Okay, back to the original thread...

I always figured (once I started thinking about it) that male circumcision as a cultural practice (USA, 1950s & '60s) was the medical industry's way of saying, "Do you want fries with that?" And came up with "medical" reasons to get the insurance companies to pay for it. By the way, when I was born in 1949, the hospital bill was $80.

As far as the religious use of male circumcision, it seemed to me to be ritual token sacrifice. And I wondered at its use by Christians since Christianity had thrown out the Jewish dietary laws, and other ritual legal requirements.

I've had both circumcised and uncircumcised lovers (before my marriage to Curmudgeon 25 years ago) -- and I really never noticed the difference. And circumcised and uncircumcised seemed to get the same amount of pleasure.

If I had had children, the males would not have been circumcised if I had anything to say about it. I never saw the point of a surgical procedure that seemed to serve no useful purpose but to enrich those who performed it.

Linn