Re: Female circumcision: The good, the bad and the ugly?

The trouble with your arguments to justify routine male circumcision is that many of them are used to "justify" female circumcision -- neater, cleaner etc. And a well-done infibulation does look neater and is cleaner. And it can be done in hospital as well. Interesting the strongest advocates of female circumcision are women who have themselves been infibulated and it is women who carry out the procedure, not men.

It is generally believed in the rest of the world that the type of male circumcision routinely practised in the US does take away the sensitivity of the glans and removes the skin endowed with the most sensitive nerve endings in the body, thus turning the penis from a moist, sensitive, probing instrument into a dry blunt instrument and leading to requirements of artificial lubrication for sexual intercourse. Some forms of male circumcision practised elsewhere for religious reasons remove vastly less skin from the penis. As I've indicated, the US stands alone among major Western nations in practising routine male circumcision.