Can you back up your claim about "many more men wishing that they had the procedure when they were infants than grown men complaining that they HAD the procedure" with any scientific publication, I highly doubt it.
Also, many of the studies about benefits of circumcision have been carried out in the US where the practice is common while studies carried out in the rest of the world where the practice is not common come to the conclusion that the benfits are non-existent or very small.
However, no matter what the benefits are, it is still clear that removing a sexually sensitive part of the body impacts the person for life and causes a mutilation that can never be undone. I am not arguing against it in general, only against parents making that decision for their child instead of every man making it for himself when they are grown up.

try wearing a johnny

Most of the claimed medical advantages are either very dubious when we look at meta-studies, or of dubious use anyway (e.g. if circumcision makes an infection by hiv really a little bit less likely -- it will by no means prevent the infection -- people may be motivated less to use proper protection, reversing the advantage).
But all this is really not the point. What is of a primary concern here is if it is ok to deprive a human being of the joy and experience it could have had through having a foreskin. It is well known that the foreskin is sexually sensitive and helps with sexual stimulation and this is also the main reason why puritan doctors and parents wanted circumcision originally: to make it harder for boys and young men to masturbate. So yes, traditionally circumcision was used to control sexuality. Nowadays so many people in the US have accepted it as just being "normal" that they simply try to come up with other excuses to continue mutilate their children. The way this happens looks very similar to me to religious traditions.
There is also another factor at work here: circumcised men do not know what it means to have a foreskin, so they do not miss it. Also, the decision was made by their parents whom many of them love dearly. So accepting that this is a bad practice would imply that their beloved parents did something that is bad to them which would put them in a severe emotional conflict. Better then to find some dubious medical reasons why this is a good practice, no?

Josmi6669 -would you rather be a little bit LESS likely or likely to get HIV ,I Prefer less likely

@HarrySlick But this is not really the point of my question. If you prefer less likely, fine, you can have your circumcision when you are an adult and old enough to make this decision for yourself. If you would rather slightly decrease the probability of getting HIV by having unprotected sex with a much less sensitive penis rather than almost completely reduce it by having protected sex, chop off your foreskin. However, I think it is brutal and irresponsible for parents to force that decision which can never be undone on their child.

@josmi6699 The same argument is used by weeping Nigerian mothers as their daughter's legs are held apart so the wise woman can slice off their clitoris. The razor blade is used twice, and mothers pray their daughter will get the first slice, as it tends to blunt the blade. This is the world we live in.

it wouldn't be that most doctors are jewish or muslim or cut would it ? I wonder !

Besides my wife ,before I got married other woman have told me the exact same thing you have stated.

Then maybe it is because this is what you are used to and what is expected in your culture, not very different from cultures where FGM is common. Does not excuse the act of mutilating the penis of a little boy, in my opinion. Women from other regions of the globe where circumcision is not done usually feel exactly the other way round: to them, a circumcised penis looks, well, mutilated or missing something.

@josmi6699 you're right. But I think the parents should still have a choice.

@JaciBea I know they are most sensitive but I don't care. Need them to last longer! Hahah

possibly

Seeing uncircumcised penises when I was kid was freaky and I thought they were all bad. However I entered into a relationship with this dude and I think he has a really pretty uncircumcised penis. Now that I know you can just push the skin back its better. If I was just hooking up, I wouldn't care enough to deal with it and would prefer cicumcised.

I have been with cut and uncut men. I find either version to be just as appealing. My uncut man had been taught by his momma how to clean, ya have to pull the skin back and clean the thing off. Good personal hygiene is important.

You are a perfect example .There are never problems from having Circumcisions only from the lack of having them

@richiegtt this is factually wrong. The problems caused by circumcision vary depending on who carries out the procedure. Proper surgical removal comes with a rate of 3% of problems of which certain part can be resolved soon after the procedure and a small part stays permanent. But again, this is not my point. I am not opposing circumcision or related medical procedures for medical reasons. I am opposing it as something that is forced on all male children, impacting their sexual feelings for life and causing the removal of a sexually very sensitive part of their body for life without giving them the option to make their own decision about it.
Circumcision carried out by rabbis or other non-professionals comes with a much higher rate of problems. As you will well know, circumcision is a procedure that originally was a religious ritual. Puritan parents and doctors in the US found out that it helps with reducing the tendency to masturbate with young boys because of the reduced sexual sensitivity so the practice became more widespread in the US in the 1900s. Billions of people outside of the US live happy, healthy and clean lives without having this forced upon them and only few males choose to have it done for the so-called benefits.

try working your zipper correctly

Many men are also forced to get circumcisions as an adult due to problems related to the foreskin. I hear it's a hellish painful risky surgical procedure. All the more reason for parents to make the decision for infant males.

There is no such proven link. There is now effective vaccination against some strains of cancer causing papilloma virus and condoms are a much better and safer way for prevention anyway.

@josmi6699 [womenshealthmag.com]

@evergreen It's all cultural.

Evergreen I read your excellent link .Apparently all these foreskin aficionados disregard medical literature,research ,surveys, first hand knowledge etc ,probably due to cognitive dissonance

evergreen- Thanks for the informative link . Some of these members should read it .
Perhaps they may learn something

Good comment

This Circumcision mutilation is so ridiculous. It’s the same as me saying my throat was mutilated when my tonsils were removed when I was 3 years old with out my permission ( which they were)

@HarrySlick - I imagine there was something wrong with your tonsils which is why they were removed. If they were perfectly healthy, then, yes, it was mutilation. These things are fads & fashions, and cultural norms, nothing else.

If a child is suffering from phimosis in infancy, that's a medical condition which may or may not resolve itself by the time the boy is 16. It currently affects 10% of American boys. So I suppose only 10% are circumcised?

80 % in the states 2 % in UK 20 % in Canada and none in scandanavia. welcome to the 21st century all you sadists

@markdevenish - So America's up there with all the religious muslim countries. Go figure.

You and most of the woman in America prefer circumcised

@HarrySlick - And I and the majority of European women don't think about such things, just enjoy it!

@HarrySlick I'm american, but I have more of the European attitude of "it doesn't matter to me". I was married to an un-cut man for 33 years, dated a Jewish circ'd guy before him, I don't have a strong preference.

Why don't you think it's mutilation?

And a psychiatrist ,LOL

@GoldenDoll Read about phimosis.

@DUCHESSA - I have. 10% occurrence of phimosis in the US. 80% of US males circumcised. Do you see my point?

@GoldenDoll Ask a guy who suffers from phimosis and you will see my point...AND HIS. Did you ever hear that to prevent is a lot better than to cure....? Hygiene is also another point.

@DUCHESSA - Avoiding my percentage question I see. Especially that fact that in England it's only 2%. All those poor English guys who haven't have the "prevention" walking round in agony. I think not.

@GoldenDoll Not avoiding anything. I, simply, believe is the right thing to do. Period.

If you do not want to participate in the chat about this topic, why so many words instead of simply staying out of it?
And here is a pro-tip: the poll option on this site is nothing more or less than a simple way to make it easy for people to give their opinion and for others to get a tally on them. Nobody ever claimed that the result of the vote would decide what is truth, nor did anyone ever claim that the result of the poll would be in any way representative for anything but exactly those who responded.

@engineer_in_nj "I think we as a species have spent more words and emotions per square inch on this piece of skin than any other part of the body. What do poetic statements like "the eyes are the windows to the soul" compare to 3 page long rants about foreskin on the internet?"

LMAO!!! Love your post.

Or don't get it done! There is utterly no reason to do it. The percentage of boys needing this "for medical reasons" is miniscule. It's totally cultural.

Why mutilate the penis at all though? This has purely religious and anti-sexual reasons. It is well known that this was supported mainly because apparently it makes it much harder for young men to jerk off. The foreskin is extremely sensitive and something that helps with sexual stimulation and also protects the glans penis so it too stays more sexually sensitive. Removing the foreskin makes it harder for men to experience sexual stimulation and it is well known that this in turns means not just longer sex (which may be good in some women's view) but harder/more violent sex and a bigger desire for "tightness" which in turn leads to more desire for anal sex.
But all this is really secondary to my main point: it is not excusable in my view to affect the bodily integrity of a child without medical reasons (no matter how "harmless" it may be) and thus take away the possibility to know what it means to have all parts of ones body and make their own decisions from the child ... and this is exactly what happens with circumcision.

@josmi6699 If jerking off were any easier for teenage boys, they'd be having orgasms 24/7. This point seems ridiculous.

@BenPike it is not and boys outside of the US can cope well with having a foreskin. The point is that the original motivation in the US was to control the sexual behaviour of young men. This is very similar to parents shoving religion down the throat of their children -- they force their children to have a sexual organ removed for life instead of leaving the decision to their children.
I am quite amazed about how emotionally and deeply ingrained this issue appears to be in the US even among people who otherwise have managed to critically think about religious beliefs. The way how this practice is defended is almost indistinguishable from how religious people defend it our how religious people defend other beliefs.

@josmi6699
I'm not defending anything. I'm saying circumcised boys do not suffer from lack of arousal.
What is the source for the claim that the practice started as behavior control?

@MichaelSpinler I've witnessed countless circumcisions. Many of which the male infant never made a sound. And babies will tell you when something hurts...they cry.

try a shower , and lucky for the guys you never got to decide

@markdevenish really seems more to me that those who are uncut or female granola SJW types are the ones flipping out over it. I've never ever ever been with a guy who was mad/traumatized over having been cut as an infant. LOL
Seriously, why would anyone else care what someone else does with their kid's foreskin?

I totally agree and I find it somewhat funny how the same mechanism one sees with people defending their religions set in when people defend something that is as deeply ingrained in their culture as this.

@josmi6699 Exactly. It's so shocking that people can't recognise this.

Golden doll,You seem to have an obsession with males retaining their foreskins ,could it be that you prefer dirty penises or maybe you have a foreskin fetish. You do not even have the class to insult me with proper language . Plus unless you possess one you have some hell of a nerve telling me what to do with mine ,Your pathetic

mine

@HarrySlick - How funny! An American lecturing me on "proper language". As to foreskins, I've had both Harry and it doesn't make any difference to me or them. But sorry if my comments seem have hit a nerve Harry - at least you won't be feeling the ones that were removed when you were circumcised of course.

@HarrySlick - and that would be "You're pathetic" rather than "your".

more like spent oil slick

Excellent comment.

I agree it should be banned for females

I think it is less barbaric, it doesn't really affect our sexual pleasure very much. Full female FGM removes the clitoris, so I'm sure the impact on sex is far, far larger than for men.

Are you really so ignorant of human biology? Removing a bit of skin from the exterior of a penis doesn't change sexual pleasure. REMOVING A WOMAN'S CLITORIS DOES! Jeesh, get some education.

There are many forms of femalce circumcision, so it may be less barbaric than most of them. But that is not really the point. Even if it is less barbaric than all of them, what matters if it is ok to remove a sexually sensitive part of the body that can never regrow. Nobody would be ok with e.g. removing part of a toe or something even if one does not really need it.

@GoldenDoll actually this is not true -- the foreskin is very sensitive, there is tens of thousands of nerve endings there and it is involved in sexual stimulation and in addition keeps the glans penis protected and thus more sexually sensitive.
Removing the foreskin does not, like removing the clitoris, make it impossible to experience sexual stimulation but makes it harder and definitely different.
Of course, when removing the foreskin before the age of sexual activity, the men will then never know the difference. But does that make it right to dampen their sexual feelings?
As I said: I am not arguing against removing the foreskin in general, but I think adults should decide on this by themselves. And most people who did this as adults will tell you that indeed it very much influenced their sexual feelings.

@josmi6699 Do you have any experience of FGM? Where do you get your info from?
The reason for female circumcision is to stop women liking sex so they don't stray. You are mislead if you think it's just a "tidying up" of the labia. It's purely for the subjugation of women, unlike the "tidying up" of a penis which male cicumcision entails.

@GoldenDoll, I'm not ignorant at all about human anatomy and physiology. Mutilation is mutilation. The point is that doing that to a child is not allowing them to choose what happens to their own body. It is cruel and unjustified all in the name of a cultural norm. The degree to which we mutilate someone's genitals can be argued all day, but it is all still mutilation.

You simply do not know what it means to have a foreskin. You may have the same attitude if your parents would have decided to amputate part of your little toe maybe. You do not really need it so why complain? But the point is that nobody can give you back that part of your body and you were deprived of making your own decision about it. I think that is wrong and would be completely unacceptable with any other kind of permanent alteration of a child's or infant's body.

Ignorance is bliss.

@josmi6699 You're right, I do not know what it means to have foreskin. But then, those with foreskin do not know what it's like without it. How can you know which is better? Whatever the case, take my word....life without foreskin is still pretty marvelous.

@GoldenDoll If ignorance is bliss, then when it comes to knowing what it's like to have foreskin...I imagine you're steeped in it. There, that puts us at 10/all. Let's not trade barbs any further, if we can help it.

@Shawno1972 I should say as a woman with experience of both, I probably know better than you. Barbara.

@GoldenDoll No, no no. Correction. We're not talking about what it's like to be be WITH a man who has foreskin or not....we're talking about BEING a man who has foreskin or not. I don't know how on earth this point has so far eluded you.

If you are a woman, which we will take liberally as your word, then you've neither had the experience of having foreskin, nor the experience of having it removed. Which makes you, pardon me, thoroughly unqualified to participate in a discussion on what it's like to have (as in physically possess as a part of your own body) a penis that has or does not have foreskin.

Unless by chance you were once a man or are becoming one...in which case, more power to you and I wish you the best.

@Shawno1972 Well no, the point has not eluded me, unlike yourself, who still doesn't seem to have grasped that the question is whether it is ok to mutiilate a child without their consent.

after the first world war it was promoted because so many soldiers were incapacitated by smegma rot ! So their foreskins may have saved their lives. typical of the powers that be to promote mutilation to have more cannon fodder available !

The average man takes 7 minutes consistent come, whereas a female takes an about 22 minutes and need to be heavily involved mentally and rhythmically penetrated. It’s a hell of a lot of work to make a female come. If removing the forskin lowers sensitivity then is that not starting to level the playing field? Also men can have multiple too, iv never had much trouble sticking around for more than 20 minutes without a condom, but many times that’s still not enough for a woman to come. But I guess it would be better for masturbation if it were more sensitive, I’ll never know.

@Funandfondles It was not out of consideration for women that circumcision began or was maintained as a tradition. However, I can see your point.

I believe that is why foreplay would be important. It makes it easier for women to reach orgasm.

That is key, I admit. @snytiger6

sorry but that is the most sensitive part of the penis they are removing . the only difference is the incontinence suffered by the girls. BOTH practices are abhorrent

@markdevenish I disagree but, then we are entitled to our opinions / knowledge.

well done. why would anyone welcome their new born to the planet by removing something that took milliions of years to evolve. Would anyone circumsize their dog ?it's just crazy

Well done for not thinking it's as barbaric as FGM - because FGM is removal of the clitoris, like a man having his dick cut off! Give the man a star.

@GoldenDoll yes I said that elsewhere in this thread.