I'm dubious as to the circumstances under which the study was conducted

Mainly studies on men who were circumcised as adults and men who have undergone surgical and non-surgical foreskin restoration. Polls and surveys that include men who have not undergone changes as adults tend to be overly biased and are subjective anyway. Surveys about which do women prefer are pretty subjective as well, it comes down to personal preference with them.

Anyway, you’re right to question this. You can feel free to disregard it; even the website I provided didn’t think it was significant enough to add in their list.

I read somewhere that 75% of all men routinely climax within 3 minutes of intercourse

Damn! I’m no sexual dynamo by any means... But damn. I don’t know whether to feel bad for those guys… or their girls.

if those figures are even close to accurate, a bit of a reduction in sexual sensitivity isn't necessarily a bad thing

This is true. And reports from people who have experienced both cut and uncut have illustrated this as well. While some men were not satisfied with a decrease in sensitivity; in others a reduction of sensitivity allowed for longer sessions which were more desirable to them. Just personal preference.

”1. Because there is no medical reason for "routine" circumcision of baby boys.”

There actually can be medical reasons for the removal of the foreskin. Read the wikipedia article I provided.

I agree, there are some instances where a medical reason warrants circumcision. The key phrase here is “routine” circumcision of baby boys.

”3. Because you wouldn't circumcise your baby girl.”

Agreed, though there are some messed up African tribes that do this.

Yes. In some of the Middle East as well. In some African nations it’s as prevalent as seventy percent or higher women that are affected! It’s appalling

4. Because removing part of a baby's penis is painful, risky, and harmful.”

Disagreed. If circumcision is done by a licensed medical professional, there is low risk and pain.

I don’t think there was any claim about the degree of pain or risk, just that there is some. Put “harm” in place of “permanent bodily alteration” in number 8 and it would be reason enough for me to agree with it regardless of the degree.

I understand we can never know for sure of someone else’s perception, and an adult may experience pain differently or be more at risk than an infant, but considering a baby who undergoes this procedure transitions from fine/mildly frustrated to screaming and crying the instant the foreskin is sliced… I think this can be considered evidence of some pain being felt regardless of the degree.

”6. Because caring for and cleaning the foreskin is easy.”

Without a foreskin, you don't even have to "care" for it or "clean" it.

Well I think there would be an overwhelming majority of both circumcised and uncircumcised men AND their partners that would strongly disagree with you ;)

Disregarding appeals to popular opinion; I would still suggest routine hygiene should be something all people practice, and I hope you do too.

Anyway, what this point was illustrating was that there’s a myth that says it’s less hygienic to be uncircumcised and harder to clean. While the latter is simply untrue, the former may have been the case prior to the middle ages when personal hygiene wasn’t a routine practice. But advances in our modern culture have shown circumcision to not be necessary for good hygiene.

”7. Because circumcision does not prevent HIV or other diseases.”

Read the wikipedia article. And before you say "but wikipedia isn't a valid source", wikipedia has it's own sources that you can check.

I wouldn’t say that; I use Wikipedia too sometimes and I do know that it provides the sources to the information it presents [citation needed :) ].

For instance, one of the sources in that article had this to say about STD prevention:

“"circumcision does not interfere with sexual function and that circumcision is an important element of HIV prevention in sub-Saharan Africa. At the same time, it should be emphasized that circumcision must be combined with other techniques of HIV prevention, such as safe sex and voluntary testing. It is not sufficient to rely on circumcision alone to prevent HIV transmission."

- Ira Sharlip, MD, a specialist in sexual medicine at Pan Pacific Urology in San Francisco"

Sounds like some tasty stone soup they’re cooking up there, but I think they’re failing to recognize the main ingredient in that recipe. ;)

It would also be prudent to point out other inconsistences with studies that show these kinds of results as well, such as the relative risk reduction being emphasized instead of the number needed to treat. In that case whether or not it is ethical to perform 300 or so circumcisions in order to prevent one case of HIV per year would be debatable.

At any rate, the statistics of circumcision in preventing HIV in Africa are rather small and completely unnecessary considering prevention due to proper education in STD awareness, proper hygiene, safe sex practice or a culture that is overall more informed about these things to begin with.

Even if we were to say that yes circumcision is an effective way to prevent HIV and possibly other STDs, I would still be against neonatal surgery. Last time I checked, babies weren’t at risk of sexually transmitted diseases due to penis to vagina contact. That being said, I see no reason why an adult male cannot weigh the pros and cons themselves and decide whether or not to have it done.

Prove it.

The Old Testament and New Testament make it clear that circumcision, along with the various other ceremonial laws of Moses, are abused as ritualistic self-exaltation and are not practiced out of any sincere desire to obey God. (See Jer 9:25-26, Rom 2:27, 7:6, 2 Cor 3:6, etc. etc.) Furthermore, the existence of bizarre and non-Biblical practices in circumcision, such as mezizah bepeh (oral sex on newly circumcised babies) makes it clear that God has no part in this obsolete and barbaric practice.