+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

Stand up for your son: Say 'no' to ritual circumcision

Even if criminalization is impractical, this week’s German court ruling against circumcision on children, except for medical purposes, sent a much-needed message. 

I’ve been an atheist since adolescence, but being a Jew has always been a vital element of my identity, something I can’t imagine not being, and for this reason, above all others, I knew as a matter of course that I would have my two sons circumcized. It was only after going through it, with the blood and the boys’ wailing and our anguish and worry – with the realization that this mohel was actually taking a knife to the foreskins of our eight-day-old sons’ penises – that I began to think about it.

And what I arrived at was this – I am somewhat ashamed that I was willing to put my infant boys at risk, that I was willing to put them through such severe pain, for fear that if I didn’t, it would mean they weren’t Jewish and it would be my responsibility.

How ridiculous. I never believed in ritual circumcision, if I’d ever thought about it I’d have said it was barbaric, risky and fairly insane to inflict on infants – but I never thought about it. What I did was accept it  – as the absolute minimum requirement for being a Jew. I don’t fast on Yom Kippur, I’ve lived very happily without a mezuzah at my front door, but I’m am so glad my atheist father had me circumcized, and I would never have dreamed of not having it done on my sons – because otherwise, according to my unconscious belief (and no doubt my father’s, too), we’re not Jewish.

So I put my boys through it, 12 and 16 years ago.  And since then, although the bleeding and crying stopped and everything turned out alright, I realize that this Jewish (and Muslim) tradition is a bad one. It should be replaced, like some of the Torah’s other horrific injunctions, and instead of cutting off the foreskin, a few strands of hair should be removed, or a fingernail should be dyed, or the boy should get a little tattoo at age nine or something. I very much like being a member of the Jewish tribe, and I don’t have a problem with parents harmlessly “marking” their infant sons (or daughters) as members of their tribe. But ritual circumcision for an eight-day-old boy, as the absolute mandatory condition of his being a Jew, is barbaric, risky and fairly insane.

On Tuesday, a district court in Cologne, Germany outlawed circumcision on children except for medical purposes.  From The Guardian:

The court weighed up three articles from the basic law: the rights of parents, the freedom of religious practice and the right of the child to physical integrity, before coming to the conclusion that the procedure was not in the interests of the child.

It rejected the defence that circumcision is considered hygienic in many cultures, one of the main reasons it is carried out in the US, Britain and in Germany.

After much deliberation, it concluded that a circumcision, “even when done properly by a doctor with the permission of the parents, should be considered as bodily harm if it is carried out on a boy unable to give his own consent.”

Commentators said it’s unlikely the decision will be binding, or that circumcision will end anywhere in Germany anytime soon, but they also said it would influence future legal decisions. I hope so. I don’t think it’s wise to outlaw ritual circumcision, any more than it was wise to outlaw alcohol, abortion or drugs, because it’s unenforceable and by driving it underground, you create many more problems than you solve. But the principle that ritual circumcision is harmful to infants, that it inflicts on them a purely elective surgery that is acutely painful, and that while accidents are very rare, the victims are literally scarred for life – this point has to be made loudly and repeatedly to all Jews, Muslims and other tribal types who feel they have no choice but to put their sons through this.

There is a small but growing movement of Jewish parents who reject ritual circumcision, and I think it’s going to spread fast because they’re saying out loud what so many Jewish parents are thinking: “Why?” And this, I believe, is the best answer to the problem: Stand up for your kid and say no. If you fear and abhor the ritual, don’t let anyone perform it on him. He’ll still be Jewish if you raise him Jewish – whatever anyone says.

And if my sons one day have sons of their own and decide not to have them circumcized, I will be one proud father and grandfather. Herzl didn’t have his sons circumcized, and if it was Jewish enough for him, it’s Jewish enough for me.


Read Also: Noam Sheizaf and Alex Stein reply to Larry Derfner.

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article

    * Required


    1. Alan

      “Have you read anything on the function of the foreskin?
      What is your point?”

      Haven’t read a word about foreskins except in fiction. My judgments are all based on personal and anecdotal experiences– hence my comment that I don’t think circumcision has been very effective at keeping Jewish men from being subservient to their sexual desires.

      What’s my point? To speak truth to stupidity.

      Reply to Comment
    2. ish yehudi

      perhaps we are just making a permanent brit between our children with the One to whom they will ask “why” again and again throughout their life…
      anyone else sense the irony/hashgacha (co-inciding) of this conversation with the Torah portion of the week- Chukat? the laws to which we just don’t know?
      I’d offer for conversation something a rav once told me- that the Torah emphasizes the community and family that a child is born into as being the greatest source of identity to a child- not some abstract “human” family which entitles them to some rights over the tradition/ heritage which birth each human being… so to enter the child into the covenant of Avraham Avinu is the sculpting of the childs identity and place in this physical world- along with the responsibilities and relationships to time place and soul…

      Reply to Comment
    3. Forced genital cutting of any child is abuse. This is an issue of human rights to bodily integrity.

      If adults wish to mark themselves as members of a tribe, group or society, that’s their business, hopefully they are fully informed of the risks and possible outcomes. Children however need to be protected from adults making body modifications of their genitals.

      Reply to Comment
    4. edwin

      SH – All operations are potentially lethal. Operations on new born babies are more lethal than operations on 18 year olds.

      Reply to Comment
    5. sh

      Edwin, burning people in wicker baskets is not an operation, hence my remark (re a comparison by Aristeides).

      Reply to Comment
    6. Elisabeth

      How about daughters then? Are they less part of the Jewish community because they are not circumsized?

      Reply to Comment
    7. Human Rights Abuse

      Just as female circumcision (genital mutilation) is a despicable atrocity intended to permanently reduce the sexual sensation of women, so too, male circumcision is nothing but penile-sexual reduction surgery (genital mutilation) intended to permanently reduce the sexual sensation/function of men. Circumcision under false pretences (without FULLY INFORMED consent) is a human rights’ violation. Non-therapeutic circumcision of defenceless children is criminal sexual assault and child abuse.

      Reply to Comment
    8. “it’s difficult to find many adult men who regret being circumcised.”
      On the contrary, there are plenty: http://www.circumstitions.com/Resent.html
      and since the German decision many more are making themselves known.

      And no, it is not sufficient to ask circumcised men if they mind being circumcised. They don’t know what they’re missing. No good studies have been done, but informal polls such as this one – http://www.circumstitions.com/Resent.html#burning – indicate that men are much more likely to be happy to be intact than to be circumcised.

      Reply to Comment
    9. “a Jew must LOOK, nay, BE physically distinct from his Goyish counterparts.”
      Well using circumcision to do that has failed to work in the US, and since the 700s, most of the Middle East…

      Reply to Comment
    10. max

      @HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE – you got it all wrong… the practice is meant to reduce the extra sensitivity in order to allow for a longer sexual experience. You should try it once!
      It provides much more benefits than, say, religious indoctrination and brainwashing, which result in life-long Jewish Angst and neurosis.

      Reply to Comment
    11. @Richard Witty: I cannot parse your thinking at all.

      “I gave up eating meat at 16 to avoid violence intimately in my life. To avoid the conflict of asking someone else to kill on my behalf, while I got to remain utterly unconscious.”

      How is cutting off part of someone’s else’s genitals not violence?

      “The bris is a significant action, event. It is an affirmation of not only being associated as a Jew, but of the bodily connection between person and God/reality (to us Zennish Jews).”

      That is what it means to you now. It means nothing to him at the time.

      “My answer is that we are here for the purpose of “Tikkun Olam” meaning to make the world whole”

      And making one person less whole makes the world more whole?

      “That seems natural, inherent in being a reflecting human being, naturally applying the golden rule.”

      Could anybody to whom it had not already been done be reasonably expected to want to have part of their genitals cut off?

      “A relevant generation to generation form of that commitment.”

      How is it relevant? To what is it relevant? The generation-to-generation aspect happens because the generation to whom it is done has no choice.

      “For those that eat meat and for that to be legal in a country, to say that circumcism is illegal, is a gross hypocrisy, a trivialization of reality.”

      The action is different, the agents and the objects and the purposes are different, but I think a better case can be made for the reverse: –

      For those who for ethical reasons abstain from meat and from killing animals to say that cutting part off (living) non-consenting humans’ genitals is ethical is, to say the least, a somewhat convoluted way of thinking.

      “One the physical cutting of the foreskin to denote the continuity of the Jewish tribe, a physical mark, a flag of who is “us”, more permanent than tzitzis which we may be scared to adopt.”

      Someone may be too scared to wear ritual fringes on a shawl, so you’d cut part off their body to give them no choice? (And nobody needs to be reminded who used the permanence of circumcision as just that “flag”.)

      Reply to Comment
    12. Richard Witty

      Its a description that the view that circumcisms are brutal and barbaric are lying hypocrisy, an imposition, a refusal to accept differences.

      If circumcism was actually dangerous in most cases, painful, and made material changes in one’s innate human capacity, then the description of the practice was barbaric might have some weight.

      The reality though is the oppossite. The potential negative affects of circumcism are minimal, if any.

      Again, if you are a parent, then you know that much of parenting is imposed. All choice of environment or education for the perceived benefit of a child is imposed. The choice of language to speak in one’s home is imposed.

      Its reality. Enjoy reality, don’t seek to cookie-cutter it, so that we are all from exactly the same mold.

      If you are Jewish, then you are part of the brit, the commitment made by all Jews to God (as their/our understanding of what God means, has evolved). You can renounce that, but it is a substantive renunciation.

      Or, you can stay with “maybe”, and see what is relevant to you later.

      Reply to Comment
    13. Richard Witty

      Even the negative reaction to circumcism, and attempt to make it illegal or anti-social even, is a parental imposition.

      Reply to Comment
    14. Roberto H

      RE: “yes, you did [have a ritual circumcision]. It wasn’t a religious ritual but a cultural one. In the US, 50 years ago, circumcision was the cultural norm. It was done because it was done, and that’s a ritual thing. Which is another word for habitual.”

      Then I also had the ritual tonsilectomy at six. Can’t have ice-cream without thinking about that.

      Reply to Comment
    15. max

      This is a discussion about personal principles, mostly anti-religious (though culturally adopted without the need to believe) masqueraded as ‘the rights of the baby’, pretending to “know” what is talked about…
      Wikipedia may not be the ultimate knowledge provider, but it clarifies the debate:
      Numerous medical studies have examined the effects of male circumcision with mixed opinions regarding the benefits and risks of the procedure. Opponents of circumcision say it is medically unnecessary, is unethical when performed on newborns, is painful even when performed with anesthetic, adversely affects sexual pleasure and performance, and is a practice defended by myths.[1]
      Advocates for circumcision say it provides important health advantages which outweigh the risks, that it improves on sexual function,[2] has a complication rate of less than 0.5% when carried out by an experienced physician, and is best performed during the neonatal period.[3]
      The Royal Dutch Medical Association stated in 2010: “There is currently not a single doctors’ organisation that recommends routine circumcision for medical reasons.”[4]
      The World Health Organization (WHO; 2007), the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS; 2007), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; 2008) state that evidence indicates male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex, but also state that circumcision only provides partial protection and should not replace other interventions to prevent transmission of HIV.
      Nowhere would you find accepted statistics that prove long term harm.

      Reply to Comment
    16. Abigail

      All this talk about freely choosing adults is kind of surprising. As if adults have any more power to resist the hegemonic cultural norms of the society they live in. In addition, few people are taking into emotional pain seriously. For one thing, having visible genitals that look different than your peers is just about guaranteed to lead to humiliation and deep emotional scars. Have so few of the commenters been to middle school? And speaking of middle school, the things kids face like bullying, stress, parental pressure seem to me to outweigh the possible effects of circumcision, so I would cool it with the whole atrocity human rights violation talk until these things are taken into proportion. Many cultures have ritualized body modification as parts of their rites of passage- but these serve a function of imparting a feeling of belonging and membership into a supportive community. On the other hand, few cultures put quite so much pressure and expectations on their children.

      Reply to Comment
    17. @Richard Witty
      “Its a description that the view that circumcisms are brutal and barbaric are lying hypocrisy, an imposition, a refusal to accept differences.”

      A baby is held down and an integral, normal, healthy, functional part of his genitals is cut off forever, with no medical diagnosis. That is neither a discription nor a view, nor lying nor hypocrisy, nor any kind of refusal, but a bald fact.

      “If circumcism was actually dangerous in most cases, painful, and made material changes in one’s innate human capacity, then the description of the practice was barbaric might have some weight.

      The reality though is the oppossite. The potential negative affects of circumcism are minimal, if any.”

      “Again, if you are a parent, then you know that much of parenting is imposed. All choice of environment or education for the perceived benefit of a child is imposed. The choice of language to speak in one’s home is imposed.”

      It nevers ceases to amuse me that circumcision advocates may compare male genital cutting with anything else that parents do to children at all, no matter how temporary (hair cutting) or inevitable (language) or benign (bedtime), but just let anyone try to compare male genital cutting with female genital cutting, no matter how minimal, surgical, sterile, anaesthetised and religiously motivated, and Oh Noes, they are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!

      “Its reality. Enjoy reality, don’t seek to cookie-cutter it, so that we are all from exactly the same mold.”
      What an ironic metaphor! Pot! Kettle!

      “If you are Jewish, then you are part of the brit, the commitment made by all Jews to God (as their/our understanding of what God means, has evolved). You can renounce that, but it is a substantive renunciation.”
      It’s not substantive in the one way that matters: you don’t get your foreskin back.

      @Max: Not much use cutting and pasting reference numbers without references. Neither the WHO nor the CDC recommends infant circumcision. It is not up to us to prove harm, but the circumcision advocates to prove benefit. The default position for surgery on infants is not to do it.

      @Abigail: “As if adults have any more power to resist the hegemonic cultural norms of the society they live in.” Speak for yourself. We may not always succeed, but we can try. Cutting children’s genitals to make them look like other children’s is increasingly futile as circumcision goes out of fashion. Someone has suggested a simple answer for boys in middles school: “Dude, why are you looking at my [euphemism]?”

      @Roberto, yes, your tonsillectomy might as well have been a ritual, for all the good it probably did. That’s why they don’t do them any more.

      Reply to Comment
    18. Richard Witty

      You are deceiving yourself if you believe that circumcism is any statistically relevant danger to a man’s health.

      The point about imposing on a child, is that that is the nature of parenting. You were parented. Your parents imposed on you, some physical, some cultural, some personally psychological.

      Its a good thing. Its upbringing, necessary for short and long-term survival of a dependent.

      The significance of circumcism to Jews it that it defines the coherent physical participation in the Jewish community, and in the commitment of being part of the brit (sadly that most Jews selectively ignore, substantively and/or traditionally).

      That physical manifestation of continuity is important, and unless actually harmful should be affirmed, supported, loved.

      There is much that YOU do that the only relevance to it is for the purpose of defining belonging. It would be hypocritical of you to not look into that and accept it in yourself and in others.

      The brit has dual purpose, one is belonging to the Jewish tribe. The second is linking one’s personal purpose to the collective purpose of the tribe, which in the case of the Jewish people is outlined as to serve as a “nation of priests” articulated as to make things whole (tikkun olam).

      A real good thing to my understanding if undertaken in earnest.

      Reply to Comment
    19. max

      @Hugh7, for someone who pretends to know so much and can provide references to obscure and non-scientific sites, not being able to find WHO info is quite surprising 🙂
      The 1st result I get when searching “WHO circumcision” is http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/
      The info ‘conflicts’ with your claim. Go figure…

      Reply to Comment
    20. yonah fredman

      The issues you raise about circumcision is valid, but Jewish enough for Herzl is Jewish enough for you? Please! Is a Christmas tree Jewish enough for you too?

      Reply to Comment
    21. ginger

      Believe it or not, it’s an accepted theory that infant males are in fact human beings, and not merely vehicles for their parent’s fantasies about magical beings, fears, superstitions and yes Virginia, even hostilities.
      I just ‘love’ hearing all the intonations that circumcision is essentially a freebie as far as physical medical complications (untrue) while completely ignoring the obvious psychological traumatizations of having your willy whacked.

      There is no medical indication for this ritual and as a physician the oath to do no harm is in this case to the CHILD, whom is the patient, not the parent. The CHILD is his patient and under his protection – and that includes protecting him from the ignorance and/or hostilities of his parents.
      In this case the physician must protect the CHILD from the parents and their superstitions/hostility – that is his duty.

      Reply to Comment
    22. max

      @ginger – “There is no medical indication for this ritual”
      Search “WHO circumcision” to learn and correct your mistake. But as I posted it a few lines above, I guess reading isn’t one of your preferred activities.
      In any case you miss the point, which isn’t whether or not circumcision is a good thing but whether or not this decision should fall within a state’s jurisdiction

      Reply to Comment
    23. ginger


      Ever hear of using a condom rather than the reduction in incidence claimed by this article in SubSaharan Africa?

      Use of a condom has a much higher efficacy than circumcision without condom use

      It’s a ridiculous and/or desperate study and conclusion

      Reply to Comment
    24. HAY

      @ALAN: “I’ve seen my share of uncircumcised penises in locker rooms. I think mine looks a lot nicer.” The first time I saw a circumcised penis aged 11 my thought was what the hell is wrong with it? It had a brown scar around it and the head looked kind of…ill – it was the wrong colour, pale white with almost a bluish tinge. I simultaneously disgust and pity for the boy. To intact men the circumcised penis in the communal shower is like a homosexual advance. Our glans is only exposed during erection, so when you walk into a communal shower with it exposed it is highly inappropriate behaviour, like having a semi-erection in the mens’ changing room would be to us. The situation is even worse with babys, for them to be cut so as to appear to be permanently sexually aroused is, to us, perverse. The foreskin preserves our modesty until we are ready for intimacy, the way we feel about your penis is the way the Greeks did -“put it away”!

      Reply to Comment
    25. HAY

      @ALAN – There are many varieties of FGM, in S.E Asia they only remove the clitoral prepuce or “foreskin” making the procedure completely analogous with male circ. Some cultures only remove a couple mm of clitoris. Even when the whole clitoral glans is removed women are usually still able to orgasm because the vast majority of the clitoris is an internal organ with two “legs”that extend all the way to the perineum below the labia majora. Women may also have vaginal orgasms. Maimonedes and other Jewish scholars USED TO admit that the purpose of male circ was to REDUCE sexual pleasure and therefore desire. Run your fingers very lightly over the back of your hand, now do the same with your palm. The difference is the fine touch nerves. They aren’t found on the glans but the “ridged band” of the foreskin contains 20,000 of them. Circ was introduced to the USA by sex-phobic Victorian doctors along with clitoridectomy to reduce the pleasure of masturbation. After circ the glans dries out and develops a thick layer of skin to protect itself, this progressively reduces sensation over the lifetime. Male and female circ are more similar than you ever thought.

      Reply to Comment
    26. Alan

      @Hay: “To intact men the circumcised penis in the communal shower is like a homosexual advance.” Thanks for the heads up!

      Reply to Comment
    27. HAY

      @ALAN – Ok advance is the wrong word, but it is exposing a part that intact males only expose during arousal, so it appears inappropriate to us. In ancient Greece men were nude at the gymnasium, during wrestling, the olympics etc and showing one’s glans was considered the height of bad manners because of this insinuation of arousal. You were never considered truly naked unless the foreskin was retracted. Foreskin restoration techniques were invented at this time by Jewish men wishing to live in Greece, when the rabbis found out this was going on they invented the much more severe Brit Milah which removes the entire foreskin not just the tip, this is the circumcision style practiced today.

      Reply to Comment
    28. Alfred Schram

      There are numerous, peer-reviewed scientific articles refuting commonly claimed benefits of circumcision. A short list:
      1. Bollinger, D. and Van Howe, R., “ALEXITHYMIA AND CIRCUMCISION TRAUMA: A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION”, International Journal of Men’s Health (2011); 184-195.
      2. Frisch, M., Lindholm, M., and Gronbaek, M., “MALE CIRCUMCISION AND SEXUAL FUNCTION IN MEN AND WOMEN: A SURVEY-BASED CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY IN DENMARK”, International Journal of Epidemiology (2011), 1-15.
      4. Fox, M., and Thomson, M., “HIV/AIDS AND CIRCUMCISION: LOST IN TRANSLATION”. Journal ofMedical Ethics 36 (2010); 798-801.
      5. Green, L. et al., “MALE CIRCUMCISION AND HIV PREVENTION:INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND NEGLECTED EXTERNAL VALIDITY”. American Journal of preventive Medicine 39 (2010): 479-482.
      6. Connolly, C., et al., South African Medical Journal 98 (2008); 789-794.
      7. McAllister, R., et al., “THE COST TO CIRCUMCISE AFRICA”, American journal of Men’s Health 7 (2008): 307-316.
      8. Green, L. et al., “MALE CIRCUMCISION IS NOT THE HIV ‘VACCINE’ WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR!”, Future Medicine 2 (2008); 193-199.
      9. Kim, D., and Pang, M., “THE EFFECT OF MALE CIRCUMCISION ON SEXUALITY”. British Journal of Urology International 99 (2007); 619-622.
      10. Sorrells, M., et al., “FINE-TOUCH PRESSURE THRESHOLDS IN THE ADULT PENIS”, British Journal of Urology International 99 (2007); 864-869.
      11. Goldman, R., “CCIRCUMCISION POLICY: A PSYCHOSOCIAL PERSPECTIVE”‘ Paediatrics & Child Health 9 (2004); 630-633.
      12. Van Howe, R., “A COST-UTILITY ANALYSIS OF NEONATAL CIRCUMCISION”, Medical Decision Making 24 (2004); 584-601.
      13. Boyle, G, et al., “MALE CIRCUMCISION: PAIN, TRAUMA AND PSYCHOSEXUAL SEQUELAE”, Journal of Health Psychology (2002); 329-343.
      14. Taylor, J. et al., “THE PREPUCE: SPECIALIZED MUCOSA OF THE PENIS AND ITS LOSS TO CIRCUMCISION”, British Journal of Urology International 77 (1996); 291-295.
      15. Laumann, E., et al., “CIRCUMCISION IN THE U.S.: PREVALENCE, PROPHYLACTIC EFFECTS, AND SEXUAL PRACTICE”, Journal of the American Medical Association 277 (1997);1052-1057.
      17. Lander, J., et al., “COMPARISON OF RING BLOCK, DORSAL PENILE NERVE BLOCK AND TOPICAL ANESTHESIA FOR NEONATAL CIRCUMCISION”, Journal of the American Medical Association 278 (1997); 2157-2162.
      18. Van Howe, R., “VARIABILITY IN PENILE APEARANCE AND PENILE FINDINGS: A PROSPECTIVE STUDY”, British Journal of Urology 80 (1997); 776-782.
      19. Hammond, T., “A PRELIMINARY POLL OF MEN CIRCUMCISED IN INFANCY OR CHILDHOOD”, British Journal of Urology 83 (1999); suppl.1:85-92.
      20. Goldman, R., “THE PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT OF CIRCUMCISION”, British Journal of Urology 83 (1999); supple. 1:93-102.
      21. Cold, C., and Taylor, J. “THE PREPUCE”, British Journal Of Urology 83 (1999); suppl. 1:34-44.
      22. O’Hara, K., and O’Hara, J. “THE EFFECT OF MALE CIRCUMCISION ON THE SEXUAL ENJOYMENT OF THE FEMALE PARTNER”, British Journal of Urology 83 (1999); supple. 1: 79-84.
      23. Boyle, G., and Bensley G., “ADVERSE SEXUAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF MALE INFANT CIRCUMCISION”, Psychological Reports 88 (2001); 1105-1106.
      24. Taves, D., “THE INTROMISSION FUNCTION OF THE FORESKIN”, Med Hypotheses 59 (2002): 180.
      26. Bensley G., and Boyle, G. “EFFECTS OF MALE CIRCUMCISION ON FEMALE AROUSAL AND ORGASM”, New Zealand Medical Journal 116 (2003): 595-596.

      Access to these medical journal may be difficult, but abstracts of the articles are readily available on the Internet.
      It is hard to believe that so many refereed scientific articles proving the lack of benefit and the harm caused by circumcision are ignored, while poorly substantiated claims of benefits are summarily accepted.

      Reply to Comment
    29. @Max “extra sensitivity”?
      The human body has nothing extra. Would you say one eye is extra? Is binocular vision useful? Please consider there are two areas of sexual receptors that play with each other at the glans corona and the Taylor’s ridged band (which transfers actions to the frenulum). Seems this sexual experience is in stereo. Max, what you suggest trying would be mono.

      Reply to Comment
    30. Greate post. Keep writing such kind of info on your page.

      Im really impressed by your blog.
      Hey there, You’ve done a fantastic job. I will certainly digg it and personally recommend to my friends. I am confident they will be benefited from this web site.

      Reply to Comment
    31. good

      Reply to Comment
    32. Click here to load previous comments