Saturday May 5, 2007, 8:19 am
Note carefully:
'In addition, circumcised men, with one-fourth the sensitivity of intact men, might decline to wear further-desensitizing condoms, increasing their and their partner’s risk to infectious diseases'.

Saturday May 5, 2007, 2:17 pm
Thank you for submitting this. I pray for the day that humanity is just as horrified by male circumcision as they are female circumcision.

Saturday May 5, 2007, 2:29 pm
Me too Alisa.
Both are mutilacion, both are violence

Saturday May 5, 2007, 8:01 pm
I've always thought circumcision was horrible!

Did you read the slideshow on that link?
Back in the old days they tried to claim icircumcision was a cure for eye problems, epilepsy and other nonsense!

Saturday May 5, 2007, 8:09 pm

Call me programmed." I was told that circumcision was necessary to prevent bacterial infectrion!

Gawd, the crock we are fed!

Saturday May 5, 2007, 11:50 pm
Actually routine/widespread circumcision was introduced into the US for two reasons;#1, as a "cure" for all sorts of unexplained health issues, such as Tanya mentions above and #2 and most importantly as a way to deter/discourage males from masturbation, which was seen at that time as being 'immoral' and often dangerous. Circumcision causes great loss of feeling, ergo, less pleasure, less chance that boys and men would touch themselves.
If indeed there were health related issues that actually had to do with the penis itself, this was due to poor hygiene. Of course in our time, when most people have indoor plumbing, there is no excuse or reason for any person, man or woman, not to wash their 'under bits'.
I LOVE the pictures, as they clearly show that the glans (the head of the penis) is an INTERNAL organ. Circumcision exposes the internal portions, leaving that part of the male body without its natural protection. Therefore it becomes thickened, tough, distorted and desensitized.
The foreskin acts much like an eyelid. It protects the glans from irritants, debris, keeps it moist, soft and helps protect it from injury.

Sunday May 6, 2007, 3:26 am
This topic came came up for discussion when a report of a study, carried out in Africa, claimed that circumcision was a way of guarding against AIDS. When I cast doubt on the validity of the study, and mentioned that this mutilation would desensitise the glans, I was taken to task for both questioning the the study, and mentioning the subject of desensitisation. The woman who defended the study asked me how I would know that the glans was desensitised, so I pointed out that, although I was not circumcised, I knew many men who were. Unfortunately I did not have the benefit of the research, as presented here, to back up my claims. Thank you Madalena, for posting this now, and I hope it will be widely read.

Sunday May 6, 2007, 1:46 pm
Carole, yes, we all for many years were 'programmed' to believe that there was some benefit to this abuse.
The ONLY benefit is the money made by the Dr's who perform this act. Although the exact frequency is unknown, it is estimated that 1.2 million newborn males are circumcised in the United States every year at a cost of between $150 and $270 million. (Source, AAP document)
In addition (this may blow your mind) hospitals sell discarded foreskins to private bio-research laboratories and pharmaceutical companies, which in turn earn MILLIONS more in profits from products made from and research done using our son's foreskins! http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/f4sale.htm

David, I remember the story you mention, again it goes back to programming, it causes people to loose their common sense. What would happen to an eyeball, if the eyelid was removed? What would happen to the nail-bed if a fingernail were permanently removed?
The fact is that the older a circumcised man becomes, the more desensitized he becomes, which accounts for much of the sexual 'dysfunction' in older American men. Viagra and other such drugs are earning BILLIONS of dollars off the results of circumcision.

Saturday December 8, 2007, 8:22 pm
Wow!