I have 2 sons, who are not biologically mine,but whom I have adopted as older children. One son has been circumcised (before he was adopted by me), my other son is not. Other than my one son having to be a bit more hygenic in regards to his personal care, I have not seen any advantages of being circumcised. Most hospitals DO give the parents the choice of not circumcising their boy infant and I've not heard of any pressure from the medical community where I live about having boys "altered". I think it is a personal choice that should be decided by the boy/man when he is old enough to know what he would want.

Theresa C., Delanson, New York USA

The debate comes down to whether parents think it's appropriate to make decisions to alter their child's appearance without their consent. Though I think circumcision is nothing more than medically unnecessary "cosmetic" surgery (except in religious cases), I understand it is their choice. It is however, utter garbage to dress up circumcision as a legitimate way to stop AIDS. Though studies have identified lower rates of HIV infection in circumcised African male populations, it is widely understood that these results are not applicable to developed populations where the rates of other STDs that may be associated with HIV infection are lower, sanitation/medical care is better, and other risk factors for HIV infection (i.e. drug use and male homosexual sex) are more highly correlated to HIV+ populations. These vast differences, and many more, make the results of this study useless for other populations with disparate demographics. Apples and oranges.......

GW Rogers, Washington, DC

This is my request to all those of you that feel strongly pro foreskin. Look in a search engine and find out about a charity that promotes genital integrity, they exist both in the UK, US and elsewhere in the world, BECOME A MEMBER TODAY and make a difference. More help is needed, don't just voice your opinion in an online debate!

Felicity Milner, Bingham, Nottingham, UK England

i come from a family of basically non church going folks who for no reason i know of, did not opt for circumcision. My father is uncircumcised, as are my brother, and my son.
when i had my son the option was put before me. i decided against it because i loved my child so much, i could never let anyone hurt him that way. my mother patiently reminded my brother to always wash well, and stay clean.
Out of love for him. i believe it is unfair and cruel to alter your child in any way, unless their life is in imminent peril. that includes infant earpiercing. really, why would you do that either?

felicia, sacramento, california/ USA

Considering paranoid press about paedos I am surprised that any religious ceremony that allows an old geezer to mutilate a newborn boys penis is still allowed - it can only be a manipulative and emotionally blackmailing religion or money making scam that allows it to continue. Or some gay guy in NY that wants a peek at your equipment!

Frank, London, UK

Paul - there's no reason to think that.... circumcision trauma in the men i know, has rather driven them to campaign for protection for children - whatever their social status, sex or race - from adults who would interfere with their genitals.

Laura MacDonald, London, England

Circumcision IS controversial, as the comments and article attest. But each person has the right to make the choice for or against circumcision FOR HIMSELF, and not, as generally assumed, for another person/child. It is, after all, the child who is circumcised who has to bear the lifelong consequences and loss of autonomy or right to choose, and not the parents or the physician or other person doing the circumcision. The same right to choose might more obviously be relevant for tattoo's, piercings, or other body alterations or amputations. In countries where infant circumcision is no longer done for financial gain, the practice usually dies out in less than a generation, as in the UK.

James L Snyder MD, Clifton Forge, Virginia, USA

One has to wonder, if circumcision trauma isn't partially responsible for the hordes or ravening perverts running wild in the streets today?

Paul, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA

I've read both articles recommended by the posters here regarding the nexus between uncircumcision and HIV/AIDS (BBC & WHO). Personally, I'm uncircumcised, and while I can understand that "we" may be more susceptible to HIV/AIDS for being uncut, I think promoting safer sex and contraceptives may be less invasive that promoting circumcision--in this argument. Perhaps condoms are harder and more expensive to obtain in third world countries, but so might adequate healthcare to perform the surgical procedure of circumcision and its followup. To me, it's mildly akin to a married couple deciding not to have children anymore. More often than not, if the couple chooses the surgical route, it's more common for the man to get snipped than the woman to have her tubes tied because it's less invasive for the man. Promoting circumcision simply to prevent HIV/AIDS is clearly more invasive than promotiing safe sex and prophylactics, and circ'd men can get/give the virus too if unprotected anyway.

Steve, Miami, FL

I am circumcised and I am greatly resentful of this mutilation. It is genital mutilation and that we do not see it as such is a delusion. The sensitivity I have is much less than what i would like. The fact that around 50% of the skin is removed does indeed indicate a lot of sensitivity is removed. What is most upsetting is my right to make this choice for myself has been taken from me for the rest of my life. It is cutting of a childs genitals that is wrong, and it is equally wrong if it is done to male or female, since male and females have equal rights. Which one is more severe does not make the less severe acceptable, it is still cutting off parts of a childs genitals and thats wrong. Many types of FGM are no more severe than MGM, this does not make FGM nor MGM acceptable. If FGM was no more severe than MGM and done with sterile surgical instruments, does that make it okay? If we found that FGM reduced occurance of HIV, does that make it okay? No, and neither does it make MGM okay. AS far as the religion, in many cultures FGM is a part of their religious belief. If religion does not make FGM acceptable, than it should not make MGM acceptable either. FGM is not stopping us from condemning that practice, if its not okay to mutilate girls because of religion, why is okay to mutilate boys because of religion. Also, to call people who are against genital mutilation of unconsenting persons anti-semitic is absurd, i have the greatest respect for Jews, and I support everyone right to make their own choice about what religion to follow, and for religions not to be forced on anyone. If a person chooses for themselves to circumcise their own body, free of coercion and entirely aware it is unnecessary, thats alright, as long as its their choice, but forcing it on children is wrong, so we are supporting your right to make the choice for yourself, not having that choice taken away from you. When we cut a child, we cross a line between what is a reasonable religious practice to include children in and what is not. We are not talking about lighting candles or going to church here, or other things that do not injure a child, we are talking about cutting a child and forever mutilating their body. A person can always change their beliefs but they cannot undo genital mutilations forced on them, that forever takes away religious freedom. That crosses the line. Religious freedom is the right to make religious choices for yourself, it is not the right to force it on others, such as forever taking away the right of person to make their own religious choice for the rest of their lives. The HIV thing is also hyped up propoganda. The US actually has higher HIV rates than other industrialised countries that do not circumcise do. Circumcised men do get HIV. Circumcision is not protection against HIV. There are many far more effective ways to prevent HIV that do not present the same violation of human rights and a violation persons right to genital integrity, cruelty and inhumanity, removing a healthy body part from a helpless child, that circumcision does.

David, Atlanta, GA

Rob, the idea of a symmetrical comparison is really alien to you, isn't it? Comparing the surgical removal of labia only to that of foreskins, under similar conditions, at similar ages, for similar reasons.

Why is one aggravated assault and child abuse, while other is not?

P.S. 4/10 mortality rate you mentioned is total bs.

DeanK8, London, UK

Appalling as it is, the number of children dying or becoming seriously ill as a result of genital mutilation ( let's call it what it is ! ) is minute compared to volume of children who die every from HIV / AIDs as a direct result of religious dogma prohibiting contraception. Cruel, abusive and despicable practices lie at the very core of virtually all religious beliefs and the sooner we rid ourselves of these grotesque myriad supernatural beliefs the better for all of us !!

TD, London,

Female circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV transmission
http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138

It doesn't make a forced amputation acceptable. There are other gentler and more effective methods of reducing risk.
She - and he - have a right to choose them.

Laura MacDonald, London, England

Male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV transmission ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/background_briefings/aids/434880.stm) FYI.

Perin, New Haven,, CT

Abidah says 'health experts are now almost universally agreed that it is sound to circucmise for hygiene reasons'

Utter nonsense.If smegma necessitates amputation of the folds and flaps of skin that collect it, we'd amputate not just every boy's foreskin but also every girl's labia. The fact that we don't do the latter proves that the former is about traditional gender prejudice rather than hygiene.

Our human genitals are incredibly highly evolved and they don't need surgical interference. If soap is good enough for your daughter then it is good enough for your son.

Laura MacDonald, London, England

I can express two points of view on the topic;
1.So God said to cut the top of my willy off did he? Oh yeah? What are you on? Abraham did you say your name was?
2.It is a religious requirement to cut the foreskin and health experts are now almost universally agreed that it is sound to do so for hygene reasons.
It all sounds crackers but there you go; you have the facts.

Abidah Sawsan, bournemouth,

I don't understand how those against circumcision can be antisemitic, if they're not within a Jewish context. If you don't want someone who is not Jewish to remain intact, that has nothing to do with Judaism.

John, New York, NY,

BDL asks "How can you compare the effects of circumcision performed on infants to the effects of circumcision performed on adults?" True, especially if the adults wanted or needed to be circumcised. When they didn't, they usually dislike the diminishment. Circumcised babies grow up to learn their erotic response with whatever they have left, but they have nothing to compare it with. Women and gay men report that circumcised partners are rougher and more goal-oriented than intact ones, though, as the neurological difference would suggest.

Hugh7, New Zealand,

All genital mutilation for whatever reasonis wrong.

Tom Sacold, Essex, UK

BDL says that "'reported sexual pleasure is influenced by placebo effects, self-deception, body image, mood and a host of other unquantifiable factors" - this may be why in one survey, 80% of Egyptian women said their circumcision had not harmed their sex lives. We need to take these surveys with a pinch of salt, being aware of the enormous social and personal pressure to deny the fact of a mutilation - as well as the simple ignorance of what they are missing.
Lets look at the scientific evidence - under a microscope the foreskin has been shown to be hugely endowed with touch sensitive nerve endings such as Meissner's Corpuscles - mainly absent in the glans, which also becomes keratinised when permanently exposed.

The religious argument doesn't stack up either, because most of those who cut are otherwise non-practising. And male circumcision, like female circumcision, is mentioned no where in the Koran.

Laura MacDonald, London, England

The movement to restore is growing but it is an uphill battle trying to convince parents not to circ their sons. I tried and got no where fast. The plain truth is that most people are just ignorant and afraid to have their son be different. The comment the really kills me is " I want my son to look like me". If these people actually saw the mutilation being done on a baby, they might think twice.

glenn walko, new york, ny

Oh my god...they clip that precious piece of skin over there? How barbaric!

ron, amsterdam,

My boyfriend was circumsised in his late teens due to medical reasons. He was under a general anaesthetic at the time, but says the pain he felt for weeks after was unbearable. He also had the embarrasing problem of getting erections every two minutes because the tip of his penis was exposed all the time and being rubbed by his clothing. After he got used to the sensation of this area being permanently exposed, the situation completely reversed itself. He now says that the tip of his penis is very un sensitive and it takes his longer to become aroused. He believes that although its not the end of the world and he still gets an enormous amount of sexual pleasure, it is not as great as it would have been had he not been circumsised.

Alex, London,

Circumcised at 3 years old I was unaware aware of any adverse effects as I had nothing to compare my foreskin-less penis with. I began to notice that I had to work harder to achieve sensation and orgasm and by the time I was 58 I knew something was wrong. I went to my GP who told me that was what I should expect at my age but I rejected what he told me and saw a consultant plastic surgeon who told me it was possible to grow an alternative foreskin and referred me to NORM UK as they were the experts in the UK. My home grown foreskin is good but doesn’t include the thousands of nerves dedicated to pleasurable sensations ~ once cut off they can’t be recreated.

My wife of 40 years uses less artificial lubricant than we used to when she was 20 years younger. What is more, she no longer suffers from vaginal soreness, a problem that was ongoing during my circumcised years. The foreskin is essential functional tissue for men & women, it isn’t a redundant bit of skin.

Laurie Milner, Bingham,Nottinghamhire, United Kingdom

"The evidence of men who have been circumcised as adults, and therefore know the difference, shows that many of them are deeply affected." I imagine that adult men would also be deeply affected by being breast-fed for the course of a year. How can you compare the effects of circumcision performed on infants to the effects of circumcision performed on adults? It's just more pseudo science.
"Circumcision is definately child abuse, suffererers should seek financial restitution for loss of sensitivity and inability to find satisfaction, failed marriages and relationships etc." Oh yes, the magazines in countries where infant circumcision is practiced are full of articles offering advice to men about what drastic steps they must take to achieve orgasm. Excuse me, what planet do you come from? Have you had an opportunity to become acquainted with the species homo sapiens? It is amazing how quickly atheist fundamentalists can erase their minds of all practical knowledge of the world

BDL, Beit Shean Valley, Israel

There are plenty of parallells between male and female genital mutilation, the most obvious being the removal of vital tissue, resulting in the permanent exposure of sensitive organs that would naturally be protected, and the complete lack of regard for the 'proper' healing of the wound.

Although my circumcision was performed under general anaesthetic at age 5, it has never healed properly - 30 years later there are still holes in the skin that should not be there. I am by no means alone in this - consult any foreskin restoration forum for further examples.

Any attempt to diminish the unacceptability of "safe, medicalised" male genital mutilation by comparison to female genital mutilation misses the point. The point, quite clearly, is that the disfigurement and partial removal of the sexual organs of unconsenting minors is an abusive act.

All genital mutilation must be seen for what it is. Torture. Child abuse. Deprivation of liberty. A blight on humanity.

oj, wales,

If mastectomy was promoted as prevention for breast cancer would the world spend millions promoting a programme of mass mastectomy? Of course it wouldn’t, that would be against our Human Rights. To promote circumcision as a prevention for HIV is also against our Human Rights. The best way to prevent HIV is abstinence, monogamy & condom use. Leave the foreskin as nature intended complete with it’s highly erogenous nerves, and leave our children free to decide to cut or not when they are adult and after they have experienced the joy of sex with an intact foreskin, not when they are too young to know.

Felicity Milner, Bingham, Nottinghamshire UK

I lived life as both uncircumcised and circumcised. All Jewish males are circumcised as infants. I grew up in a town that was 99% Jewish. As a uncircumcised non Jew, can you imagine how different I felt. I was 11 when increase in size of penis made it impossible to withdraw foreskin for daily cleaning. I suffered bleeding and pain trying to move the foreskin. It was medically necessary to be circumcised at age 11. I would have preferred it done as an infant. IT IS A MYTH THAT THERE IS LOSS OF SENSATION AND PLEASURE AFTER CIRCUMCISION.

RC, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA

Simon’s (London) remarks sound uncannily similar to those I have heard from pro-circumcision lobby groups in Africa and the Middle East supporting FEMALE genital mutilation – i.e. it is the right of the parents to control the shape of their child’s genitals based on their own tradition or religious beliefs. These same lobby groups can also adduce statistics to “prove” that cutting off a female’s clitoral hood (which is equivalent to male circumcision, and is a common form of female circumcision) permits greater female hygiene than the intact state – the same insignificant argument used for male circumcision. When are people going to realise that each individual has the right to experience life free from any parental or religious “branding” that marks them from birth/ childhood to the grave - that is basic ethics. Simon, you don't realise it, but the foreskin is a highly functional and specialised tissue, very sensory as well as protective of the glans.

Paul Sandberg (pharmacist), Cheltenham, Glos

Circumcised at 3 years old I was unaware aware of any adverse effects as I had nothing to compare my foreskin-less penis with. I began to notice that I had to work harder to achieve sensation and orgasm and by the time I was 58 I knew something was wrong. I went to my GP who told me that was what I should expect at my age but I rejected what he told me and saw a consultant plastic surgeon who told me it was possible to grow an alternative foreskin and referred me to NORM UK as they were the experts in the UK. My home grown foreskin is good but doesn’t include the thousands of nerves dedicated to pleasurable sensations ~ once cut off they can’t be recreated.

My wife of 40 years uses less artificial lubricant than we used to when she was 20 years younger. What is more, she no longer suffers from vaginal soreness, a problem that was ongoing during my circumcised years. The foreskin is essential functional tissue for men & women, it isn’t a redundant bit of skin.

|Laurie Milner, Bingham, Nottinghamshire UK

To Rob, Mastectomy may be a choice of treatment for some women that carry the breast cancer gene or have a family history of the disease but it is certainly not advocated for every women as is the case for men, in regard to circumcision; particularly at the present time in Africa. That was the point I was making. Mass mastectomy on such a scale would never be suggested or tolerated, nor should it be, any more than circumcision should be.

Felicity Milner, Bingham,Nottinghamhire, United Kingdom

male genital cutting breaches the united nations convention on the rights of the child. It is irreversible and performed without consent of the child and infringes the child's right to bodily integrity.
Culture is never any kind of defence in relation to harm to children

Whatever the pros and cons it is just fundamentally against the rights of the child.

liz, london, UK

Rob, I'm not slow - for example i understand the difference between consensual and non-consensual surgery.

NON-CONSENSUAL bilateral mastectomy for example is NEVER practised on a woman, however high her chances of breast cancer are.

Your comments on circumcision also betray a lack of understanding of the parallels between male and female circumcision. For example both are medicalised in some countries. Both have been shown to provide protection against HIV. Both are promoted via the idea that a future partner will be disgusted by intact genitals. Both typically remove the most sensitive part of the genitals (although some female cutting leaves the clitoris). In a ritual setting both have high rates of death and injury - a male complication rate of 35% has been noted in Africa- but complication rates are significant in medical settings too. Both are an utter violation of the principle that we own the body we inhabit.

Laura MacDonald, London, England

OUCH

Frank Callaway, Rancho Dominguez, U.S./California

Are you slow??? Female genital mutilation is NOTHING like circumcision.... NOTHING! FGM is usually done on 12 year old girls, with a piece of glass or tin, while she is held down by older women in her community. They cut away her clitoris, the labia major and minor and if she's really, really lucky...they sew her shut so there is only a small opening for urine and menstural fluid. Some obscene number of girls (4/10 in some records) die... 4 out of every 10 people. If 4 boys in the U.K die every year from circumcision I'll eat this computer. Do not for one moment try to play the moral relativism game with circumcision and FGM.

And let us not forget that boys who are uncut... get more infections, and are more likely (not that it prevents HIV/AIDS... ) to not get AIDS.

And to felicity, bilateral mastectomy IS considered the treatment for women who carry the breast cancer gene and who have a family history of breast cancer. So don't think that cutting women isn't the norm.

rob, winnipeg, canada

Alan from Perth says: "… be reassured that I do not beleive that my sex life has suffered in any way due to this procedure and I do beleive that it does not cause any real harm in the vast majority of cases."

This seems to be a common response from men who were circumcised at birth. However, when you examine this issue more closely, it is not surprising that they feel no real harm was done. Imagine if a baby had half his taste buds and half of his olfactory senses removed at birth. He would never know the full powerful effects of the smell and taste of cooked food and claim that it never did him any harm.

The evidence of men who have been circumcised as adults, and therefore know the difference, shows that many of them are deeply affected.

Infant circumcision is a violation of human rights. If a child wants his genitals mutilated, he can elect to have it done when he grows up.

Stewart Ware, London, UK

"It is however strange that the lack of a forskin seems to be the equivalent of a fashion accessory for some religeons." Now that bespeaks a profound understanding of religious practices. It reminds me of the deep appreciation some Christian fundamentalists have for the intellectual accomplishments of evolutionary biology.

BDL, Beit Shean Valley, Israel

Circumcision is definately child abuse, suffererers should seek financial restitution for loss of sensitivity and inability to find satisfaction, failed marriages and relationships etc.

Keith, st.Helens,

The evidence is that being circumcised reduces your chance of getting HIV. But this is no argument to recommend it. After all, lopping the lot off would be more effective (I accept that the evidence base for this statement is lacking).
It is however strange that the lack of a forskin seems to be the equivalent of a fashion accessory for some religeons.

Philip Welsby, Edinburgh, Lothian

If you want to prosecute Jews who have their children circumscised for religious reasons, you are essentially making it impossible for practicing Jews to live in the UK. Why is it not comparable to the question of female genital mutilation? 1) The latter is not actually required by Islamic law. 2) As the experience of hundreds of millions of men will attest, male circumcision does not interefere with sexual pleasure. Circumcised men experience sex as an overwhelmingly pleasurable experience in pursuit of which they are willing to do all kinds of stupid things. Now you want to add into the hedonic utilitarian equation that uncircumcised men experience sex as a *super-duper* overwhelmingly pleasurable experience, etc. I'm not terribly worried about it. And anyway, how can this question be resolved objectively? Reported sexual pleasure is influenced by placebo effects, self-deception, body image, mood and a host of other unquantifiable factors. Fertile ground for pseudoscience!

BDL, Beit Shean Valley, Israel

If mastectomy was promoted as prevention for breast cancer would the world spend millions promoting a programme of mass mastectomy? Of course it wouldn’t, that would be against our Human Rights. To promote circumcision as a prevention for HIV is also against our Human Rights. The best way to prevent HIV is abstinence, monogamy & condom use. Leave the foreskin as nature intended complete with it’s highly erogenous nerves, and leave our children free to decide to cut or not when they are adult and after they have experienced the joy of sex with an intact foreskin, not when they are too young to know.

Felicity Milner, Bingham, Nottinghamshire, United Kingdom

It's very odd to see an article about circumcision that fails to mention that the World Health Oraganization has officially recognized its value as a preventative measure against the spread of HIV-AIDS. See:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2007/pr10/en/index.html

BDL, Beit Shean Valley, Israel

James from London says this article is poor journalism because it isn't balanced.

Would you expect an article about female circumcision to be balanced James?

Cutting off the most nerve rich part of a child's genitals - male or female - is simply wrong. We can understand why people do it, but that's no reason not to insist that they stop. Full stop.

Laura MacDonald, London, England

Wouldn't it make more sense to simply outlaw Judaism altogether? Thousands of years of history have proven that one's being a Jew - especially a Jew living in Europe - significantly increases one's chances of being murdered or persecuted. Parents should not be allowed to burden their children with such a dangerous heritage.

Ultimate Atheist, Erehwon,

For those who believe that circumcision should be outlawed because it is barbaric, painful, and inconsiderate of the child's will: how many of you are in favor of abortion?

From what I understand, aborted fetuses experience a 100% loss in sexual sensitivity.,,,and as yet there is no elective vanity surgery to restore the missing tissue, either.

sollipsist, Las Vegas,

Good to see poor British journalism is alive and well. You say "Our correspondent hears from the ‘intactivists’". What ever happened to balance? What ever happened to presenting both sides of an argument and letting the readers decide for themselves? This article should be used as a case study in poor journalism.

James, London, England

I find it extraordinary that, in this century, we tolerate assault, child abuse and mutilation - and occasionally murder - based simply on the subscription of a child's parents to some form of outdated superstition. It is incredible.

If I were to state that I believed in some entity who demanded that I remove my child's tongue, or eyes, would that be accepted? Of course not. I would, an should, be locked away.

It is time to put a stop to this sort of barbarism and all others perpetrated in the fraudulent name of "religion". And to prosecute the perpetrators.

David Jacobs, Gibraltar, Gibraltar

Simon, It's pretty simple. Circumcision is the unnesecary severing of a section of the body, typically without anaesthetic. The practise is utterly barbaric, and non medical circumcisions should be immediately banned, regardless what the religious loonies think about it.

Pete, Leeds,

Point 1 - condoms and responsible behaviour are methods that men can choose, to help guard against HIV infection. Circumcision is the amputation of a significant portion of (usually) an unconsenting baby's penis, and does not PREVENT the spread of HIV.

Point 2 - From my own personal experience, I can assure readers that Foreskin Restoration is fun, easy, and tremendously effective in increasing the enjoyment of sex (both alone and with a partner), and improving psychological fulfilment in day-to-day life, not least in social and sexual relations with women.

Prior to restoring, I too thought that I suffered no adverse effects from my circumcision. One year on, with a lengthened, more sensitive, better covered penis, complete with more moveable skin, I can begin to see how much I was missing. The more this subject comes into the public debate, the better for men and boys and baby boys everywhere.

oj, wales,

Million of years of evolution to create the perfect penis! Saddly What God created was taken away by humans Who are convinced somehow, that it's because they believe in God this practice must be followed.!!

Yannis, Liverpool, U.K.

What a waste of NHS funds, some of the procedures result in prolonged aftercare due to infection and other complications. Why aren't babies ears pierced on the NHS? It's just another fashion statement.

Sally, Devon, UK

Oh please, what is all the fuss about? Does tradition not count for anything any more? Is it really such a bad thing to be circumsised? It hasn't caused me any problems, sexual or otherwise. As for the 'pro-choice' lobby - what about the parents' choice to follow their beliefs? It really isn't such a cruel practice. Any pain that the baby feels is soon forgotten as part of a baby's normal tumultuous day. And any 'bullying' later in life - well there are plenty of reasons people get bullied and the problem usually lies with the bully, not the victim.

I think that it's close to child abuse to plonk kids in front of the TV with a ready meal - definitely more damaging than circumcision. I think wrapping kids in cotton wool damages their developing psyche. I think it's cruel, depersonalising and humiliating for parents to dress up their children in identical clothes. But I'd never try to take away parents' choice to any of these.

Simon J, London,

This is simply the male equivelent of female genital mutilation again done for 'religious' or 'health' reasons. Cutting very sensitive nerve tissue without anasthetic is cruel and unusual to begin with, downright barbaric when done on children. And 'mohels' mouthing genitals?- very disturbing especially when combined with Talmud stand on boys 'up to 8 years old'.
The bottom line is if its not broken don't 'fix' it, especially by cutting it off. I am 45 and have yet to meet ANY 'doctor' who is worthy of even a tiny amount of respect but I have met many who I would not let treat my dog but maybe a lying politician.......

ted , K falls, Oregon

Female genital mutilation is outlawed but male genital mutilation is OK? Surely a parent should not have the right to mutilate a child. If an adult wants to do it to himself that is different. What a bizarre world we live in!

Lou, Milton Keynes, England

"make a sensitive teenage boy something of a fairground attraction in the communal-shower environment."
100% true. My poor 12 year old son was born abroad. Today in a Midwestern "red state" he is taunted, teased and bullied if he "unzips" in the locker room or restroom. He is called "gay" constantly for it and even asked me if it was true that he could never have children because of it. In elementary school another boy grabbed his...and pulled. The School said it never happened. I can't cure ignorance, but I agreed to make an appointment with a urologist for him finally this year. Enough is enough. His situation is the norm for uncircumsized boys in this area--all 2 to 4 of them being foreign born. If your son is considering "study abroad" programs, educate him on this discrimination first. I agree that circumsision is unnecessary and barbaric, but don't want my son destroyed from the abuse either.

Lisa, Floyd County, USA/indiana

Circumcision in America has always been a cure looking for a disease and that the HIV "cure" is just another of these. As it is being divulged that the HIV studies in Africa were performed to prop up the circumcision industry in the US, information from the US Centers for Disease Control now shows that the death rate from Methicillin Resistant Staph Aureus (MRSA) is 50% higher than the death rate from HIV/AIDS. The incidence of MSRA is 12.2 times higher in infants who are circumcised leading to more than 200 deaths per year. No doubt this will be soft peddaled so that the enormous profits can be continued.

It is time for the world to step up and condemn The US for continuing this practice when it should have been outlawed many years ago.

Frank O'Hara, Atlanta, GA

Surely it is an assault on the person. In a litigious society like America any son who took against his parent could doubtless extract millions in compen(i)sation.

John Ledbury, Kings Lynn, England

Best estimates have it that 200 American babies per year died from this barbaric ritual. Think about it. That's 400 parents, 800 grand parents and thousands of friends and other family members affected. One baby dying from toes being amputated would be too many. That's why we leave toes alone. Male genitals are just fine as Nature made them. Let's bring this horrifying chapter of history to a close.

Foreskins for keeps.

Gloria Lemay, Childbirth Educator, Vancouver BC Canada

Gloria Lemay, Vancouver,

My sister, who lives in California, shocked her pediatrician when she told him that she did not want to have her newborn son circumcised as she saw no good reason to do so. He told her she should have the procedure performed as a foreskin made it difficult to clean her son's penis. She replied, "in that case why don't you chop off his ears while you have the knife out?"

graham, san diego/California, USA

This outdated practice should not be performed on children. I do not think it is acceptable to remove part of a baby's body.

If a boy grows up and still wants to be circumcised he can choose to have the operation as an adult.

It is outrageous that 92 per cent of the circumcisions on infants are performed without anaesthetic. These children are not given any choice. I do not think it is right to mutilate children in this way, but surely if it does continue, it should be compulsory to wait until the child is old enough for sufficient anaethesia to be used. Medical procedures demand pain relief and so should painful non-medical procedures.

Tina, South Wales, UK

If circumcision has an HIV-fighting effect, tell that to all the dead US men who have died of AIDS even though they were circumcised at birth. Tell that to the men in Israel, where they have as much of an AIDS problem as in Japan where circumcision is vanishingly rare. Tell that to the men in Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, and Tanzania, where it's the circumcised who have the highest incidence of HIV.

Circumcision does not prevent AIDS.

Ron Low, Chicago, Illinois

I'm with john in New York on this one. It has longterm public health benefits and not just in the reduction of the spread of HIV but other STIs. The treatment of each HIV positive person costs the NHS an average of 15k per person per year. The last time I heard the budget it was over 210 million. With an attrition rate that is lower than the infection rate this will continue to rise even with drugs coming off patent as new and better drugs hit the market. In the long run its probably cheaper on the public purse and improve the health of at risk groups.

James, Dhaka, Bangladesh

I was born in 1945 in London and am circumsized. When I was old enough to realize that I was different from some other boys, I asked my mother why. She told me that I was cut for no other reason that a few days after I was born and still in hospital a doctor came around with a list and asked not if but when would she like to have me circumsized. So, it was done there and then. But, please be reassured that I do not beleive that my sex life has suffered in any way due to this procedure and I do beleive that it does not cause any real harm in the vast majority of cases. My two sons, born in the 70's and 80's are as nature intended them to be and I assume none the wiser of what would have been considered the norm 30 years earlier.

Alan, Perth, Australia WA

What is utterly incomprehensible is that the NHS actually provides a free circumcision service, for babies that have no medical need to be circumcised .
State sponsored child abuse ?

BrummyDoug, Birmingham, England

check out the HIV stats. Uncircumcised men are significantly more likely to get infected.

john, new york,

Routine circumcision of babies is none other than a breach of human rights - the individual whose body it is surely must give his informed consent to an irreversible surgery of this kind. Routine circumcision of continental Europeans has always been rare (with the exception of the Dutch), and they do not suffer urinary tract or penile problems any more than do the Americans or British. The disgrace in all this is that the medical profession is still lawfully able to - and willing - to perform this excruciatingly painful and absolutely unnecessary surgery on babies (who are too young to be given adequate anaesthesia) in a clear breach of their medical oath, which is: "First, do no harm".

Paul Sandberg (pharmacist), Cheltenham, Glos

It's refreshing to read a more accurate article on circumcision. American publications are still touting it as the ultimate cure for everything. Circumcision is supposed to prevent HIV, but perhaps the HIV strain in America doesn't know this yet.

Joe in CA, Salinas, CA

I have been circumcised and am not aware of any ill effects. It must have been horribly painful at the time although thankfully I cant remember it. I do feel however that this is an unnecessary procedure. I certainly would not want my son to have to this experience.

I cant help feeling that there must be a reason why we have that bit of flesh. I mean other animals ( and we are basically animals) don't cut their dicks.

I also think it's an abnormal and perverted profession to interfere with children's genitalia

I think its best we let our bodies alone

Paul, London, UK

Cutting parts of children's genitals off is wrong. It's actually the most sensitive parts of the penis that get cut off too (the inner foreskin, and the frenulum).

Why do girls get protected from genital cutting, but not boys? Some of the forms of female circumcision do less damage than male circumcision, but even making an incision on a girl's genitals without removing any tissue is illegal, yet we still tolerate having the most sensitive part of a baby boy's penis being cut off.

Mark Lyndon, Manchester,

Yeah it's time for this idiotic custom to disappear into the history books.

aiden, boston,

Wonderful piece. It's time we stop cutting the genitals of children. It has taken far too long to realize that it's wrong, harmful, and barbaric.

john doe, san jose, USA