User: Hugh7

I never said "invariably". It certainly does cause lifelong sexual dysfunction in some me - especially, but not only, where the doctor screws up - and since it's unnecessary that's some too many.

I've no idea what it's like to be colourblind, blind in one eye, or deaf in one ear, either, but I can guess, and I don't need medical qualifications to know that it's not as good.

Skyfox: It is not for you to judge whether males can or can get along "just fine" without a foreskin, but for them. Their choice DOES matter because it is THEIR foreskin, not their parents', not their doctor's (and not yours). In most of the developed world, the choice is simply not offered to parents, and that is how it should be.

The baby may not remember the pain, but it is pain nonetheless.

"As an adult he is able to make that decision" ONLY if his parents have not pre-empted him by making the decision to circumcise.

You have no idea how enjoyable it would be with a foreskin, but it has been described as "a symphony of sensation", and men circumcised in adulthood compare the difference with going colourblind (so they can still see "just fine").

Circumcision in hospital is often assigned to interns (house surgeons) for training. Parents have no choice of doctor. Even a good doctor can screw up sometimes, and at 1.2 million circumcisions a year in the US, even a tiny percentage makes a significant number of unnecessary screw-ups that can damage a man's sexuality lifelong.

Jacob: "don't you all read the news articles about the definite contribution that circumcision makes towards helping prevent HIV?"

I've read all the news articles, but I've also read the scienctific papers on which they're based, and the case is really very weak. They circumcised a total of 5,400 men (in three African countries where more of the non-circumcised men have HIV - there are at least six countries where more of the circumcised men have it, but nobody has begun to try to explain that). They left a similar number intact. After less than two years, 64 of the circumcised men had HIV and 132 of the non-circumcised men. That is the TOTAL basis of the claim that "circumcision reduces HIV by up to 50%" (or 60% or 75% or more, depending who you read). Meanwhile 327 circumcised men dropped out of the trial, their HIV status unknown, so the true result could be anything. They didn't believe the men who said they hadn't had sex at all or only protected sex, but assumed that everyone who got HIV did so through sex, when re-use of needles is common in those countries.

Another trial seemed to start to show that circumcised men are at greater risk of transmitting HIV to women - who are at greater risk already. 18% of the women with circumcised partners were infected, but only 12% of the partners of intact men - but they cut that one short before they could find out for sure.

Skyfox: "I do agree that if it's done, it should be done when the individual is an infant" You can only mean "if it's done without consent" because you can't get informed consent from a baby. This begs the question that it may ever be done without consent (lacking pressing medical need). If a man doesn't urgently need it and he is conscious, do you still think it may be done without his consent? Of course not! When there's no need for it, what difference does his age make?

There are many other real differences, including the quality of sexual experience.

Removing too much is only one of many things that can go wrong.

Wait till you've have a good try-out with what you've got. 25 is probably old enough. It's pretty immature to base so intimate a decision on what other people think. Your mileage may differ. And it's irreversible. Other guys who decided to have it done say it was the stupidest decision they ever made.

Notice that only 6 people really have "tried it both ways" but 15 answered that question. Some of the other figures don't add up either.