response 2 of 53:

Jun 10 20:56 UTC 1997

No circumcision at birth, but the child could choose to be circumcised when
he is considered old enough to make that decision.

response 4 of 53:

Jun 14 03:08 UTC 1997

What types of health problems were seen?

response 6 of 53:

Jun 15 13:39 UTC 1997

Ouch! Good arguements for the procedure.

response 8 of 53:

Jun 18 05:25 UTC 1997

I wouldn't have my sons circumcized.  It seems a cruel thing to do to a a very
tiny person who's just figuring out what life outside the womb means.

Any difficulties associated with non-circumcision are likely to be grooming
related.  If we don't teach our kids to keep themselves clean, then of course
they'll have problems.  As to STDs, hey, circumcised men get those too.

response 12 of 53:

Jun 23 00:03 UTC 1997

The popularity of circumcision has dropped considerably over the last
two decades. The most popular reasons for circumcision are ethnic/
religious, and "so he looks like dad." (Given that most American males
are circumcised, the emphasis on "looks like dad" has a significant
impact on the present rate of circumcisions.)

Problems related to non-circumcision are primarily hygiene-related, and
geriatric. Absent an unusual circumstance (e.g., phimosis), there is no
medical need for or benefit to circumcision.

This is not a subject that comes up in normal conversation. I know two
people who were strangely vocal on the subject of their non-circumcision,
who would never dream of having themselves or their children circumcised.
I have never met any man who said, "I was glad I was circumcised," or,
"I wish I had been circumcised." There probably are some -- but as I said,
it isn't normally a subject of conversation.

I don't think circumcision can be defended at all on cosmetic grounds --
an explanation frequently exposited for female circumcision. And it is
true that in nations that practice female circumcision, there are large
numbers of males who would never dream of marrying a non-circumcised
woman.

re #9:  I would not consider "she was calm and relaxed within minutes of
        the procedure to in any way justify or defend the practice of
        female circumcision. Calmness likely results from exhaustion and
        a massive endorphine rush, after several minutes of excruciating
        pain.

response 14 of 53:

Jun 23 02:59 UTC 1997

If it is genital surgery for cosmetic reasons, Mary -- particularly
to satisfy the aesthetic preference of the partner -- there are an
awful lot of similarities. Do you have a source on that "making sex
more enjoyable" bit? I have heard quite the opposite. (It isn't
possible to do a side-by-side comparison,  after all.)

You are familiar with the anatomy, I presume. And surely you are
familiar with the fact that the layer of skin cells on the glans of
an uncircumcised penis is very thin, as compared to that on the
glans of a circumcised penis. This, Mary, results in a definite,
documented *loss* of sensitivity. Would you expect otherwise?

It is interesting to hear your speculation on why men would want (or
allow) their sons to be circumcised. However, most men are ignorant
as to the whys and wherefores. This is *not* a topic of normal
discussion. And, frankly, "looking like dad" is the most common
explanation I have heard.

response 16 of 53:

Jun 23 13:07 UTC 1997

Too, is female cirumcision done for "cosmetic" reasons?

response 18 of 53:

Jun 26 01:04 UTC 1997

I spoke with two urology residents today about circumcision
and some of the questions raised in this item.  What they said:

Hygiene is a big factor for many in the decision to either
have themselves circumcised or to have their infant sons
circumcised.  Some men have a hard time keeping their
uncircumcised penis clean, quite frankly, and this can lead
to chronic low-grade infections and a higher risk of penile
cancers.

The reason parents most often give for electing their son be circumcised
is "family tradition".  (That does indeed sound a whole lot like father
wanting his son's penis to look like his.  Aaron is right.)  The second
most stated reason is ease of hygiene. Religious practice plays a part but
not a big one. 

Babies do feel pain when circumcised but they are now routinely given an
local anesthetic block which helps a great deal.  (They also agreed with
me in my observations that infants start crying the moment they are
restrained and soon after the procedure are in a restful sleep, easily
aroused, and nurse without any apparent agitation.  So it's hard to guess
at home much actual surgical pain they are experiencing.) 

Some adults come in electing to have circumcisions to enhance their sexual
pleasure (sensation).  They are told there is no guarantee this will be
the outcome.  Many men do like sex better, after circumcision, but not all
find the procedure makes a difference.  (I think that's about as close as
you can get to a side-by-side comparison, don't you think?) 

There are some men out there who have become fixated on their missing
foreskins.  They mourn for their loss.  It is a major issue in their
lives.  It is unusual and probably points to profound psychological
problems.  Parents being counseled on circumcision are routinely told that
not all adults are in agreement with the choice their parents made so long
ago. 

The current trend in the U.S. follows what has been happening in Europe
over the past 20 years - fewer and fewer male babies undergoing the
procedure (for whatever reason).  Current statistics show 70% of U.S.
males are circumcised.  In contrast, 70% of European men are
uncircumcised. 

The procedure is covered by insurance.  Doctors are not tending to take a
position on what is best as they consider it a family decision with some
pretty substantial family dynamics and sexual identity issues at the
center. Too, the hygiene issue can be a significant problem for some.

response 22 of 53:

Jun 29 13:44 UTC 1997

You should probably be skeptical about circumcision improving sex.  I was
told there really isn't a clear reason why someone with a healthy penis
would experience "better sex" after circumcision.  One doctor even agreed
with aaron that it would make sense that an always-exposed glans would be
somewhat desensitized.  Yet, some men (who can make a comparison) do
state being circumcised heightened their level of sensation during coitus. 

response 24 of 53:

Jun 29 18:50 UTC 1997

You expected them to say, "It was hell for him -- sheer agony?" Not that
what they said isn't possible, but would they have told you otherwise?
Check out some pictures of babies' reactions to circumcision, sometime.
There are probably books in the library.