Well you just can't uncircumsize(sp?) someone. It was done to us before we could do anything about it.

I guess I'm the only one who would probably go with the scalpel. This decision is not based on any sort of scientific fact or pseudo-scientific statistic.

As eric pointed out to me: it runs by lineage.

Just a reminder to those I had a chance to talk to (and anyone else that might be interested) - we're picking players for the hockey pool at my place tonight (Wednesday) at 7pm.

And Paras - if you want me to pick a team for you, the offer still stands! (Bertuzzi, Pronger, Comrie, Avery... )

The only reason I can think of to be pro-circumcision are social - I'm under the impression that most boys get circumcised (am I wrong? I actually have no idea) and remembering how cruel junior high kids can be about differences, I was thinking why set a kid up for that kind of harrassment during gym class?

Having said that, I'm much more strongly opposed to unneccesary medical procedures, especially ones that are painful. And really, either a boy is going to be picked on or not, depending primarily on athletic ability, regardless of his, ah, appearanece.

But in the end, I suppose I'd voice a preference for no while leaving the decision up to the father.

In other news, I just got to eat a Korean Thanksgiving meal. Lots of very tasty vegetables! One of my student's moms brought it in.

I actually agree with you, Par... I just like pointing interesting information out.

from what I understand, it's a really painful procedure for any little'un (actually, I'm sure ANYONE) to go through, and as a parent, willfully inflicting pain seems a bit backwards.

*cocks sorry.

We just talked about cock for the last few post. I feel dirty.

With respect to circumcision, bearing in mind that I have no cultural context for the practice (I don't think Indians do it, as a rule, but I could be wrong), I don't see the point. Apart from the HIV-transmission, and a slight reduction in penile cancer rates (which some might compare to the reduced rates of lung cancer when you resect an entire lung), there are no demonstrable health benefits. Other differences (sensitivity, sexual pleasure, etc.) seem to be anecdotal, and go both ways -- there's nothing conclusive on those.

So, having no traditional inclination to it, and having no medical reasons for it, and having seen one performed and thinking the whole time "why would you do this to your child?", it seems pretty apparent that I'd be against it. In fact, probably even actively against it (as in, I'd try to argue my spouse down from it, were she so inclined.)

In other words, what Jere said.

Also, I'd just like to say that protecting one's self from global health risks is really infeasible, and often a waste of resources. (Besides which, condoms are way more protective than circumcision in terms of HIV transmission.)

congrats on the new human! that's pretty awesome.

on a different subject, there's this:

"don't tase me" remix

Lame, Al... lame.

I say (and said) no to circumcision. There's really no medical benefit to it other than a slightly lower chance of infection - however that difference is negated when proper personal hygiene is implemented. There are also studies I've read (but am too lazy to find again and link - so you'll just have to take my word) that say circumcision reduces sexual sensitivity (the most sensitive part is always exposed), and that an uncircumcised penis is more stimulating for a woman (the foreskin acts as a natural "ribbed for your pleasure" effect).

Even if those last two points aren't a factor I still don't see a reason to do it. Plus it costs ~$300.

What are your thoughts Par?