A while ago, Oprah Winfrey allowed a face cream called SkinMedica to be promoted on her show. Whilst on the surface there seems to be nothing wrong with allowing that, there is one important detail - ...

More from frostyboy...

I'm against circumcision, it's nothing less then a form of mutilation. It's in most cases completely unnecessary. There are many useful purposes for foreskins which is why it's meant to exist on the penis. You can go here for more information http://net.indra.com/~shredder/intact/anatomy/ . The vast majority of men in the world have intact penises. The circumcision rates are also declining gradually in the US.

I did not know even a third of the information that was available on this post. I had all 3 of my son's circumsized because I just didn't know the facts I was told uncut males could get bad infections that could make a man sterile. You could fill a book with what they don't tell you.

I'm with Tyrael on this one. Male circumcision is unnecessary and nothing but a barbaric act steeped in ignorance. Female circumcision is (rightfully) outlawed in most countries, yet, because of DELIBERATE misinformation, and that, it is more than a billion dollar industry in the US alone each year - this horror show continues unabated as a consequence.

Circumcision on the grounds of hygiene and/or a preventative measure to curtail penile diseases? Many experts (not affiliated with the lucrative circumcision industry) working in the field of genito-urinary medicine have concluded it a unnecessary and unacceptable practice. In Africa each year, hundreds, maybe thousands of botched circumcisions with unsterilized knifes accounts for partially/complete amputated penises, and loss of many boys lives.

Deeply held issues of religion and ethnicity further fuel the perceived necessity to undertake the procedure on religious grounds. Ok. But that's like saying God made man, but he made a mistake by including the foreskin in his design. So therefore it's up to man to rectify his mistake??? The foreskin isn't a design flaw, it's primary function is to protect the penis, which works perfectly well No need for any modification. What god would want millions of male babies/boys to go through such agonizing pain each year? If he does, that's not God, that's satan!

When a boy is circumcised (sometimes just a few days old) he is placed into a plastic cast, four straps, one for each arm and leg - to stop him writhing around in pain after his foreskin has been sliced off - usually without an anaesthetic! In any other situation we would call this TORTURE!!!

Another interesting point. Most men and women oppose female circumcision, yet most men and women do not oppose male circumcision for differing ignorant reasons. Education must play an important role here. One "popular" reason I've heard cited by many women who support male circumcision is that they benefit sexually by his penis being less sensitive therefore he takes longer to ejaculate. What a selfishly depraved mind some women have. Furthermore I think circumcision quenches (most) womens obsessive fixation with male genital mutilation.


Circumcision is male genital mutilation, and is morally wrong. The "acid test" is, if it's wrong to circumcise girls, it's equally wrong to circumcise boys. Ironically western governments decry female circumcision as being a abhorrent practice, yet those same governments condone male circumcision "legally" allowing it to continue - whilst they reap the tax created from the "male circumcision industry."