Ok, I'd like this to be civil and thought out, rather than mindless agenda-blinded bickering... so please try to consider the issue at hand as objectively as possible. From various reading, discussions and pictures I have seen online, it seems clear that there is a bizzarely large range of circumcision results, both in regard to how it is physically healed and what effects it has, and how that psychologically effects people. the very fact that you can find testimonies from people who got circumcised after being sexually active as adults, on both extremes of thinking it is the best thing since sliced bread, and people thinking it was a horrible mistake that they regret every day. this very thing demands that there is some information or some difference that is not being considered or disclosed, or SOMETHING. personally I am not satisfied with the idea that its purely a crapshoot of how each person heals. it is my opinion that there MUST be SOME consistent difference involved. additionally I think this extends to infant circumcision, for one reason or another, it is clear that some people heal from being circumcised as an infant, such that the scar is extremely indistinct, and it is practically as though they were born without a foreskin at all. and others have a distinct scar and other problems. another major variable is how much of the inner foreskin is left(how far down the shaft the scar is) I've been told that this doesn't matter. ... but that simply does not make sense to me. is it possible that certain techniques of circumcision consistently result in a greater frequency of the negative side effects/consequences of circumcision? and that others, are less prone to failed/botched circumcisions, and fewer negative consequences in general? I do not dispute that SOME people do react badly, and SOME do have problems do to circumcision. but I am not sure I buy that these problems, nor many of the negative consequences are the norm, rather than the vocal minority. I do not think that Circumcision should be mandated to every male child, or anything absurd like that. I think that Circumcision MUST be permitted, as IN LARGE it does NOT have enough negative consequences to come anywhere close to meriting the infringement on religious freedom. I think that parents should be given information on BOTH SIDES of the circumcision debate, as well as objective-as-possible "refutations" to EACH side's arguments, AND an article or something about it from whatever religious authority (if any) applies to them. I am of the opinion that a study... or something... should be done to try to find consistent factors between those who have medically diagnosable negative consequences from circumcision, and psychological ones, to what method was done and how they individually healed from it. I feel that such a study would have to eventually find something that could be used to minimize negative consequences. I am NOT against there being more regulation as to qualifications, (as I understand it there is little to no regulation now) as to attempt to minimize botched procedures. so after all that longwindedness... What do YOU think is the biggest distinguishing factor between people's outcomes/results? (infant and adult) do you think that it is purely psychological? do you agree with my assertion that there must be some consistent difference in technique, or SOMETHING that could be traced to which outcome is more likely? something entirely different? what, other than abolishing circumcision entirely do you think would help minimize negative consequences for those who chose to have it done, or have it done for their offspring? for perspective and disclosure, My personal experience is that I was circumcised as an infant, as per Jewish Custom, as far as I know it was done by an experienced orthodox Moyle, I suspect/assume due to the position of the scar, that it was done with the traditional shield-method. it is rather slack, in that it only barely does not go over the ridge when very flaccid. the scar is extremely indistinct, and about halfway down the shaft. the skin is very mobile. the frenulum still remains, is not tight. I am glad that I was circumcised, and do not feel that I have had any negative consequences from it.