There is TONS of psyc medical literature that addresses this. to dismiss it wold be deleterious.

these resources use only reputable publications.

http://knol.google.com/k/circumcision-and-human-behavior#

http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/

http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/

I think that your experience is similar to that of many well-intentioned mothers in the US. You really don't like the procedure, but it just seems like something that has to be done, right? You've probably grown up around men who are circumcised, your doctors were probably neutral or supportive on the issue, and you may not have ever had a need to question it. Sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth here - correct me if I'm wrong.

In the case of neonatal circumcision, there's no immediate medical need for such surgery. It's basically non-reversible cosmetic surgery being performed on an infant, who of course didn't consent to it. As a society, I think we need to question this, and I'll provide some links for those looking to do so (nothing graphic, I promise).

The foreskin, ridged band, and frenulum have many functions: http://www.enotalone.com/article/3509.html

Here's the most recent circumcision policy statement from a medical association: http://tinyurl.com/496ek8b

Information for parents about circumcision: http://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/pregnancybabies/Circumcision.htm

Collection of circumcision links for parents: http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showthread.php?t=4159

Cirp.org - information for parents: http://www.cirp.org/pages/parents/

50 reasons to leave "it" alone: http://tinyurl.com/4ajzjeo

*Fair warning: there are some very emotionally charged stories in the last two links*

Many mothers later regret circumcising their sons: http://tinyurl.com/4puzneq

A growing number of men are angry about being circumcised as infants, and wish they'd be given a choice: http://tinyurl.com/4ogk2gq

Statements like these are not only completely lacking in knowledge but are dangerous. Someone might read such a sentiment and actually believe it's true. This could be no further from the truth. That's saying the clitoris has no nerve endings or the fingertips have no nerve endings. LOGIC and just a tad of accurate information go along way. The foreskin has a minimum of 20,000 nerve endings. More than twice that of the clitoris.
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/
www.nocirc.org
http://www.thewholenetwork.org/
http://www.intactamerica.org/

This is what neonatal circumcision looks like; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=013PdUzvWpo

I discuss these in detail on this website intactipedia.org

no medical organization takes any of these claims seriously except HIV.

HIV

Of all the accusations leveled against the human foreskin none warrant a closer examination then HIV. In order to defend the circumcision industry from its now eminent decline, circumcision advocates have sought to manipulate our fears of a slow and plain-full HIV/AIDS related death.

Lower socioeconomic minorities are more often intact and usually have a greater number of sexual partners. Most men who have contracted HIV are suffering the consequences for a life time of poor decision making. In the U.S. HIV is often always contracted by homosexuals who have engaged in promiscuous activity, and/or men who have engaged in a life time of drug use and promiscuous sexual activity. Besides, children born to day will likely have and HIV vaccinate available by the time thy are sexually active adults.

All studies have repeatedly shown that number of sexual partners generates the biggest increase in STD infection risk. Therefore comparing a circumcised upper class and an intact lower class or comparing circumcised African Muslims to intact African Non-Muslims, is inapplicable because of the significant difference in hygienic and sexual behavior which affect the results far more then circumcision status which in turn is also related to tribal affiliation. Therefore the rates of exposure for each group within their separate communities is a co-founding factor.

Studies performed in Africa could never be extrapolated to populations in the U.S., because of the drastically different culture. Pro-circumcision “studies” taken from rural Africa routinely and deliberately neglect these plain and obvious flaws during their data mining operations in rural Africa. Viral load is often a co-founding factor that is not controlled for. Viral load has been suggested to drastically increases HIV infection risk(1)

It is also very important to note that Langerhans cells that are present in the foreskin produce Langerin, a substance that has been proven to kill the HIV virus on contact.(2) Pro-circumcision advocates claim that Langer cells allow for the entry of the HIV virus, however Langerhans cells exist though out all the skin of the penis therefore it would not be logical to remove all the skin of the penis to prevent HIV.

Many observational studies use participants who have life styles that are not representative of average Americans or Africans. There have been many studies on long distance truck drivers in Africa(3). Some of these truck drivers engage in risky sexual activity with prostitutes at trucks stops. These are not indicative of your typical life style. Should you surgically alter your son based on the poor decisions of long distance truck drivers in Kenya?

Yet, time and time again, researchers who actually value science have sought to correct these flawed assessments. For every study that claims a benefit there is another, if not more studies that found no benefit.

A 1999 meta-analysis on HIV concluded :

“...on the 29 published articles where data were available. When the raw data are combined, a man with a circumcised penis is at greater risk of acquiring and transmitting HIV than a man with a non-circumcised penis [...]Based on the studies published to date, recommending routine circumcision as a prophylactic measure to prevent HIV infection in Africa, or elsewhere, is scientifically unfounded."(4)

Since homosexuals are one of the biggest proliferators of HIV in the U.S. it is important to determine what effect HIV has on the homosexual transmission of HIV.

A 2008 meta-analysis of 15 observational studies, including 53,567 gay and bisexual men from the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia, India, Taiwan, Peru and the Netherlands (52% circumcised), stated that the rate of HIV infection was non-significantly lower among men who were circumcised compared with those who were uncircumcised.(5)

The flaws with these new Randomized “Controlled” Trials (RCT).

Why go to Kenya(6), Uganda(7), and Sub-Saharan Africa(8) to perform randomized “controlled” trials(RCTs) on circumcision and HIV? These are some of the only countries in Africa where circumcised communities have a lower prevalence of HIV(9). Hard-line circumcision advocates with and known bias, know this, and they often exploit the cultural differences in these communities that cause intact communities to acquire HIV more often. This is how they are mining the data they need to promote their agenda. After receiving criticism for observational studies circumcision advocates have sought to use these randomized controlled trials in order to control for the cross-cultural differences that studies in these places have been criticized for in the past. However there are still obvious flaws in methodology that can not be denied. Here are just some of the variables that where not controlled for in many studies used to claim that circumcision prevents HIV, and specifically in the RCT’s .

1)The time needed for healing for those circumcised before the trial was initiated means less exposure time. Circumcision is a serious injury, men who have just been circumcised can not be expected to continue normal sexual behavior during the trial. Behavior always effects your risk by many orders of magnitude more then circumcision ever could.

2)Dry sex is A practice that is common in many of these communities. It entails drying the vagina with dirt, sand, dried leaves, corn meal, or powders to absorb lubrication. This practice is unsanitary and causes lesions and other entry points that increase risk for STD transmission.(10)
3)Genital warts and ulcers re-occurrence, how they were treated, the final efficacy of that particular treatment (Excision or chemical). And the irresponsible sexual behavior on both men(11) and prostitutes while afflicted with genital ulcer disease(GID)(12). GUD is an endemic in parts of Africa.
4)One U.S. study showed that circumcised men were more likely to engage in riskier and "more highly elaborated" sexual practices including anal sex, and sex with multiple partners(13). These factors may not come into play for an intervention group immediately after circumcision. This also shows that sexual behaviors for those circumcised as infants may not reflect sexual behaviors of those circumcised as adults. Therefore results determined in circumcising an intervention group are not applicable to men circumcised as infants.
5)Female circumcision: where male circumcision exists female circumcision usually exists as well.
6)Anal sex
7)Homosexual sex
8)The accuracy of the tests to determine rates of false or negative determinations
9)The time needed to manifest all seroconversions

10)In the case of these new RCT’s any chance of a follow-up was lost because the test was stopped early and all subjects were circumcised.
11)Equal amount of "safe-sex counseling" for both groups

Some of these new short term studies, determined that circumcised significantly less likely to acquire HIV then genitally intact men. This does not mean this benefit exists in the real world. Repeat exposure to partners with HIV will eventually lead to the acquisition of HIV. If the real world reduction was significant we would see a significant difference among intact and circumcised populations, when in reality we do not see any clear association. The conductors of these studies took a quick snap shot of the data before the results turned on them and then circumcised all study participates so that a follow-up survey could not be performed.

If they tried to present this to any reputable organization who wished to maintain scientific integrity, they would be laughed out of the room, as they have. Attributing the results of their tests to anatomically correct male genitalia is not only ludicrous but plainly irrepressible. What we have here are “studies” performed in an abstracted theoretical situation. This theoretical situation is unrealistic and does not represent real world situations. In the real world people are sexually active for more then twelve or twenty months of their life. In the real world people would not wear a condom that is only marginally effective. The only thing that can prevent HIV is safe sex or abstinence.

A recent study performed by researchers without any declared conflicts of interest concluded.

"Circumcision status was not associated with HIV/HSV-2 infection nor increased high risk sexual behaviors. In males, preference for being or becoming circumcised was associated with inconsistent condom use and increased lifetime number of sexual partners." (14)

This study also reveals the moral hazard this circumcision campaign has created in Africa. People may mistakenly assume circumcised men are immune to HIV infection, therefore validating reckless sexual behavior. In any event condoms have proven to be far more efficacious then circumcision could ever be.

What about male to female HIV transmission?

“ there is consistent evidence that female-to-male HIV transmission, compared with male-to-female transmission, is much higher in Europe than in the USA ...Data from the European Multicenter Partners Study and comparable research from the USA suggest that the ratio of female-to-male transmission (compared with male to female transmission) is about 10 fold higher in Europe.”(15)

Why not perform controlled short term trials to find how circumcision affects male to female transmission? If such studies where performed researchers may not find what it is they are looking for.

The U.S. Is the only western nation with a large number active circumcised males. The prevalence of circumcision in the U.S. could possibly explain why the male to female transmission of HIV is so high. This could explain why the United States has the highest rate of HIV in the developed world, even higher then many third world nations!(16)

A Randomized controlled trial in Uganda was performed to test the HIV transmission to female partners of circumcised men. The found:
"17 (18%) women in the intervention group and eight (12%) women in the control group acquired HIV during follow-up (p=0·36)"(17)
Women of circumcised partners where 50% more likely to contract HIV! This may be due to the lack of the mobile foreskin and its self lubricating function during intercourse. Without the foreskin, abrasive sex can open up micro fissures In the vaginal wall and may allow the HIV virus an easy entry target. Vaginal abrasion has already been shown to increase HIV infection risk via “dry sex”(10). This study has met criticism as it was performed by researches with a proven bias and a noted conflict of interest. The study was ended early because of “futility” and before a statical value known as p could warrant accurate results. One ought to suspect that it was deemed futile because the results were not what researchers wanted. In any event there are several other studies and publications that suggest the same result which have not met the same criticism.
“partner circumcision ... remained strongly associated with HIV-1 infection even when simultaneously controlling for other covariates”(18)

“Male circumcision may in fact worsen the epidemic. It is imperative, therefore, that further studies be conducted to determine the overall effect before implementing mass circumcision campaigns to control HIV infection.” (19)

(1)Gray RH, Wawer MJ, Sewankambo NK, et al. Relative risks and population attributable fraction of incident HIV associated with symptoms of sexually transmitted diseases and treatable symptomatic sexually transmitted diseases in Rakai District, Uganda. Rakai Project Team. AIDS 1999;13(15):2113-23.
Quinn TC, Wawer MJ, Sewankambo N, et al, for the Rakai Project Study Group. Viral load and heterosexual transmission of human immunodefficiency virus type 1. N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 921-29.
(2)de Witte L, Nabatov A, Pion M, et al. Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1 transmission by Langerhans cells. Nat Med 2007 (Published on line ahead of print March 4).

(3) Rakwar J, Lavreys L, Thompson M L. et al Cofactors for the acquisition of HIV‐1 among heterosexual men: prospective cohort study of trucking company workers in Kenya. AIDS 1999. 13607–614.
Manjunath J V, Thappa D M, Jaisankar T J. Sexually transmitted diseases and sexual lifestyles of long‐distance truck drivers: a clinico‐epidemiologic study in south India. Int J STD AIDS 2002. 13612–617.
Lavreys L, Rakwar J P, Thompson M L. et al Effect of circumcision on incidence of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 and other sexually transmitted diseases: a prospective cohort study of trucking company employees in Kenya. J Infect Dis 1999. 180330–336.
Bwayo J, Plummer F, Omari M. et al Human immunodeficiency virus infection in long‐distance truck drivers in east Africa. Arch Intern Med 1994. 1541391–1396.
(4)Van Howe, R.S. (January 1999). "Circumcision and HIV infection: review of the literature and meta-analysis". International Journal of STD's and AIDS 10: 8–16. doi:10.1258/0956462991913015. http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/vanhowe4/. Retrieved 2008-09-23.
(5)Millett GA, Flores SA, Marks G, Reed JB, Herbst JH (October 2008). "Circumcision status and risk of HIV and sexually transmitted infections among men who have sex with men: a meta-analysis". JAMA 300 (14): 1674–84. doi:10.1001/jama.300.14.1674. PMID 18840841. http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/300/14/1674.

(6)Bailey RC, Moses S, Parker CB, et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Kisumu, Kenya: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2007 Feb 24;369(9562):643-56.
(7)Gray RH, Kigozi G, Serwadda D, et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in men in Rakai, Uganda: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2007 Feb 24;369(9562):657-66.
(8)Auvert B, Taljaard D, Lagarde E, Sobngwi- Tambekou J, Sitta R, Puren A. Randomized, controlled intervention trial of male circumcision for reduction of HIV infection risk: the ANRS 1265 Trial. PLoS Med. 2005 Nov;2(11):e298. Erratum in: PLoS Med. 2006 May;3(5):e298.
(9)Vinod Mishra, Rathavuth Hong, and Yuan Gu, and Amy Medley and Bryant Robe . Levels and spread of HIV seroprevalence and associates factors: evidence form national household surveys. USAID 2009 Feb; 51-53

(10) Runganga A, Pitts M, McMaster J. The use of herbal and other agents to enhance sexual experience. Soc Sci Med 1992 Oct;35 (8):1037-42.
Runganga AO, Kasule J. The Vaginal use of herbs/substances; an HIV transmission facilitatory factor? AIDS Care 1995;7(5):639-45.
Sandala L, Lurie P, Sunkutu MR, Chani EM, Hudes ES, Hearst N. “Dry sex” and HIV infection among women attending a sexually transmitted disease clinic in Lusaka Zambia. AIDS 1995 Jul;9 Suppl 1:s61-8
Brown JE, Ayowa OB, Brown RC. Dry and tight: sexual practices and potential AIDS risk in Zaire. Soc SCI Med 1993 Oct;37(8):989-94
Dallabetta GA, Miotti PG, Chip hangwi JD, Liomba G, Canner JK, Saah AJ. Traditional vaginal agents: use and association with HIV infection in Malawian women. AIDS 1995 Mar;9(3):239-7.
Gresenguet G, Kriess JK, Chapko MK, Hillier SL, Weiss NS. HIV infection and vaginal douching in central Africa. AIDS 1997 Jan;(1):101-6.
Baleta A. Concern voiced over “dry sex” practices in South Africa. Lancet 1998 Oct 17;352(9136):1292
Beksinska ME, Rees HV, Kleinschmidt I, McIntyre J. the practice and prevalence of dry sex among men and women in South

Africa: a risk factor for sexually transmitted infections? Sex Transm infect 1999 Jun;75(3):178-80
Nyirenda MJ. A study of the behavioural aspects of dry sex practice in urban Lusaka. Int Conf AIDS 1992;8:D461
Van de Wijgert J, Mason PR, Ray CS, et al. Use of intravaginal preparations, presence of lactobacillus in the vagina, and risk for HIV in Zimbabwean women. Int Conf AIDS 1996;11:34 (abstract no MoC 223).
Morar NS, Karim SS. Vaginal insertions and douching practices among sex workers at truck stops in KwaZulu- Natal. South Afr Med J 1998;88:470.
Civic D, Wilson D. Dry sex in Zimbabwe and implications for condom use. Soc Sci Med 1996;42:91–8.
Hira SK, Mangrola UG, Mwale C, et al. Apparent vertical transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 by breast-feeding in Zambia. J Pediatr 1990;117:421–4.
Mann JM, Nzilambi N, Piot P, et al. HIV infection and asso-ciated risk factors in femalesocal concerns prostitutes in Kinshasa, Zaire. AIDS 1988;2:249–54.
Irwin K, Mibandumba N, Mbuyi K, et al. More on vaginal inflammation in Africa. N Engl J Med 1993;328:888–9.
Mbizvo MT, Chipato T, Mashu A, et al. Trends in HIV-1 prevalence and risk factors in pregnant women measured by clinic on-site testing and laboratory confirmation in Harare, Zimbabwe. Int Conf AIDS 1996 (abstract no MoC 1485).

Jinju M, St Louis ME, Mbuyi K, et al. Risk factors for heterosexual HIV transmission: a case-control study among married couples concordant and discordant for HIV-1 infection. Int Conf AIDS in Africa. Dakar, December 1991 (abstract no TO 105).

(11) Peoin J, Quigley M, Todd J, Gaye I, Janneh M Van DyckE, Piot,P, Whittle H. Association between HIV-2 infection and genital ulcer diseases among male sexually transmitted diseases patients in the Gambia. AIDS 1992 May;6(5):489-93.
O’Farrell N, Hoosen AA, Coetzee KD, van den Ende J. Sexual behavior in Zulu men and women with genial ulcer disease. Genitourin Med 1992 Aug;68(4):245-8.
De Vincenzi I Mertens T. Male circumcision: a role in HIV prevention? AIDS 1994 Feb;8(2)
(12)Kaul R, kimani J, Nagelkerke NJ, Plummer FA, Bwayo JJ, Brunham RC, Ngugi EN, Ronald A. Risk factors for genital ulcerations in Kenyan sex workers: the role of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 infection. Sex Transm Dis 1997 Aug;24(7):387-92
(13)Laumann EO, Masi CM, Zuckerman EW. Circumcision in the United States: prevalence, prophylactic effects, and sexual practice. JAMA 1997;277:1052-7.
(14)Westercamp M, Bailey RC, Bukusi EA, Montandon M, Kwena Z, et al. (2010) Male Circumcision in the General Population of Kisumu, Kenya: Beliefs about Protection, Risk Behaviors, HIV, and STIs. PLoS ONE 5(12): e15552. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0015552 http://tinyurl.com/4tmaal8
(15) De Vincenzi I. Heterosexual transmission of HIV. JAMA 1992; 267: 1919.

(16) Report on the Global HIV/AIDS Endemic. June 2000 UNAIDS, Geneva, 2000, pp. 124-132
(17)Circumcision in HIV-infected men and its effect on HIV transmission to female partners in Rakai, Uganda: a randomized controlled trial. The Lancet, Volume 374, Issue 9685, Pages 229 - 237, 18 July 2009
(18)Chao A, Bulterys M, Musanganire F, Habimana P, Nawrocki P, et al. Risk factors associated with prevalent HIV-1 infection among pregnant women in Rwanda. National University of Rwanda-Johns Hopkins University AIDS Research Team. Int J Epidemiol. 1994;23:371–380.
(19)Jonathan Sykes. Male Circumcision Increases Risk for Females PLoS Med. 2006 January; 3(1): e72. Published online 2006 January 31. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0030072. PMCID: PMC1360646

"There are no nerve endings in the foreskin" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. OMFG .
thats a good one

Specialized nerve receptors in the foreskin

The enervation of the foreskin is impressive (17). Genitally intact males know from personal experience that the foreskin is one of the most sensitive parts of the body. Consequently, for over a century, some of the most respected names in medical science have turned their attention to this part of the body. Anatomists have transformed their inner knowledge into careful scientific observation about the complex enervation of the foreskin
As the most richly innervated part of the penis, the foreskin has the largest number of nerve receptors, as well as the greatest variety of nerve receptors. These specialized nerve ending include Meissner's corpuscles(18), free nerve endings, end bulbs of Krause(19), Corpuscles of Ruffini(20), Pacinian corpuscles(21), genital and bulbs(22) Genital bodies(23), Merkels disks, Golgi-Mazzoni corpuscles(24), and Vater-Pacinian corpuscles(25). These remarkable organs provide the foreskin with its amazing ability to detect the slightest sensations of touch, motion, temperature, and pressure. We are still unaware of all the facts about these fascinating structures. Future research may discover even more nerve receptors in the foreskin and help clarify what purposes they serve.

Erogenous zones of the foreskin

The foreskin is what's known as a specific erogenous zone (26). This means that it is richly equipped with a high density and concentration of specialized and sophisticated nerve receptors that convey pressure. The only other specific erogenous zones on the male body are the conjunctiva of the eye, lips, nipples, perianal skin, and the head of the penis. The presence of specialized erogenous nerve receptors makes this part of the body especially important.
The primary zones of erogenous sensitivity are the frenulum, ridged mucosa, and the preputial orifice and the external fold of the foreskin. All of these zones are orgasmic triggers. Continuous gentle stimulation of any one of these areas can elicit pleasure, orgasm, and ejaculation.

How the glans compares with the foreskin

Most people are surprised to learn that the glans penis is one of the least sensitive parts of the entire body (27). Obviously, this news may be worrying for circumcised males. The glans is insensitive to light touch, heat, cold, and even pinpricks, as researches at the Department of Pathology in the Health Scientists center at the University of Manitoba discovered (28). The corona of the glans contains scattered free nerve endings, genital end bulbs, and pacinian corpuscles, which transmit sensations of pain and deep pressure. The glans is nearly incapable of detecting light touch.
The nerve receptors of the corona are designed to be stimulated through the medium of the foreskin. Direct stimulation of the glands of the intact penis is most pleasant with the stimulus mimics the moist, massaging action of the foreskin.
The Moving ring of pressure created by the lips of the foreskin and ridged mucosa stimulate the nerve receptors in the rim of the glands. While pleasurable stimulation of the frenulum and ridged mucosa is instantly perceived, sensation of the corona is slow and gradual. When fully stimulated the erotic sensations felt in the corona are perceived as having a slow, warm, and rich quality. As nice at this is, it hardly compares to the erotic sensations generated by the foreskin. Circumcised males have been robbed of a normal level of sexual sensation

. Just as a person whose lips where amputated could can never really appreciate the sensations that lips convey, so a circumcised male can never under stand what his intact friends experience. This helps explain why some circumcised males defend circumcision so vehemently. They have no idea what was taken from them and are psychologically unprepared to deal with their loss.

In order to confirm all of this information, a most recent study in 2007 physically measured the sensitivity of all the parts of the penis. They used a very accurate pressure sensing probe while the test subject, who’s view was blocked with a screen, registered a sensation of touch. To demonstrate precision they took each measurement multiple times. Statistically, their results where very consistent. To no surprise, their results corroborated with the nero-anatomy that has been discussed previously.

"Five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision were more sensitive than the most sensitive location on the circumcised penis[...] The glans in the circumcised male is less sensitive to fine-touch pressure than the glans of the uncircumcised male[...]The most sensitive location on the circumcised penis is the circumcision scar on the ventral surface [...] When compared to the most sensitive area of the circumcised penis, several locations on the uncircumcised penis that are missing from the circumcised penis were significantly more sensitive. "(29)

(17) Moldwin RM, Valderrama E. Immunohistochemical analysis of nerve distribution patterns within preputial tissues. J Urol 1989 Apr;141(4):499A. (abstract)
(18) Taylor JR, Lockwood AP, Taylor AJ. The prepuce: specialized musocsa of the penis and its loss to circumcision. Br J Urol 1996 Feb;77(2): 291-5
(19) Dogiel AS. Die Nervenendigungen in der Haut der ausseren Genitalorgane des Menschen. Archiv fur Mikroskopische Anatomie 1893:41:585-612
Bazett HC, McGlone B, Williams RG, Lufkin HM. Depth, distribution and probable identification in the prepuce of sensory end-organs concerned in sensations of temperature and touch; thermometric conductivity. Archives of Neurology and psychiatry 1932 Mar; 27(3):489-517
(20)Bazett HC, McGlone B, Williams RG, Lufkin HM. Depth, distribution and probable identification in the prepuce of sensory end-organs concerned in sensations of temperature and touch; thermometric conductivity. Archives of Neurology and psychiatry 1932 Mar; 27(3):489-517
(21) Ohmori D. Uber die Entwicklung der Innervation der Genitalapparate als peripheren Aufnahmeapperat der Genitalen Reflexe. Zeitschrift fur Anatomie und Entwicklungsgeschichte 1924;70(1):347-410.
(22)Halata Z, Munger BL. The neuroanatomical basis for the protopathic sensibility og the human glans penis. Brain Res 1986 Apr23;371(2):205-30.

(23)Ohmori D. Uber die Entwicklung der Innervation der Genitalapparate als peripheren Aufnahmeapperat der Genitalen Reflexe. Zeitschrift fur Anatomie und Entwicklungsgeschichte 1924;70(1):347-410.
(24)Ohmori D. Uber die Entwicklung der Innervation der Genitalapparate als peripheren Aufnahmeapperat der Genitalen Reflexe. Zeitschrift fur Anatomie und Entwicklungsgeschichte 1924;70(1):347-410.
(25)Winkelmann RK. The Cutaneous Innervation of the human newborn prepuce. Invest Dermatol 1956 Jan;26(1):53-67
(26)Winkelmann RK. The erogenous zones: their nerve supply and its significance. Proceedings of the staff meetings of the Mayo Clinic 1959 Jan21(2):39-47
(27)Halata Z, Munger BL. The Neuroanatomical basis for the protopathic sensibility of the human glands penis. Brain res 1986 Apr 23;371(2):205-30.
(28)Taylor JR, Lockwood AP, Taylor AJ. The prepuce: specialized musocsa of the penis and its loss to circumcision. Br J Urol 1996 Feb;77(2): 291-5
(29)Morris L. Sorrells, James L. Snyder. Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis . BJU 2006 Oct:22, pp. 864-869

The results of a fascinating study conducted by Dr. Christopher Cold and Dr. Kenneth A. McGrath demonstrate that the human foreskin in an evolutionary advancement over the foreskins of other primates. The human foreskin is far more sophisticated and responsive, as their comparative anatomy studies prove. This is seen most clearly in the evolutionary increase in corpuscular innervation and simultaneous decrease in corpuscular receptors in the human glans relative to the innervation of the foreskin and glands of lower primates (30). In other words, in monkeys and apes, the glans is more sensitive then the foreskin. In humans, this is reversed, so that the foreskin is more sensitive then the glands. If the foreskin where "vestigial", this advancement would have never taken place and the human foreskin would be either equally or less sensitive then the ape foreskin.

(30)Cold CJ, McGrath KA. Anatomy and histology of the penile and clitoral prepuce in primates: an evolutionary perspective of the specializes sensory tissue of the external genitalia. In: Denniston GC, Hoges MF, Milos FM (eds). Male and female circumcision: Medical, Legal, and Ethical Considerations in Pediatric Practice. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 1999. pp. 19-29

Pretty much EVERYTHING Julieanne said is wrong:

"There are no nerve endings in the foreskin. If a doctor,surgeon ,or pediatrician has cut enough that a baby is in pain then it has been done wrong."

This sounds like the myth doctors used to believe that newborns down feel pain. It is absolutely, NOT TRUE that there are no nerve ending in the foreskin. The foreskin is *loaded* with thousands of sensory nerve endings. Not only does it HURT when it's cut off, but the lack of foreskin also deprives the man of the sensory pleasure provided by foreskin.

"It actually can prevent penile cancer,cervical cancer,HIV,and various bacterial and fungus related issues."

Wrong. Foreskin actually provides protection.

http://intactipedia.org/index.php?title=Immunological_and_Protective_Function_of_the_Foreskin

Penile cancer is more rare than male breast cancer. It's even more rare than vulvar cancer. Cervical cancer is caused by HPV, not foreskin. HIV is caused by risky sex practices, not foreskin. In the U.S., where babies are routinely mutilated, our rates of HIV/STDs, etc. are actually HIGHER than in countries where babies aren't cut.

"I often wonder if the women so against it are married to uncircumcised men. "

Unlike many ignorant American women, female intactivists aren't so superficial as to judge a man by the state of his penis alone.

"The facts that have come up especially recently should not be over looked."

These 'facts' you speak of have been debunked in various ways.

"And I doubt this is like having a nail removed, because a nail doesn't later retract "

It is like having a nail removed because at the time infant circumcision is performed, the foreskin is still adhered to the head of the penis.

False. all these claims have been thoroughly discredited, visit my web site at intactipeida.org.

The trouble with all those "benefits" - where they exist at all - is that they are really minor in the bigger picture; slight reductions of rare diseases, such that dozens or even hundreds or thousands of circumcisions would be wasted to prevent one instance, often of something that can be readily treated if and when it occurs.

These "benefits" only appeal to people who really, really, want to circumcise already, for reasons that have nothing to do with health. One example, so bad it's funny, is Bob's circinfo, the personal webpage of an Australian professor of molecular biology who's never seen a reason for circumcising he didn't like, up to and including "to prevent bathroom splatter" and "to prevent zipper injury" and who spins statistics faster than a dentist's drill. (He turns FIVE intact boys with recurrent UTIS out of 75,000 children into "19% percent of boys"!) Fortunately a small spelling correction is all you need: http://www.circinfo.org There. Fixed!

Circumcision advocates quickly moved on to manufacture a number of outrageous health claims. These claims were tailored to the fears and anxieties of the day. Circumcision has been claimed to cure epilepsy, convulsions, paralysis, elephantiasis, tuberculosis, eczema, bed-wetting, hip-joint disease, fecal incontinence, rectal prolapse, wet dreams, hernia, headaches, nervousness, hysteria, poor eyesight, idiocy, mental retardation, insanity, strabismus, hydrocephalus, clubfoot, cancer, STD’s, UTI’s, ect.(15) Doctors were eager to claim that they could prevent and cure many of these aliments,conditions and diseases because there were no treatments available then. Even though all of these claims have been throughly discredited, circumcision has remained a solution in search of a problem ever since. Many Americans are surprised to find out that female genital cutting (FGC) shares a strikingly similar history in the United States.(7,16,17,18,19,20,21) FGC was even covered by Blue Cross Blue Shield until 1977. Nowadays, many forms of FGC are now considered forms of female genital mutilation (FGM), which are banned in all western countries.

Perhaps the most shocking fact is that circumcision continues to be practiced in the United States even though no official western medical organization in the world recommends it. The Royal Dutch Medical Society, The British Medical Association, the Canadian Pediatric Society, and the Royal Australian College of Physicians have all made official policy statements against circumcision. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Urological Association all do not recommend circumcision, and are also in agreement that there are no proven benefits.

For some reason this information is not making it to parents. Studies have shown that doctors provide parents with almost no accurate or useful information about circumcision. One study showed that 40% of parents believed that their doctors failed to provide enough information, 46% reported that their doctors failed to give them any medical information at all, and 82.8% of parents regretted their decision they made within the first six months of their son’s life.(22) Another study found that physicians were less likely to circumcise their own sons.(23) This suggests that doctors are very well aware that circumcision is a non-therapeutic surgery (in short, a ritual); but they do not appear to share this knowledge with parents. A busy physician can supplement their income by as much as $60,000 per year from circumcision surgeries alone.(24) This incentive can cloud a physician’s judgment when it comes to providing parents with information about circumcision.

Many parents are surprised to hear that anesthetics are used in only a minority of cases.(25) The use of local anesthetics significantly drives up the costs of surgery. When anesthetics are used, they can only reduce the pain. Infants can not be given general anesthesia because of the medical risks involved. In the recent past, anesthesia was rarely used, if ever. Because of this, circumcision has always been an extremely traumatizing experience causing an array of short and long term behavioral and developmental problems (26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35), including altered perceptions of pain(36,37,38), post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)(39,40,41,42), and a possibly of adult self destructive behavior(43,44,45). Many circumcised men, some of whom are doctors, experience a strong denial of loss which in turn fuels an emotional compulsion to repeat the trauma to normalize their loss.(46,47,48,49,50)

What is the foreskin? is a question that many Americans would have trouble answering. Information about the foreskin is virtually absent during discussions of anatomy in biology classrooms, and yet, the foreskin provides a well-documented set of crucial sensory, protective, immunological, hygienic, and sexual functions. The foreskin is a double fold of skin that is twice as big as its appearance. It can make up to 80% or more of the penile skin covering, and includes around 12-20 square inches of skin (the size of a 3x4 or a 4x5 index card!)(51,52), and in turn includes a specialized sheet of dartos muscle(53)

One of the functions of this mobile skin system is to glide up and down the shaft of the penis in order to facilitate non-abrasive stimulation during sexual activity without any need for artificial factory made lubricant. This frictionless gliding mechanism is the principal source of stimulation for the intact penis and facilitates non-abrasive intercourse.(54)

The neuro-anatomy of the penis has been rigorously studied by respected anatomists of all kinds. The component tissues that comprise the foreskin are richly innervated with the greatest quantity and variety of sensory nerve endings than any other part of the penis; the foreskin can discern the slightest pressure, the lightest tough, the smallest motion, the subtlest changes in temperature, and the finest gradations in texture.(52,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62) Many people are surprised to discover that the glans or “head” of the penis is actually the least sensitive part and is insensitive to light tough, heat, cold and even pin-pricks.(52,61,62) Permanent unnatural exposure of the penis further desensitizes the glans, the foreskin keeps the glands healthy, clean, shiny, warm, soft, moist, and sensitive; with out the foreskin the glans are scared, dry, cracked, and pitted. Most notably, circumcision drastically reduces the glans sensitivity to vibration.(63)

To no surprise, this information was corroborated in a 2006 study which measured the sensitivity of all the parts of the penis. Researchers used an extremely sensitive pressure sensing probe while each test subject, whose view was blocked with a screen, reported a sensation of touch. To demonstrate precision they took each measurement multiple times. The results were statistically consistent. They concluded:

"Five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision were more sensitive than the most sensitive location on the circumcised penis[...] The glans in the circumcised male is less sensitive to fine-touch pressure than the glans of the uncircumcised male[...]The most sensitive location on the circumcised penis is the circumcision scar on the ventral surface [...] When compared to the most sensitive area of the circumcised penis, several locations on the uncircumcised penis that are missing from the circumcised penis were significantly more sensitive."(62)

The foreskin, like the eyelid, also serves an important set of protective and immunological functions. The foreskin protects the delicate glans of the penis and puts the urethra at a distance form its environment protecting it from foreign contaminants of all kinds. While simultaneously shielding the penis from injury. The foreskins inner fold and the glans of the penis are comprised of mucous membrane tissue. These are also present in your eyes, mouth, and all other bodily orifices including the female genitals. These mucous membranes perform many immunological and hygienic functions. Certain components such as Langerhans cells(64), plasma cells(65), apocrine glands(66), and sebaceous glands(67), collectively secrete emolliating lubricants(68) rich in enzymes such as lysosomal enzymes, chymotrypsin, neutrophil elastase, immunoglobulin, cytokine(69), cathepsin B (70) , and langerin which kills the HIV virus(71), all these substances function to sequester and “digest” foreign pathogens. The foreskin is also responsible for the production, retention, and dispersal of pheromones such as androsterone(72). In time we will discover even more information about the foreskin and its functional components.

he intact penis is naturally clean and maintains a level of hygiene that is optimal when compared to a penis that has been altered by circumcision. In fact, a myriad of rigorously controlled studies performed by objective researchers among racially and socioeconomically homogeneous study groups in developed urban settings have shown that circumcision is either often associated with an increased risk of bacterial infections, viral infections, and major STD’s, or no significant difference. (73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84).

Needless to say, circumcised men have been denied normal bodily functions associated with anatomically correct genitalia.

Refrences:
(1)Williams, N; L. Kapila (October 1993). "Complications of circumcision". British Journal of Surgery 80 (10): 1231-1236.
(2) Bollinger, Dan; Boy's Health Advisory (2010-04-26). "Lost Boys: An Estimate of U.S. Circumcision-Related Infant Deaths". Thymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies 4 (1): 78–90
(3) Gellis, SS. Circumcision. Am J Dis Child 1978;132:1168.
(4) Lallemand C-F. Des Pertes Seminales Involontaires, 3 vols. Pasis: Becht Jeune 1836, 1839, 1842. Vol1.,pp.463-1: vol2., 70-162; vol. 3,.pp266-7,280-9
(5) Dixon EH. A Treatise on Diseases of the Sexual organs. New York: Burgess, Stringer & Co. 1845. pp.158-65
(6) Moses MJ. The Value of circumcision as a hygienic and therapeutic measure. New York medical journal 1871 Nov;14(4):368-74

(7)Kellogg, J.H. (1888). "Treatment for Self-Abuse and Its Effects". Plain Facts for Old and Young. Burlington, Iowa: F. Segner & Co. Plain Facts for Old and Young (1881 edition) at Project Gutenberg
(8) Hutchinson J. On Circumcision as preventive of masturbation. Archives of surgery 1891 Jan;2(7);267-9
(9) Remondino PC. Negro rapes and their social problems. National popular review 1894 Jan;4(1) 3-6
(10) Cockshut RW. Circumcision. British Medical Journal 1935 Oct 19;2(3902):764
(11) Guttmacher AF. Should the baby be circumcised? Parents Magazine 1941 sept; 16(9):26,76-8
(12) Miller RL. Snyder DC. Immediate circumcision of the new born male. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1953, Jan;6 (1):1-11
(13) Fishbein M. Sex hygiene. In: Fishbein M(ed). Modern Home Medical Adviser. Garden City, New York Doubleday& Company:1969. pp. 90. 119.
(14) M. F. Campbell, "The Male Genital Tract and the Female Urethra," in Urology, eds. M. F. Campbell and J. H. Harrison, vol. 2, 3rd ed. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1970),1836.
(15) F. A. Hodges, "Short History of the Institutionalization of Involuntary Sexual Mutilation in the United States," in G. C. Denniston and M. F. Milos, eds., Sexual Mutilations: A Human Tragedy (New York: Plenum Press, 1997), 35.
(16) Robert Tuttle Morris, M.D. Is evolution trying to do away with the clitoris? American Association of OB/GYNs Vol.5, 1892, pp.288-302
(17) T. Scott McFarland, M.D. Circumcision of Girls. Journal of Orificial Surgery. Vol.7,July 1898,pp.31-33

(18) Benjamin E. Dawson, A.M., M.D. Circumcision in the Female: Its Necessity and How to Perform it. American Journal of Clinical Medicine. Vol.22, No. 6, June 1915, pp.520-525
(19) Belle C. Eskridge M.D. Why not circumcise the girl as well as the boy? Texas State Journal of Medicine Vol. 14, May 1918
(20) Mc Donald, C.F., M.D. Circumcision of the female. General Practitioner Vol. 18 No3, Sept 1958, pp.98-99
(21) W.G. Rathmann M.D. Female Circumcision: Indications and a new Technique. General practitioner Vol. 20, No.3, Sept 1959, pp.115-120
(22) Adler R, Ottaway S, Gould S. circumcision: We have heard from the experts; now let’s hear from the parents. Pediatrics 2001 Feb;107(2):E20
(23) Topp, S. (1978, January). Why not to circumcise your baby boy. Mothering, 6, 69-77.
(24) Fleiss, Paul M.D. What your Doctor May Not Tell You About Circumcision. Warner books. New York. Sept 2002.
(25)Stang , M.J., & Snellman, L.W. (1998). Circumcision practice patterns in the United States. Pediatrics, 101(6)
(26)Gunnar MR, Fisch RO, Korsvik S, Donhowe JM. The effects of circumcision on serum cortisol and behavior. Psychoneuroendocrinology 1981; 6(3):269-75.
(27) Porter FL, Miller RH, and Marshal RE. Neonatal pain cries: effect of circumcision on acoustic features and perceived urgency. Child Dev 1986;57:790-802.
(28) Porter, FL, Porges SW, Marshall RE. Newborn pain cries and vagal tone: parallel changes in response to circumcision. Child Dev 1988;59:495-505.

(29) Emde RN, Harmon RJ, Metcalf D, et al. Stress and neonatal sleep. Psychosom Med 1971;33(6):491-7.
(30) Gunnar MR, Connors J, Isensee, Wall L. Adrenocortical activity and behavioral distress in human newborns. Dev Psychobiol 1988;21(4):297-310.
(31) Anders TF, Chalemian RJ. The effects of circumcision on sleep-wake states in human neonates. Psychosom Med 1974;36(2):174-9.
(32) Marshall RE, Stratton WC, Moore JA, et al. Circumcision I: effects upon newborn behavior. Infant Behavior and Development 1980;3:1-14.
(33) Marshall RE, Porter FL, Rogers AG, et al. Circumcision: II effects upon mother-infant interaction. Early Hum Dev 1982; 7(4):367-74.
(34) Lee N. Circumcision and breastfeeding. J Hum Lact 2000;16(4):295.
(35) Anand KJS, Hickey PR. Pain and its effects in the human neonate and fetus. New Engl J Med 1987;317(21):1321-9.
(36)Taddio A, Goldbach M, Ipp E, et al. Effect of neonatal circumcision on pain responses during vaccination in boys. Lancet 1995;345:291-2.
(37) Taddio A, Katz J, Ilersich AL, Koren G. Effect of neonatal circumcision on pain response during subsequent routine vaccination. Lancet 1997;349(9052):599-603.
(38) LaPrairie Jamie L. Murphy Anne Z. Neonatal Injury Alters Adult Pain Sensitivity by Increasing Opioid Tone in the Periaqueductal Gray. Front Behav Neurosci 30 September 2009.
(39) Boyle GJ, Goldman R, Svoboda JS, Fernandez E. Male circumcision: pain, trauma and psychosexual sequelae. J Health Psychol 2002;7(3):329-43.

(40) Rhinehart J. Neonatal circumcision reconsidered. Transactional Analysis J 1999;29(3):215-21.
(41) Ramos S, Boyle GJ. Ritual and medical circumcision among Filipino boys: evidence of post-traumatic stress disorder. In: Denniston GC, Hodges FM, Milos MF (eds) Understanding circumcision: A Multi-Disciplinary Approach to a Multi-Dimensional Problem. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2001: pp. 253-70.
(42) Menage J. Post-traumatic stress disorder in women who have undergone obstetric and/or gynaecological procedures. J Reprod Infant Psychol 1993;11:221-28.
(43) Van der Kolk BA, Perry JC, Herman JL. Childhood origins of self-destructive behavior. Am J Psychiatry 1991; 148;1665-71.
(44) Jacobson B, Bygdeman M. Obstetric care and proneness of offspring to suicide. BMJ 1998; 317:1346-49.
(45) Salk L, Lipsitt LP, Sturner WQ, et al. Relationship of maternal and perinatal conditions to eventual adolescent suicide. Lancet 1985;i:624-7
(46) Van der Kolk BA. The compulsion to repeat the trauma: re-enactment, revictimization, and masochism. Psychiatr Clin North Am 1989;12(2):389-411.
(47) Goldman R. The psychological impact of circumcision. BJU Int 1999;83 Suppl. 1:93-103.
(48) Maguire P, Parks CM. Coping with loss: surgery and loss of body parts. BMJ 1998;316(7137):1086-8.
(49) Hill G. The case against circumcision. J Mens Health Gend 2007;4(3):318-23
(50) Goldman R. Circumcision policy: a psychosocial perspective. Paediatr Child Health 2004;9(9):630-3.

(51) See photographic series in: lander MM. The Human prepuce. In: Denniston GC, Milos MF (eds). Sexual Mutilations: a human Tragedy. New York: Plenum Press; 1997. pp.79-81
(52) Taylor JR, Lockwood AP, Taylor AJ. The prepuce: specialized musocsa of the penis and its loss to circumcision. Br J Urol 1996 Feb;77(2): 291-5
(53)Jefferson G. The peripenic muscle; some observations on the anatomy of phimosis. Surgery, Gynecology and Obstetrics 1916 Aug;23(2):177-81.
(54)K. O'Hara and J. O'Hara. The effect of male circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner. BJU International, Volume 83, Supplement 1, Pages 79-84, January 1, 1999.
(55) Moldwin RM, Valderrama E. Immunohistochemical analysis of nerve distribution patterns within preputial tissues. J Urol 1989 Apr;141(4):499A. (abstract)
(56) Dogiel AS. Die Nervenendigungen in der Schleimhaut der asseren Genitalorgane des Menschen. [The nerve endings in the afferent mucosa of the human genital organs.] Arch f. mkr. Anat. 1893; 41: 585-612.
(57)Bazett HC, McGlone B, Williams RG, Lufkin HM. Depth, distribution and probable identification in the prepuce of sensory end-organs concerned in sensations of temperature and touch; thermometric conductivity. Archives of Neurology and psychiatry 1932 Mar; 27(3):489-517
(58) Ohmori D. Uber die Entwicklung der Innervation der Genitalapparate als peripheren Aufnahmeapperat der Genitalen Reflexe. Zeitschrift fur Anatomie und Entwicklungsgeschichte 1924;70(1):347-410.

(59)Winkelmann RK. The Cutaneous Innervation of the human newborn prepuce. Invest Dermatol 1956 Jan;26(1):53-67
(60)Winkelmann RK. The erogenous zones: their nerve supply and significance. Mayo Clin Proc 1959;34(2):39-47.
(61)Halata Z, Munger BL. The neuroanatomical basis for the protopathic sensibility of the human glans penis. Brain Res 1986 Apr23;371(2):205-30.
(62)Morris L. Sorrells, James L. Snyder. Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis . BJU 2006 Oct:22, pp. 864-869
(63)Yang, DM; Lin H, Zhang B, Guo W (April 2008). "Circumcision affects glans penis vibration perception threshold". Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue 14 (4): 328–330
(64) Weiss GN, Sanders M, Westbrook KC. The distribution and density of Langerhans cells in the human prepuce: site of diminished immune response? Isr J Med Sci 1993 Jan;29(1);42-3
(65) Flower PJ, Ladds PW, Thomas AD, Watson DL. An immunopathologic study on the bovine prepuce. Vet Pathol 1983 Mar;20(2):189-201.
(66)Ahmed A, Jones AW. Apocrine Cystadenoma: a report of two cases occurring on the prepuce. Br J Dermatol 1969 Dec; 81(12):899-901.
(67)Hyman AB, Brownstien MH. Tyson's "glands": ectopic sebaceous glands and papillomatosis penis. Arch Dermatol 1969 Jan;99(1):31-6
(68)Parkash S, Jeykumar S, Subramanyan K, Chaudhuri S. Human Subpreputial collection: its nature and formation. J Urol 1973 Aug 110(2):211-2

(69) Ahmed AA, Nordlind K, Schultzberd M, Liden S. Immunohisto chemical localization of IL-1 alpha-, IL-1 beta-, IL-6- and TNF-alpha-like immunoreactivities in human apocrine glands Arch
(70) Frohlich E Shamburg-Lever G, Klesses C. Immunelectron microscopic localization of cathepsin B in human apocrine glands. J Cutan Pathol 1993 Feb;20(1):54-60
(71)de Witte L, Nabatov A, Pion M, et al. Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1 transmission by Langerhans cells. Nat Med 2007 Mar;13(3):367-71
(72) Cohn BA. In search of human skin pheromones. Arch Dermatol 1994 Aug; 130(8):1048-51
(73)Dermatol Res 1995;287(8):764-6Smith GL, Greenup R, Takafuji ET. Circumcision as a risk factor for urethritis in racial groups. AM J Public Health 1987 Apr;77(4):452-4
(74) Bassett I, Donovan B, Bodsworth NJ. Male circumcision and common sexually transmissible diseases in a developed nation setting. Genitourin Med 1994 Oct;70(5):317 -20.
(75) Bassett I, Donovan B, Bodsworth NJ, Field PR, Ho DW, jeansson S, Cunningham AL. Herpes Simplex virus type 2 infection of heterosexual men attending a sexual health sentre. Med J Aust 1994 Jun 6:160(11);697-700
(76) Van Howe R. Does Circumcision Influence Sexually Transmitted diseases?: a literature review. BJU Int 1999 Jan;83 Suppl 1:52-62.

77) Laumann EO, Masi CM, Zuckerman EW. Circumcision in the United States: prevalence, prophylactic effects, and sexual Practice. JAMA 1997 Apr2;277(13):1052-7
(78) Dickson NP, Van Rood T, Herbison P, Paul C. Circumcision and risk of sexually transmitted infections in a birth cohort. J Pediatr 2008;152:383-7.
(79) Cook LS, Koutsky LA. Holmes KK. Clinical presentation of genital warts among circumcised and uncircumcised heterosexual men attending an urban STD clinic. Genitourin Med 1993 Aug;69(4):262-4
(80) Van Howe, Robert S. (May 2007). "Human papillomavirus and circumcision: A meta-analysis". Journal of Infection 54 (5): 490–496.
(81) Dinh, T.H.; M. Sternberg, E.F. Dunne and L.E. Markowitz (April 2008). "Genital Warts Among 18- to 59-Year-Olds in the United States, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999–2004". Sexually Transmitted Diseases 35 (4): 357–360.
(82) Van Howe, R.S. (January 1999). "Circucmsion and HIV infection: review of the litarature and meta-analysys". International Journal of STD's and AIDS 10: 8–16.
(83)Amir J. et al. Circumcision and Urinary Tract Infections in Infants. Am J Dis Child (1986), vol. 140, p. 1092.
(84)Prais D. Shoov-Furman R, Amir J. Is circumcision a risk factor for neonatal urinary tract infections? Arch Dis Child Published Online First: 6 October 2008.

And worst of all, more then 117 (5) to 230(6) infants die from circumcision every year.
In fact more infants die form circumcision then adults die form penile cancer (penile cancer is extremely rare) (6). More infants die from circumcision then SIDS. More infants die form circumcision then infants die of smoke inhalation and car accidents combined during the first month of life.(5)

(5) Bollinger, Dan; Boy's Health Advisory (2010-04-26). "Lost Boys: An Estimate of U.S. Circumcision-Related Infant Deaths". Thymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies 4 (1): 78–90
(6) Gellis, SS. Circumcision. Am J Dis Child 1978;132:1168.

if the benefits were "proven" why have no official medial organization in the world recognize them?

No official western medical organization in the world recommends it, not even in Israel!. The Royal Dutch Medical Society, The British Medical Association, the Canadian Pediatric Society, and the Royal Australian College of Physicians have all made official policy statements against circumcision. The AAP, the AMA, the AAFP, and the AUA are in agreement that there are no proven benefits. they all have officially termed circumcision as non-therapeutic or ritual surgery.

was your fiend prematurely retracted as a baby?

circumcision is almost never necessary. Send him this link for non surgical treatments of penile problems.

http://www.cirp.org/library/treatment/

Dont you wonder how Europeans survive with out circ?

policy statements of official medical organizations:
http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/

I am not bigoting gays. I don't make up the statistics. Some of my best friends are gay.

is every medial organization in the world stupid?

Dr. Robert Van Howe actually conducted the largest review of the scientific literature on STD’s and circumcision ever published. His conclusions are startling:

"The medical literature does not support the theory that circumcision prevents STD’s" (6) Van Howe R. Does Circumcision Influence Sexually Transmitted diseases?: a literature review. BJU Int 1999 Jan;83 Suppl 1:52-62. [7]

To confirm this, the National Health and Social Life Survey conducted at the University of Chicago, found:

"First, Circumcision status does not appear to lower the likelihood of contracting an STD. Rather, the opposite pattern holds. Circumcised men were slightly more likely to have had both a bacterial and a viral STD in their lifetime." [8]

7 Van Howe R. Does Circumcision Influence Sexually Transmitted diseases?: a literature review. BJU Int 1999 Jan;83 Suppl 1:52-62. http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/vanhowe6/
8 Laumann EO, Masi CM, Zuckerman EW. Circumcision in the United States: prevalence, prophylactic effects, and sexual Practice. JAMA 1997 Apr2;277(13):1052-7 http://www.cirp.org/library/general/laumann/

Most studies on HPV performed before 2006 had poor controls and relatively small study groups. In order to clear up this confusion, a recent 2008 study on HPV had an enormous study group of almost nine thousand men in the United States. This is currently the largest study on circumcision and HPV ever performed in the U.S. And since the study was performed in the U.S., the results are directly applicable to people who live in the U.S. They concluded:

"The percentage of circumcised men reporting a diagnosis of genital warts was significantly higher than uncircumcised men, 4.5% (95% CI, 3.6%–5.6%) versus 2.4% (95% CI, 1.5%–4.0%)". [3]

Circumcised men where about twice as likely to have HPV! The claim that circumcision prevents cervical cancer in women is a detestable myth with sexist implications. This is based on the presumption that circumcision prevents HPV and that HPV increases the risk for both cervical cancer and penile cancer. Since this HPV claim has been thoroughly discredited, the cervical cancer myth is also now debunked. It has now been shown that circumcision increases the risk for HPV. Hence circumcision may increase the risk of both penile and cervical cancer by increasing the spread and acquisition of HPV. The practice of circumcision could very well be a contributing factor to the prevalence of HPV in the U.S.

Nevertheless pro circumcision advocates have continued to mine for data in inapplicable communities like rural Uganda with the intent to prove that circumcision does reduce the risk for HPV. Yet, when these studies are performed they get an incredible amount of press. Why did the previous study I present not gain any publicity?

In the studies I have provided thus far, they have have used racially and socioeconomic homogeneous study groups in developed urban western settings. This is something that most if not all of these pro-circumcision studies do not account for.

(3) Dinh, T.H.; M. Sternberg, E.F. Dunne and L.E. Markowitz (April 2008). "Genital Warts Among 18- to 59-Year-Olds in the United States, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999–2004". Sexually Transmitted Diseases 35 (4): 357–360.http://journals.lww.com/stdjournal/Fulltext/2008/04000/Seroepidemiology_of_Human_Papillomavirus_Type_11.8.aspx Retrieved 2011-03-5

if the benefits where so "FACTUAL" we would not have SOOOOO many Conflicting conclusions.

Apart from the fact that all the HIV study's quoted were not conducted done in the US and really have no reflection on our society.. it also did not address the fact that said studies did not prevent HIV in WOMEN or Homosexuals, at the end of the day, the argued studies were done in countries where Raping a new born baby is considered a way to cure AIDS !!!! Condom's are the only real barrier against STD.... And as for your "no nerve endings" in the Penis, first off Lady! your not a male so don't try to claim like you know cause you DON'T..... Secondly... You do need to "Rip"the foreskin from the GLANS to REMOVE IT hence forcible removal 20.000 nerve endings!!....... if you've ever seen an INTACT infants penis you'd know this!!! your comments are idiotic, ignorant and just plane stupid...get your facts straight!!!!! his body his choice!
If that ain't good enough for you Julieanne!!! Since your a CHICK how about we through back to them "Olden days" and remove the hood of your Clit and sew up your vagina so it can look good and feel tight!!!! ... hell while we're at it let's give you a boob job and take away your right to vote too!!!!!!!!!!!

Julieanne: You seem to be well-informed on the subject, so I'm hoping that you can answer something for me. I'm very interested to know how my foreskin can be so sensitive to fine-touch and stretching if it contains no nerve endings. Since you have done your research, and know your biology, please point me to a source that can explain that.

1 i don't just imagine the medical literature.

2 the frenelum is usually removed. The innervation of the foreskin IS A FACT. there is no refuting the work of countless respected nero anatomical researchers. The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis PERIOD!

3. The CDC nor the WHO recommend infant circumcision they promote volitionality adult male circumcision in AFRICA. They use African studies to delegate AFRICAN POLICY. African studies CAN NOT nor EVER be extrapolated to populations in developed Western urban settings . PERIOD. Fore the reasons described in my HIV post. Besides an HIV vax will be available by the time CHILDREN today grow up. CHILDREN IN AMERICA don't have sex with prostitutes infected with genital ulcer disease at trucker stops in Kenya.

never said 1/3 i said 117 to 230 a year that about 9.7/10,000

Julieanne, the CDC is not a medical professional association, but a governmental agency, and we all know what governmental agencies are like…. Likewise, UNAIDS and WHO are not medical associations, but international agencies supported by governments, and we all know that they are even worse than our US governmental agencies.

No nerve endings in the foreskin? Circumcision is painless? I should let my medical students know about that tomorrow. It should make the news.

You are absolutely correct that surgeries can go wrong. It is particularly sad, when unnecessary surgical interventions go wrong. It is unethical and it should be criminal when unnecessary and contraindicated surgeries are forced on non-consenting individuals, such as in routine infant circumcision, and it should at least be involuntary manslaughter when any of these infants die as a result of such an assault. And it happens every year in this country ….

I never said any thing like this this pisses me off.

"BUT Craigs claim that 1 out of 3 babies dies..IS INACCURATE MISINFORMATION"

This is what i said.

A wide range of surgical complications occur in 2-10% of the cases.(1) Since there are approximately 120 million circumcised men in the United States today, it stands to reason that there are millions of men who suffer daily from the effects of these botched circumcisions. Perhaps worst of all, more then 117(2) to 230(3) infants in the U.S. die from circumcision every year.

The 117 estimate is from, 2010 and it makes for 9.01/10,000 deaths.
The complications estimate is all FARR newer then you 1970s' education. back then complication rate studies dident exist, studies on trauma and every thing else did not exist either.

(1)Williams, N; L. Kapila (October 1993). "Complications of circumcision". British Journal of Surgery 80 (10): 1231-1236.
(2) Bollinger, Dan; Boy's Health Advisory (2010-04-26). "Lost Boys: An Estimate of U.S. Circumcision-Related Infant Deaths". Thymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies 4 (1): 78–90
(3) Gellis, SS. Circumcision. Am J Dis Child 1978;132:1168.

every circ research expert i have ever consulted agrees that this complication estimate is the most accurate publication that exists in the medical literature(1). This estimate uses a superior and realistic methodology.

(1)Williams, N; L. Kapila (October 1993). "Complications of circumcision". British Journal of Surgery 80 (10): 1231-1236.

i mean if i really wanted to give you skewed info i could throw you a couple publications that claim a 35(1)-55(2)% complication rate. these count more "minor skin tags". Where as other studies ignore them because the bodies of children are typically not something to be respected.

However a complication rate of 2-10% (3) is most accurate as it is based on the largest review of the medical literature on complications and circumcision ever published!

I guess cultural, ideological, and religious indoctrination is just to powerful for some. Such childish behaviour generates reason to dismiss the academic literature. I mean these people already live in a world where their "facts" do not requite scientific validation, the arbitrary and scientifically unfounded sataus-quo of their primitive and uneducated culture is typically good enough for them. "No nerves in the foreskin" is a perfect example of such unfounded claims.

(1) Kaplan, G.W. (August 1983). "Complications of Circumcision". Urologic Clinics of North America 10 (3): 543–549. PMID 6623741. http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/kaplan/. Retrieved 2006-09-29.
(2)Patel H. The problem of routine infant circumcision. Can Med Assoc J 1966; 95:576.
(3)Williams, N; L. Kapila (October 1993). "Complications of circumcision". British Journal of Surgery 80 (10): 1231-1236. http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/williams-kapila/#n14

To me, this sounds like Julieanne IS the IRRESPONSIBLE one spreading MISINFORMATION.

""1 out of 3000 have complications...not leading to death. BUT nice try. As I stated in the beginning do your research. Do not spread misinformation because you have a strong opinion. THAT is irresponsible. Good night.""

I mean here 1/3000 claim has absolutely no reference. Did she make this number up? Is she a reciting a number she read in a text book in the 70"S? As i explained today we have abetter idea of the complication rates because there has been more data collected, in then 70s no body had any clue what it was, no accurate study's have ever been done yet.

if Julieanne actually read the CDC link she would find that not only do they use the 2-10% complication rate they also say this policy is for AFRICA and can NOT be extrapolated for the U.S.

However they misquote this sensitivity study(1) and dodge the innervation of the foreskin all together. However paediatric organizations like the royal Australian college of pediatricians, the royal dutch medical association, the British medical association, and the Canadian paediatric society clearly discuss not only the innervation of the foreskin but the functions of the foreskin.
This is typical avoidance behaviour of the authors for those with missing body parts(2) like those at the CDC.

So the question is, it is a better decision to follow the recommendations directed to CHILDREN in western cultures as set forth by PAEDIATRIC associations or is it better to follow a policy for VOLUNTARY ADULTS IN AFRICA proposed by an organization like the CDC that does NOT specialize in CHILD care?

Looks just like some one grasping at straws to validate the indoctrination of her barbaric culture to me. This is irresponsible, she is in denial for her own children and is spreading MISINFORMATION to put her fragile little world at ease.

(1)Morris L. Sorrells, James L. Snyder. Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis . BJU 2006 Oct:22, pp. 864-869
(2) Maguire P, Parks CM. Coping with loss: surgery and loss of body parts. BMJ 1998;316(7137):1086-8.

also if you are to push the claim that there are no nerves in the foreskin you should try reading my research above, look up my references and read them, If i am wrong, which i am not, it should be easy for you to discredit this.

yep Europeans think it s joke. They think we are a joke. They are usually shocked to hear that America is such a primitive bronze age tribe of savages.

Johan, I wrote the article, but you must have me confused with one of the comments from another reader. This is a Question and Answer Forum for readers in our community to discuss these questions with one another, and I presented the question: Should you circumcise your son? I answered with my personal experience and never once did I imply that the foreskin or any other part of the male anatomy has no nerve endings! Wow. In fact, I welcomed the opinions of others and mentioned that when my son was circumcised 14 years ago, there was very little information on circumcision available easily. But thanks for your comments, it's interesting to hear what others in our community (or from another community, in this case) feel about these particularly heated topics.

why have i never seen a Japanese or Indian, or south American researcher publish a circ study that claims benefit?