>So there's something to be said in favor of circumcision. Done
>shortly after birth, it is far less dangerous and heals much faster
>than done later in life. So, one must weight the pain of the initial
>procedure versus the pain of repeated infections later in life both
>for the man and his partner.
I don't remember any pain. Shortly after birth I expect there was a lot less blood flow in that area though. But it raises an old philosophical question - if someone-one recalls no pain, was pain really experienced? ;-)
>Some men report great loss of sensitivity as a result of
>circumcision. About this, I know little. 95% of the men I slept with
>were circumcised, and I did not notice any appreciable loss of
>sensitivity.
That seems an odd thing to say. How would someone who was circumcised shortly after birth be able to experience a loss of sensitivity as a result of circumcision? Anyhow, I've got no complaints, it would be ridiculous to hold back from getting your son circumcised for fear he might not have any fun with sex.
My sons weren't circumcised however, We did take the eldest along to the doctor for the procedure, but the doctor simply didn't turn up. I doubt it was because of any ethical concerns, he didn't bother turning up for the birth either, the useless bludger. You can't get good help these days.
We didn't bother persisting - it wasn't terribly important to us, simply a custom.
To tell the truth I do find it a vaguely disturbing that people are getting their knickers in a knot about it. Hysterical ranting about "mutilation" seems quite bizarre. But as someone here just suggested, anti-semitism/islamophobia is a plausible explanation. I hadn't thought of that, but it makes sense.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas