*Of the people that have had the procedure, I have yet to meet anyone that regrets it.*

Well that is not what those Jewish boys told me, when these kind of
matters were discussed at boarding school. Given a choice, I only
know of one single male who ever volunteered for the operation.

There would of course also be plenty of fathers around, who had it
done on their sons, so that they look the same, but now try and
justify their behaviour on marginal health grounds. Fair enough,
people are full of human foibles. Admitting them is sometimes harder.

I guess there's no evidence like anecdotal evidence, eh?

Generalising is a lot of fun too. I like to extrapolate what I believe are peoples motives to the general population. That is why I believe that all those catholic priests that oppose women in the clergy are gay. Which would explain why they are all closet pedophiles and oppose gay marriage (priests can't be married). Of course they will try and rationalise all this in terms of 'tradition' and 'scripture', but you know it's true.

Yabby, Bugsy,

The motivation of the parents for choosing the procedure or not is besides the point. The fact that the procedure done under clinical conditions to a new born is nearly completely painless and has long term health benefits.

No one is forcing you to have your kids circumcised. Where is the justification for busy bodies to stop other parents from doing so?

I find the question of desensitisation to most interesting.
Surely the only way this could be proven would be if an 'intact' sexually active male had the operation, so he could offer a before and after evaluation.
Any volunteers?
Come on guys, it's for science. (I'd volunteer myself, but sadly, too late.)

Grim,

Rather why not use references from the men that have had the procedure as adults.

Oh wait, they have already, and found no difference.

I think that has to be flawed SM. You cant compare living with an intact foreskin for 18 plus years to never having had one. That's 18 years of rubbing a developing penis up against clothes and being exposed to the air that the adults haven't been exposed to. That's ridiculously unscientific, so much so that anyone bothering to use such results I reckon has an agenda.

'Of the people that have had the procedure, I have yet to meet anyone that regrets it.'

You must have some strange conversations with people you meet for this to be relevant. The higher the sample size you report, the more of a weirdo you are:-)

'Hey I notice you're circumcised, do you mind me asking if you have any regrets?'

Taken objectively, regardless of 'studies', which change every other year, depending no doubt on who instigates them, it's a strange idea to cut part of the natural body off you deem unnecessary.

Not saying I'm massively against it, just when you take all the cultural BS and ideology away, you're left with cutting off a bit of the penis just in case. No general education on hygiene, or safe sex, Naaa just cut it off!

It's a funny world.

I didn't have sons but this 'looking the same' idea I just don't get. Maybe women should all shave their growler and give their daughters a merkin and breast implants at birth.

WTF does it matter? I'm intrigued.