Circumcision should be banned.

It did sound odd, esp as there's a reason for body parts to be present. Appendix, for instance. Or even public hair. There can be valid reasons to change, but most of the time the body should be let be.

@AliasGrace47 I'm a lesbian myself...

I don't think that's an excuse for having limited knowledge of male anatomy.

People are expected to have common knowledge of the world and life in general, including things that don't directly impact them.

Why do you say that it has no issues! What evidence do you have.

I have evidence to the contrary.

It most definitely does cause appalling consequences regarding sexual disfunction and pain during sex if the circumcision is at the most complete stage. Quite awful.

A life altered and absolutely not for the better. No sexual pleasure at all, and the man in question was a few days old before mother handed him over to be mutilated.

The map above says a lot about the areas and religions where it is common. They can do whatever they want in their country of origin, as they are fully entitled to do, but it should not happen here in the UK. When you move here, you should conform to our norms. We're really not doing a good job on social integration.

Hang on, is pain relief not used for this in some mainstream hospitals? That's barbaric. How has this been allowed for so long?

Yeah, I've never really bought the argument that it's better to strip the fused foreskin off your baby boy's penis with the various risks of pain and infection while it heals, than just...give it a wash.

If your child has an issue with persistent balanitis or an over-tight foreskin and can't resolve these with antibiotics or steroid cream, then sure - surgery is an obvious option. Easier at that stage because the foreskin won't still be fused and the child is likely continent. However, again it seems overkill to make the assumption that your child will suffer (vast majority don't, hence all those men kicking about Europe with perfectly healthy penises) and just prise off the foreskin (guaranteed pain/infection risk/wound care rather than a small possibility) as a newborn just in case.

@ArcticBells and @nc007 That's horrific. I was reading an article about sugar water being used as pain relief for newborns and there's a whole heap of evidence to suggest that babies feeling pain can cause problems with neurodevelopment! And it's just horrible full stop, to hurt a baby like that. DS had to have some blood tests and he cried so much it made me cry.

Dunno why that quote is there. I agree with you though!

I'm a lesbian myself...Gloria Steinem is certainly not. However, she wasn't saying she agreed. She said some argued this as a point in favour, she herself is against it.
A cursory Google finds some studies arguing increased pleasure, but less, and some seem to have an agenda. Even if it did, which seems less than likely, it's not OK to cut underage people, esp babies.

www.google.com/search?q=does+circumcision+increase+pleasure&oq=does+circumcision+increase+&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCQgCEAAYExiABDIGCAAQRRg5MgkIARAAGBMYgAQyCQgCEAAYExiABDIJCAMQABgTGIAEMgkIBBAAGBMYgAQyCQgFEAAYExiABDIJCAYQABgTGIAEMgkIBxAAGBMYgAQyCQgIEAAYExiABDIJCAkQABgTGIAEMgkIChAAGBMYgAQyCQgLEAAYExiABDIJCAwQABgTGIAEMgkIDRAAGBMYgAQyCQgOEAAYExiABNIBCDcxNzdqMGo0qAIBsAIB&client=ms-android-samsung-ss&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8&chrome_dse_attribution=1

Anyone who has ever seen a normal human glans can see that it's not supposed to be dried out and toughened up with constant friction.

The 'sensitive area' is exposed when the guy is fully erect anyway. It's supposed to be protected when not 'in use' as it were.

So on a practical basis the outcome might be different for most (but not all) recipients. I say not all because, although I appreciate it’s rare, some men do suffer life long complications due to circumcision. Are they morally so different though? Given in both cases there is zero benefit to the person the procedure is inflicted upon?

Whereas encouraging condom use instead protects both men and women.

I don't think there's any evidence that the practice is spreading to other cultures in the UK. The daughters of immigrants to the UK are simply at risk in the UK the same way they would be at risk in their parents' country of origin. We haven't imported a problem. We've just said we aren't going to turn a blind eye to this barbaric practice just because little girls from certain immigrant communities are the only victims.

I’m impressed that you know better than the medical community.

Aesthetics are wholly inappropriate to this discussion.

If men want to get this amazing sensitivity that Gloria's suggesting, there's nothing stopping them paying to have their foreskin lopped when they're old enough to consent to other modifications such as a genital piercing or a tattoo.

Equally, if men think it's worth getting their foreskin lopped to lower their risk of HIV, they can pay to have it removed when they're old enough. With the advantage that they'll also be old enough to consult with the doctor re: how much they want removed.

If a man wants to show his commitment to the covenant with his deity he can pay to do so when he's old enough to consent to such a radical procedure. Arguably it would be a more valuable sacrifice since it would be freely given rather than taken.

Not common at all.

I gave birth in the USA and you can request circumcision as part of the newborn health checks. I had a daughter so irrelevant and bring British it would have been a no but the leaflets cited hygiene and protection against certain conditions

Here's the FGM graph, shocking imo. As I said it's happening in the UK nowadays and we have a court dedicated to dealing with it. Unlikely to stop it here when some migrants come from countries where 100% of girls experience it. Why import a problem we never used to have?

As for profit in the US health care system -- perhaps at one time but not so much anymore. One way rates have dropped is if Medicaid stops covering it. The rates dropped in Canada when provincial plans stopped paying. (This has much less effect on religious circumcision as it's not done within the health system.)

The major driver in the US today is parental preference and whether the father is circumcised or not. You can see this even more strongly by regional trends. Circumcision is higher in the South and Midwest, low in the West (under 25%) and in the middle in the Northeast. States with high immigration, especially Latino (see: Texas and Florida) have lower rates. I would not say circumcision is dying, but the trend is absolutely downwards.

Common life long problems with circumcision, reduced sensation, burning pain due to too much skin being removed, pain during erections that lead to erectile disfunction. Inclusion cysts, urinary problems due to the urethra being permanently damaged. Bleeding, infection and death.

There's an established loss of sensitivity, which I think explains the American obsession with anal sex. And then there's the need to use lube for satisfactory masturbation.