The article that was sighted said this:

> The author is a full professor in the medical faculty of a major very prestigious highly reputable university, has over 35 years of scientific research experience and more than 240 research publications.

And yet I can't seem to find the name of the author of the article or his university affiliation anywhere...

Some of those claims sound fairly dodgey to me.

> 1. Having to go through a very minor surgical procedure that carries with it small risks.

Where is the data on the increase in risk?

6. More favorable sexual function.

This is the one I really contest. The notion is that if you have a lot of pressure somewhere then that area habitutates to the rubbing. Because the penis is rubbing against the pants all day (as it is exposed) the end result is it being less sensitive to stimulation. Guys don't tend to get erections as a result of their penis rubbing up against their pants, you see. They have habituated it that. As such they probably need more stimulation with respect to sexual activity. That might go down better for the girls, but I really do think that guys probably aren't happy with the the notion that it could be more sensitive than it is...

On a slightly related note I don't shave very often down there, just typically tidy up my bikini line a little. Well, I tried shaving it all off a while back on a whim fairly much. I found that instead of some of my tender bits being protected by hair they weren't so protective from rubbing on pants. It HURT. I needed to wear a panty liner for a couple days because it hurt too much when I didn't (and no, I didn't cut myself it was just that the bits were sensitive). Of course I habituated to that over a few days or so (though maybe the hair grew a little too). But it did take a few days.

> 7. A penis that is regarded by most as being more attractive.

That really is a matter of personal preference, I would have thought.

This is a Commentary on
the Royal Australasian College of Physicians'
policy on circumcision:

> Urinary tract infections in boys are uncommon, affecting at most 1-2%, and may be about five times less frequent in circumcised boys, while circumcision has a complication rate of 1% to 5%. Routine neonatal circumcision can not be supported as a public health measure on this basis.

> While there is some evidence, particularly from sub-Saharan Africa, that male circumcision reduces the risk of acquisition of HIV, evidence is conflicting and clearly this can not be seen as an argument in favour of universal neonatal circumcision in countries with a low prevalence of HIV.

> Penile cancer is a rare disease with an incidence of around 1 per 100,000 in developed countries. Even though the evidence suggests neonatal circumcision may reduce the risk ten-fold, the rarity of the condition is such that universal circumcision is clearly not justified on these grounds.

> The complication rate of neonatal circumcision is reported to be around 1% to 5% and includes local infection, bleeding and damage to the penis. Serious complications such as bleeding, septicaemia and meningitis may occasionally cause death.

> The possibility that routine circumcision may contravene human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor and is without proven medical benefit. Whether these legal concerns are valid will be known only if the matter is determined in a court of law.

http://www.circumstitions.com/RACP.html

(Just for a perspective from the other side)

Elective surgery methinks...

(You aren't diseased if you are male and are born with a foreskin so why on earth should health insurance cover that)