Nonconsensual, unwanted, useless surgery that I have to live with for most of my life. And quite frankly it doesn't matter a damn that I'm getting genital surgery as part of my transition from male to female. I should be the one choosing what's done to my body. Not my damn parents.

Also that's a bit less flesh to build the clitoris with, so yeah, thanks parents. Thanks a whole fucking lot. Assholes.

Many men are finding out that they miss their foreskin. They, like me, are restoring their foreskin to regain what was taken from us at birth. See http://www.RestoringForeskin.org and http://www.foreskin-restoration.net/forum to read stories of men who wish they had never been circumcised and are doing something about it.

I think that the “debate” continues to miss the point that this surgery takes away the main male pleasure zones with over 20000 fine touch and stretch nerve endings amputated. The foreskin has several parts including the ridged band that is great for ones pleasure (that is why nutters like Kellogg wanted to chop em off, to curtail masturbation), and the ridged band directly contacts the vagina for very great pleasure all around. It helps give feedback, time orgasims and does not cause PE. One girlfriend said, "we can put to rest the myth about natural cumming too soon." And yes they don't get that a condom is not great, but it feels so much better when you have all of your natural penis. Can you imagine if the CDC was going to take color sight from babies and they were all color blind? That is how I feel when I hear this nonesense. Non of them have these pleasure zones.

We must stop the obsession with mutilating baby genitals!!!!!!

We now live in the UK and of course here it's the norm to have a natural wang unless you have religious reasons. Any woman who rejects a guy because he has a little extra skin (and with some you can't even tell at 'certain times') is a fool. Especially if it's a big one. (sorry)

But you're assuming that the CDC itself will offer unprejudiced information, and so far that doesn't seem likely. At their meeting the other day, one speaker (from an outfit called Operation Abraham - guess what they do?) flashed a slide of an intact man painted to look like an elephant, on which he'd written "Yes, circumcise me, please!" - a sentiment the man himself would certainly have disagreed with.

And here's the rub. The CDC has said that any recommendation would be "completely voluntary" - and who could disagree with that, if only they mean what commonsense says they should mean: that the only person who should be allowed to decide whether a man gets an integral, healthy, pleasureable part of his own body is the man on the other end, himself, when he's old enough to know what he would be missing.

And kza, there's your answer: intact men ARE able to leave the house. In fact there's some suggestion that intact sex is less addictive because it's more satisfying.

Even in Africa, there are six countries where men are more likely to be HIV+ if they've been circumcised: Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, and Swaziland. Eg in Malawi, the HIV rate is 13.2% among circumcised men, but only 9.5% among intact men. In Rwanda, the HIV rate is 3.5% among circumcised men, but only 2.1% among intact men. If circumcision really worked against AIDS, this just wouldn't happen. We now have people calling circumcision a "vaccine" or "invisible condom", and viewing circumcision as an alternative to condoms.

The one study into male-to-female transmission showed a 50% higher rate in the group where the men had been circumcised btw.

ABC (Abstinence, Being faithful, Condoms) is the way forward. Promoting genital surgery will cost lives, not save them.

OK I'll stop bragging now, but anyway, it seems to me that this latest push for circumcision, first in Africa and now here, is another attempt by the medical and public health establishment to justify unnecessary intervention into a personal decision and somebody probably stands to make a lot of money out of this. The insurance charges between $300 and $600 per operation so thats $600 million - $1.2 billion into the pockets of insurance and hospitals (Obama, are you listening?). Then the foreskins are often sold as a source of cells for research labs and even for facial moisturizer.

In Europe, hardly anyone is circumcised and they have a lower rate of STD infection than the US does. So the facts are being ignored in order to continue a procedure that was originally intended to prevent masturbation. Ridiculous!

Here are my reasons:

The circumcision rate has decreased in the United States to the lowest point since before WWII. More and more people are realizing that the United States being the only Westernized country with the majority of boys being circumcised for non-religious reasons is wrong in its thinking.

The foreskin, which is a healthy body part that serves a major function in protecting the glans of newborns, belongs to the owner. Parents and doctors should only concern themselves in the VERY rare event that there is an anomaly necessitating the modification or removing of the foreskin. This is a civil rights issue. In our country, we have seen lawsuits filed against doctors and parents by young men who have been circumcised against their will. I believe there will be an increase in this activity. We have laws against modifying female genitalia, why not protect males as well? This is a double standard. The female genitalia is responsible for spreading and harboring disease, yet we protect females. "Circumcised" females would also be cleaner and lead to higher reductions in transferring disease.

The foreskin protects the glans, keeping the skin of the glans soft and sensitive. This is a major plus during sexual activity, whether it be masturbation, intercourse or other activity. In addition, the female and male both benefit from the foreskin's gliding action leading to more pleasure for both parties.

The foreskin has some 20,000 nerve receptors, providing more sexual satisfaction for the male.

The removal of the foreskin often has adverse results. Many men say they feel robbed because they find a hardening of the skin on the glans leading to less sensitivity. Many men feel robbed because they did not have the choice to choose between having and not having a foreskin. Circumcision also leads to too much or too little skin being removed. Too much skin removed leads to painful erections. Too little removed leads to re-circumcisions and penile skin adhesions. Also, the instance of meatal stenosis is high. Cosmetically, a lot of circumcisions have glaring scarring that is there for the life of the male.

The act of circumcising a newborn is painful. Even though there are guidelines strongly recommending proper anesthesia, many doctors use no anesthesia or use Emla Cream which is not recommended by the manufacturer or the AAP. Imagine, the pain of feces and urine stinging the open wound over the week to ten days it takes to fully heal.

A study that was unveiled on the opening day of the CDC Convention in Atlanta showed very clearly that mass circumcision would not make a dent in the number of HIV/Aids cases in the United States. Almost all of the cases are derived from male-to-male sex and dirty needles.

There is a belief that uncircumcised males suffer from an elevated level of urinary tract infections. Yes, there is a slight elevation compared to their circumcised counterparts, but still below the incidence of urinary tract infections in baby girls.

There is a belief that uncircumcised males will get penis cancer. As you know, it is VERY rare to see penis cancer in an uncircumcised man.

There is a belief that chlamydia is spread by uncircumcised males. It is a rampant disease with no relation to circumcision status.

It is said there is a slight increase in cases of syphilis and gonorrhea instances in and transference from uncircumcised males to others. It is important to note that these are slight increases.
As a country, we need to closely observe why in several European countries, circumcision rates are under 10% and HIV rates are also minuscule. I imagine it is because of more education of youth and adults so that protective actions are taken prior to sex. Unprotected sex is the problem, not the foreskin. The CDC's energies would be far better spent on massive education on how to have safe sex and about the need for abstinence if protection isn't used. Let's say the cost of circumcision is $300.00 and let's say that all insurance companies and all state Medicaid programs covered neonatal circumcision. In one year, a million circumcisions would cost $300,000,000. That is a lot of money that could be put into education and the availability of free condoms. And, because this program would not be aimed solely at circumcision (which would have only a slight positive effect of the spreading of disease) we would see a major downturn in all types of diseases and in children being born out of wedlock and in other non-planned pregnancies. We are talking about BILLIONS of dollars in benefit every year.

Leave our foreskins alone. Appreciate all of the positive aspects of leaving little babies intact. Should a young man decide he wants a circumcision, then it becomes his choice. In writing a recommendation, clearly state the true statements regarding the minor benefits of circumcision, but instead of recommending universal circumcision of baby boys, stress what needs to be done in preventing contact between infected and unifected people and stress the need for medical screening of sexually active teens and adults to identify and treat STD's.