Even the rural women who believe in FGC for religious beliefs change their minds when it is proven to them that all of their painful sexual health concerns are caused by the procedure. A doctor working for Unicef found that out. It took her two years to gain the trust of women in Ethiopia so that they would even talk about it with her. When she told them that uncircumcised women do not have pain when uninating, and they don't take 20 minutes to urinate, and they don't get an infection every period, etc, etc, the Ethiopian women were furious. They thought their issues were just the way life was for women! Now, there's a strong movement to abolish FGC, led by Ethiopian women. See http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/ethi…. Unicef has been working on this for years. It would be a boon for Unicef if they received donations to help them continue the great work.

Oh, and thank you, Science, for the courage to talk about this in detail. Although one point was missed in the Economist article. All types of FGC have the potential to eliminate the possibility of ever experiencing an orgasm. For type II and type III, the loss is guaranteed. That's a major difference between FGC and male circumcision. I wonder why news agencies never talk about that. Is it the prevalence of a sex-negative culture?

As horrific as female circumcision is, and I'm not debating that issue, the benefits of male circumcision are far outweighed by the lack of consent of the infants who receive the procedure, especially since the majority of the benefits occur after puberty at an age where the man himself can decide the risk/benefit ratio. It is hypocritical and prejudiced to accept that male circumcision is acceptable and female circumcision is not. Men may also have nerve damage, making them unable to orgasm. There has even been a case where a boy had a sex change at birth because he had a complication with his circumcision resulting in the removal of the entire penis.

This reader wonders if the fact that the author is Jewish, and therefore 99% likely to be circumcised himself, has altered his outlook, making male circumcision permissible in his eyes.

Way to fucking go.

Seriously? This is seriously all you got on this?

GOD DAMN, GET A BIGGER COLUMN OR GET RID OF YOUR COLUMN.

I mean, you practically endorsed male circumcision without giving any of the detracting effects of it (cosmetic! This column is cosmetic). I mean you are a scientist right?

MGM always harms sexual pleasure. AND many men in the US have difficulty having an orgasm. The mild form of fgm (which is also the most practiced) -- clitoral hood and labia cutting is much lass sexually damaging compared to MGM as it is done in the US.

Of course male and female circumcision are not the same -- just as male and female genitals are so different. It is a fact that the parts removed by MGM take away more pleasure giving nerves than the female clitoris has. Does that make it worse? I think NO, but it gives one a sense of the harm. Is it not curious that this harm is not mentioned much Why do they not even mention the anatomical parts that are amputated and the nerves and erogenous function that are taken away for good? Are those that have bought into the state or are participants in the culture trying to keep it going to justify it. I think yes. That some of the benefits are myth (cleaner) or don’t exist (less STDs) is overlooked.

As to alleged benefits, many that are alleged to be shown to exist in one study are shown to not exist in another study. I feel it is at best a wash, no real benefits is most likely the reality or benefits as noted with FGM, that are not worth the mutilation. The most recent US study shows uncircumcised men are not at a higher risk of acquiring human papillomavirus (HPV). In AUS:Circumcision is not justified in the Australian context because it has no protective effects against STIs. The Laumann study (USA, 1997), based on over 30,000 American men, showed no advantage to the circumcised group as to STDs. The most recent comparative study from Dunedin, New Zealand (cohort of about 500 men) backs this up, concluding: "Circumcision does not appear to shield men from most types of STDs in developed nations". Complications and death of the infant are more common than death of an old man from penile cancer. The Africa studies purported to show almost 60% relative change in HIV risk (this is actually about a 1.4% risk change) but this has not been observed in the industrialized world (probably because the study did not take into account the down time of the mutilated men). The same circumcision pushers that did the Africa study halted a study that was indicating that circumcised men pass HIV to women at a much higher rate than natural men. Finally, if you think the HIV issue is compelling, is it reasonable for cultures that practice the lesser (most common) form of FGM to push FGM for HIV issues (same type of cells as male circumcision are removed and moist places are removed...). Stallings et al. (2009) reported that, in Tanzanian women, the risk of HIV among women who had undergone Female Circumcision was roughly half that of women who had not. Kanki et al. reported that, in Senegalese prostitutes, women who had undergone Female Circumcision had a significantly decreased risk of HIV-2 infection when compared to those who had not.

I am against all cutting of the genitals, certainly against all cutting of the genitals without the consent of the person being cut. I ask that those against FGM also voice their disapproval of MGM. The rest of the world sees the selective treatment as hypocrisy, which it is.

Dear Science- Of course the screaming, anti-circ crowd will pile on, but thanks for pointing out some of the benefits of circumcision. Millions of American men for the past 75 years have been cut by the military, dr's at birth, etc. Very few have any complaints, contrary to the anti-circers' rants.
I wish as a gay man today I had my foreskin. But I was sure glad in 1970's PE shower rooms to have been without it, as were 99% of my classmates.

PS- as for FGM- barbaric practice that should never happen, and those perpetrating it on innocent girls should have their dicks lopped off in the public square and fed to dogs. Hideous.

Another benefit of circumsicion is the drawback: a lack of sensitivity in the penis head and difficulty reaching orgasm is a boon... to the male's partner.

@10 Shut the fuck up, That is not a benefit.

@10

Actually there's a decrease in sensitivity yet an INCREASE in premature ejaculation. So there's really no benefit there.

Why don't you actually discuss the downside of male circumcision? As others have said, you practically endorse it, but don't give any actual reason as to why it's beneficial. Lower HIV rates? Why? Why is there that connection? I've heard that before, but is there actually conclusive evidence as to why that is? And what about the millions of botched circumcisions that cause painful erections for the entire life of the recipient?

Also, you say that 97% of women who have undergone FGC would want their daughters to undergo it, and you do touch on the idea that these women may not be educated, but you don't state WHY they would want their daughters to undergo it. Any sociologist (or just someone who has even read one article on the subject) would be able to tell you that the reason these women agree with it is because they believe it is the only way for their daughters to live a life in which they are accepted in the community and able to marry.

Seriously Jonathan, do a little more research before writing these things.

My speculation on the lower HIV rates has a lot to do with condom usage- and condoms not being as friendly to men who are not circumsized, as it usually forces the foreskin down, and doesn't allow for movement of the foreskin.

The scientist in me was appalled by this week's "Dear Science" column's one-sided presentation of so-called "facts" related to male circumcision, which were at best one-sided, in addition to being outdated and/or incorrect.

Even The Stranger's own Dan Savage, along with his boyfriend, chose NOT to circumcise their son. In part because of Dan's fabulous column, a lot of people rely on The Stranger to provide accurate, up-to-date information about anything and everything related to sex. But this week's "Dear Science" column fails miserably on that count.

To read in this week's "Dear Science" column that the biggest risks of male circumcision are "cosmetic changes, with perhaps some reduction in sensitivity of the head of the penis" is downright ignorant, not to mention disrespectful of thousands of circumcised men who know otherwise.

As for women in regard to male circumcision, did you know--as NOCIRC founder Marilyn Milos, R.N., states--that "women are actually more at risk of HIV infection if their partners are circumcised"?

The "Dear Science" column lists the "demonstrated health benefits" of male circumcision as if this information is uncontested, when in fact it is not. Even the African studies about circumcision and HIV have been painstakingly refuted by renowned scientists from all over the world.

If readers would like to check out the other side of the story, one in-depth interview that addresses these issues is called "The Truth about Circumcision and HIV: A Conversation with Marilyn Milos, R.N. (Founder of NOCIRC)" (see ).

This interview answers questions about the flawed African studies and it provides up-to-date information about circumcision's proven LACK of effectiveness in preventing the spread of HIV in America and other countries. It also offers another perspective on circumcision and politics, circumcision and its money trail, and a brief "tour" of the common myths that have been used to perpetuate infant male circumcision over the last 150 years.

For those who sincerely want to understand what happens to infant boys during so-called "routine" circumcisions in America, Marilyn describes the surgery in graphic medical detail, and the interview provides links to view a "routine" circumcision online. Again from a medical professional's perspective, she synopsizes the main physiological effects of male circumcision on sexual function for both men and women.

Last but definitely not least, the interview offers information about female circumcision as well as a link to a page that compares male and female circumcision and the striking resemblance of the underlying myths that allow these practices to continue in all their various forms.

To conclude, I'll sign off with a great quotation from Marilyn's interview about why circumcision does NOT prevent the spread of HIV:

"The bottom line is that circumcision does not cut off enough of the penis to prevent anything—and obviously, nobody wants to cut off the whole penis to prevent the spread of AIDS!

There are better ways to prevent disease than amputating body parts. Education is the first step."

Sincerely,

Cat Saunders

Really, Jonathan?! REALLY?! I mean-RREEEEEEAAAALLLLLLYYY? I was appalled at this column, spouting the so-called "BENEFITS" of Circ's for males?

Maybe next time, do the research! Statistics show a HUGE risk of complications of male circ! FAR outweighing any possible benefits it could have.

Maybe you should start encouraging girls to have their boobs cut off before puberty to avoid the possibility that they MIGHT get breast cancer later in life? Geez. DISGUSTED WITH THIS ARTICLE! This one just ruined every other article I may want to read on the future.

You can disagree with the idea of male circumcision in principle (as in, I don't believe people should be cut permanently without being able to give informed consent). That's a legit objectionn and one that can stand on its own. But the scientific literature simply does not suppport the idea that male circumcision is anywhere near as harmful as female circumcision, and it also is associated with several benefits. You may not think those meager benefits trump the issues of potential reduced sensitivity and lack of consent, but please don't simply toss out to reactionary and unscientific claims to bolster your point. FGM and Male circumcision are not morally equivalent because the outcome and suffering are not morally equivalent, nor are the practices rooted in the same motivations. I think that's all Golob is trying to say.

Blah de Blah: all the studies on male circumcision and HIV were done in Africa, where condom usage is already typically low. Further, men in the circumcision group often reported less condom use,likely because they thought they were protected somewhat by the circumcision. Yet rates on transmission were still 33-66% lower for HIV.

You can't extrapolate that to the US yet, however; I don't think they've done any studies in other regions with lower baseline rates of HIV and higher condom usage to see if the same benefit would accrue; it's also not been demonstrated to work for gay men, so that's another question mark.

Some girls in the U.S. of A. get clipped because somebody thinks their clitoris is too big. There's someone doing "research" on these unfortunate kids, checking for post-surgery sensitivity using cotton swabs and vibrators — on little kids.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/feti…

The only benefit of circumcision is to fit in with one's peers. I'm not sorry to say I would prefer my future son/sons to have sex the way we evolved to have it, pleasurably and naturally. Why should we cut off a piece of skin which is chock-full of nerve endings, thereby enhancing pleasure for the male, and makes penetration more pleasurable to a female? Just so he won't get made fun of in a locker room for a few years of his life? There are far more important things in life than what other men think of your genitalia.

Circumcision is so, so wrong.

Yeah, male circumcision has its benefits in Africa. Set up a "coming-of-age school", take their money, cut them, so what if they die ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/103504…

@15 Condoms are totally friendly to men who are uncircumsized. Would millions of Europeans use them if they weren't ? It's thin latex, the foreskin can flap back with the condom over and underneath it. To and fro.

America's cutting of babies' foreskins was promoted in the 1900s because it was believed that it would *prevent masturbation*. Hence it made sense to cut it to newborns, because even 2-years-old happen to touch their foreskin. And that was *morally bankrupt*. So no need to ask them for their consent, before cutting them.

Now in the 2000s it would be nice to let kids touch their penis if they'd like to. Let them get cut when they're adults, if they still want to ! Some adults do split their penis in two, hey, it's theirs, so what ? But please, leave the kids alone.

Dear 'Science' at The Stranger,
We at the international physicians’ non-profit, Doctors Opposing Circumcision, do not know whether you were being merely provocative or ironic when in a recent column you all but endorsed male circumcision. We must assume it was an off-hand comment mean to provoke, rather than a medical or bioethical opinion to be taken seriously.
Unfortunately, however, since yours is a bully pulpit that many young people might take seriously, clarification is needed.

Circumcision of both genders has always been about social control of sexuality, nothing more, and occurred only in the English-speaking medical world. The ‘intact’ (not circumcised) inventers of the 19th century knew their quarry—they wanted erogenous tissue ablated to reduce the sexual temptation of young people, at a time when TB was thought to be caused by touching the genitalia. The suggestion that circumcision is sexually benign is easily traced back only to the 1960’s, a time when the motive of reducing a child’s sexual sensation became less socially acceptable. At that point the medical community stopped claiming a puritanical motive, substituted medical justifications, and denied the sexual losses-- aggressively.

There are very good and reliable studies detailing those losses, but they are rarely seen in print in the US. We can direct you to an entire issue of the British Journal of Urology in 1999 that detailed the sensory and sexual losses in exquisite (and disturbing) detail.

Then there is the recent Sorrell’s study in California (2007), which showed, using an objective neurological test, the Semmes-Weinstein, that circumcised men have lost more than 75% of their normal fine-touch sensation. Some men can function at that reduced level, especially when young, but not everyone –and not for a lifetime.
In the 19th century that loss was cause for pride among MD’s and celebration among preachers. It should give us, in 2010, cause for careful human rights’ scrutiny instead.
(Your alert male readers might check themselves, and wonder why their sexual sensation ends exactly at their truncated frenulum, the glans being largely free of even the ability to sense light touch except at the corona. As researchers in the BJU noted, the foreskin is the male's primary erogenous zone. C'd men have only a remnant.)
We reply here to just a few of the canards you listed:
• The cervical cancer risk you cited, an invention of the 1930’s, has long since been disproved, several times no less.
• The claimed HIV protection (from African studies) is only 60%, (‘viral roulette’ we call it), is hotly debated by epidemiologists, protects only men and only for a time, while putting women at unique risk.
• The UTI protection is illusory —the UTI rates in male infants, very low anyway, are mostly due to ‘genital tampering,’ septic, premature, and unnecessary foreskin manipulation in infancy which is epidemic in Anglo medicine. (We intervene in over 100 such cases each year.)
• Female circumcision also reduces HIV infection, according to a study in Tanzania.
• The STD studies are all over the board; some STD’s are marginally reduced, others are increased by male circumcision.

Finally we note--if foreskins were in fact so causative of disease, NONE of us would be here. Our strain of humanity would long since have fallen victim to evolution. We are instead long-term survivors, foreskins and all.
And please note — NOT A SINGLE MEDICAL ORGANIZATION, WORLD-WIDE, recommends male circumcision as a disease preventative. The American Medical Association calls it simply “non-therapeutic.” The American Academy of Pediatrics declines to recommend it, (but defers to parental preference, for financial reasons of is own). Other medical societies in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the UK are even more critical. In Europe there is near-universal condemnation.
Your ‘infomercial’ for the practice is, unfortunately, demonstrates insular cultural brokerage, an attempt by one fully immersed in a still-evolving society to justify the practice using the mythology of the street. If, indeed, you are espousing ‘science,’ it will take more work and more study for you to do so.

If you invite our physician group, based here in Seattle, to submit an op-ed on the subject, with footnotes to the modern literature, please alert us to your deadline.
But at a minimum, you need a more nuanced discussion and preferably, a retraction.

Sincerely yours,
John V. Geisheker, J.D., LL.M.
Executive Director,
General Counsel,
Doctors Opposing Circumcision
DoctorsOpposingCircumcision.org

Advocating Genital Integrity for All Children Everywhere

Duuude see! People want more (or less!) Change it up!

@4:

Umm, relax dude. This is a small column in a local paper akin to Wikianswers. I don't think what transpires here will shape policy or change anybody's life.

Maybe try aiming all that energy towards the AMA or some other organization that acutally does effect a doctor's attitude towards M/F Circumcision.

Uh-hem. It's not Female Genital Cutting, it's Female Genital Mutilation, you dolts. And there are ZERO benefits, and it's barbaric and practiced in the most backward places in the world (like Somalia) where women have zero rights and are simply the property of their fathers and then husbands. It's often done with broken pieces of glass and stone knives and 1 in 7 girls who suffer FGM die. 90% will experience incontinence and many will develop urinary tract infections so bad it infects their kidneys.

FGM is done not to 'reduce' or 'limit' a woman's ability to enjoy sex but to completely obliterate it so she has no chance of ever having anything approaching a normal sex life.

And the endless off-topic rants about male circumcision is proof positive that misogyny is alive and well and every single privileged white male out there wants in on some imagined victimhood because an MD trimmed his foreskin (in a hospital, not a mud hut) when he was an infant.

Grow the fuck up guys!!! It's not always about YOU!

No one (besides number five)was disagreeing that FGM is much, much worse then male circumcision. How is discussing both issues written about in the article off-topic? I don't think an anti-circumcision supporter exists that doesn't want both male and female circumcision stopped. However FGM should be completely outlawed everywhere no exceptions. As for MGM it would nice if it was ok for a man to complain about a piece of genitalia being cut off without being accused of being a misogynistic privileged white male. Regardless of how much worse the female version is.

Ya know, I just checked the title of this humorous op/ed column and it does indeed say: Female Circumcision. Not male, not just Circumcision. But FEMALE Circumcision. One more time for the hearing impaired: F-E-M-A-L-E.

I wonder what would happen if I barged into the nearest anti-male circumcision website and started shrieking my drunken, web surfing ass off about the horrors of FEMALE genital mutilation???

Grow the fuck up guys! It's not always about YOU or your weenie!

@32: I don't care what the title is; both the question and the answer discuss male circumcision as well. If you barge into an anti-male circumcision website and start blathering about FGM for no reason, you're a dick, but if you go on an anti-male circumcision website and there's an article that discusses both MGM and FGM, and claims that while MGM is bad, FGM is alright, really then you're perfectly justified in tearing them a new one.

Dude, Golob, let me be the dozenth person to call WTF on your apparent endorsement of male circumcision.

I think it would be just super if we could all agree that cutting off bits of other people's genitalia without their consent is not ok.

It astounds me that your average American liberal still has to be convinced of this.

@32 You know there's more than the title, there's also the actual question which you obviously didn't read. It's in the second sentence:

"What are your thoughts on this, especially in COMPARISON TO MALE CIRCUMCISION?"

See how the letter writer specifically asks about male circumcision and the response deals specifically with BOTH male and female circumcision. If you're only going to read the title and not even bother to get two sentences into the question then you probably shouldn't participate in the debate.

Dear Jonathan,

From your column in the recent Stranger, it would seem likely that you yourself are a circumcised male, and likely due to religious, cultural and traditional practices.

While you give a well-researched description of FGM, although a tepid condemnation of this barbaric practice, your description of the benefits of male circumcision, or MGM, are clearly not well-researched. It appears that urbanization, education and secularization have not affected your views of the barbaric nature of MGM. None of the so-called benefits listed in your brief paragraph are supported by honest, peer reviewed science. All continue to be cited as an excuse for what the AMA and AAP now admit has no medical justification. Dear science, please use science in your column.

The human right to genital integrity, freedom from sexual mutilation and abuse for infants and minor children, will only be guaranteed when facts rather than myth rule the day! Please visit and watch the video at http://www.nocirc.org/

Sincerely,

David B

@24 - Thank you DOC Director for the clarification. I've always suspected mutilating kids' parts was some bogus conspiracy perpetrated by the right to control people's sexuality. Glad to know I was right!

@38

I've looked at that Web site and I'm sorry to tell you that they're the crazies. I've done the research and I know that the methodology showing the benefits of male circumcision are dubious at best and I also know that the results have never been duplicated in America. Now for someone who claims to have all the research surely you know that. I'm sure you also know that there's evidence that male circumcision INCREASES the chances of women getting aids.

Of course this is all besides the point b/c there's nothing that even comes close to explaining why this decision should be taken out of someone's hands. Even if all this talk of benefits is true then that's a good reason for someone to decide for HIMSELF whether or not he wants it done.

Fyi, as an unregistered troll your links aren't clickable and they don't appear in their entirety.

@28: As I'm aware, FGC is used in place of FGM because of the judgmental tone of "mutilation" (rightly or not). "Cutting" describes the practise perfectly without any political overtones, and without downplaying the physical nature of the procedure.

@15: Condoms work just fine for most uncircumcised men if put on correctly.

I'm really surprised Golob didn't point out that many of the hygienic problems with uncircumcised penises go away when the men adopt good health practises.

Wash your penis every day with gentle soap and warm water, learn to put a condom on correctly, and you're in pretty good shape. You get lots of UTIs? Drink cranberry juice, avoid holding in your urine, and try to pee soon after sex.

For anyone snarking about how circumcision improves male stamina, I'm fairly confident that any difference, if it exists, isn't enough to matter to most women. Plenty of women don't orgasm from sex because their clitoris isn't being stimulated properly (in terms of pressure, length of time, AND area), not because you aren't pounding her indiscriminately for twenty minutes.

@40

Actually there's evidence that male circumcision increases premature ejaculation. This was shown in a study published in the British Journal of Urology titled The Effect of Male Circumcision on the Sexual Enjoyment of the Female Partner.

@41: "If it exists."

And anyway, I never considered that a legitimate argument for OR against circumcision. Worrying about your infant son's ejaculation abilities is just looking waaaaaay too far into the future.

@42
"Worrying about your infant son's ejaculation abilities is just looking waaaaaay too far into the future."

Except that it's not. If you're considering doing something that could negatively effect your son's future sex life then I don't know how you could NOT consider it. Especially b/c the one and only reason you could possibly give to circumcise your child without his consent relates specifically to his future sex life. One of the primary considerations when raising a child should be "how is this going to effect him/her in the future" b/c the future is going to happen and it will affect him.

For example, if you know that every time your child fusses and cries you can get them to quiet down by giving them cookies and ice cream I think you NEED to consider how this is going to effect their over all development. I personally don't think an attitude of "worrying about whether your son develops diabetes as a teenager is looking waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too far into the future" is acceptable.

I know a man who had to be circumcised as an adult after developing a an infection under his foreskin. It was incredibly more painful for him than if it had been done at birth.

I think The Stranger should do a poll on how many men wish they still had a foreskin. I think it may be interesting. Aren't there more important problems in the world than this bs? It's fine if people are against male circumcision, but I keep getting angrier as a I read people comparing it to clitoral mutilation.

@44

So you knew ONE guy who had an infection and had it done as adult and so....what? And how do you know that it was more painful as an adult?

The comparison is about people having a right to decide what happens to their bodies. Nobody has said that removing a clitoris is comparable to removing a foreskin (however removing the clitoral hood, type I as described above, is directly comparable to removing the foreskin as they're homologous structures that perform the same function) although when you factor in what a botched circumcision can result in then it starts to become a little more comparable.

"Aren't there more important problems in the world than this bs?"

Aren't there more problems in the world than, say, bulimia? Of course there are, you give me a problem and I'll give you a problem that's more dire, but it IS actually possible to be concerned about more than one problem at a time.

To the OP: Genital mutilation of children is an abomination, regardless of the sex of the subject. If the child isn't old enough to say "I want this done", and the procedure in and of itself isn't necessary to save the child's life, it shouldn't be done. Period. Downplaying the dangers of female circumcision (by, say, neglecting to mention that the scarring of the pertinent tissues leads to a 1:10 mortality rate in FGM victims) and touting the spurious benefits of MGM (you'll be less sensitive, so you won't come too quickly! And you won't be as able to contract diseases or develop cancer!) is bad science. Following bad science leads to bad results (discomfort, disability and death for women; discomfort, disfigurement and quite a bit of disability for men.)

If you think that I'm joking, imagine the level of difficulty that's inherent in an intact and healthy woman delivering a baby, then add a few layers of scar tissue to impede the baby's progress. Or imagine the pain that a person would have to endure by having a wad of scar tissue covering their urethra and tightening the vulva (for females) that blocks the flow of urine and traps the flow of menstrual fluid. I can imagine that even the most rural person on the planet would say that performing a procedure that virtually traps dead flesh inside of a person's body is stupid, if not a sign of personal enmity at the hands of a health care professional. Yet you censor the harmful and definitely visible effects of FGM for reasons that I can't even fathom.

Oh yeah, it isn't that much of a picnic for men, either. The "best" physical/sexual results as male circumcisions are concerned pale in comparison to performances by uncircumcised men. Uncircumcised men are far less likely to develop Peyronie's disease (which is almost always caused by scar tissue building up in the compressed tissues of the penis.) There are two types of men who develop Peyronie's disease, men who've been circumcised and men who've suffered overt physical genital trauma (interesting, I'd say.) Modern circumcision doesn't just involve the foreskin; the current technology for removal of the pertinent tissue can and does also remove non-foreskin penile skin, which can result in compression of the corpus cavernosum/spongiosum, which allows scar tissue to build up in the two forms of tissue that can eventually create all sorts of funny bends and twists as the boy progresses into adulthood and the leftover penile skin is stretched past it's artificially-induced limits...

Bottom line: FGM (in all but the best hands) is a gateway to a life of avoidable pain and premature death. MGM (even in the best hands) often results in sub-optimal sexual and functional performance. And the main benefit of doing these travesties is what, cleanliness? (don't say disease prevention, as almost all genital-based dysfunctions are the result of personal cleanliness issues or foreign contamination that for the most part can either be easily contained or avoided.) If you're adult enough to make children, you should be adult enough to tell them to wash and rinse their bits and pieces thoroughly, and you should be adult enough to tell them to do it in private without acting like your child is going to be 4 years old forever and would never have discovered what their bits were for *if only* you hadn't told them to touch them!

Jesus, the idiocy that passes for scientific analysis these days...

If male circumcision lowers HIV rates so drastically, why does circumcision-happy America have one of the highest rates of HIV infection in the western world, in comparison to Europe, where there are nearly no circumcisions?

Also I fail to see how cutting off a flap of skin would prevent HIV, which is a virus that is spread through blood, semen, etc. I am sure uncut men ejaculate just as strongly as cut men... what does removing a flap of skin really do?

It's unconsented genital mutilation, just like female circumcision.

@43: I'm talking about how the chances of penile complications due to lack of circumcision are small enough that worrying about something that uncommon that far into the future makes you a neurotic parent. There are millions, if not billions, of men in the world with perfectly healthy uncircumcised penises. Sensible hygienic habits and safe sex practices pretty much covers most of the risks, and are an excellent idea for all men (well, *everyone*) anyway.

Your comment is worrisome. If you review my comments, you'll realize I was specifically talking about ejaculation abilities not as "not ejaculating enough or at all" but "premature versus increased stamina." Premature ejaculation does not characterize an *ideal* sex life in most cases, no, but it's by no means harmful, medically or sexually. It's normal.

So yes, I stand by my assertion that worrying about your infant son's ejaculation abilities -- as in stamina and performance -- is looking too far in the future, and hell, over the top, period. Your cookies and ice cream comparison is ridiculous. Making sure he's a sexual workhorse is nowhere near the same as ensuring he has a healthy diet.

I really recommend you talk to more men who are not circumcised. You'll see that most of them are just dandy with their penises and their sex lives are progressing unabated.

@50 I see the confusion; you didn't read my original post (41) correctly.

If you're circumcised your chances of premature ejaculation increase not the other way around as some (most) pro-circumcisers suggest.

@51: You didn't read my post @40 correctly. As I pointed out right after your comment @41, I was referring to people who *believe* circumcision is a good thing because it decreased sensitivity and possibly stimulation without friction from the foreskin.

I really don't care whether circumcision actually, as proven by science, increases/decreases chances of premature ejaculation. I really don't, partly because I think it's an argument of negligible value to bring to the issue of whether to perform circumcision or not. I was making a snide observation about the commonly touted PERCEIVED effects. Am I being quite clear?

The fact you keep harping on whether this is true or not when it's clear that's not the focus of the dialogue here says something about your reading comprehension, not mine.

@52
This is stupid; we're essentially arguing the same point but for some reason you decided to be snarky.

And no, I did read your post correctly I just disagreed with it. If someone is thinking about circumcising their son then all "this could increase the chances of sexual dysfunction" arguments can be brought into the discussion. How can they not be? I know you were making a snide comment about the PERCEIVED benefits and I was agreeing that any PERCEIVED benefits are belied by the science (however little there is.)

I said there was evidence that circumcision increases this particular type of sexual dysfunction; I didn't say it was a fact, or 100% for sure. And if there's some science behind it then it's more than just PERCEIVED.

i like circumcised dicks.

@JackieNo

"It is a fact that the parts removed by MGM take away more pleasure giving nerves than the female clitoris has."

What? Are you kidding me?

From Wikipedia: "In humans, the clitoris is the most sensitive erogenous zone of the female...and is considered the key to females' sexual pleasure...Most women can only achieve orgasm through clitoral stimulation. Masters and Johnson were the first to determine that the clitoral structures surround and extend along and within the labia, determining that all orgasms are of clitoral origin."

The clitoris is the reason women have orgasms. The foreskin is sensitive, it's true, but it is not the key to a man's pleasure.

I couldn't find any unbiased numbers on nerves in either. I'd be curious to see your source that the foreskin has more nerves than the clitoris.