YOUR OPINIONS REGARDING MALE CIRCUMCISION

Willie,
       I believe that the reason circumcision at birth is the norm in America is because the foreskin creates a hygiene concern. Really the foreskin doesn't serve any purpose these days and is more a hindrance although it's certainly nothing to be embarrassed about. You have to be very diligent about keeping it clean. Personally, I'm glad that I don't have to deal with the whole mess. I know for Jews that the circumcision of a baby is actually a ceremony. Although some of the Jews that I have spoken with tell me that a lot people go to them more for the food that is served afterwards than the religious aspect of the ceremony.

A hygiene concern?  Please!  How hard is it for a guy to pull back his foreskin in the shower, swish some water on it, and pull it forward again?  I have never known a guy who doesn't like handling his penis, anyway!

--Circumcision is a cosmetic surgery with no medical value.
--It is extremely painful to the baby.
--It is not recommended by any legitimate medical body including the American Academy of Pediatrics or the World Health Organization.  
--The majority (85%) of the world's men are not circumcised. Europeans, Canadians, Australia, non-Muslim Asians, and Latin Americans all do not circumcise. That leaves Israel, most Muslim nations, certain primitive tribal groups and the United States.
--As an adult, a circumcised male will be missing a full fifteen square inches of penile skin.  More skin equals more feeling; more feeling, more enjoyment of sex.
--The foreskin has many sexual and protective purposes.  (www.circumstitions.com)

Willie, I think many Americans who feel the foreskin is unattractive think that simply because that is what they are used to seeing (think of the rest of the world--it is obviously not a problem for them!).  But circumcision is on its way out in America.  In some parts of the country, 50% of male babies are left intact, so it's changing.  

Not all American women have a problem with intact (not circumcised) men.  I would never hold it against a man if he was circ'd though, because babies obviously have no say in whether or not their genitals are surgically altered at birth (a human rights violation if there ever was one).  BUT, all things equal, I'd take an intact man over a circ'd man any day.  Sex is less painful and more comfortable with an intact man, and vaginal orgasms are much easier to achieve.  (check out www.sexasnatureintendedit.com for more on how male circumcision affects both male and female pleasure)

Personally, i am perfectly fine without my foreskin. I really think that the hygiene point is valid. And anyway, what does anyone want with the foreskin when a regular penis does just as well.

Plus, we have done it for generations on end as Americans, so why stop now?

"For generations on end" is not a valid reson to do anything.  We got rid of slavery in the US only about 150 years ago, maybe we should bring that back, considering that before then we did it "for generations on end." <> (I'm joking, ofcourse, for anyone who didn't get that).  

This is the same attitude that's helping female genital mutilation to continue in parts of the world--its been tradition for generations, why change it?

BTW, the ONLY man who is EVER qualified to say a circumsiced penis "does just as well" is a man who has lived with an intact penis for years, then was circumcised as an adult.  That's just logic.  How could someone circ'd at birth POSSIBLY know the difference? You can't. I can't, and I'm pissed that I wasn't allowed to choose.

I'm sure that the only reason circumcision was started was to stop boys from masturbating.

I get a huge amount of sexual/erotic pleasure from my foreskin and one of the joys I have had with my girlfriends has been them teasing it back gradually until the glans is fully exposed. I simply can't imagine what it would be like not to have a foreskin.

There are so many myths going around, one of made me self-conscious for years, the idea that the foreskin should retract all the way back over the glans, all by itself, when the penis becomes erect. I even remember reading once that if it didn't you should have it cut off. What rubbish. My foreskin only reveals a few millimetres of my glans when I have an erection, but as I said, I like then to gradually ease it back (or have it teased back!); I have absolutely no problems having sex, whether masturbation, oral or intercourse. Foreskins, like labia and clits, come in all shapes and sizes, and as far as I can see the only reason to circumcise is if there is disease that can't be cured. Most infections clear up with antibiotics, and regular washing (less time-consuming and more pleasurable than cleaning your teeth) keeps the whole penis clean.

I think that routine circumcision of infants is child abuse and the sooner it is outlawed and seen to be totally unacceptable in the 21st century the better.

We were talking about labia and clits then digressed to foreskin. So here is my pennys worth. First the removal of the foreskin is a mutilation of a sexual nature. I liken it to the removal of the labia and clitoris which all intellegent and educated people would agree is sexual mutilation. I have heard that removing the foreskin prevents desease, I believe this is absolute lies. Why don't we cut off big toes to prevent ingrown toenails? The cutting of little boys penises has to be very close to the same thinking as those that cut out little girls clits. Grow up America and stop mutilating your children.  
Women be proud of how you are made. The labia and clit of all women is a wonderful and beautiful thing with as much character and differences as any other part of your body. Large or small I love them all. I do prefer larger ones myself.