Oh, I’ve heard many reasons why we should circumcise a baby boy. Some of the popular ones are:
I want him to look like me.
He’ll be a freak in the locker room.
You have to. Boys who aren’t circumcised are dirty.
Jennifer’s post last week, WTF? Baby Boys’ Circumcised Foreskins Used for Wrinkle Treatment made me laugh out loud. Mostly it was her shock at upcycling foreskins.
As I commented on that blog, I’d already known they “reused” foreskins. My sister had been involved with a skin grafting on a foot that used those circumcised scraps. If feet and penises combined for life aren’t your idea of fun, perhaps you’ve already hopped on the no-circumcise bandwagon.
Still not sure? Here are 11 Reasons to Avoid Circumcising Your Son…
1. It is not your body. This is a huge reason to leave your son intact. It is his body, and he should be allowed to choose whether to have surgery on his most private parts. If you choose now not to circumcise, he can always make a different choice later in life. Not so if you snip.
2. For the dads: Your son will never “look like you” in every way. Boys rarely see their fathers’ penises past a young age, and no matter what, grown men’s penises look very different in size and hair content from their baby boys’. Daddy, that “because I am” argument is a pretty poor one. Your mother made the decision to circumcise you in a culture very different from ours. Would you also have your wife not breastfeed if your mother did not?
3. Trauma. I’d say being born was a pretty hardcore experience, wouldn’t you? At least from the mama’s end, it’s hard work. I can only imagine how rough it is for that little guy to work to get out! And how do we give him the big “congratulations”? By cutting off a part of his body! Good job, young chap…Now, you won’t be needing this anymore.
4. It’s cosmetic surgery. Would we get him rhinoplasty, too? Actually, lets have the circ doc toss that one in for free, shall we?
5. Locker room fears: if 40% of boys are now left intact (and more in some places), your son won’t look much different than others in the locker room. And anyhow, why would boys be checking each other out in the first place?! I should think that the one poking fun would be the guy with the real problem!
6. On the supposed increased risk for urinary tract infections: UTIs are rare in boys, much less common than for girls. Recent studies suggest there is no difference in the amount for circumcised boys than for intact boys.
7. On the supposed increased risk for STDs: Some of the studies suggesting that the risk for HIV is lessened by circumcision are flawed, in that they concentrate on populations in Africa, where HIV rates are much higher than Western countries. A 2007 study offers that it is the percentage of female sex workers in the female population, not the incidence of male circumcision, that determines the level of HIV infection. As an alternative to cosmetic surgery, I suggest you teach your son to respect his body, choose partner(s) wisely, and always use protection.
8. And another medical “reason to circumcise”: phimosis, or a foreskin that won’t retract. The foreskin gradually becomes retractable between infancy and 18 years of age. For most kids it’s in the first few years. It’s nothing we should either rush or worry about. In fact, only 1 percent of males over 18 still have an unretracted foreskin, and then it can be easily treated with a topical steroid cream. The risks of this happening, however, are small, because stimulation of the foreskin during adolescence helps this happen naturally. (And that’s something that no adolescent boy minds doing!)
9. Have you heard it decreases the risk of penile cancer? Yeah, I got that one a bunch, too. My argument was this: breast cancer in females is much more prevalent than the risk of penile cancer for males. So tell me, when your daughter begins to develop breasts, will you cut those breast buds off…just in case? And according to the medical dictionary from the National Institutes of Health (which I was delighted to see use the word “smegma”),
Uncircumcised men who do not keep the area under the foreskin clean and men with a history of genital warts or human papillomavirus (HPV) are at higher risk for this rare disorder.
10. The cleanliness thing. A boy is not dirty who bathes regularly. Given a little soap and water, he should stay clean. Incidentally, this “dirty” thing is the same argument used by proponents for female genital mutilation.
1l. And, finally: Would you circumcise your daughter?
Actually, you’re lucky I’m not going all hardcore on you, and posting a video of the process. It’s quite horrific. If you can stomach it, look and pics and videos before you finalize a decision that your son will have to live with for the rest of his life.
As one pro-intact group says:
Circumcision is a solution in search of a problem.
I mean, we all believe in recycling, but how ’bout if they use that soft foreskin on a middle-aged woman’s wrinkles? What fun!
This wasn’t an easy decision in my house when I found out I was having another boy. I went a little bit more into our “debate” over the matter in my original post discussing circumcision at Nature’s Child blog.
Image: Wikimedia Commons
I find these comments very wise. There are several studies which show that the difference in HPV infection between circumcised and intact men is insignificant. There is a vaccine for it anyway. Why lose the two most sexually responsive parts of a male body over it, the frenulum and the inner foreskin? They are far more sensitive than the head.
Even if anaesthesia is used, once it wears off, the boy is urinating salty water on the wound. Circumcision increases the risk of buried penis, meatal stenosis (narrowing of the urethral opening), skin bridges, and MRSA infection.
The US, with all its circumcision, has a higher HIV infection rate than uncut Scandinavian countries, or other European countries. Circumcision is a money making hoax, that robs a man of feeling all that nature meant him to feel, while making the doctor and the cosmetics company richer. What other healthy body part do we routinely remove without consent, and resell to someone else? If washing is OK for girls, who have more UTIs and yeast infections, why is it not OK for boys? They both secrete the same substances. As far as the yuk factor with some American women, why is it that every representation of male beauty in art has a foreskin on it, from the statue of David, to the ceiling of the Sistene Chapel. Do you think, “euwww, gross”, when you think of Leonardo DiCaprio, Mario Lopez, Colin Farrell. Josh Harnett, etc? It’s a felony to remove a girl’s foreskin in the US. but OK for a boy. That’s sexism. Besides, foreskins are fun, for both partners.
There is a rapidly growing movement of Jews who are doing skipping circumcision, and moving toward symbolic and ethical ceremonies.
Being rational about circumcision and Jewish observance by Moshe Rothenberg, MSW
http://www.noharmm.org/rationaljew.htm
Cut: Slicing Through the Myths of Circumcision – A Movie by Eliyahu Ungar-Sargon
http://www.cutthefilm.com
How “Cut” Saved My Son’s Foreskin: A Movie Review By Diane Targovnik
http://www.beyondthebris.com/2011/05/how-cut-saved-my-sons-foreskin-movie.html
The Kindest Un-Cut Feminism, Judaism, and My Son’s Foreskin by
Professor Michael S. Kimmel
http://www.cirp.org/pages/cultural/kimmel1/
Brit B’lee Milah (Covenant Without Cutting) Ceremony
http://www.nocirc.org/religion/Naming_ceremony.php
This is a nice piece but it misses the number one reason not to do this. The surgery amputates some 20,000 nerve endings. These are fine touch receptors. Many dispute that sex and sensation change. However, to men that have these parts, the sensation is clear, the most sensitive parts of the male genitals are taken away. This is more nerve endings than the clitoris. It is like having lips or fingertips removed.
The only circ and premature ejaculation study found cut men had a pE issue because of signals to brain from circumcision scar. E.D sets in at a younger age for cut men. Sexual health is a human health issue. The parts of the foreskin feel so good, don’t take them away from a child. Natural penis and natural sex are the best.
I’ve read surveys that said that women prefer men who are circumsised.
I asked over 50 women what they preferred, circumcised or uncircumcised. None preffered uncircumcised. And most of the women expressed distaste for uncircumcised men.
I don’t understand these reasons you write about. For heterosexual men it’s about what the women in their life want to “work with” so to speak.
Well then I think you should get the 50 women you spoke to and circumcise them ! The world would be screaming mad if we did this to women. It is wrong and don’t give me the crap that it is unclean or people are prone to HIV that is just bull shit ! If circumcising men could stop Aids or HIV then the USA would be clear of it . You only get HIV and HPV from unsafe sex cut or uncut .
Maybe those woman don’t know much better. Many woman prefer that little extra skin jiggling in there. Plus it is proven the intact men are gentler since they have all sensitivity and cut men are more rough to make up for the lack of sensitivity. If rough is your thing, it might make the difference. And for those saying that it is unclean… it is much easier to pull a little skin that turn a vagina inside out.
I am experienced with both and I much prefer the intact one… there is more play to have to…But really, I have fell in love with both and it didn’t matter that much.
You must have asked some very superficial women. I’m a woman, and I’d take an intact man over a lesser man any day. The foreskin provides natural lubrication and allows better movement during sex. If a man keeps himself clean, there is no unclean/smell issue. And an intact man can feel SO much more.
If your little boy becomes a man and then he wants circumcision, let HIM decide to cut it off!
Lmao at this fool. Heterosexual men…. bud you’re a beta male stuck in arrested development. I am uncut and have plenty of sex.
Bob, are these surveys by American women? Most U.S. women (grown women) haven’t seen an uncirc penis.
That will change in the coming decades as almost half the male population is now uncircumcised. When we were growing up, the number of intact boys was very small indeed.
Perhaps it is the cultural belief that an intact penis is “dirty”, just as in other cultures an uncircumcised girl is unclean. Let’s not fall into that mindset.
Jack and Tom, thank you for mentioning the sensitivity point. You’re both right: why cut off an especially sensitive area?
Long ago (Victorian era), circumcision was done to curb masturbation. Hmm…how’d that work out?
Actually Bob, most women in the advanced world prefer a penis that has NOT been circumcised. Maybe in certain backward and isolated areas of the USA women don’t know any better because they have never been with a normal/natural man. Most women in the western world prefer what they know: the normal, healthy, natural, uncircumcised penis.
Sorry to break the news, but there is actually a whole world outside of the small-minded USA.
I can’t even believe that we still have to debate this topic. There wasn’t a snowball’s chance in hell that anyone was coming near my son’s penis with a scalpel. The case for circumcision is so shallow, its advocates deserve no attention at all. It’s just plain silly.
And Bob, if the women in your life are so superficial that they aren’t willing to accept your genitalia as nature intended, then you have much bigger problems than the skin on your penis.
Many, many Jews are questioning circumcision from many perspectives including religious, ethical, and spiritual as well as men, women, feminists, and parents. A variety of Jewish and Israeli groups are working to abolish circumcision also.
Cut: Slicing Through the Myths of Circumcision – A Movie by Eliyahu Ungar-Sargon
http://www.cutthefilm.com
How “Cut” Saved My Son’s Foreskin: A Movie Review By Diane Targovnik
http://www.beyondthebris.com/2011/05/how-cut-saved-my-sons-foreskin-movie.html
Jewish Circumcision Critics Integral in National Circumcision Debate
http://intactnews.org/node/84/1309957856/jewish-circumcision-critics-integral-national-circumcision-debate
Jewish Circumcision: An Alternative Perspective by Jenny Goodman, MD.
http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/goodman1999/
On Alternative Rituals by Ronald Goldman, Ph.D.
http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/ritual.htm
I’m not saying that women wanting a circumcised partner is reason to continue the tradition, as change starts in the grassroots and changes the society’s collective mind and standards, but I do have to say that Paul’s comment “certain backward and isolated areas of the USA women don’t know any better because they have never been with a normal/natural man” is a truly narrow-minded, condescending argument as well.
I’m from a couple sizable and incredibly educated communities, and though my own experience has been very limited, I have a number of female friends who have more than “been around the block”. All except for one say they prefer men who have been circumcised. At least, the ones who speak openly about sex. I am also friends with several all-natural-in-all-things-advocates who may feel differently. These women I speak of are educated, involved, political, well-read women. So, whatever you may mean by “backward” and whatever sized city you call “isolated” may need to be adjusted.
Don’t forget about the problems caused by circumcision — post-surgery infections, for instance, and accidental amputations (it does happen!!). The rate of medical complications from circumcision is, I’m fairly certain, HIGHER than the number of medical problems that it ‘prevents’.
The argument about cutting off a girl’s breasts “just in case” is a good one. While we’re at it, let’s surgically remove the appendix and tonsils at birth, get it over with.
If you’re more concerned about the annoyance of keeping the penis clean, let’s go ahead and completely remove girls’ labia (not just the clitoris of female ‘circumcision’). And remove our fingernails, they’re a pain to have to cut all the time.
Anyway, there’s a typo in the post that should be fixed. I don’t think ANY boys are getting “uterine tract infections”, no matter what the state of their penises… I’m pretty sure you mean “urinary”…
Let us address some of these anti-circ arguments…
1.“It is not your body” Actually, parents and guardians are entitled & expected to be able to authorize emergency medical aid as well as medical treatments that they believe are in the best long-term interests of their child. Male infant circumcision clearly fits into a parental choice for serving the best long-term interest of a child.
2.“Trauma” Circumcision used to be a traumatic experience for an infant, but today with modern analgesics and pain management, infants often sleep through the entire procedure. Proper post-operative care, such as frequent diaper changes and a dab of Vaseline or other salve on the scar/suture to prevent adhesions, is all that is needed.
3.“It’s cosmetic surgery” No, it is a prophylaxis, or preventative, surgery.
4.“Locker room fears: if 40% of boys are now left intact” Maybe if you live in an area of the US that has a very high immigrant population this would be true. The truth is that circumcision rates in the US have not fallen very far in the past decade or more. Hospitals are under no law to report circumcisions and there are many reports of parents that decide on circumcision after leaving the hospital. Mohels, pediatricians, urologists, midwives and others that perform circumcisions do not report statistics.
5.“increased risk for uterine tract infections” Uncircumcised boys are about 10 times as likely to get serious UTIs as are circumcised infants. There are many, many, studies that have demonstrated that circumcision clearly decreases the risk of UTIs. Along with UTIs circumcision also drastically reduces the risk of kidney infections and other opportunistic infections that may cause serious & life-threatening illness if left untreated or under-treated.
6.“increased risk for STDs “ Uncircumcised males have an increased risk for contracting STDs, HIV & HPV. The foreskin provides an incredibly wonderful environment for the care, feeding and reproductive cycles of sexually transmitted pathogens. Micro-tearing along the inner foreskin that may occur du0ring sexual intercourse may introduce these pathogens to enter the body and start or continue to spread infections.
It should be noted, though, that nobody has suggested that circumcision replace primary methods of STD & birth control such as the proper use of condoms and choice of sexual partners. Circumcision may be of some help against STDs should the primary methods fail.
7.“phimosis” “paraphimosis” “posthitis ” Circumcision will clearly prevent these potentially serious disorders of the foreskin.
8.“penile cancer” It has been known for over a century that circumcised men rarely get invasive penile cancer, which is a devastating disease which is more deadly than breast cancer (higher 5 year mortality rate). About 1400 men in the US get this disease and over 200 die annually, almost all of them uncircumcised.
9.“The cleanliness thing” Many parents know, or quickly learn, how difficult it is to get their child to bathe daily. Above that challenge would be to take the time to instruct their son how to properly clean his penis (including retracting the foreskin, when appropriate) and monitoring his bathing rituals to verify that he is actually washing and correctly. In concept, a UTI infection or two should surely help a child to learn the cycle of cause-and-effect, but wouldn’t it be easier and more healthy for all concerned to circumcise him and be done with it?
10.“And, finally: Would you circumcise your daughter? “ This old argument returns. Male circumcision & FGM are two completely different procedures whose points are also completely different. Male circumcision, when done outside of religious reasons, is a preventative or prophylactic procedure. FGM is done for the purpose of decreasing or elimination of sexual pleasure.
You make me so angry ! I can tell that you must be circumcised or your husband is! Any part of the body can be washed with soap and water every day . You will have no more risk for HPV/ HIV any more with foreskin or with out . You can kiss some one and catch HPV also oral sex . I can tell you have no idea and have never seen or understand how a foreskin works . even a female vagina needs to be kept clean at all times , Yes that means washing everyday . Thousands of men live an entire life with foreskin and never have any pr0blem . It is natural if we are not suppose to have it then we would not be born with it .
why are you so angry am sure you are not circumcized or your husband is not
NotStyro clearly works for a medical circumcision group, as you will plainly see once you click on the link.
I have already addressed most of his arguments, but I will delve a little deeper.
I work for no activist group when it comes to circumcision, except this one: I am a mother. I am the mother of two intact boys, and I did much research before I made my choice. I talked with numerous pediatricians and to my team of OBs during my second pregnancy. I also discussed this topic with specialists on the matter.
Overwhelmingly, I was told, “It is your decision. It depends on what you prefer.” What I prefer? For HIS body?
If, as NotStyro claims, it is not cosmetic surgery and is instead prophylaxis surgery, let’s also remove the gallbladder and appendix at birth. Those are much more likely to cause problems later in life!
Please do not humor me with the notion that removing the most sensitive part of an infant’s body so soon after birth is not traumatic. After anesthetics wear off, they are left in pain. Just because you can’t remember it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. Plus, why would you want to anesthetize a newborn that you are trying to get to breastfeed? Please.
“Prevention” is the current song and dance for this unnecessary procedure. Previously, it was to stop masturbation (“or decrease sexual pleasure”). Religion, prevention, aesthetics: I don’t agree with any of these ever-changing excuses.
An finally, the AAP states on their site:
“benefits are not sufficient… to recommend that all infant boys be circumcised.”
http://www.aap.org/publiced/BR_Circumcision.htm
You won’t convince me otherwise, especially as that neither son have ever had foreskin problems.
Cate, I am happy that you are not working for any activist groups and that your sons have not had any foreskin related health problems.
I also do not work for or with any activist groups and/or medical groups (the link goes to more information regarding male circumcision). I am simply trying to correct the lies, myths and misinformation that has been spread regarding male circumcision.
It should be plainly obvious why we don’t remove the gallbladder, appendix, tonsils, breast buds, clitoral hood, etc just after birth – these organs would require much more invasive surgery and/or the risks to the infant from the operation are much greater than any benefits. This is clearly not the case with male circumcision.
“benefits are not sufficient… to recommend that all infant boys be circumcised.” and for good reason – not all parents want their sons to be automatically (or routinely) circumcised. Long live parental choice!
Notstyro, I suspect you are like other cut (really mutilated) men that defend this because it happened to them. I feel sorry for all of my buddies (most a bit more open minded and honest) that had this done to them. The right thing to do is to stop this practice going formward.
1.“It is not your body” Unless you know the sensation this part of the body provides, it is way out of line to have it cut off another person.
2.“Trauma” Sleep through is shock dude. BTW, going under always presents the chance of death. MRSA is a big issue for cut babies in the USA. Finally, a boy just died in UK from circ.
3.“It’s cosmetic surgery” It causes ED, PE as well as curved dysfunctional penis, hair skin pulled over the shaft and a whole host of problems.
4.“Locker room fears: I grew up in the 60s/70s with a natural penis and there were no issues. Also, the trend is moving rapidly past 50/50 with west states well below 50% mutilated. My two boys on east coast note that this has never been an issue in 90s 00s. Boys don’t undress much in front of each other and natural pride is kicking in. Any put down is now often met by I AT LESAT HAVE ALL OF MINE. And yes a cut member is shorter than it would heve been otherwise
5.“increased risk for uterine tract infections”
The real issue here is the US medical people don’t know the natural anatomy. Several times we had to stop our ped from trying to pull back the foreskin of my boys. Pulling back too early causes the infections. These are dropping now. Also, I would rather treat it than lose my most sensitive genital partS. I would rather give up an ear, toe or many other things. YES, it does feel that good.
6.“increased risk for STDs” This is actually not true. The most extensive and latest New Zealand study found no difference in STDs. The USA has high HIV rate and high circ rate. The US Army study found no HIV difference in cut and Natural men. The Africa studies are bogus — done by circumfreaks pushing the cut. The studies do not account for behavior, condom use or the period of time the cut men did not have sex. The Africa HIV thing does not correlate with the real world. Also another Africa study found that Female cricumcision (FGM) cut the rate of HIV from men to women. Are you getting on that bandwagon?
These alleged changes of risk from Africa studies are from 3% risk to 1.8% risk. Not any reason to cut up babies.
7.“phimosis” “paraphimosis” “posthitis ” Circumcision will clearly prevent these… BUT THEY ARE VERY RARE. Circ causes many many more problems.
8.“penile cancer” very rare. Much higher chance of the baby gatting MRSA and dying. I would rather have the pleasure of my natural penis and take the chance on this one.
9.“The cleanliness thing” Natural is cleaner for baby — no wound no feces or urine on glans. Teen boys get a bit more smegma to heal/mosturize after masturbation or sex. Cut get it too and it is less as you age. Boys are very good about showering as teens so how is this ever and issue?
10.“And, finally: Would you circumcise your daughter? “ \
Male circumcision (MGM) & female circ FGM are two completely different procedures as males and females are different. However, more sensory nerve endings are taken by MGM. Orgasims are possible after MGM and FGM and people cut often (not always) say their sex is great, but they dont know that it is not.
FGM and MGM BOTH have their roots for the purpose of decreasing or elimination of sexual pleasure.
My dad is uncirc and he *INSISTED* that my two brothers be circ as infants, when it’s a much simpler procedure and there won’t be any memory of it. My mom had been a bit reluctant for your #3 & #4 but she figured that my dad was the one with actual experience when it comes to penile hygiene matters.
I have noticed that it’s almost always women who are the ones militantly anti-circ. Most guys seem to be either pro-circ like my dad and DH or are neutral on the topic.
To the Mohel Who Cut Me by Shea Levy
http://www.beyondthebris.com/2011/06/to-mohel-who-cut-me.html
On Circumcision, Authority and the Perpetuation of Abuse by Jonathan Friedman
http://www.beyondthebris.com/2011/06/on-circumcision-authority-and.html
Re: NotStyro’s claim “2.“Trauma” Circumcision used to be a traumatic experience for an infant, but today with modern analgesics and pain management, infants often sleep through the entire procedure. Proper post-operative care, such as frequent diaper changes and a dab of Vaseline or other salve on the scar/suture to prevent adhesions, is all that is needed.”
My sister-in-law is a nurse and became opposed to circumcision only AFTER witnessing the procedure. She has NEVER witnessed an infant sleep through a circumcision. Whether an analgesic is given or not, there is still a considerable amount of crying during and after the procedure. She even went to the extent of making sure one of her pregnant students had the opportunity to watch a circumcision. That student decided not to have her new baby boy circumcised.
From the American Academy of Pediatrics: “There is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn.”
Crimson Wife, I always appreciate how much you comment all around Eco Child’s Play with well thought-out responses.
Overall, as I said in earlier comments, I researched greatly on the matter. I didn’t depend on anecdotal evidence. Which, though stories like your father’s are valuable, are not enough “proof” for me. Though with my dh, anectodal evidence gave him reason enough to be open to the other arguments.
I think that I’ve always felt that for my sons, I grew them. You know how when you’re a BFing mom, and you first give them food, and you have that strange thought of, “It has all come from me up to this point”? Their little lives, their perfect little bodies, were nourished by my own. I had beautiful, quick labors. I was blessed with healthy sons who BFed well immediately.
It may seem “militant”, but hasn’t nature designed us to protect them? That’s how I felt for my boys: don’t you change their perfect little bodies after they worked so hard to be born! All the other reasons only supplemented my views.
Crimson wife,
OK for your dad if he does not appreciate this, but what does that mean viz baby boys and their right to experience natural sex? Ask almost any other man that is natural and they like it and would never think of getting that sensory part cut off. Most are like me and would opt for the loss of a digit or toe over that.
I most strongly disagree with your position based on direct knowledge and talking with my natural male friends and my kids.
The “foreskin” is not just skin and includes very special sensory parts. All of the natural men I know cringe at the idea of a removal. Sorry your dad disagrees, but he is one of a small group of men. And if he wants somone else to not have this, why did he not get his own removed? Talk to the 80% of the men in the world that have all of their parts, a high percentage would NOT do this. If you could talk to the babies, they would have a similar position.
First off circumcision has been done for well over thousands of years so it hardly equates to being plastic surgery, traumatic, or anything abnormal just like woman giving birth at home (which is considered odd in the US) has been done for well over thousands of years. Seriously pushing out a child the size of a football through a hole designed for the size of a penis is more traumatic and can often be more painful then circumcision.
Secondly several of your arguments could also be taken as reasons not to spay or neuter your pets. 1. It is not your body. 3. Trauma. 4. It’s cosmetic surgery. 11.Would you spay your daughter? Which means, these reason are only based on opinion, and do not count as good or factual reasons.
Also female circumcision is “all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs” this procedure more often then not is the removal of the clitoris and the labia minora (aka inner labia or fanny flaps) and can include sealing the vagina shut, which is widely practiced in Africa with the healing of the process. Also healing of female circumcision takes 2 weeks whether the vagina is sealed shut or not, as opposed to male circumcision which takes only a week. These are two extremely different procedures although they are both termed as “circumcisions,” and in all honesty male circumcision is nothing like female circumcision. I have actually researched this in depth which by equating these two practices shows a lack of research.
Reasons 2. “For the dads: Your son will never “look like you” in every way” and 5 “5. Locker room fears:” are rather ignorant reasons for circumcision in the first place so bringing these up as valid arguments against circumcision is just as ignorant. Which only leaves 5 valid but highly debated reasons against male circumcision, however since I’ve been pregnant I’ve looked into this before I knew if I was having a boy or a girl and being that there is an obvious bias in this post I’m and more likely to believe the unbiased studies and the actually historical evidence (is this a new practice or something that has been done and widely accepted for well over thousands of years?) on this subject. Where as one going into something with a biased opinion will find any ways necessary to uphold their opinion even against the facts.
Upon my personal experiences with a friend of mine who is uncircumcised he was quite an odd and promiscuous person who had metal rods and balls inserted into his penis in addition to hanging gallon jugs of water off of it so I’m not even convinced that removal of the foreskin even equates to a lack of sexual pleasure. Which is even upheld by the fact that men have plenty of sex drive and sexual pleasure even with being circumcised. Also my homosexual friends prefer circumcised to uncircumcised based on taste, which could deal with the “cleanliness thing.”
5.“Uncircumcised boys are about 10 times as likely to get serious UTIs as are circumcised infants.” Yes, there are lies, damned lies and statistics. How likely? One in a hundred instead of one in a thousand. In other words, 991 out of every 1000 circumcisions fails to prevent any UTIs, 990 because he wouldn’t have got one, and 1 because he does get one. And that’s the figure of the circumcisionists, based on the very bad studies of Thomas Wiswell, who looked at the charts of 100,000 boys – all born in military hospitals, where the only boys left intact would more likely be those born premature and catheterised. And he has admitted the urine samples were taken different ways between the cut and intact.
6. Dickson et al. followed 500 boys from birth to adulthood and found NO significant difference in STDs between the 40% circumcised and the others.
“nobody has suggested that circumcision replace primary methods of STD & birth control such as the proper use of condoms” Then why does Isaac Ikone in Kenya say “I don’t like condoms; if there is a better way to prevent HIV so that I can enjoy sex skin-to-skin, I will do it.”?
8.”It has been known for over a century that circumcised men rarely get invasive penile cancer,”
It has been known for longer that MEN rarely get invasive penile cancer. It’s one of the rarest of cancers, so rare it’s hard to get good statistics. The rate is higher in the US than Denmark, where hardly anyone is circumcised.
“Outcome of penile cancer in circumcised men” by
RM Seyam in the J Urol. 2006 Feb;175(2):557-61 a study of 22 cases in Saudi Arabia, all circumcised, suggests that circumcision can CA– USE penile cancer.
“About 1400 men in the US get this disease and over 200 die annually, almost all of them uncircumcised.”
According to the American Cancer Society, in 1996, male breast cancer amounted to 1,400 cases, with 260 deaths, suggesting American men are more likely to die of breast cancer than penile cancer.
9. His foreskin must not be retracted until it can do so by itself, and that’s years after birth, sometimes not until puberty. As someone said, How hard is it to get a kid to handle his penis?
10.“… Male circumcision & FGM are two completely different procedures” These articulate, circumcised African women don’t think so: http://www.thepatrioticvanguard.com/discuss.php3?id_article=3752 But of course you can only be Free to Choose, if you weren’t modified in childhood.
Brettney, old =/= good. Slavery was thousands of years old when it was abolished. I don’t know how long footbinding was customary in China, but a good long while. Old =/= bad either, and leaving babies genitals alone is hundreds of thousands of years old, and that is what three quarters of the world does and has always done. Not only that but the rest of the English-speaking world tried it, found it did no good, and gave it up, without ill-effects.
How does the trauma of birth justify the trauma of circumcision? Should we bang newborn girls around the body and legs so that they can benefit from equal trauma to boys?
The difference between pets and children is that pets ARE our property, and we treat all of their needs as secondary to ours. They are not going to grow up to have wishes of their own about how much of their own bodies they want to keep. In short, they do not have human rights.
“Reasons 2. “For the dads: Your son will never “look like you” in every way” and 5 “5. Locker room fears:” are rather ignorant reasons for circumcision”
I couldn’t agree more, yet these reasons ARE given for circumcising boys, so they have to be answered.
Following your argument, one could say that all reasons for circumcising are ignorant, so Cate should never have written her article. And in a sane world, babies of all sexes would not have the most sensitive part of their genitals cut off, and she wouldn’t have to.
“Brettney, old =/= good. Slavery was thousands of years old when it was abolished. I don’t know how long footbinding was customary in China, but a good long while. Old =/= bad either, and leaving babies genitals alone is hundreds of thousands of years old, and that is what three quarters of the world does and has always done. Not only that but the rest of the English-speaking world tried it, found it did no good, and gave it up, without ill-effects.
How does the trauma of birth justify the trauma of circumcision? Should we bang newborn girls around the body and legs so that they can benefit from equal trauma to boys?”
-Slavery and foot binding are not circumcision the point of bringing up the fact of that it has been done for thousands of years was evidence of it not being traumatic, which I don’t see any evidence of trauma in any grown male who has been circumcised as a child, that is a rather invalid argument.
“The difference between pets and children is that pets ARE our property, and we treat all of their needs as secondary to ours. They are not going to grow up to have wishes of their own about how much of their own bodies they want to keep. In short, they do not have human rights.”
-That still doesn’t lessen the fact that those reasons are based only on opinion and not fact. Also people against spaying and neutering their pets do in fact use those arguments, for a short period of my life I worked at an animal shelter. Also there are plenty of people who do in fact relate to their pets as their children or a part of the family rather then just property.
Also I’ve never heard of a male who was circumcised as a baby say “I wish I wasn’t circumcised.” Where as I have heard of hermaphrodites who had their sex “corrected” at birth, say they wished they were the opposite sex.
Jack- the reasons I presume my dad did not get circ as an adult are (A) it is a much more complicated procedure than infant circ and (B) unlike a newborn, he would be cognizant of the discomfort and would remember it forever. There needs to be that much more compelling reason(s) to do the procedure on an adult because of the whole awareness factor.
I have no idea about his beliefs about sex as an uncirc man, and frankly that’s not something I care to know. The only reason I know anything about his views at all is because I discussed the subject with my mom when I was pregnant with my son and trying to decide whether to go along with my DH’s wish to have him circ.
Great post Cate! It is important to note that moms and dads should not worry about retracting their son’s foreskin to clean it. The boys can do it on their own when they are older. My friend hurt her son doing this and ended up in the emergency room. He was fine, but it caused pain when he urinated.
Brettney: Slavery and footbinding are both many years old and both are traumatic, so age and trauma are quite capable of co-existing.
With great respect, what you have heard doesn’t exhaust the limits of what has been said. I know many, many men who bitterly resent having been circumcised. A good few are restoring their foreskins and one has been able to give up his day job to make and sell foreskin restoration devices full-time, and he’s only one of several in the market. (But a restored foreskin – a “repuce” – can never completely replace the original equipment, so that’s no excuse to continue circumcising.) Here is a page of men who resent or resented it: http://www.circumstitions.com/Resent.html
I also know one woman who bitterly resents having had her genitals surgically modified with no good reason as a child in the US. Is her experience any more valid than thairs?
No matter how much people love their pets, they will never grow up to express their opposition to having their tails docked, etc. (And tail-docking is being made illegal in some jurisdictions.)
I’ve always found it weird that the word used for being ‘uncircucised’ is a negative for an unnatural/altered state. We’ve coined the terms ‘intact’, ‘natural’, etc. but they are still quantifiers for the negative (UNcircumcised) of the unnatural/altered (circumcised) state. Linguistically, it’s as if being circumcised is the natural state and uncircumsised is unnatural. I think people should consider this when trying to understand this issue, why feelings run so intense about it, and why beliefs are so entrenched about the right and wrong of it.
“Slavery and footbinding are both many years old and both are traumatic, so age and trauma are quite capable of co-existing.”
-Yes abusive slavery and forced footbinding are very traumatic, the mental and extreme physical trauma lasts well beyond any trauma a male infant experiences with circumcision. These do not equate to circumcising a male infant who doesn’t even remember the process. Circumcision is 1 week of healing slavery and footbinding both involve YEARS OF PHYSICAL PAIN they are not at all relevant to circumcision.
Men who were circumcised as an infant are still 100% fully functional that does not equal trauma.
“With great respect, what you have heard doesn’t exhaust the limits of what has been said. I know many, many men who bitterly resent having been circumcised. A good few are restoring their foreskins and one has been able to give up his day job to make and sell foreskin restoration devices full-time, and he’s only one of several in the market. (But a restored foreskin – a “repuce” – can never completely replace the original equipment, so that’s no excuse to continue circumcising.) Here is a page of men who resent or resented it: http://www.circumstitions.com/Resent.html”
-I honestly don’t know what the numbers are but I assure you it is limited and probably as common as branding (a body mod much like a tattoo except by with heat not ink). If you seek you will find you have probably sought out those people because you have an obvious bias where as I on a day to day average have not encountered a single one of those types and I’ve also worked in open minded male dominated industries (film and gaming). Also that is much more like plastic surgery then getting circumcised is in the first place.
“I also know one woman who bitterly resents having had her genitals surgically modified with no good reason as a child in the US. Is her experience any more valid than thairs?”
-Woman are different then men where as it’s much easier and quicker for a man to cum from sex then it is for a woman, on an average statistically speaking with intercourse it takes 20 minutes for woman to cum with men (even circumcised) it’s a significantly shorter time. A woman’s emotional stance can and does largely affect the ability of receiving pleasure from sex. Women also have strong social standards to be “pretty” or look a certain way, placed on them look at the media and the large numbers of women getting plastic surgery, the “necessity” of a woman to wear makeup or look younger. So yes she has reason to resent it as a woman because of socially imposed self-esteem issues she would have to deal with. I resent the fact that my boobs are different sizes because all you see in the media are women with evenly sized boobs. I’ve learned to live with it but the thought of getting my larger breast reduced in size to match the other still lingers in my mind.
“No matter how much people love their pets, they will never grow up to express their opposition to having their tails docked, etc. (And tail-docking is being made illegal in some jurisdictions.)”
-Tail docking, and ear clipping had their purposes when the breeds were created but for the most part no longer serve those original purposes and are an aesthetic “breed standard.”
Since there are studies stating that males being circumcised as infants can be “preventative medicine,” it’s still a valid procedure. As I stated in the whole post there were only five valid and yet still largely debatable topics. The truth be told, my stance is that when something like this post is written there should be factual and intensively researched evidence to support it, not 65% biased and unnfounded opinion.
NotStyro is THE reason anyone circs anymore… FEAR. Let it RAIN!
SOooo SAD!
My DH and I worked together to save a baby’s foreskin (born to parents who were going to circumcise him even though they knew all the info you shared in your really great post). They were determined to do it for religious reasons. However, Christ is the fulfillment of the Law. Every jot and tittle. Thus, foreskin mutilation is completely unnecessary. I didn’t see this addressed and, apparently, it’s still a strong motivator even among Christians!
Also FGM is not so terribly different from circumcision. In studying the genitalia there are some tremendous differences, but also some amazing similarities. The clitoris is a tiny penis without a urethra. Like a penis without the double duty of peeing (girls are awesome!). The hood around the clitoris which extends into the labia minora are very much like the foreskin. The “dirtiness” of either bit of genitalia is called SMEGMA. It’s VERY easily rinsed away in the shower or bath. The hood need not be pulled back and neither the foreskin (until it loosens enough on it’s own to easily do so). NotStyro FEAR tactics regarding the problems that can arise WITH foreskin are real, but statistics are… hmmmm… not exactly reliable, to say the least.
Again, great post!
Hi Crimson Wife,
You sound very intellegent and I am sorry we disagree.
Circ is not a much a more complicated procedure for an adult than an infant circ.
Infant requires a ripping of connected membrane and glans (that must hurt) that does not ooccur with an adult. This is followed by a cutting of the distinct protective and sensing parts (with the fine touch receptor — 20,000 nerve endings). With a man, anesthesia can be given safely. Also, there is more control so as to not cause many of the problems (pulling of hairy skin over the shaft, curving of the penis, skin bridges….)
Babies are aware that they just came into this world and are harmed in a big way. The brest feeding rejetction and other nurturing issues are well documented.
I don’t blame people for not wanting to think about sexual issues, but sexual issues are important for physical and mental health.
My poor little confused 3-year-old…
As if having a feminist, outspoken mama wasn’t hard enough: He just peered over my shoulder at the pic associated with this blog and said, “Mama, why are they cutting off his penis?”
I don’t know, son. I just don’t know.
Brava. I can’t believe the ignorant reasons people give for circumcision sometimes. And yes, they are ignorant. Spewing even more ignorance does not make it suddenly become OK. Child abuse is not OK, and that includes mutilating a penis because of looks, fear, religion, or someone you know knows someone who knows someone who didn’t do it and the sky fell.
Brettney: “These do not equate to circumcising a male infant”
I didn’t say they equated. I said they’re both very old and traumatic, to prove that age and trauma can go together, as they do with circumcision.
“who doesn’t even remember the process.”
He may not remember the process, but he can never forget the outcome.
“Circumcision is 1 week of healing”
Circumcision is life-long.
“Men who were circumcised as an infant are still 100% fully functional”
Some die. Some lose their penis. Some lose a lot of sexual functioning. All lose some. That equals trauma.
“I honestly don’t know what the numbers [of men who resent being circumcised] are but I assure you it is limited”
One is too many, when circumcision is unnecessary.
“If you seek you will find you have probably sought out those people”
I did not seek them out. I certainly didn’t seek out Howard Stern!
“I also know one woman who bitterly resents having had her genitals surgically modified with no good reason as a child in the US. Is her experience any more valid than th[e]irs?”
“Woman are different then men where as it’s much easier and quicker for a man to cum from sex then it is for a woman,”
That claim comes from the US and is based on circumcised men. See http://www.circumstitions.com/news/news31.html#czech
“So yes she has reason to resent it as a woman because of socially imposed self-esteem issues she would have to deal with.”
I find that extremely sexist. She didn’t learn that she had been genitally modified till she was an adult, so it was hardly obvious. Men have socially imposed self-esteem issues based on having had a significant and most visible part of their penis cut off.
“Tail docking, and ear clipping had their purposes when the breeds were created but for the most part no longer serve those original purposes and are an aesthetic “breed standard.””
And this justifies making them illegal? Animals have more rights than baby boys.
“Since there are studies stating that males being circumcised as infants can be “preventative medicine,” it’s still a valid procedure.”
One study has found that women who have been genitally cut have less HIV. Does that make it “a valid procedure”?
The studies you mention are mostly remarkably bad science, and those that are not show very marginal benefits, or of very rare ailments. Hundreds or thousands of boys have to be circumcised in vain for one to get any definite benefit.
“my stance is that when something like this post is written there should be factual and intensively researched evidence to support it, not 65% biased and unnfounded opinion.
Yes, 89.3% of all statistics are just made up (and 64.473628% show spurious accuracy).
But the simple human right to undisturbed possession of all the healthy, non-renewable body parts you were born with does not require any science.
If anti-circ folks are going to bring statistical rarity into the conversation when it comes to penile cancer and UTI’s, you can’t then turn around and use even rarer events (loss of life & loss of the penis) as reasons not to circ. In the 50 years between 1940 and 1990, there were between 131 and 2700 deaths in the U.S. out of 65 MILLION procedures. Yes, it’s tragic when it happens but fortunately it’s extremely rare.
The only people in the advanced western world circumcising infants are American OBGYNs. Until they develop a conscience, until they refuse to mutilate for 275 dollars or whatever the cost, the USA will have the distinction of being the only “advanced” country that violates the human rights of its children a day or two after they are born. Something to be proud of? No, something that must stop.
For my son, it would have been $400. And I’d be interested to know how many insurance companies cover this: am I helping to fund this practice?
Crimson Wife: I understand that others have brought up the risk of death. I haven’t because it IS rare. But the other medical issues I brought up and argued were ones that I have heard given as reasons to circumcise. Though because they are also rare, I felt them worth arguing. .
Earlier in this comment discussion, however, I was called “ignorant” for bringing up #2 and #5. I feel that wasn’t exactly fair. I was simply stating those reasons because I have heard them so often, from both men and women. Then I argued them, because I feel that those reasons to circumcise are silly. This is obviously an emotional topic, and sometimes parents with the best intentions let their emotions rule their decision making. While that is certainly valuable on many occasions in the life of a parent, it is absolutely not right to let biased thoughts like “because I am” rule your decision when it comes to a tiny baby’s body.
As far as FGM, because there is such a wide range of how girls are “circumcised”, and because the same reasons are also given for FGM and male circumcision, I felt it was worth mentioning as well. They are, indeed, comparable. Not all FGM means cleaning out everything; some simply remove the hood of the clitoris and the clitoris. And because the clitoris hold 6,000 nerve endings, and the foreskin holds much more, they ARE comparable. The general population would rather not think so.
Let us stop using the same old ever-changing arguments to justify an unnecessary practice.
“I didn’t say they equated. I said they’re both very old and traumatic, to prove that age and trauma can go together, as they do with circumcision.”
-The fact that you are relating those practices in any way with circumcision is wrong, sure they are old practices but they are very different where as slavery and foot binding are years of prolonged pain, actual trauma, and abuse that is remembered by all who have experienced those and it hugely affects the lives of those people for the rest of their lives in adverse ways where they do not function as normal healthy human beings.
“He may not remember the process, but he can never forget the outcome.”
-Yes I already know you are strongly bias; people who get tattoos when drunk never forget the outcome either. Likewise with circumcision it doesn’t impede any of their normal functions.
“Circumcision is life-long.”
-Weren’t you the one who told me about the foreskin reconstructive surgery? So no it’s not life long since it is now reversible.
“Men who were circumcised as an infant are still 100% fully functional”
Some die. Some lose their penis. Some lose a lot of sexual functioning. All lose some. That equals trauma..
-I will agree with that however out of the numbers these are extremely rare occurrences as another poster (Crimson Wife ) mentioned, and since it is so rare it would be fair to bring up the fact that “There are sometimes medical reasons for circumcision, such as phimosis (a condition in which foreskin retraction is impossible).”
“I did not seek them out. I certainly didn’t seek out Howard Stern!”
-Did Howard Stern find you or did you find him by flipping through stations?
“I find that extremely sexist. She didn’t learn that she had been genitally modified till she was an adult, so it was hardly obvious. Men have socially imposed self-esteem issues based on having had a significant and most visible part of their penis cut off.”
-I also find your statement extremely sexist and bias you are not a woman and would have no idea what its like to be a woman, even after a sex change. You demonstrate this by stating that what happened to her was hardly obvious, however I’m sure, to her it’s very apparent. In the US, Jewish, and Muslim populated countries males are more likely to suffer from self esteem issues being uncircumcised then circumcised.
“One study has found that women who have been genitally cut have less HIV. Does that make it “a valid procedure”? “The studies you mention are mostly remarkably bad science, and those that are not show very marginal benefits, or of very rare ailments. Hundreds or thousands of boys have to be circumcised in vain for one to get any definite benefit.”
That is only one study out of many dealing with circumcision. Anyone can poke holes trough any studies as all are in some small way inherently flawed. However providing the history of the researcher and how they go into their research dictates whether they have a predestined bias and mess with the number or if they are genuinely looking for answers. This in conjunction with how many other studies support or deny the evidence gained from one study. You can get the general idea if one is indeed factual.
“Paul said on February 25th, 2009 at 5:14 am
The only people in the advanced western world circumcising infants are American OBGYNs. Until they develop a conscience, until they refuse to mutilate for 275 dollars or whatever the cost, the USA will have the distinction of being the only “advanced” country that violates the human rights of its children a day or two after they are born. Something to be proud of? No, something that must stop.”
You are forgetting about 13,155,000 Jews and 1.200 billion Muslims world wide that do circumcision for religious reasons so no it’s not just the American obgyns doing it. Also as others have erroneously stated it’s not a small percent of the world doing circumcision.
“Cate Nelson said on February 25th, 2009 at 5:54 am
Earlier in this comment discussion, however, I was called “ignorant” for bringing up #2 and #5. I feel that wasn’t exactly fair. I was simply stating those reasons because I have heard them so often, from both men and women. Then I argued them, because I feel that those reasons to circumcise are silly.”
-I also called those who use those claims to be pro-circumcision to be ignorant in the first place, I highly agree that they are foolish reasons, but using those to support your claims makes you seem just as bad as them.
“As far as FGM, because there is such a wide range of how girls are “circumcised”, and because the same reasons are also given for FGM and male circumcision, I felt it was worth mentioning as well. They are, indeed, comparable. Not all FGM means cleaning out everything; some simply remove the hood of the clitoris and the clitoris. And because the clitoris hold 6,000 nerve endings, and the foreskin holds much more, they ARE comparable. The general population would rather not think so.”
-No they are not comparable “with the practice concentrated most heavily in Africa “ they do seal the vagina shut only to have it ripped open by rape (which is common in Africa) and on their wedding night. It is done so a family can show that their daughter is a virgin. With regards to having it done here in the states I have actually met and spoken in depth with Todd Bertrang who is in jail for doing such surgical procedures as female circumcision out of his home, in addition to being the best person to go to for large gauge piercing, branding, other uncommon body modification procedures, and keeping (by choice) sex slaves. Female circumcision takes two weeks to heal as opposed to one week for male circumcision and it does, most commonly, involves the total removal of the clitoris and inner labia (labia minora). Which as Tori said on February 24th, 2009 at 1:29 am, “The clitoris is a tiny penis without a urethra. The hood around the clitoris which extends into the labia minora are very much like the foreskin.” Which would equate to male circumcision with having the whole penis removed. Once again more oftem then not female circumcision is the removal of the clitoris (not just the hood) and labia minora. Cate I assure you that I am not lying when I say I have researched this in depth.
“When babies are born, they do not have fully developed nervous systems, and their systems run slower. Eventually, the nervous system matures.” This was taken form http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090203162353.htm. So there is no way to support that a circumcised male has any less sexual pleasure than an uncircumcised male that is pure biased hearsay.
Brettney said:
Tattoos can be reverse and drunk or not those are adults choosing for themselves. You can never recover all that is lost due to circumcision.
Brettney said:
It’s only reversible from a cosmetic sense you never regain the nerves and other structures.
Brettney said:
It can impede normal function especially to those unlucky enough to draw the proverbial short straw. And what words do you have to those boys and men who received more than the expected damage? Things that you mention (such as phimosis) are easily treatable non surgically in the rare cases they happen. But in the rare botch, the boy isn’t quite as lucky, he can face life long problems.
Brettney said:
Well, everyone gets one right now and then. Yes, it is important to know the goals of the researchers because that can influence the results. In this case you might want to read the abstract of the study Hugh is referring to. You’ll find that they were quite surprised as they were out to demonstrate that female circumcision increases womens risk, they found the opposite. Funny, nobody followed this work. Now that’s biased.
Brettney said:
It’s not always that way, would it make you feel better if they did it in a nice clean and sterile surgical theater? That’s how it’s done in many places like Indonesia and Egypt where Doctors and Nurses did/do most of the procedures. And not all women are against the procedure. As luck would have it there was a recent article/press release from a newly formed group which I am sure you’ll enjoy. All they want is the right to practice their traditions as they see fit, who are we to stop them? The facts are, the authors of that article got it right and there isn’t as much difference between these two procedures as we think.
I have 2 intact sons, ages 5 1/2 and 2 1/2. We have always treated their penis the same as any other part of their body we wash except we omit soap near the tip. Not only do we not use any special care or intervention we also don’t treat it differently than any other part of their body. When our oldest son hit about 4 we started to talk to him about privacy and his body and he became responsible for cleaning his own penis. As his foreskin retracts pretty far he is reminded to push it back gently as far as is comfortable and to rinse it. We didn’t initiate the retraction, he’s always been very “hands on” and was already doing it as it became possible. For our youngest we just do the basic exterior washing and he has no noticable retraction yet, he’s also less aggressive in his personal exploration. We have no concerns and have never experienced any health problems for them. As with conception, birth, breastfeeding and other physical issues, we view the body’s functions as natural and intended and follow nature’s lead.
“It’s only reversible from a cosmetic sense you never regain the nerves and other structures.”
-Well let’s hope it’s only a matter of time till they can. However since the nerves system in an infant is not developed are those nerves actually “missing” or do they proceed to develop fully in the area after circumcision? “When babies are born, they do not have fully developed nervous systems, and their systems run slower. Eventually, the nervous system matures.” This was taken from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090203162353.htm. Because there is (stated once again) “no way to support that a circumcised male has any less sexual pleasure than an uncircumcised male that is pure biased hearsay.”
“It can impede normal function especially to those unlucky enough to draw the proverbial short straw. And what words do you have to those boys and men who received more than the expected damage? Things that you mention (such as phimosis) are easily treatable non surgically in the rare cases they happen. But in the rare botch, the boy isn’t quite as lucky, he can face life long problems.”
-Once again “-I will agree with that however out of the numbers these are extremely rare occurrences as another poster (Crimson Wife ) mentioned, and since it is so rare it would be fair to bring up the fact that “There are sometimes medical reasons for circumcision, such as phimosis (a condition in which foreskin retraction is impossible).” In that rare case circumcision is in fact necessary. Also there are rare cases of unnecessary c-sections being botched causing a woman or her child life long problems it happens yes it is unfortunate yet fortunately very rare.
Well, everyone gets one right now and then. Yes, it is important to know the goals of the researchers because that can influence the results. In this case you might want to read the abstract of the study Hugh is referring to. You’ll find that they were quite surprised as they were out to demonstrate that female circumcision increases womens risk, they found the opposite. Funny, nobody followed this work. Now that’s biased.
-Why don’t you go back and read the whole statement” That is only one study out of many dealing with circumcision. Anyone can poke holes trough any studies as all are in some small way inherently flawed. However providing the history of the researcher and how they go into their research dictates whether they have a predestined bias and mess with the number or if they are genuinely looking for answers. This in conjunction with how many other studies support or deny the evidence gained from one study. You can get the general idea if one is indeed factual.” Please pay attention to the last line once more “this in conjunction with how many other studies support or deny the evidence gained from one study.” I would love for there to be studies in Africa where HIV and AIDS are infract an epidemic and female circumcision is more prevalent. Truth be told since that is a long standing practice in Africa and HIV/AIDS has still managed to become an epidemic there I think you will find the results would be quite the opposite from that one study.
It’s not always that way, would it make you feel better if they did it in a nice clean and sterile surgical theater? That’s how it’s done in many places like Indonesia and Egypt where Doctors and Nurses did/do most of the procedures. And not all women are against the procedure. As luck would have it there was a recent article/press release from a newly formed group which I am sure you’ll enjoy. All they want is the right to practice their traditions as they see fit, who are we to stop them? The facts are, the authors of that article got it right and there isn’t as much difference between these two procedures as we think.
-Sierra Leon is a small country in the whole of Africa this came up when I researched it “Sierra Leone is the lowest ranked country on the Human Development Index and seventh lowest on the Human Poverty Index, suffering from endemic corruption and suppression of the press.” With that statement I went ahead and researched the AWA-FC which turned up nothing on this so called newly formed group, which for all I know could be a farce and have been created by you. Please provide some better evidence to back that article up because it is discredited by the governmental control over the press and the fact that there is nothing on this women’s group. However this is not to say that all women are against female circumcision as I stated before “With regards to having it done here in the states I have actually met and spoken in depth with Todd Bertrang who is in jail for doing such surgical procedures as female circumcision out of his home, in addition to being the best person to go to for large gauge piercing, branding, other uncommon body modification procedures, and keeping (by choice) sex slaves. Female circumcision takes two weeks to heal as opposed to one week for male circumcision and it does, most commonly, involves the total removal of the clitoris and inner labia (labia minora). Which as Tori said on February 24th, 2009 at 1:29 am, “The clitoris is a tiny penis without a urethra. The hood around the clitoris which extends into the labia minora are very much like the foreskin.” Which would equate to male circumcision with having the whole penis removed. Once again more oftem then not female circumcision is the removal of the clitoris (not just the hood) and labia minora. Cate I assure you that I am not lying when I say I have researched this in depth.”
Joe you some how seemed to overlook this please read thoroughly next time or you do miss important tidbits like that statement and all of the other ones I’ve had to repeat. Also that second article fails to draw the similarities and it is a biased article where as they state their bias while trying to pass it off as a “medical based” document.
Brettney Said:
Why hope, you just stop mutilating them and you don’t have to hope.
Brettney Said:
That doesn’t say the nerves aren’t there; it only says that the insulating material hasn’t formed around the pathways which seams to increase the propagation delay for impulses. It doesn’t demonstrate that they feel pain more or less acutely. And they aren’t suggesting that the nerve pathways aren’t already formed. They’ve suspended investigations on the pain response of neonatal circumcision without anesthetic because of the obvious distress it causes. Not that it matters since whether or not its painful or distressing is quite besides the point, just because something is painless doesn’t make it ethical.
Brettney Said:
That is really the only study. And I think it’s clear that those researchers were looking for the opposite result. They were desperately trying to show that female circumcision increases HIV prevalence. To their disappointment, they failed.
There will be no follow ups because we’ve rightfully declared female circumcision to be a human rights violation, which is where we should be with male circumcision but because of ‘political correctness’ which seems to trump rational thinking, we’re not there, yet. There is biases in research, you’re right about that but perhaps not in the way you think. When researchers look into female circumcision they’re always going in with the preconceived notion that it’s harmful, with MC they ignore the harms and keep digging for incremental, often trivial benefits. Again the study I provided you shocked those who wrote it, and the went to great lengths to try and dismiss it. Actually, it makes biological sense why female circumcision would decrease HIV prevalence in the same way as male circumcision, less tissue (surface area) available to infect would probably decrease the chance of infection. But alas, our biases will prevent us from investigating it.
As far as HIV prevalence viz-a-viz female circumcision in Africa, it must also be pointed out that the US, with the highest rate (by far) of male circumcision amongst industrialized countries has the highest prevalence (by far) of HIV. It is quite clear that circumcision has heretofore not been useful to us here in the US.
Brettney Said:
That’s cold comfort to the boy or man who has to live with that result. I am courious how many botches are acceptable for a non-therapeutic medical procedure? How many deaths are acceptable for a non-therapeutic medical procedure?
All conditions circumcision is purported to prevent are not only rare but can be treated non-invasively. Your example, Phimosis, can be treated either with gentle stretching, or you can be prescribed steroid creams as a second option. Something like betamethasone 0.05% cream for 4 to 6 weeks has been demonstrated to be very effective working for most people who need it. Or if for some reason neither of these work, as a final option, one could opt for a Preputioplasty; the least invasive surgical option. Preputioplasty requires the surgeon to make one or more short longitudinal incisions to relieve the stenosis which would then be sutured transversely (There is even a sutureless option now). Preputioplasty is nearly always the most appropriate surgical option except in some very specific circumstances, such as a non-retractable foreskin which is complicated by significant scarring or tearing. Considering how uncommon these problems are getting to a circumcision because of them is especially rare.
I am aware of the increasing rates of sections. But at least in that case the person being operated on has provided consent. That makes it quite a different situation.
Brettney Said:
What does that have to do with anything? Are you saying because of the countries economic and political status that is why female circumcision persists? If that’s the case let’s take a look at the countries where MC is prevalent (we sure keep good company don’t we:
Albania, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Iran, Pakistan, Iran, Qatar, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Indonesia, Israel, Tajikistan, Morocco, Western Sahara, Mauritania, Senegal, Gambia, Guinea Bissau, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Cortie D’ivoire, Togo, Nigeria, Mali, Niger, Algeria, Turkey, Tunisia, Libya, Chad, Sudan, Egypt, Ethiopia, Somalia.
Of course most of them do it just to please the sky fairy.
Brettney Said:
I am not sure what this is about that press release made in DC, two of the contact numbers are DC area codes the third is Maryland. If you want to corroborate veracity of the press release, there is contact information on the bottom of the page.
Brettney Said:
This is the problem, when people think about female circumcision they alway think of the worst situation. Rusty razor, mud hut, ect. And they lump all the procedures in together. The bottom line is that here in the US baby girls are protected no matter how severe or benign the ‘circumcision’ would be, no matter the culture, no matter the religion, no matter who does it or at what age. Boys deserve the same respect and protection for their bodies that girls are given.
Joe you are obviously angry about the subject and that leads to being obviously bias by even refuting facts with bs. Because of your stance and to alleviate my having to repeat myself over and over again I will ignore most of your post, where things will senselessly go back and forth and I would prefer not to play into that game where you have not given the respect to actually read what I have written. Where as you have assumed things perhaps even to the assumption that, I am a pro-circumcision radical something with with the irrationality that anger in addition to bias would make you think. However this is incorrect as I don’t see things as black and white and I despise irrational bias and adore logic and facts (That One single study on 17 circumcised women, in One small area is highly insufficient because of how limited it is, regardless of their prior stance.)
I will however bring up one exception and that is with people trying to relate female circumcision to male circumcision.
Lets start with the basics: Why are women defined as female,and Men as male? It’s in the form and function of the genitalia. How do these two relate when one has a totally different basic function of the other? Only in the fact that they are organs in the use of reproduction. However don’t get confused by this broad term as they function in completely different ways and are therefore structured completely different. The primary function of a woman’s genitalia is to provide and house the egg as it develops into a baby, which is until it is born. In case you didn’t know it is a process that involves a high demand upon a female’s body to name one, the temporary rearranging or compression of the internal organs, and upon the process of giving birth tearing of the perineum, which is part of the vagina for a female and considered part of the rectum in the male, is very common.
The primary function of the male is to provide the fertilization or sperm for the egg the female produces.
So now that you have been educated in the vast differences between these the male and female genitalia and their primary functions how can one say that the circumcision of of a male is equal to the circumcision of a female? Regardless of your opinion and the broad general terms of genitalia and circumcision (which has separate definitions for male and female because they are different procedures), the sheer Fact is that the Procedures, Sections Removed, and Results are all very distinctly different.
After being equipped with that knowledge it would honestly be unwise to attempt relating the two procedures any further.
Brettney said:
First off, I am not personally angry but yes it bothers me when I see children getting abused and I consider MC abuse as much as FC. Please show where I’ve refuted facts with BS?
Brettney said:
I don’t play games and you are free to respond as you see fit for as long as you care to. I haven’t assumed anything about you but have only responded to your posts, I’ll go back and check but I don’t think I ever accused you of being in favor of circumcision. And at the risk of being argumentative I will point out that there are no gray areas if you are only working from logic and fact.
Brettney said:
Ok, so now you’re not reading my posts, and perhaps not even the abstract. You posted that 17 circumcised women participated in the study however the study said that it was (emphasis mine):
That is 17.7% of the 5753 participants or ~= 1018 women. Also I didn’t say that this was the end all be all of the subject. I only brought it up to show that when a potential benefit is demonstrated viz-a-viz female circumcision, it is dismissed and not followed up and that shows bias. Now in actuality, I don’t believe it should be followed up because that is a line that shouldn’t be crossed but at the same time I believe boys deserve the same respect for their bodies.
But I am willing to forget all this (unless you want to tell me where I’ve provided B.S. facts) and get down to the proverbial brass tacks. In most of the west, circumcision of females is prohibited no matter what degree, no matter the cultural need, no matter the religious need, no matter the age, no matter where it is performed, and no matter who performs it. In some places, you can even be prosecuted for returning to the old country to do it. All these conditions are important but the first bares repeating, no matter what degree. That means girls are protected from even a pin prick or any other kind of symbolic cutting (and of course up to and including the really disfiguring kind). So the only question you really have to answer is, why shouldn’t boys enjoy the same protection from the full range? I really would like to hear why because quite frankly I don’t think any rational thinker can defend infant/child circumcision (excluding demonstrated/clear clinical indication).
….and how is this subject going to help spark a green revolution and economic recovery? You people must be unemployed.
I’m pretty sure I was not focusing on economic recovery or green jobs. As a natural parent on a green parenting site, I was giving reasons to not cut off a part of a newborn boy’s body. This was meant to dispel popular myths and excuses for male circumcision.
It never ceases to amaze me that an advanced country like the US continues this unnecessary and traumatic practice. It’s contrary to the US Constitution, contrary to international human rights law, and contrary to medical ethics. If it weren’t so darned profitable for the “doctors”, and cosmetics & pharmaceutical companies, it would be as unknown here as it is in 80% of the rest of the world.
This is a great post! Thanks : )
At the end of the day, whether you love it or hate,circumcision is an individual choice of the parents. I don’t see it ever being abolished here.
We can say how pathetic it is that in a civilized country such as the great US is still practicing this “mutilation”(a completely charged word choice), but fortunately, this is America. Whatever practices & stances for other majorly developed countries are meaningless here.
If it were truly a heinous mutilation, with so much information out there & people clamoring for unbiased answers, by now the American Medical Association & American Academy of Pediatrics would have reversed it position of:
In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child’s current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision.
You all who are so emphatically against the practice would be better served to spend your time actively seeking to outlaw the procedure with majority support of medical professionals, I’m sorry AMERICAN medical professionals, instead of giving out biased information, emotional responses, 2nd hand knowledge, & sensationalist propaganda & anecdotes.
Any asshole can have an opinion, but what are you gonna DO about it. And please spare me a list of what you have or plan to do….
“Bob” said: “I’ve read surveys that said that women prefer men who are circumsised.”
Actually, there has been only two such surveys. One was done by a husband/wife team from The University of Iowa, Paul and Marvela Williamson. It had a glaring fault. It was conducted at The University of Iowa Hospital only. The study participants were mothers who had just given birth to boys and their results exactly matched the circumcision rate among those boys. This is a way of predeterming the outcome of a study to get the desired results. Another study by O’Hara and O’Hara (no, not me) found just the exact opposite but drew from a much wider population. The women in that study reported more reliable orgasms and more multiple orgasms with genitally intact partners. Isn’t that what women want?
As for the possibility that a woman would reject a man for his circumcision status, it has been my (considerable) experience that the woman chooses her mates based on other factors long before she is aware of his circumcision status and that it is not something that will break up a relationship.
Frank
“Bob” also said: “
“Ashley Sue” said: “though my own experience has been very limited, I have a number of female friends who have more than “been around the block”. All except for one say they prefer men who have been circumcised.”
Ashley Sue, I’ve been against infant circumcision for decades and it has been my experience that the vast majority of women who say this have never encountered a foreskin in their lives and thus can not make such a statement reliably. It reminds me of small children who will say they don’t like something when they’ve never tried it. In my estimation, a foreskin is an excellent shallow woman defense.
Frank
“Styro” said: “1.“It is not your body” Actually, parents and guardians are entitled & expected to be able to authorize emergency medical aid as well as medical treatments that they believe are in the best long-term interests of their child. Male infant circumcision clearly fits into a parental choice for serving the best long-term interest of a child.
Routine infant circumcision does not fit in to the category “emergency.” By your rationalization, if a parent thinks pinky fingers are a bothersome part, they should be able to demand and get the pinky finger amputated at birth? Why is it exactly that no other body parts of an infant can be amputated on demand but foreskins can?
“Stro” said: “2.“Trauma” Circumcision used to be a traumatic experience for an infant, but today with modern analgesics and pain management, infants often sleep through the entire procedure.”
Yet recent research shows that analgesics are administered for only 16% of infant circumcisions, down from 23% in 1998. An AMA study in 1998 also showed that only 4% of infants being circumcised recieved what they deemed to be adequate analgesia for the operation.
“Styro” said: “3.“It’s cosmetic surgery” No, it is a prophylaxis, or preventative, surgery.”
Infant circumcision clearly falls into the cosmetic category. The things it is purported to prevent are too rare for the operation to be considered prophylactic and the complications are more numerous than any purported benefit. The benefits if they exist are so rare that they are not statistically significant.
“Styro” said: “4.“Locker room fears: if 40% of boys are now left intact” Maybe if you live in an area of the US that has a very high immigrant population this would be true. The truth is that circumcision rates in the US have not fallen very far in the past decade or more. Hospitals are under no law to report circumcisions and there are many reports of parents that decide on circumcision after leaving the hospital. Mohels, pediatricians, urologists, midwives and others that perform circumcisions do not report statistics.”
The Centers for Disease Control/National Centers for Health Statistics begain reporting only Caucasian and African descent circumcision rates back in the 1960’s. Hispanics, Asians and others are not included in the statistics. If they were, the circumcision rate would only drop another 4%. This assertion is simply racism.
The nearly 50% decline in circumcision is entirely Caucasian and African descent babies. The African babies represent the highest circumcision rate now simply because Medicaid pays for it.
I don’t know about hospitals being required by law to report or not but the 500 reporting hospitals are evenly distributed throughout the nation to get a representive sample. Another survey that covers 3,100 hospitals achieved results within a fraction of a percent so we must assume they are accurate.
“Styro” said: “there are many reports of parents that decide on circumcision after leaving the hospital. Mohels, pediatricians, urologists, midwives and others that perform circumcisions do not report statistics.”
There is a follow up period of several months where the medical records of the intervention group are checked to account for these circumcisions so they are included in the statistics for the most part.
“Styro” said: “5.“increased risk for uterine tract infections” Uncircumcised boys are about 10 times as likely to get serious UTIs as are circumcised infants. There are many, many, studies that have demonstrated that circumcision clearly decreases the risk of UTIs. Along with UTIs circumcision also drastically reduces the risk of kidney infections and other opportunistic infections that may cause serious & life-threatening illness if left untreated or under-treated.”
The risk of UTIs is within 1% for all male infants. The difference is not statistically significant. There is not one case of an infant dying in the medical record because he had a foreskin. This is scare mongering at it’s worst.
“Styro” said: “6.“increased risk for STDs “ Uncircumcised males have an increased risk for contracting STDs, HIV & HPV. The foreskin provides an incredibly wonderful environment for the care, feeding and reproductive cycles of sexually transmitted pathogens. Micro-tearing along the inner foreskin that may occur du0ring sexual intercourse may introduce these pathogens to enter the body and start or continue to spread infections.”
Circumcision has had no effect in The US in preventing STDs. The US has the highest HIV infection rate among the developed nations and a 70% HPV infection rate. If circumcision had any protective effect at all, these numbers are just not mathematically possible.
You may also be interested to know that there are no exclusively male or female pathogens. They are all the same bacteria, virals and fungals. Ever notice that they are always successfully treated in girls without amputation? These non-surgical treatments are equally effective for boys.
“Styro” said: “7.“phimosis” “paraphimosis” “posthitis ” Circumcision will clearly prevent these potentially serious disorders of the foreskin.”
In Sweden, only one in 18,000 men go to their grave without their foreskin firmly attached. This is approximately the same nummber of infants that die as a direct complication of circumcision. I say we give it up and save a few lives.
“Styro” said: “8.“penile cancer” It has been known for over a century that circumcised men rarely get invasive penile cancer, which is a devastating disease which is more deadly than breast cancer (higher 5 year mortality rate). About 1400 men in the US get this disease and over 200 die annually, almost all of them uncircumcised.”
This is totally false information. The incidence of penile cancer is 1 in 109,000. It is 100% treatable if treated in an appropriate time frame which is within a couple of years from the first leison. No man should ever die of penile cancer. The symptoms are obvious and easily observable by mere sight. Statistics show that penile cancer in The US strikes 1/3 as many circumcised men as intact men but statistics from Sweden show a lower rate of penile cancer and the circumcision rate there is virtually nil.
“Styro” said: “9.“The cleanliness thing” Many parents know, or quickly learn, how difficult it is to get their child to bathe daily.”
The preputial space require no more hygiene than the vagina. Cleaning in the preputial space of an infant is an invitation to an infection just as it would be in cleaning a girl’s vagina.
“Styro” said: “10.“And, finally: Would you circumcise your daughter? “ This old argument returns. Male circumcision & FGM are two completely different procedures whose points are also completely different. Male circumcision, when done outside of religious reasons, is a preventative or prophylactic procedure. FGM is done for the purpose of decreasing or elimination of sexual pleasure.”
The reasons given for female circumcision are exactly the ones given for male circumcision without exception. The original intent of male circumcision was to decrease sexual sensation. Research shows that it accomplishes this goal.
Frank
“Brettney” said: “Since there are studies stating that males being circumcised as infants can be “preventative medicine,” it’s still a valid procedure. As I stated in the whole post there were only five valid and yet still largely debatable topics. The truth be told, my stance is that when something like this post is written there should be factual and intensively researched evidence to support it, not 65% biased and unnfounded opinion.”
You should also provide factual and intensively researched information and that you have not done.
More than any other topic I’ve ever seen, there is false information and studies published about male circumcision. Few outside the medical profession are equipped to sort through it and come to an accurate conclusion. You have clearly shown that you are not so equipped. There are no benefits substantial enough to support routinely circumcising infants. That includes but is not limited to penile or cervical cancer, HIV, HPV, genital herpes, genital warts, balanitis, phimosis or paraphimosis or any of the other excuses given for it. All of them combined do not justify it either.
From what you’ve written, I strongly suspect you justify it because of your religion. You need to keep it a religious practice and I will fight it as a secular practice and we will not meet on this one. If you decide to persist, I can quite quickly take up the religious argument as well.
Frank
“Crimson Wife” wrote: “In the 50 years between 1940 and 1990, there were between 131 and 2700 deaths in the U.S. out of 65 MILLION procedures. Yes, it’s tragic when it happens but fortunately it’s extremely rare.”
Three separate studies (Baker, 1979, Szasz, 1988 and Bollinger, 1999) found that approximately 230 babies died in those statistical years. Assuming these years are not an anomaly, this indicates almost 3 times the maximum number you cite. How many deaths are acceptable for a cultural practice that doesn’t save any lives?
Frank
“Brettney” said: “Weren’t you the one who told me about the foreskin reconstructive surgery? So no it’s not life long since it is now reversible.”
I’ll give you that one if you’ll give me one. The only time I’ve seen a cost of this surgery, it was approximately $45,000.00 in the late 1980’s. Today, I suspect it would be in the range of $70,000.00 accounting for inflation. Also, there were only two locations that offered the procedure, one in California and the other in Canada so most would have travel and lodging expenses for a minimum of two trips and lost time from work. I can see that the total cost would be in the range of $75,000.00. Would you back a requirement that parents who choose to violate their child be required to put this amount in a trust fund for the child?
“Brettney” said: “In the US, Jewish, and Muslim populated countries males are more likely to suffer from self esteem issues being uncircumcised then circumcised.”
I’ll give you that one for Jewish and Muslim boys but with the circumcision rate at nearly 50/50, it is more likely that circumcised boys will have the self esteem issues especially with the high profile of this issue now.
“Brettney” said: “Which as Tori said on February 24th, 2009 at 1:29 am, “The clitoris is a tiny penis without a urethra. The hood around the clitoris which extends into the labia minora are very much like the foreskin.” Which would equate to male circumcision with having the whole penis removed.”
Here you are making the mistake of believing form follows function and you are wrong. The glans clitoris is a tactile sensory organ and the male frenulum is it’s sensory equivalent. The frenulum is always disabled and or removed in infant circumcision so male circumcision is the exact equivalent of a clitordectomy.
Frank
“This is precisely what happened in England, a nation formerly obsessed with circumcision. In the 1940s, following the release of information that supported leaving male babies fully intact, England’s circumcision rate plummeted almost overnight to less than 1 percent. Similar information is beginning to gain ground here in the United States, so I’d like to share it with you.”
– Christiane Northrup, M.D.
“I am confident that my people have such an abundance of life-enhancing, life-affirming and mind-opening traditions, that our identity and sense of cultural self-heed will happily survive our outgrowing of circumcision, a cruel relic which has always felt to me like an aberration at the heart of my religion.”
– Dr. Jenny Goodman, Challenging Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective
“…support can be found from many Jewish sources for the view that circumcision of infants is unethical and should therefore be abandoned…in the final analysis, circumcision is not symbolic for the baby: it is horribly real. Now is the time to lay the knife aside and to move forward into the 21st century with a form of ritual that is truly welcoming and that is truly purely symbolic.”
– J. Goodman, MA, MBChB, Jewish circumcision: an alternative perspective. BJU Int 1999; 83 Suppl 1:22-27.
Brettney:
It would appear that you believe yourself educated sufficiently in both the male and the female sexual anatomy that you believe yourself able to advise and educate the rest of us masses in their function. I would like to ask you a few questions to verify this for myself and others here.
I would like to ask you a few questions to verify your knowledge if you will humor me. These questions relate to the various components of the male and female anatomy and their function sexually. I am not asking for answers about appearance or reproductive function, just that recreational use of them referred to as “Sex.”
First, what is the sexual function of the female vaginal sphincter and what is it’s functional equivalent in a male?
This next one should be easy because I provided the answer in a previous post. What is the sexual function of the clitoris and what is it’s male equivalent?
What is the sexual function of the DeGraffenreid spot and what is it’s male equivalent?
Finally, what is the sexual function of the labia and what is it’s male equivalent?
I think once we establish these functions, we can engage in a more productive discussion.
Frank
“Mario” said: “If it were truly a heinous mutilation, with so much information out there & people clamoring for unbiased answers, by now the American Medical Association & American Academy of Pediatrics would have reversed it position of:”
Mario, there is a problem with The AAP in that it’s policy making body has been taken over by group interests. The AAP established a taskforce in the early 1970’s to address this issue. By the early 1980’s at a minimum, this group was taken over by Jewish interests and since, has been majority Jewish in it’s membership from 60% to 88%. Additionally, the chairperson of The Taskforce on Circumcision has been Jewish continiously since the early 1980’s. Additionally, the current President and past president of The AAP have been Jewish. I have not found who was president before then. With Jews comprising 1.7% of the population, I can not accept that these continuing majorities are happenstance but instead strongly suspect this is by design.
I will give them credit that they have not adopted a policy of universal circumcision but their statement that culture, religion, etc should be taken into account clearly shows their bias in the issue.
It is time The AAP address this situation. This is untennable and The AAP should get back to pure science and medicine and get away from religious politics.
Frank
“AS AN INCREASING NUMBER OF AMERICANS – including a sizable number of American Jews – question the act of male circumcision, a group of San Francisco activists are advocating to ban circumcision, or what they call male genital mutilation… Many of the leading activists against circumcision around the country are Jewish.”
– JERUSALEM POST, Challenging the Circumcision Myth, (Israel) 04/10/2011
“BUT CHOOSING TO LEAVE A SON INTACT IS NOT JUST a choice being made by American Jews. Increasingly, Israeli Jews are making this choice. Kahal ( http://www.kahal.org ) was established in June 2000 by parents in the Tel Aviv area who decided not to circumcise their sons. The community is not a formal organization and includes only parents with intact sons.
Raquel Lazar-Paley is a parent who chose not to circumcise her son and she says she has several friends in the Haifa area who made the same decision.”
– THE JERUSALEM REPORT APRIL 25, 2011
“In Israel, opposition to circumcision has happened in just two decades, and now these “rebels” number in the tens of thousands, according to Ronit Tamir, founder of Kahal, a support group for parents who choose not to circumcise their children.”
– JEWISH WORLD, 3/11/10.
“…as recently as the mid-nineteenth century, in Eastern Europe and Russia there was a widespread move to stop the practice… Led by women–what a surprise!–who thought the practice barbaric and patriarchal, the movement eventually even convinced Theodore Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism, who refused to allow his own son to be circumcised.”
– Michael S. Kimmel, Professor, SUNY Stony Brook
TIKKUN, Volume 16, May/June, 2001.
“Another American Jew who works against circumcision is Laurie Evans, the director of the New York Hudson Valley chapter of NOCIRC ( http://www.nocirc.org ). “I went to a brit and couldn’t believe I was standing in a room of people who usually question so much, but didn’t think of the baby. It was one of the worst days of my life. I feel our religion is in our heart and soul, not in our genitals.”
When Evans’s children were born, she wanted to be more involved Jewishly, despite not being brought up to be practicing. She still maintains some of the Jewish customs, but her difficulty with circumcision has created a fissure between her and Judaism. “It’s hard for me to accept that we don’t accept tattooing and we like questioning, but this can’t be talked about. I see it like foot-binding in China.”
– THE JERUSALEM REPORT APRIL 25, 2011
“Coming from a European background… where many Jews reject a brit milla as an archaic and barbaric ritual… This author grew up in France in a traditional Jewish family. Not a single male of her generation or her children’s generation within her large family (or in her circle of Jewish friends) was ever circumcised.”
– Nelly Karsenty, Humanistic Judaism, 1988.
circumcision is very important for man. make men to be free from fore skin. Uncircumcise penis keep some dirt in folded skin. be clear be wisecircumcision is best for men. you need to reaise the truth even if its not from your culture.
“Be wise men be circumcised”
Shabani: you’re wrong. My culture does indeed support the awful practice of circumcision, which is why I wrote the response to it. There are no good medical reasons to circumcise a boy, and the American Academy of Pediatrics agrees.
I stand by my decisions for my family. My boys are healthy, and as they grow up I will teach them the most important disease prevention tool: respect your body, respect your partner; use protection.
Frank O’Hara,
Bravo, bravo!
I couldn’t agree with you more.
Your thoughts are very well expressed.
Having a foreskin is a joy, and it is everyone’s birthright.
Mammals have had them for 120 million years. They are not an evolutionary mistake. They are pleasurable for both partners.
If circumcision protected against HIV, the US would have a much lower HIV infection rate than European countries. Instead, the US has a higher HIV infection rate.
If foreskins are so much trouble, or hard to keep clean, why do women never complain about their clitoral foreskins?
No newborn needs painful cosmetic surgery. Foreskins make vaginal entry easier, and gentler.
As an RN working in the neonatal field, I have been appalled by some of the sloppy circ’s done by the OB doc as well as the Pediatricians. We want our boys to grow up to be functional men, right? Well I’m not sure that those little boys will ever be able to have a proper erection because sooo much (excess) skin was removed. Never was there local except for some topical gel. And don’t EVEN try to tell me those babies didn’t feel pain. Most screamed until they had no breath left. I have 2 sons who are intact, and yet this had been a huge argument btw my husband and I. He wanted it done for all the usual reasons. I told him that if he could carry a child for 9 mo., and love it beyond all measure, then he could whittle it up any way he wanted. But no child coming out of my body was going to get unnecessary surgery for any reason. And as for the cleanliness issue, teaching a boy how to clean himself is no more difficult than teaching how to wash his face, armpits or toes. My oldest is almost 18 and I have asked him about what “most” boys looked like. He responded “Geez Mom, I don’t look at them, and they don’t look at me !!” So I don’t think the lockerroom issue is that big either. And lastly….(big breath) If the Creator didn’t want that little piece of skin to be there, for whatever reason, it wouldn’t be there.
Kellie,
Thank you so much for sharing your experience and perspective. Obviously, I agree. I didn’t go into too much detail here, but it was a big argument between my dh and I as well. I wrote about it here:
http://cate-et-al.blogspot.com/2009/04/my-fight-for-foreskin.html
It’s still a touchy subject, but he’s not so resentful anymore. I’m sure he wishes his son “looked like him”, but he can just give the baby boy some dreadlocks too, if it means so much to him. 😉
In response to the mother of two boys who seems to place a really huge amount of significance to the
“natural state” of her sons’ penises I would ask if there is a father in the picture. My wife is a medical health professional and she and I both did a little research when our first son was born and concluded that there is far less likelihood of the problems with UTI and cancer for circumsized men than for those ” uncut “. So both our sons have been circumsized. If every physician we know has had their own sons circumsized it is a no-brainer to us.
Cate: A large majority of women on both sides of the Atlantic have no basis for an informed opinion about the sexual or esthetic merits of both kinds of penises. The vast majority of women have known Biblically only one kind.
For that matter, even I, as a str8 male, have no business for commenting on the sexual merits of both kinds of penises. The only penis I know intimately is my own, which happens to be intact. The only humans with substantial experience of both kinds of men are some gay men, and a minority of women with a rather risky sex life.
Many women have only had a handful of lifetime sex partners. What partners they have, have been from their own social stratum. Many human communities (religion, eduction, economic class) are either entirely cut or entirely uncut.
Many women in the past did not know if hubby is cut or uncut. First, it is very wise if a woman insists that all casual sex take place with a condom. But if she does this, she will learn little if anything about cut vs. uncut. Even without condoms, uncut will not necessarily intrude into her sex life. The foreskin is very easy to miss when the penis is erect, and many husbands are invariably erect when naked with their spouses. A woman will notice a foreskin if she rolls the condom on, or HJ is a standard part of her foreplay routine. But I am confident that for many women, neither is true.
The only opinions that really matter are those of women who:
* Have had multiple sex partners of both varieties;
* Unwisely disdain condoms;
* Include HJ as a regular part of her sexual activity. This is the only common sexual act that fully betrays the foreskin.
In order to accomplish sexual intercourse, what has to b e done? Does the foreskin have to be rolled back?
uncut weeners stink and are gross! eeeew
How clueless can one human be?
Do you really think that uncut penises stink? Out of your 4.7 years of human ancestors, how many do you think were circumcised?
Have you heard European women complain?
There is even a spiritual and religious movement in Judaism to do a symbolic ceremony instead of a surgical circumcision.
Circumcision: A Jewish Feminist Perspective by Miriam Pollack
http://www.noharmm.org/pollack.htm
One Rabbis’ Thoughts on Circumcision by Rabbi Nathan Segal
http://www.rabbinathan.com/writings/circum.shtml
Brit Shalom Celebrants by Mark D. Reiss, M.D.
http://www.circumstitions.com/Jewish-shalom.html
Brit B’lee Milah (Covenant Without Cutting) Ceremony
http://www.nocirc.org/religion/Naming_ceremony.php
A Case for Bris without Milah.
http://www.circumstitions.com/Jewish.html
When I initially commented I clicked the “Notify me when new comments are added” checkbox and now eawch time a comment
is added I get several e-mails with the same comment.
Is there any way you can remove people from that service?
Bless you!
There should be a place in the email.
all of these are wrong. 1. circumcision is painless early in life, and have you ever met a boy that diligently cleans himself every day, especially a young one? 2. It is poor argument for and against circumcision so that statement was pretty much just extraneous crap 3. the baby won’t remember the trauma. Do you remember every time you cried as a baby or remember how your moms boobs looked when she breast fed you? 4. This surgery has been done for thousands of years, is without risk, and it does promote cleanliness, because people ARE forgetful and there will be a day where he might forget to clean under it, and that does pose a risk, maybe a small one, but a risk none the less. And does a boy really want his mom to constantly be reminding him? 5. but 60 Percent are, so this is another lump of extranneous crap. Who cares is what you are actually saying. Therefore this is not for or against circumcision. 6. Another pointless point. – not for or against. 7. Seriously you gotta stop doing this: ANOTHER pointless point the risk is the same either way. 8. Just another very small risk of some bad thing happening if left uncircumcised. BUT IT IS STILL A RISK if your son had a one percent higher chance of a heart attack wouldn’t you hesitate in giving him an extra Twinkie, or if he had a slightly higher chance of melanoma (you do know what that is don’t you?) wouldn’t you make sure he always wore his sunscreen 9. breast removal carries with it a much higher risk, and a greater affect on her life. 10. It definitely is a cleanliness thing, as I stated before. And have you ever smelled a boy’s locker room? I’m pretty sure boys need any edge they can get to help their hygiene even one as nominal as a circumcision. 11.WHOA WHOA WHOA what the shit!!!!! female circumcision is a gruesome process that prevents females from 1. getting pleasure from sex 2. has a HUGE risk of infection. increases childbirth mortality rates, and is a heinous violation of woman rights. WAY TO FAR. circumcision affects none of that- no risk of infection, same sexual pleasure, no increased child mortality rates. thats crossing a line. the fact that you would even compare female circumcision, also called female genital mutilation, to male circumcision which carries no risk. makes me doubt the validity of everything you say. Cause that is a load of shit.
Bottom line is, you didn’t mention one reason actually against circumcision just a bunch of reasons why there is no difference between the two. ( and there is a slight difference in that being circumcised is slightly less risky, and if you are a good parent, you shouldn’t want your son to have even a slightly increased risk of the aforementioned infections)
also you’re a dumbass