I know what you are saying, sometimes a mans foreskin is so tight that it causes trouble and that isn't good...

this may not be the best comparison, but HOW MANY young babies died from this operation? It's almost like saying you'll die from AIDS the first time you have sex. The doctors know EXACTLY what they are doing because of the fact they do it so often. I'd rather have this done to my son than some odd operation that the doctor has never done before. It's hardly an operation either (never had a baby yet, so not sure) but don't you take your baby home 5 minutes after it's done? doesn't sound that big of deal to me if they don't have to be watched closely after it's done.

If your Jewish then you get a Moil and they do it at home, its a party! So I dont think it is a life threatening operation, its just a snip. Its a big deal if you have it done when you are already grown...thats a different story.

my son screamed bloody homicide.. i heard him clear across the dr's office as they wouldn't let me be in the room.

no nerves my ass.

Anyone who thinks it isn't an extremely painful, cruel, horrific procedure when done to an infant is a complete fool.

i got my son circumcised and i did that because if you dont they could develop an infection down there

Well, most men in the world are NOT circumcised, and they do not get infections.

wow I didn't realize this was on the first page... but I came up with a nice argument toward this...

when was the last time you seen a man wipe it off after he's done peeing? Woman do. That way the urine doesn't sit in there in that nice damp dark place festering away. The way I see it, if a man in uncircumcised, there's more room for the urine to stick to and stay there, therefore more chance of a UTI.

I read up on the jewish tradition of circumcision and realized it actually involves the Moel to suck on the child's penis to clean the wound of blood. Many infants have had herpes infections transmitted in this manner and then some have died of the infection. Google it. I knever knew such a thing occurred, but now that I know, I am even angrier!

yuck

well the guy can wipe if he wants to, then?

you're totally missing the point. anyone who is pro infant circumcision always harps on about all these infections and diseases that the baby will get if it is not circumcised. but this is all based merely on speculation and presumption.

even if this were true and there is a chance the child might develop problems with his foreskin, this is still NOT THE POINT. it works on a really basic and fundamental level, and the point is this: you do not have the right to mutilate another human being. you cannot cut off part of a baby boy's penis on 'medical' and 'health' grounds that are unfounded. how can you cut off a part of another person's body as a preventative measure?? preventing some hypothetical infection that will most likely never happen?

my boyfriend is uncut and has never had an infection in his life. nor have any of my exes or family who are also UNCUT.

Yeah, my LTP is uncut and he has never had a problem with it...man, he would kill me for saying that...he is very shy sometimes.

UTI infections don't come from urine. That wouldn't make a lot of sense seeing as the urinary tract carries the urine out of the body. Urine is sterile. It is bacteria from the outside that gets in to cause a UTI. That is why women get them more often because the urethra is closer to the anus which is a source of bacteria. You could just as easily say that the foreskin would keep bacteria from getting in. Boys very rarely get UTIs compared with girls anyway. Plus, UTI's are easily treated. I don't think it justifies circumcision but that's just me.

I really don't know what I think.

On one hand I have read very reliable research that circumcision absolutely does reduce the risk of infections. Females do not need this because their vagina is self-cleaning. Penises are not. My husband is circumcised and glad for it. I have also heard from men who weren't who have had very painful sexual experiences because of a problem with their foreskin. Then again, I am sure it is painful and there are plenty of men who are not circumcised and have no problems, so it likely isn't necessary.

In any case, I do not agree with the comparison people make to female genital mutilation. FGM can occur all the way up until the girl it is being inflicted upon is 13. It is done in unsanitary conditions with instruments that are not intended for medical use. The reason it is done is not because it is believed to be more sanitary, but to keep females from being sexually active before marriage. I think it's actually pretty bad that people put it on the same level at all.

I think I will most likely let my husband decide if we circumcise.

LOL Jude love-I decided to let my DH decide, too then we had two girls. After the 2nd one he looked at me and said "Dear, I don't think we should have her circumcised."

I also agree with you to a degree on comparing female and male circumcision. I think it's apples to oranges there, but personally, I wouldn't do either because I don't like the idea of any kind of surgery unless its really needed. We were made this way and done well evolutionally so far. that's just my two cents.

I agree, I guess I just see both sides. I have an uncle who didn't have it done as a newborn and ended up having to do it when he was like 40 (I don't know why). So it's like I don't know what to think.

So it's his decision, haha. I'd rather have girls when I have kids.

I don't know how anyone can justify torturing their newborn like this. It sickens me.
They are tied tied spread eagle, end part of their penis is cut off and they scream in agony.

what is wrong with some of you?

i think it's a legitimate comparison. yes, female circumcision is a dangerous and mutilating practise but we are not talking about the reality of the way it is carried out (in 3rd world countries, no proper medical equipment etc) we are talking about female circumcision in theory; the idea of it.

the vagina itself is self cleaning. the labia and clitoral hood are not. so shall we have all our infant girls circumcised at birth, in hospitals, with proper medical instruments? on grounds that it is 'healthier and cleaner'? what would you think about that?

anyway, why should you think that because a procedure such as this is done at birth rather than in adolescence or adulthood that it must be a less painful experience? because a baby hasn't got the ability to convey its pain through words, perhaps?

Male circumcision was started as a way to reduce sexual pleasure in men and women. It supposedly cuts down on masturbation, and cuts down on the pleasure the female gets from sex.

The only people that can judge the male pleasure factor, men that got circumcised as adults and have had sex both uncut and cut, inevitably say sex wa much more pleasurable uncut.

Women who have had sexual partners both uncut and cut report many more orgasms (vaginal orgasms without outside stimulus of the clitoris) with uncut men than with cut.

If we circumcised infant girls at birth with sanitary measures, it would perhaps be a tad bit better of a comparison. Otherwise, I don't think it would be more acceptable no. I never said either practice was acceptable at all.

When something like this is done in adolescence or adulthood, it won't be forgotten and it will be much more traumatizing. I am not discounting what circumcision must be like for an infant, but I'm certainly not going to pretend it is just as bad or worse as being held down by several people and having shard of glass shoved in your vagina without anesthetic. Please. I respect your opinion, but you obviously are a little extreme about it.