All Comments on 'Circumcise Me!'

Not only that there is nothing better than an erect clitoris making your foreskin slide back.L.

Personally, I am not circumcised. My foreskin is by far the most sensitive part of my penis. I can not imagine sex without it.

Professionally, (I am a physician) I agree that there is absolutely no medical justification for circumcision in the developed world. In third world, HIV-endemic areas, there is some evidence circumcision reduces HIV risk, but I do not believe we know the full story there yet. Follow-up studies often do not confirm initial results in medical research.

On a personal AND professional level, all parents should ask very tough questions about who will perform a circumcision and their level of training and experience. When I was an intern, my first day at the nursery they had three baby boys strapped down and screaming for me to circumcise. No one had asked if I had ever done the procedure. They expected me to just do it and there was no senior person there to assist or train me. I refused and made it clear I would NEVER do circumcisions. They were astonished that I was passing up an easy $50 a pop. Thankfully, my chief of service backed me up completely.

First, there is substantial evidence that circumcision hinders the spread of venereal disease and HIV. The idea that this is in dispute is crappy propaganda. The prophylactic effect of circumcision has been so abundantly demonstrated in Africa that one large study was "cut short" - sorry - because of the public health ramifications.

Second, as to sensitivity, no one knows or will ever know. One study in Europe tested a group of men who had adult circumcision and found a decrease in sensation at several spots. How does that translate into sexual enjoyment? No one will ever know because the brain is the main sexual organ. How does a relative loss of sensation in one person relate to another? No one knows because each person feels things differently. How does that relate to circumcision of infants? No one knows, but the body has many times demonstrated the ability to compensate for losses, so we can't compare an adult whose body was used to a sensation to an infant whose body has yet to develop the habits and pathways of sexual feelings.

As a side note, show me ten women picked at random and each one will have different sexual responses from their breasts and clitorises. Same with men. The main sexual organ is the brain.

Third, there are now studies of African women who have been ritually mutilated by the removal of the clitoris, a substantially more elaborate surgery than removal of the foreskin. These studies show that women engage in sex, have no more physical problems, that they enjoy sex, etc. If you think about it, that makes sense because if the ritual mutilation actually were that bad, then we'd have more women dying, fewer women available for sex, fewer children, etc. Since we have lots of people in Africa, they must be having sex. That said, place these women in the West and they report feeling mutilated and sexually inadequate, which means that cultural context has a large role in sexual response and attitudes.

Fourth, circumcision in the West is a choice we can make because hygiene standards are so high. That said, there is a higher rate of urinary and other infection in the uncircumcised - but not so much that the choice makes no sense.

Thanks for raising the issue. I am with you 100%

Written in a rather unbalanced manner. I think the author raised some valid points, but it was done in a rather callow fashion. In addition, the first day of Stats 101 students are taught that correlation is not causation. Therefore, the story of David Reimer while tragic does not prove causation.

The author left out an important argument in favor of circumcision. Circumcision at birth prevents nearly all penile cancers. The argument that good hygiene (cleaning daily under the foreskin) prevents penile cancer sounds good but in my experience (I'm a doctor also), very few uncircumcised boys clean under their foreskins and their parents don't teach them or enforce their teaching if they do teach them. A significant number of men have required penile amputation that would have been averted had they been circumcisized in childhood. The chance of dying in an automobile accident exceeds by far the risk of penile loss due to an incorrectly performed circumcision, yet I'll wager the author does not hesitate to get into a car.

First of all, I have a son who IS circumsised. When I found out that I was having a boy it took me very little time to make the descion to circumsise- his father said it was up to me- and his father is circumsised also.

That being said, many year before mommyhood I dated a man who was not circumsised. We had great sex. I've never orgasamed so easily with anyone else. And the orgasams were amazing and wonderful! Now, I've had great sex since- because the penis is not all there is to it, but the orgasams do not come as easy as they did with the uncircumsised man..

just my 2 cents!

I remember when I found out that most boys in america were circumcised how astonished I was. It's a custom, not much more, and I'm glad it's not a custom we have on this side of the pond. It's not hard to teach boys to wash properly, before they get to an age when it will embarras them.

I was circumcised as a matter of course as a baby.

When our first boy was born, we read up on it. The doc (a few comments back) is correct that there are some cancer concerns, but proper hygiene minimizes these already-modest concerns. You rely on your capability to instruct your children in hygiene for much greater risks, such as germs from wiping yourself, doncha? Why would you doubt yourself on this, er, wrinkle of the topic.

As Selena noted, the potential for injuries during the procedure, for reactions to anesthesia, and for infections and the like, easily outweigh the risk of penile cancer, assuming proper hygiene.

So none of our three sons were circumcised. They had some concerns when they reached a certain age and noticed that most of their friends were cut. I explained the thought process we had gone through and that we had chosen not to mutilate them pr subject them to certain unnecessary risks. I said, "Hey, when you're of age, if you find you're still concerned about it, or if you find that it's somehow a problem for your partners, then you can always choose to do it. We left the choice for you, rather than unnecessarily trying to forecast your choice."

Now they're all grown, and all have dated bodacious ladies, and none have chosen to do this. One of my boys has needed surgery (for something fairly minor, outcome successful), and NEEDED to undergo general anesthesia. The other two have never needed to take the risk of going under...

Thanks, Selena!

Another thing to consider is that in cultures where circumcision is a religious obligation (Jewish and Muslim), women from those cultures have vastly reduced rates of cervical cancer, indicating that there may well be a benefit to women for men to be circumcised.

I can't even remember if my father was circumcised. My eldest brother wasn't but he got an infection caused by the foreskin not being cleaned properly when he was four. So my other brother and I were circumcised when we were babies. Whilst I understand the whole hygiene thing early childhood education would be the best thing. Being circumcised removes the most sensitive nerve endings of the penis and desensitizes the penis head which would otherwise be shielded by the foreskin. Additionally it reduces the volume a penis has in a woman's vagina which can also reduce her pleasure. Not that being circumcised has affected my lovemaking but I do know women who enjoy and playing with the foreskin and therefore like uncircumcised penis's. My girlfriend is one of them. I never had choice as to what might have been. If I had the choice I wouldn't have been circumcised. As for doing it for religious reasons, don't we have enough problems created in this world in the name of religion already. Naturally men were made the way we are for a reason. Great essay topic though.

To be ever so humble, many people really don't understand the full context of the history of circumcise. It is very true that males are not as cleanly as females as per personal care. In ancient times, hot water and soap were not as common as they would have wished. Lack of care could cause problems for anything. But true ancient history had nothing to do with hygene. In fact it has been shown that religious reasons were for decreasing sexual pleasure. Of course there are those that would say that there is no way to tell how this truly affects. It is highly likely that having a foreskin will increase protection from dieases and sexual feelings. Such diseases strive on people mating with as many people as possible. If the man was a greater risk to being infected, it would show his unfaithfullness to his wife because there is no way that two healthy people to suddenly obtain a STD if they are truly only having sex with themselves. Religion is all about control, and nearly all religions want people to only to have sex to make children. Reducing sexual pleasure and protection was a natural progression of thought when it came to a method of control. Truth be told it is only a meaning of control and over time they came up with excuses to convince the masses. How else would you convince a loving parent to put their child to great risk than to lie to them and say it is for their own good?

This is definitely a good topic for debate. I spent several years in the defence forces and the percentage of guys requiring adult circumsision due to split, torn or non retracting foreskins was high. The oldest I knew off was 32 when he required the surgery. This does not mean to say that we should all get the cut to avoid this. It is but a factor.

As stated by other feed back, Penile cancer is almost reduced to Zero by this procedure. The risk of cervical cancer is reduced by about 60%. Australia has just started innoculating school age girls against ovarian cancers. Circumsision will assist this protection for females. The USA last year pledged $US15 Billion to combat aids in Africa. The stats speak for themselves as to the success rate. A leading anti circumsision medical university lecturer in Australia was on the study panel when they we contducting the statistacal analysis. He has since changed his stance and become pro circumsision. For a leading medical mind to change must surely be an indication that it cant be all bad. I would definately not advocate compulsory circumsision, but I do believe the pros and cons are at times not presented in there entirity.

I am happy that I will not suffer penile cancer or cause my wife to get cervical cancer. Whilst my risk of contacting STD's and AIDS is greatly reduced I still do not have to worry as I would need to stray for that to happen. Western medicine is not the be all and end all of medical knowledge. The volume of deaths of post operative care is high. Operating on the wrong body part is common. Do we therefore only listen to their advise? This is a complicated issue. How do we chose? I would only suggest being FULLY informed of all the stas.

You are born with the protection ... keep the protection - that's my two cents worth. You wouldn't remove an earlobe, even though they are rather redundant, so why remove a foreskin.

To me a good essay is not the one which argues for the merits of its own position but the one which fairly argues the merits of the opposing view, then shows why they fall short. You did not do it here. That's why it felt more like propaganda rather than a well thought essay.

I'm going to have to agree with the previous poster, who said that this seemed more like a propaganda piece than a well-written essay. You really didn't give the pro-circumcision side more than a cursory review. However, as to the person who titled his/her post "Religion," you've clearly got a bit of a grudge against religion, & you're at least somewhat. Judaism believes in regular, mutually pleasurable sex between husband and wife, not at all just for purposes of procreation. Whatever the reason for the commandment of circumcision, I don't think it has to do with decreasing sexual pleasure or desire. I don't think any of the guys I've hooked up with wishes he had a foreskin; they all seemed rather pleased just as they were!

Also, Jewish circumcisions are performed by a specially trained man known as a mohel, who is highly knowledgeable about both the medical and the religious aspects of the procedure. General anesthetic isn't used, though local anesthetic at least sometimes is, and thanks to various clamps and such, the operation is swift and less painful. Does that sound anything like what you and other posters described as the hospital setting for circumcision?

As an man who is not circumcised, I can honestly say I am SOOO glad I am not cut. The feeling of having your foreskin pulled back and forth over the head of your cock feels so good. You can really tell a lot of the feeling is coming from nerves in the foreskin, not just the rest of the cock. There is something "beautiful" about the action of trusting forward into a vagina (or mouth, hand, between breasts, etc), and at the same time feeling the foreskin getting pulled back and stretched taunt at maximum penetration.... the exposure of the sensitive head as its being simulated and erupts with a gush of cum. I call this the "bloom effect" because the foreskin pulling back during thrusts reminds me of a flower opening its petals to the sun, and exposing its sensitive insides.

Anyway, the only negative about still having your foreskin is that it makes condom use a pain in the ass. The foreskin acts like a sleeve, and so does the condom. The result is that the outer sleeve (condom) slides back and forth, thus not letting the foreskin slide. It totally screws up the wonderful action I was describing in my first paragraph. This is easily solved, by going bareback with a partner that you trust. O'natural is always best!

All this bullshit about hygiene is pathetic. You know how "hard" it is to clean under your foreskin? All you do is pull it back as far as it can, and run some warm water over the exposed head for a few seconds. It takes all of 10 seconds in the shower every morning. If you don't think that's "clean enough" ask any doctor what the "proper" way is to clean under there. They will tell you exactly what I just wrote. I know, because that's what my doctor told me. This isn't rocket science people. The idea that its "easier to keep clean" is total hogwash; the fantasies of some hyper fanatic nuts to rationalize a practice that is meant to discourage masturbation in some demented attempt to remain "pure," attone for some imagined sin, and generally make sex in all its forms less pleasurable.

To all the rational people who believe this tripe: WAKE UP, YOU'VE BEEN HAD! BAMBOOZLED! RUN A MUCK!

Clearly no one here knows the difference between an essay and opinion piece. Selena clearly states that SHE doesn't believe in circumcising, and why she doesn't. She doesn't say no one should. She mentions cultural exceptions, as well as studies done, and it's a good point that the APA doesn't recommend it anymore, regardless of whatever studies have been done. As opther posters have pointed out, cleanliness isn't a concern any longer in this day and age when most people bathe once a day and studies haven't been conclusive enough to make the APA recommend it. Docs like the one below don't pay attention to evidence based medicine and the changes in policy and give the profession a bad name.

Actually, only one of the three studies regarding the effects of circumcision on HIV transmission has been completed. Even if the other two confirm the results, I still don't see how it justifies mutilating somebody. I imagine if they carried out a study on how the complete removal of the penis reduced HIV transmission, they would find that it removed it by 99%. Would that make it OK for people to cut men's genitals off? There are other ways of preventing infection that don't have a loss of sensitivity in the penis (which is a fact, no matter how many times you mention the brain) as a side-effect.

And the bullshit about clitoridectomy is just pathetic. Ritual clitoridectomy procedures actually only remove part of the clitoris (learn some anatomy, cloacas), so it is possible that those women may still experience some pleasure, but it is impossible for them to enjoy sex as fully as women who haven't been mutilated. The vaginal walls, except for a couple of spots, are very insensitive, so unless those women are able to reach orgasm through their imagination, it is highly unlikely they will enjoy sex to the same extent.

Any form of body modification carried out without the subject's consent (even piercing children's ears, IMO) should be considered a crime. Parents don't own their children's bodies (otherwise beating your kids wouldn't be a crime), so it makes no sense to allow them to chop parts of them off unless their life depends on it.

Penn and Teller did a great episode of their hit Showtime show "Bullshit!" on circumcision. It's a good, concise, logical argument against the procedure, which they liken to genital mutilation in Africa. My first son is circumsized, and thank God I learned more about this procedure in time to save my second son from it.

Culture mandates much and my faith dictates circumcision. That aside the decision to cut my son was based upon a simple belief that when a boy looks up at his father (the source of his self worth) and sees anything that would set them apart the child will automatically take the subordinate position and think that there is something wrong with himself.

All of the rest (pleasure, health, hygiene, cosmetics, beauty etc)is conjecture given quality medical care. 6000 years of Jewish boys lamenting their penises has only caused them to rise to a higher standard of practice for pleasures sake.

I am not but I wish I were, my foreskin is way too tight and I'm probably going to have some problems with that.

As for all of the comments regarding penile cancer and penile amputations, I would be curious to see the numbers on that. While I don't doubt it occurs, I think most of us would be hard pressed to find someone who actually had/has it. Same for amputation.

As for the rest of the Chicken Littles, there is always going to be something, somewhere that will get us. Following your logic, the obvious step to take is to put each of us in plastic suits to isolate us from the world to prevent getting cancer of the toenail or something. We can't prevent everything, and just the thought that mutilating every male child born is an acceptable way to lower a risk that is already tiny is just absurd.

A couple of thoughts. There are 3 main bodies of opinion supporting circumcision in the US. The Muslim faith, the Jewish faith and the AMA. As to the first two, I can not believe that God wants us to chop bits off babies. That's just an antique cultural practise masquerading as religion. And I can imagine why the AMA supports an unnecessary piece of surgery (but I'm not saying - they have lawyers!)

Circumcision reduces HIV infection? If it does, it actually slightly reduces the risk that an individual sex act will result in infection - but if you keep throwing the dice, you're going to get a six soon enough. This 'benefit' is a Big Red Herring.

I'm a 100% believer in letting the boy decide for himself, when he is old enough. No one else is interested in his foreskin before then anyway.

Jacqueline George

You could have included some references to other essays as there are a lot out there concerning this. Living in the UK it is not common practice to circumsize a baby or child unless for medical reasons. I don't agree with the reasoning for circumcision that it keeps the penis 'cleaner' than those with foreskin, if you don't wash you're going to get a smelly cock whether you are circumsized or not! I've read many other opinions for circumsizing and each one dumbfounds me - how can people believe such a thing as cutting off a part of male genitals is right for such silly reasons? A foreskin really is an important part of the penis for sexual reasons, it protects the head from becoming desensitized, it creates a kind of sleeve for masturbation and increases the feelings a man gets during sex etc.

I was pleased to find something on here with regard to this though, it was the last place I thought I'd come across it but word needs to be spread everywhere that this is an outdated and poor medical procedure.

Sixty years ago there was no question - well, slight - about the choice for a circ'. Mom said it was simply done for cleanliness and peer comfort. As a youth who swam nude in physical education I realized mom's comment was also the over-riding choice of other parents.

Thirty years after my parents made the decision, my wife and I faced the same question. With no guilt, no remorse involved our decision followed the same logic. Son's circ'-mate was a long-time friend afterwords. One squalled more than the other during the procedure, yet both were napping in minutes. We parents suffered the greatest pain.

As the sixty-year anniversary and fourth generation approaches hopefully, I see the same question may be on the agenda. The only difference my son and spouse will likely face is cost replacing the peer issue.

The choice will be no better than flipping a coin, as it has been for at least the last sixty years.

Although I cant prove it yet... seems like the ruling class dont get the "final cut" just the soon to be wage slaves. Lucky for me I missed that slice and dice. my girls seem to like the smooth moist head rather than a hard dry ram. but more research is needed. volunteers?

RGB

Selena, thank you for an intelligent discussion about this

procedure. I was born in Europe and so escaped the knife. It

is not an operation that is needed for a happy and healthy

life.A shower once a day is all that is required.

So,please leave your son as he was born,with a little extra skin and if he later in life decides he wishes to get

circumsized,he may do so.

This is anticirc propaganda word by word. This is hardly good fiction.

90% of all men in the USA are circumcised. I have never heard any complaints. All the boys in my h.s. were circumcised. And everyman in my Ivy League College in NJ are also. How come the well to do and the superior educated men like being circumcised?

Interesting essay. I'm going to comment here just for the sake of discussion.

Personally, I prefer my men uncut. My current boyfriend is uncircumcised, and whether that gives him better sensation or not during sex, I'm definitely a fan. It makes his penis feel so much more velvety and delicious. :)

I do have one small bone to pick, though. Just because a certain physical trait hasn't been weeded out by natural selection doesn't mean it serves a purpose; it just means that that trait didn't cause the organism to die before reaching reproductive age. There are countless genetic diseases that persist in the human population because they don't kill the carriers before the carriers can have babies - color blindness, for example, or Huntington's disease (which often doesn't begin to manifest until a person is well into their thirties or forties). A foreskin may indeed serve a beneficial purpose to a man, but since millions of men have been able to get on just fine without their foreskins, maybe the foreskin was one of those things that evolved and then just stayed in the genome because it didn't affect a man's sexual fitness one way or another.

That being said, I've never heard any solid scientific arguments supporting circumcision either, and though it seems by and large a harmless procedure if it's done with care and competence, I don't see why it's necessary (unless the foreskin is actually causing legitimate problems - growing a tumor? I don't know). Historically, circumcision was performed for a number of reasons, many of which had a religious or social origin. Religious sacrifice, a boy's rite of passage to manhood, cultural distaste for foreskins, all kinds of stuff. Hygiene seems to have been somewhere in that mix, but then again, many cultures didn't bathe regularly back in the day...so...yeah.

I don't know. Circumcision is just a strange idea to me.

So I guess that's my really long-winded way of saying I agree with you - I think it should be a man's choice to be circumcised or not. :P Interesting read as always, Selena. Cheers. :)

I think it's genital mutilation. Your story David Reimer is very tragic and sad. I once did a bit of research in to the methods used to prevent masturbation (it was why corn flakes were developed) although I never found any link I have to believe it's why circumcision became standard practice. Interesting to note that to prevent girls from masturbating they were taken to the doctor so he could rub an ointment similar to Ben-gay on her genitals

In my opinion, though it may sound harsh, AMERICA HAS NO RIGHT TO CALL ITSELF A CIVILISED COUNTRY WHILE IT ALLOWS THE PRACTICE OF ROUTINE INFANT CIRCUMCISION TO CONTINUE. America should be setting an example to other countries and leading the world in phasing out the mindless genital mutilation of children - of both sexes - rather than allowing it to be perpetuated. Ban circumcision now!!

I totally agree with you. Im a circumcised man and after i read stories like david reimers i started looking into the whole industry and i just think its pointless. Im actually mad at my parents and i mentioned it to them and they looked at me like i was the crazy one. LOL. ... No one has the right to cut off anything off another person. ... im just glad the statistics are changing now. Circumcision is has dramatically decreased in the US and im shore it will end all together soon. However San francisco tried to ban it but unfortantly that was over turned.

Also @ Mistereeus - HAHA, i saw that story about corn flakes. Now i never eat kelloges cereal. The funny thing is i use to eat that crap and i did not start masturbating until i was 19 ( im not lying) :'( I have yet to mention that to my doctor or anyone cus i fell like a freak for not starting on time like everyone else.

I read your story & agree with you! Yes some man are vain & some women like cut men? I think so long as a man washes properly & looks after his sexual health there is no clinical requirement to do this to a baby!

You wrote, "If men didn't need their foreskin, they'd be born without one. Over time, the foreskin would simply disappear." While I agree with you that circumcision is not medically necessary, I have to take issue with this understanding of the evolutionary process. In order for the foreskin to 'disappear,' a mutation would have to randomly arise in which a male would be born without a foreskin. Further, the lack of foreskin would have to enhance the chances of that male reproducing, so that the trait would be passed on. Human beings don't seem to choose partners for strictly evolutionary reasons, and haven't since the dawn of civilization, so it is very difficult to think of a way in which a genetic lack of foreskin could actually come to enhance a man's chance of reproduction. It's much easier to think of reasons for the foreskin to have evolved to begin with: it protects a very sensitive area.

I must agree with the commenter who wrote that we will never know whether the procedure actually reduces sensitivity; I do know that some men buy ointments to reduce their sensitivity, and I've never met a man, circumcised or not, who didn't enjoy sex. I don't think that can form the basis of a serious argument.

It is absolutely true that circumcision is mostly done for cultural reasons, some religious and some simply based on family tradition. It isn't at all necessary, and there is some risk to the infant. Human beings do lots of other unnecessary things, some of them far more tragic and cruel. I'd be in favor of making it the exception rather than the rule, but I don't think it would be worth making into a crime.

Circumcision reduces the risk of cervical cancer by about 60%.

But men don't have cervices so why should we care about that?

The only cancer women care about is breast cancer.

More than four times as many women get lung cancer as breast cancer.

More women smoke than men.

The breast cancer people get way more donations than the lung cancer people do.

So no surprise that women are against preventing another cancer that only they can get.

I had two daughters first and didn't have to agonise over this matter - then my son came along and I had to make a decision. I am circumcised, and there are no negatives, but is that a good enough reason to inflict an irreversible procedure on an infant?

I made many enquiries. Some of my uncircumcised friends said that they had to pay diligent attention to their personal hygiene down there, retracting the foreskin every time they bathed or showered and cleaning any sebum trapped between foreskin and glans penis, otherwise they were inviting inflammation (Balanitis), but others didn't seem to have much of a problem in this regard. My penis got washed automatically when I showered, but was that convenience enough of a reason to have my son circumcised?

I think the thing that made up my mind was when I spoke to a doctor who had himself circumcised in his early thirties. He went to World War II as a soldier (he did Medicine when her returned) and was in the trenches, or in the dessert, for a large part of his time overseas - in both cases water was in short supply and personal hygiene was a challenge. He had so much trouble, discomfort, and pain with repeated bouts of Balanitis that the first medical thing he had done when he eventually came home was to book himself in for circumcision.

He was in his fifties when we had this discussion, so he knew personally what sex was like before and after circumcision - "Definitely better afterwards." He said there was absolutely no difference in the 'feel' and pleasure during intercourse, and it was so lovely to be able to just cuddle afterwards and eventually go to sleep, without the necessity to get up, go to the bathroom, and clean himself to stave of another round of Balanitis.

On the strength of this first hand, before and after, account from a doctor, I agreed to my baby boy being circumcised. If I had to make the decision all over again, I might agree with you and let the boy make the decision when he is a man. However, there are some considerations in that regard too:

I have met some women who will not have sex with 'uncut' guys, and I wouldn't like my boy to feel his member was inferior to 'dirty', in any way, and incubate a complex;

a lot of women who will have sex with an erect, uncircumcised cock, once it is erect and the foreskin has retracted (i.e. when it looks like a circumcised cock), balk at the prospect of putting a limp dick in their mouths to grow it, when they don't know what cheesy substances or mucous secretions might be hidden under those unattractive folds of skin;

circumcision is a much more major procedure on an adult male, and painful for a significant period of time;

one of my uncircumcised grand children is having a problem with strangulation of the head of penis by the foreskin, and also with Balinitis, and will have to be circumcised at age seven, which we are not looking forward to - he will have to have an anaesthetic with the risks that accompany that, and will be incredibly sore for a week or more afterwards;

and, as stated before, the need to clean it before the erection subsides might put a dampener on the intimacy of the afterglow.

I am glad that I am now old enough to not have to make that decision again because I am not completely sure which way I would go if I had to do it again.

James

Why do the babies with uncircumcise from mom wombs at first place?? Therefore, nothing wrong with skins. As long as they grow up as they are reached to pull skins out and wash them. That's simple.. Well, I'm uncut as I thanked my parents not for approval to cut skin out.. If they continue cutting skins, ok to their parent’s’ decisions as not my problem. Just my opinion.

Yeah I Agree I Think Most of what you said could also be applied to Female Circumcision as well. I can't remember how old I was but when I was just a kid my parents mostly my mom wanted me Circumcized just because this one kid that we where babysitting at the time he was around the same age as I was Circumized and for what ever the reason she wanted me Circumcized as well. With out my Consent, But Luckily I only got as far as the second Visit with that subject. I Not Only Not Like Pain but also even at the time I felt it should be choice and not because it seemed to be the latest Fab or whatever the reason was.

I'm glad I am cut. I think penises are otherwise hideous.

The primary reason is hygiene. A major reason that male circumcision was mainstreamed from a Jewish religious ritual to common practice from the late 1940s through at least 2000 was the experience of WWII when more than 12 million American men were in the service. For those at fixed bases, regular bathing/showering was possible. But for troops in the field, it was simply not possible to wash on anything even approaching a daily basis. This led to a variety of skin ailments and infections due to the buildup of secretions under the foreskin (smegma); uncircumcised soldiers also were somewhat more vulnerable to venereal disease again because of the greater difficulty in prompt and thorough washing.

After the war, much of the medical profession were veterans who had seen the problems in the field that inevitably arose because of the inability to engage in scrupulous hygiene. In effect, American infants were being prepared to be future soldiers by the medical profession. And there is evidence as your review parenthetically references, that lack of scrupulous male hygiene is a contributor to the spread and persistence of heterosexually transmitted HIV in Africa. Apparently, sex without condoms between subSaharan African prostitutes and their clients remains the norm and studies seem to demonstrate that the rates of infection and transmission are higher among the uncircumcised. (As a side note, because circumcison is a religious practice of Muslims, there are robust sample groups in many African countries of circumcised as well as uncircumcised men).

In hindsight, I would have refrained from circumcising my sons, but as a veteran, I do understand why there are health reasons for cicumcision, though I don't think they are compelling reasons. It's interesting that there is not the same outcry about "male genital mutilation" as there properly is about "female genital mutilation." I wonder why?

Well said. We don’t have the right to irreversibly alter someone else’s body.

Such wonderful thoughts, beautifully expressed by a loving mother. Thank you!

I’m with you. We had girls, but if we had had sons I have to believe I would have insisted on no circumcision. My mom did not have me cut and I thank her every day for that decision. My penis is so much more sensitive than one that is desensitized by rubbing against clothes all the time. I’ve never had a woman object to touching or sucking me. In fact several have commented on how sexy it looks to slowly pull the foreskin back and expose the shiny wet head. It turns me on as well. Thanks mom.❤️

Thank you for not believing all the lies like hygiene (hygiene is better with a foreskin), phimosis (a rare condition that can be treated less invasive) or reduce STI-risk which is actually increased with a circumcision.

Well said I agree totally, wish I had the choice.

Your rant fails to take into consideration any of the health benefits associated with circumcision. Lower rates of penile cancer and lower rates of STD transmission are just a couple of them.

Maybe do some research next time before posting. Facts are better than your feelings.