Thanks, Pearl, for jumping in. You said most of what I wanted to say, but I would like to make a few points. Phyllis raises many good points against circumcision for the non- Jew. Especially of concern for Americans, as I understand the present climate, is the issue of not getting the infant's consent. However, I get somewhat upset when circumcision is compared to female genital mutilation, especially as described by Kathy D. (thanks for warning us, Kathy!). There are NO health benefits to the female and none to her male partner. There is NO sexual pleasure for the female. Now I'm going to venture into really murky (for me) waters. I would question Phyllis' contention that the foreskin is "sexually sensitive". When the foreskin is removed and the supersensitive glans is exposed to constant "stimulation" (via clothing, for example), I have heard that the man is able to postpone ejaculation during the sex act for a longer time (as compared to an intact man), thereby pleasuring the woman. At Jewish weddings, the groom is exhorted to "make the bride happy" or "pleasure the bride", and I don't think that the ancients were talking about a charge account at Sak's. If sequelae of not getting the infant's consent to the surgery is really an issue, I don't think that very many Jewish males are upset with greater "sexual prowess" at being able to bring their mates to orgasm successfully. And yes, the timing is vital. If I had to cope with a culture that circed males at 1 or 2 days of age, I'd probably be raging too. Judy Knopf, lucky to live in a wise culture (well, sometimes it's wise.....)