Only recently become aware of the potentials of foreskin--when a friend of mine described it as 'a secret built-in sex toy'. And wouldn't you know, someone went and designed a prosthetic foreskin for all the circumcision 'victims' out there. Would you wear it? less

I've never understood circumcision. It's not really medically necessary, so why on earth would you subject a child to that? Maybe there's something I'm not aware of, but it seems pretty horrendous. So far, in schooling, that is the only thing that I really have had a problem watching as far as emotions go. Rant over. less

I've never understood circumcision. It's not really medically necessary, so why on earth would you subject a child to that? Maybe there's something I'm not aware of, but it seems pretty horrendous. So far, in schooling, that is the only thing that I really have had a problem watching as far as emotions go. Rant over. less

This was a discussion when we first had children 13 years ago. I was essentially against circumcision. You can teach a child hygiene. Debate about urinary infections seem to be medically nill. If I'm remembering correctly, the American Academy of Pediatricians does NOT recommend it anymore.

However, at that time, and we were in rather progressive Eugene, OR. 50% of boys were still circumcised. 50% 13 years ago. There was a serious concern on the part of my husband about him looking different as he grew up and having to deal with the entire "male locker room" scenario.

My mom was a nurse. I attended a circumcision before as an aid. Child is not fed for something like 12 or 24 hours. This is a newborn. At the time- no pain medication, I don't know if that's changed. The thought was it was a relatively quick, pain free procedure. The Parents weren't there, but I can tell you one thing. The child was not amused. He didn't scream bloody murder, but he wasn't happy either.

We had girls... I wouldn't recommend circumcision. Not with everything I know. less

I'm not necessarily advocating circumcision, and would never look down on anyone for being (un)circumcised or for their decision to circumcise their child or not. It's a truly terrible thing if you have been circumcised and regret the decision your parents made.

However, if we could avoid comparisons of FGM to circumcision on this thread and elsewhere, I'd really appreciate it. FGM is a brutal process that is done with the specific intent of ruining any and all sexual pleasure a woman might ever have in her life. It is done to exert male control over women's bodies and to take away their personal agency.

Male circumcision does not carry with it the power issues or the complete destruction of any ability AT ALL to feel sexual pleasure. They are not parallel procedures, if FGM can be called a "procedure" at all. less

Wanted to add to my post above. I read your MSN article and if you really think about it.

You take an circumcised man and have him sleep with an infected women. And you have an non circumcised man sleep with an infected women they BOTH are infected. So really that study really doesn't prove anything except you have to choose the right partner and use condoms to protect your self.

Anyone can get infected circumcised or not. less

Two things: first, the study proves that for unprotected sex, a male is 70% less likely to contract HIV through heterosexual sex. So, no: seven out of ten cases, the unprotected circumcised man does NOT become infected. Your characterization of HIV as "a disease of people just messing around and not taking full safety precautions" is a gross oversimplification and deserves no further comment from me. I'm frankly surprised to see that on a sex-positive site.

Second: it's extremely offensive and ignorant to claim that FGM and male circumcision are even remotely in the same category. Read up on FGM. less

Hmmm. Sorry if I sounded so forthright then - it's just a topic I feel VERY strongly about.

Of course FGM is WORSE than male circumcision - but they're definitely related and because one is worse than the other doesn't make either of them acceptable.

I think an adult deciding to get circumcised is FINE. I've known two and they walked like they'd been kicked in the nuts for three weeks afterwards. However, it's no different than splitting your tongue or getting a piercing - it's consensual body modification.

However, performing the operation on an unwilling infant, without anesthetic, is just cruel and disgusting. Sure, kids don't remember having the operation done when they grow up. That doesn't mean it's not HORRIBLY painful and traumatic.

Plus, circumcisions go wrong all the time. Just look at that kid in Canada, who had his penis 'lasered' off during circumcision. My wife's former boyfriend had a botched circumcision and thirty years later, still had painful scars and welts and the foreskin was never quite detached from the glans.

WHY do it? It's totally needless. less

Hmmm. Sorry if I sounded so forthright then - it's just a topic I feel VERY strongly about.

Of course FGM is WORSE than male circumcision - but they're definitely related and because one is worse than the other doesn't make either of them acceptable.

I think an adult deciding to get circumcised is FINE. I've known two and they walked like they'd been kicked in the nuts for three weeks afterwards. However, it's no different than splitting your tongue or getting a piercing - it's consensual body modification.

However, performing the operation on an unwilling infant, without anesthetic, is just cruel and disgusting. Sure, kids don't remember having the operation done when they grow up. That doesn't mean it's not HORRIBLY painful and traumatic.

Plus, circumcisions go wrong all the time. Just look at that kid in Canada, who had his penis 'lasered' off during circumcision. My wife's former boyfriend had a botched circumcision and thirty years later, still had painful scars and welts and the foreskin was never quite detached from the glans.

WHY do it? It's totally needless. less

I don't want to sound like I'm advocating circumcision: I just want people to be aware that there are concrete disease-prevention reasons that people might choose to circumcise. The scientists in the study I linked above had to stop the study months early because the results were so overwhelmingly clear: they could not ethically continue the study without offering every single participant circumcision because it was so effective at preventing HIV transmission. In a perfect world, no one would have to worry about HIV transmission. As it stands, parents should not be demonized or made to feel ashamed of their decision if they have their son circumcised to prevent infection (this holds especially for people in Africa since infection rates are so high). Obviously, the lower the individual infection rate, the less the community needs to worry. It's a herd phenomenon and I think it's perfectly reasonable justification. People will make whatever decision they make, but they should have all the facts.

I do take issue, however with saying that make circumcision and FGM are even related: they are similar in that both involve genital regions. The similarities end there. The motivations are completely different: male circumcision is often motivated by tradition, aesthetics, and health concerns. It does not (when not botched) result in long-term crippling of sexual function. FGM is motivated by a desire to control the sexuality of the victim, to make it impossible for that victim to have sexual agency, and to express ownership over that victim. It's apples and oranges. less

I will agree that the situation in Africa is DEFINITELY different to the situation here.

In the western world, the 'benefits' of circumcision compared to the risks are negligible. So why do it?

And listen, I don't want to offend you, but I TOTALLY disagree with you on the subject of FGM and you'll find I'm not alone. Certainly, male circumcision isn't nearly as severe, but even WHO workers in Africa acknowledge that they're related.

This is the transcript of a radio interview with Dr. Nahid Toubia, physician and director of Research Arction Information Network for the Bodily Integrity of Women:

Maureen Primerana asked: "I understand that in the communities where female genital mutilation occurs, it is often referred to as female circumcision, however, this term implies an analogy with male circumcision, which is not the case. Could you explain the difference?"

Dr NahidToubia replied: "Well, I disagree with you that it's not the case. I think the people who say that there are no similarities are people who don't want to address male circumcision basically. Number one, they're done as a ritual. It's not done to mutilate anybody. It's done as a positive cultural ritual even though it creates damage. But the intent of it is something to keep the child part of the community, part of their peer group, part of an ancestral ritual that's based on culture, sometimes in a misperception, sometimes some people feel it's based on religion. So in that sense, it's not that different from male circumcision. And many of the societies that do female circumcision actually do male circumcision around the same time. They don't see this difference. The other similarity, I think, is the fact that it's done on a child without the child's consent. Now, regardless of the degree of damage, I think any physical cutting of a child, to our understanding today in the 1990s is a human rights violation of that child. less

I will agree that the situation in Africa is DEFINITELY different to the situation here.

In the western world, the 'benefits' of circumcision compared to the risks are negligible. So why do it?

And listen, I don't want to offend you, but I TOTALLY disagree with you on the subject of FGM and you'll find I'm not alone. Certainly, male circumcision isn't nearly as severe, but even WHO workers in Africa acknowledge that they're related.

This is the transcript of a radio interview with Dr. Nahid Toubia, physician and director of Research Arction Information Network for the Bodily Integrity of Women:

Maureen Primerana asked: "I understand that in the communities where female genital mutilation occurs, it is often referred to as female circumcision, however, this term implies an analogy with male circumcision, which is not the case. Could you explain the difference?"

Dr NahidToubia replied: "Well, I disagree with you that it's not the case. I think the people who say that there are no similarities are people who don't want to address male circumcision basically. Number one, they're done as a ritual. It's not done to mutilate anybody. It's done as a positive cultural ritual even though it creates damage. But the intent of it is something to keep the child part of the community, part of their peer group, part of an ancestral ritual that's based on culture, sometimes in a misperception, sometimes some people feel it's based on religion. So in that sense, it's not that different from male circumcision. And many of the societies that do female circumcision actually do male circumcision around the same time. They don't see this difference. The other similarity, I think, is the fact that it's done on a child without the child's consent. Now, regardless of the degree of damage, I think any physical cutting of a child, to our understanding today in the 1990s is a human rights violation of that child. less

I will agree that the situation in Africa is DEFINITELY different to the situation here.

In the western world, the 'benefits' of circumcision compared to the risks are negligible. So why do it?

And listen, I don't want to offend you, but I TOTALLY disagree with you on the subject of FGM and you'll find I'm not alone. Certainly, male circumcision isn't nearly as severe, but even WHO workers in Africa acknowledge that they're related.

This is the transcript of a radio interview with Dr. Nahid Toubia, physician and director of Research Arction Information Network for the Bodily Integrity of Women:

Maureen Primerana asked: "I understand that in the communities where female genital mutilation occurs, it is often referred to as female circumcision, however, this term implies an analogy with male circumcision, which is not the case. Could you explain the difference?"

Dr NahidToubia replied: "Well, I disagree with you that it's not the case. I think the people who say that there are no similarities are people who don't want to address male circumcision basically. Number one, they're done as a ritual. It's not done to mutilate anybody. It's done as a positive cultural ritual even though it creates damage. But the intent of it is something to keep the child part of the community, part of their peer group, part of an ancestral ritual that's based on culture, sometimes in a misperception, sometimes some people feel it's based on religion. So in that sense, it's not that different from male circumcision. And many of the societies that do female circumcision actually do male circumcision around the same time. They don't see this difference. The other similarity, I think, is the fact that it's done on a child without the child's consent. Now, regardless of the degree of damage, I think any physical cutting of a child, to our understanding today in the 1990s is a human rights violation of that child. less