Thread: To Cut or Not To Cut

As I've mentioned before, I am against routine infant circumcision (RIC.) I've looked into it and think that the medical "benefits" of circumcision weigh out with the benefits of keeping a penis intact. Also, the studies on HIV contraction are a little suspect.
To circumcise in infancy, the foreskin must be ripped from the head, possibly causing scarring and other damage. There are concerns about the varying methods of circumcision and whether to use anesthesia.
Some will say that male circumcision and female circumcision are incomparable, but I disagree. While there are obviously methods of FGM that are far above and beyond RIC, even the ones that constitute the same loss of body parts and sensation (Type I on Wikipedia) are illegal in the US. Even a "ritual pinprick" is illegal in the US. It's my belief that one day RIC on males will also be illegal here (I'm not sure I agree with this ban, but I think it will happen regardless.)

I may be incorrect about this, since I obviously frequent intactivist websites, but I thought it was common understanding now that circumcision became routine in an effort to cut down on masturbation? Though I hope not to be privy to my son's sexual activity in the future, I wouldn't want to consciously limit it.

As a woman, my interaction with penises both intact and cut have led me to the conclusion that those men having intact penises were simpler to please sexually because they got more pleasure from acts directly involving the penis. YMMV.