So Veronique has never ****** anyone that has not been circumcised, and my wife has never ****** anyone who has. This is simply an example of how this religious practice has become established that side of the Atlantic.

I really do recommend getting to see the "Bullshit" programme on the subject. It actually showed a baby being circumcised, and believe me the poor child was distressed.

Penn admitted that he was circumcised in accordance with tradition, but any genuine reasons were bullshit. The programme followed a young couple with their new baby, discussing whether to have him circumcised. The mother's main concern was causing unnecessary harm, and the father's main concern was the potential insults he would have to suffer later in life when in the showers alongside all his circumcised mates.

Of course there is no medical benefit whatsoever. For purely evolutionary reasons I would guess the opposite in fact. (I would do a google search to investigate, but probably wise not to at work.) I would guess that protecting the glands with a layer of skin, and rinsing it with sterile urine each time you take a piss are beneficial.

Of course in a country where 90% of males are circumcised any myth about "being unclean" is going to be popular. In the Penn & Teller programme they interviewed a number of young girls if they had sex with uncircumcised men and the responses were usually "err, how horrible, never"

Of course the long term effects of male circumcision over female circumcision is not as bad, but that is only because we are not comparing like with like. Cutting a baby's finger off would not be as bad as cutting a baby's hand off, but in both cases the baby would not remember the pain in years to come. What if a religion proposed cutting off the finger of each child?