yes, dan, you may derive much pleasure from your cut cock, but you would have derived MORE pleasure, had you not been mutilated.
of course, ALL cut guys will say they get plenty pleasure, wtf do you expect?
as far as the arguments for the mutilation:
bullshit.
there is no medical reason to do the mutilation.
just religious: see god, this is how much i love you, i am willing to sacrifice some of my sexual pleasure for yoy.
stis, including hiv? bullshit.
personal hygene!
shake and wipe is my motto, if i want someone to give me a bj.

Whether or not there is a "medical reason" for circumcision, I think the "let him decide when he is older" argument is crueller. My boyfriend is Jewish, and much more so than his secular, Sovietized Jewish parents, who had never even known about the practice (this was Soviet-Russia). Thus, he not only suffers from guilt for not fulfilling a commandment he didn't learn about until his 20's, he has to worry about being a sexually active 20-something who has the skin of his favorite body part lopped off. Additionally, many more men complain about being too sensitive than not being sensitive enough, and thus being circucized (and thus less sensitive) can make a man less longer. Finally, the HIV thing is true, of only because the extra, flappy skin is easier to tear, espeically during rough sex. It is no more "mutilation" than ear-piercing, and both are reversible! I was unwilling to go down on him for awhile, as the only other uncut man I had been with HAD had poor hygiene, and it tasted and smelled terrible! To all the circumsized men out there: were you traumatized by the surgery so much it affects your life now? I didn't think so

Suthrn_belle, it's not "extra skin", it's an organ with multiple functions (protection, pleasure...) and an integral part of a penis. Why would you want to make a man LESS sensitive? That's why America, with its high circumcision rates, spends so much money on Viagra - circumcised men become increasingly numb over the years and suffer from erectile dysfunction. Did you know that foreskin contains nerves that help a man be aware of when he is about to climax, thus helping him control it and delay it? And it also contains specialized cells which help fight infection and kill germs. UTI and HIV studies have many flaws, and have pretty much been debunked.

Circumcision can only be compared to ear piecing as a possible human rights violation, since both are often done on unconsenting children... However, that's where the similarities stop. Circumcision permanently amputates up to a half of the penile skin and forever alters the function of the penis - so-called "restoration" (a long, arduous process) only stretches out whatever little foreskin there is left to cover the glans again, but nothing can ever bring back the 20,000 highly sensitive nerve endings. Piercings, which come with virtually no tissue or function loss, can even possibly close up if left alone, so they hardly compare to the severity of circumcision.

I always find the argument about "better done to children" horrible. Just because they "won't remember it" doesn't mean it won't leave permanent marks on their psyche, which they might be unaware of or in denial about. What is REALLY cruel is when you alter someone else's body and HE gets to live with it for the rest of his life. Besides getting to make a choice about his own body, the surgery in adults is actually less complicated, as the foreskin, which is fused to the glans like nail to a finger when a child is born, becomes retractable later in life, so the doctor doesn't have to scrape and tear it apart. Also, adults get adequate pain relief and don't have the fresh wound exposed to urine and feces inside of a diaper for a week or more until it heals.

I fully agree with the 1/10 woman- uncut penises are to me, far more attractive than cut penises, because they actually taste like penis. Also the man will experience more sensitivity (as the glans has remained mostly untouched his whole life) which means he enjoys it more too.

I don't believe there is anything inherently wrong with circumcision. But it should be a decision a man makes for himself when he is 18 (any younger and he is subject to parent manipulation).

Something tells me though, if a man grows up with his foreskin, unless he has a medical problem with it, he will be far less willing to have it cut off

The issue with circumcision isn't whether it's a good idea. The issue is who should make the decision. If a man wants to be circumcised after he reaches 18, fine. But parents shouldn't be allowed to make permanent changes to their children's bodies when there is no clear, medical need. Would you let Neo-Nazi parents brand a swastika onto their infant's forehead? It's a necessary evil to have parents make decisions for their children because the children can't make them for themselves. It's a parental job and responsibility, not a right or privilege. Parental authority over their children is not absolute. Parents must provide food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and education. They can't physically, sexually, or psychologically abuse their kids.

Circumcision being a religious tradition doesn't give it any special standing as something parents have a right to inflict on their children. Human sacrifice is also a religious tradition.

The hygiene argument is ridiculous. It's like saying you should cut off your arms so you don't have to wash your pits. Who would cut off a part of their body just so they don't have to wash it? As for STD's, if there's a chance of STD transmission, a condom should be used. It doesn't matter whether a foreskin slightly increases or decreases disease transmission without a condom.

Having been circumcised as an infant, I can't speak from experience, but it seems to me that the foreskin might mechanically reduce the sensitivity of the penis during intercourse by partially covering the head of the penis during the out stroke. This would be an adaptive function because it would make the man more likely to climax on an inward thrust so he deposits his semen as close to the cervix as possible thus increasing the chances of conception. If this is the case, circumcision reduces the duration of sex and robs women of orgasms. Perhaps women should be the ones up in arms against circumcision.

This article from Mothering magazine seems to cover the whole issue accurately and gives references: http://www.noharmm.org/mothering.htm

"A little less hysteria, a little less overstatement, and a lot less anti-Semitic rhetoric, and anti-cutting forces might change more people's minds."

In the past year-ish time that I'm become one of those "anti-circ activists", I've garnered more ire than consideration with my tirades. Even though I have been cut for the two-&-a-half decades of my life and managed, the more I learn (or seem to; accurate information/reception is a...dynamic process), the more I'm set in at least this: I am missing something that only now I realize I'd've wanted to keep, and I want no other boy (or healthy intersex individual) to trod the "unhappy cut" walk of life.

I've done the exaggeration/hyperbole/misrepresentation, either from fervor or faulty information, but I'll still argue that forcibly cutting into any part of a unwitting or unwilling child's body without a pressing medical indication is a threshold that both male and female genital cutting pass. A threshold that parents should avoid, and that doctors should refuse.

Even with these and other convictions I'm still settling on (like a crash-course catch-up after not latching on to any sort of activism in my earliest adulthood), clashed against the disparate sensibilities of those who've suffered me, words from a sex columnist are currently some of the most potent in getting me conscious to avoid invalidation from sounding full of shit. So, hey, thanks for that much.
(I don't consider myself anti-Semitic, though, but my hardline stance would naturally be insensitive for those who regard it as paramount.)