Id say most likely quietly hiding.

Religion ..It allows for the craziest stuff to happen and people to get away with doing it.

Here is a sample from our own country http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.d613788a0b5b84549b2785a128bb7236.981&show_article=1

Lynet: Yes, removal of the clitoris is worse than removal of the foreskin. So? That’s not the position I call sexist, the position I call sexist is the cutting of female genitals=bad and cutting of male=good to neutral.

Cathy: Yes, exactly. Degree of harm doesn’t matter, harm is done for no good reason.

Keddaw: I have a friend with three thumbs, I don’t see why he needs the one removed.

Also, the STD argument is bullshit.
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/vanhowe4/
An analysis of the scientific literature, published in The International Journal of STDs and AIDS, shows that men with circumcised penises are actually at a greater risk of HIV.

Like a “medically necessary” circumcision. (Usually there are other treatment options, but circumcision is so common anyway it’s usually used first. I imagine there are *some* cases where it might actually be warranted.)

Also note that EVERY study about std transmission and circumcision has focused on men circumcised as adults. It can’t be used in support of neonatal circumcision.

In hindsight his response should have been “well, you agree with allowing the removal of a child’s 6th finger for cosmetic reasons.” A great response and would have stumped me at the time.

On refelction though, it’s not that great. A 6th finger is not natural (albeit not harmful either) any more than a tail is. We remove the unnatural appendages. Foreskins evolved. They are there for a reason that may not actually be relevant anymore (like the appendix) or we may discover they are important, but since we don’t routinely remove the appendix I don’t see why we should remove the foreskin.
Since the invention of soap I don’t see how it could ever be regarded as cleaner to have it removed?
The studies that suggest circumcision leads to a lower chance of STDs (because of scar tissue?) are refuted by other studies that say the lesser feeling that a circumcised penis has leads to harde thrusts which cause more tearing (in their partner at least.)

I think there’d be a very different response to the issue of comparing female and male circumcision in England, say, where male circumcision is abnormal by a large margin. To debate “degree of damage” is missing the entire point that both are cruel mutilations of genitalia. Just because it’s easy enough to see that female genital mutilation is worse doesn’t mean that male genital mutilation is in any way not bad. And just because way too many american boys had it forced upon them before they could have a will of their own to object doesn’t make it any less worse.

And this is a clear case where religion has “normalized” a barbaric act of mutilation, that would be easier to see in it’s true light as a barbaric act if the evil practise was not common among certain religious communities.