This is among the most questionable of reasons on the long list of absurdities presented as arguments for mutilating the infant penis.

The vast majority of men in the world are not cut and all the rest of the arguments are also discredited by their healthy and happy (I dare say happier) lives.

Urinary tract infections are very rare—they are far more prevalent in women, and they are easily resolved with antibiotics.

Surgery should always be the last resort for any medical situation and to use it as a "preventative" based on any of the false justifications is unforgivable.

In the United States (where the practice is slowly decreasing) the history of circumcision has to include Mr Kellog of breakfast cereal fame—who advocated it to prevent masturbation. He knew that the foreskin added to pleasure.

(Regarding religions—I do not find it acceptable to carry out the barbaric practices of taking knives to children's genitals - male or female.)

The science and personal testimony is in. The foreskin is a vital organ which serves many protective purposes including increasing physical pleasure for its owner and his partners.

I believe that the more one reads about the subject the more becomes opposed to routine infant circumcision.

I have studied the subject extensively and have written on it numerous times.

Here is one that covers the urinary tract and endless other excuses for male genital mutilation.

Writer, visual artist, philosopher, autodidact, curmudgeon. More than half of what i do is make believe.