Thom, most people don't have the guts to watch a video, with sound. The "I don't need to watch a video, I'm already well-informed" excuse is a bit of hogwash. I'm appalled at the number of mothers who want to have this done because of outdated, old-fashioned ideas (not to mention laziness in not wishing to teach their sons how to properly clean themselves). The thought of listening to my son scream and not being by his side to comfort and protect him disturbs me.
I'm just waiting for one of those 38% of men who feel upset at having been mutilated at birth to sue. I think it would be a major headache for the courts, not to mention a very long process.
By the way, the same reasons for removing the foreskin in the male also apply to removing the clitoral hood in the female. Strangely enough, you would be arrested, charged with assault, and jailed at having your daughter's clitoral hood removed at birth. The external female genitalia is actually dirtier than the male, considering it's 'enclosed' most of the time. It is not easier to clean than the penis is. Thom, I'm sure you understand that I have a bit of a unique perspective on that (though I shudder at the thought of it).
Keep up the good fight, dear sir. Someday this practice will be nearly non-existent. I have my doubts it will end completely though.
And to the lady who didn't have her son circumsized at birth, he now has the choice to go ahead and do it himself. That's the point Thom is trying to get through to people. It isn't your penis, therefore it isn't your decision. Most likely the only reason he wishes it was done is because he feels he's in the minority (which is false), and many American women won't even go near an uncircumsized penis because they think it's 'dirty and disease-ridden'. It's a good thing women elsewhere in the world know that is BS.
Edit: Oh my god. Not painful? You're kidding, right? Babies feel pain very acutely, my dear. What the hell do you think? They're born without the capacity to feel pain? The foreskin is fused to the glans much like your fingernail is fused to your nailbed. Try ripping it off, and it is very painful.
Edit #2: As for the only opinion mattering, wrong again. It is not your body, not your penis, not your decision. It is against the law here in Canada for parents to consent to non-therapeutic procedures on their children. The law isn't enforced regarding circumcision, but once one man stands up and does something about it, it will be. I can't wait for that day.
Mark - circumcision did not catch on in America because of religious reasons. Robert Kellogg (yes, the guy who invented corn flakes) promoted circumcision as a way to end masturbation. How did he figure it would do that? By decreasing sensitivity. Well, it backfired. Statistically circumsized men masturbate more often than non-circumsized. Why? Because they do, indeed, have less sensitivity, and need harder stimulation to achieve orgasm.
- it is not cleaner
- it does not prevent diseases
- it is not just a 'piece of skin'
- it protects the penis
- it is fused to the glans of the penis in infants, and must be ripped off in order to be removed
- it provides lubrication
- it aids in correct movement during intercourse
- the practice is declining, even in America
- America is the ONLY developed country that still practices this for non-religious reasons
- American women don't have a clue want a true penis feels like
- American men are in the minority, because over 80% of the world's men are NOT circumsized
- it takes 56 circumcisions to prevent ONE case of HIV in Africa
- it is a mutilation, performed upon a child without their consent
- according to Canadian laws, it may very well be illegal (parents are not permitted to consent to non-therapeutic procedures being performed on their children)
- there is some evidence that circumcision may be one of the causes of high impotence rates in America (did you know that America has one of the highest in the world? What does that say about American men?)
- there is medical evidence that proves that the amount of endorphins released into the bloodstream during the very painful procedure is enough to have a serious effect on a baby's physiology
- there is some evidence that points to the trust-bond being disrupted between mother and son when he's crying out in pain for her comforting touch, but she doesn't respond
- penile cancer is rare, and its incidence is no higher in intact males who practice proper hygiene
- the glans penis continues to keratinize during aging, and at some point, there will be little to no sensation left (many men find this begins to happen in their late 20s to early 30s)
- nearly 38% of American males who are circumsized are unhappy (that's over 1/3 of them!), and those who are content are probably so because of ignorance
- circumcision as performed today is not the same circumcision that was commanded in the Bible, nor is it commanded for Christians. In fact, in the New Testament it specifically states that it offers no benefit for the Gentile
Also, on the HIV topic. A fact for you. The United States has the highest rate of HIV infection in the developed, first-nations world. Yet, nearly 60% of the males are circumsized. Now, if it reduces the risk of HIV infection, why, pray tell, is the infection rate so high there? Could it be because of the false claims of protection against HIV that men and women are more willing to sleep around without using protection? Maybe, just maybe.
Edit: Was it John Kellogg? Why the heck do I think it's Robert Kellogg?
Edit to above: Yep. It is John Kellogg. I'm still not sure why I think his name is Robert.