nooneimportant wrote:

"Briar Rabbit" wrote in message


But you miss the point dear skin freak. If as you skin freaks state that
an uncircumcised man would rather die than willingly submit to
circumcision why would these men have lined up to be liberated from that
hideous appendage?


Ok... where did i state that? I simply stated that in that study the
participants had a CHOICE... how many other intact men had that choice and
choose NOT to get cut and participate in that study? The big factor is and
always will be CHOICE. I don't have a single problem if someone CHOOSES to
get cut, thats their choice, and i'm quite sure they will be happy with it.
But taking that choice away and making it a requirement is flat out wrong.
Whose body is it? Hideous Appendage is your opinion, and i'm sure many
people will agree with you, but the fact of the matter is that its not the
ONLY opinion. I for one think pink ties are hideous, but not everyone does.



see separate reply




And I notice that you choose to ignore the following: "All sexual
partners who were aware of the man's new circumcision status were very
satisfied with the results."


AGAIN these were participants who WILLINGLY got cut. Could it not be
possible for the particapants partner to have an opinion of the decision
making? How may intact men have satisfied partners? Just cus a man is
intact doesn't automagically mean that their partner is NOT satisifed. You
are skewing logic here.


I am not saying they are automatically unhappy. I would love to know how
the deal with the stink though. What you say ... no head?



Now why would this be? You skin freaks have been trying to sell a crock
that women prefer a foreskinned man. What drives you skin freaks to be
such shocking liars?


There you go again, throwing a blanket accusation, you really are good at
that you know, been lurking for a long time and thats all i see you do with
any skill. I am quite sure that there are women that prefer cut men, and
understandably so in a society that is mainly cut, cus its what they are
used to. Go to europe, and ask the same question to women who have largely
known intact men...... Even here in the States there are women that prefer
an intact penis, but many have NEVER EVEN HAD THE CHANCE TO TRY ONE cus they
have been systemically removed from our culture, i know that simple
statement hurts because it goes against your blanket accusation. GIVE MEN
A CHOICE, GIVE WOMEN MORE OPTIONS.




Yes I know there are women (in the US) who prefer the uncircumcised
penis under all and any circumstance. 1% as found by the Williamson
survey. They are called skin freaks as they seem to be turned on by the
bodily excrement found under the foreskin. I suppose they would be into
"rimming" (butt licking) as well.

Here is the Williamson survey:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unasha...rc/message/413

===============================

WOMEN'S PREFERENCES FOR PENILE CIRCUMCISION IN SEXUAL PARTNERS


Marvel L. Williamson, Ph.D., R.N.
Assistant Professor, College of Nursing
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA 52242

Paul S. Williamson, M.D.
Associate Professor, College of Medicine
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA

Abstract

Regardless of pediatricians' attempts to negate routine newborn
circumcision, U.S. circumcision rates remain constant. This study
hypothesized that, because circumcision is usually a maternal choice
and the circumcised penises are perceived by young women as more
attractive, most women prefer circumcision for sexual reasons.

Of 145 new mothers of sons responding to this survey, 71-83% preferred
circumcised penises for each sexual activity listed.

Visual appeal and sexual hygiene were predominant reasons for favoring
circumcised sexual partners. Even among women having sexual experience
only with uncircumcised partners, only half preferred uncircumcised
penises for sexual partners. Eighty-nine percent of the sample had had
their sons circumcised. This study furthers debate over whether
circumcision decisions should be based solely on medical
considerations limited to the newborn period.

In spite of recent attempt by the American Academy of Pediatrics and
other organizations to persuade the public to abandon the practice of
routine newborn circumcision (e.g., Thompson, King & Knox, 1975;
American Academy of Pediatrics, 1984), new parents have continued to
request the procedure at the same high rates (Metcalf, Osborn, &
Mariani, 1983). In the United States, approximately 75-90% of newborn
males are circumcised, compared to only 10% of Europeans and 20% of
males in general worldwide (Jones, 1985; Wallerstein, 1985).

One survey of 200 women concerning their maternal attitudes [towards]
circumcision revealed that mothers were not giving medically valid
reasons for having their sons circumcised, and the authors concluded
that health care providers needed to do a better job of educating
parents about the medical risks and benefits of the procedure (Lovell
& Cox, 1979).

Even after other researchers launched extensive programs to inform
prospective parents about the lack of "absolute medical indication"
for circumcision, no significant change in the rate of newborn
circumcisions could be observed in targeted samples (Herrera, Hsu,
Salcedo, & Ruiz, 1982; Herrera, Cochran, Herrera, & Wallace, 1983;
Land & Policastro, 1983; Rand, Emmons, & Johnson, 1983; Stein, Marx,
Taggart, & Bass, 1982). Parents within the United States who do not
have their sons circumcised report the main reason is cultural. That
is, most are a part of a subgroup, often Hispanic, that traditionally
does not circumcise (Ernst, Philip, & Orman, 1987).

Only 10% of the subjects who choose to leave their sons uncircumcised
cite being convinced on the basis of reading or on physician's advice
(Kreuger & Osborn, 1986; Stein et al., 1982).

It has been demonstrated that mothers more than fathers usually decide
whether to have their sons circumcised (Bean & Egelhoff, 1984;
Williamson & Williamson, 1984). Although informed consent for
circumcision now includes information on how easy it can be to give
proper penile hygiene to an uncircumcised baby, mothers persist in
their desire to have their male infants circumcised. This trend is
particularly noteworthy within the current financial context in which
many third party payers deny coverage for newborn circumcisions
(Medical World News, 1986.
Review of the Literature and Conceptual Framework

Controversy characterized the history of circumcision.

Circumcision has existed since the Stone Age for unknown reasons
(Jacobs, 1943). In earliest written records documenting its use,
religious beliefs required that the male foreskin be removed as an
outward display of faith and membership in the group.

In some cultures, circumcision signified a boy's entrance into
manhood. In whatever setting, the uncircumcised were looked down upon
for being pagan or unmasculine.

Later, the European elite class made circumcision exclusive privilege
in the Victorian era (Jones, 1985). This notion persisted even into
the early twentieth century as evidence that a man had been born into
a situation where the luxury of circumcision could be afforded.

Circumcision has not solely been a status symbol, however. Within
certain circumstances it was a necessity. Entire armies found
themselves immobilized by balanitis, a painful inflammation under the
foreskin due primarily to lack of access to bathing facilities. (King,
1979) Societies that live in arid, sandy environments where water is
precious learned long ago about the merits of circumcision.

Even today, hygiene can be so difficult within some segments of the
health care system, such as in institutions for the elderly or the
mentally handicapped where patients may resist personal hygiene care,
that circumcision eventually has to be performed to prevent infections
or other complications of the foreskin (Harris, 1986).

Inadequate penile hygiene, which is more likely in uncircumcised men,
is resurfacing again as a predictor of carcinoma of the penis
(Jussawalla, Yeole, & Natekar, 1985). After the proclamation by the
American Academy of Pediatrics against circumcision, studies have
since begun reporting a relationship between uncircumcision and the
incidence of urinary tract infection in male children (Ginsburg &
McCracken, 1982; Shapiro, 1984; Wiswell et al, 1987).

Other complications, especially balanitis, bring about significantly
more medical visits for uncircumcised boys than for penile problems in
circumcised boys (Herzog & Alverez, 1986). Good hygiene, which itself
can be difficult for even the best intentioned parents, does not
entirely eliminate these problems (Krueger & Osborn, 1986).

It is argued, therefore, that pediatricians have an incomplete
perspective in the current debate over whether circumcision for
newborns is necessary. Furthermore, medical indications and
contradictions aside, insight into the cultural and sexual rationale
for why the American public and American women in particular prefer
circumcision is missing. Social reasons for circumcision, when
conceded at all, are dismissed by medical personnel as being
unjustifiable vis-a-vis existing "scientific" proof.

In addition, arguments that cite historical fallacies about
circumcision fail tests of logic when posing as premises for
concluding that circumcision for any reason is wrong (Grossman &
Posner, 1984).

The debate on medical grounds seems to miss a major portion of the
reasoning, though. In the face of the current campaign against
circumcision, why is it still requested at such high rates? What
motivations do American women have for wanting American males to be
circumcised?

In a study by Bean and Egelhoff of 277 new mothers of sons, 78%
reported favoring circumcision even before becoming pregnant and
having to make a conscious choice affecting a son, and 91% ultimately
decide to have their newborn son circumcised (1984). Even those woman
whose husbands were uncircumcised overwhelmingly opted for
circumcision.

The reason must seem important enough to woman for them to withstand
pressure from physicians and others who oppose circumcision. Brown &
Brown go as far as to say that "the circumcision decision of the
United States is emerging as a cultural ritual rather than the result
of medical misunderstanding among parents" (1987).

One idea that has been overlooked is that the penis is a sexual
instrument, not just a passageway for urination. For example,
circumcision at puberty in nonliterate cultures is in some ways a
sexual recognition of the emerging man (Bettelheim, 1954; Money,
Cawte, Bianchi, & Nurcombe, 1970; Kitahara, 1976). The permanent
exposure of the glans of the penis renders it a sexual tool.

Most research conducted previously on the reasons newborn males are
circumcised fails to include a reference to the perceived sexual
appeal of a circumcised penis over an uncircumcised one.

Typical lists of reasons from which the subjects could choose offered
only hygiene, religion, father's or sibling's circumcision status, and
other traditional explanations. At the most, an "Other" category
included in some surveys caught untold thoughts on the perceived
advantage of circumcision. Without the inclusion of sexual attitudes
toward penis type on such a list, respondents would typically hesitate
to spontaneously present sexual rationale favoring circumcision,
particularly in reference to a newborn penis.

Admitting to sexual desires and preferences is difficult enough for
subjects even in straightforward studies. Without the researcher
conceding the possibility, it is not likely a mother would volunteer
information about her hopes for her son's future sexual
attractiveness.

It was not until a study on cultural values associated with the
decision to circumcise, in which Harris used unstructured interviews,
that the sexual overtones of newborn circumcision were explicitly
reported (1986). One of her findings was that a circumcised penis has
a certain "cosmetic appeal," that in America the exposed glans is more
pleasing aesthetically.

She concluded that circumcision could be an acceptable practice based
on cultural values, and that the health care delivery system could be
a more "perceptive cultural broker" with regard to honoring a
society's view of beauty.

In asking various groups about why circumcision may be indicated, a
few surveys have included a response category labeled "cultural,"
which may have been construed by some subjects to include sexual
attitudes.

One such study found that significantly more obstetricians than
pediatricians believed that the culture was a valid reason for
neonatal circumcision (Herrera & Macaraeg, 1984).

What the concept of culture means, though, is that to many Americans
circumcision seems to be normal because that is what they are
accustomed to seeing. This could certainly be true, in that what
people are used to is what they prefer.

This cultural perspective brings circumcision into a new arena, one in
which the rigidity by some health professionals fosters alienation and
resistance (Gellis, 1978). Some go so far as to say that opting for
circumcision indicates an emotional response that is not based on
rational decision making (Brown & Brown, 1987).

A study of female preference for certain male body parts showed that
89% of woman students at a southern college preferred pictures of
circumcised penises over uncircumcised ones (Wildman, Wildman, Brown &
Trice, 1976).

This is as close as the literature comes to facing the persistent
preference by American women for circumcision, as best displayed by
new mothers of male infants. To date, no study has explored the
possible sexual motivations behind circumcision, however.
It was the purpose of this investigation, therefore, to determine if
women, particularly mothers who recently made a decision about
circumcision of their newborn sons, do indeed prefer circumcised
sexual partners, and if so, for what reasons. This study hypothesized
that most American woman prefer circumcised penises in their sexual
relations, a factor unrelated to the purported lack of medical
indications for the procedure.

Methods

Women 18 years of age and older who delivered full-term healthy sons
within the previous month at a major midwest medical center comprised
the targeted sample. Candidates for the study were chosen during a
6-month period based upon their willingness to participate in an
earlier study that dealt with who and what influenced their decisions
to circumcise or not circumcise their babies. The sample had been
randomly selected and 85% made up the group to whom questionnaires
were mailed for this study.

Of the 269 women who received the questionnaire, 148 returned their
forms yielding a response rate of 55%. Three were unusable, yielding a
final sample of 145. Due to the explicit sexual nature of the
questions, this rate compares favorably to the other research studies
investigating such personal sexual issues.

Because there had been no previous data collection tool seeking this
type of information, it is necessary to first confirm the content
validity through its review by several experts. The survey instrument
was tested on a pilot group of women who gave subsequent feedback
about its clarity and the completeness of the response options
available from which to choose. By comparing the outcome of this
questionnaire to certain items on the previously conducted study on
the group of 269, it was also possible to establish the reliability of
the individual subject's responses over a period of time.

The survey was highly personal, asking the women about their own
sexual experiences with men and about their preferences for
circumcised or uncircumcised penises for various sexual activities. No
reference was made to the women's decision to circumcise their own
sons or not.

This survey dealt entirely with adult sexual experiences and
preferences in order to distinguish the two issues and allow for
correlational tests between their choices as parents and their
attitudes as sexual adult women.

Each subject had received a thorough review of circumcision at the
hospital when deciding about their son's candidacy for the procedure.
Each was also shown drawings of both uncircumcised and circumcised
penises. It was assumed, therefore, that the subjects knew what
circumcision meant and what types of penises their sexual partners
had. Lay terminology was used in each question. Prior to
implementation of the study, all procedures and tools received
approval by a human research subjects' rights board. Confidentiality
was guaranteed to the subjects and was maintained throughout the
study.

Results

Most of the newborn sons of mothers in the sample had been circumcised
(89%). This percent is similar to the circumcision rate prevailing in
the geographic area at the time of data collection.

Of the women in the sample, 83.7% were married, 12.8% were single, and
3.5% were separated, divorced, or widowed.

By race, 97.9% were Caucasian, 1.4% were black, and 0.7% were
Hispanic. Another characteristic consistent with the midwest
population generally was religion: 46.1% were Protestant, 21.3% were
Catholic, 29.1% claimed no religion, 0.7% were Jewish, and the
remaining 2.8% listed other religions.

The group was well educated. All but 12.7% had finished high school
and 25.3% had at least some higher education. Fourteen percent had
finished college. There was a weak correlation between higher
education and the choice to circumcise the newborn (rpb = 0.27).

In response to the question "With which penis types have you had
sexual experience?", 16.5% revealed that they had had sexual contract
with both circumcised and uncircumcised men. Only 5.5% had sexual
experience exclusively with uncircumcised sexual partners, and the
remainder of the sample was sexually experienced only with circumcised
men.

The responses to "If you could choose anyone for your ideal male sex
partner, which circumcision type would you prefer he have for the
following activities?" as shown in Table 1. There was a strong
correlation between the circumcision status of her newborn son and a
woman's ideal male partner's status for the purpose of intercourse
(phi = 0.86)m, and a moderate correlation for visual appeal (phi = 0.
50).

To investigate any possible relationship between the circumcision
status of one's father or brothers and the preferred type of ideal
sexual partner, correlational tests were made on those subjects who
knew whether these family members were circumcised. No similarities
were found that could be attributed to childhood exposed to penises of
either type (phi = 0.12 for fathers and 0.06 for brothers).

It was interesting to note that 22% of the sample did not know whether
their fathers were circumcised and of those who had brothers, 9% did
not know whether they were circumcised.


TABLE ONE

Activity Penis Type
Circumcised (%) Uncircumcised (%) Either (%)
Sexual Intercourse.......71.............6...............2 3

Looking at to achieve....76.............4...............20
sexual arousal

Giving manual............75.............5...............2 0
penile stimulation

Giving Fellatio..........83.............2...............1 5


It could be surmised that some women prefer circumcised penises
because that is their sole experience in sexual contacts.

However, of the group with dual experience (N = 24), two-thirds
favored circumcision exclusively and a significantly greater
proportion preferred circumcised partners for all the sexual
activities listed in Table 1 (p 0.01).

Among those women who had sexual experience only with uncircumcised
partners (N = 8), their past was more clearly correlated to their
preferences. For each of the sexual activities presented,
approximately half of this sub-group desired an uncircumcised penis
and the other half said that penis type did not matter.

Evidently, almost any sexual exposure to a circumcised [penis] swayed
women to sexually prefer circumcision. That is only 1% of the entire
sample consistently preferred uncircumcised partners for all sexual
activities, and those subjects came entirely from the group which had
had sexual experience only with uncircumcised penises.

When asked "Why do you prefer one penis type over another for sex?",
subjects were instructed to mark all options that applied to them.

Among those preferring a circumcised penis, the reasons they indicated
appeared in the following ranked order from most frequent to least:

Stays cleaner (92 %)
Looks sexier (90%)
Feels nicer to touch (85%)
Seems more natural (77%)
Smells more pleasant (55%)
Stays softer (54%)

It was fascinating to find that so many women thought a circumcised
penis seemed more natural, probably meaning to them "familiar" within
the American cultural context.

Among those preferring an uncircumcised penis, most also stated that
to them it looked more natural, but no one in the entire study thought
that an uncircumcised penis looked sexier.

Overall, the factor correlating most strongly with whether the newborn
son was circumcised was the subject's favorite penis type for sexual
intercourse. There was little or no correlation between the newborn
circumcision decision and demographic factors including race,
upbringing, or sexual experiences.

Conclusions

This study clearly support the hypothesis that American women prefer
circumcision for sexual reasons. The preference for circumcision does
not necessarily come out of ignorance nor from lack of exposure to
uncircumcised men.

Even when women grow up with uncircumcised fathers and brothers, or
have uncircumcised sexual partners, the majority of such a group still
prefer circumcised sexual partners.

Women state a preference for circumcised penises particularly for
sexual activities like fellatio, but also for intercourse, manual
stimulation, and visual appeal.

They say that this is primarily due to circumcised penises being
cleaner and looking sexier.

The cleanliness of circumcised penises within the sexual context means
something different from cleanliness as a hygiene factor to prevent
balanitis and other complications.

To a sexual partner, cleanliness is important because the penis
tastes, smells, and looks more appealing. Spontaneous sexual activity
is more likely to be enjoyable with a man who is circumcised, because
bathing efforts last for longer periods of time. For the
uncircumcised, washing under the foreskin must be attended to
frequently to prevent the accumulation of any smegma, whereas in the
circumcised male, the constant exposure or the coronal ring and the
glans to air prevents the build up of odors and secretions.

Of almost equal importance to cleanliness of the penis for sexual
activities is the visual attractiveness of a circumcised penis. What
is sexier about a circumcised penis?

Perhaps visualizing the glans, the urinary meatus, and the corona
without them being hidden under a foreskin is arousing. After all,
such is the appearance of an erect penis, and sexual imagery of the
erect penis involves exposure of the glans.

While the foreskin of an uncircumcised penis can be retracted, the
circumcised penis exists in exposed beauty whether flaccid or erect.
Furthermore, in some uncircumcised men the foreskin can actually
detract from the visual appeal of the penis. American producer of
erotic films and publishers of photographic literature are careful,
for example, on those rare occasions when uncircumcised models or
actors are used, to select penises with foreskins that are smooth and
free from extra wrinkled skin. Particularly to the unaccustomed eye, a
puckered or wrinkled foreskin can lack sexual appeal.

These findings suggest that the decision to have a new-born son
circumcised may not be significantly affected by increasing the
already rigorous efforts to explain the supposed lack of medical
indications. While many mothers may not consciously view their sons as
sexual beings, many may opt for circumcision with the belief that the
son will be more sexually attractive to his future sexual partners,
based on how they themselves feel. Future research can address this
issue within a different cultural setting where most males are
uncircumcised.

Newborn circumcision need no longer be performed without local
anesthesia (Kirya & Werthman, 1978; Williamson & Williamson, 1983),
silencing the outcry against circumcision as a form of "barbarism"
(Foley, 1966). Removal of the foreskin may be viewed as preventive
care, not unlike procedures done in other areas of health care (such
as the extraction of asymptomatic wisdom teeth).

The opponents of circumcision argue in return against the imposition
of such a decision without the affected newborn male's consent. In
response, those favoring circumcision point out that the many men who
later want or need to be circumcised face a major surgical procedure
that would have presented only a minor inconvenience if done as an
infant.

Circumcision has, therefore, now become a much broader issue than one
that can be dismissed on such narrow grounds as those proposed by the
American Academy of Pediatrics. Not least among the considerations is
the worth of sexual preference for male circumcision within the
American culture as a valid reason for continuing the practice.


References

American Academy of Pediatrics (1984). Care of the uncircumcised
penis. Elk Grove Village, IL: Author.

Bean, G., & Egelhoff, C. (1984) Neonatal Circumcision: When is the
decision made? The Journal of Family Practice, 18, 883-887.

Bettelheim, B, (1954) Symbolic wounds: Puberty rites and the envious
male. New York: Free Press.

Brown, M., and Brown C. (1987) Circumcision decision: prominence of
social concerns. Pediatrics, 80, 215-219.

Ernst, T., Philip, M., & Orman, R. (1987). Neonatal circumcision rates
in a multiethnic hospital population. Family Medicine, 19, 227-228.

Foley, J, (1966). The practice of medicine - a reevaluation. New York:
Materia Medica.

Gellis, S. (1978). Circumcision. American Journal of Diseases in
Children, 132, 1168-1169.

Ginsberg, C., & McCracken, G. (1982). Urinary tract infections in
young infants. Pediatrics, 69, 409.

Grossman, E., & Posner, N. 1984. The circumcision controversy: An
update. Obstetrics and Gynecology Annual, 13, 181-195.

Harris, C. (1986). Cultural values and the decision to circumcise.
Image: Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 18, 98-104.

Herrera, A., Hsu, A., Salcedo, U., & Ruiz, M. (1982)The role of
parental information in the incidence of circumcision. Pediatrics, 70,
597-598.

Herrera, A., Cochran, B., Herrera, A. & Wallace, B. (1983). Parental
information and circumcision in highly motivated couples with higher
education. Pediatrics, 71, 233-234.

Herrera, A., & Macaraeg, A. (1984) Physicians attitudes toward
circumcision. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 145,
825-826.

Herzog, L., & Alvarez, S. (1986). The frequency of foreskin problems
in uncircumcised children. American Journal of Obstetrics and
Gynecology, 140, 254-256.

Jacobs, S. (1943). Ritual circumcision. Urologic and Cutaneous Review,
47, 679.

Jones, S. (1985). Infant circumcision: Procedures complications, and
indications. Continuing Education, 833-845.

Jussawalla, D., Yeole, B. Cancer in Indian Moslems, Cancer, 55,
1149-1158.

King, L. (1979) The pros and cons of neonatal circumcision. Surgical
Rounds, 2, 29.

Kirya, C., & Werthman, M. (1978). Neonatal circumcision and penile
dorsal nerve block - a painless procedure. Journal of Pediatrics, 92,
998-1000.

Kitahara, M. (1976). A cross-cultural test of the Freudian theory of
circumcision. International Journal of Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy,
5, 535-546.

Kreuger, M. & Osborn, L. (1986). Effects of hygiene among the
uncircumcised. The Journal of Family Practice, 22, 353-355.

Land, J., & Policastro, A. (1983). Parental Information and
circumcision: Another look, Pediatrics, 72, 142-143.

Metcalf, T., Osborn, L., & Mariani, E. (1983). Circumcision: A study
of current practices. Clinical Pediatrics, 22, 575-579.

Money, J., Cawte, J. Bianchi, G., & Nurcombe, B. (1970). Sex training
and traditions in Arnhemland. British Journal of Medical Psychology,
43, 383-399.

More insurers ending circumcision coverage. (1986). Medical World
News, 27, 34.

Rand, C., Emmons, C., & Johnson, J. (1983). The effect of an
educational intervention on the rate of neonatal circumcision.
Obstetrics and Gynecology, 62, 64-68.

Shapiro, S. (1984). UTI in uncircumcised infants Report presented at
the Symposium on Pediatric Infectious Diseases, University of
California, Davis, School of Medicine and the Sacremento Pediatric
Society.

Stein, M., Marx, M. Taggart, S., & Bass, R. (1982). Routine neonatal
circumcision: The gap between contemporary policy and practice Journal
of Family Practice, 15, 47-53.

Thompson, H., King L., & Knox, E. (1975) Report of the ad hoc task
force on circumcision. Pediatrics, 56, 610-611.

Wallerstein, E. (1985). Circumcision: The uniquely American medical
dilemma. Urologic Clinics of North America, 12, 123-132.

Wildman, R., Wildman II, R., Brown, A., & Trice, C. (1976) Note on
males' and females' preferences for opposite sex body parts, bust
sizes, and bust-revealing clothing. Psychologic Reports, 38, 485-486.

Williamson, P., & Williamson, M. (1983). Physiologic stress reduction
by a local anesthetic during newborn circumcision. Pediatrics, 76,
36-40.

Williamson, P. & Williamson, M. (1984). The circumcision decision:
Influences that determine newborn penile status. Unpublished
manuscript.

Wiswell, T, Enzenauer, R., Holton M., et al. (1987) Declining
frequency of circumcision: Implications for changes in the absolute
incidence and male to female ratio of urinary tract infections in
early infancy. Pediatrics, 79, 338-342.


======================
This papers reference:

Williamson, Marvel L., Ph.D., R.N. and Williamson, Paul S., M.D.
Women's preference for penile circumcision in sexual partners. Journal
of Sex Education and Therapy, Vol. 14, No. 2 (Fall/Winter 1988): pp.
8-12.