home
RSS
Your thoughts on circumcision
November 19th, 2010
12:22 PM ET

Your thoughts on circumcision

CNN got more than 1,000 responses by noon to today's article about a proposal to ban circumcision in San Francisco, California.

To recap: anti-circumcision activist Lloyd Schofield has drawn up a proposal outlawing all circumcisions, even for religious reasons (circumcision of boys is traditional in Judaism and Islam). The punishment would be up to a year in jail or up to a $1000 fine.

Our reader comments, mostly passionate toward one view or another, have so far been fairly evenly split as a whole on the question of whether or not to circumcise.

Some of you men out there are glad to have been circumcised as infants, citing scientific evidence of its health benefits. Says jake1969:

Big thanks to my parents for circumcising me. Based on scores of studies, I have lower risk of contracting HPV, herpes, HIV, etc. And, the "inactivists" keep saying the studies are flawed, but it's clear they cherry-picked 1 or 2 and then claim they are right... Also, it's a riskier procedure to wait and decide on your own as a young adult.

Others agree with so-called "inactivists" that circumcision violates personal freedoms. Reader rcaferilla writes:

Circumcision is just an unnecessary tradition. Circumcising an infant, takes the choice away from the owner of the body, and not circumcising the infant, doesn't mean he won't be circumcised later – as an adult, but it will just be his choice. So it really just comes down to, do you want to remove his choice in the matter or not.

On the other hand, some of you oppose a ban on circumcision because that ban would violate personal freedoms. Says HooHa78:

This is absurd. Whether a child is circumcised should be a parent's or persons individual decision, not what my government or some dumbhead group decides. For a city that is supposedly so open minded this group sure is setting a poor example.

To this line of thinking, blueparadise responds:

You men are so sensitive about your junk, that I'd think you'd at least protect your innocent sons from any unnecessary pain down there. Who cares if he "won't remember it"! It's still an excruciatingly painful experience for a helpless being who has just entered the world.

Some of you, such as blueparadise, are also concerned about a loss of sexual pleasure that may come with the loss of foreskin. This point is still controversial, and it's hard to test it because there can be no "before and after" comparisons among infants. A 2008 study in the British Journal of Urology International found that circumcision does not reduce sexual satisfaction or performance among men circumcised as adults, although a smaller study in the same journal in 2007 found a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment.


soundoff (758 Responses)
  1. Omni

    How is your azz hole? does it stink? is it bacteria free? Does you azz itches once in awhile? should you consider cutting it off?

    Cut off testicle as well as prostate to prevent cancer.

    November 19, 2010 at 18:01 | Report abuse | Reply
    • m336London

      As a black Jew I was circumcised: I can say that my willy looks better than those of my uncircumcised friends:
      It is rather unhealth to be uncircumcised as the foreskin puts one at greater risk of catching VDs. But it is God rule that
      man be circumcised.. jum sharim kulda ! Shalom Israel !

      November 20, 2010 at 11:51 | Report abuse |
  2. Katie

    While I can understand the "looking at if from the baby's point of view" but at what point do we allow the government take over and tell us what and whatnot to do? They already banned sitting on the sidewalks? Who do these sidewalks belong to – the government? No, they belong to the people and they should be allowed to sat on. What do they do when they have a parade – make everyone stand up. Would be interesting seeing a child with cerebal palsey trying to stand that long! But back to the circumcision – I can see if from both sides, but a circumcision is actually a healthier choice as most men who are not circumcised don't clean themselves thorougly – know from experience. And if we let the government rule about something this personal, when are they going to decide who and who can't get immuziations? And what periodic test a woman and man can and can not have. Haven't we fought long and hard for our freedom? I would like to see less government power and more power to the people. And for those of you who disagree with circumcision – how would you feel if the government went the other way and told you you HAD to have your child circumcised? This is person/family issue and should NOT be decided by the goverment. Basically ALL of us want to make decision for our childern ourselves. And yes Religion is an issue. Just some thoughts to read and think about.

    November 19, 2010 at 18:06 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Omni

      How is yourvagina? does it stink? is it bacteria free? Does you vagina itches once in awhile? should you consider cutting it off?

      November 19, 2010 at 18:11 | Report abuse |
    • Omni

      Cleaning penis is easier than cleaning vagina. You cannot even see you vagina without mirror.

      November 19, 2010 at 18:14 | Report abuse |
    • Anne

      Hurting someone else, especially one who does not yet have a voice, should not be legal. Period. As a parent, you are to protect your child until they are of the age that they can decide these things for themselves (just like having a baby, a boob job or getting "fixed"). Your rights should probably end at mutilation for mutilations sake.
      " . . .but everyone else id doing it !"
      Right, and if a bunch of people were running off a cliff, would you join them? Friggin sheep anyway.

      It is simply not yours to decide. You do not "own" your child. If you read any of the above arguments ( as in most of the world does not do this practice) you should realize it is not medically necessary.

      Should it be illegal to cut off a body part of someone else who can't say no? If not, lets start making a list of parts we don't want our children to have. We could offer plastic surgery to make babies cuter. ??

      Is it so hard to give the baby a choice?

      November 19, 2010 at 19:24 | Report abuse |
  3. Omni

    According to Kelly:::::::::::

    Today's article is an excellent example of narrow-minded, biased reporting in the USA and the use of fear to promote a profit-driven agenda.

    Approximately 800 men are diagnosed with penile cancer per year. 3500 women are diagnosed with vulvar cancer. To suggest removal of the foreskin of male infants as a means to prevent penile cancer, we should also suggest removing the vulva of female infants to prevent vulvar cancer, as the cancer risk is almost 4.5 times higher.

    "It's *unclear* how circumcision lowers infection rates, but researchers *speculate* that the foreskin could foster a more favorable environment for viruses."

    This is not science, it's speculation! Circumcising babies to prevent STDs is ridiculous because babies aren't having sex! Condoms prevent STDs. If a sexually active man chooses to engage in risky sexual behavior, he can do the research himself and make an informed decision on circumcision.

    If the foreskin caused as many problems as American medicine leads us to believe, 75% of men worldwide wouldn't be intact. 99% of British men are intact – are their STD rates sky high?

    "It's also possible to develop swelling and tenderness if the foreskin is not properly cared for."

    Care of an intact infant's genitals is very simple. Wash it like a finger, do NOT retract. The foreskin is fused to the glans at birth, much like the fingernail is fused to the tip of the finger.

    Let's talk about the money – each year approximately 1 million baby boys are subjected to non-therapeutic circumcision at an average cost of $675 each. That is a multi-million dollar industry. But wait, there's more – amputated foreskins sell on average for about $250 each to research and cosmetic companies. Yes, cosmetic companies.

    It's no wonder doctors continue to offer circumcision to parents with biased information. If only they were willing to take the paycut in exchange for the moral high ground.

    Americans – you've been duped into thinking the circumcised penis is normal. It is not. It is altered and scarred. Normal is how babies are born, wake up. Medicine is wrong and non-therapeutic circumcision is painful, harmful, and unnecessary – which clearly makes it unethical.

    Amy Jo Jones reason for circumcising her son is extremely selfish and totally ridiculous. Baby and child genitals look nothing like adult genitals. If a child wonders why his penis looks different from daddy's, simply explain to him what circumcision is. No one has the right to cut off healthy, functioning tissue from a baby without a clear medical need.

    Thankfully, due to the internet, accurate and unbiased information is available to parents who are willing to do a little more research on this decision than the amount of time they spend researching a new car or the i-pad.

    Since 1999, the American Academy of Pediatricians does NOT recommend routine infant circumcision nor does ANY major medical organization in the world. Doctors that continue to promote and cut baby's genitals are either extremely ignorant of the value and functions of the prepuce or simply in it for the money. What other explanation could there be?

    Parents ARE choosing to leave their baby's genitals alone. Infant circumcision reached it's peak in the 80s at over 80%. Now those circumcised babies are having babies of their own and leaving 60% of them intact. Circ rates are falling fast and this is a good thing for the basic rights of baby boys.

    November 19, 2010 at 18:21 | Report abuse | Reply
  4. Kelly

    An uncircumcised penis looks weird. I was with a guy who had his foreskin still...he might have enjoyed the sex...if we had it. It just looked too weird.

    November 19, 2010 at 18:23 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Omni

      An uncircumcised vagina looks weird. I was with a girl who had her vulva still...she might have enjoyed the sex...if we had it. It just looked too weird.

      November 19, 2010 at 18:28 | Report abuse |
    • Omni

      According to Kelly:::::::::::

      Today's article is an excellent example of narrow-minded, biased reporting in the USA and the use of fear to promote a profit-driven agenda.

      Approximately 800 men are diagnosed with penile cancer per year. 3500 women are diagnosed with vulvar cancer. To suggest removal of the foreskin of male infants as a means to prevent penile cancer, we should also suggest removing the vulva of female infants to prevent vulvar cancer, as the cancer risk is almost 4.5 times higher.

      "It's *unclear* how circumcision lowers infection rates, but researchers *speculate* that the foreskin could foster a more favorable environment for viruses."

      This is not science, it's speculation! Circumcising babies to prevent STDs is ridiculous because babies aren't having sex! Condoms prevent STDs. If a sexually active man chooses to engage in risky sexual behavior, he can do the research himself and make an informed decision on circumcision.

      If the foreskin caused as many problems as American medicine leads us to believe, 75% of men worldwide wouldn't be intact. 99% of British men are intact – are their STD rates sky high?

      "It's also possible to develop swelling and tenderness if the foreskin is not properly cared for."

      Care of an intact infant's genitals is very simple. Wash it like a finger, do NOT retract. The foreskin is fused to the glans at birth, much like the fingernail is fused to the tip of the finger.

      Let's talk about the money – each year approximately 1 million baby boys are subjected to non-therapeutic circumcision at an average cost of $675 each. That is a multi-million dollar industry. But wait, there's more – amputated foreskins sell on average for about $250 each to research and cosmetic companies. Yes, cosmetic companies.

      It's no wonder doctors continue to offer circumcision to parents with biased information. If only they were willing to take the paycut in exchange for the moral high ground.

      Americans – you've been duped into thinking the circumcised penis is normal. It is not. It is altered and scarred. Normal is how babies are born, wake up. Medicine is wrong and non-therapeutic circumcision is painful, harmful, and unnecessary – which clearly makes it unethical.

      Amy Jo Jones reason for circumcising her son is extremely selfish and totally ridiculous. Baby and child genitals look nothing like adult genitals. If a child wonders why his penis looks different from daddy's, simply explain to him what circumcision is. No one has the right to cut off healthy, functioning tissue from a baby without a clear medical need.

      Thankfully, due to the internet, accurate and unbiased information is available to parents who are willing to do a little more research on this decision than the amount of time they spend researching a new car or the i-pad.

      Since 1999, the American Academy of Pediatricians does NOT recommend routine infant circumcision nor does ANY major medical organization in the world. Doctors that continue to promote and cut baby's genitals are either extremely ignorant of the value and functions of the prepuce or simply in it for the money. What other explanation could there be?

      Parents ARE choosing to leave their baby's genitals alone. Infant circumcision reached it's peak in the 80s at over 80%. Now those circumcised babies are having babies of their own and leaving 60% of them intact. Circ rates are falling fast and this is a good thing for the basic rights of baby boys.

      =============

      November 19, 2010 at 18:31 | Report abuse |
    • Nigel

      You only think they look "weird" because you are American. European women think that American men's scarified genitals look "weird". You need to open your mind, educate yourself, and set your prejudices aside when it comes to understanding the obvious, or hidden damage "circumcision" can do to babies and the men they become, whether they know it or not.

      November 19, 2010 at 19:22 | Report abuse |
  5. mmarshall

    my husband is not circumcised, sex life is good, he's seems fine with it , so, so am I !!

    November 19, 2010 at 18:25 | Report abuse | Reply
  6. Sharon

    As a female, I find the uncircimcised penis to be hideously grotesque. Please, clip it. I would never have sex with an uncut one.

    November 19, 2010 at 18:34 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Joseph G.

      Your loss then, seems they've brainwashed you well.

      November 19, 2010 at 18:51 | Report abuse |
    • Nigel

      You will do them the favour of not sleeping with them by telling them what a prejudiced and closed minded woman you are. It's their gain, and your loss. Maybe you should get your clitoral hood and labia removed so you can be less disgusting? Hypocrite!

      November 19, 2010 at 19:16 | Report abuse |
    • pflo

      Most vaginas look pretty hideous , but functionality trumps looks in that instance. Not sure what your point is. Do you want to take a picture of a penis or use it?

      November 19, 2010 at 20:02 | Report abuse |
    • Omni

      vagina ia uglier, stinkier than penis. Penis is easier to clean than vagina.

      November 19, 2010 at 22:04 | Report abuse |
    • Roger

      Many men in Africa think uncircumcised women are gross. In my opinion there is no ethical difference between African men who think intact women are gross and American women who think intact men are gross.

      Cutting the genitals of children to satisfy the sexual preferences of adults is wrong, whether it is African girls or American boys who are being cut.

      November 20, 2010 at 00:50 | Report abuse |
    • lbjack

      Sharon, I have heard what you say repeated by other women. Notice the nature of the replies. They are warped and eager to talk nasty under the guise of discussion. They are uniformly ugly. They validate your point.

      November 20, 2010 at 02:51 | Report abuse |
  7. A CNA

    I've worked at nursing homes for 2 years. There have been a few uncircumcised men I"ve taken care of and they had problems with the foreskin becoming too tight and it becomes very hard to clean which can lead to infection. I firmly believe that it is always up to the parents but I just wanted my comment to be something to think about. Another thing if a law would pass like this what will the government try to control next? They need to stay out of peoples personal business like this. Next they will be telling us how to raise our kids too.

    November 19, 2010 at 18:42 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Joseph G.

      It should not be up to the parents, it should be up to the actual owner of the penis.

      November 19, 2010 at 18:51 | Report abuse |
    • A CNA

      So you think the government should just be telling people what to do all the time? So much for democracy.

      November 19, 2010 at 18:56 | Report abuse |
    • Nigel

      Your experience, beliefs, and prejudice are irrelevant. Men have rights too, and if you think the government shouldn't champion them, which take precedence over the rights parents', then you are living in the wrong country.

      Your CNA training obviously didn't teach you anything about the intact penis, and that it is easier to "clean" than the intact vagina. In fact, "cleaning" can lead to infection if one is using soap, the worst thing for mucosal tissue. Mysteriously, this issue isn't even on the table in Europe because it isn't routinely done to babies.

      November 19, 2010 at 19:12 | Report abuse |
    • Joseph G.

      When your actions infringe on the rights of others physical body, yes.

      Is this a hard concept? Or can I assume that you're fine with me donating your plasma and kidneys to science without your consent?

      November 19, 2010 at 19:14 | Report abuse |
  8. Nigel

    It seems that intact genitals should be a constitutionally protected right. Why would this ban be placed on a ballot to be voted against by boy oppressing prejudiced people only to loose? The issue of a personal choice for one's own body is at stake here, and the "voice of the people", as in the gay marriage issue, should be irrelevant in a constitutional issue. At least this might open the issue enough to lead the ignorant to learn of the hidden harms that this outdated ritual called "circumcision" can do when performed by greedy doctors who sell it to unsuspecting parents for easy cash.

    November 19, 2010 at 18:52 | Report abuse | Reply
  9. Bud Yanker

    Ah, the right for parents to mutilate there children! All because of religious freedom nonetheless!. The magic super friend in the sky wants us to follow a lot of silly rules. Like not eating pork, avoiding lobster, not touching our wife and daughters during menstruation and 600 + other screwed up rules. Did I forget stoning adulteresses and killing gays. I'm sure Jefferson, Madison and Franklin would have been appalled at this argument. Genital mutilation for the big turkey in sky is joke. Didn't he tell those 19 guys to kill our fellow citizens in 2001 for his ultimate purpose.

    November 19, 2010 at 19:06 | Report abuse | Reply
  10. Joseph G.

    To all the women going "Waa, the uncircumcised penis looks weird, do not want!"

    I don't understand how something natural looks weird unless you are so brainwashed as to only accept the abnormal. Next you'll be saying all girls should get boob implants to look normal, all men should take steroids to look normal.

    Are you seriously saying we should lop off body parts for not looking right?

    News flash: The foreskin is designed to pleasure women as well!

    People are vociferous on the foreskin question, none more than Kristen O'Hara, the author of "Sex as Nature Intended It" (2002), in which she claims women are more likely to enjoy intercourse if their male partner is uncircumcised.

    "On the natural penis," O'Hara writes on her Web site, sexasnatureintendedit.com, "the soft, flexible foreskin cushions the coronal-ridge hook (of the penis head, or glans) and prevents it from scraping the vaginal walls, giving only pleasure, not soreness. ... The loose, pliable foreskin bunches up on the outward stroke to create a seal that holds fluids in. Lubrication stays inside the vagina."

    For years, O'Hara says, she suffered pain and discomfort during sex with her husband. She wondered if the problem was hers. The problem, she finally concluded, wasn't her own dysfunction - what psychologists used to call "frigidity" - but "the abnormal structure of the circumcised penis."

    Like 85 to 90 percent of American men born in the 1950s, '60s and '70s, O'Hara's husband, Jeffrey, was circumcised at birth. Twenty-one years ago, he went through a foreskin restoration process and ever since, O'Hara said in an e-mail from her home in Massachusetts, "sex became a beautiful thing again and was no longer painful. That's when I realized that millions of women are having abnormal sex because of circumcision, and millions of women fake orgasm because of it."

    For her book, O'Hara surveyed 139 women, drawn through classified ads in various publications. By a margin of 9 to 1, she says, they preferred the natural penis over his maligned, circumcised cousin. When the man is cut, O'Hara found, women are "almost five times less likely to achieve vaginal orgasm."

    With her Web site, O'Hara keeps her campaign alive. Photographs of "cut" and "uncut" penises are liberally used, along with testimony from the women surveyed, such as: "I went with one circumcised guy who was into long sessions. After a while, I'd start to feel as if he were sandpapering me down there."

    November 19, 2010 at 19:21 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Nigel

      Well said Joseph. Thanks for the information.

      November 19, 2010 at 19:27 | Report abuse |
  11. Amy

    Im against circumcision. But i don't agree with taking that right away from parents to choose. Though my opinion is that so many parents do not do the research on it.
    I did no circumcise my son who is 9. No problems, no infections, nothing. We have a couple family members who are not circumcised either, and nor have they EVER had an issue.
    I honestly believe that GOD made you that way, so why go and cut it off? Thats like going and cutting a piece from a girls "parts". Give me a break!
    I gave birth to my son in Monterey cali, in a hosptial. The nurse came in and said "is he getting circumcised" I said "no" (just waiting for the harsment to start) and she said "oh, thank god! I can't stand seeing it done, or doing it and i have been a nurse for 28 years and i don't feel its nessasary". It was wonderful having that support! Other nurse found out i wasn't doing it and came in to express their opinions too.
    But long before that i had already made my decision not to do it. God made him that way, I was not going to alter that.

    November 19, 2010 at 19:29 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Joseph G.

      Can I ask why parents should be able to choose when it's not their body?

      November 19, 2010 at 19:30 | Report abuse |
    • Amy

      I choose when the child is unable. If my son chooses to do that when he is of age, then that is his choice.

      November 19, 2010 at 20:02 | Report abuse |
    • Joseph G.

      So you think it's okay to make a fundamental life decision regarding your child's body without their consent?

      Okay...

      November 19, 2010 at 20:51 | Report abuse |
  12. Tom Tobin

    Hiam,
    Please try this simple experiment to test what you have written.
    Suck on some sugar water. Then, stick a sharp knife through the skin of your genitals?
    Does it hurt?
    If you watched your kids, and they didn't appear to be in pain, common sense tells me it was because they went into a state Do you think that if someone removed half the skin of your genitals, as circumcision commonly does, that you might go into shock?
    Why would anyone wish a violent act, which removes 20,000 nerves and leaves a permanent scar, on their baby?

    November 19, 2010 at 19:46 | Report abuse | Reply
  13. matt

    Was cut as a baby. Glad my parents had it done. People saying it is mutilation are full of it. Even worse, the guys who try to get their foreskins back as adults have psychological issues they need to deal with.

    November 19, 2010 at 19:46 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Joseph G.

      Well shit, I guess I must have issues then. Thanks for clearing that up.

      November 19, 2010 at 19:49 | Report abuse |
  14. Gabriela

    I have my son circumcised, Not just because of religious beliefs. The more he gets older, if he decides want to have circumcised, it will be much more painful for him, I do not want him to suffer that. My uncle went through terrible painful after he had his when he was OLDER. I don't want him to have infections and germs through the years that he will be growing up. I rather to keep my child clean and healthy. It is up to the parents if they want their sons to be circumcised or not. It is their business, Banning isn't doing any good but cause more riots and dramas. People need to grow up and leave people's lives alone. For Christ's sake, people are striving for media attention.

    November 19, 2010 at 20:03 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Joseph G.

      "People need to grow up and leave people's lives alone."

      I agree, grow up and leave your son's penis... erm, life, alone.

      November 19, 2010 at 20:49 | Report abuse |
    • Gabriela

      To Joseph G. – You sound like a pedophile. Mind your own business. I am sorry if you do not like it and he is my son. I decide his life and wants what is best for him, You do not. Period.

      November 19, 2010 at 22:28 | Report abuse |
    • Joseph G.

      You've automatically lost the argument. Calling me a pedophile (Seriously, WTF.) and/or a Nazi means you are too stupid to actually debate on the internet. Please disconnect your router and let rational adults talk, ones that can debate without personal attacks.

      November 19, 2010 at 23:44 | Report abuse |
    • Joseph G.

      "he is my son. I decide his life."

      I hope you aren't employed as a police officer or any authority position, since you seem to be a person with control issues.

      Feel free to decide "his life" as well as you can.

      But his body is, and should remain, his own.

      November 20, 2010 at 01:16 | Report abuse |
  15. Dave

    I can't believe the ignorance about this topic. For those who say intact men have more disease and infections are not informed very well. Do you know what part of your body has the most germs in it. I bet you don't and it's not a foreskin or under it. People may like circumcised or non circumcised it's all a matter of preference. It's like how some guys like blondes and then some guys like women who are huge. We all don't want a Barbie doll . Also how can something look weird on the male body thatvthey are born with. They are some that look at a circumcised penis and say it's mutilated so who knows

    November 19, 2010 at 20:17 | Report abuse | Reply
  16. Living Proof

    I'm am a adopted and my birth mother and father wanted me circumcised but my parents did not have it done. My Mom claims she was told it wasn't needed that the fear of spreading cervical cancer was no longer a belief. I grew up with a lot of pain from not being taught how to care for my "turkey neck" and when I went to school and had to shower with the other boys I was pointed at and ridiculed because it was not a very popular thing for my age group. I often thought about getting a circumcision when I was older and did a lot of research about it and eventually decided not. Do I have germs? No. Stench? Only if I don't properly care for my member. I guess when it really comes down to it I wish I would have been circumcised but now that I am comfortable with my body I am glad I wasn't.

    November 19, 2010 at 20:31 | Report abuse | Reply
  17. busymom

    I believe that it is a parent's choice, regardless of the reason. To be honest, I get very tired of small groups of people trying to make changes that infringe on everybody's right to choose. It is a matter of choice and it is personal. And I already know the response to that comment; "We are taking the choice from the child." Maybe so, but I would be willing to bet that many of you who say that have never been in a locker room and had to bear the pain of being made fun of because you looked different. And if you were, remember how painful it was and life shattering it felt. I'm not saying that circumcision is for everyone,but I do believe that no one has the right to infringe on another person's privacy and make a decision for them just because that person doesn't believe in it.

    November 19, 2010 at 21:03 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Joseph G.

      "many of you who say that have never been in a locker room and had to bear the pain of being made fun of because you looked different"

      Derp. People will make fun of you regardless. Oh, look at the nerd. Oh, look at the skinny/fat/pimply/black/asian/mexican/smart/dumb kid.

      Your argument is this should be done simply to make people fit in since it's been done for so long now?

      It's time for things to change, and for male genital mutilation to END.

      November 19, 2010 at 23:42 | Report abuse |
    • Shawn

      Are you kidding me? only 33% of males in the US are being circumcised now, over 80% of the worlds mens are uncircumcised, and really if you want to play that card, why are they looking at his dick in the first place?

      November 20, 2010 at 16:33 | Report abuse |
    • Shawn

      and YOU don't have the right to make that decision for your son either

      November 20, 2010 at 16:34 | Report abuse |
  18. chris

    Lets hear it for California... one of the most beautiful states in the union, but yet you have (AGAIN) made mountains out of molehills! What are you thinking! It's a choice! Who are you to decide! This country is still free! (For how long, I don't know, if you guys are in charge) Shouldn't you be thinking of saving your state for your children? This kind of stuff makes me lose all faith for the future. This sounds like North korea or Iran.. Save your STATE for your children! Parents right to choose! Happy Meals and Penis problems...... Economy in the gutter, lost jobs, Americans laying down their lives in the middle east and all you can do is think about dicks? God help us...Hate to think about whats next! The rest of the union will save you and your foreskin. When you look out over that BEAUTIFUL COAST, and I mean that...Think about what you are doing.. LET FREEDOM RING! This is truly pathetic! If I lived in Calf. I would be embarrASSed!

    November 19, 2010 at 21:13 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Joseph G.

      Excuse me, but I don't remember having a CHOICE when my foreskin was lopped off.

      November 19, 2010 at 23:39 | Report abuse |
  19. John

    My neighbor waited until age 40 and had it done for health reasons. He kept having infections caused from sweat and heat, not to mention his wife giving him infections. He ended up 2 days in the hospital and in incredible pain for days after. He said it was the worse pain ever. No man or boy remembers the pain of circumcision given on the day after birth and the health benefits outweigh any reason not to have it done. I would do it all over again for my boys. No further thoughts needed. Bring on any city citations, I would gladly fight it out in public opinion.

    November 19, 2010 at 21:15 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Stan B

      When women in your city have genital infections caused from sweat and heat what parts of their genitals do doctors cut off to treat the problem?

      There are effective, non-surgical ways to treat genital infections in both men and women. Doctors is Europe treat genital infections in men with medication, not surgery. Unfortunately, too many American doctors only know how to treat genital infections in men by cutting parts off.

      November 19, 2010 at 21:52 | Report abuse |
  20. Jimbonasium

    The World Health Organization [WHO] recommended circumcision as a significant factor to curtail HIV in 2007. That is reason enough for me.

    November 19, 2010 at 21:24 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Stan B

      CONDOMS prevent HIV, genital cutting does not.

      If you believe the pro-circumcision advocates who did the studies in Africa, circumcision has a 40% failure rate in protecting against HIV. If the World Health Organization were promoting condoms with a 40% failure rate, they would be laughed out of the room.

      Circumcised men still need to use a condom for protection from HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. If I have to wear a condom for protection, why on earth would I want to cut off the most sensitive part of my penis?

      November 19, 2010 at 21:43 | Report abuse |
    • Dave

      Hey Stan B
      I hope that the skin at the tip of your penis is NOT "the most sensitive part" of it. Generally it is the tip, NOT the skin covering, that is considered the most sensitive. And BTW, if there is a 40% failure rate, that means a 60% success rate, which IS statistically significant. So if something can REDUCE the incidence of HIV/AIDS by 60%, then I think: go for it.
      And if you are looking for 100% prophylaxis, with a very active popluce that will be hard.

      November 19, 2010 at 22:18 | Report abuse |
    • Stan B

      Dave, male circumcision permanently amputates the part of a male's penis that has the highest concentration of Meissner's corpuscles and other specialized nerves. The foreskin is the part of a male's penis that is most sensitive to fine touch.

      November 19, 2010 at 22:37 | Report abuse |
  21. tom

    Quite often circumcision is medically necessary. My father did not believe in it and he convinced my mother not to allow it when I was born. At the age of 21, I had to have it done and I can tell you I would much preferred having it done at birth.

    November 19, 2010 at 21:40 | Report abuse | Reply
  22. Gibberish

    God gave boys foreskin for a reason. There's nothing on our bodies that we don't need, however, he was also the one who told the Jews to circumcise to distinguish them from everyone else. I do know of a couple of people who had to get their babies cute for medical reasons, but I also know people who aren't cut, and they have no problems, are STD free, and they don't get infections. Why? Because they clean themselves. STDs can be contracted by ANYONE, so don't kid yourselves. And, ask yourselves, what kind of God would give a man a part that will cause him cancer later in life? And for the non-believers, you know that our bodies are scientific marvels, they were not made to self destruct.

    November 19, 2010 at 21:49 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Dave

      sorry, you said there is nothing in the body we don't need. Ever hear of the appendix? How about that small toe (sometimes called the baby toe)? So please read before you post. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermiform_appendix
      thanks

      November 19, 2010 at 22:14 | Report abuse |
    • Omni

      You should cut off your appendix, testicle, prostrate etc along with penis.

      November 19, 2010 at 22:23 | Report abuse |
    • Joseph G.

      Dave, are you an idiot? You just linked to a site that shows that the appendix serves important functions in the GI system.

      November 19, 2010 at 23:38 | Report abuse |
  23. Dave

    To equate male circumcision with female clitoral mutilation is not only ludicrous, it is sad. The clitoris is a sexual organ, quite parallel to the penis. Removing the hood of the clitoris (for those ladies for whom such a hood prevents pleasure) IS equatable to make circumcision. A piece of skin, but one that if left on, can breed diseases, harbor smegma, and cause as mentioned, adhesion. So some San Fransisco anti-Semites are trying to ban a practice that is medically sound, but more importantly, religiously a part of a VERY old tradition. Freedom of religion (Establishment clause) is one of the freedoms Americans enjoy that other countries' citizens do not. Are we to chip away at it by attacking the practice of a pact with Abraham, and shoving the State between a man and his G_d? I think this is not only intrusive, it is cloaked in the guise of a protection of young males from "genital mutilation". I would not be surprised if the proponents of this latest of "sexy" and therefore controversial yet inconsequential attempted State edicts are in fact the Bay Area men, who are trying to use the force of LAW to whet their appetites. Really wrong!

    November 19, 2010 at 22:00 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Omni

      Cutting of somebody penis is not religious freedom. How is your azz hole? Is it stinkier and dirtier than penis? Is it germ free? Cut off your azz hole for the same reason.

      Vagina carries more germ and stinker. Cut off your testicle and prostrate to pervent cancer.

      November 19, 2010 at 22:18 | Report abuse |
    • Joseph G.

      The foreskin is a sexual organ as well, full of nerve endings and providing sexual comfort for the male and female.

      http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com/

      the first survey of women who have had the comparative experience of intercourse with both types of penises.

      The vast majority of these women agreed there is indeed
      a definite, discernible difference between circumcised and natural intercourse. Natural intercourse is decidedly superior
      —gloriously better.

      Top 3 of the survey's many significant findings:
      Women were almost 5 times likelier to achieve vaginal orgasm
      when the man had an natural penis. And they were significantly
      likelier to achieve multiple vaginal orgasms as well.

      Uncircumcised men usually lasted longer.

      Conversely, premature ejaculation was significantly more common
      among circumcised men. And, contrary to expectation, even if the
      circumcised man could prolong intercourse, after 8 -10 minutes
      of thrusting, women started wishing "to just get it over with."

      Surveyed women preferred sex with a natural penis by a margin of 9 to 1 — not 2 to 1, or 3 to 1, but 9 to 1.

      November 19, 2010 at 23:36 | Report abuse |
    • Jackieno

      Dave what is sad is that you opine and you really don't know what you are talking about. FGM can be a horrific removal of all outer gentile parts including the outer clitoris. HORRIBLE. However, the most common (about 80%) of FGM is clitoral hood and labia cutting. That is less nerves and less pleasure giving tissue removed than what they do to boys here in the US. Women say the sex is fine, say it is cleaner and they want it done to their daughters (does that sound familiar?)! The rare form of FGM is certainly worse than MGM. However, male circumcision done here in the US takes away more sexual function and pleasure capacity than female circumcision as it is typically done (e.g., in Malaysia). So they are comparable, if you remove the culture/sex bias.

      Also, just as for MGM, people claim that FGM lowers the risk of HIV. Two large studiesthe claimed that FGM (labia and clitoral hood cutting) lowered HIV risk to the cut women. I think this is BS. Note that in the US and the rest of the industrialized world there is no lower HIV risk or ANY STD risk by having part of you r penis removed. US studies show the risk of STDs and HIV is the same for natural penis men and men that have had erogenous tissue of their penis removed! It is so ou there to have these facts that the cut does not change HIV risk for American's and then to push bogus studies in Africa. Don't get your daughter cut (labia clitoral hood) to prevent HIV and don't cut your son to prevent HIV.

      A fact that is certain is that all of these genital cutting practices remove capicity for pleasure of the circumcised. For men the loss is drastic with thousands of fine touch nerve endings cut off. For females the loss is a bit less severe for the most common FGM (labia and clitoral hood removal) and is sexually devastating for the extreme form.

      I am against all cutting of the genitals, certainly against all cutting of the genitals without the consent of the person being cut. I ask that those against FGM also voice their disapproval of MGM. The rest of the world sees the selective treatment as hypocrisy, which it is.

      November 20, 2010 at 08:55 | Report abuse |
  24. Mom_of_FIVE

    I have five children...three boys and two girls. Two of my sons from my previous marriage are circumcised because that was the norm and I didn't know any different because that is what all of us Americans have been taught through the years. I hated it for my sons because it was a painful procedure, healing process and regardless of the fact that they were newborns and wouldn't remember the pain...I do, even 18yrs. later.

    I am currently married to a European male and we have a 4yo. son along with two older daughters. When I was pregnant, we discussed whether to circumcise or not. He was adamantly against it, stating that it was not a necessity and was strictly done for aesthetics. After much research I decided that he was right and we opted not to get our son circumcised. At first I was scared because it was something new and I wasn't sure how to deal with it, but now 4 years later I have no problem with it at all. It's just like anything else, the unknown is often the scariest.

    I believe that people should do what they are comfortable with as long as it is not detrimental to the health of their child. If people want to circumcise, then do it. If they don't, more power to them. A city, gov't., etc, should not dictate what someone can and cannot do to their own body.

    November 19, 2010 at 22:15 | Report abuse | Reply
  25. Remember too much

    I remember getting circumcised a little. It was not as painful as afterward, when I peed in my diaper. THAT was f**king painful!

    It was so painful to urinate that I learnt very quickly how to hold it in. And THAT was painful as well.
    But a bit of petroleum jelly and a bandage and I was a happy, bubbling baby.

    But I do remember that pain very well. It was amazingly painful.
    As for growing up, I was more sensitive than other people, more things were also traumatic for me. Part of me wishes it had not been done (no pun intended). But I have not known anything else, so take that as you like.

    November 19, 2010 at 22:23 | Report abuse | Reply
  26. blahblah88

    I chose to have my son circumcised even though I was unsure at the time. My son is now 20 and we have candid discussions, and I once asked him if he would have like to have chosen that for himself, or did we make the right decision and is he happy we chose to do so? He said absolutely, he's glad we didn't waffle and choose not to choose, and just did it. On the other hand, I have a 17yr old daughter that I never pierced her ears as a baby...thinking that it might not be in style when she got older, so decided to leave it up to her. She's glad I didn't automatically do it, and she doesn't have her lobes pierced, nor does she want them pierced.

    November 19, 2010 at 22:39 | Report abuse | Reply
  27. circumcisionwisdom

    "On the other hand, some of you oppose a ban on circumcision because that ban would violate personal freedoms. Says HooHa78:"

    Circumcision is a violation of the child's personal freedom. It should have been banned ages ago; boys deserve the same level of protection from genital mutilation in this country as girls have received (unconstitutionally, btw).

    November 19, 2010 at 23:17 | Report abuse | Reply
  28. circumcisionwisdom

    "He said absolutely, he's glad we didn't waffle and choose not to choose, and just did it. "

    Many victims of such genital cutting feel this way. Fortunately, many other do not and have begun to spread the word about why it's wrong to assault an infant's healthy genitals in this matter. It's no one's 'right' (not even a parent's) to amputate a perfectly healthy body part from another human being. This right belongs to the owner of the body part in question.

    November 19, 2010 at 23:20 | Report abuse | Reply
  29. circumcisionwisdom

    "I believe that people should do what they are comfortable with as long as it is not detrimental to the health of their child. "

    So ... should parents be able to have the 'ritual nick' performed on their daughters? Should parents be allowed to remove the earlobes from their children? How about the tip of their nose? These things can be done done in such a way that it's not 'detrimental to the health of their child' so would you support or agree with those scenarios? If not, then your assertion above is erroneous.

    Bottom line – if the body part in question is normal, natural, healthy and/or not causing an immediate medical issue, leave it alone until the child can decide for themselves.

    November 19, 2010 at 23:23 | Report abuse | Reply
  30. circumcisionwisdom

    "To equate male circumcision with female clitoral mutilation is not only ludicrous, it is sad. The clitoris is a sexual organ, quite parallel to the penis. Removing the hood of the clitoris (for those ladies for whom such a hood prevents pleasure) IS equatable to make circumcision. A piece of skin, but one that if left on, can breed diseases, harbor smegma, and cause as mentioned, adhesion."

    It's absolutely not ludicrous because BOTH are forms of genital mutilation. The foreskin is also a sexual organ with distinct functions and importance.

    There is NO medical reason to remove this normal part of the anatomy from a child. In fact, the risks associated with cutting it off are greater than any possible risk associated from leaving it alone.

    November 19, 2010 at 23:26 | Report abuse | Reply
  31. Joseph G.

    Some people have said they have sons who are glad they were cut young.

    But then again, they didn't have the choice, did he? Also, how would he know what it would be like if it was still intact? He literally has nothing to judge against. People should have the CHOICE.

    How many woman arguing against this choice would get pissed off if we tried to ban birth control, the pill, tubal litigation, abortion?

    You fought for the rights for your body. Why can't men have the same basic rights for THEIR bodies? Is it really that hard to comprehend the idea that unrequired surgery on infants is wrong?

    November 19, 2010 at 23:49 | Report abuse | Reply
  32. Steve

    Amazing after all these years people are still bringing this to the forefront like we don't have bigger issues in this country. I don't know what has become of what was once known as the good old USA. Inch by inch we're starting to lose our civil liberties in this country but having said that we still live in a country which grants us the right to elect our officials if we don't agree with how this country is ran we run them off. As Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty, or give me death".

    PS: I'm circumcised, I have no diseases, shower daily, went to church every Sunday, I'm not Jewish or Muslim and surely don't want to compare my penis to my dad's (Yuk), and get this I haven't quit masturbating.

    November 19, 2010 at 23:49 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Joseph G.

      I lost a few inches of my civil liberties and freedom of choice when I was born. You think I should sue the doctors?

      November 19, 2010 at 23:50 | Report abuse |
  33. MooseyMan

    To those of you that believe in good and his design of our bodies.....wouldn't be against everything we know to not understand that he created us in his image and that includes every part of our badies. It is that simple, foreskin included.

    November 20, 2010 at 00:56 | Report abuse | Reply
  34. Nobody

    A great injustice is being undone to young boys by changing their bodies without their consent. This has resulted in much trauma in my teenage years. I felt flawed. I felt violated. I felt like I was never going to be the way I was supposed to be. I held a loaded shotgun to my head, but I found the strength to get through my bought of depression. Nobody ever helped me through it, because nobody was on my side. It was all due to the thing that happened to me at my birth.

    Please let a person choose how their body will be altered. It's not fair. I am one acquainted with the unseen pain caused by this operation, and it has effected my self esteem, my confidence, and at one point, every thought that went through my mind.

    November 20, 2010 at 02:19 | Report abuse | Reply
  35. Tim

    More uncircumcised men choose to pierce their nipples or tattoo their faces, than choose to be circumcised. Of all the body modifications available for the uncircumcised adult male, circumcision is VERY low on the list of what men choose to do. If it were really a good thing, uncircumcised men would be rushing to the doctor to get it done, but they're not. Which means babies would not if they had a choice.

    November 20, 2010 at 02:43 | Report abuse | Reply
    • DAN LAW

      Your conclusion is groundless. Nothing you say proves babies would not choose to be circumcised.

      November 20, 2010 at 06:39 | Report abuse |
  36. lbjack

    The downright looniness of the anti-circumcision crowd is breathtaking. There is something perverse about their passion on the subject. Take the precious soul who calls infant circumcision "excruciating'. Like. she knows? Or the guy who claims he remembers. Right after birth??? Sounds like someone who gets off talking about diapers and vaseline.

    1. It's about hygiene. It's simply cleaner, and those who say having a foreskin is just as clean are lying or don't know what clean is..
    2. It's about health. it's settled science, regardless of what the equivocating quacks in the article say. The UN and African nations are coöperating in a program to get their male population circumcised, because the statistics are overwhelming. They couldn't care less what the lunatic fringe in SF are screeching these days, since they know that circumcision is about saving lives..
    3. It's about sexual pleasure, which is PROLONGED because of circumcision.

    That Europeans not practicing circumcision is no great testimonial, since most Euros stink. And Euro women I know complain about it. And furthermore, since Europeans are endemically anti-Semitic, any rationale they proffer regarding a "Jewish" practice is suspect.

    If you don't want to be circumcised or have your kid circumcise, then fine. Just don't mount some kind of campaign to impose on your sick, crackpot obsession others.

    As for San Francisco, it's clear that the campaign there is inspired by the gay leather crowd that rules the city, for whom "docking" is a special kink, along with golden showers. That's what this is all about, Folks. And those who obsess about it here need to get help. The creatures in SF are beyond help.

    Frankly, it's disgusting CNN dignify a bunch of crackpots, but then, pandering to baseness is their forte.

    November 20, 2010 at 02:44 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Joseph G.

      Sexual pleasure is not prolonged, it is hindered. There's a difference. Your comments about Europeans are tasteless and offensive, and do not belong here. This has nothing to do with anti-Semitic views. This has nothing to do with gay rights.

      This isn't even about San Francisco, I'm all the way on the East Coast. It's about basic human rights and the right to decide what happens to your own body.

      You've lost the argument by bashing Europeans and homosexuals, while also throwing in a hint of Nazi reference.

      For the safety of others, please disconnect from the internet until you get your prejudices sorted out.

      November 20, 2010 at 04:31 | Report abuse |
    • Michael

      Joseph, you already lost your own argument. Children NEVER get to decide what happens to their own bodies. Its up to the parent. Immunizations, transplants, piercings, tattoos, all dictated by parents. Just because my 8 year old thinks a tat would be awesome, doesnt mean he's getting one. And just because you think his circumcision is barbaric, doesnt mean you get to have your way either.

      November 20, 2010 at 06:27 | Report abuse |
    • Joseph G.

      Hey Mike, your son can CHOOSE to get a tattoo when he's eighteen. He can't CHOOSE to have part of his body back.

      Also, I'd love to know where you can pierce/tattoo an infant and not get slapped with a lawsuit in America.

      November 20, 2010 at 16:50 | Report abuse |
  37. Star

    For any other laws/ decisions concerning a child is always left on the parents to make, for instance, the decision to pull the plug of a dying child is left for the parents to decide as they are the guardians and are lawfully required to make decisions. hence, why is this being treated differently. A parent has the right to decide for their child.
    and futhermore, i do not understand why this is such an issue..they was its a violation of the childs right and its disgusting and so on...but one must consider who are they to decide that. just because it is unacceptable for you does not mean it is for others. Isn't the glorious state of US always promoting democracy and human rights...
    if it is acceptable in certain cultures, so let it be. please do not impose your opinion on others.

    November 20, 2010 at 03:35 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Joseph G.

      "just because it is unacceptable for you does not mean it is for others. Isn't the glorious state of US always promoting democracy and human rights...
      if it is acceptable in certain cultures, so let it be. please do not impose your opinion on others."

      I agree. Certain cultures accept female genital mutilation and stoning to death. Let's allow that as well. After all, it's their culture.

      November 20, 2010 at 04:25 | Report abuse |
  38. girl

    I have read all the comments here and notice a clear difference between the anti circumcision people and the pro-circ. people. The pro people have unintelligent, uncreative, mean, off base and extreme opinions and comments. That is because they are all basing their arguments on pounding their chests and maintaining their rights to do whatever they choose to another living being. The reason this has to become a law is to protect innocent infants from stupid people who probably aren't smart enough to take good care of themselves let alone another person. Oh, and I also believe that abortion is wrong because you are choosing to end someone else's life. I would choose in both situations to spend much more effort on educating people and making contraceptive freely available to everyone. I have two boys who are not circumcised, the argument that they don't look like their father is rediculous, they aren't as big an hairy and my daughter doesn't have boobs like I do, by the time my boys are old enough to notice a difference in their penises from their father they certainly shouldnt be seeing his nor he seeing theirs!! Plus their eyes may be a different color too, and if people are so concerned about their children being teased in the locker rooms, why don't they try to keep their children fit and not obease? And are we saying it is not ok to look different? Or are we supposed to accept peoples differences of skin color, size etc. this should include in the locker room!! I have never once had to clean my boys penises and we have never had any problems. And finally, I have had an uncircumcised boyfriend and guess what guys, he was super sexy, and I enjoyed him very much!! Why is this a woman's business at all as some posters have questioned? Because it is the MOTHER'S job to protect her children from greedy doctors who stand to make some money from the proceedure and from selling the foreskin, and from their ignorant and egotistical fathers who think they want their tiny little unhairy infant to look just like them. Please educate yourselves and than you so much to all the articulate, intelligent , educated, and informed posters who are advocating for the end of a barbaric and outdated mutilation and violation of another person's body.

    November 20, 2010 at 04:19 | Report abuse | Reply
  39. Sabster

    This is a crazy not to mention arrogant propostion; to mutilate our boys for religion's sake (sorry, the hygiene argument followed the religious one) ; as some people have already said–how about if we mutilate our girls, isn't that unfathomably wrong?! How cannot the same be true for our sons? So we know better about what should be there than either our Creator or our evolution???? Oh, go ahead, take our tonsils, take our appendix, our spleen, our foreskin; oh, wait a minute, we might actually NEED those! My husband wasn't circumcised and I honestly don't know what people are talking about when they say un uncircumcised penis is hideous; he looks normal to me! I would never have allowed my three sons to be mutilated like that-a baby should never be tortured in this way, let alone for cosmetic purposes. A caring mother could never allow her son to sustain this cruel and unanaesthetized cut. How dare we allow this to go on!!!?!?!? What kind of barbarism is this, masquerading as a social norm? For shame on us!!!

    November 20, 2010 at 04:20 | Report abuse | Reply
  40. Steve

    I have to give an Amen to Joseph G, girl and Sabster you all hit the nail on the head. I still haven't seen any scientific or medical statistics that will back up their claims to diseases, has anyone died because they didn't get circumcised. I decided to get circumcised at a young age my parents had nothing to do with it. I have lost some sensitivity this was 20 years ago, my biggest regrets thus far. KEEP THE SKIN

    November 20, 2010 at 04:58 | Report abuse | Reply
  41. Joe

    Circumcised males will be the minority in the US soon.

    November 20, 2010 at 05:31 | Report abuse | Reply
    • jessica

      A highly sought after minority... as oral sex is much better with an uncircumcised man.

      November 20, 2010 at 11:36 | Report abuse |
    • Joseph G.

      "oral sex is much better with an uncircumcised man."

      See, even Jessica is in favor of uncut.

      November 20, 2010 at 16:52 | Report abuse |
  42. Michael

    Thank you Mom and Dad for having the good sense to circumsise me. I didnt have to go through an entire childhood of pain cleaning, or infections from my lazy habits from just being a kid. Thank you for having the good sense to know that now any woman I am with wont look at me sideways, wondering if I have properly cleaned it and wont give her a disease or infection, or if she will even sleep with me at all for appearing so grotesque. And if it is indeed true that some of my sensitivity is gone, then THANK YOU even more profoundly and deeply, for now I have been able to pleasure my woman longer and harder, without selfishly finishing first all the time. You have indeed turned me into the ultimate bedroom partner. Clean, aerodynamic, and ready to please!

    November 20, 2010 at 06:21 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Jackieno

      Michael,
      It is good you are so happy, but some of the real circumcision issues kick in after 50. Many many men have numb dick and have real problems having sex. The cut last longer thing is myth. Natural and cut guys last about the same time in bed (unless there are numb dick problems). However, cut men have more P.E. issues, normally at a young age, with the scar sending wrong signals to the brain.

      I guess you really do not understand the sourvce of pleasure you have lost for LIFE. It is not too much senstaion, it is a symphony of wonderfull natural sensation you were meant to feel. So you are happy that you don't feel the pleasure that you never knew? That is not so meaningful for others.

      What kind of things do you imagine that make these extra parts seem like a buden? Infections are very rare now that poeple realize you do not pull back a young boysforeskin to clean. Cleaing is easy as you grow up. You play with it in the shower and it is clean. And yes it is ture., the real thing (a NATURAL penis) is so fun to play with. There is no pain just PLEASURE. You missed out, but what an evil thing to do, to push the penis reduction, pleasure reduction, sexual dysfunction surgery on the next generation!!!!

      Most of the worlds men are natural and have zero problems and almost none of them would even consider gving up the protection and pleasure these parts give. These parts allow people to have natural sex, the way we evolved to have it. Circumcision is a weird thing – a cutting off of the main male pleasure zones. This is tons of pleasure giving nerves, blood vessels and protective covering. The dynamics of the penis is changed for good. This is serious genital modification (mutilation) of the male with more nerves cut than female circumcision. It does lead men to want oral and anal more, because vaginal sex is less satisfying after the cut of these parts. As I saiud, cut men have more premature ejaculation issues as the scar is now the most sensitive part and they have lost control of orgasm timing. It leads to sexual dysfunction at a MUCH younger age. The cut men in the world use most of the VIAGRA consumed. As you get old, you may well miss these parts. Many many cut men do.

      November 20, 2010 at 09:44 | Report abuse |
  43. DAN LAW

    San Francisco is going too far. The city government has more important things to do than to worry about this. It is reaching into the private lives and violating privacy. This was the "free love" city thirty years ago. When did the tight jawed take over? I thought it was a restriction of business practice when they banned toys in Happy Meals. This is so much worse! It's time for a recall of city government.

    November 20, 2010 at 06:32 | Report abuse | Reply
  44. Me

    Thanks to circumcision I suffered pain at the age of 5 during the surgical procedure because of complications because they had to stop using anaesthetics. This cause me serious psychological harm which today is descriped as Borderline-Personal-Disorder, Post-Traumatic-Stress-Disorder and suicidal thoughts. "Thank you" to all those doctors who did that to me, making me unemployed at the age of 25 due to necessary therapies and being too instable to resist any stress which occours at every workplace. Guess what? I'm European! So it's not just a problem within America or it's states. It's a problem which affects every man on earth who is circumcised because his parents decided to do so. NO ONE EVER HAS THE RIGHT TO CUT OF PIECES OF MY GENITALS!

    November 20, 2010 at 07:18 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Lioness

      I do agree with you that your parents should have given you the choice at a later age.
      If you still have such severe PTSD at age 25 that you are unable to work, please find a therapist who specializes in PTSD. If they are not helpful, seek another. Ask about "biofeed' therapy. Work on onvincing yourself that yes you can deal with stress in a mature manner, and yes, you can work.
      Your past stress and anxiety can be overcome.

      November 21, 2010 at 11:32 | Report abuse |
  45. Richard McBride

    I consider the violation of my body as an infant to be mutlitation. Having not had any satisfactory sexual experiences due to the botched job, I consider the proceedure to be barbaric. If it ascceptable for men to have this done then women should also have the proceedure at birth.

    November 20, 2010 at 07:50 | Report abuse | Reply
  46. destiny

    Every one says that circumcision is mutilation Its not. it is a choice that is made. I do not see anyone going after people who do abortions.....or even those who get liposuction or plastic surgery. all of those should be mutilations if getting your child circumsised

    November 20, 2010 at 09:30 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Joseph G.

      Jesus, babies are getting plastic surgery! We must end this!

      Wait... HOLY SHIT BABIES ARE GETTING ABORTIONS?! I knew TEEN pregnancy was a problem, but god damn!

      November 20, 2010 at 16:55 | Report abuse |
  47. USStupid

    "Ignorance is the father of circumcision."

    November 20, 2010 at 09:32 | Report abuse | Reply
  48. Poetessa

    Circumcision is a pointless and barbaric form of sanctioned mutilation.

    November 20, 2010 at 10:02 | Report abuse | Reply
  49. Cody

    American circumcised men need a serious dose of reality. And it's not gonna come from your American doctor.

    Look at the bigger picture – NO medical organization in the world recommends cutting healthy baby penises at birth. Not even the American Academy of Pediatrics. The USA is the ONLY country in the world that routinely cuts baby penises at birth for NO MEDICAL REASON and no religious need.

    If there were proven, significant benefits to circumcising at birth, don't you think other countries would adopt the practice instead of dropping it?! If the foreskin was as problematic as American medicine has you believe, why are 75% of men worldwide not having problems? 75% of men in the world are uncircumcised, uncut, intact, whole, natural, NORMAL, the way they were born.

    Wake up and smell the coffee dudes, your healthy, NORMAL penis that you were born with was cut at birth for MONEY. If you choose to cut your son's penis, it's for MONEY. Why would anyone pay someone to cut their kid's dick???!!! There is NOTHING WRONG with the foreskin, 100% of boys are born with one.

    Moms, dads, there is no reason to do this to your healthy baby boy and there are a lot of reasons not to.

    And to the ladies spewing out the insults towards a normal penis – ugly, smelly, dirty, gross, disgusting, etc. GROW UP. Imagine if this was a discussion of normal female genitals and all these men were saying those things – ugly, fishy, smelly, gross – women would be pretty pissed off to say the least.

    November 20, 2010 at 10:40 | Report abuse | Reply
    • jessica

      Cody... You are right to say males should be given the choice. Women are only fishy and gross if they are unbathed.. An uncircumcised penis is disgusting. And I am saying as a beautiful woman that an uncircumcised man's penis smells bad. I would never have oral sex with a man who still has foreskin.

      November 20, 2010 at 11:21 | Report abuse |
    • Joseph G.

      Jessica, to be honest, no one wants to have sex with someone so close-minded as you.

      I'm starting to suspect you had some kind of childhood trauma that make you fear natural penises that way you go on about them.

      November 20, 2010 at 16:57 | Report abuse |
    • Lioness

      Jessica does have some sort of issue.

      Women may have an odor immediately after bathing and washing, and so might men. It's normal and natural pheromones, not something to freak out about.

      Sex should be about love, anyway, not anything shallow.

      November 21, 2010 at 11:36 | Report abuse |
  50. Rhiannon

    Circumcision is a tragedy for both men AND women. Any woman who has been with an uncircumcised knows how much better the sexual experience is. Our bodies are designed in perfection–there is a REASON for the foreskin. DUH. Not to mention the horror of taking away a person's right to choose what happens to their body before they can vocalize for themselves. All around a terrible tragedy for humanity, and another way that religion has found to control the human population and our god-given right for sexual pleasure. The proponents who say that circumcision somehow makes you "cleaner" and safer from disease are using junk science to support their belief. I would never, EVER circumcise a baby. Cruel and unusual punishment, and irreversible. And no matter what anyone claims, sex IS better with the foreskin, for BOTH parties.

    November 20, 2010 at 10:45 | Report abuse | Reply
    • jessica

      Rhiannon, there is no difference between with or without foreskin when it comes to sexual gratification.. Also, I'd like to know how many men have actually experienced sex with and without. I'd be willing to be they are full of crap when they say it feels better with. Probably most men who state this still have their smelly skin and are only speculating about the difference.

      November 20, 2010 at 11:25 | Report abuse |
    • asim

      @Rhiannon, I agree 100%. The mutilators are cowards trying to defend their barbaric act on an helpless newborn.

      November 20, 2010 at 14:13 | Report abuse |
    • Joseph G.

      Jessica...

      http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com/

      the first survey of women who have had the comparative experience of intercourse with both types of penises.

      The vast majority of these women agreed there is indeed
      a definite, discernible difference between circumcised and natural intercourse. Natural intercourse is decidedly superior
      —gloriously better.

      Top 3 of the survey's many significant findings:
      Women were almost 5 times likelier to achieve vaginal orgasm
      when the man had an natural penis. And they were significantly
      likelier to achieve multiple vaginal orgasms as well.

      Uncircumcised men usually lasted longer.

      Conversely, premature ejaculation was significantly more common
      among circumcised men. And, contrary to expectation, even if the
      circumcised man could prolong intercourse, after 8 -10 minutes
      of thrusting, women started wishing "to just get it over with."

      Surveyed women preferred sex with a natural penis by a margin of 9 to 1 — not 2 to 1, or 3 to 1, but 9 to 1.

      November 20, 2010 at 16:58 | Report abuse |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Leave a Reply to Yuki Peabody


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.

Advertisement
About this blog

Get a behind-the-scenes look at the latest stories from CNN Chief Medical Correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Senior Medical Correspondent Elizabeth Cohen and the CNN Medical Unit producers. They'll share news and views on health and medical trends - info that will help you take better care of yourself and the people you love.