I just thought I'd hijack your thread, Broadsheeters.

Circumcision doesn't sometimes cause scarring. Circumcision always causes scarring, it's just that some scars are bigger or uglier than others.

You should check out http://www.nocirc.org/touch-test/touchtest.php for another study related to loss of sensitivity.

Just goes to show that research is often poorly designed. I'm uncircumcised and the very tip of my foreskin is by far the most sensitive part of my entire penis. I guess they were stimulating the wrong part.

In the end, gential mutilation for religious or any other grounds is just barbaric - for either sex. Some studies have found that circumcision cuts infection rates. If course it does. I'm sure that amputation of the big toe at birth would also cut the incidence of athletes foot, bunions and ingrown toenails. So why is no-one advocating that?

The basic question is this: should a human being have the right to make decisions about his or her body?

We are not discussing a medically necessary procedure. This is not a story about parents' rights. Male children are regularly mutilated in this and other countries without their consent, and we are discussing the "pleasure principle." Ridiculous.

For fuck's sake before Broadsheet becomes the crazy cat lady of Salon.

I'm circumcised, my son is circumcised, and I don't feel the slightest bit guilty/oppressed about it. I'd do it again in a second. I also cut his hair, trim his nails and other various things which make it easier to keep him clean and germ free.

Also, I don't feel I'm superior to uncut men or that I'm somehow "mutilated" or missing out on some mind-blowing sexual pleasure. Or that I've somehow "ruined" my son for all that future sex he's going to have. And I often make decisions on his behalf without consulting his opinion first. He's 2-years-old and I'm his father, so I'd say that's pretty normal as well.

So just let it be, anonymous'. Seriously. And that goes for you too, "Broadsheet"!

now we know for sure you really like it.

and even then they don't compare because if it's done as an adult you haven't experienced the long term developmental effects

I'm sorry, but it's hard not to call that mutilation. You are cutting a piece of a baby's penis off.

I can understand a person not thinking it is wrong, because it has been the norm for so many years, and most likely they are circumcised, and they don't feel scarred. But you really can't compare unless you have both, which of course is impossible. However, my foreskin is the most sensitive part of my penis...it just is. Plus it covers the head from all the chaffing throughout the day.

And just another thought here...if men's penises were more sensitive, than maybe they would like it more gentle and slow. I'm sure many women would appreciate that. I'm not saying...I'm just saying...something to think about. (Of course everyone loves a big finale-the big crescendo, if you will.)

I'm circumcised, my son is circumcised, and I don't feel the slightest bit guilty/oppressed about it. I'd do it again in a second. I also cut his hair, trim his nails and other various things which make it easier to keep him clean and germ free.

And I often make decisions on his behalf without consulting his opinion first. He's 2-years-old and I'm his father, so I'd say that's pretty normal as well.

1. The fact you do not feel bad about something is never a justification, moral or legal, to infringe the rights of another person.

2. You begin by talking about circumcision and then switch to hair, nails, etc. which only shows your unwillingness to confront the fundamnetal differences between irrevocable removal of healthy, functional human tissue (i.e. surgical amputation) and routine removal of dead cells (i.e. grooming).

3. You refer to making your son "germ free," indicating an astounding ignorance of biology.

May you do feel a bit "guilty/oppressed" deep down or you wouldn't need to justify the supposedly self-evident justifications for your actions to a group of strangers.

Lots of studies have found that circumcision dramatically decreases the risk of contracting HIV. Men are lining up to get circumcised in sub-Saharan African countries. If cutting HIV transmission rates is not a good argument in favor of the practice, I don't know what is.

Salon Should change the masthead to:

"HOT TALK!! DICK, TITS & PUSSY."

and in italics below:

"New and Improved, With a Twist of Sophistry."

It's like a spewing gutter cornucopia of tabloid ad-revenue, and Elitabeth Hambrecht and Joan Walsh just can't break the addiction.

... and have three observations to make.

1 -- I have no recollection of my circumcision.

2 -- I'm not 100% sure what a foreskin is, exactly.

3 -- I'm 100% sure that I don't want one.

This article from Reuters explains that the study, which was a small, 40-men affair at McGill University in Montreal, found that uncircumcised men "received no more sexual sensation than circumcised men."

RIIIIGHHHT! And if you truly buy that codswallop then I have an acre of beach front land on Barbados' east coast for you - at one dollar an acre! I'll even toss in a beach house for five bucks!

Look, the nerve endings - ten to twenty times more than in the rest of the penis, are concentrated in the foreskin. You cut - foreskin goes, so do nerve endings. This is not that difficult to understand.

I can understand that the poor slobs in this study who had the unkind cut done to them, might want to believe they experienced the same intensity of pleasure - but all it amounts to is wishful thinking in the end.

Call it a "penile placebo effect".

that THEREFORE and BECAUSE of the effect on the woman's O, male circumcision was bad.

When did it go back to being good again?

Have you polled the women? Who cares what a bunch of disgruntled men have to say?

By that standard I bet we could find that FGM doesn't harm women either.