-
Website
http://artofmanliness.com -
Original page
http://artofmanliness.com/2009/02/22/clip-the-tip-pointcounterpoint-on-male-circumcision/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
People often return to their childhood religion when it comes to making big life changes, which is why non-practising Christians will get married in a church, give their baby a baptism, and ask for a priest at their funeral, even if they do nothing else religious in their lives. In the same way, Jews turning back to religion during these important life changes will have their sons circumcised.
If you're having your son circumcised for religious reasons, none of the other points above really matter.
-CD
We didn't talk too much about the religious history/implications of circumcision due to the word limit- it would have been impossible to cover everything! However I thought this link might be of interest to you.
http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/
Cheers!
This logic is what perpetuates the practice of FGM in some parts of the world & is disgusting.
I watched my first son have the procedure off of the nursery in the hospital - it was an intense experience as a new father, one of those experiences like serving as a pall bearer for a relative, or getting your first tattoo. I can also say it was very different from the very dated depiction in the "routine infant circumcision" cited above. My son received plenty of local anesthetic and was given a pacifier with a dextrose solution. They used specialized disposable tools to minimize the chance of error. Everything was very quick and very hygienic. The only crying I remember is when he was strapped in to the board to prevent him from moving during the procedure. After it was done, there was no further crying and the incision healed within a few days.
I've heard anecdotes from friends who are very opposed to the practice saying that the procedure is emotionally traumatic and damages the child in some way. If that's true, wouldn't the incredibly more traumatic experience of birth, where your head is squeezed like a vise for hours ending in a very bright, cold, and terrifying environment?
Oh, and I also want to point out that most infants are not anesthetized during routine infant circumcision.
Cut is a documentary film by Eliyahu Ungar-Sargon, a Jew, who examines the subject of male circumcision from a religious, scientific and ethical perspective. Cut challenges the viewer to confront their biases by asking difficult questions about this long-standing practice. Check it out.
And anyone who says that infants aren't routinely anesthetized during the procedure clearly haven't been in a hospital in a long time.
The American Medical Association as well as the American Cancer Society say infant circumcision should not be used to prevent penile cancer in adulthood. The American Cancer Society also says that studies showing that circumcision reduces penile cancer were flawed. Penile cancer is extremely rare in the United States and highly curable. I wouldn't remove part of my son's penis in hopes of preventing penile cancer later in life, just as I would not remove my daughter's breast tissue in hopes of later preventing breast cancer.
How so? As a human rights issue, how does it differ from cutting off a baby's earlobe or little toe? As a human rights issue, under sterile, surgical conditions with anaesthetic, how does it differ from cutting off a baby girl's clitoral hood? (This was widely done in the US as late as the 1970s, but is now illegal.) As a human rights issue, how does it differ from cutting off a non-consenting adult man's foreskin? This is NOT like any other of the "hundreds of choices" that "parents make ... for their children", involving as it does the permanent removal of a healthy non-renewable body part.
Religion does not inevitably trump human rights, and circumcision is not "required for their men to be considered Jewish, and that’s the end of the story" - babies excused circumcision on health grounds are still considered Jewish. Here is a contact list for celebrants (including some rabbis) of non-surgical Jewish baby-naming ceremonies: http://shalom.notlong.com
Jeff Trexler lists the prevention of various diseases as reasons for circumcising, but if you go back to the sources, they say, for example; "Studies *suggest* that circumcised males *may* be less at risk for syphilis than are uncircumcised males." (My emphasis) Other studies suggest that they may not. And if they are, how much less is the risk, how great is the risk if they are not circumcised, and can each disease be prevented or treated by less drastic means? Some of the studies making these claims are simply bogus. For example the Ugandan study of sexual satisfaction, with almost all men reporting virtually perfect sex both before and after circumcision, was obviously too insensitive to measure any effect, since every other study shows much lower levels of satisfaction at baseline. (Other studies, directly measuring sensitivity, ignored the foreskin.) The great majority of the women in the Williamsons' study of women's preference had no experience of intact men with which to compare. And so on.
Toes are necessary for walking and running to the best of one's ability. The foreskin serves no purpose. Perhaps it did when we were cavemen wandering in tall grass and needing protection, but now it offers no real advantage.
Hugh: "As a human rights issue, under sterile, surgical conditions with anaesthetic, how does it differ from cutting off a baby girl’s clitoral hood?"
The clitoris is central to a woman's ability to experience sexual pleasure and orgasm, the foreskin is not. And while you dismiss the Uganda study, and say, "every other study shows much lower levels of satisfaction at baseline," you do not link to any of these studies. Please point to recent scientific studies that prove this point.
Unless you are Muslim or Jewish, your grandfather was probably not circumcised, nor any of their forefathers. Non-religious circumcision is a relatively new "tradition". And what "tribe" is this except the "tribe" of circumcised men? Why should anyone want to belong to that "tribe"? And what will you say if/when he says "Nobody asked me whether I want to belong to your **** tribe!"?
This has been added to the more than 370 reasons given for circumcising at http://www.circumstitions.com/Stitions&refs... .
Please know that we can tell when a single commenter is commenting under various names. Pretending to be multiple people to increase the perception that there are many who agree with you is not manly or acceptable. Please cease and desist.
@ the religion answer---> Infant circumcision was started during the time of the Roman persecution of Jews. A newborn would be circumcised on the third day of his life so that he would forever know where he came from, regardless of where he ended up.
@ circumcision=cliterectomy comment---> It isn't the same, you can't even pretend it is. The same would be true if the penis was cut off at the base of the glans and could only secret semen for reproductive purposes.
@hygene---> This no longer applies in the modern world. Back when people bathed once a year at best....yeah, the word "dick cheese" doesn't just exist from random association. In the past, yes, this would be a problem. Now? not so much. Anyone rockin' a Stormin' Norman: don't clean your boy for a month and tell me what interesting crud builds up under that guy, I dare you. (WARNING: GRAPHIC LINK CONTAINS MALE NUDITY) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smegma
@ Child rights/ traumatic event---> we do not form cognitive thought or memory until around age 3. Look up Piaget's cognitive development theories.
Come on people! If you can't support your statement in a thought out and rational manner, just zip it!
The foreskin has many functions. See http://www.circumstitions.com/Functions.html . (See also this video: http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/... )
Your conjecture about cavemen was first concocted out of thin air by a California respiratory specialist in 1900. You can see it in his own florid (and racist) language at http://www.circumstitions.com/remondino.html .
I specificed the clitoral hood, not the clitoris, because it is the anatomical analogue of the foreskin (although it may not be as well innervated). It is actually illegal to so much as prick the clitoral hood in the absence of pressing medical need; religion and culture are specifically excluded as reasons; and in some jurisdictions even an adult woman's informed consent is not sufficient to have the surgery performed on herself.
Laumann, Edward O., PhD; Anthony Paik, MA; Raymond C. Rosen, PhD
Sexual Dysfunction in the United States: Prevalence and Predictors
JAMA Vol. 281 No. 6, February 10, 1999
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/gca?allch=&SEA...
found "Sexual dysfunction is more prevalent for women (43%) than men (31%)..."
31 per cent ...
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/vide...
As the foreskin is still present in humans, I'd suggest removing it doesn't improve hygiene significantly.
holy shit, there's something terribly freudian about this
My (former) wife was dead set on our first son being circumcised; I let her know in a very gentle and loving way that I'd see her in court before I allowed it to happen. As I'm generally fairly easy-going she was so taken aback that she let the matter drop. As things turned out, baby came out as a girl so the matter never actually arose in the real world...
To my mind, the uncircumcised crowd don't need to make any argument at all. Those who are in favour of cutting need to explain why a bit of an animal with which it has evolved is actually detrimental to its health and needs to be removed. None of the arguments in favour stand up.
To respond to one or two who've gone before...
@Jonboy: "we do not form cognitive thought or memory until around age 3". Formation of cognitive thought isn't the point at which human rights begin.
As to the idea that 'having sex with an uncircumcised male feels like he's having sex with his own foreskin'; speaking personally - and not wanting to get too graphic here - the expansion of an erect penis more or less makes the foreskin tissue tighten around the shaft until it's no longer an issue. At least in my case. Or am I just lucky enough to have the right combination to give me the best of both worlds...?
Even though my father is circumcised, I would not say knowing this caused me any sort of emotional stress. However, being an intact male adolescent in a time when almost every other boy I knew was cut did cause some locker room insecurities and a couple of incidents I would rather not have had to deal with. I used to hate the fact that I was intact because of this.
Another issue that I faced was the fact that, being cut, my father did not really know how to adequately relay some useful information as I was growing up. Mainly, that it really is important to pull the foreskin back during urination. Otherwise, you may grow up into adult hood never understanding that it is supposed to retract fully over the glans. Not knowing this caused some tearing and bleeding during an intimate moment that quickly turned otherwise. So if you have an intact son, make sure he freaking knows how his junk works.
My wife and I are happy that I am intact. If we ever have a son, he will remain intact. However, I would never tell a circumcised man that he has to keep his own son intact. It's not my place to say.
It's cosmetic mutilation plain and simple. There are no health or hygiene risks with being left the way you were supposed to be.
A better analogy than an earlobe or a toe would be your eye lids. All they do is trap gunk and make getting things caught in your eye uncomfortable, might as well cut them off. I mean sure it would leave the organ exposed but it looks better doesnt it?
"we do not form cognitive thought or memory until around age 3"
It doesnt really matter if you can remember it or not. What you DO remember is figuring out that someone cut off part of your penis when you were born for no real reason. There wouldnt be so many men or groups out there for restoration of the foreskin if it was such a non-issue that the pro group seems to think it is.
Let me get this straight. Since birth is a 'traumatic' experience, it's perfectly okay to follow it up with another traumatic experience, provided the second one is deemed less traumatic?
-----
"@ Child rights/ traumatic event—> we do not form cognitive thought or memory until around age 3. Look up Piaget’s cognitive development theories."
In that case, if your 18 month old son is disobedient, punch him in the face. Hell, he won't remember it, and it'll make him stop disobeying.
-----
"What I find striking is how the uncircumcised crowd tries to make such an emotional argument. "
And the argument from much of the circumcised crowd is "I am, so my son will be too." How logical.
"because some uncircumcised guys feel self conscious about how their thang looks. Isn’t that what is driving the emotion here? - guys who didn’t get cut and deep down wish they did?"
Those guys who aren't circumcised can choose to be if they wish, so why would they be worked up over it? Circumcised men, on the other hand, can do nothing. Their decision was made for them.
-----
This isn't really even a debate on whether or not your boy should be circumcised. It's a debate on whether or not you should be choosing elective surgery for your son. If you want your son to look like you, because you think it'll help him out somehow, why not wait until he's old enough to see the difference and allow him to go through the procedure if he wants to?
Wow... that is a bad argument. Seems foolish to even have to say, but eyelids actually PROTECT your eyes, which are among the most vulnerable and sensitive parts of your body. Man, this is NO WAY even close to being analogous.
Plus, if you think a lidless eye "looks better", well, then, I'd look into some kind of therapy.
Canadian Paediatric Society
http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/fn/fn96-01...
"Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed."
http://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/pregnancy&b...
"Circumcision is a 'non-therapeutic' procedure, which means it is not medically necessary."
"After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions."
Royal Australasian College of Physicians
http://www.racp.edu.au/download.cfm?DownloadFil...
"After extensive review of the literature the Royal Australasian College of Physicians reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision."
(those last nine words are in bold on their website, and almost all the men responsible for this statement will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%. "Routine" circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in Australia in all states except one.)
British Medical Association
http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/malecircum...
"to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate."
National Health Service (UK)
http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/articles/article.as...
"Many people have strong views about whether circumcision should be carried out or not. It is not routinely performed in the UK because there is no clear clinical evidence to suggest it has any medical benefit."
Canadian Children's Rights Council
http://www.canadiancrc.com/Circumcision_Genital...
"It is the position of the Canadian Children's Rights Council that 'circumcision' of male or female children is genital mutilation of children."
drops in male circumcision:
USA: from 90% to 57%
Canada: from 47% to 14%
UK: from 35% to about 5% (less than 1% among non-Muslims)
Australia: 90% to 12.6% ("routine" circumcision has recently been *banned* in public hospitals in all states except one, so the rate will now be a lot lower)
New Zealand: 95% to below 3% (mostly Samoans and Tongans)
South America and Europe: never above 5%
It's worth remembering that we wouldn't even be having this discussion if it weren't for the fact that 19th century doctors thought that :
a) masturbation caused various physical and mental problems (including epilepsy, convulsions, paralysis, tuberculosis etc), and
b) circumcision stopped masturbation.
Both of those sound ridiculous today I know, but if you don't believe me, then check out this link:
http://www.noharmm.org/docswords.htm
Over a hundred years later, circumcised men keep looking for new ways to defend the practice.
The record payout for a botched circumcision is $22.8 million. It was said at the time that the victim "will never be able to function sexually as a normal male and will require extensive reconstructive surgery and psychological counseling as well as lifelong urological care and treatment by infectious disease specialists."
Maybe you missed the desert like dryness of my sarcasm. Of course its a bad argument. The foreskin protects the glans just like your eyelids protect your eyes. The only reason people get rid of it is for cosmetic reasons - the hygienic and health related "issues" are bunk.
My Dad wasn't cut. My Mom thought she knew best.
Missing my skin.
His Body. His Choice.
That's all.
Sorry Mom, it didn't work.
The only credential we need to argue this subject is hanging between our legs.
"The only reason people get rid of it is for cosmetic reasons - the hygienic and health related “issues” are bunk."
I re-read you first post, and being a big fan of sarcasm I must say that I still don't see it. Be that as it may...
The reasons people do it also include cultural traditions, and religious observance. The "cosmetic" issue is little concern to the many, many family and friends I have- secular, Christian, Jewish, or other- who have their boys circumcised. Many religious Jews and Christians do it because it is expressly commanded in the Jewish scriptures- what Christians would call the Old Testament. ...All those who are not religious, that I know, do it because it is a cultural norm.
Cosmetics, hygiene, and health are not factors.
There is no reason at all for Christians to circumcise either way though. The rules and laws laid down in the Torah no longer apply to them. You won't see many abstaining from pork or shellfish or a cheeseburger or not masturbating or many of the other things laid down in those books as the absolute law. Paul put all of this down in his letters, there is no obligation to circumcise in Christianity as a tenet of faith.
Finally, just because it is a cultural norm (and that includes religion, they are part of our culture after all) does not make them right or any less horrific.
the overly-"let's blind them with emotion so they don't see our lack of research" approach of the first argument makes argument number two read as more credible. that's a comment on the writing/reasoning and less about the actual subject.
one question i have, where does the gold bond go on an au naturale member?
http://research.cirp.org
http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/
http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/cold-taylor/
* Provided a boy bathes more than once a week and spends as much time cleaning their crotch as most men do, circumcision won't make them any more hygienic.
* The women-like-it-circumcised argument is skewed by the fact that a woman will like the penis of the man she's currently dating more often than not, making these types of studies more of a popularity contest than a legitimate study.
* Arguing that men who have been circumcised won't enjoy sex as much is hilarious, as that enjoyment is relative to your own experiences. Until we can produce a sex-enjoyment measurement system this point is moot.
Basically, you as a parent have the right to circumcise your child knowing that it doesn't provide any real benefit. It's been done for decades in the US as a normal practice and it has little affect on a child, if any. Arguing, however, that you're circumcising your child for anything besides traditional, religious, or cosmetic reasons is disingenuous.
This site is about manliness, yet I find much of the people from both sides trying to find excuses for their views rather than simply being honest and to the point. Make your own decision, be it based on logic, tradition, or emotion, and live with it. Don't try to justify it with an article you had emailed to you or that you cherry picked from a website: own it and be prepared to explain it in honest terms with your son. If legitimate studies that show that either way causes significant harm pop up and you ended up being wrong, be a man and own that as well. Adults can be circumcised and if that's not an option, a child isn't going to hate you because you tried to do right by him when he was born.
So Kate, Adam, and John all live together and took turns on the computer reading the post and then posting a comment within a half an hour of each other? Very interesting.
Even this is true, you are required to enter a legitimate email address when you comment, john@hotmail.com, adam@hotmail.com, and specialsauce@hotmail.com, isn't going to cut it I'm afraid.
Not if your child happens to be born female, you don't, and all children have equal rights before the law. So where is equal protection of the law for boys? Show me any legal document that says a parent has a right to circumcise a child. I've never seen one. There is no such right. What we have instead is a badly mistaken cultural practice of violating babies' and children's sex organs and human rights. No one has any right to violate anyone else's sex organs or rights.
Patrick again: "It’s been done for decades in the US as a normal practice and it has little affect on a child, if any"
It kills some children. See http://peacefulbeginnings.org/Death_By_Circumci...
I don't know about you but I regard killing a child as having a major effect on him or her. Some boys lose their entire glans, or part of it, and all circumcised boys lose the majority of nerve endings yet discovered in the penis. I consider that a major effect and a negative one.
I'm honestly a bit surprised I'm the first to voice this directly, but I feel I have to man up and say it: I'm disappointed in you for allowing such a flame-bait article to be written on your site.
Having read both sides of the argument, I find logical, philosophical, and factual fallacies in both arguments, particularly when reading through the comments being left.
This type of an article does not foster better understanding; not when it is written in such a biased manner by two different parties so clearly invested in their points of view. I am disappointed that you did not do the actual research and present a fact-based analysis, rooted in the honest, straight-spoken style that endeared me to your site in the first place. You didn't write an article that gave a manly look at the practice of circumcision; you allowed an argument to be voiced on your site.
I am a circumcised male. There's no need for me to hide or be ashamed of this fact. I do not consider myself "damaged" or "mutilated" in any way. I do not consider my father less of a man for being circumcised either, and I do not feel "violated" that my father and mother made this choice for me when I was an infant. While I admittedly do not have a basis for comparison, I do not believe my sexual function or satisfaction could possibly be any better than it already is. While I am a *BIG* supporter of an individual's Right to Choose, I also am a *BIGGER* supporter of a relatively foreign concept in the "modern" world; Parental Responsibility. It is the parent's duty to take actions that they believe will benefit their children. For hundreds of years, this has included the practice of neonatal infant circumcision. Regardless of the initial basis for this, parents worldwide have deemed it beneficial for their male progeny to be circumcised. If a parent makes the choice that they believe being circumcised will benefit the child, then so be it. And the arguments being made against this citing that it is no different than chopping off a toe or an eyelid or an earlobe are patently ridiculous.
Also, those of you who are claiming that the highest concentration of nerves is in the foreskin; Prove it. Where are your scientific studies that display a nerve sensitivity graphing?
To those of you citing articles on cleanliness/health issues; Citations are good, but one article does not conclusive proof make. Take it from someone who is in a field that requires many iterations of peer-reviewed treatises to come to a consensus on ANYTHING. Engineering requires sometimes dozens (or even hundreds!) of papers to change an established point of view.
In conclusion; If you cannot write a comment that makes a concise, logical point, with well-researched sources to back up your claims; PLEASE shut the hell up. The internet is too full of flame bait as it is. I come to this site to get away from those arguments. Apparently I should just man up and go outside instead, since we can't all be gentlemen (or ladies...) in discussing a point of contention.
"If you think a foreskinless penis “looks better”, well, then, I’d look into some kind of therapy."
Heh. Tell that to the ladies, my friend.
Lee again: "It is the parent’s duty to take actions that they believe will benefit their children." But if those actions violate the body, the person or the rights of the child, WHATEVER the parent BELIEVES (some parents believe falsehoods, believe it or not), the parent should be held accountable by the law for the violation. It is NOT ANY parents' right to abuse ANY child. Child abuse is illegal, and circumcising a girl child is illegal child abuse and boys and intersex children have equal rights under the law.
Lee: "Regardless of the initial basis for this, parents worldwide have deemed it beneficial for their male progeny to be circumcised." Parents make mistakes, in this case a very big one. The United States of America is the ONLY country in the entire WORLD where the medical profession circumcises the majority of male infants, and our rate has dropped from 90% or so in the 80s to about 55% now, about half-and-half. Parents are learning. Progress is being made. Infant circumcision is almost not practiced at all in most of the rest of the world, except for Israel.
Lee: "Also, those of you who are claiming that the highest concentration of nerves is in the foreskin; Prove it. Where are your scientific studies that display a nerve sensitivity graphing?"
I am the one who claimed that and I already gave you two primary scientific references and a third that explains them. The articles were published in the British Journal of Urology in 1996 and 1999 and remain uncontroverted by other studies in the scientific literature today. Here they are again. Study them:
http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/
http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/cold-taylor/
http://research.cirp.org
What the above research proved objectively in the 1990s was proved on the subjective level in 2007: See "Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis" http://www.nocirc.org/touch-test/bju_6685.pdf
Lee: "If you cannot write a comment that makes a concise, logical point, with well-researched sources to back up your claims; ..."
Have my points been concise, logical, and well-researched enough for your tastes, Brett?
Lee: "PLEASE shut the hell up."
Is swearing considered manly on this site ?
I don't think many people view this post as flame bait, which is likely the reason you are the first to voice such a concern. It was certainly never my intention to simply post an article simply to stir up controversy. I felt both points presented were well-written and cited scientific and rational arguments to back up their points. Yet this is also an issue in which it is impossible to write in a completely straightforward style-there are two deeply felt sides to the issue. You might as well ask for a straightforward piece on abortion or the death penalty. It's an issue in which there is a case to be made for both sides, and in which some amount of emotion and philosophy is appropriate. While you may feel it is a waste of time, I know a lot of couples who had a tough time deciding how to make this choice, and it is my hope that the article clearly presents both sides of the issue and will help people make an informed decision.
I just did.
All the above quotes in your comment which you originally attributed to me were made by Lee, not me. He was addressing me in his comments. I have edited your comment to reflect this.
My point was not to raise issue with you broaching the topic at all, far from it. I concur that the only way to foster true understanding is through discussion of differing points of view.
My issue was with the way you raised it. By posting an article that was not solely of your own making, with consideration given by you to both sides of the issue, as you have done with other topics that could be considered controversial, and instead posting two chunks written by individuals who were clearly invested in their own dogma's, you (in my opinion) fostered an environment where the line must be drawn and sides chosen up for an "I'm-Right-You're-Wrong" argument war, which was what I was seeing develop in the comments section. This is contrary to what I believe your intention for this site was, which was to foster discussion of issues in a manly, straightforward, and intelligent way.
I also have to respectfully disagree with your response in that I do not feel there is a place for emotion of philosophy in a matter which people are claiming directly influences the physical health of an individual. If, as people are claiming, circumcision has direct and measurable physical consequences, then this issue should be addressed with clinical detachment, and calculating evaluation of data and medical studies.
If, however, this issue is more accurately one of aesthetics only, and/or religious/socio-economic issues, THEN and ONLY then do I believe that emotional and/or philosophical arguments have weight and merit.
Using one to argue the other is the biggest debate fallacy that can be committed, and (again, in my opinion) the quickest route to hypocrisy.
Thank you for addressing my comments and sharing your thoughts and opinions with me.
Why? I chose parts of the body that are of comparable size and have no obvious function. It would be ridiculous to cut them off - that's my whole point. (Oops!)
All the "get a life" "there are more important things" people - why don't you just go away and get lives and save the universe yourselves instead of wasting your own time trying to stop people from resolving an issue that is not the most important in the world, but not the least either. Babies die of circumcision, and lose their penises, and suffer reduced sex lives when they grow up, and have results that just look bad. That's reason enough to raise it above the threshhold of consideration. Why is circumcision an important decision parents must make "for" their children, but the moment anyone considers NOT doing it, it's too trivial to think about?
In truth, we haven't really posted many article on topics that could be seen as controversial-this is probably the most controversial topic we have touched. On other articles that were a bit controversial, say on chastity or marriage, I generally presented one side of things, because I felt strongly for that side. On this issue, I honestly don't have a strong feeling either way, and so I decided to bring in two people who did feel strongly about it, because they have done research on it and had something to present. This is not a post I felt would have been best treated with a "on the one hand," and "on the other hand" approach. To me it was best to present the strongest cases for each side and let people draw their own conclusions.
I don't have a problem with the fact that on this topic sides must be drawn up one way or the other. Because people will have to choose a side, and will have to make a decision on the issue. There can't really be halfway with the issue of circumcision.
The reason I feel that a bit of emotion and philosophy is appropriate is because it is not simply a medical issue, it is also a social/cultural/religious issue. It's both. To come back to my point about abortion or the death penalty, such issues have very rational components, but they are impossible to discuss without bringing in social/cultural/religious factors.
If the responses to the post are polarized, it is not the problem of the post, but of the commenters who may not choose to respond responsibly. This post is a classic debate-each sides presents a passionate stance, and people may decide which is more convincing.
While I acknowledge that there is emotion in the Point article, as I would submit there should be given I see this issue as primarily a moral one, I would mention that it contained several links to peer-reviewed journal articles which I would invite you to read carefully. Especially before you have a son.
Once grown, your son won't know what it's like to be uncircumcised if you have him cut and vice versa. If he does get mad--and honestly, I'd be curious to know how frequently that actually happens--you just explain that you did your best and chose for him what you would have chosen for yourself. He is then free to make the same--or the other--choice for his kids.
It's a stretch, but I can help but see a parallel between this issue and abortion (and I know this is really opening a can of worms now!). You say, "it's the man's choice, don't subject him to anything while he's a baby. It's his body and therefore his choice." Isn't that the same argument about abortion? It's a woman's body, let her choose. In my mind, that's an even better argument because it's a grown woman you'd be talking about, not a newborn.
Anyway, just my $02. I should add that I am a woman and thus I don't speak from experience, but I feel like not many of you speak from direct experience, either (what kind could there be?) I'm Jewish and my dad was cut; my son will be too.
Please do not be so convinced that circumcised penises are universally more desirable to women. Methinks thou dost protest too much.
As for the hygiene issue, why not cut off the baby's nose while you're at it? It's not really necessary, but it'll make it so much easier to clean, and hey, maybe some people find it more cosmetically appealing if your baby looks like Michael Jackson. Makes about as much sense as cutting off other body parts for cleanliness and cosmetics.
"Women have said that having sex with a uncircumcised man feels as though he is having sex inside his own foreskin instead of inside of her."
That's a load. The foreskin retracts and ends up looking very much like a circumcised penis during sex. Otherwise, if I could have sex with my own foreskin, I'd never leave the house!
It's not important to look like your father in that respect. If it was, why did this man have an intact grandfather and a circumcised father? Obviously it wasn't important to the grandfather. Also, what happens if the marriage doesn't last and the boy ends up being raised by an intact male? Who should the boy identify with: the father or the man who raises him? Sure, it's nice to think that you'll have a happy family, but the truth is that most marriages end in divorce in modern day America.
Second, not every women prefers it. It's absurd to think that you can generalize that so simply. Throughout the world, most men are uncircumcised and the women have no problem with that.
Thrid: hygiene and sensitivity. One of the foreskins main functions is to keep the penis clean. It prevents dirt and air and other substances from coming into contact with the glans. Removing the foreskin exposes the glans to these outside elements. Smegma is natural and not a problem. Women get smegma too, but everybody seems to overlook that. And there are plenty of studies showing that the most sensitive part of a circ'd penis is less sensitive than the least sensitive part of an intact penis. It also provides a rollover function during sexual intercourse that massages the glans. The glans itself remains more sensitive. When circ'd he builds up extra layers of skin after being exposed much like a callous on your hands or feet.
Circumcision doesn't do a very good job of preventing disease either. More men will get an infection on their penis as a result of the circumcision wound than intact men will get. Also, today infections can be easily cured by antibiotics. The AIDS studies are hotly debated because of the poor manner they were conducted in and some studies have complete opposite results. Think of this: America has a high circ rate and a high number of AIDS victims. In Europe circumcision is almost non-existant and they have much less AIDS victims. According to the study it should be reversed. Also, babies aren't having sex.
How can you claim that it's not important for your baby to have a choice or that the trauma is insignificant. Just because he won't remember the procedure doesn't mean he won't scream any softer. And most of those "sleeping" babies aren't really sleeping, they passed out from the pain because it was so unbearable. The foreskin has useful functions. Not everybody finds it ugly. It should be the boy's decision to make if it wants to keep it or not. What happens if he grows up and is unhappy with the procedure?
Clearly foreskin isn't a problem. Most of the world's men have it. Our ancestors had them. Foreskin didn't stop the human race from getting this far. So keep it. It's not broken, it's not wrong or unhealthy so why get rid of it?
Why can't we just allow parents to circumcise their daughters, Becky? Because mutilating their daughters' sex organs violates their daughters' human rights, that's why. Their sons, also being human, have the same human rights.
Becky: "I just feel like this is one issue where it has to be about parental comfort and desires and what they genuinely feel is the best choice for their kids."
Just as your vulva and vagina aren't about your parents' "comfort and desires", my penis is not about my parent's comfort and desires. No one's sex organs are about their parents' "comfort and desires". They are private property, belonging to the person him or herself. Why do you think we call them "privates"? Some parents "genuinely feel" that it is the "best choice" to circumcise their daughters. Doing so is a federal felony, however. Boys have equal rights.
"Once grown, your son won’t know what it’s like to be uncircumcised if you have him cut and vice versa."
Wrong. If you cut him he can't ever know the whole side of life, but if you don't, he can know BOTH sides, uncut, and, if HE chooses, cut. It's HIS body. Let HIM choose for himself. Cutting your daughter would deprive her of the right to find out what it's like to be a whole woman, too. That fact doesn't make it right to cut her. Same with boys.
"If he does get mad–and honestly, I’d be curious to know how frequently that actually happens– ..."
More and more frequently as the functions and the neuroanatomy of the foreskin and penis become more and more broadly known in society.
"... you just explain that you did your best and chose for him what you would have chosen for yourself."
Did you choose circumcision for yourself? Is your vulva mutilated? Is your clitoral hood missing, by your own choice?
"He is then free to make the same–or the other–choice for his kids."
He can't for his daughters already and probably won't be able to for his son. Equal protection of the law is a fundamental principle of justice:
“…the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice”
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
"It’s a stretch, but I can help but see a parallel between this issue and abortion (and I know this is really opening a can of worms now!). You say, “it’s the man’s choice, don’t subject him to anything while he’s a baby. It’s his body and therefore his choice.” Isn’t that the same argument about abortion? It’s a woman’s body, let her choose. In my mind, that’s an even better argument because it’s a grown woman you’d be talking about, not a newborn."
Newborns don't have less human rights than grown women. All children have all the human rights that adults do plus special rights that adults don't have, due to children's dependent status.
"Anyway, just my $02. I should add that I am a woman and thus I don’t speak from experience, but I feel like not many of you speak from direct experience, either (what kind could there be?)"
I speak from about nine months experience of being genitally intact and 65 years of experience with genital mutilation. It's a terrible tragedy for all involved, whether they know it yet or not.
"I’m Jewish and my dad was cut; my son will be too."
One of the greatest men I ever knew was a Jewish Nobel laureate Harvard biology professor, George Wald. Before you mutilate your son for life just because your father was - your father obviously survived the operation; your son may not; read names of children and others killed by and because of circumcision at
http://peacefulbeginnings.org/Death_By_Circumci...
- please read some of what George Wald had to say on the subject at
http://StopInfantCircumcision.org/crick-wald.htm
And read what Jewish pediatrician and pediatrics professor, Paul Fleiss, MD, has to say about it at
http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/fleiss.html
And read what Jewish psychologist Ronald Goldman has to say about it at
http://circumcision.org and
http://JewishCircumcision.org
and read what Jewish people have to say about it at
http://JewsAgainstCircumcision.org
There is an email list serve there that you can join and discuss it in detail with fellow Jews.
Now-a-days, it's done for the money (and sometimes the free skin to test drugs/chemicalss/dyes on).
I also wanted to add that with regards to the personal hygiene debate, that in normal life, there's absolutely nothing stopping a man from keeping himself clean, and I'm actually a little bit surprised that uncircumsised men don't need/want to keep it clean. I do supposed, however, that if you're planing to go on an extended military campaign, where dodging bullets is a more pressing matter than cleaning your unit, then perhaps before you go, you might want to get the snip.
The first thing that makes it controversial is that it has to do with sex. Of course, people say that their concern is religious and medical and such. However, it's the sex that gets a lot of people going. And that's why you get websites like Circlist, which makes it clear that a fair number of people get off on getting the foreskin off. Or it comes out more subtly, when people start saying how much more 'handsome' or whatever the penis looks without its foreskin. And this also involves members of the medical profession. See Circumcision's Seamy Underside: http://jme.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/30/3/248
The second thing is that people are so passionately for or against circumcision that truth is supplanted by spin. People on both sides of the argument will make valid points, but they are almost always selective in their references to science, religion and so on, and significant facts are likely to be passed over, because they do not fit into the standard arguments.
Take forced circumcision. In many part of the world, men are forcibly circumcised against their will. It's happened in Kenya, Uganda, South Africa, a number of predominantly Muslim countries and there was even one case in Australia. The problem is reported in local papers, but why haven't human rights organizations noticed that this problem is widespread? See Circumcised by force http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/33/6/357#1698
Then there's the question of what you do if parents disagree about circumcision. Just about every year in the United States there's a case where parents can't agree, and the courts are asked to adjudicate. Commonsense suggests that the best one to decide is the owner of the foreskin when he grows up, but don't hold your breath.
Sometimes circumcisions go horribly wrong. Bleeding, infection and surgical errors are the three great dangers. Why do errors happen? Because people are human, and make mistakes. How many mistakes? We'll never know. What we know is when it happens, people express surprise. What doesn't seem to happen is that doctors announce that they will change procedures so that errors are less likely to happen.
Also, I urge people find out what the Bible actually reveals about circumcision and sexual violence: http://www.cirp.org/pages/cultural/glass3/ or what the New Testament says about circumcision http://www.cirp.org/pages/cultural/glass1/ There is not just one way to read what the Bible says.
Only a small percentage of women in female genital mutilating cultures complained about it either, until recent times when the public campaigns against it started. Because most women haven't complained doesn't mean they aren't damaged, however. Same with men.
"It seems kind of like a moot “point” to me."
Try to convince these dead babies, children, and their parents of that:
http://peacefulbeginnings.org/Death_By_Circumci...
It takes a very skilled therapist to be able to help anyone with iatrogenic or mohel-generated post-traumatic genital mutilation stress disorder. I myself would never even THINK of consulting ANY kind of therapist for whom my or anyone's genital mutilation was a "moot point".
Besides, the foreskin does have its functions, and I see no reason to remove a normal body part from a healthy person. This practice is ludicrous and should be stopped.
It's not /her/ body, it's /her child's/ body, not to mention, her child's /life/. (I bet you can guess where I stand on that can of worms.)
More on topic, I have yet to form an opinion, and don't expect to have kids for at least several years.
I remember being uncomfortable in the aftermath, and that it got a little infected, but quickly cleared up. (I'm now 30, and that's the only infection I've ever had in the region.) I can't compare the experience before and after, because I wasn't sexually active at age six, though I think my urinating aim may have improved slightly.
My wife and I recently had a son, and I vacillated about the decision. The hospital offered to do it before we went home, but we wanted to think about it. Actually, my initial, gut reaction was to clutch my son and think, "Like hell you are." It was strangely visceral.
My wife's mother is Japanese, where circumcision is not routine, and her parents were against it. Both her brothers are intact, and I asked one of them about his experience. He said he did have some "point-and-laugh" experiences in the locker room in junior high, but that overall he didn't feel like an outcast or a freak. Boys can and will be jerks about everything.
I have five brothers myself--all circumcised--two of whom had sons of their own. One of them was circumcised the same day I was, at age nine. (Our pediatrician was against the procedure when we were born, so my parents let it slide, for awhile. Neither of us are sure why they changed their minds when they did.) I assumed he would be firmly against the procedure, since he remembered it more clearly than I. But he was firmly for it, because he had no objections to circumcision itself, and he didn't want his son to have to remember the experience. "If you're going to do it, get it over with."
My son was a few days old at this point, and I knew that if we were going to do it, it must be sooner rather than later. My parents-in-law were leaning on me to refrain, but I wasn't sure if that was the best decision for him. My wife and I had read the study findings and statistics, but they weren't very clear cut either.
I was changing his diaper, and that visceral reaction from the hospital hit me, stronger than before. My mind raged at the thought him being hurt. I can't explain it. At that moment, I would have stood down a grizzly bear without hesitation. It frightened me a little. I have never felt that way since, but it was enough to tip the scale.
So our decision at least was informed by cultural, emotional, and scientific reasons, and we feel good about it. As to the future, if another boy in the locker room makes a comment about my son's penis, I'll teach him to say, "And why are you looking at my penis?" Done and done.
Because
* adults dress themselves differently from kids (and don't you encourage kids to take part in the clothes decisions as soon as they can? "What would you like to wear today? No, that's not clean.")
* piercings close themselves if you decide not to put anything in them. (I for one think kids should not get piercings at least till they're old enough to ask for them - and even then you wouldn't let them pierce just anywhere, or put those big tribal spools in their ears)
* hair is dead tissue, and it grows back when you cut it.
whereas
* the foreskin is sexual tissue, and the adult owner has an adult sexual interest in whether it should be there or not.
That's why.
As for abortion, that whole debate has always been badly framed because pregnancy is a process, very different from its beginning to its end. To say one is "for" or "against" means very different things depending on just when in the pregnancy you are talking about. So please don't import the manifold confusions from that debate into this one.
http://www.vaginismus-awareness-network.org/cir...
http://www.healthcentral.com/drdean/408/60750.html
it is a parents right to do what they feel is best for their child. thats it. end of discussion. no one is going to change their mind. i could really give a flip about the supposed "similies" (comparing male circumcision to cutting off body parts or what not) the bottom line is human beings have been manipulating their bodies for as long as they have exhisted, and nothing is wrong with any of it. to judge what one culture does, or what a group prefers, is close minded and ethnocentric...as well as rude.
i am starting to find this website a bit sad. i love the articles, but the people starting to infiltrate it seem to be super PC, super leftist, whiners that have no desire to follow traditional manly philosophies and outlooks. they are essentially trollers that want to spout their liberal views and convince everyone else that enjoys this site to feel ashamed for being traditional leaning men.
i have always felt i was liberal, but with a strict sense of practicality and a fervor for personal liberty, but some of you whiners make me feel like rush limbaugh!
do you really care about the rights of children? be a man, and do something about it. join big brothers, become a child advocate for those poor children who are genuinely abused, and give back to your community. its more productive than spouting off on a bbs trying to convince the world than you DON'T feel ashamed of your peepee.
get over yourself, you will be happier once you lighten up.
Inflicting this amputation on the unconsenting is a human-rights violation. No one has the right to alter another's body against their will.
"i could really give a flip about the supposed “similies” (comparing male circumcision to cutting off body parts"
Hardly even a simile. Circumcision IS cutting off a body part. We're just arguing about which body parts.
"human beings have been manipulating their bodies for as long as they have exhisted, and nothing is wrong with any of it."
So you have no objection to the castration that was prevalent in Italy for 300 years? Or Chinese footbinding? What makes those two different from whatever you're thinking about is that they did them to helpless children. And that's what's wrong with circumcision.
"the ones who argue so vehemently anti circumcision are OBVIOUSLY insecure." Dunno what's supposed to make it obvious, but who cares? One could equally argue about the denial of the men who say "I'm circumcised and there's nothing the matter with my d*ck" but it's attacking the person either way. Infant circumcision is wrong regardless of the state of mind of its opponents.
If lopping of part of your child's sex organ if for his own good, shouldn't HE be the one to decide when he's old enough to choose? What's the rush?
I couldn't agree more with regards to your first comment. A real man would redirect such penial passion to more positive and effective role. It is more important to make a differance in the world than to vehemently argue back and forth over which type of member is better. If you are worried about human rights, there are many more areas you can apply yourself outside of circumcision.
It's good to have a healthy arguement on an important topic, but these overly passionate comments are beginning to border on extreme. Some are well passed being biased and closed-minded.
--
Put all those compassionless and barbaric parent deceiving promoters and executers of this disgusting genital torture and genital mutilation crime on our children into high security prisons so our children across this world and all of us are finally protected from their lies and deceptions. The Circumcision Crime would have never existed without that evil Circumcision Cabal and it will seize to exist once these sadistic mother and baby fuckers that cut genitals for profit and control are all behind bars.
When people talk about circumcision they can get pretty heated up about it. That's the nature of the subject. Please try not to get your back up if someone feels the opposite to the way you feel. Give them some slack, take a deep breath and try not to take it personally. The fact that some people feel differently from you doesn't mean that they are crazy; it's just that they have a different point of view.
Try to play the ball and not the person, and have a nice day!
The only reason ever for circumcision is the one in 500,000 births where the child is born with a malformed penis, in that case a surgeon is required and the foreskin is actually used to repair the damage.
How Americans can be so naive to dance to the the puppet strings of the circumcisers who want to sexually mutilate their children.
You don't circumcise your daughters so why should you circumcise your sons? they are the same parts you are cutting off.
Circumcision in my eyes is legal paedophilia inasmuch female circumcision is.
Can't you get it in your heads that your child will have no problem with his foreskin as long as you and your doctor keep your interferring hands off it.
Your ancestors had no problems with theirs.
Any mother wanting to circumcise their son should leap up on the operating table and undergo a circumcision to first show that there is nothing wrong with the proceedure, and any father wanting to do the same thing should undergo psychiatric councelling.
Now it is unfortunate that there are many (especially in the US) that don't believe that boys deserve the same protection and respect for their bodies as girls. Mercifully, that is slowly changing in part because better information is getting out to parents. Some countries (such as Denmark and Australia) are actively seeking to ban the procedure, though I fully expect their efforts to be interfered be religious groups.
Van Lewis seems to care more for children's rights than most people. He (and others) are standing against for something that is wrong in the face of large numbers of detractors such as yourself. He is giving a voice to those who don't have one, he is fighting a social problem that most people are too blind to see, and their is nothing more manly than that.
I had no choice in the matter - think I was about 4 years old. the operation was sold to me by my dad based largely on hygiene reasons.
I dont hate my dad for it, and I will seriously discuss the situation when my wife falls pregnant
This begs a couple of questions;
WHY SHOULD parents have this right?-- they don't have this right when it comes to their daughters. If they FEEL that removing other body parts is best, should this be allowed?
Shouldn't the parents be required to have something more substantial then "feelings" before making a decision to cause unnecessary pain and harm to their children? Shouldn't here be a requirement to actually PROVE that it is "best" fot the child?
HOW is it best? Then do you have proof that it is?
The USA is a great country, and we will get past this terrible phase of baby mutilation. History will not treat the circumcisers kindly.
>> I take the same stance that the American Academy of Pediatricians does <> babies today are also routinely anesthetized before the procedure <> there’s no evidence to show that it permanently damages kids’ psyches <> either way they don’t remember it. <> Parents make hundreds of choices for their children, many of which will have far greater effects on their life than circumcision will <> men can choose to be circumcised later in life, but it would be more traumatic <> no study has conclusively proven {loss of sensation} <> The {adult} circumcised group’s rate of sexual satisfaction remained constant, with 98.5% reporting sexual satisfaction before circumcision, and 98.4% reporting so two years after the procedure. <> I doubt a lot of women are wishing their men were more sensitive than they already are. <> My son should look like me in that way <> The inner layer of the foreskin has glands that create a substance called smegma <> Uncircumcised men must regularly lift and cleanse under their foreskin <> for little boys and old men who don’t realize the importance of hygiene or can no longer clean themselves respectively, the foreskin can be problematic. <> the reason that circumcision became the norm in this country can be traced to the experiences of our GI’s during World War II. <> The Ladies Love It {cut} <> circumcision can prevent a man’s acquiring of HIV by up to 64%. <> Uncircumcised male infants have as much as a 10 times greater risk of getting a urinary tract infection <> risk of developing penile cancer <> reduce the rate of cervical cancer in women. <> circumcision is a perfectly legitimate choice <<
Perhpas for an adult to make, about his own body.
The foreskin has more sexual nerve endings than the clitoris. Every child has a basic human right to keep all his/her healthy normal body parts.
Foreskin feels REALLY good. HIS body HIS decision.
are you kidding me? seriously? you create a child, you raise a child, you PAY for that child, and NO ONE has more caring and emotion for that child than a parent. how DARE you assume that you know whats best for somone else's child.
that is the height of anglo-egocentric meddling.
whatever a particular society has as a norm is up to that society to deem acceptable and un acceptable. westerners meddling in the customs and traditions of a foriegn culture is intolerable and ridiculous. as far as the american tradition of male circumcision, it is accepted in our society that it is a parents decision.
END OF STORY. if you dont like it, dont get your kids circumcised and shut up! you are NOT convincing anyone.
make a difference in you immediate community that does not involve taking away someone else's rights.
jesus! i am trying to be nice here, but you pc whiners sound like a womens sewing circle. get some balls and quit trying to tell others what is right and wrong.
sir, this site is going to the dogs. i know you feel its a responsibility to discuss these "relevent topics" but they bring out all the soapbox preachers and solve absolutely nothing!
i agree with the fella before, topics like this, and is manliness obsolete, don't do any good! they are just topics that angry up the blood and create pointless argument. no one changes their mind, and it almost seems like pandering. are you just trying to boost readership? subjects that people take personal are not particularly good for a bbs, for a barroom discussion perhaps, but not for a blog.
just my opinion, but this site is becoming less of a pleasure to read.
i have always felt i was liberal, but with a strict sense of practicality and a fervor for personal liberty, but some of you whiners make me feel like rush limbaugh!
do you really care about the rights of children? be a man, and do something about it. join big brothers, become a child advocate for those poor children who are genuinely abused, and give back to your community. its more productive than spouting off on a bbs trying to convince the world than you DON’T feel ashamed of your peepee.
What could be less manly than cutting off the most sensitive* part of his sex organ?
Perhaps the very least manly excuse for it I've ever heard is "to look like me." That's code for "I can't admit my circumcision harmed me. To prove I'm okay, I'll do it to my child."
* http://www.nocirc.org/touch-test/touchtest.php
I understand your concern. My suggestion is to just stop reading the comments on a post if they're making you angry.
Circumcision is a permanent change - It will change your son forever, and thus I think it is the right of the individual rather than the parent to decide; after all, it is his own body. I also believe that since girls are not circumcised, neither should boys be. If you're so willing to circumcise your newborn sons, would you have it done to your daughters? And how would you feel if it was done to you?
Not every male likes or agrees with having been circumcised against their will. I've heard of cases where men have been angry about it and have tried to sue the doctor who did it.
People say that children don't get to choose their parents, religion, etc.. People can later choose whether or not they want to stay with their religion, but a circumcised penis cannot be restored back to its natural state. So, due to the nature of circumcision, everyone needs to be able to make the choice for themselves.
If it's acceptable to remove someone's foreskin at birth, then what else could be deemed acceptable to remove against one's will? Eyelids? Fingernails?
One interesting note that speaks to the pervasiveness of the practice in the United States. Our insurance charged us for a circumcision that didn't happen. I called and told the agent I had proof that the procedure hadn't happen. She didn't think that was funny.
Also, being a parent doesn't give you the authority to trump your sons human rights. It doesn't matter if he won't remember. Human rights come into effect the moment you're born, not the moment you begin forming memories.
"I’m a 30 year old circumsised male and I have no problem with sensitivity. In fact I have the complete opposite - it takes all my willpower not to become too aroused!"
That IS a problem of sensitivity. Not too much, but not enough control. Your foreskin had 20,000 nerves that would have told your brain better what was going on, so that you could ease back before you became "too aroused". Now it's as if they cut off your accelerator pedal and left only an on-off switch.
(edited:)
“And the arguments being made against this citing that it is no different than chopping off a toe ... or an earlobe are patently ridiculous.”
Why? I chose parts of the body that are of comparable size and have no obvious function. It would be ridiculous to cut them off - that’s my whole point.
To the people who say “get a life” and “there are more important things”. Sure there are, but not everybody has to save the universe. Some of us are content to save little parts of it Babies can die of circumcision, and lose their penises, and suffer severely reduced sex lives when they grow up, and have results that just look bad. That’s reason enough to for it to be of more than negligible concern. It seems that circumcision is 'an important decision parents must make “for” their children' but when anyone says it shouldn't be done, it’s suddenly too trivial to think about.
And yes, this is all about being a real man. Being manly enough to admit that one has less penis than one might have had, and manly enough to grant one's sons something one was denied.
Fred Smilek is the acting president of the Society to Save Endangered Species. It was founded two years ago by Fred Smilek along with his two best friends Charles and Jonathan. http://www.fredjsmilek.com
As far as our efforts, we are being advocates for children. This isn't about taking away anyones rights so much as it is about ensuring that those rights are given to the one to whom the rightfully belong, the boy.
@Fred Smilek -- Why?
How dare any parent let a doctor mutilate their children. If someone wants a circumcision, let them have it done of their own consent when they are old enough to make that decision. Anything else is madness, plain and simple.
The fact that some religions support it does not give it credit. Though it does speak volumes of those religions.
(Also, for the page clicks; google $$$ FTW!)
No doubt you have many regular readers weighing in here in the comments, but with such a topic (that is to say, a topic that is so obviously and willfully different than your previous topics (e.g., manly shaving or some such thing....) that it stands not only in stark contrast to the site itself, but also in any web search for all the joe/kate/adam/whoevers who make it their sad existence to desperately comb the internets for their causes gauche) you therefore have many outside your...errr.. target demographic (whether you'll admit to wanting one or not).
The real problem, of course, is that, in the past, you've made unquestioned(though well intentioned) appeals to "traditional" (read conservative: "honour", "manliness", "man toolbox"?) vorstellung that might be proven universal ( I like this, BTW) and for all.
"Safari Stories", for instance, would not bode well for those who call for unqualified rights of all organic life forms, etc., as many of the commenters above might. Don't try to play too much of the field.
I see a couple of people complaining about how this site used to adhere to one leaning of thought or another; traditional manliness, etc. The header of the site reads "Art of Manliness", not "Art of Conservative/Liberal/Traditional/Neo/Right/Left Manliness. I would imagine that as the site grows and more writers are brought on board, I might disagree with something that is written. In that case, if it is worth my time, I might voice an opposing opinion. In the future I may see a headline on this site that does not appeal to me. I'll skip it and read something else. No big deal.
That is a false statement. Ramirez is wrong. I'll give an example. Many Muslim parents feel that it is best for their daughter to circumcise her, but they have no right in the USA and many other countries to do so, despite what they feel. In fact, it is a federal felony to circumcise a girl, no matter WHAT the parents feel, think, no matter what their religion says about it or doesn't. Parents can NOT do just anything they want to to their children just because they happen to "feel" it is best to do so.
R: "are you kidding me?"
No.
R: "seriously?"
Yes.
R: "you create a child,"
No. My wife and I have two children but we didn't create them. God/MotherNature/Evolution did. Sex did.
R: "you raise a child, you PAY for that child,"
You better!
R: "and NO ONE has more caring and emotion for that child than a parent."
Some parents couldn't care less. Some parents KILL their children. That's their "RIGHT"? If they "feel" it's best for their child?
R: "how DARE you assume that you know whats best for somone else’s child."
The child is not the parents' personal property. The child is his or her OWN personal property, every last cell in that child belongs to that child and to no one else in the world. Circumcising is theft, plain and simple. It is evil. I know it. Many people know it. One day you will, too.
R: "whatever a particular society has as a norm is up to that society to deem acceptable and un acceptable"
Yes, and this society is in the process of deciding that it is unacceptable to injure, traumatize, and recklessly endanger the life of any child by chopping off normal, healthy, living, nonrenewable body parts. Seriously. Get used to it.
R: "as far as the american tradition of male circumcision, it is accepted in our society that it is a parents decision"
I don't accept it. More and more people all the time don't accept it. We're changing it. Soon you will be in the minority.
R: "END OF STORY."
Wrong again.
R: "shut up"
No.
R: "make a difference in you immediate community that does not involve taking away someone else’s rights."
We are not advocating taking away anyone's rights. Adults have no right to injure, traumatize and mutilate children. Period. End of story. The rights that are being taken away are the rights of the children. That is what we are stopping.
R: "quit trying to tell others what is right and wrong."
You are trying to tell us that we are wrong, why can't we tell you that you are wrong? One day you will know it. You may be the last person on earth to realize it, but I am confident that you will some day.
R: "no one changes their mind"
On the contrary, many people change their minds about genital mutilation every day.
R: "i have always felt i was liberal, but with a strict sense of practicality and a fervor for personal liberty, ..."
I, too, have a fervor for personal liberty. That's precisely why I oppose those who take away, forever, a person's personal right to freely make up their OWN mind about their OWN body when they are old enough to know the score. What sex the child happens to have been born is 100% irrelevant.
R: "become a child advocate for those poor children who are genuinely abused"
I have.
Humans have been raping and murdering each other for a lot longer that we have been mutilating our children's sex organs. The antiquity of a practice tells us nothing about its legitimacy.
P M Fleiss, MD; F M Hodges, PhD; R S Van Howe, MD, in
Immunological functions of the human prepuce
SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED INFECTIONS (London),
Volume 74, Number 5, Pages 364-367,
First of all, I thank you Brett for having the audacity to even post an article as controversial as this (abortion may be a bit TOO touchy for people around here though).
Second, there's mention, in the comments, that the first article is too emotional. . . well, the second article is too anecdotal. But really, that is the key here. While I'd like to be neutral, I'm going to have to pull for anti-infantile-circumcision, simply because the choice will still be there in the future.
I'm fairly convinced that sexual pleasure is primarily attributed to the 'skill' of the individuals, rather than the penis being circumcised or not. I do think that technique and skill can be modified (for better or worse) from circumcision though, but that's the individual's decision and / or burden.
I'm also pretty sure that every man smells differently, regardless of circumcision (although it CAN be a factor). What we eat, what we do, where we live, a lot of things can factor into how we smell. If you smell cheesy, stop eating cheese.
I'm uncircumcised, and I've considered undergoing circumcision (still am, actually), but the point is that I can still make that choice. If you're really a man, you won't have to complain about the pain, right? I plan on not circumcising my son to let him choose (since, like a few have already said, there really isn't a convincing argument to go either way), and I'll have faith that he's 'man' enough to take the pain if he does decide to be circumcised in the future.
For the most part, I don't see why it's such an issue. There's nothing defective about the human body.
It's, quite frankly, BS that people still debate male circumcision like it's no big thing, while female circumcision is something that should be so obviously opposed.
Typical female circumcision involves removing part of the prepuce - which is the same material that would become the foreskin if the child had been born a male.
It covers the clitoris and is the "clitoral hood".
Also, the first article didn't mention that one of the reasons circumcision became very very popular is that it makes masturbation more difficult. Masturbation was long believed to cause retardation and a multitude of diseases.
Parents should have no right to alter a healthy child's body like this. Ever.
For the record, i'm circumcised, so are my sons, and i'm glad for it - the penile cancer figures alone should make it a no-brainer on the pro-circumcision side.
In any case, penile cancer really has nothing to do with circumcision, at least that is the position of the American Cancer Society (and has been for more than 10 years) http://tinyurl.com/ddzuk
" In the past, circumcision has been suggested as a way to prevent penile cancer. This suggestion was based on studies that reported much lower penile cancer rates among circumcised men than among uncircumcised men. However, most researchers now believe those studies were flawed because they failed to consider other risk factors, such as smoking, personal hygiene, and the number of sexual partners.
Most public health researchers believe that the risk of penile cancer is low among uncircumcised men without known risk factors living in the United States. Most experts agree that circumcision should not be recommended as a way to prevent penile cancer."
May I say something here to this outlandish statement......(from the Australian viewpoint)
Although a number of Australian jurisdictions have acted to outlaw femal genital cutting, equal protection under law has not been afforded to unconsenting minors who happen to boys. (However There is action being undertaken to bring this disparity to light through the discrimination legislation) In the light of Marions case(Department of Health and Community Services V JWB and SMB (1992) 175 CLR 218), it is now evident that even parents cannot provide legal consent for an irreversable, non therapeutic circumcision, Moreover, there are no medical indications for neonatal circumcision (Australian Association of Paediatric Surgeons, Guidelines for circumcision(1996).
Consequently, enforced or involuntary circumcision must now be considered as an assault causing grevious bodily harm (genital mutilation) Legal action is long overdue in Australia to protect the physical and sexual integrity of minors.
The general rule in English criminal law, and reflecting in other common law jurisdictions, is that any application of force, no matter how slight, is a prima facie an assault. (Consent serves as a defence to assault that do not inflict actual bodily harm.
Even in the absence of legislation specifically banning circumcision, those who assist in circumcision of a child without the patient's own fully informed consent are liable to prosecution. Accordingly to Price.
"Lawyers in common law Jurisdictions (England, The United States, Canada and Australia) have expressed the view that....non-therapeutic circumcision is, or at the very least is prima facie, a criminal assault...there has been no rebbuttal of that view.
In Queensland, the Queensland law reform Commission concluded that on a strict interpretation of the assault provisions of the Queensland criminal code, routine circumcision could be regarded as a criminal act. I believe that in other States this would be the same.
The Nuffield Committee stated:
Gratuitous injury, that is injury that is not undertaken in order to avoid destruction, damage or degradation, remains unaceptable. This point is sometimes blurred by an assumption that it is the therapeutic context which licences what would otherwise be injury. In fact it is more precisely the therapeutic intent rather than the therapeutic context that justifies the action that otherwise would be seen as injury...Gratuitous and in particular malicious injury of human beings, and specifically human tissue, will always be unnaceptable, especially when inflicted in a therapeutic context...Treatment given by those who are medical practicioners will be acceptable only if guided by a therapeutic intention..
Not withstanding this, some Australian medical doctors continue to benefit financially from Medicare's continued reimbursement of non-therapeutic genuital cutting. Some are demonstrably vehement about continuing mutilation, raising the questions as to their psychological motives.
The practice of male circumcision creates two kinds of men, those who enjoy genital integrity and those who do not. Some of those men who do not enjoy genital integrity have various emotional issues relating to their deprivation of a whole penis by traumatic operation.
Many circumcised doctors have an emotional need to defend their culture of origin and to rationalise their personal deprivation by the creation of medical literature asserting prophylactic benefits of circumcision. On the other hand , In my view their behaviour is rather suspiciously deviant.
For all you people who circumcised their sons against the advice of every medical organisation in the world, but quite happy to run on the lies of circumcisers, I only hope your sons think so endearing of you when they are old enough to articulate it.
email 1..
as some of you may know, today is my 18th birthday. so a couple of
minutes ago i was unwrapping some presents. the first one was "i am
america and so can you" which i've been wanting to get. so i reached
for the second one and when i opened it i got the crap scared out of
me. out of some extremely weird coincidence they got me a book
entitled "foreskin's lament"... they have no idea about what i'm doing
or how much i resent them for doing what they did, so when i opened it
i started sweating and shaking like crazy. so i was wondering "have
they found out?" but no, they explained to me that it's a funny book
that they think i would like. i couldn't believe it but there it was.
i wanted to jump up and scream at them for even mentioning the word,
but instead i just came up to my room, and now here i am, in my room.
i just couldn't believe it.
i just sent my dad an email, he'll probably get it tomorrow at work.
here is what i said....................................
you and mom just went up the hill on a dogwalk, and i'm sitting here
and i decided to write this message. i'm tired of keeping this secret
from you and right now i don't know weather or not it's still a
secret. that book that you got me could have been a coincidence or it
could be you trying to tell me that you know what's wrong with me,
honestly i have no idea what it is. i've been trying to tell you since
i found out back in February but i've found myself completely unable
to do it. i found that it's easier to say it through an email and not
strait to your faces. so what is it that i'm talking about? well i'm
sure that you have figured it out already but i'll go ahead and say it
anyways. i found out that i was circumcised last February and i've
resented the two of you a little more every single day.
it completely destroyed me when i found out because i feel as if you
don't think of me as a person, instead i think you see me (or saw me)
as a pet that doesn't have any thoughts ideas or opinions of its own.
and that's why you said "yes" to that doctor 18 years ago, because you
thought that i wouldn't be able to make the decision myself. it's as
if you believed that my body belongs to you, and not me. as if you
thought that i don't have the right to make this life changing
decision myself because i am your property.
that's why i've been treating you the way i have for almost a year.
i'm sure you've noticed that i go out of my way to not be in the same
room as either of you, and how i treat you with as much disrespect as
i dare. i feel as if i can't trust anyone any more because the two
people that i trusted most in life turned out to be the ones that have
hurt me the most. i'm sure you've also noticed that i've been playing
video games a lot more than i used to, i find that it's the only way
for me to be able to release my anger and resentment for you. that's
right, this is the reason why i've been playing video games so much
and i think that without them i probably would have turned to drugs to
try to get rid of my problems. i'm not trying to make you feel bad or
anything, it's just the truth. this is how i've felt every day since i
found out. i can't get it out of my head, i'm thinking about it all
the time and it's driving me crazy. nobody (especially my age) should
ever have to go through what i'm going through. and i shouldn't have
to, i shouldn't be having this problem, i shouldn't have been
circumcised.
you spent about 2 to 300 dollars to have me circumcised, but i would
give anything to have it undone, anything. but i can't, it's a
permanent change that i got no say in even though my body should
belong to me and me alone, and i can't believe that out of all the
people in the world who had done it, it was the two of you. i
understand that you didn't think that i would intemperate it this way.
you were probably thinking that i should "look like dad" or something
like that, but i still resent you for it and i don't think i'll ever
be able to forgive you.
thank you for giving me that book, if you hadn't i probably would have
kept this to myself a lot longer and i probably would end up in an
even worse condition than i am in now. i still haven't told anyone >
i have some websites that i would like you to see. unfortunately gmail
isn't giving me the option to make links at the moment so you will
have to type them into the URL thing yourself (or copy and paste)
norm.org
http://www.notjustskin.org/en/index.html
http://www.notjustskin.org/en/circumcisionfaq.html
http://www.notjustskin.org/en/Story-Circumcised...
"Wonderbar!"
Being circumcised "makes me very happy" :)
i wish i didn't though. i feel a big part of me is missing. and it's so true about the sensitivity. and the more i think about why i did the process was all really pointless.
when i have sons i'm opting to not have them go through it.
I've been with both circumcised and uncircumcised men, and cosmetically neither is more appealing than the other so long as it's clean. Performance is far more important than whether or not the foreskin is intact.
You do know that these studies claiming this were seriously flawed, and that this reduction is not seen in the real world--in fact, the opposite? One needs to critically analyze any claim for a benefit for circumcision. Over the 100+ years of these claims of benefits, and not a single one has stood. This track record speaks volumes.
The tip of my penis does not define me as a man. I can still get hard, I still have immense pleasure and can pleasure my woman. There is not a single part of me that does not work and that I do not enjoy. I am not less of a man and I think nothing less of my father.
Sorry, but if you are one of those that can only define yourself by whether you have some skin over your penis or not, you really aren't much of a man to begin with.
I just can't care about this topic.
Circumcision
What Is Lost?
http://mothersagainstcirc.org/lost.html
"To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants
should be given accurate and unbiased information."
Circumcision Policy Statement
American Academy of Pediatrics
March 1, 1999
When a baby boy's normal intact penis is circumcised, this is what is lost -- forever:
*1. The foreskin, which comprises up to 50% (sometimes more) of the mobile skin system of the penis. If unfolded and spread out flat, the average adult foreskin would measure about 15 square inches (the size of a 3 x 5-inch index card). This highly specialized tissue normally covers the glans and protects it from abrasion, drying, callusing (keratinization), and contaminants of all kinds. The effect of glans keratinization on human sexuality has never been studied.
*2. The frenar band of soft ridges -- the primary erogenous zone of the male body. Loss of this delicate belt of densely innervated, sexually responsive tissue reduces the fullness and intensity of sexual response.
*3. The foreskin's "gliding action"-- the hallmark mechanical feature of the normal, natural, intact penis. This non-abrasive gliding of the penis in and out of itself within the vagina facilitates smooth, comfortable, pleasurable intercourse for both partners. Without this gliding action, the corona of the circumcised penis can function as a one-way valve, scraping vaginal lubricants out into the drying air and making artificial lubricants essential for pleasurable intercourse.
*4. Thousands of coiled fine-touch mechanoreceptors called Meissner's corpuscles, the most important sensory component of the foreskin, encapsulated Vater-Pacinian cells, Merkel's cells, nociceptors, and branches of the dorsal nerve and perineal nerve. Altogether, between 10,000 and 20,000 specialized erotogenic nerve endings of several types, which can feel slight motion and stretch, subtle changes in temperature, and fine gradations in texture are lost.
*5. The frenulum, the highly erogenous V-shaped web-like tethering structure on the underside of the glans; frequently amputated along with the foreskin, or severed, either of which destroys its function and potential for pleasure.
6. Approximately half of the temperature-sensitive smooth muscle sheath called the dartos fascia.
7. The immunological defense system of the soft mucosa. This produces both plasma cells that secrete immunoglobulin antibodies and antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as the pathogen-killing enzyme lysozyme.
8. Lymphatic vessels, the loss of which reduces the lymph flow within that part of the body's immune system.
9. Estrogen receptors - the purpose of which is not yet fully understood and needs further study.
*10. The apocrine glands of the inner foreskin, which produce pheromones - nature's powerful, silent, invisible behavioral signals to potential sexual partners. The effect of their absence on human sexuality has never been studied.
*11. Sebaceous glands, which lubricate and moisturize the foreskin and glans, normally a protected internal organ - like the tongue or vagina.
12. Specialized epithelial Langerhans cells, a first line component of the body's immune system in a whole penis.
13. The pink to red to dark purple natural coloration of the glans. The connective tissue which protectively fuses the foreskin and glans together while the penis develops is ripped apart during circumcision, wounding the glans and the foreskin remnant, leaving them raw and subject to infection, scarring, pitting, shrinkage, and eventual discoloration.
*14. Some of the penis length and penis circumference because its double-layered wrapping of loose and usually overhanging foreskin is now missing, making the circumcised penis truncated and thinner than a full-sized intact penis.
*15. Several feet of blood vessels, including the frenular artery and branches of the dorsal artery. The loss of this rich vascularity interrupts normal blood flow to the shaft and glans of the penis, damaging the natural function of the penis and altering its development.
16. Every year boys lose their entire penises from circumcision accidents and infections. They are then "sexually reassigned" by castration and "transgender surgery," and expected to live their lives as "females."
17. Every year many boys lose their lives from the complications of circumcision, a fact the billion-dollar-a-year circumcision industry in the U.S. obscures and ignores.
18. By encoding violence on the brain the infant's bonding with its mother is disrupted, with indications that the innate sense of trust in intimate physical contact is inhibited or lost, and in its place a sense of betrayal is instilled in the infant.
(*19. Although never studied scientifically, contemporary evidence suggests that a penis without its foreskin lacks the capacity for the subtle neurological "cross-communication" that occurs only during contact between mucous membranes and which contributes to the experience of sexual pleasure. Amputating an infant boy's multi-functional foreskin is a "low-grade neurological castration" [Immerman], which diminishes the intensity of the entire sexual experience for both the circumcised male and his partner.)
*Loss of each of these items reduces sexual pleasure, gratification, and fulfillment.
Immerman, R. S. and Mackey, W.C., "A Proposed Relationship Between Circumcision and Neural Reorganization," J of Genetic Psych, 1998.
Immerman, R. S. and Mackey, W. C., "A biocultural analysis of circumcision," Social Biology 1998;4:265-275
Compiled by Gary L. Harryman glharryman@aol.com
4/6/99 - Last Revision 5/25/99
See Also: Glossary
Return to Mothers Against Circumcision Homepage
Some women may prefer a circumcised penis because it looks cleaner. In my opinion, that's no different from a man saying a vagina is dirty. We need to have a mature attitude about genitalia and realize that what is natural is normal. If nature/God had intended men not to have foreskin, then men wouldn't be born with foreskin.