Israeli woman fined for not circumsizing her son.

[Psykhronic]

There you go psy
http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/668905...J9HNoir.58

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx...eid=279008

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...3607603134


Of course, these are only statistical studies...
Circumcised men allegedly feel less pleasure from intercourse and could, thus, have less of it, than uncircumcised men... or maybe this is irrelevant.

It seems a condom is still required, regardless of the amount of foreskin, so it's the same thing. Wear a condom. Don't go through the trouble of circumcision... it is an operation, after all and subject to many of the risks involved in operations.

Studies along these lines are what I am looking for, thank you. I wish full texts were available for free though - those little details of studies are really what I want but academia says 'no' a lot.

In any case, you're right - wearing a condom is the best thing anyway, even in the face of a reduced risk of HIV via straight sex due to circumcision. Men who have sex with men appear to have little benefit. That's the other thing, if circumcision is going to be used to prevent HIV, yet has little to no effect regarding two males having sex, circumcising at birth would still be rather inane, as there would be an assumption of a straight child (since that's where all the 'benefits' would lie with, aside from cleanliness). Ignoring the fact that the infant has no say regarding a part of their body being chopped off, of course.