It is by itself enough to make a man orgasm. It isn't just a useless piece of skin, it's a very important part of the male body.[/quote[
I also won't delve into how male orgasm can occur for different reasons, and you don't even need to stimulate the penis itself for it to occur. Hell, you don't even have to be awake...
Oddly enough, male sexual arousal and orgasm are more complicated than comedians would have you believe.
In comparison it would be like removing the clitoris on a woman. You'd still be able to have sex, but you wouldn't enjoy clitoral stimulation.
NO.
NO.
NO. Not only are you being completely unfair to the thousands of women who are forced to undergo female circumcision, you're wrong in one very IMPORTANT way:
The proper comparison would be the clitoral hood, which is the analogous developmental organ for women. The clitoris is the female analog of the male glans (the head of the penis). Removing the clitoris is "Female Circumcision" and is extremely detrimental/harmful to the enjoyment of sex; the same would happen if you cut the entire head of the penis off, and not just the foreskin.
FINALLY: As a circumcised male, I can tell you this - If I had not been circumcised right after my birth, I would never choose to undergo it. You heal less efficiently the older you get, and more importantly; I don't remember a thing. I'm pretty sure I'd remember having a chunk of my willy sliced off at 18 if my parents hadn't chosen for me.
My personal opinion is that the whole argument is ridiculous.
First, if you're NOT a guy - you need to find a chair and sit this argument out. You don't have ANY idea how sex feels to a guy, you don't have ANY idea what we are/aren't missing out on. You can sympathize with a side and show support, but you don't EXPERIENCE it. It's the equivalent of trying to describe menstrual cramps or pregnancy to a guy; you have to feel it to know it.
Second; it's not THAT important. There have been dozens of studies conducted. The majority find no difference in sexual satisfaction, no difference in arousal, and no difference in "uptime." The chance that something major (permanent mutilation, death, etc.) goes wrong during circumcision operations is VERY slim (<1% - other figures you'll find on the web which state it as being between 2% - 10% include things like 'profuse bleeding' as a side-effect).
Third; There are MINOR medical reasons for either argument. Circumcision favors slightly better hygiene and has a lower rate of STD contraction (which doesn't matter much anyways, as you should be using protection regardless). An intact foreskin offers slightly fewer issues that come about as a result of constant diaper/clothes rubbing while a toddler, and slightly delays vaginal dryness during intercourse.
If you happen to bathe more than once a week and use lube while having sex, you've pretty much negated any advantages either has.
I say, let the father of the boy choose. The father will (ostensibly) be the male role-model for the young man, and should utilize his own experiences and research to determine the outcome. Since I hope I've made it clear that any perceived advantages OR disadvantages are pretty much bunk in a modern society that has access to soap and Astroglide, I would be more concerned about the child's psychological development and any disjunction between his anatomy and his male role model's anatomy than anything else. It can be very disconcerting to grow up different than your father. Before others start to chime in, I do believe the father should include the desires of the mother, but like I said before; it's not really a "women's issue."
