[James C. Bennett]

Mitigating a tiny, fractional risk is not worth the amputation of the extremely innervated tissue that is the foreskin, whose function is to keep the glans moist and not chapped, shriveled and dried, as would be the case in mutilated penises. Cut men have no idea of the loss of pleasure due to the loss of sensory feedback due to this babaric elective procedure, unless they elected to do so while healthy, in adulthood, post sexual experience.

It is not for no reason that circumcision “reversal” procedures are advertised with increasing frequency these days.

Europe, Australia is largely uncut. Half the males in the US have their penises mutilated. Not much of a difference in STD rates (the US might actually have higher numbers for HIV) between the three, and certainly not worth the loss in pleasure for the male for a risk which simple hygiene practices solve with no issue. But then, how will surgeons get their cut?

[miele man]

Is that you, Dr. Edell?

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“It is not for no reason that circumcision “reversal” procedures are advertised with increasing frequency these days.”

Insecure liberals.

[microgood]

Europe, Australia is largely uncut. Half the males in the US have their penises mutilated.

They are not mutilated, it is called circumcision.

It is what separates man from beast.

It is no surprise that decadent socialist countries have stopped doing it, however, since they are in cultural and economic decline. I am sure the rise of not doing in the US is for the same reason.

Besides, the vast majority of women prefer it that way, and we aim to please.

[Smokin' Joe]

Cut men have no idea of the loss of pleasure due to the loss of sensory feedback...

It's a brutal operation!

I couldn't walk for most of a year afterwards!