UNCUT, my bf is uncircumcised and his cock is magical. I would say you have nothing to worry about.

I'm a woman who grew up with the generation in Australia where circumcision was standard practice. As a result, I don't come across too many uncircumcised ones around my age group which is where I tend to find my lovers. Shame, because I have a STRONG preference for uncut, so much more fun to play with. I sure as hell didn't allow anyone near my son with a scalpel to mutilate him. Uncut, put it out with confidence.

@39, 45
Mass circumcision started in this country shortly after world 2, when US soldiers posted in the Pacific had to endure harsh hygienic conditions in a hot, humid environment.
It was evident that circumcised Jewish soldiers in that front had far less infections and other problems with their pee pee, so US medics decided circumcision may be healthier and advised parents to have their new born boys cut shortly birth.
There are also some AIDS researchers who believe that a cut penis and the body attached to it are less likely to transmit and contract any bad bugs.

On a personal note... I'm Jewish, so no one asked my opinion when I was few days old. And I have nothing against uncut guys,though I don't really look for guys to begin with, censured or not.
I just want to share that my first all-the-way blow job was with a lovely Irish lady I've met while in the Holy Land. This was her first all-the-way time as well, and she hinted that it is easier for her to have it with a foreskin-free fellow like myself. I am still grateful to this day, and at least in my experience it was totally worth the pain I endured in my early life.

@100 The best thing to do is let any future son decide for himself. You can't ever go wrong by letting someone decide for him/herself what does and does not get cut off of their bodies.

@101 The results of those studies are dubious at best but even if they weren't they seem to only apply to Africa; they haven't been able to replicate the results in America. Moreover, there's some evidence that male circumcision actually INCREASES the chances of women contracting HIV/AIDS.

@108 Actually circumcision started in this country during the "masturbation hysteria" of the Victorian era. At first it was a punishment if you got caught masturbating but then they figured that since it desensitized the penis that doing it routinely would stop masturbation completely (I am a living testament to the fact that it doesn't reduce masturbation.) After that they claimed that circumcision cured epilepsy, convulsions, paralysis, elephantiasis, tuberculosis, eczema, bed-wetting, hip-joint disease, fecal incontinence, rectal prolapse, wet dreams, hernia, headaches, nervousness, hysteria, poor eyesight, idiocy, and mental retardation, all of which are equally untrue.

@112 There may have been some "circumcision trends" in the past, but the massive movement as we know it in today's USA started after World War II for the reasons I mentioned.

Now don't take it so personal. I never suggested that cutting a baby boy foreskin will make him healthier in the long run. I only mentioned the logic behind the massive trend as we know it. That Australian lady wanted to know, and being the helpful person that I am I told her.

As for me, it helped me receive my first all-the-way blow job and although I don't remember when I was cut I concluded that it was so totally worth going through the pain if only for that reason.
Yes, I know I've mentioned it before, but it is such a good memory that I simply enjoy reminding myself of it over and over again.

And I'm sure you have some good memories too, although playing bass can be a little repetitive and depressing at times.
Cheer up, dude!!!

@66 and 108

Infant circumcision became prevalent in the US in around 1900, a while after the Victorian era had passed. It was supported by the medical establishment (not the religious one) as a way of limiting the spread of germs. Mass circumcision of adults occurred in WWII on hygiene grounds.

Now we all know that the medical fear of germy foreskins is unfounded (in general) but it still hangs on as a cultural custom.

@ 101,
Medical benefits might exist, albeit small and not drastic (otherwise circumcised men wouldn't have to use condoms), so it's only fair to give the boy opportunity to decide what to do with his foreskin when he's old enough to actually start thinking about sex. Chances are, he will choose condoms over having a part of his penis chopped off.

Great advice, as always. But when I read that "flag of Imperial Japan" crack I let out a shriek of laughter that scared the dogs half to death. Hell, I'm still chuckling.

UNCUT : being uncut is the norm here in Europe. It's always a big "OMG ! WTF ?" when a European realizes that most Americans *are* cut - it's not taught in American English lessons.

@100 : acute phimosis can be released with a single tiny slit to the foreskin (aka preputioplasty). No need to remove it all around. In Europe your dad would have kept his foreskin. Besides, I'm with 117 : let your child decide about his foreskin when he's an adult.

@27 : As for uncut guys always breaking the condom - don't you think Europeans would keep on buying condoms if that were always the case ? As has been previously mentioned, pull the foreskin back when you put the condom on.

As for hygiene in uncut countries, I can assure you that *mothers* tell their young boys, when they are old enough to start washing by themselves, to always thoroughly clean up under their little skin, because otherwise it'll get sick and hurt a lot. No need for an uncut father in the house to demonstrate.

It's not necessary to wash under a baby's foreskin, since at that age it's quite adherent to the glans and it would tremendously hurt if being forcibly pulled. Knowing of that adherence, I wonder how parents in the USA can agree to the cutting of a baby's foreskin - Muslims cut it when the child is 7-8 and it's totally loose from the glans.

Finally, why do many firms insist on Africans cutting their foreskins ? Don't you know that those firms *sell* the babies' foreskins, there's big money to be made, and that they'll have to find those foreskins elsewhere if Americans stay on their actual trend of leaving more and more of their children uncut ?

http://www.norm-uk.org/where_do_foreskin…

In theory, there could be a protective effect against AIDS in being circumcized (aka less skin on your penis, less sickness - masectomy also has a tremendous protective effect against breast cancer).

But in reality there is no real AIDS benefit in becoming circumcised - partly because once cut, the average African, who is uninformed and undereducated, will thinks he's now safe and stops using condoms, and catches AIDS ; partly because the circumcision itself transmits AIDS. See for yourself :

http://www.iasociety.org/Default.aspx?pa…

http://www.interscientific.net/AOE2007.h…

@100: I hear that comment a lot. If that were true ... well ... my boyfriend's still sound in body. Guess he survived the pleasure onslaughter just fine.

If I had a son, I'd leave it. Why do something just because?

@120.

I'm not sure there should be a "WTF moment" from either side. The substantive difference between a cut and uncut penis is (a) debated, and (b) cosmetic. The charges that it reduces pleasure is based on speculation of the purpose, function, and use of the foreskin, rather than on legitimate double-blind studies.

It's also impossible to measure, of course. Given that orgasm itself comes from the release of neurochemicals (which, while based on stimulation of the genitals, does not originate there), it would seem unlikely that the chemicals themselves would be altered by the lack or presence of the foreskin. Thus, to put it simply: once you cum, the difference between having foreskin and not is entirely cosmetic.

Yeah, there have been reports of men who want to have their foreskins back, but they're not a significant portion of the circumcised population, nor is there any evidence that there is categorically decreased sensitivity of the penis over time due to circumcision (the whole "foreskin protects it from constant rubbing, and without it, it ends up desensitized) is speculative. In my mind, it's a bit like saying that a woman's breasts should become desensitized due to stimulation, or that the clitoris should eventually become desensitized (permanently, mind you) due to overstimulation. Are we really saying there's a limited orgasmic shelf-life to our genitalia?

I'm not sure quoting from "NORM", which is an advocacy group, is quite as substantial as quoting from legitimate scientific resources, so I'll ignore that little conspiracy theory about the foreskin market.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/rele…

Yes, unhygienic circumcision procedures can create problems, but unhygienic surgery can do the same thing. The fact that if I get surgery from rusty implements in the open air without any antibiotics, I'll likely end up with an infection doesn't actually mean the surgery is bad. MRSA doesn't make C-sections wrong. Look at the actual usefulness of the procedure vis-a-vis HIV prevention.

But, to go back to the initial point: I don't get what the big deal is. I've never had complaints from girlfriends about being circumcised, nor complained about a lack of pleasure due to it (trust me, I've had plenty of pleasure). If you prefer the look, taste, touch, feel, or anything else about cut, or uncut, that's fine. But can we stop trying to make categorical statements about the use, misuse, or level of "ickiness" about either side of things?

@ 124,
The OMG WTF moment is culture shock, not the actual disgust by circumcised penises. You expect American culture to be pretty similar to European, and when you hear that they routinely perform circumcision on baby boys for cultural reasons, you're shocked, because you didn't know or expect that about their culture. It is general knowledge that Jews and Muslims do that for religious reasons so the average European won't go OMG WTF when they hear about those circumcisions, but believe it or not that's not something you learn about American culture, in school or elsewhere.

There are two kinds of penile, or in this case glans sensitivity to take into account, one is sensitivity to pressure and the other is sensitivity to touch. Sensitivity to pressure is not reduced by circumcision, only sensitivity to touch is, due to the keratinization of glans. Consensus among men circumcised as adults seems to be that penetrative sex doesn't feel much different, because it is about pressure and movement, but masturbation and oral sex do, because sliding of foreskin and stimulating its own nerve endings used to be a big part of those sexual practices.

What's all this stuff about replacing the sheets? Just wash them, unless the point is to punish and embarrass the guests.

@124 Actually it is possible to measure. Circumcised men don't respond as well to touch-sensitivity tests. As per your analogy; if you removed a woman's labia then her clit WOULD become chaffed and calloused and loose sensitivity. If you removed your lips then your gums would dry out and loose sensitivity; same thing. Just for the record the British Journal of Urology has published at least one study showing the negative effect of male circumcision on women; i.e. more incidents of painful intercourse, more incidents of their male partners prematurely ejaculating etc.

I'm not sure the question is "Why don't the majority of men who have been circumcised try and restore their foreskins" it's really "how come the vast, overwhelming, mega-, supermajority of men who are giving a choice decide not get circumcised?"

As seems to happen so often with Savage Love, NORTH'S problem (well and her (ex)boyfriend's too) is my kinky dream. Finding out my girlfriend is cheating on me for money? Wow. I know it would hurt a lot more if I was actually the one, but I'd still be having the best orgasms in our angry guilt ridden sex.

@113 I'm not sure I get it; so you wouldn't have had a blow job yet if you'd had a foreskin, or....what? I've got great memories about my first blow job too but it doesn't have anything to do with being circumcised.

"although playing bass can be a little repetitive and depressing at times."

*phttt* If that's the case you're doing it wrong. :o)

@124: I think the point is that there's no real argument *for* circumcision (aside from religious reasons). It's a practise that has no real impetus, no rationale, other than "we do it." Your best argument is HIV prevention (which is moot if a man is willing to use condoms), and at a distant second, that you've received no complaints.

Considering it IS a surgical procedure, that's rather amazing.

I don't think there's much suggestion here of stigmatizing cut men, but there's definitely wide agreement that it should at least be phased out, while any man who wants it later on should be free to have the procedure done.

"although playing bass can be a little repetitive and depressing at times."

Bummer, @ 113. You either aren't doing it right or you haven't had the pleasure of listening to soloing done by bass players. Here, take a listen to Tal Wikenfield's solo in "Cause We Ended as Lovers" with Jeff Beck. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIFFRHBCP…
Not repetitive and not depressing at all.

Plus, in my opinion, a guitar or a bass in a man's hands makes him sooo much sexier. But, perhaps I'm biased.

@130 Spot on Gloria. If you're an adult you can go right ahead do whatever you want. Circumcise yourself, female circumcise yourself, O-Kee-Pa ceremony yourself, whatever. This is about everyone (man, woman, boy, girl) being able to decide what happens to their body.

@131 Oh snap; I knew I liked you for a reason Kim.

Love Tal Wikenfield! But you can't forget Esperanza Spalding

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lNE7jWA5…

Victor Wooten

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVQEe8OI3…

And that's not even getting into double bass.

Thank for the links for Esperanza Spalding and Victor Wooten, Bassplayerguy. You made my day. Now I need to go work my fretboard!

For those of you who are suprised at the idea of foreskin negative attitudes, here's a column from 6/15/06 that may amuse you. Dan's "No shit? Really??" still cracks me up.

I am a 22-year-old female and I've been with my 21-year-old boyfriend for two years. I love him a lot and our sex life is great. But I have one issue: He isn't circumcised. It weirded me out at first because I had never fooled around with a guy who was uncircumcised, but I came to terms with it because I loved him. It has recently started to bother me again because it makes giving him head more difficult and a little more unpleasant.

I mentioned it to him once a few months ago at a bad time and he became defensive. Is it wrong for me to ask him to get circumcised?

Cut It Please

So you asked your boyfriend to cut off a chunk of his cock and he reacted defensively. No shit? Really? But, hey, you brought the subject up at a "bad time," so maybe that was the problem... or maybe there's just no good time to tell someone that his genitals disgust you and that you want him to have an important, nerve-packed chunk sliced off.

Sorry, CIP, but just as it would be wrong for a man to ask his big-clitted or big-lipped girlfriend to have her genitals mutilated for his comfort, it's wrong for you to ask your boyfriend to do the same.

LH

Speaking as someone 12 times a year more familiar with blood than Dan, HWTM doesn't have to throw out the sheets. Soak them in cold water with baby laundry detergent (something designed to remove protein based stains), then wash in cold water, applying detergent directly to the stains before. Repeat if necessary and don't put the sheets in the dry until they are clean - heat fixes stains.

@134 Just remember that it's all about being musical which doesn't necessarily mean playing a lot of notes. :o)

@125

You seem to have missed my point. There's some evidence that there is decreased sensitivity (though, I've also seen studies saying that sensitivity is improved in adulthood, go figure) to touch itself, but none I've seen suggesting that orgasm itself is affected in any way. So, even if we accept the speculation that there is a change in response to stimuli, that just means it takes longer to achieve the same end. Though, there's also some question as to whether that may be mental rather than physical. And, of course, the confounding variables, and issues with self-reporting, make it a bit speculative and specious anyway.

@127.

I don't accept your analogy, especially since callouses on the genitals would be very, very, worrisome. Believe me, I'd have gone to the hospital long ago for that.

Your argument is speculative, as is the entire retrospective "I would have been more sensitive save for this", but this is all getting away from the point. Even if I accept some adverse effect vis-a-vis responsiveness to touch, there's no reason to conclude that it would affect ones ability to orgasm, or the pleasure derived thereof.

Oh, also, there are lower incidences of penile and cervical cancer, as well as lower rates of HPV infection, even controlling for other factors.

http://www.cfpc.ca/cfp/2003/sep/vol49-se…

So... Um... Lower cancer rates, no discernible harm. This seems like a not-bad-thing, huh?

@130.

I'm not speaking of stigmatization, only of whether there is the kind of one-sided answer that many here are touting. And, the evidence, as I suggest, is mixed.

Speaking as someone who is circumcised, I'm not overly concerned with a woman not wanting to date/have sex with me on that basis alone. My concern has more to do with having a reasoned, and researched debate on the issue, instead of rhetoric, ideology, and vitriol.

I am ashamed to say that I was circumcised at birth, the thought of someone else making the decision of being circumcised and uncircumcised makes me mad. I am glad to say that I have since restored what was left of my circumcision, I now have a working foreskin and I couldn't be happier. :) I'd recommend restoration to any circumcised man. Sex feels a whole lot better with a man and woman.

I so prefer uncut penises, hard to believe anyone would object. I wish it were possible to know this as soon as you meet someone. I'd choose an uncut man over a cut one any time. I'm a straight woman, 64 years old. Every kind of sex is better uncut.

I'm really hoping these are real letters and not April Fool's pranks. In any case, great advice as always Dan.
Sex workers should never be ashamed for doing something most of us give away for free (or a washing machine, car, jewelry, etc)
Shame on the dirty house guests. Now I'll have to remember to use dark sheets when I have guests stay over :)
And UNCUT pride!!! (I'm uncut and love it!)

I've always been particularly "obsessed" with my uncut cock. Certainly observing around the pool changing room as a youngster I noted I as different. I too have had female friends express a distain for uncut men.

I was to the point where I started to avoid sexual encounters, or delay removing my pants until further along in any relationship. I started considering getting myself cut (the horrid stories of the pain that came for the weeks following - and my own experiment of walking around 'rolled up' for the day was PLENTY to convince me not to).

I've become more comfortable in my own skin (yuk yuk yuk!) - I'm an unaltered male! Frankly, I don't care if the world knows I have a foreskin. Now when I hear women (sorry, girls) express a dislike, I stand up and speak out for men with skin everywhere!

Men are obsessed enough with our genitals. Come one girls, there's not need to exacerbate it.

And if you do feel the need to hate my foreskin! Well I hate your clitoral hood! Circumcise it already!

As a mom of three uncut young men -

If you think there is something between odd and absolutely outrageous about the fact that so many baby boys are subjected to mutilation of their genitals - sweet baby boys just a few days old - please check in and lend your support to Intact America.

http://www.intactamerica.org/
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/intac…

@ 139

Sorry but I don't understand your response to my comment!

No one said circumcised men aren't able to achieve orgasm (unless maybe the surgery is horribly botched). I even said the intercourse itself doesn't feel much different because of the nature of the movement. Where most difference can be observed is masturbation and oral sex, especially if the cut is very tight - when you have foreskin you actually slide the skin of the penis up and down the shaft and glans, and without it you slide your hand up and down the tight skin of the penis. The former doesn't require lube and the latter does. Some men circumcised as adults adjust to the change just fine and some miss the old sensations. But at least it was their choice, if you know what I mean, even when they're not happy with the result.

Lower rates of penile and cervical cancer make sense to me, because uncircumcised penis is a very good place for HPV including its cancerous strains, but for HPV to get to your foreskin in the first place you need to put your unprotected penis in an orifice infected with HPV - this risk should be explained to boys when they're old enough to start thinking about sex, and then they can decide what to do, have circumcision or use condoms. Well, actually, even if they have circumcision they should use condoms, so it's a non issue, but people should be free to make choices about their bodies whatever those choices might be.

Btw, penile cancer is ridiculously rare, and cervical cancer is almost 100% preventable. There is also a vaccine that protect against the most frequent cancerous HPV strains.

@48 If the guests just get dropped without being told why, they might think they got dropped for the wrong reason.

The problem wasn't that they had sex in the LW's guest bed. The problem was that they left a mess without saying a word.

I had to fight with my whole family when I had my first son, and wanted to keep him intact. (His father, luckily, who is cut, let me make all decisions) But my mom! and my mom in law! all got flustered, how gross and disgusting my boy will be. I pushed back and they never even bothered arguing when I had the second uncut boy--but they did make me doubt a bit, whether my boys will have any problems/embarrassment because of their skins in the future. So reading this forum makes me feel way better!

Also, I saw a friend's newborn a day after he was cut. The baby was MISERABLE, and more so when he wet himself. His little thing was all crusted with blood and swollen, an angry red color.... My friend was cooing, "what's wrong, baby, you alright" and all I could think of was, "No, stupid, he is not alright. You let doctors chop the tip of his dick off the day after he arrived here. He has a reason to be screaming right now."

Sigh.....

@ #145... i couldn't agree more! When i was pregnant with my son (i knew it was a boy via scan) my midwife had me view a video regarding circumcision. I was more for the uncut than the cut, since my husband was uncut. I watched the video anyway, and after seeing that video, i would suggest all parents-to-be view such videos, probably the same ones #145 mentions. Sweet baby boys for sure.

Also, regarding sex with cut vs. uncut. I've been married twice; first husband was cut; second husband is uncut. There really is no difference. The uncut cock loses the "hood" once it's hard... it's nice to play with the foreskin when the cock is flaccid too :)

During my separation (between husbands) i had sex with a man whose circumcision (as a baby) had been botched. Apparently there are a good percentage of men with botched circumcisions, and when i saw this man's cock, i was wide-eyed, though he still had a honking huge hard cock, but the botch job was noticeable. I felt sorry for him, and no, it didn't affect his ability to sustain an erection or orgasm, it was just ...very different.

The thing is, how can a surgeon make precision cuts on a newborn baby's penis, and be absolutely sure that the cut is correct, with the penis of a newborn being so tiny??? Always a mystery to me. And if you've ever seen those videos, the screaming infants will affect you for sure, unless you're a heartless degenerate... And why do the newborns scream so?... because they cannot anesthesize (sp?) a newborn, so it has to be done without pain killers or freezing.

My opinion is, there really is no need for cutting, as long as boys are shown that they must keep the glans clean, though another take on it is from an old age point of view, once a man is no longer able to clean himself, ie: he's in an old folk's home, doesn't wash properly, or is a bum on the street and has no means of keeping clean, or has dementia and refuses to clean himself, then it could cause a big health issue. Who knows what the right answer is?

@ #87... i totally get where you're at. One of my pregnant friends announced that if it is a boy, she will have her baby circumcized and went on to say how the penis produces this ikky smegma and how circumcision takes care of all that...

Huh.

Circumcision or not, the glans produces smegma. It's a fact.

So i asked my friend if she would cut off her baby's ears, since they will produce ear wax. She gave me a very puzzled look. How horrid a suggestion!! Yes, i said, but you are suggesting cutting off part of your baby's penis because it produces smegma...

I just shake my head.

@143.

Yeaaah. See, most of the time when we're trying to have a reasoned debate, we don't resort to epithets and ad hominem attacks. If you can't discuss the actual harm, and actual benefits, of circumcision, don't discuss it at all.

If the only thing you can offer to the discussion is personal criticism, baseless accusations, and "facts" stated without citation, I respectfully ask that you stop talking about this.

Oh, and you do realize that parents have doctors perform surgery on children without their "knowledge or consent" pretty frequently, right? That's the whole "parental consent for minors" thing that's the basis of medical proxy, you know? So the only question is whether the surgery is (a) harmful, and (b) necessary. If the surgery is not harmful, it need not be necessary to be acceptable (cosmetic surgery happens all the time; you wouldn't complain about a parent having a child with cleft pallet being given surgery). If the surgery is necessary, it need not be harmless.

So, show evidence that the surgery is harmful (in a way other than stating without basis that it "desensitizes the penis", given that it has no adverse effect on sexual activity, even if it does), and that the surgery is absolutely unnecessary given the lower rates of STI transfer including HPV and HIV, and lower rates of anal, penile, and cervical cancer.

Or, you know, as mentioned, shut the hell up.

@146.

Yeah, buyer's remorse is a bitch. I think my point is this:

Given that the only change is in whether one needs lubrication (I never have, even circumcised), and the level of tactile response one feels to certain stimuli, the question fundamentally falls to whether or not the purported "harm" actually causes an adverse effect on the man's sexual health.

Aside from accusations and men who feel "cheated" (and there is some question as to whether a lot of this might not be psychological; we expect to feel less, we feel less, natch), I can find no basis for actual loss of sexual function.

You've already accepted that the diminished feeling comes only in masturbation (which has always worked fine for me), and oral sex (which has similarly never posed a difficulty). Given that, and the fact that the ability to orgasm (from which the actual pleasure of sex is derived), there seems to be no basis of the "harm" of circumcision.

I do wonder, as an aside, whether a lot of this may not be excuse making by some men. I've been in situations where a girl has been performing oral sex on me, and (to her dismay) been unable to make me orgasm. Is it possible other men have been in that situation, and used "desensitization" as an excuse.

@140

That... Wouldn't work if there was actual desensitization of the penis. Allow me to explain:

If there is actual desensitization of the penis due to rubbing against fabrics/whatever on a day-to-day basis, then two things must also be true:

1. There is a limited shelf-life to a penis. If stimulation (even very small amounts, and done with limited contact) can eventually "desensitize", then heavy stimulation from (say) a hand, mouth, anus, or vagina must desensitize it enormously.
2. The desensitization must be long-term (if not permanent). Otherwise, of course, we could test how long we had to keep the penis "protected" before it would return to "normal" sensitivity, and thus also test the difference in sensitivity.

Given that sex doesn't seem to wear out the penis, and given that the foreskin restoration (A) doesn't restore any nerve tissue, and (B) wouldn't immediately "fix" a desensitized penis (even by protecting it), I'm gonna wager that there's a huge amount of this that's purely psychological. You stretched your penis skin to make more of it, and thought you'd be more sensitive, so (guess what) you're more sensitive.

If we told boys everywhere that circumcised guys were more sensitive, one wonders if reality might just not follow suit, placebo effect and all.

@141

I'm curious why the cosmetic choice to prefer uncut penises is righteous, while if a woman prefers a cut penis, she's automatically a degenerate, antediluvian, regressive, baby-hating, bitch.

@149

I'm not sure what videos you saw, but given your midwife's axe to grind, I'm betting they weren't legitimate medical instructional videos.

Let me lay down some knowledge:

1. It's done very scientifically, and with very rare complications (as any surgery, I know). The doctor knows where to cut because they receive training, and because they use specifically made instruments to ensure proper technique. You do know that they go into blood vessels (far smaller than even the tiniest penis) to perform surgery every day, right?

2. Babies can receive topical anesthetic. True, it's not as good as a general, but you wouldn't want to put a baby under general anesthesia anyway. Out of curiosity, have you ever seen a doctor have to perform any surgery on a child? The child screams bloody murder, that doesn't make the surgery inherently wrong.

@144

I think I'd have more sympathy with your "problem" of women finding your foreskin objectionable if there weren't fifteen women on this site explaining why cut penises are wrong, and how they prefer uncut penises.

So, given that there are women of both types, let's make a deal:

Any girl who objects to my having been circumcised, I'll send your way. Any girl who objects to your not having been circumcised, you send my way.

That way, we can all be happy.

But demanding that the women who don't appreciate foreskin learn to appreciate it, without having similar concern for us men who are being told that our bodies have been mutilated (which I don't believe at all) is the height of hypocrisy.

@150

The ears provide a necessary function, and cutting them off would automatically create a loss of partial function for a child, it would handicap his ability to function as a normal child/adolescent/man. Not so with the foreskin.

Your analogy is specious.

A male friend of mine completely changed my way of thinking of circumcision when he called it "genital mutilation". I figure if I'm against that for women, I should support men by being against circumcision.

To 131, 133, 134,
Don't get me wrong, nothing against bass players on my side. I just don't like whiny,depressing, pretentious commentators who sign as "bassplayerguy",as #112 did while giving us his laundry list.

And just so you know, Tal Wikenfield sounds like a very Jewish/Israeli name, which means he's probably cut.
And I don't mention it to hint that cut guys can play the bass better than uncut ones. I just want to highlight #112 "bassplayerguy" as a miserable, close-minded person, who gives us his unqualified and unwanted laundry list for no apparent reason.

And just for the record... Being an older guy, my favorite bass players are Chris Squire of 'Yes', John Entwistle of 'The Who', and not to mention Jack Bruce's Solo on Frank Zappa's 'Apostrophe'.
All of them are creative, energetic, and amazingly positive bass players (and most-likely uncircumcised!!!).

As opposed to the miserable, close-minded "bassplayerguy" @112.

I am just surprised at all the "baby boy" comments re: circumcision. Where I live boys are circumcised the summer after grade 6. Guess one learns something new everyday!

@ 151,
Your take on this is interesting because you seem totally oblivious to the existence of personal preference in sexual stimuli. Say for example I didn't enjoy sensations of anal sex; if my bf followed your logic, he would say "prove anal sex is harmful!" or "prove that woman can't enjoy anal sex! double blind study please! if enjoying anal sex and orgasming from it is achievable, then you can't hate it".

So no, circumcision doesn't have to do significant harm and many men circumcised as adults may enjoy its results and still there will be men who prefer having a foreskin. Just like anal sex doesn't have to be harmful or painful and many women may not mind it but it is still a legitimate sexual preference to not like the sensations it gives.

1 Circumcised boys may end up permanently harmed;

2 definitely are forced to go through a painful healing process;

3 definitely are stripped of the right to experience sexual sensations with foreskin and

4 definitely are stripped of their right to choose what to do with their penises.

There is no reason to do this to infants: all as you call them "health benefits" of circumcision can be achieved at a later age, which would largely correct all these wrongs I stated. 1- there may be permanent harm but at least the boy will know no one forced it upon him, 2 - the pain during healing process will be easier to manage because the boy will see it as a step towards his goal; 3 - they will be able to experience having foreskin and all its nerve endings (huge numbers of them) 4 - I hope I don't have to explain why it feels good when you make decisions about your body.

Now just because you don't mind having been circumcised doesn't mean that no one else should and/or that their feeling of being wronged isn't legitimate. Or that we don't have reasonable right to expect our parents to keep their hands off our bodies unless it is completely necessary and can't wait. If it doesn't pose an immediate danger and can wait, then I really don't see why not let the penis owner make that decision for himself.

Hey...
you know, my mother was really conservative, and never told us ANYTHING about periods, sex etc.

So naturally, when I started getting my period, I would horrifiedly wash whatever it was that was stained with hot water and soap (How was I supposed to know any differently? Isn't hot water what you use when you want things to be really clean??) there were times when I'd burn whatever was stained so my parents wouldn't find out what had happened and try to talk to me about it (I couldn't imagine anything good or wholesome coming out of a talk with very catholic parents about anything puberty related).It wasn't until years later that I found out cold water works, and hot water sets the stain. So maybe she was similarly raised and similarly uninformed.

But ya, Dan, rolled up in a ball is a bad plan with blood related stains. Into the washer/under cold water as soon as you notice.

Oh, and genitally mutiliating people is wrong, whether they're boys or girls. If you choose to mutilate your own genitals after you turn 18, whatevs, but chopping off bits of your children's genitals is generally a bad idea, one would think.

Male circumcision isn't done for cleanliness. It caught on in this country because it was purported to be a way to stop boys from masturbating. Why do you think it's so much more popular in the puritanical, sex-obsessed United States than in Europe?

Any adult male who wants to can go ahead an elect to get himself cut and I'm just fine with that. But leave an infant's genitals the fuck alone.

@154 What the fuck are you talking about? I'm sorry if you interpret the statement of facts as whiny and depressing but that's something for you to work out. But of course seeing as you can't even be bothered to click on a link to verify a particular position I'm not sure why I would care what you think about anything. Just so you know, Tal Wilkenfeld is a woman, and Australian; something you WOULD have known had you done even the tiniest bit of research, you know, like just clicking on the link that Kim had provided. But even though you couldn't be bothered do that we're supposed to take your word for it with regards to a debate of any kind? Sorry, don't think so.

@159:
lots of people are nervous before their first sexual encounter. it doesn't necessarily mean that they're not ready for sex. ironically, the longer you wait to have sex, the more you can get worked up about things that you wouldn't have thought about years earlier.

as to the possibility of a cold shoulder: LW is going to be working with dude for 6 months or so. i would be concerned about an intimate relationship changing over that time period and making the work situation weird too.

count me as another who loves the uncut penis. my mom has told me multiple times about how upset she was that the docs cut my brothers (this was in the 1970s) and did not respect her wishes to leave them uncut. instead they just told her of the supposed health and social benefits and left her to listen to them cry angrily after being cut. so sad :( will definitely not let any little boy i might have go through that (at least not until he's 18 and can decide for himself).

Yeah, NORTH was cracking me up with that bit about being "so in love with this guy that I didn't mind staying at home waiting for him all day". Wow. Really giving her all, there.
I wonder how well that line would fly if a man had written it. (Assuming for a minute NORTH is, in fact, female.)

"Oh Baby, I'm just so into you I can't get my ass off the couch and get a job. THAT'S just how much I love you."

@ 161- So maybe Tal Winkelfeld is indeed an Australian woman and I made a mistake assuming this person is a man.
The argument wasn't about bass players in general, but rather about a miserable, closed-minded dude who signs as "bassplayerguy" that keeps giving us his negative, twisted views.

I honestly wish you a good day, and hope your joy will be reflected in your bass playing as well as your comments on Savage Love.

And in order to help you achieve that I promise that this will be my last comment about you. I'll let you say the last word, you "win" my friend, and lets move on. Deal?

Um... fif @ 154,

Tal Wilkenfeld is a very lovely Australian woman. Did the link not work?

You know, your response is very confusing, like perhaps you had a few. Nothing wrong with that. I enjoy consuming my share of "blues juice" (charming term for whisky, that I learned from an Australian) especially when messing with my guitars. I'm a blues fan. If that was the case, be careful, because your comments won't necessarily make sense, unless the rest of us have hit the Wild Turkey, too.

And, as a straight woman my theory on dicks being cut or uncut can be summed up with the title of a Bob Dylan song "It's all good". That is why we left our son intact, so he can make his own decision in the future.

Take care.

And BTW, Here's another Lady girl who prefers cock in its natural condition.
And thank you to the person above who pointed out what a tempest in a teapot this whole preference issue becomes once a guy's penis is hard. The visual difference at that point is negligible.
Still, uncut cocks are sooo much easier to stroke and handle, with that nice, slippery sleeve. Most of my ex'es aren't American, and aren't cut. And there will always be guys who are haphazard on hygiene issues, circumcised or not. If a guy is conscientious about the routine toiletries (is his hair clean? Does he brush and floss regularly? Does he smell nice?) then he's more than likely taking good care of his junk.
And BTW, I've never had a condom break, regardless of size. Not even during the eight years when condoms were the exclusive form of birth control for me and my uncut, normally endowed ex. I suspect that anyone who has this experience consistently with uncut guys isn't allowing enough slack in the condom when they put it on. Uncut cocks have a good deal more "play" in the mobility of the entire length of the penile skin. You need to gently slide it almost completely back before rolling the condom down over the head and exposed inner foreskin, then let the foreskin slide back up to its normal position, hold it there and finish unrolling the condom down. This way you've got all the movement that makes uncut cock so much fun.
If you roll the condom over the cock with the skin trapped underneath in the higher position, all the pull of in/out is going to be concentrated at the head of the condom, instead of along its whole length. I wouldn't be surprised if that leads to breakage during vigorous sex. Plus, that's just gotta be uncomfortable for him, no?

@164 So you show up (twice!) with your ad hominem attacks and "who pissed in my Cherios" attitude and I'm the one who's "miserable" with "negative" views? I don't think so. FYI, you have yet to explain what's "twisted" about views as well.

Also, my view used to be exactly like yours but after I started doing research I was confronted with overwhelming evidence that my view was incorrect therefor I changed my view. Whereas, it would seem that you haven't changed your view of the subject nor are you willing to consider changing your view and yet you accuse me of being "closed minded." Here's an idea; buy a dictionary, use it, love it.

"but rather about a miserable, closed-minded dude who signs as "bassplayerguy" that keeps giving us his negative, twisted views"

followed by:

"I honestly wish you a good day,"

Really? Yes, I feel the kindness flowing from you like fine wine from crystal decanter.

Let me try: "I wish you well, you horrible person. I hope the crusty old turd that is you has a FABULOUS day!"

See? Doesn't quite work.

Kim @165
As my now dear friend "bassplayerguy" pointed out I never bothered checking the link. My apologies to both of you.

Also, good observation on your side. It was Passover left over wine. Apparently Elijah The Prophet never showed up, so someone had to take care of business.

Best to you and all other bass players out there- male, female, cut or uncut...

BTW fif, if you have any desire to discuss something I actually said instead of just making spurious claims about how I'd rate on a happiness index then I'm game.

Well I guess I'm in the minority here, but I'm a gay dude who cannot STAND uncut. Yech!

Fine, yes, I'm totally down w/the idea that there's more of 'em for the rest of you. All yours, peeps; have at 'em! Buh-bye.

You don't have to go as far as Europe: Most French-Canadian men in Quebec are not circumcised. I'm a bi woman and I far prefer uncut men. Encountering a cut cock is, in fact, a little sad. They'll never know what they're missing; they're less sensitive, and they miss out and all the really fun tongue stuff you can do with a foreskin. Recently I found an English-Canadian man who was uncut and almost cheered! He thought it was funny.

For the record, my ex-husband was uncut, we always used condoms for birth control, and never once did he break one. Surprisingly, a lot of men don't know how to put on a condom. That's what makes them break, not whether or not they're circumcised. When I see a guy fumble, I take things into my own hand, or mouth and roll it on for them.

If you like uncut and don't want to fly to Europe, just drive to Montreal.

Guest sex was also in today's Dear Abby - I smell a fake

DEAR ABBY: Is it OK to have sex when you're a guest in someone's home? I say no, but my husband feels the host knows we're married so it's not inappropriate. I think it's rude and shows a lack of respect for the host.

Would you please settle this once and for all? When we stay with friends, we end up fighting during our vacation. -- UNCOMFORTABLE IN TEXAS

DEAR UNCOMFORTABLE: For a married couple to make love when they are houseguests isn't rude or disrespectful, provided the pictures don't fall off the walls and there are no complaints about noise from the neighbors. However, if the idea makes you uncomfortable and unable to relax and enjoy the intimacy, then you and your husband should vacation in a hotel where you can expect to have more privacy.

I am broken up with my baby's daddy. It was a 10 year relationship. We still live in the same house for now until we can afford to make a change. We are responsible, loving parents and we are calm and friendly to one another but there has never been a lot of sexual chemistry. I had an affair with a man. I don't know him well and what I do see in him is that he is unpredictable and a pot smoker, and has a p/t job in a restaurant. He doesn't seem to have goals. Our sex is really great though and it is something I was missing for a long time. I got pregnant by him. I am 5,6 weeks pregnant. I am 37 and I want another child. I don't know the father well though and I have concerns about having a child with a father I don't really know. I told my baby's daddy yesterday. He is furious because he feels betrayed and lied to because we still live here together and it is just rotten timing for what I have gotten myself into. All the same, my heart is crying when I think of aborting this baby. I am sure, logically, that I should. Do I listen to logic or my heart? I have an abortion scheduled for next week. I don't want to go.To worsen matters I took cocaine while I was pregnant before I knew I was pregnant (something I never do!). I also took a Klonopine, and a tablet of morphine. Yes, it has been a wild month. I am usually so chill. Anyway -- I don't know. I probably have to abort -- but I don't want to.

The first letter is an almost word-for-word plot from Diary of a Call Girl. In that show, the 3000 (pounds) in this case was a trap to see if she was still hooking.

I am Jewish, circumcised as a baby. Never minded, never had a problem with it. Never felt short-changed sexually. Perfectly happy the way I am. I continue to be baffled by people who scream that it is "mutilation". Not according to me!

I'm not sure if it's been raised or not, but one reason people get squeamish about uncut cock is because many guys--especially inexperienced ones--don't always remember to pull back the foreskin and soap/lather/rinse the head EVERY TIME THEY SHOWER. I have the world's perfect guy, but it took a couple weeks at the start to drill that lesson into his head. As soon as it clicked that "keeping clean = getting head"... let's just say he's fastidious nowadays. :)

@152

Your "jackass-fu" is a little weak. if you really wanted to back me into a corner on the cosmetic surgery issue, you'd have said something like "a surgery which removes healthy tissue for purely cosmetic reasons".

Otherwise, you give me ample examples, the most obvious one I've already cited (seriously, check my post):

surgery to repair a cleft pallet. We do it with any child born with it (and even have entire charities dedicated to raising money for it). We also remove vestigial tails, any webbing, ect. Similarly, we perform tonsillectomies despite a lack of evidence they help anything, painful recovery, ect.

Hmm... I'm seeing some holes in your argument.

Argue the facts, and the points I've made, not personal attacks.

And, before I forget, if you think there's any similarity between male circumcision and Female Genital Mutilation, you need to go to a library, read a book, or do a Google search. Conflating removal of the foreskin, and removal of the clitoris is like comparing removal of a fingernail and removal of a finger.

@156.

I accept all of your points without objection. Especially the part about it being a subjective, personal, question.

What I blanch at is the hypocrisy. Women of all kinds have posted here that they prefer an uncut penis. One gay man posts preferring a cut penis, and he's blasted for it.

Why does a preference for an uncut cock not count as terribly shallow, utterly silly, and completely subjective?

If we want to have the discussion of medical benefits, I accept there are two sides (as I said in my first post). But, there being a debate doesn't make it categorically wrong to circumcise, nor does it make it "mutilation" or "disfigurement". I'll accept the subjectivity of the questions, but not the rhetoric.

@173, 174

I find it really funny to see your posts juxtaposed. One is lambasting a previous poster for being shallow about circumcision, the other is being shallow about circumcision.

Consistency, people. Either circumcision should be treated as a cosmetic, minor, issue, and thus take a back seat to more important things like "love" and "acceptance", or it can be a Big Fucking Deal.

But if it's a BFD, the gay gentleman who doesn't like uncut penises is no more "shallow" or objectionable than the woman who "cheered" for a foreskin. Accept everyone being prejudiced, or deny it of everyone.

@160

I see that statement touted a lot, but the basis of it is questionable:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcisio…

America also has a higher Jewish population than Europe.

Oh, also:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15711…

Just gonna put those here.

@176, you don't sounds real, but just in case you are, google the effects of the drugs you took may have on the fetus, then consider whether you are prepared to raise two kids on your own, one of whom may turn out disabled. Anytime after 35 you have to be even more careful because the stats are against you anyways, you know? Sounds like you gotta get a grip and get your life organized for the sake of the kid you already have. I would go and abort. You know you're fertile and if you want another child you can plan for it right. And lay off them drugs for the sake of your other kid, too.

No, UNCUT, if things don't go as you'd like them to and dude goes from completely hot to complete d-bag, don't talk to him afterward. Just be civil and polite and if he's still a dick about it, continue to be polite or just pretend he doesn't exist...to the best of your ability. Talking to him about not wanting things to be weird will only make them weirder. Also, your friend's OPINION is just that...an opinion. A preference on her part, if you will. Perhaps the person you should be asking about said preference is the guy in question.

I'm against routine circumcision, so I'm very surprised that, as I read this thread, I'm far more annoyed by some of the anti-circumcision posters than by anyone else.

There are a few things that need to be said:

1. Someone's stance on the ethics of routine circumcision, and someone's personal feelings as to whether foreskin is sexually desirable or not, are very often COMPLETELY different topics. As it happens, I believe that the practice is irrational and cruel, and I also happen to find circumcised penises to be far more attractive and pleasant to the touch than uncircumcised ones. There's not a whole lot I can do about my preference, and it certainly doesn't indicate anything about my open-mindedness, maturity, or ability to feel compassion.

2. While it may very well be the case that the original movement to circumcise in the US was brought about by anti-masturbation puritans, it's silly to act as if preventing masturbation - as opposed to preventing infection - was what kept the practice standard for so long.

(For the record, I'm not even saying that the arguments about preventing infection were valid. I'm just saying that if you asked an American doctor in the 1960s why it was routine to circumcise baby boys, he would be far more likely to say "It prevents infection," than to say, "We need to stop our children from touching themselves!" or "Change...bad! Baaaaaad!"

3. Far from all gay men are turned on by foreskin. We're more likely than straight women to fetishize it, but a lot of the people who are the most turned off of by foreskin - because of actual experience with it, rather than a fear of the unknown, that is - are gay men. (At least from what I've seen time and time again.)

4. The ethical issues surrounding circumcision aren't always totally black-and-white. While I disagree with routine circumcision for a number of reasons, I'm very, very glad that my parents had me circumcised. Why? Because I grew up in an area in which ALL of my classmates were circumcised. (At least that's the sense I got from the locker rooms at school.) I would have grown up feeling extremely self-conscious about my cock, just like the guy who wrote the letter. That wouldn't be worth some possible extra sensation - hell, I cum too easily as it is.

There's also the issue of circumcision in sub-Saharan Africa, which makes a lot of sense to me, considiering that the AIDS rate is lower among cut men there than uncut men, and because of the lack of opportunity many men have to regularly wash themselves properly down there.

5. It may only take a little bit of soap and effort to keep foreskin clean, but that does not change the reality that there are quite a few men out there who don't bother to do it. Saying, "No need to worry about your uncircumcised partner being smelly or dirty down there, because it just takes a little effort for him to prevent that," is like saying, "No need to worry that the employees at your restaurant don't wash their hands after using the bathroom - it only takes a short time to wash up!"

Time for my post-anal laundry tip: For some reason, even if you use water-based lube, santorum is tough to get out of sheets. Use stain stuff & soak. Otherwise, you might have to toss the sheets.

And if you use any non-water-based lube (I know, probably a fairly small percentage in these modern times, with hetero-targeted KY commercials on TV), you WILL get permanent grease stains on your sheets. Yet another reason to stick with water-based lube.

And for UNCUT, I agree with AJD @ 55 & 56. Keep it clean, and if/when the magic moment comes, demonstrate to him (in a sexy way, of course) that you're quite clean down there. Even if he's unfamiliar with uncut dick, if it's clean, and he knows it's clean, and he's horny, he'll have little to no problem with your unaltered condition. As a cocksucker who is perfectly OK with clean uncut dick, I can almost guarantee it.

As wise American parents know, one of the best reasons for keeping your son intact is that it's an excellent way to screen out ignorant and shallow future partners.

Males have foreskins. It's part of our anatomy. To not like intact penises is to not like the male body. Sorry, the sliced ones aren't simply another variant; they're surgically-altered males.

Only Americans delude themselves into thinking that circumcised cocks are somehow healthier, handsomer and maintenance-free. Want a big study to disprove it? It exists: it's called Europe, South America and Asia. The US cuts more, spends more (nearly a billion a year to chop and fix botched chops) and has poorer health outcomes on virtually every measure: HIV, other STIs, ED, overall sexual health and sexual satisfaction. You'd think for a billion bucks a year you'd get at least a small advantage. But... nope.

Circumcision slices through meters of blood vessels and nerves, impairs blood flow to the meatus and glans, affects tumescence and detumescence, and has a ridiculously high complication rate when done in infancy. What is remarkable is how well the penis bounces back from such a substantial wounding. Enough to work, anyway.

The nuances of what you can do with a foreskin are completely lost on the circumcised (and sadly, plenty of the intact), so it's not even worth enumerating them here.

All UNCUT needs to know is that he's going into sex with 100% of his male anatomy. What an advantage! With luck, his hunk is similarly equipped -- and experienced at exploiting all a healthy foreskin has to offer.

Dan,
I have just discovered you and am dismayed to have gone without your brilliant perversity the first 43 years of my life.

It is extremely likely that you make the world a better place. Now, if I can just get my uptight colorado friends to read you, perhaps I can do my part for this conservative corner of the planet.
DC

Great advice to UNCUT and for the record: I'm a female with a strong preference to uncut cock. It's an instant turn-on for me.

I haven't yet met any guy with an uncut cock without basic hygiene but I look at it this way: if a guy can't keep his cock clean, he can't keep his cock clean regardless of foreskin. The foreskin just makes it more obvious that the guy has hygiene issues.

i need your help dan.. i told y aunt i was gay and she gaave some avice but i want to go stay with her for a wle should i ask or no.. because she has a girl friend and all?

@180
"surgery to repair a cleft pallet. We do it with any child born with it"

Do you really not understand the difference between corrective surgery to repair birth defects and optional cosmetic surgery? A cleft pallet in and of itself is medically problematic, specifically for speech development and in more sever cases the infant can't eat (breast feed) with one. If a cleft pallet was part of natural human development and if half of the population was born with one then maybe you'd have a point but that's not the case.

"Similarly, we perform tonsillectomies despite a lack of evidence they help anything, painful recovery, ect."

It's fascinating that you'd use this example b/c they no longer do routine tonsillectomies for the exact reasons you mentioned. The approach now is if a problem arises then fix it otherwise leave it alone.

"if you think there's any similarity between male circumcision and Female Genital Mutilation, you need to go to a library, read a book, or do a Google search. Conflating removal of the foreskin, and removal of the clitoris....."

Except no one said that b/c they're obviously not comparable. However not all female circumcision involves removing the clitoris, many involve only removing the labia/clitoral hood which is directly comparable. They both have nerve endings, they both have mucosa membranes, and the primary function of both is to protect the glans. Surely you don't think that it's an anatomical coincidence that both men and women are born with a protective layer of skin over the most sensitive external part of the body.

"Why does a preference for an uncut cock not count as terribly shallow, utterly silly, and completely subjective?"

Break each statement down to its essence and compare them:

"I prefer how people are born."

vs.

"I prefer people who have had cosmetic surgery."

If a guy had posted that he prefers women with breast implants then most people here would consider that shallow. Now maybe you wouldn't find that shallow, who knows? But this is really getting away from the point, isn't it? You're sexual preference as an adult shouldn't have any bearing whatsoever on whether or not you allow your son to decide for himself if he's going to be cut or not.

"I see that statement touted a lot, but the basis of it is questionable:"

No it's not, that is where it started. What's questionable is whether or not that's when mass circumcisions were performed. Here's a quote from John Kellogg that illustrates it:

"A remedy (for masturbation) which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice, and if it had not previously become too firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not resumed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey…

@195

You said there were no examples I could name of cosmetic plastic surgery routinely performed on children without knowledge and consent. I was able to cite more than one. Don't change the goalposts and claim victory, now. That's just dishonest.

To be honest, I'm not sure what you mean by "routine tonsillectomies". Here in America, the policy even today is to remove them if the child has many infections, despite no evidence that a tonsillectomy actually fixes it. But, I think my point was that we do lots of things to kids when it doesn't cause them long-term harm.

Your thing about FGM is still misstated. Removal of the clitoral hood still is not the same thing as removal of the foreskin. Your comparison (they share some qualities, so they must be comparable) is a bit like saying drinking must be bad for your stomach because alcohol hurts your eyes, and your stomach is made of some of the same tissue as your eyes.

There's simply no medical comparison between the two practices, especially given that while there is evidence for a benefit to male circumcision, there is simply no medical basis for FGM (except in cases of removal due to infection or other problems).

And, yes, actually, I agree it's shallow, think of it this way:

Compare the statements "I like women with big breasts" to "I like women with small breasts".

In neither case is it not-shallow. But, there's no way to quantify one being "less shallow" than the other. Given that a full half of the adult male population in America (and about a third in European countries and Australia) has been circumcised, it's simply a matter of personal taste.

But, there are two separate arguments we're having simultaneously:

1. Is circumcision "good" in a categorical sense?
2. Should circumcision be performed on infants/children?

If we can simply remove the first question as being one of personal taste, we can have a serious discussion of the second.

Let's pretend your child has a vestigial tail. It's a part of her body, but serves no great function. Still, it would hurt her to remove it (because it would have nerves, and sometimes even requires bone reformation). Would you have the tail removed, or wait for her to become an adult and decide for herself? Would you not worry about her getting undressed with a boy (or girl) and being embarrassed? What about gym class?

That's the issue here, please don't mistake it.

Oh, finally, citing a kook about what he thinks circumcision is about isn't in any way proof of the reason why circumcision became a regular practice in America (and elsewhere). I bet I can find some nut who thinks the purpose behind prohibition was to try to increase the population by forcing people to have more sex for their entertainment.

John Kellogg did not speak for the American people writ large, or any part of the legitimate medical community. Don't mistake him for someone qualified to comment on the reason behind circumcision.

Let me put it another way: if I claim that the purpose behind tonsillectomies is to make oral sex easier, would you believe it?

Love you Dan, great column!

IMO, The ettiquet for fucking in a friends house if you're staying there is to ASK. My boy lives out of state - when he comes to here, we stay a friends place (because I currently live with family)because they like us, and they're cool with us fucking. Because we asked. Same with any other friend's I've stayed with with a partner.

Said friends also pointed out where all the sockets in the wall were, and also pointed out where the safer sex supplies and toys were. Which is what I've done for guests as well.

Why is it so hard for people to just ask?

You said there were no examples I could name of cosmetic plastic surgery routinely performed on children without knowledge and consent.”

Sorry but I didn’t say that and claiming that I did is dishonest.

“I was able to cite more than one.”

Yes and all three were in reference to birth defects not naturally occurring anatomy. As I said before, if half the population was born with webbed fingers or vestigial tails then you’d have a point but that’s not the case.

“Here in America, the policy even today is to remove them if the child has many infections”

That’s a perfect example of how it’s done. If there’s a direct, reoccurring problem then you deal with it; you don’t remove the kid’s tonsils b/c something MIGHT happen. Likewise, if your son was having constant infections/inflammations with his foreskin then you very well might need to consider a circumcision but otherwise you should just leave it alone.

“Removal of the clitoral hood still is not the same thing as removal of the foreskin…… There's simply no medical comparison between the two practices.”

I’m sorry but you’re wrong:

“In female human anatomy, the clitoral hood is a fold of skin that surrounds and protects the clitoral glans. It develops as part of the labia minora and is homologous with the foreskin (equally called prepuce) in male genitals.”

“other women opt to have the hood surgically trimmed or removed so as to permanently expose part or all of the clitoral head. Such a procedure is akin to male circumcision and is sometimes known as female circumcision”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitoral_ho…

“But, there are two separate arguments we're having simultaneously:
1. Is circumcision "good" in a categorical sense?
2. Should circumcision be performed on infants/children?
If we can simply remove the first question as being one of personal taste, we can have a serious discussion of the second.”

Considering that this is pretty much exactly what I said in my last post then I think this is exactly what we should do. Even though there’s a big difference in my mind between “I prefer such and such version of how you were born” vs. “I prefer someone who’s had cosmetic surgery to someone who hasn’t” in the end, if people want to be shallow then that’s their deal. I you had a preference for women who’ve had antlers surgically implanted on their foreheads then I couldn’t care less.

It seems like the crux of your argument is based around whether or not your child might be teased at school. The majority of American men are circumcised therefore if your son is too then it would reduce the chances that he’d be teased. Well if that’s the case then if you lived in Europe, Japan, or Brazil then you’d absolutely NOT circumcise your son b/c the majority of men in those countries are uncut therefore by circumcising your son in any of those countries you’d be opening him up for being teased for his cut penis, right? And if this is the primary reason that you feel your son should be circumcised then shouldn’t you be petitioning to have parents declare whether or not their son is circumcised when they’re enrolled in school so that you can correctly place your son with similarly configured boys? Even in America it’s POSSIBLE that he’d be the only guy in the gym class with a cut penis.

But I don’t think the belief that your son MIGHT be teased comes close to being reason enough to surgically alter him without his consent. For example, my brother was teased mercilessly in school for having big ears so in your opinion my parents should have had his ears surgically tacked back so that he’d avoid being teased? Likewise, my friend’s sister was regularly made fun of because of the size of her nose so if you were her parent would you have taken her in for a nose job so that should wouldn’t have had to deal with the barbs and taunting? I can tell you for a fact that the worse taunting and teasing is reserved for fat kids so I guess my parents erred by not giving me a stomach staple or liposuction?

“Let's pretend your child has a vestigial tail……..etc., etc.”

If there was any chance, even a very small one, that the process for removing the tail could result in extreme harm, up to and including castration, then no, I wouldn’t. And at the very least I’d wait till she was old enough to be anesthetized for the procedure.

“Would you not worry about her getting undressed with a boy (or girl) and being embarrassed? What about gym class?”

I’d do what it is that parents are supposed to do and explain what’s going on; I wouldn’t reach for a knife as the first solution to what may (or may not) be a problem in the future. And I don’t get the whole “but what about being teased by the other boys in gym class” angle. I went to gym class and even played football and there was not one time that we all sat around looking at each other’s penises. Not once. As a matter of fact it came up in conversation a while ago between some very old friends and me that two of them weren’t circumcised. I had absolutely no clue that they were uncut, despite spending the majority of our childhoods together, going to gym class together, and playing football together. Same thing goes for the “he needs to look like his father” argument. I’m sure that I’ve seen my dad naked in my life but it certainly wasn’t a pivotal moment in my development. And even if my penis did look different from his (which it would have anyway considering how young I would’ve been) then it would have easily been addressed with “I know you look different from me but your mother and I thought that you should decide for yourself…..so on and so forth.”

@196
"John Kellogg did not speak for the American people writ large, or any part of the legitimate medical community. Don't mistake him for someone qualified to comment on the reason behind circumcision."

I hate to burst your bubble but Kellogg wasn't some fringe kook; he was very mainstream and popular during his time and he wrote many well selling books which is one of the reasons why his "nutritional supplement" was able to become one of the largest corporate empires in American history.

Although it's still completely moot. Whether it was Kellogg saying that circumcision should be done to bring a stop to masturbation or it was turn of the century doctors claiming that circumcision cured epilepsy, convulsions, paralysis, elephantiasis, tuberculosis, eczema, bed-wetting, hip-joint disease, fecal incontinence, rectal prolapse, wet dreams, hernia, headaches, nervousness, hysteria, poor eyesight, idiocy, and mental retardation (all of which are turn of the century claims in favor circumcision) that fact remains that it still came to prominence in the US based on faulty medical information to the point of almost being farce.

BTW, 201 is @ 196