It's unnecessary mutilation of an unconsenting newborn.

And a good question to ask is; why do it? People claim it's cleaner-- yeah, maybe, if you live in the middle ages and don't have access to a shower once a week.

If foreskin was detrimental to mammals we simply would have evolved it off ages ago.

I agree with you on all these points, Tore.

Why non-therapeutic genital cutting of male children is accepted in the U.S.: I think because people often follow entrenched customs without thinking to question them. They assume there is justification. They assume that medical benefits outweigh the risks and harms caused when people cut off healthy, functional parts of a child's penis.

Also, most people don't seem to know anything about the foreskin and its functions, or think to ask why human males like other mammals have foreskins. I suspect it is probably easier for people to destroy a child's body part when they don't know how the foreskin functions or know of its benefits. They aren't used to the appearance of a boy or man's intact penis and think it is weird or gross.

I am very troubled that people so easily cut off a healthy part of children's genitalia. Circumcision is an obvious human rights violation, in my opinion. When people do this to a girl's foreskin (the clitoral hood), it is called genital mutilation, but when you call male circumcision what it is...genital mutilation...supporters can't handle the reality of what they are doing to children. They come up with all sorts of rationales to avoid the obvious and to dismiss the damage of what they are doing to kids.

As someone whose writing I like very much ;) once said:

*******

"You were my parents and you should have been protecting me.
Instead you had them slice and violate my body.
You shouldn’t torture little children’s sexuality.
You had no right to harm the most private part of me.

"You claim you had some sort of justification
for perpetrating genital mutilation.
You claim that circumcision improves hygiene,
but you don’t cut off children’s body parts to keep them clean!

"You claim you wanted to protect me from HIV,
but how to do that best is teach the rules of ABC:
abstinence, be faithful, and ensure consistent condom use.
You don’t stop STIs by perpetrating child abuse!

"You claim you did it for your culture or religion.
What kind of culture turns abuse into tradition?
You say your god tells you to cut your helpless offspring.
You shouldn’t make a child’s torture be an offering.

"Mutilating genitals of little girls is wrong, you cry,
but when it is a little boy, you turn your blind eye.
You had no right to make your violent incision.
What happens to my body should be my decision!

"You pinned a little child down. You cut his penis by force.
Yet you acknowledge no wrongdoing. You feel no remorse.
You violated my genital integrity.
You had no right to harm the most private part of me.

"Fondle little children and you’ll spend your life in jail.
Why can you cut their foreskin off if they are male?!
There is no rationale, no justification.
You perpetrated genital mutilation."

*******

I'm really surprised at these results. There is a fairly significant advantage for hygeine with a circumcised penis. Sure, you can prevent bacteria build-up under the foreskin by keeping on top of personal hygeine, but many boys aren't taught to provide the necessary care to avoid it. This can lead to urinary tract infections.

And then there's the whole sexual health issue. There's an increased risk for STDs as removing the foreskin prevents any possibility of succumbing to one due to the build-up of the agents that cause STDs by burrowing under the foreskin. It's not like it's a cure-all, but it helps. And then there's cancer of the penis, which the odds of getting are drastically reduced for circumcised men.

I know there are many adult circumcisions due to health problems. Ultimately the decision is left up to the parents, but they should be made aware of the health risks.

I used to think that uncut penises were weird looking and would never sleep with a guy who was uncut...whoops. My boyfriend's uncut, hurr durr. It feels a lot better, honestly. I've always been against it in the case of my future offspring though.

About urinary tract infections:
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says that the absolute risk of developing a urinary tract infection (UTI) in an uncircumcised male infant is low (at most ~ 1%) (1999 Circumcision Policy Statement), and UTIs are usually successfully treated with antibiotics.

Thom, why should people cut off part of children's genitalia simply because parents may fail to teach children proper hygiene, especially when urinary tract infections are treatable and the harm caused by urinary tract infections is much less than the permanent damage caused by circumcision? Perhaps if parents were threatened with the loss of part of their genitalia, they'd do a better job teaching their kids about proper hygiene! :p:

About sexually transmitted diseases:
Studies in the U.S. have found that intact males do not have an increased risk of STD infection, including HIV (Laument, E.O., et al. (1997) JAMA, 277:1052-1057 and Thomas, AG, et al. (2004) International AIDS Society).

I think you are referring to recent studies of African men who were circumcised in their late teens and adulthood. Although three studies in Africa found that men had approximately a 50% reduced risk of HIV infection in the year following circumcision, over 1% of the circumcised men still became infected with HIV (Bailey, R.C., et al. (2007) Lancet, 369: 943-656). One out of 100 circumcised men still got HIV in just one year!!!

Rather than circumcising babies, who are not sexually active, parents who fear that their child may contract a sexually transmitted disease can teach him about the most effective STD prevention techniques: abstinence, safer sex (which includes consistent use of condoms, fidelity to one's partner, and reduction in the number of partners), and genital hygiene (retracting the foreskin and washing and drying the penis shaft daily and after sexual activity).

About cancer of the penis:
The American Medical Association states that since penile cancer is so rare (0.9 to 1 per 100,000 men) and occurs late in life, circumcision as a preventive practice is not justified. One of the rarest cancers, penile cancer is even less common than male breast cancer! Known penile cancer risk factors are smoking cigarettes and having unprotected sexual relations with multiple partners.

If adults (18 years old and older) want to be circumcised, that is their right, but in my opinion newborn and older children should have a legal right to their intact, healthy bodies. Newborn and older kids should be allowed to grow up intact so that as adults they can decide for themselves if they wish to undergo cutting of their most private of body parts.

That's a really good question.

The organization Doctors Opposing Circumcision writes that "if we circumcise 100,000 boys we allegedly prevent 900 transient, curable UTIs (urinary tract infections) and one penile cancer case, in an 80-year-old (American Cancer Society Statistics). We have also caused between 1,000 complications (1 percent, AAP statistics) or 5,000 to 7,000 complications (5 to 7 percent, British Urology Statistics), including hundreds of permanent, sexually cripping, botched circumcisions and at least one death. The STD studies are murky and inconclusive and do not suggest prophylaxis worth even the immediate risk, let alone the lifetime losses."

Also consider the functions of the foreskin that are lost to the child forever due to circumcision. The foreskin has protective, sensory, and sexual functions. A baby boy's intact foreskin, which is almost always fused to the glans at birth much like the fingernail is fused to the nail bed, protects it from urine and fecal matter during the diaper stage, contains numerous erogenous, fine-touch sensory receptors similar to those in the lips, and matures into a natural sliding and gliding mechanism that enables non-abrasive sexual activity.

Three of the most sensitive areas of the natural, intact penis are (1) the specialized foreskin structure called the "ridged band," (2) the tip of the foreskin, and (3) the frenulum, which attaches the foreskin to the glans, all of which are removed by circumcision. A recent study found that "five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision were more sensitive than the most sensitive location on the circumcised penis," which is the circumcision scar on the ventral side (Sorrells, M.L., et al. (2007) Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis, BJU International, 99: 864 - 869).

Is there anyone here who actually has suffered as the result of it?

I never said it was a drastic improvement but I think it's significant enough to warrant doing it. And it's not so much the parents not doing a good enough job teaching their children about personal hygeine as it is flat out ignorance about it.

Personally, I'm the opposite of what alot are talking about in this thread. I am uncircumcised, but wish I had been circumcised. I've never suffered any problems from it because I've always been on top of personal hygeine and practicing safe sex, but I can easily see how it would be a problem for guys that aren't knowledgeable about it. My doctor has even recommended it just as a precaution and he said many people do it for that reason. I haven't gone through with it because there's no way I'm dealing with that at this time in my life. I know that sounds hypocritical to want to put someone else through that, but if I had been circumcised as an infant with no memory of it whatsoever, I wouldn't care at all about it later in life.

Hmm... that felt very personal. Oh well.

Thom said what I would feel if I had a dick. It seems the men I've known who've had it left all live regretting not receiving it as a child, but I suppose that's a small sample.

I am cut and this is how I feel about it. Don't remember it so honestly don't really care.

And thankfully it seems most girls in the States prefer it cut, so I'm ok with it

1% for urinary tract infections? 0% for STDs? Significant?