Would you have your son (or self) circumcised?

Absolutely not.

I think that anyone who is willing to mutilate their child in this way should first educate themselves on the pointlessness of it... and the risks involved.

Of course, and if it was a girl, I would have both her eyes removed so that she wouldn't be tempted to look at men before she was married.

For ever and ever

Amen

No i would not

Yes, standard procedure. I don't like cocks looking like dog dicks.

I wouldn't.

I don't know. I don't think I need this information in my head. If I do, I'll be sure to come here and read WEES.

If I had a son I would probably have him circumcised, at least if it were just up to me. If my partner felt strongly about not doing it, though, that would be fine with me.

No, because I've heard it is not really necessary. Plus also I've heard that it lessens pleasure. Who am I to deny my son pleasure?

if i had a son i would have him circumcised.

Unlikely I'll be a mum, so ...... but cut ones are so much nicer!!!!!

My son was circumcised a few days after he was born.

Well, I am already circumcised. I did want to have my (adopted) son circumcised before he was a year old, my wife did not. Big surprise, my wife won. I like to think of myself as rational, but the whole episode may have been a hangover from my Jewish heritage.

It may well not be necessary, however, many years ago I read some research that indicated that women married to circumcised men had a significantly lower risk of cervical cancer. My wife and I discussed this with our pediatrician back around 1992 during the great debate, and the doctor did not contradict those findings. He just told me that the US was the only industrialized country in the world that had routine circumcision. I looked him in the eyes and I said, "Really? How about Israel?" He didn't answer. As for it lessening pleasure, I couldn't say. I have been circumcised ever since I was born. I still think sex is great fun.

Definitely not.
In fact, i had a conversation about how wrong this is with my friend, who has been Circumcised himself.

I looked into male circumcision quite extensively about a year ago for a public health poster I had to produce. I was surprised to learn that it wasn't nearly as harmful or risky as I had previously believed. However, there wasn't any good medical evidence for routine circumcision either, while the procedure did carry some risks. I wouldn't circumcise my son unless it was medically indicated, and I don't think that countries with socialised healthcare should offer it for free, or as a routine treatment. I would also prefer that all governments would discourage its routine use. My main objection, given the general ambiguity of the evidence relating to risk vs. benefit, is that it is a permanent procedure that is not medically indicated and is performed without the consent of the individual most concerned. Parents have the right to make decisions about their child's health, but they shouldn't really have the right to request a procedure their son may in the future regard as disfiguring when the evidence suggests it carries no particular benefit for most boys. Despite that, I don't think that there's a huge amount of justification for vilifying people who do choose to circumcise their infant sons. I do think that if it's going to be done, it should be done by a qualified health practitioner, in a sterile environment, with good anaesthetic - three things that are often lacking when the procedure is done for religious reasons.

(I would like to see some proper studies about the impact of male circumcision on female sexual partners. The only paper that I could find that has been published on the subject suggested that it could have a negative impact, but it was a very small study and the methods weren't very good.)