Parents have to make decisions on behalf of their children; sometimes they will make wrong decisions, but society cannot lay down rules for everything.

As an adult I felt no need to have my right leg, it caused me immense psychological problems for many years so I had it cut off and now I'm happy. I'm going to have the right leg of my 2 week old son cut off so he (thankfully) does not have to go through the same trauma. Does anyone have a problem with this?

This thread is getting sillier and sillier and will soon be the silliest.

Maybe it is a class thing. http://www.circinfo....istinction.html

"In Britain a class distinction is associated with circumcision." "The British Royal Family and the upper classes are circumcised and the lower classes and those who left school before 17 much less so [O'Farrell et al., 2005]."

"Circumcision was common amongst the royal families of other European countries, many of which intermarried with each other and the British Royal Family."

"Socio-economic stratification is seen in the USA as well. The US National Health and Lifestyle Survey saw higher circumcision rates among whites and the better-educated [Laumann et al., 1997]. There was little difference between different religious groups. In the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999-2004, for those born in the 1970s, circumcision rate was 96% in men with an annual household income of greater than $55,000."

"Similarly, in Australia, the higher socio-economic-educated groups in society had higher rates of circumcision [Richters et al., 2006]."

Thus, in English-speaking countries of Anglo-Celtic heritage, the upper echelon tend to be circumcised."

Who is now full of self pontificating rubbish don't blame it on anything apart from personal choice.You want to mutilate your son up to you (at the moment) You want to respect your son and let him decide then I'll back you. As a failed colonial please DO NOT tell us Brits how WE think, For once accept YOU can not have the final word and butt out.

Maybe it is a class thing. http://www.circinfo....istinction.html

"In Britain a class distinction is associated with circumcision." "The British Royal Family and the upper classes are circumcised and the lower classes and those who left school before 17 much less so [O'Farrell et al., 2005]."

"Circumcision was common amongst the royal families of other European countries, many of which intermarried with each other and the British Royal Family."

"Socio-economic stratification is seen in the USA as well. The US National Health and Lifestyle Survey saw higher circumcision rates among whites and the better-educated [Laumann et al., 1997]. There was little difference between different religious groups. In the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999-2004, for those born in the 1970s, circumcision rate was 96% in men with an annual household income of greater than $55,000."

"Similarly, in Australia, the higher socio-economic-educated groups in society had higher rates of circumcision [Richters et al., 2006]."

Thus, in English-speaking countries of Anglo-Celtic heritage, the upper echelon tend to be circumcised."

Who is now full of self pontificating rubbish don't blame it on anything apart from personal choice.You want to mutilate your son up to you (at the moment) You want to respect your son and let him decide then I'll back you. As a failed colonial please DO NOT tell us Brits how WE think, For once accept YOU can not have the final word and butt out.

You lost me there. Are you attacking me instead of questioning the veracity of my post? Hardly the point. If you disagree with any of the facts I presented feel free to post your factual rebuttal. I think the conclusion "Thus, in English-speaking countries of Anglo-Celtic heritage, the upper echelon tend to be circumcised" of the website, http://www.circinfo....istinction.html is pretty accurate.

Parents have to make decisions on behalf of their children; sometimes they will make wrong decisions, but society cannot lay down rules for everything.

As an adult I felt no need to have my right leg, it caused me immense psychological problems for many years so I had it cut off and now I'm happy. I'm going to have the right leg of my 2 week old son cut off so he (thankfully) does not have to go through the same trauma. Does anyone have a problem with this?

This thread is getting sillier and sillier and will soon be the silliest.

The level of silliness is due to the subject matter. A perfectly gorgeous and unbelievably cute male child is born and the parents want to cut away part of his John Thomas with a sharp stone for reasons that are spurious at best. It should come as no surprise to anyone that dialog relating to this will inevitably be equally as silly.

Parents have to make decisions on behalf of their children; sometimes they will make wrong decisions, but society cannot lay down rules for everything.

As an adult I felt no need to have my right leg, it caused me immense psychological problems for many years so I had it cut off and now I'm happy. I'm going to have the right leg of my 2 week old son cut off so he (thankfully) does not have to go through the same trauma. Does anyone have a problem with this?

This thread is getting sillier and sillier and will soon be the silliest.

The level of silliness is due to the subject matter. A perfectly gorgeous and unbelievably cute male child is born and the parents want to cut away part of his John Thomas with a sharp stone for reasons that are spurious at best. It should come as no surprise to anyone that dialog relating to this will inevitably be equally as silly.

Ahh let me guess.... I can guess your circumcision status, nationality and your royal status. I wonder if all of those were the opposite would you think the postings silly?

Ahh let me guess.... I can guess your circumcision status, nationality and your royal status. I wonder if all of those were the opposite would you think the postings silly?

I wouldn't objectively have any choice on the matter. I could subjectively argue that 2+2=3 but to do so objectively would put me in a position the same as that of a one legged man in an arse kicking competition.

i think it goes back to the question of : Would a 15/16 year old boy, given the information for & against & with full knowledge, chose to have it done?

I think even the most ardent defenders of the practice have admitted that they would not.

i think it goes back to the question of : Would a 15/16 year old boy, given the information for & against & with full knowledge, chose to have it done?

I think even the most ardent defenders of the practice have admitted that they would not.

that's the age when boys compare the size of their "schniedelwutz" with the "schniedelwutzes" of other boys when taking a shower after some sports event. and in 99% of the cases a 15/16 year old boy would think "i will not sacrifice one tiny bit! besides... it must be hurting a lot."

From a logical point of view would a 15 or 16 year old boy choose to have the operation undone?

Or.

From a logical point of view would a 15 or 16 year old boy be angry that his parents had him circumcised?

I think it depends far more on peer pressure at that age. If all of his peers had it done he would be happy his parents made the decision to have him circumcised. Most of the royal families in Europe if the young boys met in the shower after a game of lawn bowling would agree, I think.

Since the great majority of operations are done when the boy is an infant I fail to see the relevance of discussing how a 15 year old boy would feel anyway. What is the point? It will never happen.

Maybe it is a class thing. http://www.circinfo....istinction.html

"In Britain a class distinction is associated with circumcision." "The British Royal Family and the upper classes are circumcised and the lower classes and those who left school before 17 much less so [O'Farrell et al., 2005]."

"Circumcision was common amongst the royal families of other European countries, many of which intermarried with each other and the British Royal Family."

"Socio-economic stratification is seen in the USA as well. The US National Health and Lifestyle Survey saw higher circumcision rates among whites and the better-educated [Laumann et al., 1997]. There was little difference between different religious groups. In the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999-2004, for those born in the 1970s, circumcision rate was 96% in men with an annual household income of greater than $55,000."

"Similarly, in Australia, the higher socio-economic-educated groups in society had higher rates of circumcision [Richters et al., 2006]."

Thus, in English-speaking countries of Anglo-Celtic heritage, the upper echelon tend to be circumcised."

Who is now full of self pontificating rubbish don't blame it on anything apart from personal choice.You want to mutilate your son up to you (at the moment) You want to respect your son and let him decide then I'll back you. As a failed colonial please DO NOT tell us Brits how WE think, For once accept YOU can not have the final word and butt out.

You lost me there. Are you attacking me instead of questioning the veracity of my post? Hardly the point. If you disagree with any of the facts I presented feel free to post your factual rebuttal. I think the conclusion "Thus, in English-speaking countries of Anglo-Celtic heritage, the upper echelon tend to be circumcised" of the website, http://www.circinfo....istinction.html is pretty accurate.

I was attacking your ignorance that as a non Brit you can type something into google and not only believe the results but try and force your ill conceived beliefs on others. As a Brit having been brought up and educated there, I can assure you that if you asked most Brits on the street Who circumcised their kids? The answer would be Jews and Moslems from the majority. A very very high percentage of Brits have no idea or interest in Royalty mutilating their children.

By all means spout total rubbish about people's thoughts from where you come from but NEVER try and impose your ideas and views onto another nationality, thank god you left the Comonwealth.

Maybe it is a class thing. http://www.circinfo....istinction.html

"In Britain a class distinction is associated with circumcision." "The British Royal Family and the upper classes are circumcised and the lower classes and those who left school before 17 much less so [O'Farrell et al., 2005]."

"Circumcision was common amongst the royal families of other European countries, many of which intermarried with each other and the British Royal Family."

"Socio-economic stratification is seen in the USA as well. The US National Health and Lifestyle Survey saw higher circumcision rates among whites and the better-educated [Laumann et al., 1997]. There was little difference between different religious groups. In the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999-2004, for those born in the 1970s, circumcision rate was 96% in men with an annual household income of greater than $55,000."

"Similarly, in Australia, the higher socio-economic-educated groups in society had higher rates of circumcision [Richters et al., 2006]."

Thus, in English-speaking countries of Anglo-Celtic heritage, the upper echelon tend to be circumcised."

Who is now full of self pontificating rubbish don't blame it on anything apart from personal choice.You want to mutilate your son up to you (at the moment) You want to respect your son and let him decide then I'll back you. As a failed colonial please DO NOT tell us Brits how WE think, For once accept YOU can not have the final word and butt out.

You lost me there. Are you attacking me instead of questioning the veracity of my post? Hardly the point. If you disagree with any of the facts I presented feel free to post your factual rebuttal. I think the conclusion "Thus, in English-speaking countries of Anglo-Celtic heritage, the upper echelon tend to be circumcised" of the website, http://www.circinfo....istinction.html is pretty accurate.

I was attacking your ignorance that as a non Brit you can type something into google and not only believe the results but try and force your ill conceived beliefs on others. As a Brit having been brought up and educated there, I can assure you that if you asked most Brits on the street Who circumcised their kids? The answer would be Jews and Moslems from the majority. A very very high percentage of Brits have no idea or interest in Royalty mutilating their children.

By all means spout total rubbish about people's thoughts from where you come from but NEVER try and impose your ideas and views onto another nationality, thank god you left the Comonwealth.

Please point out where I tried to impose my ideas and views onto another nationality? If not please retract your statement.

CMK.

Through ignorance you informed all the readers here that the Brit aversion to circumcision is because of a class issue. Your statement was unfounded (some pathetic online quote) therefore you are imposing your perceived ideals of my nation onto others who know no better. You please recant your statement of British attitudes as you are not and never by the grace of God will be one.

CMK.

Through ignorance you informed all the readers here that the Brit aversion to circumcision is because of a class issue. Your statement was unfounded (some pathetic online quote) therefore you are imposing your perceived ideals of my nation onto others who know no better. You please recant your statement of British attitudes as you are not and never by the grace of God will be one.

Read my post. I was quoting, "Brian J. Morris was born in 1950 in Adelaide, South Australia, graduated from the University of Adelaide in 1972 and obtained his PhD from Monash University and University of Melbourne (jointly) in Melbourne in 1975, before doing 3 years of postdoctoral research in the USA, firstly at the University of Missouri, Columbia for a year, and then at the University of California, School of Medicine, in San Francisco. He returned to Australia in 1978 after being appointed as an academic at The University of Sydney in 1978, won the Edgeworth David Medal (state award for science) in 1985, was awarded a DSc in 1993, and was appointed to a Chair in the School of Medical Sciences in the Faculty of Medicine from 1999. He was elected as a Fellow of the American Heart Association in 2003. In 2006 he won The Faculty of Medicine Award for Excellence in Postgraduate Research Supervision."

He is a university professor in Australia with over 280 publications.

Your statements that I tried to impose my beliefs on anyone is false. Posting a scholarly article from an Australian professor is hardly forcing my beliefs on anyone. Brian J Morris and others have come to the conclusion that " in English-speaking countries of Anglo-Celtic heritage, the upper echelon tend to be circumcised" That statement applies to Anglo-Celtic heritage countries not only the British. If you don't agree; point out the professors errors in arriving at that conclusion. Thank you very much.

Edit to add, He also finds that, "Our analysis finds MC is beneficial, safe and cost-effective, and should optimally be performed in infancy. In the interests of public health and individual wellbeing, adequate parental education, and steps to facilitate access and affordability should be encouraged in developed countries."

http://www.scirp.org...x?paperID=17415

CMK.

Through ignorance you informed all the readers here that the Brit aversion to circumcision is because of a class issue. Your statement was unfounded (some pathetic online quote) therefore you are imposing your perceived ideals of my nation onto others who know no better. You please recant your statement of British attitudes as you are not and never by the grace of God will be one.

Read my post. I was quoting, "Brian J. Morris was born in 1950 in Adelaide, South Australia, graduated from the University of Adelaide in 1972 and obtained his PhD from Monash University and University of Melbourne (jointly) in Melbourne in 1975, before doing 3 years of postdoctoral research in the USA, firstly at the University of Missouri, Columbia for a year, and then at the University of California, School of Medicine, in San Francisco. He returned to Australia in 1978 after being appointed as an academic at The University of Sydney in 1978, won the Edgeworth David Medal (state award for science) in 1985, was awarded a DSc in 1993, and was appointed to a Chair in the School of Medical Sciences in the Faculty of Medicine from 1999. He was elected as a Fellow of the American Heart Association in 2003. In 2006 he won The Faculty of Medicine Award for Excellence in Postgraduate Research Supervision."

He is a university professor in Australia with over 280 publications.

Your statements that I tried to impose my beliefs on anyone is false. Posting a scholarly article from an Australian professor is hardly forcing my beliefs on anyone. Brian J Morris and others have come to the conclusion that " in English-speaking countries of Anglo-Celtic heritage, the upper echelon tend to be circumcised" That statement applies to Anglo-Celtic heritage countries not only the British. If you don't agree; point out the professors errors in arriving at that conclusion. Thank you very much.

That the aristocracy may be circumcised I can probably accept that, because of this the working class have a dislike of it is foundless conjecture and that is what YOU were trying to pedal.

CMK.

Through ignorance you informed all the readers here that the Brit aversion to circumcision is because of a class issue. Your statement was unfounded (some pathetic online quote) therefore you are imposing your perceived ideals of my nation onto others who know no better. You please recant your statement of British attitudes as you are not and never by the grace of God will be one.

Read my post. I was quoting, "Brian J. Morris was born in 1950 in Adelaide, South Australia, graduated from the University of Adelaide in 1972 and obtained his PhD from Monash University and University of Melbourne (jointly) in Melbourne in 1975, before doing 3 years of postdoctoral research in the USA, firstly at the University of Missouri, Columbia for a year, and then at the University of California, School of Medicine, in San Francisco. He returned to Australia in 1978 after being appointed as an academic at The University of Sydney in 1978, won the Edgeworth David Medal (state award for science) in 1985, was awarded a DSc in 1993, and was appointed to a Chair in the School of Medical Sciences in the Faculty of Medicine from 1999. He was elected as a Fellow of the American Heart Association in 2003. In 2006 he won The Faculty of Medicine Award for Excellence in Postgraduate Research Supervision."

He is a university professor in Australia with over 280 publications.

Your statements that I tried to impose my beliefs on anyone is false. Posting a scholarly article from an Australian professor is hardly forcing my beliefs on anyone. Brian J Morris and others have come to the conclusion that " in English-speaking countries of Anglo-Celtic heritage, the upper echelon tend to be circumcised" That statement applies to Anglo-Celtic heritage countries not only the British. If you don't agree; point out the professors errors in arriving at that conclusion. Thank you very much.

That the aristocracy may be circumcised I can probably accept that, because of this the working class have a dislike of it is foundless conjecture and that is what YOU were trying to pedal.

I'm not pedaling anything. I am quoting an authority. In any country the aristocracy lives longer and is healthier because of better access to education and health care among other things.

http://www.scirp.org...x?paperID=17415

He maintains that not only is it fair to circumcise infants but it is a good idea. He states, "MC has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, penile sensation or satisfaction and may enhance the male sexual experience. Adverse effects are uncommon (<1%), and virtually all are minor and easily treated. For maximum benefits, safety, convenience and cost savings, MC should be performed in infancy and with local anesthesia. A risk-benefit analysis shows benefits exceed risks by a large margin. Over their lifetime up to half of uncircumcised males will suffer a medical condition as a result of retaining their foreskin. The ethics of infant MC and childhood vaccination are comparable."

CMK.

Through ignorance you informed all the readers here that the Brit aversion to circumcision is because of a class issue. Your statement was unfounded (some pathetic online quote) therefore you are imposing your perceived ideals of my nation onto others who know no better. You please recant your statement of British attitudes as you are not and never by the grace of God will be one.

Read my post. I was quoting, "Brian J. Morris was born in 1950 in Adelaide, South Australia, graduated from the University of Adelaide in 1972 and obtained his PhD from Monash University and University of Melbourne (jointly) in Melbourne in 1975, before doing 3 years of postdoctoral research in the USA, firstly at the University of Missouri, Columbia for a year, and then at the University of California, School of Medicine, in San Francisco. He returned to Australia in 1978 after being appointed as an academic at The University of Sydney in 1978, won the Edgeworth David Medal (state award for science) in 1985, was awarded a DSc in 1993, and was appointed to a Chair in the School of Medical Sciences in the Faculty of Medicine from 1999. He was elected as a Fellow of the American Heart Association in 2003. In 2006 he won The Faculty of Medicine Award for Excellence in Postgraduate Research Supervision."

He is a university professor in Australia with over 280 publications.

Your statements that I tried to impose my beliefs on anyone is false. Posting a scholarly article from an Australian professor is hardly forcing my beliefs on anyone. Brian J Morris and others have come to the conclusion that " in English-speaking countries of Anglo-Celtic heritage, the upper echelon tend to be circumcised" That statement applies to Anglo-Celtic heritage countries not only the British. If you don't agree; point out the professors errors in arriving at that conclusion. Thank you very much.

That the aristocracy may be circumcised I can probably accept that, because of this the working class have a dislike of it is foundless conjecture and that is what YOU were trying to pedal.

I'm not pedaling anything. I am quoting an authority. In any country the aristocracy lives longer and is healthier because of better access to education and health care among other things.

http://www.scirp.org...x?paperID=17415

He maintains that not only is it fair to circumcise infants but it is a good idea. He states, "MC has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, penile sensation or satisfaction and may enhance the male sexual experience. Adverse effects are uncommon (<1%), and virtually all are minor and easily treated. For maximum benefits, safety, convenience and cost savings, MC should be performed in infancy and with local anesthesia. A risk-benefit analysis shows benefits exceed risks by a large margin. Over their lifetime up to half of uncircumcised males will suffer a medical condition as a result of retaining their foreskin. The ethics of infant MC and childhood vaccination are comparable."

CMK can you not accept people differ with your google searches ? I still don't know if you are for mutilating a child or not ?

Read my post. I was quoting, "Brian J. Morris was born in 1950 in Adelaide, South Australia, graduated from the University of Adelaide in 1972 and obtained his PhD from Monash University and University of Melbourne (jointly) in Melbourne in 1975, before doing 3 years of postdoctoral research in the USA, firstly at the University of Missouri, Columbia for a year, and then at the University of California, School of Medicine, in San Francisco. He returned to Australia in 1978 after being appointed as an academic at The University of Sydney in 1978, won the Edgeworth David Medal (state award for science) in 1985, was awarded a DSc in 1993, and was appointed to a Chair in the School of Medical Sciences in the Faculty of Medicine from 1999. He was elected as a Fellow of the American Heart Association in 2003. In 2006 he won The Faculty of Medicine Award for Excellence in Postgraduate Research Supervision."

He is a university professor in Australia with over 280 publications.

Your statements that I tried to impose my beliefs on anyone is false. Posting a scholarly article from an Australian professor is hardly forcing my beliefs on anyone. Brian J Morris and others have come to the conclusion that " in English-speaking countries of Anglo-Celtic heritage, the upper echelon tend to be circumcised" That statement applies to Anglo-Celtic heritage countries not only the British. If you don't agree; point out the professors errors in arriving at that conclusion. Thank you very much.

That the aristocracy may be circumcised I can probably accept that, because of this the working class have a dislike of it is foundless conjecture and that is what YOU were trying to pedal.

I'm not pedaling anything. I am quoting an authority. In any country the aristocracy lives longer and is healthier because of better access to education and health care among other things.

http://www.scirp.org...x?paperID=17415

He maintains that not only is it fair to circumcise infants but it is a good idea. He states, "MC has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, penile sensation or satisfaction and may enhance the male sexual experience. Adverse effects are uncommon (<1%), and virtually all are minor and easily treated. For maximum benefits, safety, convenience and cost savings, MC should be performed in infancy and with local anesthesia. A risk-benefit analysis shows benefits exceed risks by a large margin. Over their lifetime up to half of uncircumcised males will suffer a medical condition as a result of retaining their foreskin. The ethics of infant MC and childhood vaccination are comparable."

CMK can you not accept people differ with your google searches ? I still don't know if you are for mutilating a child or not ?

I think you are trying to question the veracity of the Australian scholar that I gave as a reference to what class of Anglo Celtic people were circumcised. If you feel that you have provided a devastatingly logical and interesting argument to the paper I quoted by referring to it as a google search I feel you are in error. I understand you don't agree with it. But not agreeing does not make it false. The only thing I am saying is that I agree with the folks who wrote the article that, "in English-speaking countries of Anglo-Celtic heritage, the upper echelon tend to be circumcised."

CMK No I am asking if you are for it or against it - Yes or No ?

CMK No I am asking if you are for it or against it - Yes or No ?

You see this is where I have a problem. I said before that men on this forum who are circumcised are 100% in favor of circumcision and men who are not circumcised are 100% against circumcision. So me telling you if I am in favor of circumcision would be tantamount to telling you if I was circumcised or not. I don't know you well enough to discuss my penis with you sorry. However Jack Kennedy was circumcised at 21 when he was a student at Harvard so I'm told. I am sure the discussion of JFK's penis is far more interesting than mine, you know Jackie and Marylin ......

CMK No I am asking if you are for it or against it - Yes or No ?

You see this is where I have a problem. I said before that men on this forum who are circumcised are 100% in favor of circumcision and men who are not circumcised are 100% against circumcision. So me telling you if I am in favor of circumcision would be tantamount to telling you if I was circumcised or not. I don't know you well enough to discuss my penis with you sorry. However Jack Kennedy was circumcised at 21 when he was a student at Harvard so I'm told. I am sure the discussion of JFK's penis is far more interesting than mine, you know Jackie and Marylin ......

I am certainly not asking about your willy nor do I care, I think it is more important to state if you are for or against. Would you allow your son or grandson to have have the procedure ?

BTW I wasn't even born when this Kenneday chap was alive.

CMK No I am asking if you are for it or against it - Yes or No ?

You see this is where I have a problem. I said before that men on this forum who are circumcised are 100% in favor of circumcision and men who are not circumcised are 100% against circumcision. So me telling you if I am in favor of circumcision would be tantamount to telling you if I was circumcised or not. I don't know you well enough to discuss my penis with you sorry. However Jack Kennedy was circumcised at 21 when he was a student at Harvard so I'm told. I am sure the discussion of JFK's penis is far more interesting than mine, you know Jackie and Marylin ......

I am certainly not asking about your willy nor do I care, I think it is more important to state if you are for or against. Would you allow your son or grandson to have have the procedure ?

BTW I wasn't even born when this Kenneday chap was alive.

That is obvious. Here is a video of his gik

As far as my grandsons go. Up to their parents. I trust them.

i think it goes back to the question of : Would a 15/16 year old boy, given the information for & against & with full knowledge, chose to have it done?

I think even the most ardent defenders of the practice have admitted that they would not.

Speaking as a circumcised male who had the operation aged 15/16, the answer would be no, it's freaking painful, I just didn't have a choice.

If I had a baby boy, would I ask for it to be performed on him......... no.

21 pages later, who says men aren't obsessed with their penises?

21 pages later, who says men aren't obsessed with their penises?

Absolutely correct. A lot of men flying in a helicopter in a combat situation sit on their flak jackets. Edit, maybe not a lot but me anyway.

i think it goes back to the question of : Would a 15/16 year old boy, given the information for & against & with full knowledge, chose to have it done?

I think even the most ardent defenders of the practice have admitted that they would not.

I doubt any 15-16 year old boy would agree to go under the knife for any reason, much less some witch doctor using a sharp stone to perform surgery on his johnson...as some have so erroneously claimed.

I know I wouldn't have, simply because of facing the potential pain.

However my parents were modern enough to have it done for me when I was a child so I didn't have to make the choice. It was made for me at birth, for which I am eternally grateful.

And the conversation is sillier than before.

Since the great majority of operations are done when the boy is an infant I fail to see the relevance of discussing how a 15 year old boy would feel anyway. What is the point? It will never happen.

When I was working in Iran one of our younger engineers (Irish, first time away from home) fell head-over-heels for a local Shirazi girl. He went so far as to take lessons on Islam, preparatory to marrying her.

I then took a hand in the matter, explaining that he would have to be circumcised and explaining in detail what would happen. He got himself sent back to Paddyland tout-bloody-suite.

(Oh, another thing. He went shopping for onions for his evening meal one time, and brought back pomegranites)

Signed : King Humph

My neighbor converted to Islam to marry his wife and had a circumcision at the age of around 40.

21 pages later, who says men aren't obsessed with their penises?

When I lifted this topic out of the BBC, I thought it would die a quiet death after about 20 posts. I am astounded!

sbk, do you think we can start one on gonad-envy?

CMK No I am asking if you are for it or against it - Yes or No ?

You see this is where I have a problem. I said before that men on this forum who are circumcised are 100% in favor of circumcision and men who are not circumcised are 100% against circumcision.

And this is where I have a problem. I'm not circumcised and I'm not 100% against circumcision as I've said previously. I am against circumcision without informed consent.

CMK No I am asking if you are for it or against it - Yes or No ?

You see this is where I have a problem. I said before that men on this forum who are circumcised are 100% in favor of circumcision and men who are not circumcised are 100% against circumcision.

And this is where I have a problem. I'm not circumcised and I'm not 100% against circumcision as I've said previously. I am against circumcision without informed consent.

Who in their right mind without grave medical reasons would consider circumcision of anyone but an infant? So you would never get informed consent. In fact you are 100% against it.