[JonDoe]

I honestly don't remember the doctors consulting with us before performing circumcision on our two boys; although, I am nearly certain that we must have signed something along the way. I'm older and wiser now, and I will recommend to my sons that they not have their boys circumcised. This ritual had a time and place when it probably had a practical application, but in my opinion that is no longer the case in the 21 century. I wish I had given it proper thought before my boys were born.

[Hugo-B]

I bet there isn't one man here who was voluntarily circumcised as an adult for non medical reasons.

[alex0_0]

I actually agree with the previous statement about it being mutilation. There are places in Africa where parts of young girls clitoris' are cut, somehow the same idea with young American boys doesn't seem very different from that brutal practice. Would the women here feel different about male circumcision if there were places in the United States were little girl's clitoris' were getting cut?
Hygiene is hygiene. There isn't a guy out there who doesn't clean his penis. If they don't then they clearly aren't having sex as much. Medically there actually is no difference one way or another in all honesty. There really isn't.
Russell Crowe made an interesting statement about circumcision some time back. He said it was a brutal practice because he believed that babies are born perfect. We as adults should not mutilate a male baby because we think male babies are born imperfect.
I tend to think Russell Crowe is right. If males were not meant to have foreskin we wouldn't have been born with foreskin. I personally would be ****ed- honestly ****ED- if I was circumcised as a child. I am glad that my parents have left me intact. I like my foreskin and wouldn't get a circumcision for anything. I've never had a female say anything one way or another about my foreskin and I honestly doubt I ever will.

[Stillness]

I bet there isn't one man here who was voluntarily circumcised as an adult for non medical reasons.

There are plenty of men that do and have done it for cultural/spiritual reasons. My dad did.

[DreamP346]

Genital mutilation doesn't compare. It would be more akin to removing the glans or the entire penis. And aside from the backwards mentality it messes people up. Circumcision conveys benefits. I have had at least one cousin that had to be circumcised later in life because his foreskin caused problems. For another cousin his mother was saying it might be necessary, but I don't know if she had to. This is apparently not an uncommon situation. Circumcised men just don't get those kinds of infections. That means they're safer for themselves and their wives..

There are risks of the actual procedure and many babies do get infections. Some (a very small percentage), even have long term problems. We could have a huge debate on the benefits of circumcision. There are just as many advantages of not getting it. Currently, there isn't data to show that the benefits of circumcision are greater than the risks.

[Little]

Trying to compare the practice we call FGM to male circumcision is difficult because there are different levels of FGM. A popular graphic shows 4 levels of removal - from something very akin to what Western culture does to male infants, ranging up to a heinous level of tissue removal that really MUST be called mutilation.

[ItsASecret]

There are places in Africa where parts of young girls clitoris' are cut, somehow the same idea with young American boys doesn't seem very different from that brutal practice.

In Africa the girl's clitoris is cut out with a sharp rock or dirty knife in an unsterile environment with zero medical attention around. A male infant has it done by a trained doctor, with a sterile knife, in a safe environment and antibiotics on hand should any infection occur. They are not the same.

[Hugo-B]

There are plenty of men that do and have done it for cultural/spiritual reasons. My dad did.

I know some people who convert to certain religions do do it. The only technicality I can try and get you on is that - with respect - your dad isn't a poster on here, and I said on here

[Hugo-B]

There are risks of the actual procedure and many babies do get infections. Some (a very small percentage), even have long term problems. We could have a huge debate on the benefits of circumcision. There are just as many advantages of not getting it. Currently, there isn't data to show that the benefits of circumcision are greater than the risks.

Mutilate, by definition means to inflict a violent and disfiguring injury or inflict serious damage. I can see how that sounds somewhat dramatic. Circumcision is irreversible, and you are removing part of the penis when you perform a circumcision. To remove part of something which cannot be replaced is in my opinion disfiguring (which by definition means to spoil the appearance). This is without the issue that on baby circumcision the baby cannot consent. I have no problem with male adult circumcision.

I know me describing a circumcised penis as disfigured could be interpreted as an insult to someone who is circumcised or believes in it, but I do not mean disfigured in a negative or derogatory sense. A circumcised penis is - as we know - a penis which has had the foreskin (which is a natural 'component' of the penis) removed, therefore its appearance in the natural sense (as in it does not look a nature intended it to look) has been spoiled, so I do feel it conforms with the definition of disfigured. As far as a disfiguring injury, once a circumcised penis heals I wouldn't describe it as injured, but my friend who was circumcised at 17 certainly felt injured after the operation had been performed.

So by definition if I can successfully argue, as I have tried to above, that a circumcision is, when it is performed, a disfiguring injury then it conforms with the definition of mutilation. If I cut a baby's little toes off arguing that it didn't need them I'm sure the parent would argue that I had mutilated/disfigured its feet, I don't see how cutting a foreskin off is any different in terms of mutilating/disfiguring goes.

I really don't mean to offend anyone, we only have to read the posts here to see many women here actually PREFER the look and feel of a circumcised penis, which supports my statement above that I really do NOT mean disfigured in a derogatory way, nor do I intended to insult or offend.

Rant over

[Claret]

Just a bit of the medical background to circumcision - years ago there were doctors that noticed that partners of men that were circumcised had less cervical cancer and cancers of the uterus. The practise of circumcising males became more prevalent around that time. It was also thought that circumcision was cleaner than uncircumcised and would prevent problems in the males as well. I'd like to be able to cite the studies (there were more than one) unfortunately my memory isn't that good anymore.