text: First off there is nothing "extra" about a foreskin, it is a vital, sensitive, protective organ. To say the foreskin is extra is like saying the eyelid is extra. The eyelid is not needed to see either, but with out it the eye would soon become be as ineffective for vision as the glans becomes for sensation.\n\nCircumcision came about to remove as much of a mans sexual pleasure as possible and still leave him capable of fathering children. If they removed any more he would not function and there would no more children to bring into the tribe or to become solders for the king. This is shown in early writings by several rabbis, they speak of the necessity of "moderating the needs of men" \n\nClaims have been made for all kinds of "benefits" of circumcision as being more hygienic, curing masturbation, preventing cancer, protecting from STDs and on and on. All based on garbage science! None of it stands up to reality.\n\nCancer of the penis strikes 1 out of 100,000 men and has been found to be more related to other factors such as the standard of living and smoking. Cancer of the cervix is not caused by friction from the foreskin but rather by the human papiloma virus (HPV), which is transmitted in the sperm from an infected male whither or not, he is circumcised.\n\nSTDs are not stopped by circumcision but by safe sex and condoms. The fact that most US males are circumcised has not stopped or even slowed the infections. Sweden doesn't circumcise and their incidence of STD infection is fifty times less than the US, (now Sweden has banned childhood circumcision)\n\nEven the claim that circumcision would "cure" masturbation is wrong, circumcised males tend to masturbate more and are also more likely to seek oral and anal sex. Largely because of the reduced pleasure they get from vaginal sex. A lubricated vagina doesn't provide very much friction for the circumcised penis. Circumcised males also are more likely to resist using a condom because it lowers sensitivity even more. The recent study claiming that circumcision lessens the risk of HIV has already been embraced by circumcised males as a green light for unprotected sex. \n\nSurgery is no more needed for male hygiene than it is for female hygiene. It is assumed that because a male urinates with his penis it must be dirty but really urine is very sterile, only tears are more bacteria free. The exception to this is in the event of a bladder infection, which is rare in even uncircumcised adult males. Of course urine smells because it contains ammonia and even small drops of it are noticeable. But simple soap and water washing are all that is needed to remove any traces of urine or smegma (which by the way females produce too!)\n\nBy the way children (both male and female) need training in hygiene an unwashed foreskin is not the only part of the body that can stink. Perfume can't eliminate the odor of bad tuna either.\n\nThere is the comment "who knows what is growing under that foreskin?” Think about it, the foreskin and glans of an uncircumcised male are among the most sensitive parts of his body; you may as well ask what is growing under his eyelids. If you give an uncircumcised male a yeast infection he will know it within hours and he will seek treatment. On the other hand a circumcised male's dry-keratinized glans can be infected and not show or feel any symptoms. So an infected circumcised male will keep re-infecting his partners. And his characteristically more vigorous trusting will leave the walls of the vagina abraded and more prone to infection.\n\nLastly there are the religious reasons, some desert tribes maintain circumcision as a tribal rite for various reasons; however the rights of US born children, male or female, should not be ignored because of some old tribal customs. \n\nChristianity has no requirement for circumcision. Saint Paul in his letter to the Galatians states, "neither circumcision nor 