Jews were circumcising their children when Europe was still populated by hunter gatherers wearing animal skins and foraging for berries.

iknowzero, it looks like the Europeans have learned a lot but the Jews have not.

I don't care whether adults have themselves circumcised. However, routine infant circumcision is an assault on an innocent victim. It mutilates 100% of the time and even kills at times. Good for Europe to make such immoral, unethical procedures illegal. The USA once again is lagging behind. Our children deserve better.

Hmmm? Germany has 4 million Moslems and a bit more than 100,000 Jews. Maybe they should go somewhere else to practice their religious freedoms. I mean, the Rastafarians are not allowed to smoke dope in their Churches in the States....They have to go back to Jamaica to "worship".

Circumsision should be done at birth. Having the foreskin covering is nasty it holds bacteria ,it is unbecoming and all you men that are unhappy because their is no oral sex. well if you are not circumsised it smells bad when you pull that foreskin down ,. NOW YOU KNOW WHY. It is NASTY OKAY!!!!

Why does one need a foreskin? It is nothing more than a containment for filth and bacteria and a gift to us from our ancestors, the monkeys. Let's save the appendix as well.

Except this is done in Germany, and Jews are pissed about it.

My two sons are not circumsized and there are NO issues with being dirty, collecting dirt, improving chances of getting an STD etc... Men are born with the foreskin on if it was bad, uncessary then WHY would men be born with it??? Why in GOd's name take an ifant and have a Doctor whack off this infants foreskin??? Infants ABSOLUTELLLLLY feel pain and this pain is totally unnecessary!!!!!!!!!!

Seems strange and kind of twisted that whacking off an infants foreskin is part of a religion and a religious ceremony. Where in the bible is this mentioned as needed, desireable etc..??? Think this is an outdated, completely unnecessary procedure that's painful and potentially disfiguring etc..if notdone properly.

What a stupid ban. Why not focus on the much bigger problem of child ear piercing, tattoos, and overexposure to the sun, I am sure these have much higher medical costs to society then circumcision.

Vincent--sorry, but there is NO comparison between infant circumcision and 'female genital mutilation.'

The latter, whether done for religious reasons, or whether done out of concern for hygiene/disease prevention, is a legitimate procedure that is done for those reasons.

Female genital mutilation is done to insure that the female can NEVER enjoy sex, even with her husband, and so that the 'macho' husband can insure that she can never have sex with anyone but him.

Women who have female genital mutilation (done, by the way, with a sharp rock, frequently) have their clitoris completely cut off, and the outer lips sewn shut so that there is barely enough of a hole for her to urinate. MANY develop awful infections because menstrual fluid cannot escape the vagina.

Many more die from the infection when her 'loving hubby' RAPES her, ripping it back open, only to have it sewn shut again after she has a baby.

The girl usually doesn't have any choice in WHO her hubby is going to be either.

NOT even close to the same thing.

MOmaid, you are wrong. You are under the impression that there is only one type of FGM and you are describing the worst form(infibulation). Male circ is worse than some types of FGM and vice versa.

Don't tell me that FGM is always about robbing the joy from a woman's sex life when some forms don't actually remove or scar any tissue.

PS: arranged marriage customs are a completely separate issue and have no bearing on the issue of genital integrity.

Following the Ten Commandments is a tenet of Judaism also. How many Jews never lied in their lives? Are Jews who lie no longer Jews because I heard not lying is a requirement of the faith or are some requirements more required than others?

Kriss: Actually the vagina is quite clean. Your comparison to the filth under a foreskin is ignorant.

MOmaid

You are completely misinformed about FGC. One form of FGC (female genital cutting) known as Type 4 FGC involves a ceremonial prick of the vagina that causes significantly less trauma to the vagina than a successful MGC. There is less change of a type 4 FGC than a standard MGC to cause severe injury or death to a child (ie less possibility of accidents) and there are medival benefit to FGC contrary to popular misconception. Simply look up labiaplasty and the benefits of labiaplasty or you can simply figure that the folds in a vagina can trap things like the folds in a penis. Any health benefits to MGC are recognized after the child becomes an adult (ie an infant is unlikely to perform vaginal sex so HIV prevention is a possible benefit later in life and we can wait for the child to have the capacity for informed consent.)

Germany is the richest country in Europe, so I'm pretty sure they can handle their own domestic policies without having to listen to the idiots in the USA who pay a defense contractor 5 BILLION Dollars to design a pattern on clothing. Not for the actual clothes just the design that is now deemed by the Army to be a collosal failure that is actuall killing troops. And that is just one example out of millions of how idiotic some of the people in the USA are, especially the two party government and the sheep that affiliate themselves with one party or the other.

Parthly: Join Kris in his ignorance. An onion smells, that doesn't make it unsanitary. And if it stinks you are in "a place that no man has ever (or should have ever) has gone before".

Uncircumcised pricks are just nasty as was detailed earlier. Not being circumcised is one of the leading causes of folks carrying so many venereal diseases. The decision to cut or not to cut belongs fully with the parents just as long as they are well informed of the medical facts. I thought Kris's talking about vaginas was just as relevant as the symposium I attended where the guest speaker was Fred Flintstone and the subject was a space shuttle mission.

Not my business or problem...

A LOT of people really need to grow up.. Get OUR noses out of other folks asses and fix ourselves first..

Kris: You have a problem with sanitation? Do you eat S**t ? You don't have to get a flu shot; but that is not to say that the rest of the world doesn't need one or want one. If you like the stink of a woman who has not bathed in 7 days so be it -- you are you.

"You have a problem with sanitation?"

"If you like the stink of a woman who has not bathed in 7 days so be it -- you are you."

You are completely delusional. What on Earth could you possibly be blathering on about now?

Uncircumcised: Penis wearing a hoodie.

I don't think they will even allow an uncircumcized penis on the set of a porno movie.

Parents who choose to circumcise their boys have said they chose the procedure because it improves hygiene and can cut the risk of the spread of disease, HIV in particular.

You know what else would have the same effect? Cutting babies' ears off. There would be less skin to keep clean afterward (kids don't clean behind their ears!), and you'd be less likely to contract HIV from sex since fewer people would find you sexually attractive as an adult.

Or would that be an outrageous and unnecessary means of pursuing those goals?

In Judaism, 8-day-old boys are circumcised to recall the covenant established between God and the Hebrew patriarch Abraham.

But Abraham was 99, and his son Ishmael was 14, when they were both circumcised; so the 8-day-old rule can be circumvented.

I don't understand this at all. What male even remembers being circumcized as a child? It's done at infancy!

I guess the Germans have finally lost their f**king minds. Male circumcision is a valid medical procedure with little evidence of ill effects and plenty of evidence it's a net positive for those who have received it.

I no more agree with banning it than I agree with forcing it on those who don't want to have it performed on their boys. Governments, especially their judicial branches, should steer clear of making decisions on elective health care procedures except in the absolute rarest of cases or where there is clear evidence of a highly negative impact on those who are going to receive them.

The little ones need to be protected from religious dogma and other types of non consensual physical mutilation. Difficult to justify such practice on an innocent child within ANY society. Spread of AIDS, REALLY, come up with a better excuse. Kudos for the Germans in doing what it takes to protect the physical and emotional deformation and integrity of a newborn. In America this practice has been shoved down the throat of the Gentiles and most don't even ask why.

Gil, maybe you don't know what douching is but it's not the same thing as bathing. Your comment about going without bathing for a week ties into absolutely nothing that was mentioned before it.

Kris: If you want to go down on woman who hasn't bathed in 7 days go ahead. You can lick her armpit too and kiss her feet after a 5 mile hike. I don't care. The subject is circumcision and health. It has nothing to do with you personal beliefs as to how to contract disease and your willingness to do so.

"Male circumcision is a valid medical procedure with little evidence of ill effects and plenty of evidence it's a net positive for those who have received it."

I'm sure that's what countless circumcised doctors would be more than willing to tell you.

RE:Gil

Obvious troll is obvious.

Boy, we really have something to talk about now.

I believe there is a case for and against circumcision. The only issue is that the boy, only a year or two old when circumcised, never has a say in the matter. Circumcision should be allowed, for the ones who want it, when they are capable of making that “informed” decision. After all its their body / tool, no one else’s.

Timothy1Mil wrote "Yet you're fine with killing babies in the womb."

A red herring, but I'll bite.

Male-only circumcision shows that men enjoy fewer legal rights than women within the first week of life. If you don't respect genital integrity for a newborn, there is little hope for the rights of the unborn.

KRIS: Why did you not say that before and waste all the rhetoric. But why, as you implying that an unethical surgical doctor, would suggest the procedure simply because he, himself, was circumcised. That is what it sounds like. You are now sounding like a nut.

Meg Corello wrote "Circumsision should be done at birth. Having the foreskin covering is nasty it holds bacteria ,it is unbecoming and all you men that are unhappy because their is no oral sex."

Do European and Asian men never enjoy oral sex? I know that American women go for European men as dating a man with an accent is almost as good as traveling.

Since the female external genitalia have a greater area and generally harbor more odor and disease-causing bacteria, you make a better case for female circumcision that not only includes the smegma-collecting female foreskin (clitoral hood) but also the labia minora that collect the smegma excreted by the labia majora. Condoms protect women from nearly all male secretions but offer little protection for men against female secretions containing bacteria and disease.

AppeasersFate wrote "Uncircumcised: Penis wearing a hoodie."

Untrimmed labia minora : bat wings

Perhaps circumcised men such as myself should demand an equivalent circumcision in women so that their genital cleanliness and appearance match ours. Ladies, are you ok with cosmetic genital surgery on female infants? Infants, female or male, won't remember the pain and indignity, right?

The doctors that perform these procedures don't make alot of money. They do however,get alot of tips :)

Kris: You do not know what a "Troll" is. You never read comment #1. You brought the vagina into the conversation. Who is the Troll? Hope I never meet you and your ignorance again.

"If you want to go down on woman who hasn't bathed in 7 days go ahead. You can lick her armpit too and kiss her feet after a 5 mile hike. I don't care."

Troll

Oooooooowwwwwwwwwwww. Can we please stop talking about this?

"Genital Mutilation"? Good Lord. This ban is absolutely ridiculous. It should be up to the parents of the child.

How many infant girls have their ears pierced before they get their first tooth? Some might presume that to be mutilation as well. Should we ban little girls getting their ears pierced?

It amazes me that people consider circumcision male mutilation, while at the same time support abortion as a "RIGHT" to mutilate millions of babies worldwide every year

Janine, you're kidding, right?

You must be because you couldn't possibly be foolish enough to compare circumcision to ear piercing instead of comparing it to the removal of non-erectile tissue of the vulva.

Until you are willing to stand up for the rights of Muslim parents to have their daughter's clitoral prepuce and/or labia minora removed, please keep your hypocrisy to yourself.

As far as I'm concerned this is a difficult issue. On the one hand you have an unnecessary procedure being done on patients who have no say in the matter. As far as it being cruel, I certainly have no memory of it being done to me though clearly it was, and it causes me no ill effects as a result.

On the other hand you have government telling people they cannot subscribe to two of the worlds major religions. I have to suspect that the motivation for this has nothing to do with cruelty or a medical procedure that is not needed. I think it has more to do with people having a fear that their country is being overrun with immigrants from the middle east.

Although I'm completely against circumcision, the practice of circumcision by Muslims is far more criminal and cruel. The Jewish faith circumcise newborn males only, whereas Muslims will circumcise both boys and girls usually between the ages of 5 to preteen. Can you imagine several "loved ones" holding down a frightened and screaming toddler opening their legs and cutting out a sensitive part of the human body that many children are shy about? Sounds like the worst type of child abuse to me, humiliating and traumatic especially when it is your own parents who betrayed you. Would we condone the act of cutting off a child's toes for religious purposes? I'm not sure what percentage of Muslims practice circumcision but could there be a parallel between the submissiveness of Muslim women and also why some Muslim men are prone to violence?

Jewish and Muslim groups protested on Wednesday after a German court banned the circumcision of young boys for religious reasons,

These loons are more obsessed with kids penises more than any gay man or pedophile. Oh, I forget, church and religion breeds pedophiles.

I think it's silly to circumcise any baby. Only if they need it for medical reasons down the line after they reach puberty and cannot pull the foreskin completely back, only then would I think it should be done.

Otherwise, it's a pointless procedure that is extremely painful.

Boys O Boys here we go again.

I think most circumcisions are performed in the USA and have nothing to do with religion, only common practice. I don't think the parents are having this done on their newborn son for religious or health reasons, only common practice. Although there are religious reasons some find require the procedure, if you realize the health benefits you will not need to rely on religious beliefs. If you realize the intrusion into your life by the government to tell you how you are going to live your life, then you will try to replace those government officials. There are health benefits worth having the procedure and having it as early as possible and by doing so relieving young men of the torment of having to look forward to making this decision, especially if they come from a very religious family that believes in having it done.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

Instead of banning circumcision, perhaps we should consider banning organized religions. Religions, throughout history, have given rise to more chaos in the world than any other single thing. Mind you, I am talking about organized religious institutions and NOT spirituality. There is a big, big difference!

Hmmm, circumcision reduces the chance of acquiring HIV by 60%. I don't buy the immoral argument. This appears to be an attack on religion to me, at the expense of children's lives. I think the word for this is Spite. Note, I am an atheist.

scrambolo Though I agree with the sentiment, I don't think it is proper to tell people what to believe. When you do that you open the door to people being tried for thought crimes, and totalitarianism.

Uh oh, the Germans are up to their old tricks again. They've found a new angle on getting rid of the Jews.

God said that we should force people to bring as many babies as possible into the world and then use the scalpel on them right after they are born - and that is that.

By the time any boy is likely to encounter HIV through their penis, they are able to say 'yes' or 'no' to circumcision.

"circumcision reduces the chance of acquiring HIV by 60%"

Hmm, that's funny. The circumcision-happy US has HIV rates over three times as high as many other countries around the globe who happen to have much lower rates of MGM and of which many have less access to education and information technology.

German's hating on Jews. What else is new? Look this is one antisemitic judge in one part of Germany. It's not going to effect anything and it'll be over turn in a higher court. In the meantime, the Jews can circumcise their children in other hospitals that are outside of the court's jurisdiction.

Not true, Kris.

About time.

And to those comparing it to ear piercing.

Legal age for ear piecing in Germany:

Without parental consent: 18 (unless ear lobe, then 16)

With parental consent: 16

Kris you seem to be the pot calling the kettle black. You're calling everyone that disagrees with you a moron. Seems that you my friend are the troll.

Troll

How many of you people don't know the difference between a vulva and a vagina??! Geez, the vagina is just one part of the vulva. Many of you are using the term "vagina" when you mean "vulva". The vulva is composed of many parts, including the labia (minor and major), the clitoris, and yes, the vagina.

Now, with that said, any of you that support circumcision for the so-called hygiene benefits should also support labia and clitoral prepuce trimming/removal as these can also collect bacteria. What's that? These parts of the vulva can be kept clean with proper bathing? So can the uncircumcised penis!

Hal:

RE: your post #1.59

I respect your post but I did not state that I, or anyone else, should be allowed to tell people what to believe. I stated, "maybe we should ban religion instead of circumcision", in my post #1.56. I stated this facetiously, but admittedly not clearly so. My bad! I am curious though, what is a "thought crime", and how would one ever be prosecuted or persecuted for his thoughts?

latekate

They are both cruel by design. Either way the baby did not consent.

I think some of these comments and commenters need to have their eye lids and ear lobes circumcised so they they can better see and hear all the crap they are putting out.

Kris is actually correct in what he says. My boyfriend is not circumcised but he's never had a problem because he showers every day and keeps himself clean. Douching is EXTREMELY unhealthy as it washes away the good bacteria women need to keep things functioning properly - it often causes yeast infections. However, avoidance of douching is NOT the same thing as not bathing.

It's actually been determined that circumcision is totally medically unnecessary. And if you look into the history of Judaism, circumcision became a custom because they lived in the desert, with little water, little chances to bathe, and because they didn't have an understanding of what caused their problems they decided it was decreed by God.

It's the same reason they don't eat pork. Pork in the desert with no refridgerators, hello! People got sick and they assumed that God didn't want them to eat pork for religious reasons. I know many Jewish people who believe this, but it does not affect whether or not they live kosher lives.

And a big thank you to Kris's mom just above in post 1.72.

Bottom line is that all who are for male circumcision for religious reasons are fine with telling "GOD" that they think his creation is flawed and needs improvement by man, LOL, so much for "GOD" being almighty. It's called being a hypocrite.

Janine wrote ""Genital Mutilation"? Good Lord. This ban is absolutely ridiculous. It should be up to the parents of the child."

Should it be up to the parents of the child to shorten or remove their daughter's clitoral hood? How can you possibly compare ear piercing to genital cutting? No child or infant begs their parents for removal of genital tissue.

The female genital mutilation ban was passed in the US. Why is the penis the only body part that is exempt from general child mutilation laws?

Ed--you know, when my uncle was born on Ft. Leavenworth KS in 1920, (my grandfather was career Army) my grandmother was asked if she wanted him circumcised. So she asked every doctor who came in her room their opinion of it. TO A MAN, they all said that if it were THEIR son, they would have him circumcised. Seems ALL of them had seen cases of uncircumsied men in combat who, in the dirty conditions that war seems to require, developed HORRIBLE infections from not being able to clean properly. NONE of them had seen those infections in CIRCUMCISED men. She then asked her husband his thoughts, which is when he for the first time, told her that HE had been circumcised as a 10 year old because of the infection HE got. So they had my uncle circumcised.

Flash foreward to 1947, when my mom gave birth to my brother, in Gadsden AL, and was asked about it by her doctor. HE strongly recommended it, and showed her several papers that not only pointed out the increased risk of disease, but also studies that had theorized that women married to uncircumcised men had a greater risk of cervical cancer. So she asked my dad, who was NOT circumcised, and he said to DO it, that he knew too many friends who had problems.

Flash foreward to 1982, when I had MY first son. The doctor asked ME, and I had been reading up on it since I was pregnant with my first child 3 years before (who turned out to be a girl) and there were articles both ways, but most said there seemed to be a corellation not only with cervical cancer and circumcision, but also with OTHER sexually transmitted diseases, too. And with my 2nd son, two years later, my pediatrician actually did it in his office, with me holding the baby's hand. The baby got a bit red in the face, and basically reacted like he did when he got shots, but no bad effects.

Now, all the new studies that CLAIM that there is no relation?

When my first son was born, he did NOT relieve the Pertussis vaccine (whooping cough) because "it was eradicated, so we don't need to vaccinate for that any more."

Hmmm--how's THAT working out now?

And PS--the section of the Bible that mentions circumcision is in Genesis. Abraham and Isaac.

And in many of the 'stories of the Bible', that we now consider 'old fashioned' there was a health reason for some of the stories. Eating Pork an abomination? Pork can give you Trichinosis. Deer? Jacob Crutchfels's disease. Shellfish? In the warm months in shallow water it goes bad REALLY easy, PLUS many are allergic.

But sexually transmitted diseases are the gift that just seems to keep on giving.

MOmaid- right there with you. I researched and asked my hubby's opinion, since it's not something I could possibly understand personally. Both my boys were circumcised before leaving the hospital, using local painkillers. My oldest actually slept through the procedure. I do believe it's best done as a newborn. I couldn't imagine doing it to a 4 year old without general anesthesia. I had a hard enough time holding down my oldest for his 4 year old immunizations.

For those that think they've outlawed it altogether in Germany- from the article above, it seems like they're only banning religious procedures. Choosing to do so for medical or appearance reasons is apparently still allowed. That is religious persecution. They could put age or anesthesia rules on it and it would be fine, but the way it is now isn't right.

Denver Bill, I was ripped off, my circumcision was only 3% off!

And Muslims are NOT to circumcise so this is a non-issue anyway. The child's freedom of religion and health is being protected here.

My ex-husband was not circumsized. I have to say that, as a woman, I prefer men who are circumsized. I won't go into the details of "why."

Isn't circumcision a way of telling God that He made a mistake in the creation of man? Just saying.

I'm glad they have nutjobs over in Europe too.

Just my opinion, but I think circumcised penises look much better.

@ Adrienne...I understand completely.

Denver Bill, your anti-Semetic remarks are unwelcomed here and anywhere in society. Please take your opinions and return to 1930s Germany, where they belong. Anti-Semetism is not funny.

I am with Adrienne and wiseone on this one. From a woman's standpoint, circumcised is where it's at.

Personally I believe that being circumcised has health benefits. Additionally, in rare cases for now, the actual foreskin can be used to one's advantage. The other day I read where a male baby was born without eyelids. The surgeon convinced the family to allow him to use portions of the child's foreskin to graft skin to replace the missing eyelids. Apparently the procedure was a complete success, but the doctor warned that the kid may have to go through life a little cock-eyed.

A lot of comments advocate circumcision (of infants, who cannot give consent) because of (U.S.) female aesthetic preferences.

Does this not strike anybody else as being similar to advocating mandatory labial trimming (or breast enhancement, or both) solely for male viewing pleasure?

Am I the only person that sees an ethical problem with this argument for circumcision?

Would a better solution not be for the females in question to get over their phobia of unmodified penises (and any similarly affiliated males to get over their phobia of unmodified labia)?

I see your point, but as far as female circumcision goes, it is not for aesthetic reasons, it is done solely to make intercourse unpleasurable and painful for women so they are not tempted to have sex outside of marriage. I've never heard any circumsized male complain that sex wasn't pleasurable or was painful for them (under normal circumstances).

I have heard of some women getting labial alterations, but only because they cause painful problems.

There is plenty of scientific evidence that circumcision is beneficial. Of course if a man practices impeccable hygiene, it may work just as well. It's a toss-up, I think, to personal preference.

Circumcision was adopted from the Egyptians by the Israelites through Moses. As with most religious practices (not beliefs) they are usually taken from the times and customs around them and called "the will of god". *rolls eyes*

The Egyptians are known as one of the cleanest societies ever. Even going to the extent of pulling out all their body hair to combat parasites... fleas, mites, ticks and also bathed daily if their financial standing allowed it.

We can talk religion here on legalizing or not legalizing circumcision, and the Germans might be citing it for religious reasons... but the reason behind it is for health and cleanliness and I for one am damn glad for it.

MsKat: (elective) labial trimming is certainly performed for aesthetic reasons, see for example the Wikipedia article on Labiaplasty (note to people who don't like to see nakedness: the article contains photos of female genitalia), though it is certainly not as prevalent as (non elective) male circumcision, and nothing indicates that this surgery is every forced upon a woman. Perhaps this is because society is less accepting of men colorfully commenting on the shape of women's genitalia than vice versa?

JoMan: while circumcision may have been a necessity to ensure hygiene in ancient Egypt, for anybody who does not live in a country with scarce access to clean water and soap, I suggest bathing rather than genital surgery. You might even use shampoo so you can keep your hair while you're at it.

MrComment: Egypt had water everywhere. All their main cities and towns were lined up along the Nile river, it was their life blood. Circumcision is a boon to cleanliness... just reporting fact in history that applies now. If you want effective and simpler cleanliness - circumcision. If you don't, don't have it done to your children. Easy... live and let live.

Not my business and not my problem..

People need to get their noses out of other peoples business..

Let me kick in your door and tell you how to live...
Seems a few of you would love the chance to be a dictator.. Making the world live as YOU see fit, sickening.. Grow Up!!

I bet the bastard who wrote this is an "ON". That's Old Nazi for you uneducated types. We didn't get all of them it seems. Time to start the hunt again for these pricks, pardon the reference. I'm cut and and no issues at all. Had friends though who were not and they always got accused of beating off because they took so much time cleaning it to make sure they didn't get a rot going in there.

Circumcison became a custom due to the lack of bathing opportunities in the desert. However, in this day and age, with our access to water and hygiene it is no longer necessary. My boyfriend is not circumcized and it makes no difference to me - of course, he showers daily and keeps himself clean.

In "the olden days" many things became customs because of necessity and people did not have an understanding of why so they assumed it was "decreed by God". It's the same reason Jews and Muslims don't eat pork - desert + no fridges = getting sick.

However, it does seem like this area of Germany is persecuting relgious freedom. Circumcision should also be performed in infancy to avoid situations like the one with teh 4-year-old. The rule should be that after a certain age they have to wait until the child is able to give consent.

***Um, hello!!!*** This article is about the controversial ruling and how it restricts ***RELIGIOUS FREEDOM***. Let's stick to the issue.

It looks like Germany is back to having ,"The People's Court". And its funny that Jews and Muslims have something that they can agree on, especially since its in the land of the Holocaust!!!

Finally, someone speaks for the children, victims of a brutal fascio-religious ritual whose 'reasons' change every generation depending on what the locals can be made to swallow in terms of bogus 'benefits'. Speaking of swallowing, we just saw a story recently about all of the (often fatal) diseases that babies catch from rebbes when, in the most traditional form of this outrage, the rebbe places the butchered penis in his mouth and sucks the blood. Really! White people will believe anything that comes from 'authority' (see Hitler, A., Stalin, J., Churchill, W., Roosevelt, F., bush, g., et al) without any reflection whatsoever as to the self-serving interests of such 'authority'. Try to find the statistics on the thousands (yes, thousands, per year) of the mutilated babies who suffer severe complications from this barbaric ritual and you will have to dig deep because all such information is actively suppressed. Natural selection rarely makes mistakes, particularly in the sexual apparatus because anything damaging in this area is immediately selected out (over a few generations) and, historically, uncircumcised populations grow faster than those in which fully half of the male 'pleasure' inducing neural sensors are hacked off. What we DO see, is that circumcised populations have a tendency or weakness toward fanatical and delusional psychopathic religious beliefs and practices. Ritual male mutilation has no more place in America than does ritual female mutilation. We ban that without thought regardless of the cultural 'needs' of the perps. Banning this horror for males as well seems a perfectly rational and mentally healthy policy. Ritual mutilation of babies should not be a 'political' decision. It is a moral necessity.

Donald Berrian wrote "So I suppose I should have been required to wait until 21 to have my tonsels out."

Therapeutic (treatment for an ailment) circumcision with medical justification will still be legal. Only child circumcisions with no medical justification will be outlawed. In 2012, no surgeon will remove a minor's tonsils without medical justification.

"Circumcision is one of the most effective protections against sexually transmitted diseases"

Incorrect. Circumcision has no effect on STD prevention. This is why the US has a nearly identical STD transmission rate when compared to European Union nations. However, the US has nearly triple the HIV infection rate. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) does not recommend routine infant circumcision because the immediate risks outweigh the potential benefits. What do you know that the premier US pediatric association does not?

I know that potty training can be difficult for many parents, and worse if they must draw back a foreskin for their child and expect to be the only adults to ever have to do that for their child.

Then they wonder how so many molestation accusations happen, or are further pursued by corrupt Social Services workers looking for job security, as well as the Family Courts, Judges, Attorneys, and the rest of the mud pond dwelling swill that plague our court systems.

Then consider all the accusations that have truth behind them.

Now tell me what the AAP knows and what their concerns are.

Act like a tool, get treated like a tool !

For every foster child there is a federal stipend just waiting.

For every medical procedure there is a doctor waiting to collect.

A healthy patient is one that never provides. Why should the AAP cut off their nose to spite thier face, or foreskin as the case may be.

Now tell me what the AAP KNOWS!

It should also be noted that the federal government had just started examining and tracking these statistics in 1999. The AAP was asked to revisit the issue in Feb. 2012. They reached a conclusion within a month. A conclusion to NOT recommend, but have not acted upon as yet, and results were published again in June 2012.

Amazing how much they learned in less than 15 years of statistical data, and then came;

"However, the academy's stance, which many credit as a factor in the decline of circumcision, is being revisited in light of new evidence about the potential health benefits of circumcision. Since the AAP took its position, evidence has mounted that links higher prevalence of circumcision to lower rates of penile cancer, urinary tract infections, phimosis, balanitis and meatitis, as well as HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.

"I don't doubt that the academy's position is influential," said Douglas S. Diekema, MD, MPH, a member of the academy's Task Force on Circumcision that is re-examining the policy. "When the neutral policy came out, more pediatricians changed their tone to a more neutral tone with parents."

In other words, the doctors chase the $$$$$$$$$.

Circumcisions increase the cost of a male birth, and so do complications from circumcision. Hospitals make money from selling foreskins to the cosmetics industry. This is probably why the entire foreskin is removed instead of only part of it. The old way" of shortening a foreskin is a different procedure in itself. New Mogen clamps and plastibells are designed to crush and stretch a foreskin after it has been forcibly peeled from genital flesh. The new tools make for a bloodless procedure to that intern or nurse can perform the circumcision instead of a surgeon.

I wondered why the nurses in the maternity ward continued to push circumcision on my son despite my refusal. It's as if they were working for a commission.

The real question is...will a guy with out a foreskin get more head than a guy with a foreskin? I am currious on the womans opinion. Does it matter to them? I mean, it really is all about sex and has nothing to do with religion.

If God wanted your foreskin cut off, you would not have been born with it.

"I know that potty training can be difficult for many parents, and worse if they must draw back a foreskin for their child and expect to be the only adults to ever have to do that for their child."

Why the hell would anyone ever retract a child's foreskin???? What is with the sickening level of misinformation in this country? People really think that boys need to wash under their foreskin before puberty?

Here is a serious question: how many parents think that they need wash the inside of their daughter's vagina? Very few, if any, and those who do would be considered mentally ill by the rest of society.

Mucosal skin is self cleaning. I clean my tongue like most people, but do any of you clean the insides of your cheeks, underneath your eyelids or inside your urethra???? NO!!!!!!!!

I think it's a load of BS that having foreskin can cause cancers worsen STD's etc.. My husband, all the males in his family and both of my son's did NOT get circimsized. I spoke at length with my Doctors before the birtht of my son's and was told circumsion is a personal choice but by no means necessary to have it done.

If the foreskin isn't pulled back and cleaned #1 bacteria will develop. #2 the foreskin will become tight around the end of the penis and will not be loose enough to pull back when needed eventually. While working in a nursing home men would come in with foreskin and it would be so tight around the end of the penis it would be painful to pull back to clean.

If the penis isn't cleaned daily after each toileting bacterial grows and then when it is inserted into a woman (or man) the bacteria lodged under it will be introduced in the vaginal passage and cause a whole host of problems for the woman. I suppose it really doesn't matter if there was anal sex since the anal passage is so full of bacteria that it is transferred in different ways. That is why if women have anal sex they should never let it enter the vagina.(Use a condom). Even more problems. Sex is a beautiful thing but can cause a lot of problems if the penis isn't kept clean. I prefer my man to be circumcised especially when oral pleasure is the order of the day. Most women will clean themselves well with douches etc before sex.

So it really is best for the guy to be circumcised.

BTW Kris Brooks- When potty training a little boy you DO NOT have to retract any thing!!! This only needs to be done occasionally so the foreskin doesn't grow too tightly around the tip of the penis. Toddles/little boys can have the skin retracted occasionally as part of their bathing /hygiene routine and be taught to do it for themselves as young boys and continue to do it as routine hygiene as boys/teens/men. My husband nor any of the males in his family were circumsized and NONE have experienced any problems due to it. As a woman and wife I hav eno problem with these and doen't ahv ea clue why any woman would be bothered by an uncircumsized penis. They all work the same cut or not!!!!

MLS-your direction that the skin has to be retract this often and why it needs to be done is not quite correct. ONly necessary to retract occasion for cleaning and prevent the skin tightending. Have slept with the same uncircumsized man for 30 years and as a woman have NOT experienced the problems you described.

So let's have infant removal of the tonsils of every infant. Hey without breasts, you can't get breast cancer. We should require the removal of the breasts in infancy. Any parent objecting has to be pro breast cancer and obviously unfit.

If you don't realize, I'm being sarcastic, but it seems to be the nest response to an ill thought out post and you're wrong. Condoms and gasp, abstinence are far more effective than infant circumcision in preventing STDs. Maybe it was bad or lazy parenting rather than lack of circumcision, which was your son's problem.

Kris and screwed--sorry, but the little boy who lived two houses down from us when I was growing up was adopted, and had not been circumcised. He had CONSTANT urinary tract infections, and so when he was 6, and got tonsilitis, while they had him 'under' they took his tonsils AND his foreskin.

Never had an infection after that.

As for those of you who have no problem with an uncircumcised penis, good for you. I know I'd have never had sex with someone who was not, because I personally find it unattractive. But if my doctor had shown me proof that it was bad, I would never have had my boys cut.

NO one is trying to convince those of you who are not circumcised, or did not circumcise your sons, to do so. But please give us the same respect.

BTW--Kris--I DO brush my cheeks and tongue. I occasionally use eyedrops. But please spare me the comparisons even of the urethra--I DO wash the outside of my urethra, but when the urine is transiting it it is STERILE.

The urine and smegma that accumulates under the foreskin is NOT.

MOmaid wrote " I know I'd have never had sex with someone who was not, because I personally find it unattractive."

This is cultural conditioning. I'm sure that if men were exposed to cleanly cut clitoral hoods and labia, they too would find women with batwings unattractive. Is that a reason to impose genital sculpting on a baby?

"But if my doctor had shown me proof that it was bad, I would never have had my boys cut."

Did your doctor show you proof that infant circumcision was good?

"The urine and smegma that accumulates under the foreskin is NOT."

If that is the reason to cut male genitalia, there is an even bigger reason to cut female genitalia.

"BTW Kris Brooks- When potty training a little boy you DO NOT have to retract any thing!!!"

Um, no @!$%#? I'm pretty sure that's what I just said.

"This only needs to be done occasionally so the foreskin doesn't grow too tightly around the tip of the penis"

Um, no, the only person that should retract a boy's foreskin is the boy himself. It may remain adhered to the head of the penis into late adolescence and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

The only thing that needs to be done to prevent phimosis is to NOT scold a young child for touching his own body but to correct them by telling them to only do it in private! If a child suffers from tight foreskin, that is absolutely not a reason for surgery.

"Kris and screwed--sorry, but the little boy who lived two houses down from us when I was growing up was adopted, and had not been circumcised. He had CONSTANT urinary tract infections"

Probably because the idiots thought that they had to force is foreskin back to clean him.

"I know I'd have never had sex with someone who was not, because I personally find it unattractive."

Yes, we get it, you are extremely shallow.

"The urine and smegma that accumulates under the foreskin is NOT."

By your logic, I guess that the inside of your urethra is full of bacteria since you don't wash it out with soap from time to time. Not to mention all of the folds of your vulva.

Let me guess, you think that douching is normal and healthy. Sad, very sad indeed.

potty training can be difficult for many parents, and worse if they must draw back a foreskin for their child and expect to be the only adults to ever have to do that for their child.

OMG! LOL

Listen, unless there is a problem, it works real easy. Even a moron can manage it. But anyone who is so freaked about taking a kid to the potty probably shouldn't be taking a kid to the potty, since it would be almost impossible to hide your disgust about the human body and normal physical processes.

Get someone else to do it. Try to avoid teaching your child that his body is dirty and disgusting. Psychotherapy might help get you over your own early childhood training.

I don't know what kind of skanky guys some of you hang around with, but urine drying onto the foreskin? Where do you get such stories?

My husband is career military, and as he's been in combat units for much of that time, he shaves his head to keep out dirt and bugs in the field. He is also uncut, and is one of cleanest men I've ever known.

Personally I think any women who think an uncut penis is unattractive simply have no imagination.hhehehe.

I have no problem with a man being cut, or not. It's up to the parents. My son was circumcised at the hospital before I brought him home. Never a bit of trouble with it. He's 38yrs now, and to my knowledge he's never complained about it.

Government needs to stop taking away the rights of the parents. We can't spank them, now we can't have our sons circumcised.

As a woman I personally I prefer uncircumcised penus but it's not a deal breaker by any means.

As for its necessity, I'm surprised that so many people think foreskin is such a problem. Sure you have to clean it occasionally but that's true of many body parts. However, all the men I have talked to and most men online seem to have no problem with having been circumcised so it seems like not a huge deal either way.

If you want it circumcise your child for religious reasons but are facing personal doubts or legal issues, why not do the ceremonial pin prick that is done for some girls (in place of female genital cutting)? I'm pretty sure that there are many imams and rabbis who find such alternatives acceptable, especially when the alternative is dangerous or illegal.

It's odd that male circumcision is ok but female circumcision is not.

It's much odder that religions put any pressure on men to be circumcised.

My grandfather got circumcised at the age of 56 because he thought he couldn't get into heaven if he wasn't circumcised.

I told him that was not the reason St Peter checked you at the Pearly Gates.

Religions of all types are insane and based on ridiculous notions of the supernatural.

Toddles/little boys can have the skin retracted occasionally as part of their bathing /hygiene routine and be taught to do it for themselves as young boys and continue to do it as routine hygiene as boys/teens/men.

Parents don't read to their kids, make them go to bed, or feed them dinner... forget about actually talking to them and they never make them mind or tell them no. Do you really think they are going to mess with their little foreskins and teach them how to take care of themselves! You must be kidding.

First of all for all you "believers," if man is supposed to be sans foreskin, God would have created him that way, wouldn't he/she? Why "improve" upon his/her creation? There is no medical reason for it (compare populations, such as, Europeans vs Americans) and just because somebody wrote it down in a book hundreds of years ago, doesn't mean it makes sense; if it did, we'd still be practicing bigamy, stoning, etc.

Susi-Oh and others making this stupid point:

God didn't command the Jews to circumcise their children because foreskins were a mistake He was trying to correct. He commanded it as a way to set the Jewish people apart, to symbolize that they were His people. Obviously, if He just made men without foreskins, it wouldn't set some men apart from others.

Also, there is no medical reason for piercing a girl's ears, and that tradition is a completely non-religious holdover from days when a woman's only property was what she could wear. Do you have such a problem with girls getting their ears pierced?

How about we prohibit male genital mutilation and require it on all females? Would look better to me. Why would women even have an opinion on this issue? Circumcision reduces nerve stimulation on both genders, why inflict it solely on male infants? If, as an adult they desired to have it, fine, but on an infant without being able to make a decision that will affect their body for the rest of their lives- no.

If the foreskin isn't pulled back and cleaned #1 bacteria will develop. #2 the foreskin will become tight around the end of the penis and will not be loose enough to pull back when needed eventually. While working in a nursing home men would come in with foreskin and it would be so tight around the end of the penis it would be painful to pull back to clean.

The best part of the morning shower is when you have to clean your foreskin by pulling it back because it feels so damn good. No man with a natural penis is reluctant to pull it back, believe me. Teenagers especially, will spend a long time in the shower making sure their foreskin is super clean by pulling over and over and over, so tightness is never going to be a problem on a normal foreskin.

All this talk about dirt, bacteria, smegma and what not, just shows how ignorant, misinformed and insecure circumcised men in this country are. I haven't seen smegma in my penis ever, and the college women I dated in the 80's were never shy about performing oral sex because they realized that it was as clean, or cleaner, than cut penises.

If you really did work in a nursing home, I'm sure that keeping the genitalia of women clean was a lot more labor intensive and a more unpleasant job.

I was circumcised at the age of 23 for medical reasons. Did it hurt? Not when it was removed thanks to anesthesia, but when the healing started...ouch! Having to have needed it done, I wish it had been done when I was an infant. Sexually, I have less feeling in the tip (glans), but that's also a good thing since my stamina increased tremendously. Because of what I went through, I had my 3 sons circumcised at birth. The doctors never pressured us. We said no at 1st, and they never brought it up again. Right before we were to be discharged my wife and I changed our mind and the doc was fine with that too. The cost ranged from $25 to $40, so I have a hard time seeing doctors getting rich on these. Circumcision is a lot cheaper than orthodontics, which are often not medically necessary. The biggest issue is you & I & the government need to keep our noses out of other people's business.

It is easier for a newborn to heal from a circumcision than an adult, my sons DID NOT fuss and cry after they had theirs. My husband who had problems and was circumcised as an adult did have a lot pain for days, I can tell you he did not feel like thanking his parents for what he had to endure!

Blondeness, just why did your husband require it, if we can ask?

Jeffery F,

Though I cannot speak for blondeness's husband, for me my foreskin would become "stuck" behind the glans and would swell and become irritated. It was very painful to try to stretch it back over, and was occurring more and more frequently so my doctor decided it had to go.

The US had a mass circumcision program from the early 1960s-1980s with a roughly 90% circumcision rate. Today, in the age of open medical information available to those that are willing and able to read, that rate has dropped to roughly 33%. The more parents learn about the cruel cut of circumcision, the less willing they are to cut their infant's penis.

The anti-circumcision fervor in the US has precisely to do with the # of men that had their genitals cut as infants. These men are now 30-50 years old and able to speak up. If US the genitals of female infants were also cut in a similar way (partial or full removal of clitoral hood), you would be sure to hear them roar as well.

Excuse me, I'm a WWII WASP baby and circumcised. and have had no problem with it. Everything I read indicated that it precluded numerous health issues. I don't see anyone posting on that issue - does anyone have any current medical data?

I'm a child of the 60's and do have a problem with circumcision as well as resentment for mine. I took it up with my mother, because she went along with the doctors that were able to sneak the circumcision behind closed doors during the absences of my father. I never had a problem with circumcision because I didn't know anything about it. After considerable research including the purchase of a dozen books on the topic, I have become an advocate against circumcision. In the Information Age, it is the flesh mark of religious zealots and the ignorant.

I have two sons. One born in Germany and one born in the States. As I was deployed during the first son's birth, he mother did not have him circumcised. The second son was circumcised as a new born on the advice of a doctor. Nice guy...Jewish....not that it mattered, but maybe his opinion was slanted.

I was circumcised when I was born in 1957 and I can say that running on cold mornings with the Army, I sometimes had to put a sock in my pants as my "head" was freezing. At that time, I really understood why we are born with the extra meat. I do regret having my second son circumcised.

Again, religious tradition be damned. If God didn't want us to have a foreskin, we would not have been born with one.

If you are trying to compare circumcision to female genital mutilation, you would have to also remove part or all of the head of the penis. FGM doesn't just remove the woman's hood. Most of the time some or all of the clitoris is removed as well.

Chris, that is incorrect. Whether or not FGM is comparable to MGM is completely dependant on what type of FGM is performed. Some do little to no permanant damage without actually removing anything, some are analagous to male circumcision and some are far far worse.

To the people who had me circumcized: THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!

Chris from Yucaipa wrote "If you are trying to compare circumcision to female genital mutilation, you would have to also remove part or all of the head of the penis."

No. You cite the rare and most extreme form of female circumcision. The most common are a ceremonial pinprick of the clitoral hood and partial or full removal of the female prepuse (clitoral foreskin), an area of skin the size of a grain of rice. The comparison to male circumcision would be the removal of the female prepuce (clitoral foreskin).

But even the most extreme female genital mutilation, while ghastly, does not affect her fertility as sperm reception is not dependent on female orgasm. Removal of the penis head would prevent a male orgasm and thus his reproduction.

No, I am not wrong.

The WHO has offered four classifications of FGM. The main three are Type I, removal of the clitoral hood, almost invariably accompanied by removal of the clitoris itself (clitoridectomy); Type II, removal of the clitoris and inner labia; and Type III(infibulation), removal of all or part of the inner and outer labia

Around 85 percent of women who undergo FGM experience Types I and II, and 15 percent Type III, though Type III is the most common procedure in several countries, including Sudan, Somalia, and Djibouti.^[

in·var·i·a·bly/inˈve(ə)rēəblē/

Adverb:

In every case or on every occasion; always

So, last I checked 85% of something is an overwhelming majority. In this case, an overwhelming majority of FGM cases have their clit removed either in whole or in part.

The whole question is predicated on the idea that parents "own" their children as objects which they can mold any which they desire into copies of themselves. The same logic that makes it socially acceptable for a parent to indoctrinate their child with religious ideas before the child can consciously form an opinion, is at play regarding forced circumcision.

I have no problem with a person old enough to make an informed conscious decision doing it to themselves or having it done for them for whatever reason. But, because it is a non-reversible mutilation of the body without informed consent, I personally equate it with assault on a child.

The real argument we should be having is not whether there are valid medical or even aesthetic reasons for circumcision, but rather whether or not parents "owning" their children in order to indoctrinate or physically mold them is a valid social construct.

Chris, you are still wrong AND now you're a @!$%#ing liar since you (not so)cleverly omitted info that didn't support your ignorant claims.

From the very site you mentioned:
www [dot] who [dot] int/reproductivehealth/topics/fgm/overview/en/index [dot] html

"When it is important to distinguish between the major variations of Type I mutilation, the following subdivisions are proposed: Type Ia, removal of the clitoral hood or prepuce only"

"Type IIa, removal of the labia minora only"

"Type IV — All other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, for example: pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterization."

FYI - Type III or infibulation is usually accompanied by removal of the clitoris and ends with the vulva being sewn almost completely shut, so your definition is way off.

Chris, you are still wrong AND now you're a @!$%#ing liar since you (not so)cleverly omitted info that didn't support your ignorant claims.

I didn't omit sh*t, genius. I took the 3rd paragraph on Wikipedia for FGM and copy/pasted. Sorry I didn't feel the need to delve into sub-sub categories. Save your conspiracy to omit information for someone who gives a sh*t. You've spent way to much time and comments on an article about d*cks. Enjoy.

Vincent - you bought a dozen books on circumcision? I can only imagine what the Barnes and Noble people talked about after you left.

I have become an advocate against circumcision. In the Information Age, it is the flesh mark of religious zealots and the ignorant.

I find it interesting that most who are against circumcision are those who have it and have no idea if they would really care, notice or like having one.

Chris, maybe it would be wise for you to not copy-paste portions from Wikipedia if you have no idea how accurate the information is.

Wow, it looks like you were too lazy to even copy the whole definition of Type III.

This article is about the rights of children, not about "dicks", you sick juvenile.

I'm still waiting for you to post a comment in which you don't use insults in a sad attempt raise your self esteem.

"Chris, that is incorrect. Whether or not FGM is comparable to MGM is completely dependent on what type of FGM is performed. Some do little to no permanent damage without actually removing anything, some are analagous to male circumcision and some are far far worse."

Point out the insult for me.

People that continue to use incorrect information to justify cutting children's genitals are asking to be insulted. Cry me a river.

My bad. You have one comment out of the 62 you've posted to this thread alone, that wasn't overtly insulting. I've been on the 'Vine for over 6 years and I've seen people post maybe 10-15 comments max on a single topic. You've done it 62 times in a single day. I think I'm going to cease replying to you simply because your foreskin fanaticism is becoming a bit scary.

It5 is a rare day when an Article on male genetalia appears on MSN especially one that evokes such heated discussion (including the relative [beauty] of cut vs. uncut penises.

As a note: while a VD interviewer I had a patient with a positive lab test for VD and she asked "Wnich vagina was it from.?" Seems she was born with two vaginas and her two boy friends each used a different one. She wanted to know who she got it from. The info was not available. Would those either for or against circumcission be in favor of sewing one of her vaginas shut? Just asking.

Our precious science is give to us by a whole bunch of Jewish doctors. So...think about that.

By the way, the Germans are really getting tired of rolling over to the Moslems and Israelis. This "you will forever be guilty" BS is turning people that were sympathetic and sorry for what their ancestors did into people that just don't give a damn about what happens to Jews or Moslems. No hate, but just don't care as they see the Jews as Racist and religiously intolerant as their Moslem cousins.

So yes, make everything that does not kiss the Semetic asses as being anti Semitic and when the real anti Semitics rise their ugly heads, you will have no one to defend you. And when I say Semitic, I mean both Jews and Moslems.

Sorry, eliminating the double standard or forbidding the cutting of all girls but allowing millions of boys to be cut does not count as "jew hatin'" by any stretch of the imagination.

If flawed "science" conducted by those with an agenda concludes that something is beneficial, should we care? Pardon me if stick to the real unbiased data and ignore unethical experiments on poor Africans.

Kris brooks- we forbid the cutting of girls because it damages their ability to enjoy sex later in life and can also lead to problems with childbirth. Show me a circumised man that can't enjoy sex.

The only problem with circumision is if someone were to mess up. This is why I like the cup method, where the cup is put under the foreskin and then the foreskin falls off. My young cousin had this done, and he was never in any distress.

I've yet to meet a circumised male who was unhappy with being circumised. The only scientific data out there that shows unhappy circumised men would be the ones who had complications or the ones who got circumised later. There is a study that suggests that there may be less pleasure in sex for some men after they are circumised- but this is only true for men who had sex before and after circumision. Circumised men still have a healthy sex drive and those that were circumised young never know whether they would have had more pleasure or not.

Just because you disagree with all the science out there in favor of circumision does not mean that science is flawed. No one is forcing you to get your sons circumised but do not interfere with other parents decision when there is no proof that a circumision done correctly will harm the boy. If we outlaw this, we must also outlaw babies with pierced ears, surgery on a cleft lip (since after all that is not life threatening) or any other procedure that the child cannot consent too unless perhaps it is life threatening. Parents must be able to make decisions for their children and as long as there is no proof that that the decision will harm the child (as evidenced by all those circumised men still able to have sex and lead healthy, happy lives), the parents should be able to make these decisions with no interference from anyone.

Somehow, I have a hard time believing that a country that protects the rights of the individual (to be physically unharmed and retain the choice whether to be circumcised) is doing this for anti-semitic reasons when the same country has laws banning anti-semitic hate speech (which can land you in jail).

Erin, your argument is not based in reality. Many women choose to have their labia minora trimmed because they think that they are too long and removing the clitoral hood would not make sex unbearable. FGM type IV doesn't even remove any tissue at all, yet it is still illegal.

It's a sickening double standard to only allow cosmetic surgery on the genitals of male children.

Until you are willing to defend the rights of Muslim parents to remove non-erectile parts of their daughter's vulva or ritually draw a drop of blood from that area in a medical setting, please keep your hypocrisy to yourself.

You describe a minority form of female circumcision. If you research the topic, you'll learn that the most common forms of female circumcision are a pinprick of the clitoral hood as well as partial or complete removal of that skin. That is less severe and certainly comparable to penile circumcision. Yet, any and all forms of female circumcision are punishable as a felony by a 1996 US federal ban. Why doesn't a male child deserve equal protection?

Gerry, Germany does not want to insult Moslems because of their NAZI past. This has led to "Looking Away" when Moslems in Germany do things like...oh..beat their wives...have lots of wives and kids living on welfare...preach "hate" under the guise of "freedom of religion".

Yeah, keep your anti German opinions, but when the Germans have has enough of the "PC BS" ...well, they have a proved playbook to fall back on. Eventually, "Das Volk" will get the ass about being abused by a minority and can you say "Kristal Nacht"?

AND just so you know, Cologne has had some VERY disturbing Islamist demonstrations. HUGE numbers of people NOT allowing NON MOSLEMS to walk the streets. Not just Cologne, but Paris and...open your own eyes. The info is there.

You are describing infibulation and no one is comparing male circumcision to that type of mutilation.

It may be a surprise to you, but there are many types of FGM. Some do no permanent damage, some are analagous to male circumcision but remove far less tissue and some(like infibulation) are far far worse. Guess what? ALL of them are wrong and should be illegal until adulthood, just like male mutilation.

GermanGem, this is not a battle of Jew or Moslem, it is a battle of "we are tired of your religious BS". If you don't like it here, GO BACK to where ever you came from.

This has nothing to do with religion. Every child has a right to a whole body, not just girls.

Easy MOSinEUR, I was just joking, forgive me for being in bad taste. I couldn't agree more about being tired of the religious crap.

Again the German? Why because they are getting tired of kissing Religious Asses? I say, "And now the Jews or should I say and again the Jews!!"

I'm sad to see the same old anti-German reflex that may have been appropriate over half a century ago, but is not today (in an age were, e.g. German taxpayers are paying for a substantial part of the Israeli submarine fleet)

According to the article, "the ruling said boys who consciously decided to be circumcised could have the operation", so it seems that given his consent, a thirteen-year old boy who wishes to modify his genitalia for the sake of religious tradition could have the procedure performed.

the man makes a good point many are tired of the jews again they been kicked out of 109 counties but now a better soluton must be found for the self chosen holy ones...

rogerbeard #10 & bruce #10.3: the "covenant between Yaweh and man was just that; a"contract"

When the Hebrews abrogated the contract, by not obeying the commandments that particular god gave them, that god was under no obligation to keep his part of the bargain, and did as he said and therefore he punished his "chosen people" as outlined in the torah. If that god (who was only ONE of the gods the ancient Hebrews worshiped is still punishing their decendants(I'm not claiming that he IS), but if so why should other people go against the will of that one god? Christianity teaches that with the crusifiction of Jesus on the cross, the "old covenent" was replaced by a new covenant which doesn't require stoning adulterers and homosexuals, and allows eating pork, playing football and enjoying clam chowder. oyster stew, and lobster bisque.

clark kent

people laugh at you when you first walk in a room do they not

coment

The USA gives Germany billions every month just for rental of land for our bases there. Not counting what soldiers and families spend on the economy.

In the USA, a medical procedure such as circumcision MUST be performed by someone who is licensed to do so, or it is considered illegal.

Most Moyles here are also Doctors or Surgeons, and have been specifically trained in the procedure.

At the same time, most circumcisions here are performed in a hospital, though I am unsure of what the practices may be in Germany.

In the US, MDs and surgeons are not required, so nurses and interns do it. The entire drive to attempt to make circumcision a bloodless surgery with flesh-crushing screw clamps (Gomco) was to eliminate the need for a surgeon. Circumcision is often a hospital intern's first surgery.

Mkaipo --------- As a matter of fact, because they have so much more experience, rabbis, in general, do a better job than do doctors.

LOL!!! Thanks for the chuckle.

I absolutely agree with you xscharm, it is a felonious assault on an infant. If only suing would return my foreskin I would. Alas, it is gone forever in some landfill.

In a way, it is reducing the number of laws by removing the only exemption (allowance of the removal of part of a child's penis) to general protection of children against mutilation without medical justification. Would you feel restricted by California's law against tattooing minors? Shouldn't a parent be allowed to tattoo a young child or infant with a group or religious symbol?

Yes actually i would. Frankly some parents do tatoo their youth in other parts of the countries as a religious or tribal ritual. I am the parent and let me take care of my child/children with the least amount of intrusion as possible. The government has its place to protect all but they are getting more and more intrusive and controlling and that should worry all of us.

A person's faith does not give anyone justification for abusing their child, so your criticism is invalid.

Kris, you seem to be making a career of responding to these posts. Have you nothing better to do?

Kris is just pissed off that some posters don't give a crap about the rantings. Oh, well.

One's faith (religion) ends where their knife touches another human's body.

Those saying that preventing the cutting off of penis parts of a baby boy violates the cutter's freedom of religion, are way out there in irrational land. The idea that another human's ritual (rite) trumps ones right to body parts is insane and creepy. Baby boy penis parts removal cuts off thousands of fine touch and stretch nerves. This is like disconnecting the fingertips, nipples or lips from the brain. No human should be subjected to sensory system harm as well as a forced decrease of sexual function and PLEASURE for life!

Kris is probably PO because it takes her longer to perform fellatio on a penis that has been than one that has not been due to the lack of sensitivity if the procedure has been performed.

Her mouth gets tired.

Then again

She just loves Head Cheese

I've only been up close and personal with one set of genitalia and it does not include a penis, but thanks for publishing your fantasies when no one asked you to share.

A child of Lillith's, the first woman created by Yaweh; equal to Adam as they were both created from soil should know and Fear the Creator.

Lillith would not lay for Adam so Yaweh put him to sleep and took one of his ribs and made the second woman; Eve.

Krissy Poo

Never seen the little man in the boat. He resembles a penis.

So you agree with many Muslims and think it is the parents' business if they want to remove their daughter's clitoral hood?

Privatemilitarycontractor, respect is a two way street. Those with religious fanaticism / customs, should consider those that find what they do to be barbaric.

The more I research the topic, the more I'm convinced that this penis-cutting Covenant with God is about the fountain of youth through the consumption of infant penis blood during circumcision.

Many religious followers have no interest in God and thus are not bound by His commandments, including the male, but not female, Covenant with God. Women, the the Jewish tradition, are not considered worthy of a Covenant with Him.

Speaking from personal experience with my own, a circumcised penis looks like a pink mushroom that dries and keratinizes with time.

So it is about how things look and not about how things are?

Women were originally behind the circumcision movement. Circumcision improves the effectiveness of the tool from a woman's point of view. But not from a man's.

Bringing a kid into the world, and the first thing these sick fuks want to do to them is inflict pain and obsess with these babies penises.

Shyt, just end all these gd church and religions. they ll seem to have gone off the deep end, and there's no return or hope for them.

Their obsession with babies and kids penises only speaks about who the real pedophiles are in our world.

I disagree Popeye. My ex was cut, my current man is not. On the effectiveness scale, not is better. For everyone involved. I really don't get all the people talking about 'looks', in my experience once erect they look pretty much the same, the uncircumcised one is just much (much) bigger.

Gross!

my son said they look like an Ant-Eater

Happy you have a Frankenpenis are ya? I hope you enjoy the numb dick when you are 50.

Well good for that you are happy you were mutilated, but SHAME SHAME SHAME on you for cutting parts of your sons body off and disconnecting parts of THEIR sensory system. I hope they think of you when they have ED at a young age.

Get ready America, boys are finding out that they have been harmed. Some are really upset, because some percentage of men that have been cut have premature ejaculation issues caused by the scar -- the most sensitive part of the penis after cut. Some have a curved penis and many a tight painful erection. Most will get ED at a much younger age than natural men (circumcised men consume most of the VIAGRA). The many many problems are only now being discussed, because of the internet. All get the news that they have lost significant pleasure because of what their parents did. Some want to sue. If you are about to have a baby boy -- there is no decision to make. He wants his natural penis. Do not let some one amputate parts of his body.

Kevin D. Hoke

my son said they look like an Ant-Eater

Why is your son checking out other men's penises and foreskins? Something just don't sountd right there Kev. lol

100,000 circumcisions are needed to prevent one incidence of penile cancer, for which the treatment is also circumcision.

444 infant circumcisions are needed to prevent the slight increase in infant UTIs *only* during the first six months. After that, there is no difference in the UTI rate involving circ'd and normal penises.

There is no evidence that a higher circumcision rate in the US reduces the HIV infection rate. The US HIV infection rate is about 3x that of comparable European Union nations, and that is easily understood because HIV is primarily transmitted by

1) anal reception of HIV-infected semen

2) intravenous reception of HIV-infected blood (needle sharing)

3) vaginal reception of HIV-infected semen

The US mass circumcision experiment is a flop at preventing STDs.

Penile carcinoma requires a little more than circumcision. Typically it involves the glans and requires partial amputation.

Is that before or after the Rabbi chews the foreskin?

They don't tell you that part!

This is the most lied about, barbaric procedure in history!

Leaves men with pre-mature ejaculation, as the haters of sex wanted!

Not long periods of sex so that the woman could also be satisfied!

They cut her labia off as well. All because they hate sex!

All the lies about disease are just that, the foreskin is protection against infection! Without it disease is more likely!

Religion lies about everything!

But, people are finally starting to discover they are the biggest Con men in the World!

Money for Nothing!

Checks for free!

Cici wrote "Removal of the foreskin reduces the transmission of hpv to future sex partners."

HPV vaccines will do a better job. Do you realize that circumcised USA does not have a lower HPV infection rate that uncircumcised European Union?

So, what was the justification for circumcision before HPV was associated with cancer in 1972? Most HPV does not cause cancer. There's always some silly reason, from epilepsy prevention in the 1800's to masturbation-prevention in the early 1900's to the new blight : modern American men are stupid (at least on television) and dirty/disgusting because they initiate sex, which in itself is dirty and disgusting. Cutting infant penises is salvation !!!

Actually in the US cut and natural men have HIV and HPV in the same %. ONLY the number of sexual partners and NOT circumcision status is linked to HPV in men in the US. What mean spirited BS you spout.

When are we going to stop oppressing Muslims and let them remove their daughter's clitoral prepuce if that fulfills their cultural and religious desires?

When the 4 million Moslems go East for resettlement...then maybe that would be history repeating itself. As far as the Jewish population goes, Germany is bending over backwards to kiss the asses of the Israelis. Research on the Germanys selling submarines to Israel for less than half the cost to build them. Such a friend has Israel.

Why would Israel need submarines?

History has repeated for Germany. First they started and failed WWI; then not 20 years later they started and failed WWII; they're a psychotic society, and they'll Kevork themselves as a nation if they try starting a Third.

As for what their ignorant, intolerant courts have to say, intercourse the Germs. Spray 'em all down with Lysol. Neither Israel nor Islam will put up with those scheisskopfs for very long before doling out strict punishment to them.