Actually having a foreskin can lead to bacterial growth, which could lead to infections. So there is proof that removing it can be significant.

@28 You do have to clean around it, true. It takes 5 seconds a day, no big deal. But it cutting off a part of a baby's genitals that really does have biological uses makes no sense to me. It lowers friction in sex and increases pleasure for the guy (more nerves are better). I just think a person should have a choice about what happens to their body, and a baby can't make a choice

" I just think a person should have a choice about what happens to their body, and a baby can't make a choice" That's the most important bit people are not considering.

Having bad hygiene can lead to bacterial growth regardless of foreskin. The benefits outweigh the badly over exaggerated cons when they can easily be avoided by taking a whole 5 seconds in the shower to clean under your foreskin.

I agree completely. just because an infant won't remwmber the pain, doesn't mean it's okay. You're still putting your baby through pain for no particular reason. I decided not to allow circumcision for my son. If he decides he wants it done when he is older, it's his body to do what /he/ wants with. I'll gladly pay for the cost of the procedure. Until then, it's a matter of teaching your child to clean themselves properly and if need me, clean it for the child until it's a part of his daily routine. I also wanted to avoid the possibility of resentment. How do I know now that my son won't want his forskin in the future? if I decide for him now, he will never have that choice. To every man his own. If parents want to do this to their child, so be it. That's their choice. Doesn't make it the right or wrong decision.

I really agree with you 96!

Isn't the skin their for a reason? I feel sorry for those who have to get rid of it. I don't know anyone who had to go through that, they all have their foreskin and are perfectly fine...

You must not live in a cutting culture. Lucky you! Here in America most men are cut and about half of the babies are cut. 117 baby boys die each year from this barbaric procedure.

You all need help.

Both are forms of genital mutilation. Male circumcision isn't any better just because it's common.

@44 While i am obviously against circumcising a baby, the two things are not the same at all. WARNING- I am about to get really graphic. The ******** actually is the center for the mass majority of sexual pleasure for a woman. It use to be called the "little penis" as it becomes erect during sex and serves as the center for most orgasms. Removing makes sex not very pleasurable at all. People will, in some oppressive cultures, remove the ******** to ensure that the woman doesn't enjoy sex at all. Because if she enjoyed it she might not be faithful. The foreskin does have sexual nerve endings but is a smaller part of male pleasure. Removing it will not significantly alter a man's pleasure.

There are several different categories of female genital mutilation (as classified by the WHO). One of them, type Ia, is the removal of the clitoral hood, which is homologous to the foreskin - meaning, they develop from the same embryonic tissue. They ARE the same. You're cutting off a piece of a person's genitals without their consent, and without an immediate medical indication.

57 - no, but male babies have been killed by the procedure before. there's also a few health risks with circumcision...for example, some guys had too much foreskin cut off, and getting an erection makes their skin pull really uncomfortably tight, sometimes to the point of actually ripping. altering a baby's body is wrong regardless of its gender, end of story.

@ 82 I get what you are saying, and if you read my comments above you will see that i am very much against baby circumcision. I just wanted to point out that female is much more severe. That is not to excuse male circumcision, but at least males (on the most part) can live very normal sexual lives afterward. For a woman it strips away almost all sexual pleasure. Both are wrong, but sadly the woman pays a higher price

There are some crazy folks out there that will slice off the ******** and the labia of their girls. There are no hygienic surpluses whatsoever, only a boring and painful sex life to look forward too. Please, enlighten me of how that's equal to male circumcition?

Their are levels of female circ, the most commom being the removal of the clitoral hood. The exact same body part as the male foreskin. Completely comparable. Think of an ear. They have the ability to get dirty and infection, but we dont cut them off just incase.

115: they're both equally wrong; no one said they have the same outcome. how about we stop mutilating baby genitals altogether, instead of worrying about which gender has a worse experience???

The male foreskin has 20,000-100,000 highly sensitive erogenous nerve endings to the clitorises 8,000. It also has 16 functions all of which serve to protect the penis and keep it healthy. If we are judging by sensation and function loss, yes, male circumcision is much more damaging than female circumcision. Both are wrong to force on an baby who can't consent.

#273- Even if that's true (which I doubt), it doesn't make male circumcision worse than female circumcision. Removing a ******** takes away ALL sexual enjoyment while a circumcised man can still enjoy sex. I'm against infant circumcision, but your argument is bad. Besides, there's no reason to compare. Modifying someone's body unnecessarily without their consent is wrong regardless of what parts they have. It doesn't matter what benefits there are to circumcision, it isn't necessary so it shouldn't happen to minors unless circumstances make it necessary.

#43 Haha I see what you did there. You added a not and forgot the "you"! See, it's funny when I explain jokes.