KEY POINTS:
You might say I'm physiologically unqualified to comment on this most delicate, and as it turns out, hotly debated, of issues, lacking, as I am, the appendage in question.
But this has never stopped me before, and according to at least one anti-circumcision site, the whole to-snip-or-not-to-snip debate,
which some years ago seemed to have been settled in the negative, and has now risen to the fore again, is absolutely a woman's issue.
Not only do we have the welfare of our sons to consider, but we women are ideally positioned to make qualitative assessments on the relative merits of "intact" as opposed to circumcised men.
Not that I'm qualified to do that, either, though I've consulted a number of studies on the subject. Suffice to say, as this is a family newspaper, thus far there is no clear winner.
Which seems to be typical of the debate at the moment, and not too helpful to those of us who wonder whether the tide against circumcision had more to do with fashion and ideology than medical science.
People I know, who shall remain nameless on account of their pubescent sons' aversion to having their private parts discussed in public, are seriously considering subjecting their male offspring to what is known in some circles, a little too feverishly, I think, as "mutilation" and "an irreversible amputation of functional tissue".
The aforementioned couple are from the Pacific Islands, where circumcision has never gone out of fashion, though it must be said that it is the father who is particularly keen.
For some time now, he's been regaling his sons with stories of his own circumcision, a rite of passage for all boys in Tonga - as it is in much of the Pacific - and extolling the benefits of circumcision. Namely that it's more hygienic, that it's considered a sign of parental neglect not to do it, that it is what Pacific males "do", that studies have shown a reduced risk of cervical cancer for the partners of circumcised men, and that it looks better.
If his sons' eyes watered, just a little, it was probably the mention of sharp bamboo and shells, the cutting tools employed for the job in the old days.
His case has been strengthened by the announcements of the World Health Organisation and UNAIDS, which recommend male circumcision as one of the ways developing nations can tackle the Aids epidemic.
Three controlled studies since 2005 confirm that circumcision can cut heterosexual HIV transmission by up to 60 per cent. The latter two randomised studies in Uganda and Kenya were stopped early in December last year on the grounds that circumcision was so effective it was unethical not to offer it to uncircumcised men.
And yet those opposed to circumcision remain unconvinced, arguing there are no good medical reasons for the circumcision of newborns, and that circumcision persists only because of cultural reasons.
What's a mother of two boys supposed to make of this? After checking out the not inconsiderable literature from both sides of the debate, I'm a little bemused. I should have known that any discussion on the male sexual organ would be highly emotional and contentious.
In Wikipedia, for example, there was some snippy debate about the online encyclopaedia's disputed entry for circumcision. Too pro-circumcision, according to one challenger, who was in turn accused of being in the "penis-obsessed" camp. Which seemed an apt description for Doctors Opposing Circumcision, who somewhat preciously describe themselves as "Physicians for Genital Integrity".
Not to be wholly un-empathetic, but I'm not sure attempts by the anti-circumcision camp to make male circumcision sound as horrific as female circumcision, properly described by the WHO as "female genital mutilation", really fly. The latter practice has nothing to redeem it, whatever the traditionalists might say, and deserves to be banned, as has happened most recently in Egypt.
Despite the well-publicised horror stories, like Bruce Reimer, the Canadian man who was raised as "Brenda" after a botched circumcision as a baby in the 1960s, the risks are low and complications rare when performed by a skilled doctor.
Still, there's no denying the men who so bitterly lament the loss of foreskin they'll go to great lengths to get it back.
Last year, for example, a Vancouver man had a Canadian Government-funded operation to restore his foreskin. The man claimed he'd suffered pain since priests at his boarding school circumcised him by force at the age of 8, apparently as punishment for masturbating.
The circumcision debate even entered the courtroom last year when the divorced parents of a 9-year-old Chicago boy fought over whether he should be circumcised. His mother claimed it was necessary to prevent persistent infections, but the presumably uncircumcised father claimed she just wanted the boy to be like her new, circumcised partner.
Faced with medical experts arguing fiercely for both sides, the judge ruled that the boy could decide for himself when he reached 18.