Poll: What do you think about circumcision?

[Phototoxin]

I think its wrong to chop bits off people unnecesssarily. Failing that, how come male circumcision is ok but female circumcision is 'genital mutilation'

Female circumcision is done with the express purpose of removing any possible pleasure from sex. Ever. It also tends to cause horrific tearing during pregnancy.

It tends to be done by men to women, as well, as opposed to as a joint decision in the household. Female circumsion is a symbol of the woman's servile role in the societies where it is practiced, whereas male circumcision has no such stigma.

This is comparing trimming a fingernail and removing the finger, it really is. A circumsized male is fully functional sexually, while a circumcized female has lost the capacity to have an orgasm and has some added, pretty major, health risks.

Big difference.

This is a bit NSFW but explains why I don't like it. Not that I'm catholic or anything but similar views :http://www.fisheaters.com/circumcision2.html

 

[Ledan]

*snip*

It's not foreskin though, it's just stretched skin. There is a difference between the skin of the foreskin and the skin on the rest of the penis. The new foreskin that guy has is just stretched penis skin. You can't get actual foreskin back.

Oh! I guess I wasn't really paying attention. Well... that sucks for most Americans then

 

[Sewora]

This is a bit NSFW but explains why I don't like it. Not that I'm catholic or anything but similar views :http://www.fisheaters.com/circumcision2.html

That's a very informative site. That's exactly what every parent is taught when having a child, girl or boy. There's necessary information for both.
But that site raises a question. If the foreskin is attached to the glans, how exactly is a circumcision performed? Wouldn't it damage the penis and cause extreme pain to the infant?

To me, these are normal facts, I'm perfectly aware of how it works, and so does all children here too. These facts are as standard as knowing you have genitals. But not necessarily all the exact details though.
But to someone who's unaware of how uncircumsized penises works this is brilliant information that tells you that it's not bad, it's not unhealthy or unhygenic but perfectly normal, in a non-hostile and very informative way.

This kind of information should be more widespread in the US I believe.


Circumcision is not even performed properly these days. At least the people who first did it were intelligent enough to understand that it did in fact serve a purpose, so they left enough foreskin to allow for the glans and sexual intercourse to remain largely unchanged.

 

[Ledan]

Waitwaitwait.... I've been reading this forum (on page 3 now), and cirumcised guys NEED lube to masturbate? How the hell can you say that "its fine, nothing really changes" if you HAVE to have lube to masturbate? I never really understood in before some guys would have lube, or why it was always used in reference to masturbation.
This is high mutilation i tell you.....

 

[ILikeEggs]

There is a difference between the skin of the foreskin and the skin on the rest of the penis. The new foreskin that guy has is just stretched penis skin. You can't get actual foreskin back.

True, you'll never get back the messeiner's corpuscles or the sensory experiences associated with them.

Right. I referenced the most comprehensive study involving foreskin sensitivity in my initial response, and the researchers didn't assert a loss of sexual sensation or pleasure due to the missing receptors because of their testing methods and the distinct disadvantages to the ways other studies performed their surveys.

Maybe not, but would it be inaccurate or misleading to say that a burn victim does not have the same sensory experiences(with regard to the burned skin) that a person with healthy, unburned skin has?

In addition, if the only regions left after circumcision are less responsive to stimulation, is it not logical to assume more/varied stimulation would be required?

Yes, this study right here, actually. Don't just read the parts the biased website want you to read. Look at their discussion:

Did you bother to go all the way down to the conclusions?

"In conclusion, circumcision removes the most sensitive parts of the penis and decreases the fine-touch pressure sensitivity of glans penis. The most sensitive regions in the uncircumcised penis are those parts ablated by circumcision. When compared to the most sensitive area of the circumcised penis, several locations on the uncircumcised penis (the rim of the preputial orifice, dorsal and ventral, the frenulum near the ridged band, and the frenulum at the muco-cutaneous junction) that are missing from the circumcised penis were significantly more sensitive."

Although I've covered that in my previous point.

Again, that study doesn't say what you think it does. The entire purpose of the research was to figure out a way to measure sensitivity loss for other studies to take advantage of, NOT make conclusions about circumcisions and sexual gratification.

True, but no one's making arbitrary, uninformed conclusions. I'm merely making logical observations by drawing parallels.

Take this one with a huge grain of salt if you want to believe it, but I'm not buying it.

Alright, I'll keep that one out of the discussion.

The only half-decent study provided... but again, this only proves there's some sort of sensation lost: Not that the lost sensation results in less gratification or that it isn't compensated for by nearby tissue.

It doesn't prove sexual dysfunction as a result of circumcision.

Again, I've explained this above, and have never said anything regarding sexual dysfunction. Possibly reduced/muted sensory experiences do not equate to lack of sensory experiences/sexual dysfunction.

Yes, and I haven't tried to make the case that sensation is magically maintained after cutting off skin.

Does it appear to interfere with any measure of sexual gratification? No.

You're being silly here, because sexual gratification is not something you can objectively measure. Like I mentioned, Morris(pro-circumcision bias) and Waskett stated that fine-touch sensitivity was not the only stimulus available or the only stimulus that could produce sexual feedback.
Of course, if you agree that the fine-touch sensory receptors are removed with the foreskin, and the that remaining regions on the circumcised penis(barring the region adjoining the scar) are devoid of fine-touch receptors, you're left with pressure, vibration, pain and temperature receptors.
From there, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that you'll have to get your jollies off using pressure, pain, temperature(glans is excluded here) and vibration.

Additionally, taking into account the pseudo-lubricant function the foreskin provides, is it not safe to say that circumcised men are more likely to have more vigorous(possibly painful for the woman) vaginal sex?

For the better-designed, better-controlled studies with a widely representative subject pool, there isn't any significant difference in function or sexual gratification between men who were circumcised shortly after birth and those who weren't.

Again, like I said, measuring sexual gratification is not feasible as it isn't something objectively quantifiable.

My final stance on circumcision is this: There is a reasonable likelihood of circumcision irreversibly changing sexual experiences(in addition to the risks that accompany it as a surgery), and this is the sole reason it should not be allowed without the consent of the person involved.

This study stops here, because after that sentence, the study is the opposite of science. It willingly introduces bias that skews its results in favor of the researchers' bias.

Fair enough, but you should realise that you'll have a fair amount of bias in a lot of the studies unless they're based on completely quantifiable properties, strict scientific methods(possibly involving neuro-imaging in the future), and well-varied test pools. For example, studies that involve(even marginally) personal experience and based in the US, will always have respondents favour circumcision, even if it isn't a conscious response.

Lastly, I hate to be the one to bring up something that sounds like a conspiracy theory, but the foreskin trade for consumer cosmetics is a very real, very lucrative business.
I'd attribute at least some of the pro-circumcision "lobbying" to practitioners and others involved that don't want to give up on their baby-skin goldmine.

Here's some reading on the topic:

http://crunchydomesticgoddess.com/2009/05/28/babies-foreskins-used-to-make-cosmetics-is-this-ethical/

http://voices.yahoo.com/human-foreskins-big-business-cosmetics-201840.html

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/11/yuck-markets-in-everything.html

http://sites.google.com/site/completebaby/cosmetics

The resale value of neonate foreskins is astronomically dizzying in that from one boy?s foreskin can be grown bio-engineered skin in a lab to the size of a football field. That?s 4 acres of new skin or around 200,000 units of manufactured skin, which is enough skin to cover about 250 people and sells at $3,000 a square foot. Considering that there are 1.25 million neonate foreskins circumcised each year in the U.S alone this translates to one of the most lucrative trades, if not THE most lucrative trade in human body parts ever in the history of humanity.

I'm not entirely sure on how accurate/factual the numbers are, but it's something to think about.

 

[kurupt87]

*snip*

It's not foreskin though, it's just stretched skin. There is a difference between the skin of the foreskin and the skin on the rest of the penis. The new foreskin that guy has is just stretched penis skin. You can't get actual foreskin back.

Oh! I guess I wasn't really paying attention. Well... that sucks for most Americans then

It doesn't actually say that in the video, the video leaves you with the impression you had.

But; are you going to tell a man, a man that is obviously so troubled by his circumcision that he has gone to extreme levels of time and effort to adapt his penis so he can recreate his foreskin, that it is not actually foreskin?

 

[Ledan]

Actually its true because your cutting of lots of nerves. Say doctors remove nerves in your rm, its going to be less sensitive. You cant measure that, but there is difference becuase the nerves are absent.

Ask any circumcised male that is sexually active if sex is pleasurable to him....he's going to say yes. What exactly is "more pleasurable"? Increased sensitivity would also mean earlier ejaculation, which means sex is quicker. Few men would want this.

What I am trying to get at though is that the only conceivable way to measure a reduction in sensitivity and pleasure is to take an uncircumcised male who is sexually active, then snip his foreskin off and let him have sex. Until that happens, declaring that there is a decrease in pleasure is a fallacy that has never been backed up. I.E. pulled out of people's asses.

Whining for the sake of being whiney? Seriously? It matters to me because my body was mutilated and I had no say in the matter. It matters to me because one of the most personal parts of my body was irreversibly changed without any concern for my opinion on the matter.

Mutilated? Really? Are you suffering a handicap or are deformed in any way? Is your daily life a wreck and a constant trial? No, I doubt it is. Was it done against your will? yes, but then so was your parent's cutting your hair and clipping your nails and getting your immunized and taking you to the dentist, all of which can cause trauma to young children. You can't miss what you never had, and can never get back. So if all you do is complain and don't/can't do anything about it, then you are whining.

[quote/]Again, yes, it has medical benefits, but those benefits are not unique to circumcision: they can be attained in other manners than genital mutilation. You seem to be coming from the viewpoint of, "Yeah, let's mutilate some babies, give me a reason why not." While I am coming from the viewpoint of, "No, let's not mutilate some babies, give me very convincing reasons as to why it should be done."

Lets see....I do believe that giving someone a additional protection against catching and transmitting diseases is a good reason. Yeah, condoms do the same thing, but you can't wear two condoms, but you can have a hardened penis that works in conjunction with a condom. Then there are the less tangible benefits. For one, IT'S NORMAL. Yeah yeah, you may argue about how it shouldn't be and an uncut penis is more natural, but please try and remember being in the school gym locker room at shower time. Uncut boys were considered weird. Same goes with most American women. I know many women who consider an uncut dick to be odd and would rather not let one in her. Appearance plays a large part, whether you want it to or not.

I have yet to hear any. And you disrespecting and disregarding people who disagree with you does nothing to validate your opinion, or make me respect it.

Again, if all you are is complaining about something you have no control over and aren't doing anything to fix it, you are a whiner. You have control over your own child, but don't you dare stick your nose into other people's business and tell them what to do with their children. That shows far more disrespect than anything I have written.[/quote]

Right. Because stopping a father from belting his son every night is disrespectful. You ARE an american, aren't you?
Parents don't have SHIT property rights over their children. They have a responsibility and arguably a privilege, that can be taken away at a moments notice if they mistreat their children. Children are PEOPLE, and everyone in a country has certain rights that are protected.

 

[Ledan]

If we say no circumcision we're basically saying it's illegal to observe religious tradition and that's a slippery slope, I mean it could easily turn into making it illegal to build mosques or own a bible

Circumcision: Enforcing YOUR beliefs on someone else
Owning a Bible: Practicing YOUR beliefs on yourself

Furthermore: If I am a follower of the Norse faith, I should be allowed to offer up a person as a human sacrifice to Odin? Or should I stone my wife who isn't a virgin? Or force my daughter to marry her rapist?
If religious tradition goes against ANY laws or rights it shouldn't be allowed.
Conversely, if it doesn't break any laws then... more power to you. If you want to believe in God, or a force in nature, or whatnot, go ahead. Just don't break our laws, k?

OT: It may not be a big deal. There may or may not be slight medical reasons for it/against it.
Bottom line is: circumcision can kill. If it doesn't matter either way, then why risk it?

 

[MaoExE]

Most important question, does it really I mean REALLY matter? If your circumcised at birth your not going to miss the foreskin, it's not life altering. It's pointless ranting and raging, at something most children will not remember.

Now, if the parents forced a kid to do it once they were older, that's different. If your entire argument against is "They don't have a choice" Think about your ENTIRE childhood, how many choices regarding your life did you make at an early age?

 

[Sewora]

To quote a man with foreskin.


"Do you know the feeling of moving a natural soft mucous membrane over your glans in a repetative motion? I would imagine that masturbating for an uncircumsized guy is similar to the sensation of recieving a blowjob for a circumcized guy.

And I always imagined that masturbation for a circumsized guy is similar to either rubbing your glans with your callous hands or just jerking the skin near the root of your penis, which to me has no sexual effect at all.
A friend of mine once described it as it being the hand pressing against the underside of the glans being the actual sexual motion, and to me, that would be very uncomfortable and awkward.

You see.. By having foreskin, you have a natural formation that can quite easily be moved back and forth over the glans creating a rubbing effect between two organs with great sensation and alot of lubricating effects that can tolerate pressure and doesn't cause alot of friction.
As I said, it's similar to the effect of a blowjob in the sense that it's basically the same as wet lips moving back and forth, but alot softer.

Different men apply different force.
For example, one of the most famous sextoys for men is the fleshlight. The principle of that sextoy is essentially the same as having a rigid grip around your penis and foreskin whilst masturbating, so it's not a very popular sextoy amongst men here because we already have that effect by default.

That is why I can tell you that I have more options of how to masturbate and enjoy my body, and it's easier for women to do it to me because they never have to worry about rubbing it the wrong way or too hard, because the foreskin gives her all the confidence in the world to do it properly. It protects, lubricates, adds effect and sensation.

If people could understand how wonderful it is to have such a rich sexual sensation, they would be less cavalier about having their children circumsized."

 

[agrajagthetesty]

Waitwaitwait.... I've been reading this forum (on page 3 now), and cirumcised guys NEED lube to masturbate? How the hell can you say that "its fine, nothing really changes" if you HAVE to have lube to masturbate? I never really understood in before some guys would have lube, or why it was always used in reference to masturbation.
This is high mutilation i tell you.....

As a circumcised guy I have proven that that's not true.

I'm female, so have stayed out of this discussion due to a lack of personal experience in the matter, but I'm interested in this given my experiences with my circumcised partner. Do you never require lube, or is it simply possible to make do without? Does lube significantly improve the experience for you, or is it largely insignificant? I'd just like to get information on another guy's experience of this. Sorry for the personal question - the whole thread being about genitals has distorted my sense of what's socially appropriate to ask strangers!

 

[Pyramid Head]

This again?

Okay, i've seen people who take their opposition of this practice to hysterical levels. Some believe it's on par with complete castration, some are anti-Semitics who are opposed to any practice even vaguely associated with the Jewish community, and some people are more reasonable and care because it does cause pain.

I don't give a rats ass. It's a benign part of the body being removed that can provide some hygiene and infection issues, but like any other procedure it should be done by a trained professional which isn't always guaranteed due to some religious practices, and yes, sometimes it happens without consent because babies can't say "Leave it on, i don't particularly trust that strange man in the hat and would rather it be done professionally when i have a better threshold for pain." But in the end, i really don't see how it's such a monstrous practice. It's not like they're tying a baby down and ripping out their hearts.

But... in the end i say it shouldn't be forced, it should be a choice that the individual is given a chance to meditate on, and that parents can fuck off with their religious dogmas and focus on making the child as open minded and educated possible so they can come to their own reasonable conclusion. Which of course is never going to happen, parents are always going to shove their religion and values down the poor cumsprouts throat, circumcised or not because they feel the act of fucking without a condom makes them more capable of coming to the conclusion of what is best for the child than a professional or the actual child.

 

[Sewora]

I'm female, so have stayed out of this discussion due to a lack of personal experience in the matter, but I'm interested in this given my experiences with my circumcised partner. Do you never require lube, or is it simply possible to make do without? Does lube significantly improve the experience for you, or is it largely insignificant? I'd just like to get information on another guy's experience of this. Sorry for the personal question - the whole thread being about genitals has distorted my sense of what's socially appropriate to ask strangers!

Are you asking if uncircumsized men need artificial lubrication? I'd say it varies alot depending how well they lubricate the natural way.
But generally no, the use of lube would only enhance the experience if you are naturally drier than others. Because as anecdotes and studies will both tell you, we lubricate better than circumsized men. The foreskin both creates and functions as lubrication.

It's difficult to explain the mechanics, but since you're moving skin that is a part of the penis that is designed to be moved back and forth in a repetative motion, evolution has made it structurally perfect in the way that it lubricates the glans and reduces friction.
The inside of the foreskin is also very soft, like the inside of a vagina.

I hope that's a satisfactory answer, because it's the best I can give. But as I said, it varies from man to man.


I just want to add that uncircumsized men masturbate alot more in their lifetime than their circumcized counterparts. And masturbation is important in a mans life since it helps prevent problems with your prostate.
So there you go, a reason not to circumsize. If you want to learn more about the history of circumcision and how it was used to prevent masturbation, and how the reasoning was behind doing it, go to this link:
http://www.circlist.com/considering/masturbate.html
(NSFW, since it contains nudity)

 

[Pyramid Head]

but like any other procedure it should be done by a trained professional which isn't always guaranteed due to some religious practices[/quick]

Which religious practice does it untrained?

I don't know if they still do it, but for a very very long time the British Royal Family used to call upon Jewish Mohels because it was felt they were better trained than the royal physicians in that area. (No one wants to accidentally cut off the penis of the next king). A large number of Mohels are also medical doctors, often pediatrians or surgeons.

Many Muslims have moved from doing circumcisions as a young boy or at adolecence to doing it in the first week. There are no special procedures for their circumcisions and they are usually done by doctors (except places without doctors of course), often (always for older kids) with a local anestisia. Interestingly Muslims often leave a portion of the foreskin in place.

I believe the Baha'i follow the Muslim practice.

So which religion are you talking about?

because babies can't say "Leave it on, i don't particularly trust that strange man in the hat and would rather it be done professionally

Once again, it is done by a professional and the "srange man in the hat" sounds suspiciously racist.

parents are always going to shove their religion and values down the poor cumsprouts throat, circumcised or not because they feel the act of fucking without a condom makes them more capable of coming to the conclusion of what is best for the child than a professional or the actual child.

Wow, your tone just gets more and more interesting. It is a parents job to look after kids and make decisions for them, young kids are not capable of making major decisions for themselves.

It's standard practice for any profession vaguely revolving around medicine to wear a hat of some sort to maintain a sterile field. I admit i'm not too familiar with the practices and may be more than a little out of touch, but bringing up hats is such an asinine detail calling racism on it is like calling racism on someone for mentioning a person having long fingers.

That said, a parents responsibility isn't solely sheltering the kid. A parent should teach a child how to handle responsibility and be prepared for the harshness of the world at large, not treat a child like they can give him all the answers and they can understand everything from the child's perspective. You need to suffer and question your faith before you can become an adult.

 

[SciMal]

Maybe not, but would it be inaccurate or misleading to say that a burn victim does not have the same sensory experiences(with regard to the burned skin) that a person with healthy, unburned skin has?

No, but it would be misleading to compare the healing practices of the body reacting to burnt skin vs. cut skin. Burning is significantly worse for the body, and the response to being burnt can cause pain for years from a severe burn.

Scar tissue rarely causes pain for years to come, even in sweeping surgeries like knee replacement.

In addition, if the only regions left after circumcision are less responsive to stimulation, is it not logical to assume more/varied stimulation would be required?

They're not less responsive. They respond the same. The glans reacts similarly with or without the foreskin, as does the frenulum, as does the actual body of the penis.

It might be logical to assume that either more or more varied stimulation would be required, but after performing the research, it might be an extra 2 seconds or a slightly wider gyration radius that poses absolutely no hurdle to male pleasure.

Keep in mind that desensitization occurs anyways, the brain will eventually just ignore any 'extra' stimulation after some period of time.

Did you bother to go all the way down to the conclusions?

"In conclusion, circumcision removes the most sensitive parts of the penis and decreases the fine-touch pressure sensitivity of glans penis. The most sensitive regions in the uncircumcised penis are those parts ablated by circumcision. When compared to the most sensitive area of the circumcised penis, several locations on the uncircumcised penis (the rim of the preputial orifice, dorsal and ventral, the frenulum near the ridged band, and the frenulum at the muco-cutaneous junction) that are missing from the circumcised penis were significantly more sensitive."

... Yes, I actually read the entire study from its original uploaded PDF.

I can't believe I'm repeating myself another round, but here we go:

Do pierced ears experience less pleasure when nibbled on? Why do back massages feel so good if the nerve density is so low? What about pierced lips? Why can brushing thighs and sucking toes seem so incredibly erotic when they're probably the least sensitive places on the body? What about testis? Why do they hurt so much if you knock them gently - they're chalk-full of nerves?

Nerve density does not correlate with physical pleasure. Period. End. They may allow more stimulation; but whether the stimulation is enjoyable or not depends on a lot of factors.

If you want to go further, I'd say that varied sensation is far and away more important than the sheer amount of sensation, since desensitization for some nerves happens in a matter of minutes. Combined with the brain's ability to focus and intensify novel stimulus when it's presented, I'm willing to bet that the motion of the ocean is where partners should focus their efforts.

If you had clear data confirmed from multiple studies that there was a statistically significant decline in sexual enjoyment after circumcision, then you could use the Sorrell paper as a plausible cause, but you don't have that. You're not drawing from data, you're drawing from intuition - and while that's not necessary a bad thing most of the time, it's not science.

True, but no one's making arbitrary, uninformed conclusions. I'm merely making logical observations by drawing parallels.

Parallels which aren't supported by the other studies done. Sorry. It doesn't matter how many different ways you want to say or present your hypothesis/assumption, there just isn't clear data that circumcision results in less pleasure - even when men get it later in life and can consciously remember the difference.

I don't know how to put it any other way.

Yes, and I haven't tried to make the case that sensation is magically maintained after cutting off skin.

Then what, exactly, are we arguing over? If we both agree that nerve endings are lost, but reports of pleasure don't change, why are we debating?

Of course, if you agree that the fine-touch sensory receptors are removed with the foreskin, and the that remaining regions on the circumcised penis(barring the region adjoining the scar) are devoid of fine-touch receptors, you're left with pressure, vibration, pain and temperature receptors.

The foreskin that is removed contains everything you listed. So does 99.9999% of your body, including the skin that heals in place of the foreskin.

What changes is the effective density of the nerves, not their presence.

Additionally, taking into account the pseudo-lubricant function the foreskin provides, is it not safe to say that circumcised men are more likely to have more vigorous(possibly painful for the woman) vaginal sex?

I don't know, you'd have to ask someone with a vagina.

More to the point, it's moot because it's easy to spend $5 on some lube and have fun for hours - long, long after any natural lubrication is gone.

Again, like I said, measuring sexual gratification is not feasible as it isn't something objectively quantifiable.

My final stance on circumcision is this: There is a reasonable likelihood of circumcision irreversibly changing sexual experiences(in addition to the risks that accompany it as a surgery), and this is the sole reason it should not be allowed without the consent of the person involved.

I'm sorry, what basis do you have for this again? First you bring me junk research or research that doesn't say what most people think unless they're used to Science Journals, then you disregard the research you brought up because it doesn't apply to your apparent 'stance' - and for some reason neither does the testimonies of THOUSANDS of men who have undergone adult circumcision, the vast majority of which didn't report a drop in the sexual experience in any fashion.

Look, it's better to say, "I'm not as well informed as I should be" or "I'm wrong" than contort the debate itself.

Fair enough, but you should realise that you'll have a fair amount of bias in a lot of the studies unless they're based on completely quantifiable properties, strict scientific methods(possibly involving neuro-imaging in the future), and well-varied test pools. For example, studies that involve(even marginally) personal experience and based in the US, will always have respondents favour circumcision, even if it isn't a conscious response.

The entire point of a well-designed study is to account for variables, including bias. There's a difference between realizing the population you're working with has a bias, and willingly introducing it yourself.

Bias is usually minimized with a larger subject pool, and 'p' values become fairly accurate after about 30-50 participants.

Often how the researcher accounts and compensates for bias is the difference between a worthwhile study to accept and a garbage study to disregard.

The golden standard is peer-review and reproducibility, though, and the data from those studies favors no significant experiential difference after circumcision. I'll admit a few studies indicate the opposite is possible, but it's a case of "2 studies say one thing, 8 studies say another - I'm going with the 8 for now."

Lastly, I hate to be the one to bring up something that sounds like a conspiracy theory, but the foreskin trade for consumer cosmetics is a very real, very lucrative business.

One more reason to let parents decide, right?

I'm not pro-circumcision. My stance is that it doesn't really matter one way or the other. Intact or not, the penis is still an erotic organ and 99.9999% of men don't have a problem experiencing sexual pleasure with everything else (psychological state, attraction to partner, etc.) being equal.

Therefor, the parent (particularly the father, if you ask me) should decide to do it if they feel religious or personal reasons. If they don't, they open the door for the kid to decide.

The entire debate is idiotic and pointless since the data I've read from several journals suggests that there isn't a big difference. To me, it's akin to debating whether Evian or Aquafina tastes better - it doesn't matter! They're both water. Any preference isn't built on science, but what's available and the personality of the drinker.

I'm not entirely sure on how accurate/factual the numbers are, but it's something to think about.

As disturbingly ironic as that factoid is, it is purely mental aerobatics. Fun to think about, but doesn't do much in the end. While the market apparently exists, I doubt the foreskin lobbyists have the power to persuade the World Health Organization or the A.M.A. The whole "Hippocratic Oath" thing gets in the way.

However, I do get to thank you for letting me tell every woman I know that she may have remnants of baby penis on her face for most of the day.