliver a boy and he will NOT have his genitals cut. It's inhumane and senseless and not 'cleaner' or any other myths out there that are floating around.

I once knew a guy who HAD to have it done in his thirties. Said the pain was indescribable!

WOW!! How sad:( And he was able to take serious pain meds and explan his pain...imagine what a newborn with no pain meds feels..poor baby:(

Routine infant circumcision is genital mutilation and it should be illegal. It should be on par with female genital mutilation, which is still common practice in many third world countries.

If not circumsizing my son will keep him from having any type of relationship with shallow women who think "Ewww", then that is even more reason to leave him intact.

Who knew that a foreskin could be an idiot repeller?

My family has choosen to keep our son intact/ whole/ complete/ perfect....for many different reasons, but this is great.

I won't have to worry about a shallow/uneducated daughter-in-law. Thanks for the smile:)

http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com/

REAL foreskin information! Not this big U.S. hospitals/Washtington Post invested-interested conflict propaganda. :-)

I loved the above comment about foreskin being an idiot repeller. I really wanted to say the same exact thing. But, seriously, I challenge all of you who feel it necessary to circumcise just so your son can look like daddy, to look into foreskin restoration. Then, your baby can be spared from being mutilated while still looking like daddy, because everyone knows how gosh darn important that is, and husband and wife can enjoy sex as nature intended. It's a win-win for everyone involved. By the way, the last several posts have been wonderful. Thank you all for writing so eloquently about a topic that is obviously grossly misunderstood.

I need to repost this part it had a lot of grammatical errors:

FACT: The majority of men in Europe and Latin America are not circumcised and they also don't have scary HIV/AIDS infection rates. In fact just for example, both Ireland and Brazil have lower HIV prevalence rates than the US, which circs most of its men! Foreskin does not = HIV infection.

Heck no. We didn't circumcise him. My husband isn't circumcised either. It seems like a pointless surgery at best and life altering harm at worst. The health claims just don't hold water. Most of Europe is intact and not exactly being circumcised en masse as adults or dropping dead of HIV. People who think that circumcision provides safety against STDs are going to be sadly mistaken when these studies are ultimately shown to be fatally flawed and people go around having unsafe sex thinking that circ = safe.

Sure millions of parents sign the so-called consent forms. However, these are not truly "informed" consent. They do not give full disclosure. They might mention bleeding and risk of post op infection. However, they don't touch on the numerous risks & complications (immediate or long term) associated with circumcision, including the possibility of death, the pain involved, what the function of the foreskin is, what is lost, how exactly the procedure is performed, how to properly care for the baby's penis for a YEAR later to avoid common adhesions (they just tell you to use vaseline for a week, then the babies later have their adhesions ripped back while they scream and bleed,) nor do they inform you that your baby's foreskin may be sold to a biotech or cosmetic company. So no, consent is not really given....certainly not by the person who is having the body part removed.

The doctors never mentioned any risks with us, nor the possibility of leaving my sons intact. So I am one of those people who signed the "consent" forms. But I am one of millions who regret it. My sons have had numerous complications, including a buried penis for one. His penis was out and hung normally before his circ, now it looks as if he has no penis at all, because it receded up into his body from the trauma and too much skin having been removed.

By the way, I'm so sick of reading about "parents rights" and posts from the people who think circumcision is more aesthetically pleasing. It is a human rights issue for the babies who never got a chance to make that decision for themselves.

Sure millions of parents sign the so-called consent forms. However, these are not truly "informed" consent. They do not give full disclosure. They might mention bleeding and risk of post op infection. However, they don't touch on the numerous risks & complications (immediate or long term) associated with circumcision, including the possibility of death, the pain involved, what the function of the foreskin is, what is lost, how exactly the procedure is performed, how to properly care for the baby's penis for a YEAR later to avoid common adhesions (they just tell you to use vaseline for a week, then the babies later have their adhesions ripped back while they scream and bleed,) nor do they inform you that your baby's foreskin may be sold to a biotech or cosmetic company. So no, consent is not really given....certainly not by the person who is having the body part removed.

The doctors never mentioned any risks with us, nor the possibility of leaving my sons intact. So I am one of those people who signed the "consent" forms. But I am one of millions who regret it. My sons have had numerous complications, including a buried penis for one. His penis was out and hung normally before his circ, now it looks as if he has no penis at all, because it receded up into his body from the trauma and too much skin having been removed.

This is a human rights issues for the babies. They are strapped down, and a healthy, functioning body part is cut off without their consent. It is sad to frame it as a parent's rights issue... and disgusting to argue for circ out of aesthetic preference of the parents or predicted future sex partners.

This is a human rights issue for the babies. They are strapped down, and a healthy, functioning body part is cut off without their consent. It is sad to frame it as a parent's rights issue... and disgusting to argue for circ out of aesthetic preference of the parents or predicted future sex partners.

Sure lots of parents sign the so-called consent forms. However, these are not truly "informed" consent. They do not give full disclosure. They might mention bleeding and risk of post op infection. However, they don't touch on the numerous risks & complications (immediate or long term) associated with circumcision, including the possibility of death, the pain involved, what the function of the foreskin is, what is lost, how exactly the procedure is performed, how to properly care for the baby's penis for a YEAR later to avoid common adhesions (they just tell you to use vaseline for a week, then the babies later have their adhesions ripped back while they scream and bleed,) nor do they inform you that your baby's foreskin may be sold to a biotech or cosmetic company. So no, consent is not really given....certainly not by the person who is having the body part removed.

The doctors never mentioned any risks with us, nor the possibility of leaving my sons intact. So I am one of those people who signed the "consent" forms. But I am one of millions who regret it. My sons have had numerous complications, including a buried penis for one. His penis was out and hung normally before his circ, now it looks as if he has no penis at all, because it receded up into his body from the trauma and too much skin having been removed.

A European perspective:

Fortunately I was born in the UK after Douglas Gairdner's influential article in 1949 led to circumcision of newborn infants being virtually eliminated there.

Of course the foreskin as a "stupid woman filter" doesn't work here, so you have to use common sense and intuition when choosing a partner.

The foreskin protects the sensitive inner surfaces of the genitals. Not only "when naked in the wild", but also against friction from clothing, and against infection from faeces when the baby is in diapers!
Circumcised infants have a 10 per cent rate of meatal stenosis, uncircumcised 0 per cent. If the foreskin becomes inflamed, it is only doing its job - leave it alone or treat the inflammation, don't cut it off. ONLY THE OWNER OF THE PENIS MAY RETRACT THE FORESKIN BEFORE PUBERTY!

The "protection against cancer of cervix/penis, urinary tract infections, sexually transmitted diseases" studies have been discredited. Goodness knows why the same myths continually reappear in the so-called scientific literature. The African circumcision/HIV studies were poorly controlled and will probably be discredited eventually.

Ripping/tearing of the foreskin during sex is probably less common than ripping/tearing of the circumcision scar. If the foreskin rips, let it heal, don't cut it off!

stopcircumcision.blogspot.com

I did not circumcise my son, and will most certainly not circumcise any sons I may have in the future!

By the time my son is sexually active, which will likely be in about 15 years, we will know much more about the circumcision/HIV link. I'm betting it will have been disproven, but even if it has been supported in further studies, it will be my son's choice, and his alone, to make. He will be able to examine his sexual behavior and evaluate his personal risk for HIV. Then he can decide--for himself--if having his foreskin cut off would be a reasonable approach to prevention. His body, his choice.

funny how all the gross uncut people feel compelled to defend themselves.Apparently smegma makes people feel very defensive.

funny how all the gross uncut people feel compelled to defend themselves.Apparently smegma makes people feel very defensive.

It's even funnier how childish and cowardly you are. Why are you threatened by people saying they don't circ and don't like circ? If you like being cut then kudos to you. It sounds like you're feeling threatened.

Routine infant circumcision is a human rights violation and genital mutilation. This madness needs to end.

The glans is an internal organ. Chopping off the foreskin exposes this organ and increases it's vulnerability and lessens its sensitivity.

I will never know why inflicting an infant with an open wound that will inevitable come into contact with urine and feces is still seen as more hygenic.

P.S. Women and men have smegma. It is not unique to men.

[quote]I prefer men cut. I do. My aesthetic leans towards it. You don't have to if you don't want to. My husband and I agree that should we have a son, we will circumcise him, since we both come from religions that require male circumcision, and we believe the health benefits, while not massive, are good enough to remove a small piece of skin. As for sensitivity, the cut guys never seemed to have a problem with getting off, while the uncut guys whimper and moan a lot after sex and usually "couldn't be touched" after they got off, which is obnoxious to me."[/quote]

If you change the gender in this statement from male to female you replicate the argument that a lot of people that support FGM (female genital mutilation) make. And not all FGM includes excision of the clitoris. Not that it matters anyway, no amount of genital cutting for cosmetic reasons should ne ok.

The bit about it being annoying that he "couldn't be touched" is particularily offensive. Don't most women find it at the very least uncomfortable to be touched after an orgasm? I know that I do, and I certainly wouldn't begrudge someone else that right.

Lastly, Jewish Covenant circumcision used to be vastly different than it is now. The practice used to just be "milah," which was simply removing the skin which hung beyond the glans. Around AD 140, the priests added "pariah," which consists of forcibly peeling back the foreskin (much like you would have to do to remove a fingernail) and completely denuding the glans and removing the frenulum. This was done because certain Jewish men were stretching out their foreskins so the Greeks wouldn't know they were circumcised. Pariah prevented them from doing this. So, "good enough for Jesus" isn't even true. Christianity does not require circumcision anyway.

I don't have any sons, nor am I a boy, so I can only offer up the knowledge I have:

My brother, born in 1982, was not circumsized. He had no problems with keeping it clean or anything like that -- until he became sexually active. At which point, he decided to have it done, and was in pain for upwards of a week. He said that he'd wished it had been done when he was a baby, and couldn't remember it.

To each their own, but I certainly wouldn't want to be a 20-something male going through that.

You must snip it,

Now snip it good.

Oh, I think you are all crazy.

I always thought there was something odd when my mom told me that boys "needed" to be circumcised and girls didn't. Turns out I was right.

My son is intact. He's never had any of the dreaded infections or other nonsense that the uneducated rumor mill spits out. Care is really easy. Just wipe the mess off the outside then leave it alone. He's nearly out of diapers, so his bathtime play will be enough, now. Once he's a teenager and starts to stink, I'm sure he'll figure out how to effectively wash his penis on his own. If he doesn't, then we have bigger problems!

A circumcised infant needs to be monitored for bleeding, infections (MRSA), and adhesions not to mention that an open wound in a diaper can't feel good. During the surgery, there's always the risk of glans amputation like what happened to that poor boy in Mattoon, IL in Feb of this year. Then you have to worry about meatal stenosis and buried penis as he ages. No thanks. I don't think my son wants me that involved in his private parts, anyway. I doubt he cares what Daddy's penis looks like either.

As to the women who won't touch intact guys, that's YOUR problem. The fact that you're probably old enough to be his Grandmother aside, my son will have enough confidence to point you in the direction of the nearest exit should you express disgust at his natural body. I would never put a child of mine through cosmetic surgery because I was worried about what some shallow people might think.

This is obviously an emotional issue where emotion often supplants reason - as many of the pro-circumcision comments so plainly demonstrate. The simple fact is that all mammals, including all human males, are born with foreskins. Yes, some may be troublesome, just as some tonsils, some ears, some eyes, may be troublesome; but they are all normal body parts with important functions. Medicine exists to deal with the problems that can occur. It does not exist to premptively remove normal tissue. The foreskin is no different than other such parts and no more troublesome. It is not a vestigal organ, although circumcision proponents never cease to argue that it is to make themselves feel better. As a lawyer who often represents the victims of botched or unwanted circumcisions, I can personally attest to the mental trauma suffered by those who have been damaged beyond the normal damage caused by circumcsion and by those whose right to an intact body has been violated. Botched circumcisions are much more prevalent than the public realizes; and they occur in both medical and religious circumcisions. Let's face facts: God and Nature made the foreskin for a purpose. Until the mid-Twentieth Century it was univerally agreed that circumcision made a man less sexually sensitive (even Rabbi Maimonides, the Rambam, recognized this in the Eleventh Century). While the truth may hurt, there is now good evidence that circumcision removes the most sensitive part of the penis. See http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06685.x and http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/sorrells_2007/. It quite obviously removes the protection the foreskin naturally provides to the glans. While one may be able to function sexually without a foreskin, it is only logical that removing natural tissue changes the experience, and not for the better. Why rob your son of his natural body? If you do circumcise him, he may be very angry with your decision. If you don't, you have preserved his choice in the matter. He can avoid virtually all diseases supposedly lessened in incidents (NOT prevented) by circumcision by good hygiene, not smoking, and either remaining monogamous or practicing safe sex. It's that simple.

Rockville,
You said you wouldn't want to be a 20-something year old male going through that. What makes people think that if it a 20-something MAN has a hard time with it, that a 20-HOUR old BABY will just giggle through the procedure and the healing process? Babies undergoing circumcision suffer even more than adults for the following reasons:
1. Adults who choose circumcision will receive proper pain relief. No physician would circumcise a grown man without full anesthesia--he'd get beat up or sued. On the other hand, PLENTY of physicians circumcise babies without pain relief. Why not? The babies are strapped down, unable to defend themselves, and they can't "tattle" on the doctor when they're taken back to their parents. Why bother?
2. In infants, the foreskin is fused to the head of the penis, as a fingernail is fused to your fingertip, and must be forcibly separated by a blunt probe before the foreskin can actually be sliced off. Ow. In adults, the foreskin has already separated from the head, and does not need to be ripped from it. Only the cut is necessary.
3. Adults who are undergoing circumcision have either chosen it willingly for cultural reasons, or, in exceedingly rare cases, have chosen it as a last-resort medical option. They understand what is going on and have retained control over their bodies. They are consenting patients, not unconsenting victims, as babies are.

A child left intact, and not forcibly retracted during childhood, has an extremely low risk of ever having to be circumcised. If you leave your kid intact, he has less than a 1% chance of ever needing circumcision. On the other hand, if you circumcise your kid, he has a 1 % chance of needing surgery to correct a problem caused by the circumcision. So, a circumcised kid has a 100% chance of painful, invasive penile surgery (the circumcision itself) PLUS a 1% chance of later surgery. An intact boy has a 99% chance of NEVER needing surgery on his penis and only less than a 1% chance of someday needing circumcision. Seems to me that if you want to spare your child the pain of surgery, you would choose not to circumcise. Just because a baby doesn't remember it doesn't mean it doesn't affect him.

In Europe circumcision in unheard of (unless you are a Jewish boys). Want to know why? Genital hygiene is not a problem because they have bidets! If we had bidets in this great country of ours, no-one would go around with a stinking penis thinking that circumcision is necessary and healthy. My son is uncut, and I'll teach him the virtues of washing his private parts, lest he decides to have his own kids circumcised one day.
My suggestion to all of you: install a bidet in your bathroom and move on with your (uncut) lives.

"Circumcision has been called "criminal assault" by more than one legal scholar since it is illegal to allow a non-medical/non-therapeutic procedure to be done to a child's body." J.A.C.

Surgery in the absence of disease violates a Doctor's number one sacred dictum, "Prenum Non Nocre" The Hippocratic Oath:"First Do No Harm".

History is repeating itself. They use to tell us that circumcision would cure epilepsy, paralysis, prevent blindness and all sorts of ailments. And people believed it! Claiming that circumcision will prevent HIV/AIDS is a modern day propaganda.

If it isn't really necessary then why are pediatricians and OB's still asking parents if they want their son's circumcised? The answer, MONEY! There is a lot of money to be made in this cosmetic procedure. With the number of circumcisions dropping dramatically since 1999 its no wonder people are coming up with this stuff, claiming HIV/AIDS may be prevented by circumcision. They're worried about maintaining their lifestyle!

If you notice, parents aren't asking doctors if they could circumcise their sons. The doctors are asking parents if they want it done.

Here is a link to the history of the practice.
http://www.cirp.org/library/history/gollaher/

Many of the above comments are silly nonsense as evidenced by:

i.The common herd moms (?) blathering about the fate of their darling newborns. After all,becoming pregnant and giving birth requires great intelligence.

2.The master-mind, all knowing female goddeses, pontificating on the sex capabilities of the circumcized, or uncircumcized male. THEY DARE NOT ADMIT THAT THEY ARE THE CAUSE OF THEIR SEX FAILURES.

3.The smug religious leaders who chant that circumcism is a grand idea because of TRADITION. How do they know? Do they speak to God?

4.The hypocrite who is a complete failure in LOGIC; who rattles on about how female circumcision is mutilation and male circumcion is a hack job that is honorable.

I will end all this by relating a vision that I had with God: He said I should hack off my little toe because it has no use.
This will be good for the sound of mind who have a foot fettish--and--great for females who think that their sex cravings can be satifisfied by a large, easily insertable, stream-lined foot.

As I was circumcised from birth, I never really thought about this issue early in life. But after reading about it and reflecting on it as an adult, I've come to the conclusion that circumcision is indeed an archaic ritual that is not really necessary and may actually be harmful. I really wish that someone had given me the chance to speak up on whether I wanted to be cut before they went ahead and did it! There were no real valid religious reasons for this. The people in the Bible had a fixation with foreskins. Why? Who knows. I wouldn't do this to an animal, much less to a human being and I wonder if many adult men nowadays would subject themselves to this voluntarily. I think I know the answer.

My husband, a pediatrician, did circumcisions as a part of his medical training and residency. And that's why his three sons aren't circumcised! It's barbaric. Oh, and by the way, both of us worked in HIV at CDC, and the poster who cited the CDC document neglected to point out that the studies supporting circ for HIV and STD prevention were done in African countries, in populations where HIV is endemic. That ain't the U.S. (at least not most of it). Some studies just don't travel well.

*Circumcision: Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire French author, humanist, rationalist, & satirist (1694 - 1778)

*emphasis added

Jesse, I like your post. You've made a strong argument. Because you've written so well, you deserve to know a little secret. This should help you think twice about the quoted portion of your post.
http://sexasnatureintendedit.com/ Please visit this site. You'll be delighted you did.

"2.The master-mind, all knowing female goddeses, pontificating on the sex capabilities of the circumcized, or uncircumcized male. THEY DARE NOT ADMIT THAT THEY ARE THE CAUSE OF THEIR SEX FAILURES."

I left the decision to cut or not up to my sons father, as I don't have a penis and never will. In the end, yes he made the decision to have him circumcised based solely on the 'ewww' factor. I do now wish that I hadn't after talking with a few un-circumcised men.

As far as the women/girls on here going on and on how gross it is and all like that, if you ask me, that is more than a little stupid. If anything...the sex is a bit better for both partners. Grow up.

Sexual Functions of the Foreskin explained with pictures and videos at

http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com/10F/Foreskin_Function.html

Warning: Some videos are very explicit.

Why is it mutilation to circumcise an African girl but not an American Boy?

Why is it barbaric to circumcise an African girl but not an American Boy?

Gary Asked:

"Why is it mutilation to circumcise an African girl but not an American Boy? Why is it barbaric to circumcise an African girl but not an American Boy?"

Cultural conditioning; plain and simple. The problem here really is there are millions of circumcised Americans, over 85% of the current adult population, and that in and of itself creates a significant bias. Its such that even many medical professionals are not always aware of proper care of the foreskin which means that any boys lucky enough to miss the knife at birth may have problems down the line as a direct result of the care they receive which reinforces the myths among both professionals and laypersons.

For example this past year there was this horrible accident involving a female circumcision by an Egyptian doctor:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/egypt_female_circumcision;_ylt=AvpoZbbErcZIibb6Lyc.FjnMWM0F)
Similarly another tragedy involving a boy in England:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/tm_headline=7-day-old-died-after-circumcision&method=full&objectid=18623664&siteid=89520-name_page.html
The result was that in both cases the children died; but, how the deaths were treated demonstrates the bias. The females death was attributed directly to her circumcision (actually it was improperly administered anesthesia IIRC) whereas the boy's death, at least in this article, was considered "unexplained". The longer term outcome is also interesting too. In the Egyptian case, this was the impetus to ban all female circumcisions and perhaps to be used as a bullet point to illustrate this atrocity. The British case? Nothing happened and it was quietly buried.

Now there are those who may say male circumcision confers some benefit whereas there is no benefit to female circumcision. There is some bias here too as was mentioned previously in this discussion a very curious presentation at the 2005 International AIDS Society: http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138 concluded that:

"...A lowered risk of HIV infection among circumcised women was not attributable to confounding with another risk factor in these data. Anthropological insights on female circumcision as practiced in Tanzania may shed light on this conundrum."

Which essentially means circumcised women were found to have a significantly lower risk of HIV infection after adjusting for the various variables. However this was reported as a 'conundrum' rather than a bold new tool in the fight against HIV in Africa. To my knowledge, to date there have been no follow up studies, no random control trials, and no media attention; this was quietly buried. If circumcised women had a significantly lower risk of contracting HIV aren't we ethically obligated to study, perhaps confirm it, medicalize it, and offer it to African Women who live in countries where the HIV rate is 1 in 10 or more? Apparently not. (Nor do I think we should)

...Continued...

...Continued From Above ...

This article: http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_2115519,00.html sums it up quite well:
"...A Tanzanian study had found that female circumcision reduced HIV transmission. Biologically, the explanation for this was probably the same as for male circumcision. If female circumcision was medicalised in a similar way to male circumcision, it could be made safer and less damaging. They said: "The downplaying of these facts in the media is a powerful reflection of Western cultural attitudes. "We have already decided that female circumcision is an appalling human rights violation and so do not even flirt with the idea of using it as an HIV prevention tool. ..."

Now to be fair I did say an American bias initially but it is really a western bias because, particularly in English speaking countries, circumcision became nearly universal and, considering the body part we are talking about, there is probably an insatiable need to prove both that the new tool is superior in some way to the original equipment, no matter how trivial, and that nothing was lost in the process. I am not entirely certain the reciprocal condition exist though since if someone who is intact comes across an astonishingly compelling reason to circumcise themselves they can; conversely, if it is shown that there is any detriment to being circumcised, well there aren't many options.

Mercifully, things have been changing English rates crashed in the 50s, New Zealand in the 60s, and Australia and Canada in the 80s and 90s. In fact just last week the Australian state of Vitoria announced starting in September public hospitals would no longer provide the procedure http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/victoria-to-scrap-public-hospital-circumcision/2007/08/12/1186857323447.html

Hopefully, the US will follow their lead but progress will be slow since we have always had the highest rates among the aforementioned countries which I think also means we have the most proponents whether they are parents, doctors, reporters, researchers, or lawmakers. So that is why it is mutilation to circumcise an African girl but not an American Boy and why it is barbaric to circumcise an African girl but not an American Boy. Though I am sure you (Gary) knew that but perhaps this will give other readers something to think about. Cultural conditioning; plain and simple.