“While vaginal dryness is considered an indicator for female sexual arousal disorder,1,2 male circumcision may exacerbate female vaginal dryness during intercourse.3 O’Hara and O’Hara reported that women who had experienced coitus with both intact and circumcised men preferred intact partners by a ratio of 8.6 to one.4 Most women (85.5%) in that survey reported that they were more likely to experience orgasm with a genitally intact partner: ‘They [surveyed women] were also more likely to report that vaginal secretions lessened as coitus progressed with their circumcised partners (16.75, 6.88–40.77).’4
Presence of the movable foreskin makes a difference in foreplay, being more arousing to the female.4 Women reported they were about twice as likely to experience orgasm if the male partner had a foreskin.4 The impact of male circumcision on vaginal dryness during coitus required further investigation.”
“Those who say banning male circumcision crosses a line that banning female circumcision does not, need to confront their bias. If removing a foreskin without consent is ok, why isn’t it ok to remove portions of a girl’s clitoral hood without consent or even in the case of older girls with consent?”
“There are an increasing number of American parents who are saying “no” to routine circumcision. This positive choice gives boys increased health and lifetime benefits. While the circumcision rates continue to decline in the United States, those who choose “foreskin-friendly” parenting find themselves in contrast of the greater circumcising culture. This can cause increased uncertainty about decisions of circumcision. Because of the cultural myths relating to circumcision, even physicians can provide inaccurate and misleading information on the importance of the foreskin, its health benefits and vital roles to optimum sexual function, and proper hygiene and care for intact boys and men.”
“The foreskin. Who would’ve thought that such a small piece of skin would be surrounded by such fervent debate? "To cut or not to cut?" seems to be the soul-searching question for many expectant parents when they find out they’re having a baby boy. But is it really a decision for parents to make, or is circumcision at birth or during childhood akin to genital mutilation, as some groups claim?”
The following article was written several years ago, but the issues raised are still valid.
“The title of this article was not taken from some political piece reprinted from The Washington Post. Nor was it borrowed from the official U.N. list of countries that are still committing human rights violations brutal enough to make you sick.
Rather, the title for this article comes straight from the heart of one person, me, who has the audacity to speak out in behalf of untold millions of baby boys who have been mutilated in our own country. What’s worse, the basic human rights of baby boys are still being violated every day in the United States.”
For anyone who erroneously thinks that every circumcised man is happy that he was robbed of his foreskin as an infant, here is something to disprove that notion.
The following link is a compilation of various famous men who resent/resented being circumcised, as well as contributions from other men who have expressed how the genital mutilation inflicted upon them as children has negatively affected their lives.
“Florida victims of medical malpractice and their attorneys have a recognized constitutional First Amendment right of free speech and expression. Currently, our Miami medical malpractice law office represents Mario Viera, an infant circumcised at South Miami Hospital without his parent’s consent. The case garnered international media attention and the family hopes that it will lead to the enactment of a law regulating how circumcisions are performed not only in Florida but the rest of the country.”