Of course, it's only shocking because we are used to seeing female issues framed in terms of how it affects men.

That said, it would be interesting if circumcision did make sex less comfortable or otherwise less pleasurable for women, and I do wonder if that would change the minds of parents. I don't think we can blame issues women have with sexuality on circumcision, though, because women have issues with orgasming no matter what type of penis they are with.

Do you think if this becomes a "trend" lots of guys will go in for foreskin "restoration"?

And it sounds creepy to me, too.

It is pretty silly in that most parents don't consider the important stuff when making this decision, I just can't imagine the conversation in the hospital room, ". . . and there is the sexual pleasure of his future partners to consider, dear."

I tend to think that parts in the genital area must have been put there/evolved for a reason. From a biological standpoint, if it's pleasurable to a female as well as a male, reproduction will be efficient. Any supposed "extra" pleasure a female would feel from sex with an uncircumsized penis would not be at all superfluous, since nature intended it in the first place.

(Before any circumsized men reply, "I'm cut and I feel great," I've read accounts of men with botched surgeries that left half the foreskin intact. They report that while the cut area feels great, the uncut area is more intense. I have no hard evidence (!) either way, just basing this on those testimonies.)

Okay, Ill say this quickly before beddy byes.

Now I dont want to refute anything that comes up by saying this, but just as I felt offended by the implication that my "uncut" status means Im less hygienic than “cut� - I cant help but dislike the implication that "cut" men wont be able to please their partner as much as an "uncut" man would.

Id like it if it were made clearer that "uncut" can be hygienic if used (cleaned I suppose) properly, and "cut" can still please if “used� properly. And I imagine its helpful if you concentrate on the partners needs, not just the penis.

Again, that’s just an opinion, and a tired one before I go to bed.

I don't necessarily know how I feel about circumcision, and I don't have even the smallest dog in the fight, but I find things like Jane Minty's "it must be there for a reason" to be flawed. After all, we have earlobes, which appear to do nothing from a biological standpoint (that I know of). Certainly the human body has flaws in its "design" and I don't know how we can say that nature designed us to have so many flaws.

Male circumcision is an unnecessary procedure in modern times. A long time ago, it may have been adaptive for hygiene purposes. In an age when (I hope) people shower everyday, that isn't an issue.

It's true that circumcision makes it more difficult to transmit STD's, but there's a magical device called a condom that works even better, and using one doesn't involve lopping off part of your genitalia.

I'm going to echo JenLovesPonies by pointing out that the appendix is also there, however most people get along fine without one.

There are lots of parts on our bodies that, at one point in time, had a very good, practical purpose, but now they don't really do anything, we just haven't evolved enough to get rid of them.

As for foreskin, I can see that before the invention or use of cloths (and thus clothing) human males would need something to protect the opening of the penis, since their penises don't go back into a pouch. There's nothing wrong with foreskin and when gentiles started circumcising boys it was predominately to dull the sexual response in the first place, so I can see the argument that a cut penis gets less sensation than an uncut one. There's also an aesthetic to the whole thing.

As for the foreskin restoration, I saw this done on Penn and Teller's Bullshit, and it's otherwise known as "tugging". I'll leave the rest to your imaginations.

When we're talking about a procedure that's done to men's bodies, it makes sense to keep the discussion focused on male pleasure and health and, more broadly, on public health. Not women's preferences.

Amen to this sentiment. Since I'm a woman, I have not been in the position of having to make this decision on a personal level (no boy children yet), but I have yet to hear convincing arguments that it has any real health benefits . . . and I'm just not a fan of doing surgery on anyone's genitals (women OR men) because it's a cultural norm!

Circumcision became popular in America because people didn't want their boys masturbating.

I for one know I will not be mutilating my children. If they want to cut their penis, they can do it when they're older and when they themselves can pay for it. Foreskin has a use and it shouldn't be chopped off just to mirror some stupid ideal of society.

Earlobes aren't important, you say? Well, answer this: where would you put earrings without them? It's not so simple as you think, is it?*

Just one quick point regarding that study: circumcising an adult male is quite different from circumcising an infant. No matter WHAT the change was, if you do something that significantly affects the way your genitals feel, and you do it after the man in question has already developed sexual habits through masturbation and/or sex, and developed a body image... well, it's not all that surprising that it might cause issues, you know? Sex is very mental in nature.

*that was a joke. Just in case you didn't know.

Earlobes aren't important, you say? Well, answer this: where would you put earrings without them?

Same place they go now: the foreskin!

Despite being Jewish, my husband being circumcised, and me frankly liking the circumcised penis better, we decided to leave our son uncircumcised. If he wants to take the foreskin off himself, he can decide that when he's good and ready -- it'll be easier than doing a restoration.

I agree that this really isn't a woman's issue at all. At my son's two-week-old pediatrician appointment, another mother in the waiting room cooed over him for a while. Then she asked, "Did you have him circumcised?" I shook my head. "Oh, well," she replied, getting one of those superior looks on her face, "my boys are all circumcised. It's just cleaner, isn't it? And frankly I just don't like an uncircumcised penis." I'm not entirely sure why this falls under the category of "things to discuss with total strangers in public places" or "things about my family that are open for public criticism".

I think it's just weird that circumcision has become a cultural norm in America. I mean, why? There aren't particularly great reasons for it except that "well, everyone else does it." In other countries, the norm is NOT to do it. I remember my first time with an Australian guy, and I was totally surprised to get down there and realize that he hadn't had his done. I blurted out "oh! You're not circumcised!" and he just got kind of this funny puzzled look on his face, since NO ONE from Australia is circumcised. And most women I know find Aussies CRAZY irresistable, in spite of this difference ;)

Anyway -- if there is real, hard (hahaha, sorry) evidence that circumcision has medical benefits, then it's worth considering. But for me (not Jewish) I see absolutely no reason to do it otherwise. A woman on a morning talk show I used to listen to had a baby a while ago, and the baby's father insisted that they have the boy circumcised, simply because he (the father) had been. Yeah, he's gonna make a great dad: I had something harmful and pointless* done to me, therefore you'll get it done too. GREAT dad. /sarcasm

* subject to my evidentiary caveat

Claiming men who are circumcised are infected with HIV less often, therefore we should circumcise all men to reduce the occurrence of HIV is exactly like saying ice cream sales are higher in the summer when the temperature is higher, therefore in January, if we sell more ice cream, it will get warmer outside.

Fucking idiots. I hate it when morons don't understand simple research methods and their inherent limitations.

but I find things like Jane Minty's "it must be there for a reason" to be flawed. After all, we have earlobes, which appear to do nothing from a biological standpoint (that I know of)

I suppose there are a lot of parts we don't NEED, but they're sure nice to have. I think it's a different situation altogether when you're playing with such sensitive parts. I mean, why not remove girls' breasts-to-be at birth to make us less susceptible to breast cancer? What about removing vaginas so girls never have to worry about yeast infections?

Some people will argue the female orgasm has no "purpose" as well, but others claim the spasms help sperm reach their destination. I personally don't care either way (since that is not my personal objective in feeling good), but the idea that pleasure helps reproduction is interesting.

On sensitivity: my boyfriend grew up in a country where they don't do this sort of thing. He told me about a fascinating rite of passage among groups of teenage boys in which they (uncut) are the majority - for about a year, they gradually have to learn how to expose their penises all the way, since it's a shock to do it all at once. He and his friends would all laugh at someone who was squirming at his desk and and ask if he was "peeled" at the moment!

Let's pretend there was a trend among parents to insert 2 inch steel spikes into their boy children's penises. Would it then be OK to make female pain/pleasure an issue during discussion of the merits of the procedure?

Sex with circumcised men hurts me horribly if I don't use lubricant. I get tears around my vagina that bleed. I don't produce enough of my own lubrication, so I need the male's smegma to aid in lubricity. Sex with uncircumcised men does not hurt, is more pleasurable, and is easier.

I've always been troubled by the anti circumcision folks. There's an air of fanatacism about many of them that makes me a little uncomfortable.

And, of course, there's that faint whiff of antisemitism (pediatric nurses declaring themselves "conscientious objectors" to participating in the procedure ect) that's always disturbed me.

Beyond that, there are some practical considerations that I, a man who was circumcised at birth, think I can address.

The foreskin is a vestigal body party - kind of like the appendix or the tonsils - that dated back to prehistoric times.

Back when men used to walk around butt naked, it was important to cover the opening of the penis, to keep out dirt and other foreign objects.

We have pants and underwear now, so that's not an issue.

Actually, the existance of a foreskin makes the penis dirtier.

Circumcised men can easily wash our penises when we bathe or shower, the same way we wash the rest of our bodies.

The uncircumsized guys have to pull the skin up and wash under it - which sounds time consuming and painful as hell (I'm sure glad I don't have to do that every day!!!)

Also, uncircumsized guys carry infections under their foreskins and can not only spread the germs (including the HIV virus), but are also prone to urinary tract infections.

Circumcized guys don't have to worry about that - our penises are cleaner, which saves us and our partners from a lot of infections.

Also, on a more subjective note, CIRCUMCIZED PENISES JUST LOOK BETTER.

I'm not gay or anything, but I have seen other men's penises (at the urinal, in locker rooms ect) and the uncircumcized ones just look disgusting - like a nasty little elephant's trunk - while the circumcized ones have that clean streamlined look.

If I was a woman (or a gay guy) I know which ones I'd prefer to deal with!!!

There are a couple of important issues regarding circumcision and other like practices. I proclaim strongly that I would never circumcize my son, if I were to ever have one. People often ask me why not. First off, this is completely backwards. You do not need a reason to NOT cut off a part of your body! However, I would think you would need a really good reason to do so, and a good reason I cannot find. It is true, there are parts of one's body, such as earlobes, that one does not "need." Please let me know if you know anyone who has undergone earlobe removal surgery! Not directly needing something is not issue enough to cut it off. Nor is "it stays cleaner." Many parts of my body would be cleaner if I did not have them, but I am yet to remove anything. Society has reached a point where we can accurately recognize that female cirrcumcision is brutal, disgusting, and criminal; I see no difference in the alteration of male genitals.

"On sensitivity: my boyfriend grew up in a country where they don't do this sort of thing. He told me about a fascinating rite of passage among groups of teenage boys in which they (uncut) are the majority - for about a year, they gradually have to learn how to expose their penises all the way, since it's a shock to do it all at once. He and his friends would all laugh at someone who was squirming at his desk and and ask if he was "peeled" at the moment!"

Jane, that sounds HORRIBLE!! ...not to mention painful and humiliating!!!

So, guys with foreskins experience that level of pain when they have their first teenage erection??

That's AWFUL!!! ...and it kinda bothers me that you talk about it like it's cute and funny (I'm sure you wouldn't be laughing it it was happening to you!!)

Yet another reason I'm so greatful that my mother and father had the good sense to have me circumsized at birth!!!!!

Maybe those folks outside of America, Israel and the Muslim countries need to follow our lead and circumcize their boys before they feel the pain!!!

Gregory, I didn't wash my face for several months when I was a kid--but nobody cut it off. I mean, damn, I got pink eye three times in school, but no-one even thought about dealing with the problem by modifying my eyes in any way. They just told me stop rubbing my eyes.

Realistically, it's not that hard for an adult man to keep his penis clean. I've slept with both circumcised and uncircumsised men, and not only were both kinds of penises equally clean--and I never noticed the uncircumcised man taking more time in the shower due to his onerous penis-cleaning duties--but they both looked pretty much the same. Cute, in their ways, but not significantly different.

I don't know, Greg, you sound pretty fanatic to me.

Quite frankly, every uncircumsized man I've been with has never had an issue with uncleanliness...it's amusing when people claim otherwise. Aesthetically, they look lovely. Besides, when it *really* matters, all of them look the same.

Cut ones are fine too...it's not as if these poor kids had a say in the matter!

Antisemitism?! That's completely ridiculous. Those nurses are objecting to a procedure, not a religion. Are we to protect every religious tradition, no matter how extreme?

Circumcision is like spanking; both should only be practiced by consenting adults.

A former roomate of mine had a son, who she had not had circumcized.

And that worked out OK (other than all the extra hygenic tasks she had to do for him because of that nasty damp musty space between his foreskin and penis) until he reached age 8.

At that point, his penis started growing faster than his foreskin (maybe it was that "peeling" process that Jane Minty referred to) and it hurt like hell for him!!

Every day I used to see the poor little guy limping around our apartment, clutching himself and really suffering.

And then the urinary tract infection set in.

At that point, my friend had to take her son up to Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center, and do what she should have done when he was a baby - get the poor boy circumcized!!

Having that procedure done so late in life was a lot more painful than it would have been if it had been taken care of when he was an infant - he was in pain for about a week or so after the procedure.

But, once he healed up, he was better than before - no penile pain, no more infections, no more suffering!!

He's almost grown now - a healty college bound high school senior - and he's a lot better off that he got circumcized.

But, he would have been better off if his mom had taken care of that when he was an infant!

Gregory, what I'm hearing in your comments is kind of an anxiety that having an uncircumcised penis makes sex a lot more like it is for women.

Have to worry about random infections? It doesn't feel so great the first time? Oh, dear, how will men survive such a difficult experience?

Eh, all in a day for women, honestly. What that suggests to me is that in its natural state, sex isn't the string-free walk in the park for men that our cultural ideology would claim. To me, that suggests another reason not to circumcise.

"Let's pretend there was a trend among parents to insert 2 inch steel spikes into their boy children's penises. Would it then be OK to make female pain/pleasure an issue during discussion of the merits of the procedure?"
Honestly, I think not. Some societies circumcise women or consider it a norm for women to keep their vaginas "dry" during sex, but male pleasure absolutely should not enter into a discussion about whether or not it is acceptable to forcefully circumcise little girls. I would advise you to just avoid the men with spikes. I don't think that's comparable to circumcision though...all women would find the spikes painful, but there's obviously some debate about whether circumcised or uncircumcised penises feel better to women.

My boyfriend is European but was born in a US hospital. He has a "partial" circumcision because there was either some confusion or some disagreement between what the hospital had planned and what is parents had expected. He's always said he thinks his penis is less sensitive because it's (sort of) circumcised. He always felt embarrassed about it when he was younger.

Circumcision would be a decision I leave up to any sons I might have to make on their own.

OK, Gregory, you have a horror story. So do lots of anti-circumcision advocates.

You do know that the rest of the first world does not routinely circumcise, yes? And that the millions of men in England, France, etc., are not by and large limping around in pain in misery?

I agree with Jane; you are starting to sound quite fanatical.

Eh, all in a day for women, honestly.

Indeed.

Greg, as far as the peeling story, he related this with great delight, not pain or sorrow as you imagine (and he personally thinks this procedure is crazy). I'm sorry you can't accept that other men may actually be fond of their foreskins.

"The uncircumsized guys have to pull the skin up and wash under it - which sounds time consuming and painful as hell"

It's not.

Let me address the original point of this discussion. Would I consider a woman's pleasure in a decision to be circumcised? Yes, I would. I would consider it, but it wouldn't be the only factor.

EG, so you agree with me that uncircumcized men are more prone to infections.

And, you feel this is a good reason NOT to circumcize - because "having an uncircumcised penis makes sex a lot more like it is for women."

That is NOT a good reason for not circumcizing boys!

It IS a good reason for more medical research to prevent infections among women - so sex can be as easy and painless for you as it is for us guys!!!

Well, obviously. But I've never encountered an uncircumcised man who has been so plagued by raging urinary tract/yeast infections that he's just cut the damn thing off. I really think that you're exaggerating the risk and the "suffering" of uncircumcised men in the face of all the evidence that vast populations of uncircumcised men live quite happily without any problems whatsoever. And getting UTI? It sucks, but it's curable. I'd say that it's no reason to cut off a body part.

i never really thought about it, but it just so happens that the man who was by far my best lover ever, was also the only partner i've had who was not circumcised... coincidence?!
ps - he never had any hygeine issuses... presumably because he understood that penises need to be washed?

Forgive the TMI, but the only drawback for me about condom use was that it smoothed out the ridge at the top of the glans. Think of it this way: why do they add texture to dildos and vibrators? I think Bright is right on about how this writer has taken her sexual preference and based a conspiracy theory around it.

And I gotta say, it's pretty ridiculous to describe the circumcized penis as a "harpoon."

I think it's "fanatical" when folks call for the abolition of a long accepted hygenic procedure because it makes sex too easy for men - and those same folks advocate making men go through the same pain and misery that women deal with (UTI's and other infections).

It seems quite fanatical - and borderline Christian fundamentalist - to oppose a medical procedure because it makes sex too easy!!!

Gregory, relax. I didn't do that. Nobody's done that. I pointed out that what you're describing as horrible, overwhelming obstacles that make circumcision imperative are really no big deal, that women deal with them all the time, and that nobody acts as thought it's an insuperable burden. The throwaway line at the end was flip. What is serious to me is with what horror you seem to react to most women's normal sexual experiences, and the fact that you continue to willfully ignore the actual experiences of uncircumcised men and the women who've slept with them in favor of your personal horror story and some weird suppositions about how long it takes to clean an uncircumcised penis.

here is a great article on male circumcision from RHReality check.org:

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2007/07/12/gimme-some-skin

EG, well, it seems that we've reached an impasse here.

I have my opinion.

And you and some of the other anticircumcision folks have yours.

And I could continue trying to debate you - but that would be about as useful as having a discussion with a piece of plywood (probably less useful - since a board won't accuse me of being a "fanatic" for the crime of HAVING AN INFORMED OPINION ON MY GENDER'S GENITALS!!!.

So, I'll just close with the fact that, if uncircumcized penises are so wonderful, why was circumcision invented 5,000 years ago, and why has that hygenic practice continued down the ages?

I'm sure you'll have an answer - but I won't waste time debating you, since you've already made your mind up.

Jane Minty- re: necessary body parts.

I am not arguing for circumcision, because as I said, I don't have a dog in this fight as I am as childfree as I can be. I am merely arguing that our bodies are not perfectly designed, and that "we are designed this way" doesn't mean that is the ideal way for things to be. Again, I am speaking more broadly than foreskin.

Cutting children's genitals is cruel and barbaric, period. A number of children die or are disfigured by male genital mutilation every year, such as in this case:

http://healthblog.ctv.ca/blog/_archives/2007/5/22/2967860.html

Gregory, you're out of your mind. If being against male genital mutilation is "anti-Semitic", then being opposed to female genital mutilation is "anti-African".

Your weird fetish for MGM is quite disturbing.

Gregory,

are you somehow suggesting that this boy would not have gone to college had he not been circumcized? im not sure I get the connection.

Sure there are bad experiences either way, as there are with almost anything. But I'm sure that a male's penis growing faster than his foreskin is not a normal occurrance. And at that point I'm sure that the dispartiy between his penile and foreskin groth is the problem here, and not the failure to circumcize him at birth.

furthermore, I'm slightly perplexed about the incessent claim that circumcisn at birth is painless. We do not know if this is true, because infants cannot talk. Im sure that it hurts quite a bit--you are cutting off a part of the child's body. I have witnessed circumcisions, and based on the crying of the child it looks like it hurts! Just because a baby cannot communicate in words how much it hurts, and just because as an adult they cannot remember the experience, does not mean that it is painless!

"why was circumcision invented 5,000 years ago, and why has that hygenic practice continued down the ages?"

I already addressed this. In past times, male circumcision was adaptive for hygienic purposes. If you were a hunter-gatherer or a farmer only took a shower once a year, or never, then obviously you couldn't clean under your foreskin very often. In that case, being circumcised is probably beneficial. If you live in a country where you can take a shower every day, that problem becomes irrelevant.

There is no point in continuing an adaptive tradition when it ceases to be adaptive.

Gregory,

I am a Jewish woman and I am certainly NOT anti-semitic, but I am absolutely against circumcision. I've slept with men both circumcised and not, and quite honestly an uncircumcised penis is much gentler on a vagina than a circumcised one. So there, hear it from a Jew!!!

And please just calm down. Nobody is saying that your penis is inferior.

I'm a long time reader who, as an uncut male, thought I might have something useful to share.

It seems that some are unaware of some of the functional realities of being uncircumcised. This is mostly directed at Gregory, but might be useful for others as well based on the comments here.

First, in regard to "peeling" stuff: Depending on the size of a man's penis and the size of his foreskin, his foreskin will cover more or less of his penis. Attempting to pull the foreskin further back than your body can easily tolerate will be somewhat uncomfortable. It's certainly not terribly painful. I personally have a large penis relative to my foreskin. When I'm erect, my foreskin still covers the ridge that separates the head of my penis from the shaft. I can pull the foreskin down if I choose, making my penis appear circumcised. There is no reason for me to ever do this, and thus I am never forced to confront the exceedingly minor pain that doing so would cause me. I can have sex and do all the other sexual things that guys use their penises for without this ever becoming an issue. Other men who have foreskin/penis size ratios which are more slanted toward the foreskin would be even less affected than I am. It is absolutely not true that an uncircumcised boy will experience pain upon having his first erection(s). The foreskin will go as far as it's naturally comfortable going. It's only if you try to pull it past that point that you will experience pain.

Second, in regard to hygiene. It is absolutely not difficult to clean the uncircumcised penis and it requires almost no time. When flaccid, the foreskin is very easy to manipulate. I simply pull my foreskin back and wash my penis in the exact same fashion that any circumcised man would. I don't know if urinary tract infections are more common in uncircumcised men. I'm willing to believe it. Nevertheless, I've never had a UTI, and neither have any of the uncircumcised men I know (men discuss these things... at least my friends do). The only guy I know who's ever had a UTI was circumcised. My anecdotal evidence proves nothing, but I don't believe that the additional likelihood of contracting a UTI while uncircumcised (assuming it exists) is significant enough to be a real deterrent. From my individual perspective, I'm not concerned by studies which indicate that it's easier for me to contract AIDS, since I understand and practice safe sex.

OK, that's enough for the description. Now for opinion:

I don't like the argument/assumption that circumcision is a "pro-sex" option, even assuming a higher risk of infection. My foreskin allows me to masturbate without needing to lube up my dick. It also allows me to receive handjobs and other similar manual stimulation in the same way. It can make receiving oral sex easier, depending on the technique of the giver. Most fundamentally, however, the foreskin is comprised of nerves that are stimulated by sexual activity. Chopping it off would remove some of the nerves which are responsible for providing me with sexual pleasure. I find it hard to believe that a slightly elevated risk of infections outweighs this and makes circumcision the "pro-sex" option.

I've received varying reactions from women to my uncut status. Some would clearly prefer I be circumcised. Others are happy that I'm not. Most don't seem to care one way or the other. However, the issue has never had any importance in a sexual encounter. I've never had a girl change her mind about anything based on my dick. I can't speak to whether it's more pleasurable for women or not, as I've never had sex with a circumcised penis. I enjoy using my penis, and women seem to enjoy it as well. What I'm trying to say is that the status of my foreskin has had no relevance whatsoever to my sex life.

I don't necessarily think that circumcision should be abolished. The fact that the procedure probably hurts the baby is certainly not ideal, but honestly, I'm not overly bothered by the imposition of what appears to be non-traumatic pain that won't be remembered in service of something that's not harmful. My position would change if our knowledge did (if we knew that the pain was severe or traumatic, or if we knew that circumcision was harmful), but as it is, I'm fine with parents doing whatever's in line with their culture, beliefs, or tradition. I've never spoken to a man who felt that the status of his foreskin had substantially affected his life in any way, and so I find it hard to really advocate one position or the other. If I was asked for my advice, though, I'd probably tell the parents not to do it-- simply because I enjoy my foreskin, removing it is at least minorly unnatural/painful, and I see no benefit to justify this cost.

First of all, RIC (routine infant circumcision) is not "done to men's bodies". It is done to helpless, unconsenting human beings, and it is a horrific, barbaric thing to do to another person.

Second, there is NOTHING creepy about wanting to have a semblance of what was taken away. The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis, and by removing it, the second most sensitive part of the penis -- the glans -- becomes even less sensitive. Men who restore will never regain the wonderful nerve endings that were lost, but in protecting the glans as it was intended with a "restored" foreskin, the glans regains its sensitivity.

I really enjoy this web site, but I was disappointed in the tone of the feministing commentator.

RIC is creepy and disturbing, to put it mildly. If a man wishes to mutilate his body, that's one thing. But what this country routinely does to perfectly healthy boys and their perfectly healthy, normal penises, is nothing less than perverted.

Please check out nocirc.org.

Gregory, no-one's attacking you (or your penis) personally for being circumcised. You're happy with how things are down there, and I'm glad - no need to be so defensive. There's nothing to indicate that properly circumcised men suffer a poorer quality of life in general, just as there's nothing to suggest the same about uncircumcised men.

The whole point is that men should have a CHOICE, and that can't happen if they're circumcised at birth. They should have choice because it's NOT a necessary procedure - your arguments seems to revolve around the notion that uncircumcised penises are dirty and painful, which is absolutely not true - and it's actually quite offensive to suggest that. Further, everyone should use condoms, because circumcision does not prevent you getting any STDs, so it's an equal playing field in that regard. You seem to be arguing that all babies should be circumcised at birth and while you may be happy, it's not fair to impose that on others.

However, I don't think that was the point of this post. It was being argued that women's pleasure should not be a factor in the decision-making process, and I have to disagree with that on the grounds that if circumcision did make sex more painful for women (and there's not enough evidence to suggest that's universally true by any means), then that would directly affect the man's sex life, and as such would be a valid consideration. If I was about to have an unnecessary procedure I would sure as hell want to know that it might make sex painful for the men I was with, because a big part of my sexual gratification comes from knowing that my partner's enjoying it too. I think it shouldn't be the only consideration, and certainly if a man really wants the procedure done then someone else's pleasure should not the the primary concern. But I think it's good for men to be aware of all the facts about circumcision - it's a very relevant factor in the decision-making process I think, IF it was established that this was a universal issue for women.

Ultimately though, a man can only take everything into account and make an informed decision if he's a consenting adult, so the argument against circumcision at birth still stands strong, sorry Gregory.

Honestly, I find it funny and silly that everyone uses the "it looks better!" justification for circumcision. It's like saying that all women should wax or shave their pubic hair b/c, well, many men think it looks better. Has a man ever stopped having sex with a women b/c she was "too hairy?" I doubt many women get down there and think "Ew, uncircumcised, nevermind this is over."

Also, the similarity between circumcision and cutting off a dog's tail or ears for aesthetics comes to mind, and it just turns me off on the practice even more.

If you're Jewish and have strong cultural ties to it for that reason, fine. But for the rest of us... why?

The Law Fairy -

Just as an aside, I'm Australian and female. Both of my brothers are cut (they are younger than me). And in my sexual adventures almost all of the males have been cut too.

I think its more a generational thing with the younger people more likely to be uncut. But im only 27 and cant speak for everyone.

I would be seriously pissed if someone removed a body part I was born with before I was able to say anything about it, and I'm pretty sure I would feel the same way if I were a man.

"Circumcised men can easily wash our penises when we bathe or shower, the same way we wash the rest of our bodies."

Both of my sons are "intact" and neither one has any issues washing their penises. Never had an infection, they are 7 and 5.

"The uncircumsized guys have to pull the skin up and wash under it - which sounds time consuming and painful as hell (I'm sure glad I don't have to do that every day!!!)"

Nah. My five year old is so proud of his foreskin. When he realized that he could retract it and that it contained a penis head, he was ecstatic! I had to explain to him that we don't show people that. It only takes them a few seconds in the shower, pull it back, wipe and rinse. VOILA!

"Also, uncircumsized guys carry infections under their foreskins and can not only spread the germs (including the HIV virus), but are also prone to urinary tract infections."

Well, condoms do a better job at the prevention of infections, guys who are cut do their fair share of spreading. They have slightly higher chance of UTI's, but I don't think that it is more than one or two percentage points.

"Also, on a more subjective note, CIRCUMCIZED PENISES JUST LOOK BETTER."

Because that is what you are used to. Many people don't know what a penis is supposed to look like, therefore it is foreign to them and may seem weird.

I have had lovers who were both cut and uncut. When an intact penis is erect, you can hardly tell a difference. The men who were uncut were able to please me more. The sex felt better, I didn't know why then, but after researching the subject while pregnant I learned why. The whole penis moves in and out of a "sheath", while the cut penis is moving in and out of the vagina which can cause uncomfortable friction.

Some studies show that infants feel more intense pain than adult males when having the procedure, the adults just know how to verbalize what is going on.

My husband is cut. He is proud of the fact that he "spared" his sons and their future lovers. I am so proud that the reason he likes to give people for leaving the boys intact is that their sexual partners will feel more pleasure with them.

"During the aforementioned interblog discussion, Ezra linked to a study showing circumcised men experience a significant decrease in sexual pleasure. Which, to my mind, is more relevant to this debate than anything that appeared in the SF Chronicle article. When we're talking about a procedure that's done to men's bodies, it makes sense to keep the discussion focused on male pleasure and health and, more broadly, on public health. Not women's preferences."

Please note, it's sexual sensitivity that falls, as the glans is not normally protected and thus becomes, as you might imagine, less sensitive.

That's the part that really rather amuses me. As David Friedman pointed out when this first went around the blogs, the limiting factor on the total amount of sexual pleasure available in any one act is probably the length of time it lasts: that usually being determined by how long it takes the male to orgasm and thus become flaccid.
It would therefore be a logical argument to say that reducing male sexual sensitivity increases total sexual pleasure.

Quite where that leaves the argument over circumcision is entirely another matter of course.

I had a four year relationship with an uncut boyfriend and have been married for ten years to my DH who IS cut. I can honestly say that the uncut version involved less pain and artificial lubricant. However, I can also say that the amount of enjoyment I've gotten out of both men has been more dependent on the relationship, rather than on their penis status.
I also have a five year old son. He is uncut, as my husband and I watched a circumcision and vowed to never do that to our baby. When he was still an infant I never retracted his foreskin because I was told it was there to keep feces out of his little baby urethra and that retracting at such an early age would be painful and could damage him. In fact, (I wish I could remember the article I was given on the subject) I was informed that my son should be the first person to retract his own foreskin. So I havn't touched it since he's been potty trained. I've given it a visual once over when giving him a bath, but it's never been an issue. Now that he is starting to shower on his own, my husband will show him how to keep it clean.

"When he was still an infant I never retracted his foreskin because I was told it was there to keep feces out of his little baby urethra and that retracting at such an early age would be painful and could damage him. In fact, (I wish I could remember the article I was given on the subject) I was informed that my son should be the first person to retract his own foreskin."

My sister once dated a man who was uncut. One of his earliest memories were of his father forcibly retracting his foreskin and the pain that he endured due to that. I have never retracted either of my son's foreskins, I left that up to them, and boy were they amused by it!

My five year old once asked my husband why his penis was different, that was a fun conversation ;)

SassyGirl, what a horrid memory for that guy to have!

I think a lot of trouble with uncut boys happens because in the past I think fewer people knew how to deal with them - foreskins, I mean.

Yep, my five year old thought being able to retract his foreskin was a pretty neat trick. He also seemed confused and vaguely offended when told about circumcision - he is routinely a fastidious little boy and didn't understand how cutting off a piece of himself would make him 'cleaner'.

"Now that he is starting to shower on his own, my husband will show him how to keep it clean."

just make sure that your husband reminds him a few times. I had forgotten all about that little lesson, and when you combine my forgetfullness with friends that believed that touching your penis made you "gay", you wind up with a very dirty, very sore penis at an embarrassingly old age.

LindsayPW...

You are my hero!!

And I agree with the fact that foreskin was there for a reason, same as nails are there for a reason, um eye lashes, eyebrows, i mean God cant they just leave them alone, and let theboy take careof it later one...ha

Eyelashes, nails, and foreskins... can you pick out the odd one from the list?

Heh. Well, my eyelashes have some use, I'll not dispute that.

I'm not really sure what my nails are for; I don't have much use for them. But then again, I've been picking them off since I was a little kid. So perhaps I've been self-mutilating all this time.

And lord knows I haven't fully appreciated my appendix. Poor little thing, I think I've ignored it entirely.

Or the hair on my feet. not that I have much of it, but it's there for a reason dammit, so I guess I should appreciate it more. If anyone can tell me what the reason is, I'd like to know. It would help on the appreciation front.

The hair on my face... well, that's also obviously there for a reason, which reason appears to be "make Sailorman hot, uncomfortable, and itchy." Fortunately I'm not a religious man or I'd think that God was pissed off at my chin. But I mutilate that hair almost every day.

Shall I go on? Because I can. There are those pesky wisdom teeth (since removed) which, "natural" though they might be, really sucked to have. And that was one major removal, let me tell you. Did I, um, "mutilate" my mouth and "destroy the natural aspect" of my body? Oops.

Now, I might agree that those things had a reason to exist once, for some evolutionary trend or another. And they're still around today. But that doesn't mean they really do a lot for me today.

Now, it seems pretty obvious to me that foreskin is DEBATABLY in the "appendix" camp and not the "eyelashes" camp. Maybe it's necessary, but, ya know, living without eyelashes sucks, and living without a foreskin isn't really a problem at all.

Of course, that would suggest that some of the anti-circ fanatics are simply trying to claim the "rightness" of the natural body because it's simpler than debating whether the foreskin is ACTUALLY especially necessary. Not that they would do that, of course.

Hello? This is a feminist site - why are you all focussed on men's genitalia?
A few comments have been dedicated to deriding the suggestion that heterosexual women may have difficulty achieving orgasm during penetrative sex with a circumcised male, but seriously, the majority of you have focussed on the penis doing the penetrating. Let's not miss the point here - those articles are generating excited interest in heterosexual's sex lives by attempting to posit a theory with little scientific backing but associated strongly with social norms. If you want to yak about what it means for you when you read articles that put more pressure on (heterosexual) women to be sensitive to their men's needs, then great, but you could do this on any other site than a feminist one. These articles smack of a backlash - "oh it's not just women who are oppressed by socially- or medically-constructed worry about their genitalia, us men are, too". It's the same as articles on men's newly-discovered anxiety that their penises aren't as large as those in sexually explicit videos. Boo hoo.

"Just like male pleasure and preferences should not have a place of prominence in discussions about women's bodies, women's pleasure and preferences should not be at the forefront of the foreskin debate." - Ann

Maybe it shouldn't be at the forefront of the debate, but I think it should be a major consideration.

"Heh. Well, my eyelashes have some use, I'll not dispute that."

BUT, the foreskin DOES serve a purpose. It protects the head of the penis. Have you ever seen an uncut penis? I mean up close, and the head? The head of an uncut penis looks more like and "organ". It is darker in color and is moist. The foreskin protects the sensitivity of the head of the penis by keeping it more of an internal organ.

We could argue until we are blue in the face over this, but my bottom line is that unless it is MY body part, I don't have the right to do anything to it, unless there it poses an immediate health threat to my son, until then, HIS body, HIS choice.

I always find this fascinating as a NZer. I find circumcision unbelievably needless, and while plenty of men are happy with their foreskin-less penis I find the whole procedure pretty distasteful.

Honestly, when men're hard, there's very little difference to be seen. (I was seeing a Canadian man for a while and it took me ages to realise he had no foreskin! Weird) And circumcised men are definitely less sensitive on the underside of the head that is only exposed when erect.

Greg: I rather like playing about with my partner's uncircumcised penis, and I can tell you that for him at least you can full the foreskin awfully far back without discomfort... lol

Random thought:

There seems to be a difference between "increased pleasure" and "lack of pain." Doing something (as an adult) to spare your lover pain is an entirely different matter than doing it to marginally increase their pleasure. One is related the experience of both persons; the other is done for the selfish benefit of one.

No one is saying that vaginal surgery would spare men severe pain. As such, I think it's a bad analogy.

Not coming out on either side - certainly, reducing the spread of STDs is a HUGE concern, and one that men should have for their wives - just saying that there is a certain intellectual dishonesty in equating the removal of pain with a marginal increase in pleasure.

I am pregnant with a boy and am reading everything I can find on circumcision. I find the anti-circ movement smug, and think that equating it with FGM is wrong. My only concerns have been hygiene and my son's sexual satisfaction as an adult.

I want to thank PaperCup for his thoughtful and balanced comment, which has convinced me and my circumcised partner not to circumcise our son.

But, anti-circ folks, tone it down or you will just alienate those of us who just want to make an informed decision.

"Hello? This is a feminist site - why are you all focussed on men's genitalia?"

Routine unnecessary surgery(not without risk of death) that serves to desensitize mens sexual organs which is based on nothing more than societal norms and an antiquated notion of cleanliness? I'd say it's a feminist issue, unless it's cool in the feminist world to be indifferent to men suffering too.

You're welcome, JenM. Thanks for reading.

I think it's absolutely barbaric and wrong to alter off part of a person's body for no medical reason and without their consent. So I am against routine male infant circumcision. If I ever have male children, they can have the procedure done on their own when they're adults if they so choose, but I will not make that decision for them.

An uncircumcised penis is not any dirtier than a circumcised one. Even if it is, labia are cleaner than no labia, so why not cut them off? I've never seen a reason for male circumcision that didn't mirror the exact same excuses people use to justify female circumcision.

As a man circumsized at age 19. I would like to put forward my experence. In my case, I was unable to function sexualy until I was circumsized.

Afterwards it greatly reduced the sensation and was a painful experence for the following two weeks. But I got over it and lived.
My view is that some men (a tiny minority) need to be circumsicised but the reduction in sensation by no means reduced my enjoyment of sex in the long run, it just changed the experence a bit.