I was circumcised at birth and have never regretted it for one moment. The circumcision was however not very well carried out. Not enough skin was removed and while the head was clearly exposed there was quite a lot of loose skin around. When erect the skin on the shaft was fairly loose and in fact there was a small flap on skin on one side.

At fourteen my mother took me to the then family doctor to sort out the problem. He is attitude was however to leave it to nature. So nothing was done. It was not a big problem because at fourteen no one was seeing my penis erect anyway.
When I became sexually active things changed. After the fifth girl friend had commented on the flap of skin, I had had enough. I went straight to the doctor and I was virtually recircumcised because of the excess skin. Ten days later I was back in action, so to speak.

I discovered that a marked change had occurred. Firstly the skin on the shaft was now tight when erect. I also found the sensation on penetration breathtaking. But perhaps best of all I found my orgasm was now much more intense. Incredibly so. I was amazed at the positive effect tight skin on the shaft had.

With this background, you can imagine how amazed I was when I read an anti-circumcision article which told me that my penis had been mutilated and had lost a lot of its sensitivity. What a lot of rubbish. I am absolutely happy with the 'look' of my penis and in fact if was a fraction more sensitive it would be painfull.

So I am trying to work out where these anti-circumcision people are coming from. Who are they and what is their agenda?

Having been to school in a 60:40 circumcised environment I am well aware that uncircumcised boys throughout school age have various infection problems. A stint in the army confirmed this. In fact more so than ever. Simply there were a large number of infections, some resulting in circumcision, from causes the anti circumcision lobby say dont exist. Again I ask, who are these guys?

The cry goes out that in routine newborn circumcisions there is a high risk and a lot of pain and suffering. Well I dont believe newborn circumcision should be routine. I believe parents should carefully screen the competence and experience of the surgeon, as they would before themselves undergoing any operation. The current risk of death directly attributable to newborn circumcisions of one in 16.6 million in the US and as such is hardly any risk at all and can be further improved by carefully selecting the surgeon. In addition the use of an analgesic would render the pain suffered to the same level of routine infant vaccinations. Do they really believe parents parents wish to harm their children?

I notice with some interest that all research that produces findings in favour of the anti circumcision view is termed 'rigorously controlled', while that which finds in favour of circumcision to 'have been largely invalidated'. How do they arrive at these conclusions?

Well on the positive side, I accept that the anti circumcision lobby has forced me to review my position and become informed on the issue. So in conclusion then; I am happy to be circumcised and any future male child of mine will be circumcised for both aesthetic and preventative health reasons.
It will be an informed choice that I will be making in the best interests of that child.

Send Email to Mark at, mark75@hotmail.com