"And I can see how in this recent "rebuttal" he cites a commentary by Brian Morris on the Sorrells study, but that commentary was totally refuted here." -- so, which part of Young's response do you find persuasive? The reason I ask is that almost everything he says appears to be wrong.

"And the Australian medical association dissassociated itself from Brian Morris." -- more accurately, David Forbes expressed disagreement with Morris on an unrelated issue.

"And, while I do care about Jake's "rebuttal," I can see that what he says contradicts what the national medical associations say. No national medical association recomments *infant* circumcision," -- it seems to me that you're attacking a strawman here, since nowhere in my rebuttal did I recommend infant circumcision.

"A recent study in Denmark just found "circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfillment." -- yes, that study was limited by the small number of circumcised men in the sample, as well as potential confounding due to the strong associations between race, religion and circumcision in Denmark. They did attempt to adjust for the latter, but there are limits to what can be done with such few cases.

"New research also find circumcised men are five times more likely to suffer from premature ejaculation." -- yet another example of cherry-picking. At least six studies (including the Danish study you cited in the previous paragraph, amusingly) found no difference, while four found that circumcision is protective.

"Research also shows an intact penis gives women more pleasure too." -- more cherry-picking.