There's a good reason why women would want men with foreskins anyway. When he has one, he must be gentle on entry into the woman otherwise he could tear or injure his skin. Without a foreskin he can just ram it in if he so wants (not saying circumcised men do this)

The thing is Fallen1, that men that are already circumcised believe that their sons should be as well. It's something that just follows tradition/generations. Nobody ever stops and says "hey, why are we doing this, isn't this brabaric, and in a day and age when human rights are to the forefront, shouldn't we let the boy decide later in life" As I said in a previous thread, someday we will regard this as barbaric, unnecessary and gross. Remember, even in the Bible there is no proof that it occurred. The Bible is a faith, Religion. It is what people believe but that doesn't mean it is true!

Pffft the whole notion of comparing male circumcision to female circumcision is rediculas and juvenile at best..

You don't get it do you sidneyalive? Maybe THEY wanted it. It was THEIR choice. If a man wants to be circumcised when he is grown up and can make that decision, then that's his choice. The point is, it shouldn't be done without his consent, for any reason. How would you like me to tell you that you had to have a piece of skin removed from your vagina?

[Fallen1]

And, by the way, if you were to hold a concensus in the street on whether men would prefer to be circumcised you would find that the vast majority would not want it. But again , the bottom line is, and this goes for men and women, people should make their own decisions on their bodies.

Agreed. Each individual should make the decision about their own bodies.

I will add ...... I have two sons, both of which are circumcised. The decision was left up to their father (which was circumcised) and he was the one to choose to have it done for them.

I'm wondering really how many men who are circumcised think about it? As I stated in another post, I've had a handful of partners, all but one circumcised, and none of them ever mentioned to me that they wished they hadn't been. Is it a case of not missing what you never had and those that have it couldn't imagine not having the foreskin?

Ok, why did they have it removed in adulthood ?

spot on Wildchild.

[LittleLily]

In other words, why shouldn't both men and women wash/shower before oral sex anyway?

Finally, there is best quote I had ever read in this forum. I believed both sex enjoy oral sex, except some might have phobia of the odor but yet to confront their partners. Hygience plays important role in oral , then both can enjoy sucking and licking - with best possible odor.

Whats going on here is men are trying to equate torcher and being mutilated with circumcision, they aren't even in the same ball park, a guy has no recollection of Circumcision, there was no pain or mutilation, and I defy any sane man to tell me otherwise, where a girl/woman will carry the pain and scars with her for the of her life, if she lives through it that is.. sidneyalive - No, no one is saying it is the same, but both are mutilation. You will never understand why men won't want to be circumcised. Same as we will never understand how it is to have a period. And, by the way, if you were to hold a concensus in the street on whether men would prefer to be circumcised you would find that the vast majority would not want it. But again , the bottom line is, and this goes for men and women, people should make their own decisions on their bodies.

[WildChild]

No sexual part of a mans body has been taken away, how can you even say such a thing, it's a piece of skin that feels nothing, where as a young girl has her sexual organs cut out and in some cases she is sewn shut..

The foreskin certainly does have feeling, as any man who has his can attest. Having it removed does not prevent a man from enjoying sex but men who have had it removed in adulthood have shared that their sensation and sensitivity is altered.