Male. Once again men can discuss and judge but not women? Women have as much right to question and discuss this as men. I believe women have the right to abortion. I do not believe women should have their clitoris cut off and genitals mutilated as done in some countries. I am circumcised, had my sons circumcised due to social norms. I did work for a few years in an orphanage in France where circumcision is NOT the norm. I had to make sure the little boys pulled the foreskin back and clean the head of the penis. I have seen where this was not done regularly and it got infected and VERY painful, lots of screaming and crying. It is easier to cleaner but I am against it as I truly believe it is a great trauma to a baby boy and bloody and painful. On some level I think it creates a sub conscious feeling of inadequacy, shame and who knows what mental agitation. In Canada it is no longer covered under the government sponsored medical health plan. It is considered an optional cosmetic surgery that must be paid for out of pocket. I believe it should be illegal.

Genital mutilation is barbaric.

It was done for religious reasons initially and then done as an anti-masturbation measure later, and now done out of tradition or aesthetics... sick fuckers...

People can have whatever opinions that they want regardless of gender. As long as we don't deny the facts, I'm comfortable with a woman having her opinion on the matter. I would encourage women to listen though as there are issues that are particular to men involved, but don't feel like you can't say what you think. That's how we learn and question our assumptions.

I personally was not circumcised and believe it is a brutal practice that should not be done. I mean you wouldn't chop off the end of a kids finger right?

3. I hate when women push their beliefs on this topic, while also ask men to stay out of decision-making when it comes to women's reproductive rights. Have your opinion, sure. Please don't ever argue against a Male on this topic though. Agree? Disagree?

Disagree. We're all thinking moral agents.

Maybe the arguments of those in the group who "own the same equipment" should be considered more carefully, but I don't think it invalidates non-owners' thoughts.

I'm not sure I'm 100% consistent on this, though, since e.g. in the case of circumcision, a woman advocating against infant/child circumcision is advocating on behalf of the child and his right to choose what happens to his own body. Whereas a woman arguing for it is advocating to cut off a part of someone else's genitals, of which she doesn't even have first-person experience...

A good argument for circumcision is reduction in STD transmission.

I have 2 biologically male kids and neither of them are circumcized. I just didn't see a reason for it. Why put them through it when any positives are either not firmly established or just marginal? My wife wanted them to be circumcized because she was scared they would feel "different" - but I disagreed just because it's not something that ever comes up with guys (no pun intended). I am circumcized but my mom said it was just the norm back then and she wouldn't do it now.

1. While I don't believe it's necessary, I think this is a decision you'll have to make yourself. Yes, it's not your body, but you'll make many decisions about your son's body until he can do it for himself.

2. Not sure my opinion is pertinent, but my mother said it was just standard procedure in the 60's.

3. I think it's fine for anyone to have an opinion, but ultimately it's the individual's choice.

My parents circumcized me for the sake of societal norms and hygenic issues (though neither of them knew much on the matter, I later realized). If I were to have a son I would prefer not to have them shipped but let them make that choice for themselves as teens or young adults. I think, given a choice, I would not have chosen to have it done to myself. The members become less sensitive and I think there is a hightened level of pleasure I will never experience simply because a choice was made on my behalf by people who just saw it as "normal."

As a uncircumcised male, I can assure you that circumcision is the way to go. As one ages the immune system declines and infections become more common. Since this area is generally more "humid" it is an invitation for infection. Circumcision eliminates an environment which promotes infection. Infection in this area is not pleasant.

@GoldenDoll, @Simon1, @BagelPants, @Hihi, @OroLee: By the way, the information that I've posted are not my arguments, I'm simply disseminating research carried out by others. I wanted knowledge, I did some research. It's not hard to do. The alternative is...ignorance.

This says it well...

I had it done at 5 or 6 due to infections in that area. If the father has it, the son should have it so they “look” the same.

One way of approaching your question is to go with established medical science. Pubmed.org is the single recognized data base for all juried medical research.
Simply enter circumsision

My past foster kids (brothers) were one yes and one no; not sure why their parents did it that way, and of course they're not around to ask. But the uncirced one was really stressed out about being "odd"; I tried to reassure him it was becoming more common nowadays.

No. it is a barbaric practice and totally unnecessary apart from a few cases. It is not so common in the UK apart from religious reasons but seems to be common practice in the USA. Probably just a habit but the medical profession should counsel against it.. With privatised health care it probably makes them some money.
Normal hygiene is all that is required for health reasons.

My sons have not been circumcised

I was put up for adoption, but was cut b/c back in the early 70's. From what I understand it was deemed healthier to do so b/c of cleaning the area. Now, I think that is debunked, at least to the extent that it isn't as much of a health issues as it was originally made out to be. I myself disagree with the practice. It is barbaric and misandric IMO, and stopping this practice (I hope) will be a step towards recognizing men's rights and issues.

I had my son circumcised. Back then I still prayed to God. However, it had nothing to do with religion. Most men have been circumcised therefore most women are used to seeing a circumcised unit. I didn't want son to be different to the point he was self conscious about it. Also, the flap can get infected if the person doesn't clean it right. And all my daughter's ears were pierced when they were young. I wasn't a big fan of that because the pain, but that was y ex wife's call.

As a circumcised male, I would circumcise my son(s). Obviously not for religious reasons, but for better hygiene and acceptance. I don’t know from experience, but I’ve learned that non-circumcised males, if lazy (as young boys and even grown men can be), can get infections and odors. The acceptance part is, that I’ve known some women that are just grossed out by the extra skin of non-circumcised males and said they would never date a guy for that reason. There’s so many other disqualifiers that are possibile, that I don’t want to subject my son(s) to another one that could’ve been done early on and without memory. I can’t imagine having the procedure done as “my choice” when I became of age and wanted it done. The pain, the memory, and the downtime would suck.

@GoldenDoll, @Simon1, @BagelPants, @Hihi @OroLee:
Because there are a few of you too lazy to even open the source I offered, here are just a few of the highlights:
[circinfo.net]
"CIRCUMCISION:
An Evidence-Based Appraisal
MEDICAL, HEALTH & SEXUAL
It is the intention of the present overview to provide easily-accessible, reliable, balanced information that should be of assistance to parents, medical professionals, scholars, as well as men and their sexual partners. The author is a professor emeritus in the medical faculty of the University of Sydney. He has over 46 years of scientific research experience and more than 400 research publications, including over 100 on circumcision, mostly in peer-reviewed international journals. As such he is often invited by journals, book publishers, professional organizations and the news media for his comments or other contributions.

© Professor Emeritus Brian Morris.

Circumcision - Benefits Outweigh the Risks

Dr Tom Wiswell, a respected authority in the USA was a strong opponent, but then switched camps as a result of his own research findings and the findings of others. This is what he has to say: "As a pediatrician and neonatologist, I am a child advocate and try to do what is best for children. For many years I was an outspoken opponent of circumcision ... I have gradually changed my opinion" [Wiswell, 1988; Wiswell, 1992]. This ability to keep an open mind on the issue and to make a sound judgement on the balance of all available information is to his credit ... he did change his mind!

Wiswell looked at the complication rates of having or not having circumcision performed in a study of 136,000 boys born in US army hospitals between 1980 and 1985. 100,000 were circumcised and 193 (0.19%) had complications, mostly minor, with no deaths, but of the 36,000 who were not circumcised the problems were more than ten-times higher and there were 2 deaths [Wiswell & Hachey, 1993].

A study by others found that of the 11,000 circumcisions performed at New York's Sloane Hospital in 1989, only 6 led to complications, none of which were fatal [Russell, 1993]. An early survey saw only one death amongst 566,483 baby boys circumcised in New York between 1939 and 1951 [National, 2003].

There are no deaths today from medical circumcisions in developed countries.

Very similar to the study by Wiswell above, it was found that of 354,297 infants born in Washington State from 1987-96, only 0.20% had a complication arising from their circumcision, i.e., 1 in every 476 circumcisions [Christakis et al., 2000]. Most of these ‘complications’ were minor and readily treated. It was concluded that 6 urinary tract infections could be prevented for every circumcision complication, and 2 complications can be expected for every penile cancer prevented [Christakis et al., 2000].

Problems involving the penis are encountered relatively frequently in pediatric practice [Langer & Coplen, 1998]. A retrospective study of boys aged 4 months to 12 years found uncircumcised boys exhibited significantly greater frequency of penile problems (14% vs 6%; P < 0.001) and medical visits for penile problems (10% vs 5%; P < 0.05) compared with those who were circumcised.

Risk-benefit analyses

To ascertain how much the benefits exceed the risks various risk-benefit analyses have been conducted over the years. With time, and increased high-quality evidence, the benefits to risk ratio has increased from 1 in 100 to 1 in 200 [Morris et al. 2006; Morris 2007; Morris et al. 2012 (BMC Pediatr & Open J Prevent Med), 2014 (Mayo Clin Proc), 2016 (Can J Urol), 2017 (World J Clin Pediatr)]."

It's always fascinating to read the comments about circumcision. There's a lot of anti-circumcision myth floating around that gets picked up and spewed out with ease by people who have an agenda. It's one thing to have opinions, even if steeped in ignorance. Its another thing altogether to take your opinions and turn them into alternative facts. A lot of posters are guilty of that, equating it to female genital mutilation (shame on you, you do a discredit to the females that suffer this abuse), saying it cuts back on sensation during sex (when's the last time you really took the time to enjoy your partner and think about what your own enjoyment...it ain't about the foreskin), calling it child abuse (it's a legal, often go-to medical procedure) and the people that claim to be medical people in our midst that pass around gossipy stories are just pathetic. Learn your sources, people. As I said in my earliest post, it's likely that some very keen observers way back in Ancient times realized that pathogens often accumulate in bodily folds and can lead to infection and skin breakdown. From that bit of knowledge they worked out that Mother Nature in all her wisdom and glory added extra tissue that was non-essential and could be removed without harm to the penis functioning and aesthetics (exactly OPPOSITE to female genital mutilation. This is just one of many posts with evidence based information supporting circumcision. [circinfo.net] Written by a Dr in medical sciences, his sources include systemic reviews and meta-analysis. It also includes a statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics 2012.
Be ignorant or be informed.

Consider this.