Let me know what you think of this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54cv1AR6How

Note that at 4:00 they talk about infections.

Watch this next video as well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7onyn-J4hnE

Having said all of that….at the ripe old age of 18 my son has yet to come to me with any complaints about my decision.

Same here, and my son’s 32. I elected to have the circumcision done to both my boys for the same reasons you stated, Stace, and also because I didn’t want him to look different than his Dad and wonder why.
I still think it is up to the parents, and even though it is a painful procedure, when it is done to an infant, there doesn’t seem to be any lasting trauma.

The US Constitution guarantees the “right of the people to be secure in their persons … against unreasonable … seizures” and what seizure can be more unreasonable than that of an intimate, integral, healthy, non-renewable, functional part of one’s own body? It also guarantees the equal protection of the laws, and the penalty you think so outrageous is cut-and-pasted from the existing Federal law protecting girls’ genitals. (The AAP flirted last year with allowing a token ritual nick of girls “much less extensive than male genital cutting”, but had to back down, so great was the outrage.)

Penile cancer is vanishingly rare, so circumcision can make little difference (and probably makes none). Tens, hundreds or sometimes thousands of circumcisions would be wasted to prevent one case of the ailments you mention.

Nobody says circumcised men “loathe sex” – that’s a strawman argument. We say they are deprived of “a symphony of sensation” comparable to colour or 3D in vision or stereo in hearing.

“Who am I to say or impose my values on everyone else? … It’s a personal choice.” Exactly! And who is the person most directly concerned? Let HIM make the choice, when he is old enough. He’ll almost certainly choose to keep it all. For that reason, even if it were true that it is more complicated and painful to an adult (it’s not), the net amount of pain and complication would be much less.

Stacey said: Also….he wanted to know why I was asking all of these questions about his “junk” and Jessica….he’s not real happy with you right now!

Tell him I’m sorry…about his junk.

Stacey S_MOD,

Of course children may disagree with their parents’ decisions for them. But non-therapeutic genital surgery isn’t the same as something like to which school you send your kid. It’s much closer to whether or not you educate your kid. Or maybe, you must educate your sons, but you don’t need to educate your daughters, if you prefer? By law, we don’t allow parents the same “right” to non-therapeutic genital surgery on their daughters.

To be clear, I agree that parents who circumcise their sons do so out of good intention. I have anecdotal evidence of malice-based reasons, but those are so few as to be blips not worth focusing on.

The problem is that good intentions aren’t enough. The act has to be judged on its own. Proxy consent is not a license to do anything parents want, as shown by the existing prohibition on non-therapeutic genital cutting for female minors. That’s why comparisons to other possible interventions that we rightly see as ridiculous are so useful here. It’s absurd to think we should remove the breast tissue of female minors to reduce their risk of breast cancer, for example. It’s only with the genitals of male minors that we throw out logic in favor of fear and cultural submission. It’s odd.

Your son is content with you making his decision for him. That’s his legitimate choice for himself, but it’s luck for you. You couldn’t know what he’d want. In America, it’s predictable luck since circumcision has been the cultural norm, but that norm is not a guarantee of agreement. My parents, on the other side, got a son who resents them for their well-intentioned but objectively wrong decision. That can’t be swept aside just because I’m in the current minority with my opinion.

mully,

1. There is a legitimate question about when personhood begins on the spectrum between conception and birth, thus conferring natural rights. What is not in question is that, once born, the child is human and has basic rights. That’s why, whatever the answer to the question of when life begins, circumcision on a child is objectively wrong because it violates the child’s rights. (i.e. Human rights, not “male rights”.)

2. Personally, I believe life begins at conception. Therefore, abortion is wrong where the child was conceived through voluntary actions. This applies even where conception was not intended, such as when a condom breaks. Actions have consequences. Life is full of risks.

3. Where the conception was not through voluntary actions by the woman, it’s unethical to force her to carry the child. It’s her body.

4. Politically, the issue is more complicated, based on the principle in point #3. Each person owns his or her body. A fetus is dependent on his or her mother’s body for life. Prohibiting what someone can do with or to their own body is wrong. The social expectation could be that women should accept the consequences of their voluntary actions. (Their partners, too.) But enforcing that with a ban on prohibition is complicated, at best. Unfortunately, legal, safe and rare is the best of the bad options we face in our messy world.

5. The comparison of circumcision and abortion is a red herring. An prohibition on non-therapeutic genital cutting for male minors (again, female minors are already protected from this) is valid because each person owns his body. Circumcision in this context is an action imposed by one person on another. There must be limits to when that proxy consent may be exercised. Lack of medical need is a legitimate criterion for restrictions on proxy consent.

Just a thought here – There are many circumcised men who make the decision to have their own sons circumcised. It is not only the mother’s who are making this choice, whether it be right or wrong.
I’m sure there are many circumcised men who are either happy or indifferent with the choice their parent’s made.
I still stand by our decision to circumcise both my boys and I never heard a complaint from either of them. In fact, it’s a non-issue.

To those of you who are strongly against the practice, I’m sorry that your parents didn’t realize how upset you would be as adults.

Val: I am sure, knowing Theo’s penchant for arrogance, that he will jump all over the misspelling of “mutilated”, so I fixed it for you

Thank You Mully – you are indeed a very bright person.

LOL…..Ive definitely been kept awake at night by a penis….

but not because it was mutilated!

(bad mully)

LOL…..Ive definitely been kept awake at night by a penis….

but not because it was mutilated!

I was going to reply to Stacey’s commment along these same lines, but I refrained. Since Mully did it (Bad Mully!) and got away with it, here’s mine:

There are some for which I wouldn’t mind being kept awake all night (one celebrity sports figure comes to mind), and it wouldn’t matter if it was mutilated, intact, wrecked, or surgically enhanced. Bring it on!

Mully, You are too much – bad, bad girl. Your statement probably applies to almost every woman on earth.

My husband has never, ever displayed any fear of his mutilated penis. In fact, he is quite proud of it.

My husband has never, ever displayed any fear of his mutilated penis. In fact, he is quite proud of it.

Theyre ALL proud of it!

I just KNOW that while standing at the urinals, they sneak a quick peek at their neighbor’s “junk” just to see who measures up and who

O
M
G
!
!
!

doesnt!

So Ive always been fascinated with the need to show it off. Once youve seen one, youve seen them all. Right?

I don’t often disagree with you, but…);-)

I’m trying to figure out how to say this delicately. Heck, there is no way to say it delicately. There was one that stood out as not being the same as others. REALLY stood out! REALLY, REALLY stood out!

I’m being good tonight, and I haven’t had any Bloody Marys yet!

Did the guys disappear?

See what you think of this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54cv1AR6How

At around 4:00 they talk about infections.

Take a look at this next video as well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7onyn-J4hnE

Would you be happy if that happened to you? Since the answer is certainly “no”, as it should be, why do you think it’s reasonable to demand that my answer be “yes” to the same intervention forced on me?

Tony: I will address the above blockquote in a moment, but for now, I just want to say that you are a very good sport and I am sure all the girls on this blog appreciate that. No harm WAS intended in the joking we have done and in fact, I think it was meant more as a tone lightener than anything else. You should also know, if you do not already, that most of us (here on Imperfect Parent) “know” each other fairly well from having been regular commenters for the past few years. That lends a camaraderie which makes the “jokes” a bit more understandable (I hope).

I do not discount the fact that your viewpoint is a serious one. I also do not consider that my viewpoint is somehow better than yours, more right than yours or that my viewpoint makes yours ineligible as serious and thoughtful.

I, for one, do not think that you are defective because of your attitude about losing your foreskin, but I do think that, as women, we look at this in somewhat a surprised fashion and I will tell you why.

Women are used to every possible form of intrusion, intervention, and downright invasions of our female space, for lack of a better term.

From our late teens, early twenties and well into our 80s (not there yet!) we are poked, prodded, peered into, embarrassed, opened-wide, cut on, etc. to the point where we learn to suffer thru it all, either silently or later kicking the cat in rage that there cannot be less invasive ways to “care about our own bodies and rights” and we also learn to just suck it up, for what’s the alternative?

No man, and pardon me if this offends you but there is no intention to do that, could possibly understand what it feels like to have to endure the very gynecological procedures and examinations that we must endure just to maintain and protect our health and therefore our very bodies. One hasnt lived until theyve had a mammogram and despite the fact that it literally might save having to have a breast cut off, I cannot think of ANYTHING more demoralizing (especially if you have two ton tilly tits)

I wont go into all of the horrors which many of us, as women, have had to face. I am sure most of the women reading this already know them well and you, as a married man, probably do as well.

My point is this and it also brings me to the above blockqoute:
We ALL have crosses to bear in life.

No, I probably wouldnt be “happy” with the forced removal of a part of my body I had no say so in. But I think I would consider that, as an infant, my parents,(perhaps in ignorance) thought they were doing the right thing and as my advocates I honestly cannot say I would blame them.

I guess, for me, its all about acceptance. I accept that, as a woman, I have few choices when it comes to protecting my female health. My choices are pretty much based on the doctor I choose, perhaps on the form of treatment I might choose should I need treatment, but at the end of the day, I have accepted, unwillingly at times, that being a woman means I will have to endure some embarrassement, some discomfort, and some out-and-out pain in order to maintain good health.

Tony: No one is demanding that you change your level of happiness because you were circumsised. All that I am trying to point out is what you have already pointed out…..we all have to endure things that we sometimes have little choice in, but we just DO.

Mully and I must have been posting at the same time. I just read her comments and I agree with her 100%.

Mully:

I didn’t take offense, per se. Casual chattering goes where it goes, male or female. And it’s clear that most of you have a pre-existing relationship here. Those two reasons are why I didn’t jump in to “correct” any of the talk. I mean, guys do not compare genitals or look at urinals because the first thing that would happen is the one looking would get beat up. But guys would be no different with talk among guys. I knew those comments weren’t aimed at anyone or intended as gospel or with malice.

I agree that women experience far worse than men out of medical necessity, although men who’ve undergone a prostate check might disagree. (There’s truth in all jokes, but that is a joke.) That matters in its own way. But that distinction is medical necessity versus lack of medical necessity. Circumcision isn’t a medical necessity in any context discussed here.

My disagreement is with this:

No, I probably wouldnt be “happy” with the forced removal of a part of my body I had no say so in. But I think I would consider that, as an infant, my parents,(perhaps in ignorance) thought they were doing the right thing and as my advocates I honestly cannot say I would blame them.

That’s what I tried to clarify earlier. Parents who circumcise are doing what they believe is the right thing. (The odious “best interest of the family” reason.) But actions can’t be judged by intent alone. It’s not unreasonable to hold parents to a standard that cutting off healthy parts of their child’s body is wrong and shouldn’t be done.

I’m fine with everything else my parents did, good and bad, because it’s all subjective. I’m not willing to give my parents a free pass on this decision based on their combination of good intentions and ignorance. Circumcision was an objective wrong. They should’ve known. There is real loss that would’ve been unthinkable for them to impose on me if I’d been born a girl.

That is my cross to bear, although it isn’t an excuse to avoid living my life with what I have. It’s why I hope everyone recognizes that, while I’m angry, I try not to direct it at anyone here. But I could be anyone’s son. No parent can know which their son will prefer. That’s why I care about it on a societal level.

If nothing else, it’s about options. My intact friends (male and female) can choose genital cutting, although not one has chosen it out of need or preference. It’s a small bit of semantics, but it’s as though my parents are still deciding this for me in my late thirties. I pursued the education, jobs, and wife I wanted when I was old enough to make my decisions and have adjusted throughout adulthood on the first two. But I’m stuck with my lesser, scarred body because they didn’t consider that one day I’d grow up to be an independent individual with my own preferences. Their opinion physically overrules mine every day I wake up.

Tony: Having read all of, and including the most recent, comments you have made on this subject….I am left with one, very curious question.

It is a question I hope you can answer because try as I might, I simply cannot identify with your issue.

Yes, of course, because A. I am a female and B. by nature of that fact, I was not subjected to circumcision. But more than that, I am trying to actually understand why this has impacted your life to the point of anger AND more importantly, I would think, to the point where you are uanble to “give your parents” a free pass i.e. forgive them for choosing what, I think, was almost a non-choice considering the overall acceptance of the procedure in our society.

There is real loss that would’ve been unthinkable for them to impose on me if I’d been born a girl.

But dont you see? In making the above statement, you almost prove my point. Obviously, your parents would not have done it to a girl i.e. girls dont have penises, but had there been a procedure, done for centuries, that, lets say, removed part of the labia for sanitary, health etc. reasons, in all likelihood they would have and that is mostly because it was accepted practice.

As the mother of two grown sons, one born in 1975, the other born in 1980, I guess I am guilty as charged. Guilty of simply accepting the status quo, the accepted advice from my doctor and the medical community at large and also guilty, I guess, of it not even entering my mind that circumcision might be considered a horrible thing.

My question is this:

How has having your foreskin removed altered your life? I am not being sarcastic or trying to incite. I am truly curious. Your writings, especially the last paragraph of your most recent post, seem to suggest anger and even more than that, and an inability to accept your body as it is.

Scarred though it might be, Tony, your penis is not your heart, nor your mind nor your soul and THOSE are the things which makeup the people we are and despite the fact that your parents, in your mind, chose wrong, judging just from your writings…it would seem they did a very good job with their son.

Whose stood out, Summer and why?

Nope, Mully, my lips are sealed on that one!

I asked the following question awhile back, and don’t recall getting an answer. This is for Tony, and the reason I am asking it is because I’m curious if you would hold your parents responsible if they didn’t consent to having their son circumcised:

Would an adult male, who was uncircumcised and developed prostate cancer (uncircumcised men have a 1.6 to 2.0 fold higher incidence of prostate cancer compared with circumcised men), blame his parents because it was his parents’ duty to take the physician’s advice when he told them that there are medical benefits to circumcism? Would he feel resentment toward them because they should have heeded the doctor’s advice?

Would the female partner of an uncircumcised male blame him because she developed cervical cancer? New studies have reported a definite link. If you were uncircumcised, and a definite link could be shown toward her cervical cancer and the fact that you were uncircumcised, what would your feelings be toward your parents because they opted not to circumcise you, only to find out years later that your female partner’s cancer could have been prevented?

Tony, I’m also very curious as to when you started resenting the fact that you were circumcised and why.

For those of you who watch the above video, posted by SmarterThanJessicaCarlson (Id still like to know the meaning of her choice of screen name)…the Brit term “fanny” refers to the vagina.

Its a commonly used term over there and the first time I heard it, I was completely confused, as most Americans would be since we call our butts, bums, asses etc. a “fanny”.

Also, they love to refer to anything in the “down there” region (both male and female as their “bits”).

I understand the idea behind this video is to encourage females especially young women to accept their bodies as they are and to learn to love them.

Which is somewhat my whole point I tried to make to Tony earlier.

BTW..the Brits really have horrible teeth!

Mully,

I get that cultural acceptance played a large part in the decision. It’s the reason a number of the most hardcore child circumcision advocates use “patriotism” as a reason for circumcising. But I think more to the cliche parents tell kids, “if all your friends jumped off a bridge…”. That everyone was doing it doesn’t make it any more reasonable. I understand why. That’s not enough.

To your question, I have two answers. Physically, it’s the obvious fact that my foreskin is gone. The nerve endings are gone. The protective function it provides to the inner foreskin and glans is gone. (e.g. Against chafing, because like female genitals, the penis is moist mucous membrane meant to be “internal”.) There is the scar, which I find aesthetically appalling. The doctor who circumcised me was a hack; what remains of my foreskin is asymmetrical along the scar. Sometimes, I have painful erections because too much skin was removed. The doctor also removed my frenulum. The little bit of it that’s left is the most sensitive part of my penis, and the only part with any fine touch receptors that I can feel.

This is somewhat conceptual, but it derives from that physical point. Removing my foreskin denies me the normal human male experience. My body is different. Sex is different. I don’t mean different as a synonym for worse. I can guess based on statistics and discussions I’ve had with intact men, but I don’t presume for my purpose here. It’s not “mutilated, wrecked circumcised penises can’t impregnate women”, but rather, the gliding motion of the foreskin is gone, for example. Sex is now about friction rather than pressure. I don’t have the choice to decide if I want this bodily modification to experience my life the way I want.

My second answer is that circumcision violated my human rights and individual liberty. That’s what I mean when I put emphasis on my in “my foreskin”. I own my body from birth, not my parents forever, if they choose. Just as every woman here owns her body in this regard. It’s the vital difference between consent and proxy consent. In the American context, we think of child circumcision in terms of consent. As long as someone provides “informed” consent, then that supposedly satisfies all ethical concerns. What’s the ethical difference between cutting off part of my healthy penis or cutting off part of my healthy pinky? Neither surgery is medically necessary and neither normal part is statistically likely to give me any problem in my lifetime serious enough to justify its removal.

I recognize that my penis doesn’t define me. I’m comfortable with who I am. This example may seem off, but I think it helps explain my perspective. I have red hair. Growing up, I was teased consistently because I was different. Even now, as I approach 40, I hear the random “carrot top”, or some other such silliness. That teasing made me stronger. It made me realize that who I am is okay. But applying the logic our culture uses for the normal foreskin, my parents would’ve been reasonable if they’d dyed my hair an “acceptable” color throughout my childhood (and if they showed up at my house regularly now to confirm that my hair is still dyed that acceptable color).

So, it’s not that I’m not content with who I am. I am, generally. And I’m realistic in knowing that my penis is what I have, whatever I’d prefer. But accepting my circumcised penis isn’t the same as females accepting their “too long” labia, for example. My “imperfection” resulted from my parents not accepting my normal body and allowing the force necessary to correct me. The issue is why they weren’t content with who I was/am, even if doing so meant bucking the trend at the time.

Jessica,

… There are starving children out there who would love to trade places with your victimization. … I’m sorry you have a hard time dealing with this issue, but I don’t consider you a victim at all. I think that’s an insult to real victims, like children who have been really been brutally abused, both physically and sexually.

What level of unnecessary, unwanted surgery (i.e. physical harm) do I need to have forced on me before I reach satisfactory victim status for you? I haven’t compared myself to other victims for you to draw your conclusion here.

This is why I wrote “in this singular respect”. I am a victim of unnecessary circumcision. This fact doesn’t entitle me to believe about myself what I think is your inference here. I’m advocating for what I know to be true so that it doesn’t happen to anyone else who doesn’t need or want it. I know intact men who advocate for the same thing, and they’re as capable of grasping the issues as I am. Being a victim doesn’t make me special on this topic.

Nor am I interested in a game of “my cause can beat up your cause.” Murder is worse than assault. Should we stop trying to end assault until we’ve figured out a way to prevent murder? If you care more about starving children, focus on that. I care about this. That doesn’t mean I enjoy seeing children starve. This topic is where I am personally invested, knowledgeable and most effective at improving the world. The allegedly greater righteousness of another cause doesn’t change whether this is worth effort.

Circumcision as practiced violates a core principle: non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual is wrong. Change either factor and there’s a debate to be had. But it is wrong in this form for everyone. The decision involves proxy consent rather than consent. That requires a stricter standard. Objective facts about the child are more important than subjective preferences from his parents. Circumcision is surgery. The standard for surgery via an individual’s consent is preference based on need or desire. The appropriate standard for proxy consent is medical need. Where need for intervention exists, proxy consent for surgery will preferably occur only after all less invasive methods have been tried or deemed unlikely to work. Where the child is healthy, so no medical need exists, there is no decision to be made.

You’re trying to make your internal and psychological issues with this — everybody’s problem, and it’s not. It’s not all about you or the small minority of men who make this part of their identity and cause.

I haven’t said anything to suggest that my anger over my circumcision is my required default opinion for every circumcised man about his circumcision. I’m saying that any individual male could think like me. Many do. Each person’s personal preference for himself is the only opinion that’s valid in this context. His parents do not have a special exemption here. Your husband is fine with circumcision? Great, good for him. But neither of you knows whether or not he’d feel the same way if he’d been left intact. There is an opportunity cost involved in circumcision.

There are some REAL health benefits to circumcision …

The logical next step is to start investigating other interventions for possible benefits. Anything can stop being ridiculous if it reduces some risk?

There are potential health benefits to circumcision, ones I concede even where logic suggests a challenge is worthwhile. I don’t need them to be false to continue being right. Non-therapeutic circumcision doesn’t resolve any medical issues. It’s a pursuit, not a response. Most, if not all, potential benefits can be achieved or resolved with less invasive interventions. The United States has equivalent or worse incidences for these diseases when compared to non-circumcising countries.

Potential benefits are sold on relative risk rather than absolute risk. Circumcision reduces UTI by 10X!!!!!! Except, it’s only in the first year of life and it reduces the absolute risk from 1.0% to 0.1%. Most UTIs are treated with antibiotics. Circumcision reduces the risk of HIV by 60%!!!!!! Except, it only reduces risk for female-to-male transmission in high-risk populations. Neither describes the epidemic in the United States. The absolute risk in the United States is already well under 1% for that scenario. Circumcision reduces the risk of penile cancer!!!!! Except, it’s exceedingly rare and the risk factors have far more to do with promiscuity, smoking, and a general lack of hygiene. And so on. We see these benefits as relevant because we want to justify what we already want/intend to do. Circumcising a healthy boy for “medical” reasons is cultural circumcision.

As I stated in my first comment, I don’t want any of these potential benefits from circumcision. Sure it would be nice to get any risk reduction free of charge, but it’s not free. There are trade-offs. I got those potential benefits (that I probably wouldn’t need), but I gave up my foreskin and everything that I’ve mentioned that goes along with that. My valuation of the net is not what you’ve encountered, but it’s my valuation for me.

The role of parents you’re suggesting here is to protect their child’s health as much as possible. I agree, but it needs to be done ethically, and with the intent that children will one day be independent individuals. I’m capable of taking care of my own health now, even where there would’ve been more risk from my normal foreskin. Or should my mother still regularly call my doctor to schedule appointments and pick me up and take me there, just in case I wouldn’t? Or regularly send condoms to me in case I was too stupid to buy them when I might need them? Or bathe me still because I might not yet know how to properly wash myself? I don’t think you believe any of those, because they’re straw men, to some extent. But the same logic is inherent in circumcising children for these potential health benefits. If a mentally-competent child needs those protections as an adult, if he needs his parents to parent him in this way his entire life for these risks, his parents have failed.

… and it is a safe procedure. It’s safer than child birth. So, it’s not inherently “wrong”, just as infant immunizations are inherently wrong while many people think it is.

It’s a relatively safe procedure with real negatives (i.e. scarring, lost foreskin — opportunity costs) and potential complications, as well. These complications can be as mild as “excessive” bleeding and infection, or progress further along with re-adhesions and skin bridges, or be the worst possible scenarios with partial/complete penile amputation or death. These get rarer as they get more serious, but they still occur. Until we can determine which children will have these complications so we can withhold the procedure from their bodies, every child might be the unlucky one to get worse than the common result. That circles back to why proxy consent requires a stricter standard than consent.

Let me ask you this, how is your relationship with your parents, assuming they’re the ones that decided to have you circumcised? Have they sufficiently repented or are there other issues with them as well?

My father died when I was 3. After that point, I definitely did not want to “look like daddy.” Macabre, yes, but it helps reveal how stupid that argument and others like it (i.e. locker room) really are.

With my mother, I’m cordial but distant. She has not repented, but I haven’t asked her to do so. I don’t set my internal reconciliation on the opinions of someone else because that would set me up for failure. Outside of circumcision, there are no other issues, as I wrote earlier. Everything else she did was fine. Since no parent can be perfect, the other things she got wrong were subjective mistakes that either she corrected or I corrected once I was on my own. There was no abuse or neglect.

For those interested in learning more about the sexual mutilations inflicted on healthy, helpless baby boys and on healthy, hapless older boys and girls, I give you, below the aphorisms on knowledge, fear, belief, the following excerpts from a book in a series on the sexual mutilations of boys and girls.

“Truth invites examination.”

– Aristotle

“Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood.”

– Madame Curie (Marie Curie née Skłodowska, 1867-1934;
eminent Polish scientist and freethinker)

“Knowing ignorance is strength. Ignoring knowledge is sickness.”

– Tao Te Ching of Lao-tsu

“The curse of man and the cause of nearly all his woe is his
stupendous capacity to believe the incredible.”

– H. L. Mencken

“For the past 141 years (since 1870 in the US), the American medical industry has been involved in the business of removing part or all of the external sexual organs of male and female children. While the origin of sexual mutilation [i. e. infant and boyhood circumcision, and female circumcision] among prehistoric primitive peoples is a
matter for theory and speculation, the origin and spread of sexual mutilation in American medical practice can be precisely documented. Seen in the proper context of the entire scope of Western history, the modern American enigma of institutionalized sexual mutilation is an historic aberration of profound significance and degree, one that could never have been predicted, and one that perhaps could not have been avoided.”

- opening paragraph to “A Short History of the Institutionalization of
Involuntary Sexual Mutilation in the US”, in the book named below.

Preface to _SEXUAL MUTILATIONS: A HUMAN TRAGEDY_
[Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Sexual Mutilations, 9-11 August 1996, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland], edited by George C. Denniston, MD, MPH, and Marilyn Fayre Milos, RN; Kluwer Academic Publishers (published by Plenum which was later absorbed by Kluwer), New York, 1997; ISBN 0-306-45589-7

Sexual mutilation is a global problem that affects 15.3 million children and young adults annually. In terms of gender, 13.3 million boys and 2 million girls are involuntarily subjected to sexual mutilation every year. While it is tempting to quantify and compare the amount of tissue removed from either gender, no ethical justification can be made for removing any amount of flesh from the body of another person. The violation of human rights implicit in
sexual mutilation is identical for any gender. The violation occurs with the first cut into another person’s body.

Although mutilation is a strong term, it precisely and accurately describes a condition denoting “any disfigurement or injury by removal or destruction of any conspicuous or essential part of the body.” While such terms as “circumcision” and “genital cutting” are less threatening to our sensitivities, they ultimately do a disservice by masking the fact of what is actually being done to babies and children. Although the courageous example of the survivors of sexual mutilation indicates that humans can certainly live and even reproduce without all of their external sexual organs, this biological phenomenon does not, however, justify subjecting a person to sexual mutilation. The remarkable resilience of the human body is a testament to the importance nature places on reproduction rather than a vindication for surgical practices that compromise this function.

According to the belief systems of those cultures that practice the sexual mutilation of children, the sexual organs do not belong to the person to whom they are attached: Instead, they are regarded as community property, under the immediate control of physicians, witch doctors, religious figures, tribal elders, relatives, or their agents. Sexual mutilations are generally perpetrated against defenseless babies and children by operators who themselves were
mutilated. While young adults in these cultures are potentially capable of defending themselves against sexual mutilation, powerful cultural taboos and, often, real threats of social, economic, and political discrimination, banishment, or death, prevent escape.

The number of children who die as a direct result of traditional sexual mutilations is high. The number of children who *almost* die is higher. In one study of the penile mutilation practice (foreskin amputation in this instance) of the Xhosa tribe of Southern Africa, 9% of the mutilated boys died; 52% lost all or most of their penile shaft skin; 14% developed severe infectious lesions; 10% lost their glans penis; and 5% lost their entire penis. (1) This represents
only those boys who made it to the hospital. The true complication rate is likely to be much higher. In the United States, it is estimated that 229 babies die each year as a result of complications of the sexual mutilation of routine foreskin amputation ["routine infant circumcision"]. (2) Additionally, 1 in 500 suffer serious complications requiring emergency medical attention. (3) Regardless of the number that die or are forced to spend the rest of their lives
as genital cripples, the death or injury of even one child during the course of sexual mutilation is unjustifiable. Even when there are no officially recognized complications, the survivors are left with semifunctional, scarred, and desensitized sex organs. Sexual mutilations to any degree, to any gender, wherever they occur, and for whatever reason are always prejudicial to the health of the individual.

Traditional sexual mutilations occur primarily in two parts of the world: Saharasia, the great swath of desert extending across Saharan Africa to the deserts of Saudi Arabia; and Melanesia, the scattered islands in the South Pacific extending from Australia to New Guinea. Dr. James DeMeo speculates that sexual mutilations of all kinds arose in Saharasia at approximately 4000 BCE as a result of drastic climatic changes. These changes resulted in an ecologically
devastating, irreversible process of desertification and resulted in mass migrations. Previously peaceful cultures were transformed into cultures with strong tendencies toward male dominance, despotism, sexual and economic repression of women and children, sadistic violence, and warfare. In modern times, civil and religious warfare and conquests have spread sexual mutilations from these areas and imposed them on neighboring cultures. Migrating peoples
from expansionist mutilating cultures have imposed ritual penile mutilations on the peoples on newly conquered territories. This can be seen in the southerly and easterly political and military expansion of Islamic regimes into sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. Historian Frederick Hodges documents the almost spontaneous genesis of sexual mutilation in historic times in the United States
at the hands of physicians, providing insightful clues about the earlier origins of sexual mutilation in prehistory.

As documented in the papers of Behane Ras-Work, Jeannine Parvati Baker, and Hanny Lightfoot-Klein, the perpetrators of sexual mutilations today generally believe that they are acting in the best interest of the victim. Parents who hand over their children to sexual mutilators generally do so because they believe that mutilation will improve the lives of their children.

Powerful mythologies support these practices.

Powerful taboos prevent dissent. Some cultures use sexual mutilations as a tribal mark. Some cultures use sexual mutilations as an involuntary initiation into a larger community of similarly mutilated individuals. Others use sexual mutilations as sympathetic magic or for alleged medical purposes imagined to protect the child. Some cultures do not know why they mutilate their children’s sexual organs and do so only from force of habit. Some cultures mutilate their
children’s sexual organs for purely superstitious reasons: to appease angry deities or to ward off evil spirits. The majority of sexually mutilating cultures, however, use sexual mutilations either as a deliberately frightening test of pain endurance intended to strengthen the character of the victim or as a deliberate destruction of erogenous function.

Older victims of sexual mutilation are likely to be mutilated as part of an initiation ceremony for which they are only partially prepared. They are generally unaware that their sexual organs will be cut until the actual cutting begins. In those few cultures that do prepare the initiates, the operator generally gives the victims little accurate information about what will happen, or he deliberately gives them inaccurate information. In such ceremonies, the infliction of terror plays an important supplementary role. Over time, many of
the victims can become reconciled to what has happened to their sex organs and are often accepting of the fact that, when the time comes, they will, without protest, hand over their own children to the mutilators.

What the young victims of penile mutilation themselves understand about what is happening to them is not documented. The younger the victim, the less likely he or she will be able to understand the stated reasons for the mutilation. Clearly, when infants are sexually mutilated, they have no way of comprehending the motives of their mutilators. For the younger victim, the experience is one of terror and of betrayal at the hands of his or her supposed protectors. What ever the age of the victim, sexual mutilation results in the destruction of self-confidence, the infliction of excruciating pain, and the creation of massive tissue damage.

The functional consequences of sexual mutilation are well documented in this volume by such contributors as Tim Hammond and Dr. Gerard Zwang. Studies have found that flooding the neonatal brain with massive trauma creates detrimental physiological changes in the brain structure. Boys who have been subjected to circumcision have a lower threshold for pain than intact boys or girls. (4) One study, published in the British Journal of Medical Psychology, found that circumcision of children causes a remarkable decrease in IQ and has a
detrimental effect on the child’s functioning and adaptation, particularly on his ego strength, resulting in behavioral and personality disorders. (5) As Miriam Pollack asks in this volume, what does it mean when society holds a knife to the genitals of its children and inflicts such psychological and physical harm?

The Fourth International Symposium on Sexual Mutilations brought together representatives of various academic disciplines and members of ad hoc human rights organizations dedicated to safeguarding the human right to physical security and integrity and preserving all children from sexual mutilation. At the First International on Sexual Mutilations, held in Anaheim, California, in 1989, delegates unanimously ratified the Declaration of Genital Integrity
(initially entitled The Declaration of the First International Symposium on Circumcision). Because of the historic nature of this document, and because several of the contributors of this volume refer to it, it is reprinted here for the benefit of the reader. Delegates at the Fourth International Symposium on Sexual Mutilations unanimously ratified The Ashley Montagu Resolution to End the
Genital Mutilation of Children Worldwide. This document, named in honor of Dr. Ashley Montagu, distinguished scientist, scholar, and humanist, at the time of this writing has been sent to the Secretary General of the United Nations and to the World Court, the Hague, for a de jure ruling that the sexual mutilation of children violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Humanity has faced many hurdles as it has moved from superstition and tyranny toward enlightenment and freedom. The hurdle of sexual mutilation, though daunting, can be overcome. Education, cooperation, dialogue, and understanding are the first steps to raising global consciousness about the problem of sexual mutilation. Until the most vulnerable among us are safe from the threat of sexual mutilation, no one is safe. The contributors to this volume bring their unique talents and perspectives to the global problem of sexual mutilation and suggest strategies for safeguarding the world’s children and the adults they become from these mutilations. While the study of sexual mutilations paints an unfavorable picture of human frailty and error, it also brings fascinating insight into human culture and hope for future progress. We think you will agree with us.

REFERENCES

1. Crowley IP, Kesner KM. Ritual Circumcision (Umkhwetha)
amongst the Xhosa of the Ciskei. British Journal of Urology 1990; 66:318-21.
2. Baker RB. Newborn male circumcision: needless and dangerous. Sexual Medicine Today 1979; 3.
3. Gee WF, Ansell JS. Neonatal circumcision: a ten-year overview: with
comparison of the gomco clamp and the plastibell device. Pediatrics 1976; 58:824-7.
4. Taddio A, Goldbach M, Ipp M, Stevens B, Koren G. Effect of Neonatal Circumcision on Pain Responses During Vaccination in Boys. Lancet 1995: 345:291-2.
5. Cansever G. Psychological Effects of Circumcision.
British Journal of Medical Psychology 1965; 38:321-31.

Good God, Theo! I just scanned your dissertation and felt like I was editing the works of Margaret Mead, Franz Boas and Ruth Benedict. I’ve had enough of that to last a lifetime.

When does enough become enough? You deal with it, and move on. This seems to have consumed every fiber of your being. It’s not that I don’t sympathize with what you consider a major crisis in your life (I’m really not a cold-hearted person) and you’ve convinced us that what you are feeling is an overflowing of emotional pain, but I hope that you really are consulting a mental health professional about this. It will eat you alive.

Tony — Your mother has not repented? Repented for what? For taking the advice of a doctor who, in the end, botched the job? Good god, man. She did what she thought was best for you at the time. Do you think that she had some pre-conceived evil plan in mind, set on mutilating her infant son? If you think she did you wrong, as my mother always said, “that goes with you.” But don’t let it take over your life, and furthermore, make amends with her before it’s too late. Mully is right. Trust me, some day it WILL be too late, and the pain resulting when you finally realize that will be much greater than the pain of having lost your foreskin. It is your MOTHER!

Sorry Tony, I just saw that you did answer the question above.

Tony – One more question – How was your relationship with your Mom before you discovered that your circumcision made you look differently than a man without the procedure? Were you close or has your relationship always been cordial, but distant? Is the circumcision the sole reason for that, and does your Mom even realize how you feel about it. I’m sure if she knew how you feel, she would apologize only because of your reaction to it and not because she did anything malicious.

Some day I will be, either because I’ll think her answer will be different or because it won’t matter to me if it isn’t. I’m aiming for the latter.

I remember a line from The Music Man…”You pile up enough tomorrows, and you’ll find you are left with nothing but a lot of empty yesterdays.”

What if tomorrow never comes? There are no guarantees that she will be around when the “right” time comes for you. Would you regret that, or just believe that it really didn’t matter anyway?

Wait ’til you see this!

I think I can wait. Theo, can you take a tip from Tony and enter into a meaningful discussion without giving us dissertations (complete with Works Cited) or videos? If I want to read the opinions of others, I really do know how to use Google.

Please share this video far and wide

How far and how wide? Are there boundaries, or do we have Carte Blanche?

I wish you well and hope that you can find some way to forgive your mother, even if she isnt able to know that she needs to be forgiven.

I agree. Life is too short to hold grudges…way too short.

I was listening to Billy Joel this morning — “We Didn’t Start The Fire.” While I do know most of the lyrics and they slip off the tongue with ease, I paid close attention to them. What struck me was the reference to thalidomide, and I hadn’t really thought much about it before. Mothers in the 60s were given the drug to prevent morning sickness. Babies were born without legs and arms, malformed organs, deafness, blindness, and other disabililties. At that point in time, the drug was considered safe, and mothers blindly took it because they trusted their doctors.

I’m wondering how many of those “children of thalidomide” blame their mothers for their deformities, saying she shouldn’t have trusted a doctor and should have asked more questions about the effects of the drug. In my opinion, missing foreskin pales in comparison with the physical/emotional trauama that is with these victims for their entire lives. I wonder how they handle it, knowing that their mother simply took this drug so she wouldn’t vomit in the morning.

Tony, I hope things work out for you. They say that time is the great healer. Be one step ahead of that. Try to heal yourself NOW.

Years later when my friend was in her late twenties, it was reported that daughters of mothers who took that drug had a greater risk of developing ovarian or uterine cancer.

Yes, Valerie. I remember that, also. It wasn’t thalidomide. Let me think a minute. DES! Don’t ask me what it stands for, though. Diethy-something! Wasn’t it given in the 1940s, early 50s?

I’m fairly certain that thalidomide was only used in the UK and I’m pretty sure that DES was used in the 50′s and definitely here in the States

Well then that must be it – DES

I always get that one confused with DEET, the pesticide!

My mother had 4 miscarriages. One before me and 3 after me. I am fairly certain she was given DES. I seem to remember telling my OB/GYN about it and him telling me that as long as I had annual PAP’s and pelvic exams (which I do) I didnt have to worry.

I hope he was right.

I remember seeing pictures in the newspapers of the Thalidomide babies in England. Absolutely horrible what that drug did to children. Instead of arms, they were born with “flippers”. There were other deformities, but the flippers were probably the most common abnormality.

http://www.politicolnews.com/n1h1-shot-thalidomide-babies/

I guess I was very lucky because I never had any morning sickness with any of my pregnancies. My first was still born, but it couldn’t have been due to any medications. In fact, to this day we don’t know what went wrong. Anyway, my point is that back in the day parents solely relied on the advice of their doctors. I think everyone back then blindly trusted the doctors. You’re right, Mully, with the vast wealth of information on the internet today, people are much more educated or at least more apt to get second and third opinions.

Nikki: Since you posted your comment with a question mark ending it, I am not sure I understand your intent.

Are you stating that you disagree that its a parental right to circumcise their child or are you saying that you agree that it IS a parental right?

Either way…the youtube video which you posted a link to was incredibly ANNOYING!

Whatever point the poster of that video was trying to make was completely lost on me by his use of the rewind feature. It assumes that the viewer doesnt have the sense God gave a goose and would not be able to ascertain what he is trying to say.

I found it highly insulting and pretty much stopped watching very quickly.

Major loss of credibility on his part.

Correction: It should read “far left winged liberal”.

Mully – The question mark was me being incredulous. The point of the video, if you watched long enough, was the information rebutting all the nonsense about health reasons and the fact that circumcision is, for the majority of parents, for aesthetic reasons.

Clitoral pricking is AGAINST THE LAW in the US – it produces a drop of blood, no removal of anything. Now, isn’t it a parent’s right to do something to their child that is in their culture and causes no lasting damage? No, of course that’s not ok. We are not allowed to do anything to our daughter’s genitals. But my son – sure, he’s fair game and that’s my right to cut off part of his penis. (I did not, by the way.)

It is not legal for me, as his parent, to cut off any other part of his body.

And let’s say, if breast cancer or some such ran high in my family, and I had a daughter, would it be ok for me to have a mastectomy done on her, for preventative measures?

AND, I lived abroad in Europe for many years. Circumcision is not common in most countries and yet… hmm… they aren’t ravaged by std’s and HIV. How can this be? Isn’t circumcision preventative??

Your statement:
‘Intactivists’ also claim that a man’s sexual pleasure is greatly diminished when circumcised. (Oh, those poor circumcised men who just loathe sex, isn’t it a pity?)

I find this a bit rude. So you’re telling men that they enjoy sex just fine, so they should quit complaining and wondering if it might be even better? I’m tired of men being treated like second rate citizens in debates about sexuality and their bodies. They have just as much right to oppose the cutting off of part of their bodies as we women would have. Why are you denying them their right to be angry, as adults, that something was done to them that they’d rather NOT have been done? I don’t understand this. And if an adult male, at the age of 18 or over, would choose to do this himself (though this is extremely unlikely) and it would hurt more at that age… so? He’s an adult. He’s made the choice. He can deal with the pain. Many of us go through medical procedures as adults that aren’t fun, but it happens and we move on.

go Nikki! i’m with you!

They have just as much right to oppose the cutting off of part of their bodies as we women would have.

Nikki, I totally agree. Speaking for myself, What I don’t understand is the blame game some of these men are playing. It’s a done deal, why continue to blame well meaning parents and hold lifelong grudges. Why ruin part of your life obsessing over it. For the majority of men, it’s not even an issue.

‘Intactivists’ also claim that a man’s sexual pleasure is greatly diminished when circumcised

Where is the proof of this? I would have to assume that there is documentation stating that men who decided to be circumcised later in life, found that their sexual pleasure diminished after the procedure.
Seriously, I find that very hard to believe. I do, however, believe that there are documented medical reasons supporting cicumcision.

Also, maybe these intactivists would have a greater impact if they refrained from using words such as torture and mutilation. They lost all credibility with me right there.

This might be a very poor example, but I had my tonsils removed as a toddler. I’m sure the doctor recommended it because I was getting too many sore throats and my tonsils needed to come out to prevent further infection. It wasn’t anything life threatening, and I would still be here today if I hadn’t had the surgery. There is still some discussion as to the usefulness of tonsils. I had no say in my parent’s decision, and yet I had the surgery. I, of course, have no recollection of that surgery. A friend of mine had constant trouble with strep throat as a child. Her parents refused the surgery because they felt that tonsils were somehow necessary. To date she no longer has any trouble with strep throat even though her tonsils are still intact. Now, should I blame my parents or hold a grudge or be angry that they tortured and mutilated me for no good reason. That they removed a part of my body.

I still think it’s a parent’s right to make those types of decisions and it’s perfectly fine with me that you don’t agree.

AND that more baby boys die each year from circumcision than from SIDS? (This is a statistical FACT.) Even if I weren’t against circumcision already, I certainly would be after hearing that.

Where did you find this information? I would like to read it for myself to determine if these deaths happened to healthy baby boys having circumcisions performed by either medically trained doctors or trained mohels under sterile conditions. There’s alot more to statistics than numbers.

When done in a safe, sterile environment, circumcision is extremely safe and provides some compelling evidence of protection.

I wonder if the baby boy in my town who had the head of his penis cut off by the doctor performing his circumcision in the local hospital would agree with this statement.

I’m just glad that I chose not to circumcise my son when he was born at that same hospital, even if it was 10 years before this happened. Regardless of the many successful circumcisions performed there, I think the risk isn’t worth the outcome when I can just educate my son on the proper way to clean himself.

Mully, I find it very coincidental that three different women all supporting this ban on cirmcision have all decided to comment here within the past three hours. This post has been up for over a week. Maybe it’s just my suspicious mind, but it does seem rather coincidental.

Don’t know what happened with that blockquote, but you get my drift.

And, while I myself do also mock (and dislike) San Francisco – I also believe that the location of a particular topic of debate bears very little on the debate itself. So “only in San Francisco” is a very stupid argument.

I disagree, in part, with your statement. Again, its all about credibility and as far as Im concerned, San Francisco has NO credibility. I guess I could cite many examples to support my viewpoint, but its not important enough for me to go scouting around on the net to prove a point which I feel is already, pretty well documented.

I don’t even know what to say to that. That’s odd. You’ve just blown off an entire city because you don’t agree with their politics? Um. What city do you live in, I can play that game, too. Wait… no I can’t because it makes no sense. If I argued like that, I’d blow off the entire bible belt, 99% of the south, all of California (not a fan) and part of the midwest.

The real issue here is that circumcision is being mandated into law and for me that just goes way over the line.

But please answer me why it’s ok to mandate into law issues regarding female genital mutilation and pricking? I’m being absolutely serious. Why is that ok, but not ok to mandate circumcision?

This might be a very poor example, but I had my tonsils removed as a toddler. I’m sure the doctor recommended it because I was getting too many sore throats and my tonsils needed to come out to prevent further infection. It wasn’t anything life threatening, and I would still be here today if I hadn’t had the surgery. There is still some discussion as to the usefulness of tonsils. I had no say in my parent’s decision, and yet I had the surgery. I, of course, have no recollection of that surgery. A friend of mine had constant trouble with strep throat as a child. Her parents refused the surgery because they felt that tonsils were somehow necessary. To date she no longer has any trouble with strep throat even though her tonsils are still intact. Now, should I blame my parents or hold a grudge or be angry that they tortured and mutilated me for no good reason. That they removed a part of my body.

With all due respect, it is a poor example. Tonsils do not equate with penises (or clitorises or any other similar part.) And you’d really have no clue whether your tonsils are there or not. Men pay quite a lot of attention to their penises (LOL). As far as I’m concerned, if something is giving you constant trouble and making you sick, find, do something about it – but don’t remove body parts “just in case” or for aesthetics.

131. Valerie

January 19, 2011 @ 5:01 pm

Mully, I find it very coincidental that three different women all supporting this ban on cirmcision have all decided to comment here within the past three hours. This post has been up for over a week. Maybe it’s just my suspicious mind, but it does seem rather coincidental.

Valerie, I don’t know about the other women – I just found this site and had added it to my reader, which I found via “Moms in Babeland”. I saw this post and felt compelled to jump in. (Stupid, because I knew I’d just get myself all worked up.) It is quite possible that my comments “reactivated” the post, plus I posted this link to a few other places, with my comments.

I hate to tell you this, but there are A LOT of other women out there who are against circumcision. Should I say it’s odd that suddenly, a bunch of pro circumcision women posted after me?

OK Nikki, Sorry, but I’ve seen posters with multiple identities pop up on various blogs in order to back themselves up. No, it isn’t odd that pro-circumcison ladies posted after you because we have been commenting right along from the beginning with the anti-circumcison men. It does seem odd that three women popped up today in such a short period of time supporting each other. Again, anything is possible.

Ignorant, insensitive articles such as this one infuriate me. I suffered recurring nightmares of losing body parts or some faculty for the first 25 years of my life. The dream became a horrific reality when I learned about what circumcision is and what it does to one’s sexuality and sense of well-being.

The nightmares then subsided, but the feelings of loss, anger and betrayal are permanent, a perfectly natural reaction to mutilation and bodily loss, regardless of what popular thinking may tell us to the contrary.

Do a ‘net search for ‘foreskin restoration’, and then tell me men don’t seem to mind being circumcised.

I am a freedom activist. I moved to New Hampshire as part of the http://www.FreeStateProject.org. I know what freedom is all about. It’s not about parents doing whatever the hell they want with their children; it’s about individuals having the power to choose whether or not to have parts of their body removed. This Right to an intact body is not subject to age or helplessness.

WHY? From everything you’ve said so far, I would think you would have fought harder not to circumcise.

where do women get off questioning how men should feel about this, or whether or not there’s “diminished pleasure” because of it?

Again, I’m not questioning how men should or should not feel. I just can’t believe how mentally damaged some of them are because of it. I don’t know for sure if there is diminished pleasure, but I highly doubt that they do either.

haha. Well, when I say it was his decision, I mean more that it was up to him to say “no, we won’t do it”. I was pretty confident of that decision and would have argued like hell, if needed.

As for being mentally damaged… I don’t know. It’s easy for me to sit here and say it’s ridiculous but I’m not in their shoes. I try not to judge people for how they feel about things that they feel were traumatic for whatever reason.

Nikki…UM
Nikki:

I somewhat find your tone condescending, inasmuch, as anyone can find another person’s tone that way thru a blog.

You dismiss anyone else’s point of view with flippant comments which make me dislike even reading your comments.

Statements such as:

I don’t even know what to say to that. That’s odd. You’ve just blown off an entire city because you don’t agree with their politics? Um. What city do you live in, I can play that game, too. Wait… no I can’t because it makes no sense. If I argued like that, I’d blow off the entire bible belt, 99% of the south, all of California (not a fan) and part of the midwest.

are arrogant and seem to suggest that YOU know more and therefore cannot be bothered to consider someone elses point of view.

What’s so odd about anyone thinking that the city of San Francisco, now attempting to pass a law which makes it illegal for parents to have the right to circumcise their own child, is completely over the line when that same city is ranked 9th, out of 25, cities considered the most liberal in the United States? And as we all know, liberals just love “nanny state” all of us into what THEY think is best for everyone.

If you dont already know what I meant by my prior statements concerning the city of San Francisco, most of its inhabitants AND its form of government, then I can only assume that you are deliberately trying to argue for the mere sake of argument or perhaps to play “one up” or you are a staunch liberal who espouses liberal principles and therefore would be inclined to align yourself with the mandates of a city such as SF and against someone, like me, who is a staunch conservative who is opposed to any form of government which takes away my rights as a parent, especially when it involves my minor child.

Um. There are MANY laws made regarding the rights of children for the sake of protecting them. Shall we debate each and every one?

Um, no Nikki, we wont be debating all of them because we are here to debate THIS issue. Whats your point?

That’s a whole issue entirely and an attempt to detract from the matter at hand.

Um..funny isnt it, that you ask me if I want to debate other laws meant for the protection of children, but on the above issue of abortion its suddenly a “detraction for the matter at hand”.

I’m tired of people – women, in particular, tossing off the argument about circumcision, a debate about a body part they don’t even have and do not understand having. Honestly, where do women get off questioning how men should feel about this, or whether or not there’s “diminished pleasure” because of it?

Ill tell you where THIS woman gets off having an opinion about circumcision. Ive asked. Ive queried. Ive researched and not just my own family members, but also complete strangers. Ive asked other women if they “get” this and overwhelmingly the percentage of men and women I did ask all felt the same way. It simply isnt an issue. The only reason, I feel, that it has become an issue, is because some liberal activist has made it an issue. For centuries, this has been practiced in our country and was an acceptable procedure. Now all of a sudden because of some “right” that some whack job deems important, men all over the country have to now consider that their parents maimed, tortured and mutilated them.

Oh puhleeze! I am still wondering and waiting for someone to tell me what having been circumcised has done to these men which has impacted their lives so dramatically and in many cases, prevented them from living full, happy lives AND apparently having a loving relationship with a parent.

As I have stated before. These are not men who can no longer live without their foreskin. Their parents didnt physically abuse them, tie them up in a cold, dark room with no food or water. These men werent victims of abuse in the traditional way we think of abuse and yet there are millions of men out there who were REAL victims of some heinous act who have still survived and made something out of their lives and the reason they did is because they chose to find a way to get on with their lives instead of taking up a sign and marching in protest over something which was done and never intended to be a hurtful thing.

In a world full of reasons to be angry and filled with hate, in a world filled with parents who truly should be held accountable for unspeakable acts of violence against innocent children, in a world where things happen which none of us have any control over, yet we gt thru them…THIS SUBJECT RANKS ABOUT A ONE IN MY BOOK ON A SCALE OF ONE TO TEN!!!!!!

Grow up! Get over what happened to you! Forgive your parents for OMG! the horror of a choice they made all those many years ago which was made with no intent to do you any harm and which was also made on the advice of the medical community at large.

If re-education is needed for the new way of thinking i.e. that circumcision is wrong on so many levels, then lets re-educate, but there is absolutely nothing right in making it a law for a parent to choose to have their offspring’s foreskin removed.

Ignorant, insensitive articles such as this one infuriate me. I suffered recurring nightmares of losing body parts or some faculty for the first 25 years of my life. The dream became a horrific reality when I learned about what circumcision is and what it does to one’s sexuality and sense of well-being.

The nightmares then subsided, but the feelings of loss, anger and betrayal are permanent, a perfectly natural reaction to mutilation and bodily loss

There is so much about this post which bothers me. Rich: Were you diagnosed, by a professional, as having some sort of post traumatic stress disorder brought on by being circumcised?

Was it a proven fact that all of the many issues you mentioned were due to circumcision?

You see, to me, its very easy to cast blame on something when there might be other factors involved. Not knowing you or your history or whether or not the nightmares etc. were actually found to be traced back to having been circumcised, Im sorry, I find it difficult to believe and oh yes! before Nikki jumps on me about my not possible being able to understand since I am not a man, let me say this:

I dont happen to believe, in order to understand someone’s pain over something, that you necessarily have to endure the same pain, yourself.

But I do believe that clinical diagnosis is the marker for any sound judgement call when it comes to tracing why we behave the way we do, why certain sets of circumstances are a cause for certain reactions and behaviors.

When other men simply cannot understand the loss of one’s foreskin being the root cause for so much distress in other men, it does make me wonder if there arent other issues, at hand, which helped play into the unhappiness etc some of the men who have posted on this blog, have said they feel.

Valerie,

Again, I’m not questioning how men should or should not feel. I just can’t believe how mentally damaged some of them are because of it. I don’t know for sure if there is diminished pleasure, but I highly doubt that they do either.

There’s been repeated questioning on this point. It’s been the general theme of how people responded to the men opposed to circumcision instead of considering the broader points we’ve made. The consensus that a male’s body is subject to his parents’ personal preference is declaring that he should feel happy that his parents love him. They can love him and still be wrong.

I am angry. That’s been used for much unsupported speculation, which I find interesting. While suggestions that I resolve my anger with my mother are valid, they do not confirm that I am mentally damaged. I am not. I know why I’m angry, and if/when I decide to resolve that anger in a way that would make everyone here happy, I’m still going to be correct that I should not have been circumcised as an infant. My differing, minority opinion about my body is not proof that my anger is irrational. My opinion about myself is legitimate because it’s my opinion about myself. It’s based on the normal body I had, that every male has, not some fairy tale of dreams in an idealized world. When I’ve been told here to let this go or grow up, that it’s not worth my time, it’s just different words to tell me that my opinion about myself is wrong because it’s not the correct opinion. It’s telling me that I’ve misjudged the importance of this violation of my body because I draw a different conclusion than other men. Basically, I’m told I’m wrong because other men feel differently about themselves and that overrides my opinion on choice.

I’ve said that I don’t know if circumcision reduces sexual pleasure. I suspect it does because that’s the only logical conclusion from what’s removed. Would removing your clitoral hood, the anatomical equivalent to circumcision, reduce your sexual pleasure? Change your life?

This isn’t the same as expressing certainty about what life with a foreskin would be. Better or worse is subjective to each individual. What I know is that a circumcised male’s experience of his body is different from what it would’ve been if he’d been left intact as a child. The idea expressed throughout this thread that males do not have the right make their own decision about their bodies because parents have a “right” to surgically alter them without need is incorrect. It should be relegated to the past.

Mully:

On the related point, if parents have the “right” to remove the foreskin from their healthy sons, they have the identical “right” to remove the clitoral hood from their healthy daughters. If it’s about parental “rights”, as you say, there can be no distinction between what they can and can’t do to their children based on gender. Laws against non-therapeutic female genital cutting on minors must also be a violation of these parental “rights”. Especially if, as I’ve been told repeatedly, good intent alone is all that’s needed to justify non-therapeutic genital cutting on children.

Also, you asked Nikki for examples of complications. Here are a two examples of boys who died from circumcision. I can provide more, but the lesson is clear: good parental intent is assumed but irrelevant.

are arrogant and seem to suggest that YOU know more and therefore cannot be bothered to consider someone elses point of view.

What’s so odd about anyone thinking that the city of San Francisco, now attempting to pass a law which makes it illegal for parents to have the right to circumcise their own child, is completely over the line when that same city is ranked 9th, out of 25, cities considered the most liberal in the United States? And as we all know, liberals just love “nanny state” all of us into what THEY think is best for everyone.

If you dont already know what I meant by my prior statements concerning the city of San Francisco, most of its inhabitants AND its form of government, then I can only assume that you are deliberately trying to argue for the mere sake of argument or perhaps to play “one up” or you are a staunch liberal who espouses liberal principles and therefore would be inclined to align yourself with the mandates of a city such as SF and against someone, like me, who is a staunch conservative who is opposed to any form of government which takes away my rights as a parent, especially when it involves my minor child.

Mully, do you not see what you’re doing here? What’s all this “liberal” stuff? All cities are ranked #something in something. I don’t see why San Francisco being #9 as most “liberal” makes it ok to use that in an argument about circumcision? Clearly, you aren’t a fan of “liberals” and that’s coloring your attack on me. I don’t hate liberals. If forced to choose, I guess I’d say I’m not a fan of conservatives. But I don’t use anyone’s political representation as a basis for my argument against them. I think it’s wrong to dismiss an entire city in an argument. That doesn’t make sense to me. I could go on a rant about this “liberal” thing, but that’s not on point. Seriously.

And you accuse me of not considering anyone else’s point of view… but that’s the whole point of this debate. Are YOU willing to consider my point of view? Alright then.

AND, not knowing me personally, it’s hardly fair to make personal attacks. If you asked anyone who knew me, they’d tell you that I’m one of the most open minded people they know. So, moving on from the personal stuff, please.

Ill tell you where THIS woman gets off having an opinion about circumcision. Ive asked. Ive queried. Ive researched and not just my own family members, but also complete strangers. Ive asked other women if they “get” this and overwhelmingly the percentage of men and women I did ask all felt the same way. It simply isnt an issue. The only reason, I feel, that it has become an issue, is because some liberal activist has made it an issue. For centuries, this has been practiced in our country and was an acceptable procedure. Now all of a sudden because of some “right” that some whack job deems important, men all over the country have to now consider that their parents maimed, tortured and mutilated them.

AGAIN with the “liberal” stuff. Seriously???

So you’re denying how men feel because you claim some “liberal” made it up.

Circumcision began, in other countries, as a religious & cultural practice. Most notable, the Jews. (I dated a Jewish man for 7 years.) They were enslaved by the Egyptians and treated like crap. The Jews asked God for help. Circumcision was used to differentiate themselves from the Egyptians when God came to exact their revenge. (So the story goes. While your beliefs may be different, that’s their belief and that’s why they practice circumcision.) During the Holocaust, if someone denied being Jewish, the Nazis would check to see if they were intact. If not, well… we all know what happened to the Jews.

I lived in Europe for 3 years. Circumcision is not standard practice there and I was often asked why Americans are so gung ho on circumcision. (Might I also add that in Western European countries and as far as the Czech Republic, they have lower rates of STDs and HIV? But they don’t circumcise? How can that be?) Circumcision became a big thing in the States later on – and the Church pushed it because they wanted to stop men masturbating. Then there’s this nutjob:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg
“Kellogg was a skilled surgeon, who often donated his services to indigent patients at his clinic.[9] Although generally against unnecessary surgery to treat diseases,[10][11][dead link] he did advocate circumcision, allegedly to prevent masturbation.”

So while you say liberals made up this entire issue (and tell that commenter, Rich, that his feelings are made up?), it’s actually the other way around – it was the conservatives that played a part in circumcision being regular practice in this country. Do your homework. (No, that wasn’t a personal attack, but it might be a little condescending. You got me.)

Grow up! Get over what happened to you! Forgive your parents for OMG! the horror of a choice they made all those many years ago which was made with no intent to do you any harm and which was also made on the advice of the medical community at large.

If re-education is needed for the new way of thinking i.e. that circumcision is wrong on so many levels, then lets re-educate, but there is absolutely nothing right in making it a law for a parent to choose to have their offspring’s foreskin removed.

Please answer me – why is it ok to make a law against female genital cutting or pricking then?

And MULLY. I hope you never have to deal with something that personally & deeply affects you and someone tells you to just “get over it.” Doesn’t work that way.

I don’t know the reason certain cultures follow this practice, so I really can’t comment. Do they feel it is medically necessary or just something they do for the heck of it?

It’s common in many African countries – it’s a ritual to mark the transition from childhood to womanhood, although some cultures do it on infant girls only days old, as well. (This has become more common.) In some countries, girls can’t even marry unless this has been done. They also believe that it decreases sexual desire, thus lowering the chances of her A) having sex before marriage and B) having sex outside of her marriage.

It is deeply ingrained in these cultures and has been done for thousands of years. So, the entire world can cry out in outrage and say this is wrong and try to force people to do something that is PART OF THEIR CULTURE, but the United States is just fine with letting people cut off their sons foreskins for aesthetics, cultural reasons and false medical claims?

You can’t speak for all men. There are men who don’t give it a second thought. It is not what defines them.

No, he can’t speak for all. But because the ones who don’t give it a second thought might outweigh the ones who give it a lot of thought doesn’t make it ok.

I give up – I certainly can’t even imagine having recurring nightmares over something that I’m sure you don’t even remember happening. Maybe Rich watched to many horror movies as a child.

Valerie, c’mon. That’s rude. What bothers me most about the people who are pro circumcision is their continual trashing of people’s feelings.

I know a couple of people who were molested AS INFANTS. (Not relating molestation to circumcision, but making a point about memory.) It stopped while they were still infants and as adults, they suffered psychological issues that screamed “abuse.” Eventually, the molestation came out (one of them got a confession, with detail.) My point is – babies aren’t stupid or lacking consciousness. They are little sponges who are, at the very moment of birth, effected by their surroundings.

How about… a rape victim who was drugged? S/He doesn’t remember it, so why should it matter?

And MULLY. I hope you never have to deal with something that personally & deeply affects you and someone tells you to just “get over it.” Doesn’t work that way.

Spare me your hopes, Nikki and again your very condescending attitude.

You obviously havent read prior posts on this blog. If you had, you would already know that I have endured things which were deeply personal which have affected my life and the lives of my family members. I have also been told to “get over it” and thank God I was! For that advice, harsh though it may be, triggered me into getting the help I needed in order to learn to deal with these “deeply personal” issues.

All of that being said, Nikki, let me point out to you that the issues I am referring to would most likely be considered by most people’s standards, serious and deserving of my perhaps having nightmares, being mal-adjusted and blaming and not forgiving a parent. However, because someone told me to “get over it” to choose happiness instead of a life filled with anger, blame and the refusal to accept responsibility for my own peace of mind, I was able to get past it all.

Once you have lived thru REAL tragedy and come out on the other side, a better person, you find yourself not having a whole lot of sympathy for someone who wont help themselves and refused to open their hearts to forgive and forget.

Sorry, but YOU, could not BE more wrong in your statement.

And MULLY. I hope you never have to deal with something that personally & deeply affects you and someone tells you to just “get over it.” Doesn’t work that way.

Spare me your hopes, Nikki and again your very condescending attitude.

You obviously havent read prior posts on this blog. If you had, you would already know that I have endured things which were deeply personal which have affected my life and the lives of my family members. I have also been told to “get over it” and thank God I was! For that advice, harsh though it may be, triggered me into getting the help I needed in order to learn to deal with these “deeply personal” issues.

All of that being said, Nikki, let me point out to you that the issues I am referring to would most likely be considered by most people’s standards, serious and deserving of my perhaps having nightmares, being mal-adjusted and blaming and not forgiving a parent. However, because someone told me to “get over it” to choose happiness instead of a life filled with anger, blame and the refusal to accept responsibility for my own peace of mind, I was able to get past it all.

Once you have lived thru REAL tragedy and come out on the other side, a better person, you find yourself not having a whole lot of sympathy for someone who wont help themselves and refused to open their hearts to forgive and forget.

Sorry, but YOU, could not BE more wrong in your statement.

Mully, my friend – I’ve been through a lifetime of some pretty heavy stuff & some things that needed major strength to deal with. Which is why it seriously offends me when people dismiss with a “just get over it.” Sometimes it takes work to do so. (Spare me your comments about liberals and therapy, ok? You’re quite condescending, yourself. Hello, pot! This is kettle! But tons o’ fun to argue with!)

And who says these men aren’t helping themselves? Talking about something and being against it = not helping themselves?

Again, I will, as I have before, say that I have no issue with YOU or anyone else not wanting to circumsise your children. On the same token, I do not want YOU to take issue with me because I chose to or advocate it being done. What I do take issue with is the fact that its being shoved down our throats as a mandate now, something we have no choice in and THAT is the reason I speak loudly and clearly about liberal bias.

Mully, Mully, Mully. Right. So as I asked you several times – why can parents make decisions about cutting off foreskin, but not any of the female genital cutting practices? Why are we separating the issue for boys & girls? Huh? I’m not even talking about any of the trauma stuff – I say it’s NOT OK to decide to cut your kid’s genitals. You’re ignoring my valid questions and ignoring all the facts about the origins of circumcision.

Apparently youve lost the thread which began the entire SF debate, so I shall refresh your memory.

The video link, which you posted, was intended to point out that using the derisive tone which one of the doctors used in describing SF was wrong because it isnt fair to judge the proposed law based simply on the fact that it began in SF.

No, in the video I posted, the rebuttal was that the san Francisco thing was NOT a valid argument. So I’m being consistent and asking why you keep mentioning that because it’s NOT a valid talking point.

Nikki: Despite your childish comments, I will attempt to give you the best answer I can give you in regards to your incessant questioning about FGC.

Before I do that, however, you need to understand that, for me, (I cant speak for Val) I hesitated to answer your question simply based on the fact that I knew very little about this procedure other than the fact that its commonly done in Africa and certain Asian cultures and some South American cultures. Therefore, I had little or no opinion about it.

But your question is challenging so that on some level, you feel as tho you can pounce on me or Val and say “aha!” Ive got you! If we dont think there is anything wrong with parents choosing male circumcision, then we must think or feel the same way about female cutting.

This isnt a practice in the United States. To my knowledge it never has been. It was never considered acceptable and possibly even considered dangerous in that it served no useful purpose. Whereas, male circumcision began in an effort to prevent disease and as a hygiene consideration when bathing wasnt an everyday, easy thing to do.

In cultures where female cutting is a societal thing and accepted, its often used to discourage girls from partaking in illicit sex.

I dont consider female cutting to be a socially accepted part of American culture. Its never been done. So in answer to your question (ad nauseum)….I dont consider the two to have equal footing.

Male circumcision is a centuries old, accepted practice in this country, whether or not you agree with it as a practice. Female circumcision is not. Male circumcision, depending upon which medical journal you read, has redeeming medical reasons for being done. Female circumcision, to my knowledge, does not.

I am not and have not been debating the right or the wrong of either. Get that thru you very thick head, my dear!

My debate is with the fact that some idiot on the West Coast has now decided to make an issue out of something to the point where its now being considered a law.

If you want to change the entire idea of the procedure, then change the way parents are educated about it so that people CAN, on their own, with no government interference, make their own decision.

No, in the video I posted, the rebuttal was that the san Francisco thing was NOT a valid argument. So I’m being consistent and asking why you keep mentioning that because it’s NOT a valid talking point.

Jeeze! Do you READ! I wasnt talking about the stupid videographer’s rebuttal! I was referring to the doctors comment about SF and how I agreed with him. That comment could have been referring to ANY whack job thing that comes out of SF, not just the subject of circumcision.

But your question is challenging so that on some level, you feel as tho you can pounce on me or Val and say “aha!” Ive got you! If we dont think there is anything wrong with parents choosing male circumcision, then we must think or feel the same way about female cutting.

No, I don’t think “AHA!” I think – why won’t anyone answer this question and why is there such a double standard?

This isnt a practice in the United States. To my knowledge it never has been. It was never considered acceptable and possibly even considered dangerous in that it served no useful purpose. Whereas, male circumcision began in an effort to prevent disease and as a hygiene consideration when bathing wasnt an everyday, easy thing to do.

ACTUALLY, The American Academy of Pediatrics stated, recently, that the ritual “nicking” of female genitalia should be allowed – because there are people LIVING IN THE UNITED STATES who would like to continue their cultural practices here. There was a public outcry, and they retracted. There is also a lot of public outcry and Americans looking on in horror and getting involved when they hear about genital mutilation in Africa. Which is why I ask – why is that not ok, but circumcision is?

As for bathing not being available. Sigh. But lack of showering and bathing in the US is not a problem. This is a third world country problem.

And I repeat – circumcision has it’s roots and began as a religious and cultural act. It was NOT started for hygiene reasons.

I dont consider female cutting to be a socially accepted part of American culture. Its never been done. So in answer to your question (ad nauseum)….I dont consider the two to have equal footing.

And this is the root of my question – why is it not accepted? People have come here and tried to do so, but there’s public outcry. Just because something is “accepted” or people are used to it, doesn’t make it ok. There’s a lot of things that are accepted in our culture, past and present, that are not ok and that were eventually changed.

Male circumcision is a centuries old, accepted practice in this country, whether or not you agree with it as a practice. Female circumcision is not. Male circumcision, depending upon which medical journal you read, has redeeming medical reasons for being done. Female circumcision, to my knowledge, does not.

Female circumcision is also a centuries old practice. You should really do some research before making statements like that.

My debate is with the fact that some idiot on the West Coast has now decided to make an issue out of something to the point where its now being considered a law.

Mine too. There are many laws in regard to children’s welfare. I don’t understand A) why this is such a crazy idea (I think that, in another hundred years or so, people will look back on these days of accepted circumcision and shake their heads) and B) why so many people would do this to their sons in the name of aesthetics.

One has to wonder how old you are, Nikki.

You act like a child. Your most recent posts somewhat suggest that the next thing you might do is “nah nah nah nah boo boo”.

I see you with your fingers in your ears and your tongue stuck out and your eyes rolling around in your head, while you try, not very successfully, to debate a serious issue.

LOL..it would seem, from your immature attitude and the way you choose to needle and oh yes, your arrogance, that perhaps you are still dealing with some fairly major issues.

People who have conviction, dont act the way you do.

Again. Grow up and get over whatever it is that seems to be troubling you.

Oh, Mully. Quite frankly, I was trying to lighten the mood for myself so as not to get all pissed off. I’m so tired of the “liberal” argument. You went off on liberals several times. And, might I add, were extremely condescending and started yelling in all caps.

You don’t know me (thought you’ve made assumptions based on the “liberal” aspects) nor my convictions, nor the fact that I live up to every one of my principles and morals. I was jabbing at you for the name calling and making light FOR ME, because you are far too serious and mean-spirited. Your constant slagging on “liberals” and “the west coast” speak volumes. Not all the people who are against circumcision are in California nor liberals.

I dont consider female cutting to be a socially accepted part of American culture. Its never been done. So in answer to your question (ad nauseum)….I dont consider the two to have equal footing.

So… female cutting isn’t acceptable because it’s not socially acceptable in America? Huh?

That one hurt my head.

Oh yeah and incomplete men still enjoy sex because you will never know the pleasures of being whole .

Enjoy .

When a doctor performs the wrong procedure on the wrong patient, a he can be held liable for malpractice.

When a doctor knowingly charges money to perform a medically unnecessary surgery on a patient without his fully informed consent, that doctor can be held for medical fraud.

Here’s the bottom line:

Without any medical or clinical indication whatsoever, how is it that he can even be performing non-medical procedures on healthy, non-consenting infants, let alone even offer parents any kind of a “choice?”

How is it that parents actually feel entitled to a procedure that a doctor isn’t technically supposed to be performing?

To deceive a patient into a procedure he doesn’t need is one thing, but what is it called when a doctor takes advantage of naive parents to profit from circumcising their child?

It is professional abuse to be taking advantage of unwitting patients to charge them for procedures they do not need. This is called charlatanism, and in more technical terms, medical fraud.

It is ultimately abuse of the child, because he is healthy, there is no medical or clinical indication for surgery, and it is a permanent, irrevocable disfigurement.

The foreskin is not a birth defect. Nor is it a deformity or congenital anomaly like a cleft or 6th finger.

The foreskin is normal, healthy tissue that is found in all boys at birth. It is not “extra” or “superfluous.” It is part male anatomy, just as the labia and clitoris are part of the female anatomy.

Circumcision is a deliberate wound that puts a child at risk for infection, partial or full ablation, and even death. (At least 117 babies die a year due to circumcision complications. This is difficult to guage because often times deaths due to circumcision are attributed to other causes, and hospitals are not required to release this information).

Circumcision is the destruction of normal, healthy, genital tissue. By definition, the circumcision of healthy, non-consenting infants is forced genital mutilation.

What it will always come down to is this:

Is the child sick? Is the child suffering some sort of life-threatening illness that can only be remedied by circumcision? What is the problem with a newborn boy that he must be circumcised as soon as possible?

Without clinical, or medical indication, how can doctors even really be performing this?

What “choice” is there to make?

Parents must most definitely make decisions for their child when, for example the child needs an appendix out. His gall bladder removed. His heart operated on. But all of these decisions exist, assuming that there are pressing medical needs.

What is the medical need in a healthy child?

This is my final post, but I’ll make it short and sweet:

I encourage those of you with the resources to look up medical malpractice and parental consent laws.

You’d be surprised to find out that doctors aren’t supposed to be performing surgery in healthy, non-consenting individuals without proper medical and clinical justification.

You’d be surprised to find out that aside from circumcision, there is absolutely no other surgery that doctors can just perform because a parent “chooses” it.

You’ll find that circumcision is the only exception, where doctors are suddenly too stupid to do their jobs, and they let parents make their own assessment as to whether the doctor should perform surgery or not.

This is professional abuse; the doctor should know better than to be performing circumcisions in healthy, non-consenting individual, and presenting parents with a bogus dilemma, asking them to make a false “choice.”

Some of you may complain that intactivists are going to far in trying to make this illegal, but the fact of the matter is that it already is.

All intactivists want is for the 14th ammendment to be recognized, and for medical malpractice and parental consent laws to apply to BOTH sexes, not just one.

Sorry parents, think it possible; doctors are profitting at the expense of your children.

No one is blaming you if you made a decision based on the information you were presented; but consider that your doctor may have presented you with a “decision” that wasn’t yours to make in the first place.

This is isn’t about taking away your parental rights; it’s about children’s rights. Consider that your child has rights and that it should be your responsibility to protect them.

Peace y’all.

That link i provided will take you to a breakdown of The Doctors show that aired not long ago.

Nikki: I have just a few comments to make, directed to you and not specifically about the topic at hand. Once I have done that, I am finished with you and this topic because it will just become, then, a pissing contest and you and I both have better things to do with our time.

I have to wonder how you happened upon this site. I know that if you Google certain “tag” words, this blog will appear. So that leads me to believe that you had to be looking for a site, or sites, where circumcision was being discussed. Why?

You seem argumentative to me. Challenging. Not at all like someone who is genuinely trying to educate people on the problems associated with the subject.

If your intent was to point out where the thought processes concerning the subject might be wrong…..you failed miserably. All you really did, IMO, was alienate people (not just myself) who might otherwise have paid attention to you.

You call me mean-spirited. Yet you are just as guilty, yourself, of the attack mode and you definitely come across as condescending and arrogant. Did I bring that out in you or is that your normal personna?

If its normal for you to talk to people the way you did to Val and myself, then you are doing your “cause” a disservice, because what you succeeded in only, is creating an adversarial atmoshphere where most of what you said went out the window because of your tone.

Accusing me of the same things isnt really the issue for I am not the one here, on this blog, trying to convince others that circumcision should be banned.

Do you belong to some sort of anti-circumcison league where you and peers go around the net looking for blogs where you can do this?

You also continue to fan the flames when it comes to my comments about liberalism. Dont you get this? In our country today, there is MUCH for conservative thinkers to be upset about. We are being over-run by liberal thinking and having liberal ideas shoved down our throats and passed into laws which many of us dont like, nor do we want.

Its not a stretch to consider THIS new law, in the same manner many of us consider Obamacare. Dont take that comment literally (something you have a tendency to do). All that I meant is it is again, another piece of legislation which many people feel is taking away our fundamental rights.

You need to understand that perhaps the idea of NOT performing “at will” circumcisions isnt what we rail against as much as it is the forced mandate which says we have no choice.

You didnt answer my question. How old are you? I would guess that you are in your 20′s to mid 30′s. A generation which, just like we felt in the 60s and early 70s, can still make a difference. Good for you! I dont mean that in a condescending manner, either, before you jump on me. Your idealism isnt a bad thing, but when you get older, idealistic thinking begins to pale alongside the realities of actual day to day living which is why so many people leave the liberal ideas behind when they get older…..they simply dont work when you stack most of them up against the reality of middle class life in America..but I digress and all of this is another topic/argument/debate/whatever which I do not intend to embark upon.

The real point I wanted to make is that if you truly want to affect change, consider how you go about doing it.

You, with all of your education and rhetoric on this subject, which might have been very sound to begin with, lost the chance to educate not only me, but possibly others who came here and read, but decided to leave because you got emotional on the subject you were trying to discuss.

Heres a clue to my point: Joseph came to the blog last night and posted two comments. I read both of them. He wasnt emotional. He didnt come with an accusatory tone and he stated simple, clear understandable facts.

I paid attention to him and guess what? He even made me consider that some of his points made sense and were valid.

Good Luck Nikki.

Do you honestly think it’s your RIGHT to mutilate your child? If you aren’t allowed to punch your kid in the face, why are you allowed to cut his genitals?

The irrational person is the one who fights to keep sick and twisted practices like circumcision alive and well in our country out of some sick sense of “tradition.” WHY do you want to be able to circumcise your child? Do you have even ONE solid reason?

“So he’ll look like his dad” – if Dad has tattoos, will you tattoo your baby?

“So he won’t be made fun of in the locker room” – Uncircumcised boys may be a minority in the US, but they’re a BIG minority these days. Babies born today will not be looked upon as weirdos for having foreskin. And from what I remember of high school, nudity is not mandatory.

It is not cleaner, it is not safer, and it is NOT your body. You are entrusted with that child and it is your job to PROTECT him from unnecessary pain, not INFLICT it upon him willingly.

His body, his choice.

Intactivists do not hide or deny medical benefits of circumcision………there aren’t any!!! Comparing circumcision to genital mutilation is not hyperbole, it’s true!! There is no reason, unless necessary for medically correcting a problem, should this ever even be considered! We are trying to protect the human rights and genital integrity of newborn babies!! Why isn’t everyone doing this?????

Mully, dude. Chill. I agree – the conservative/liberal thing coming from you is a bit much and has little to do with circumcision.

PS. San Francisco was voted one of the America’s smartest cities.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/08/31/seattle-san-francisco-nam_n_28464.html Most of the smart people (“liberals”) tend to gravitate towards the coasts. The others… they stay in Ohio.

In a free society, the power of statute to alter human reality is limited. There are public policy objectives for which good arguments can be made that cannot be attained by requiring X or forbidding Y, because the downside outweighs the possible benefit. I grant that circumcision is a case in point. I believe that that the American fascination with making the penis bald is gravely misguided, but I also cannot support making it illegal.

It is silly for San Francisco to even think of making routine circumcision illegal. All that will do is move circ and childbirth to Oakland and San Mateo. The appropriate government unit for debating this question is the state legislature.

The only country to outlaw some forms of male circumcision is South Africa, where hundreds of boys die every year in rite of passage circumcision performed under extremely unsanitary traditional conditions. Scandinavia requires that ritual circumcisions be performed under local anesthesia by medically trained practitioners.

Instead of outlawing it, here’s what should be done:

1. To circumcise a minor without state of the art pain management should be a felony, and grounds for loss of one’s licence to practice medecine.

2. The taxpayer should not reimburse the cost of routine circumcision.

3. Doctors and nurses who refuse to perform routine circumcision should not be punished for insubordination.

4. Doctors and nurses should be free to exercise their professional judgement and advise parents not to circumcise their sons routinely.

(1)-(4) describe the reality in the English speaking countries other than the USA. In those countries, routine circumcision is either gone (UK, New Zealand) or in steep decline (Australia, Canada).

Circumcision gradually became popular before WWII, because it was seen as the proper middle class thing to do. It became a sort of cattle brand by which a man signaled to other men in the locker room, and to women in the bedroom, that he had been born in an urban maternity ward to parents who had money to spare.

But the tide of fashion is now running the other way. The claimed medical benefits of routine circumcision vanish if a man is faithful in his sex life, or is careful about using condoms. Routine circumcision has public health benefits only for men who insist on being manwhores. Is it right to assume that a baby boy will grow up to be a manwhore, and to adjust his intimate body believing to reduce the damage he can do? I submit that actions that make bad behaviour less damaging are tantamount to encouraging the bad behaviour.

More and more mothers agree that routine circumcision without anesthesia as barbaric. There is a growing appreciation of how circumcision puts adult sexual pleasure and functionality at risk, in ways that American research has refused to face squarely. Finally, more and more women who have been intimate with both kinds of men are reporting on the internet that they prefer intact.

How the penis looks and functions is a personal choice, all right, but that choice rightly rests with the owner of the penis, and not his parents.

At any event, changing fashion in human sexuality will result in the North American fascination with the bald penis ending within the lifetimes of most readers of this post.

I’ve read some excellent replies to this blog here.
“stay out of my son’s pants and I won’t expound on how borderline-creepy your obsession”
I so agree… you should totally stay out of your sons’ pants and end the “creepy obsession” with cutting his pee-pee. So sick…
Your baby was born perfect and does not need cosmetic surgery without his consent. NOBODY gets STD’s or penile cancer before age 18, so this is a ridiculous reason to amputate an infant’s foreskin.
No one is trying to take away rights; we are simply trying to expand rights to include those of infant boys. You shouldn’t – and really don’t – have the right to perform non-necessary cosmetic surgery on your baby. Your baby does not belong to you any more than a black person can belong to a white person (remember when we abolished slavery? or is that also a matter of government interfering with your right to own whomever you choose?). I think Penn said it best, “put down the knife, step away from the baby, and DO NO HARM!”

Routine male circumcision is equally “medically advantageous” as female circumcision. Don’t believe me? Check out the “studies” regarding the medical benefits of female circ. The foreskins of boys and girls are not pathogenic and actually serve very important sexual and protective functions. Personal agenda of an intactivst….giving everyone equal rights to their own body, particularly the most fragile and innocent of citizens. “Circumcision, a cure in search of a disease.”

It always amazes me that people will laugh and poke fun at this topic and those who question it. What on earth is comical about a baby having part of his genitals cut and torn off? If our culture had been peeling back newborn infants’ fingernails, and claiming that there were medical benefits to doing it, I suppose there would also be supporters who would poke fun at those who questioned it and tried to put a stop to it. I can almost hear the laughing at my comparison, now, but there is definitely much in common. The foreskin of a newborn is attached to the underlying glans penis, in the same way that a fingernail is attached to a nail bed. Having the foreskin torn from the glans it is attached to hurts just as much as having a fingernail torn off. Then, in addition to that, the foreskin is crushed with a clamp and cut off, leaving the entire glans penis as a wound. The wound is then subjected to the environment inside a diaper.

Where is the comedy in that, or the silliness in adults wanting to have it stopped? If it was some other normal, healthy body part that was treated in such a manner, those of us “intactivists” would try to stop that, too. In fact, there is something else that we oppose just as much and that is female circumcision. Fortunately for female Americans, that practice never really caught on here. Americans think it is horrible to do even the simplest form of female circumcision. We think people in the countries who do that should be strung up for it. It is hypocrisy and arrogance that we look down our noses at others and then do the exact same thing to our own baby boys and keep looking for new excuses to keep doing it. Many of the ills that current circumcision proponents claim to be preventing are actually more common here than in the rest of the industrialized world, where almost no one is circumcised. It would be much more sensible to come to the conclusion that circumcision puts men at higher risk for illnesses like AIDS and cervical cancer among female partners.

I, for one, will continue trying to protect baby boys from having their genitals cut and torn. I think people who find that amusing needs to take a good, hard look at the practice, as well as their own motives for thinking there is anything reasonable about it.

And I have to ask, don’t you consider that you’ve spent the whole time telling them that they should be? Haven’t you told them all along that it IS better, and they SHOULD be thankful?

Who does that? It’s not exactly dinner-time conversation. I can honestly say that I have NEVER told anyone (sons included) that they should be thankful they are circumcised. Just thinking about it makes me chuckle a bit, and although I realize that this is a legitimate concern for some, the above question/assumption is a bit off-the-wall!

If a parent does the above (dwells on telling a son that his circumcised parent is better than the a “natural one”), isn’t this going to get old after awhile? Isn’t the child or young adult going to start putting two and two together and figure that maybe there IS something wrong with having had his foreskin removed? Isn’t that sewing the seeds of dissention for a concern that otherwise never would have occurred to him because he had no problem with missing foreskin?

Yes, Val, it would seem so.

Its a shame that someone doesnt have enough conviction in their own beliefs that they need to rally the troops to help them in their defense.

Credibility….they have none.

It always amazes me that people will laugh and poke fun at this topic and those who question it. What on earth is comical about a baby having part of his genitals cut and torn off?

Who is laughing and poking fun?

Where is the post where someone is laughing and poking fun at this topic?

Mully, I’m a web developer. I know all about how posts and websites and blogs and search engines work. I’ve been working in web development for about 15 years and in the past few years I’ve specialized in development & management of sites like this, run off of content management systems.

I understand that it seems like it’s not a common topic in your world. (That’s not meant as a condescending comment, “your world” = your circle of friends, coworkers, where you live, who you talk to, your chosen media, etc.) For others, that’s not the case. We all have different issues & topics that we’re interested in. I don’t think about this all that often unless it comes up. It came up. So I’m talking about it.

In “my world” – my friends, the people I know (not all who agree with me, I have friends from all walks of politics/life), there are people that care a lot about this. Whether they agree or disagree. I’m not going to sit here and be attacked for other people adding comments or think it’s ok for all these other people to be insulted and called “little friends” because you have a grudge against me. Please be considerate.

WOW – I didn’t know that “little friends” was so insulting. Maybe you should go back and read some of the earlier comments on here so that you can compare insulting remarks. It just appears to me that out of the blue so many people have found this site and they all seem to have your opinion on the subject. Where were they when we were putting up with THEO?????????????

BTW, I find the non-word UM before sentences addressed to me to be very insulting, but I refrained from saying so.

BTW, I find the non-word UM before sentences addressed to me to be very insulting, but I refrained from saying so.

Pretty much how I felt, Val, and why I called Nikki out on it.

Do you see Nikki, how you come across?

It isnt only me who felt insulted by the way you address people.

Are you really going to jump on me for typing “um” now???? I’m saying “um” in my head, as I’m thinking and I tend to write as I speak, so excuse me. Are we going to nitpick on people’s speaking quirks now?

This is really incredible to me.

Valerie, “little friends” – come on. I can’t compare insulting remarks because I came in on this late. I’m only really dealing with the present comments. I have no idea who Theo is. And from what I saw, there was already over a thousand comments so there was clearly already a lot of interest here.

Well…now that we’ve all had anatomy 101, thanks to Brandon, I am sure we ALL understand the difference b/w sex with a foreskin and sex w/o a foreskin.

Seriously?

You really didnt need to “expand”, as you call it. Im fairly certain most of us “get it”.

Why? What is it that you regret? Please dont tell me that you regret not being able to have sex the way sex would be if you still had a foreskin, because I dont see how you can miss what youve never experienced.

What, exactly, is it that not having this piece of skin surrounding your penis has done to your life so that you regret it being done in the first place? How has not having a foreskin impacted your daily life?

Simple words, simple sentences will suffice. I truly do not need a copy and paste from some journal to explain. I would like to know, from someone like you, Brandon, why you regret not having a foreskin.

Why wouldn’t I regret not being able to have sex the way nature intended me to? 80% of the world’s men have intact penises, so the way I experience it is in the definite minority.

Since the gliding mechanism makes sex much better for the female partner, sex with my wife is not as good for her either, and that obviously bothers me. Just like every other circumcised man, my penis acts like a one way pump removing her lubrication from the vagina and exposing it to air where it evaporates.

As far as copy and pasting goes, I wrote out that expansion of sexual effects based on what I’ve learned. That came from within. If you read the links, yes, the same information was presented, but I don’t understand why that knowledge wouldn’t upset me, not being able to experience it.

I cannot feel blow jobs. My wife loves nothing more than a man enjoying oral pleasure from her, and for me, sexual enjoyment from them is nil, that really hurts as well. I cannot have an orgasm from a hand job or oral, so our sex life is made less varietous than it could be. That’s not to say that I don’t give her oral and other stimulation, but her ability to do those to be are severely impacted.

Also, my erections are so tight they are painful, this is also directly attributed to my losing half the skin of the penis at birth. I have scrotal skin a third of the way up my shaft, and the little shaft skin I have remaining is from lower on my groin and is full of hair, right up to the scar line on the shaft by the glans.

Everytime I masturbate (not so much since being married) I am unable to use the gliding mechanism for painless masturbation, I am forced to use artificial lubricants and as my glans has desensitised over the years (I notice a big difference from my teenage years and early twenties in sensitivity) it’s almost not worth the effort unless for some reason I haven’t had any sexual stimulation in a long time and require such a release. (I certainly hope this isn’t TMI, but as you asked for real life examples I’m glad to transmit them to you.)

Knowing that this loss was without reason (they simply asked my mother, and her not knowing anything about it said yes without thinking, yes we have talked about it, no, I don’t hate her and forgiving was never an option as I knew from the start she didn’t know anything about it, so I never needed to forgive if you know what I mean), and that there is nothing I can do about it is very painful. When I first learned about what is lost I had a grieving process similar to any loss of a body part of loved one. Some men on the restoration and intactivist forums say that the pain was greater than losing a loved one, although that wasn’t the case for me, it was painful enough that I could definitely empathise with it.

Some one said something about this not being a very talked about topic right now and some one inviting friends to this to back them up, there have been 35,000 views on this subject on one YouTube post in just a matter of days, I think this is a hotter topic then a lot of you know, including a new study just released showing that HPV DNA detection was highest in Africa. Neither condom usage nor circumcision was associated with HPV DNA prevalence. So guess what, cutting your baby isn’t going even touch HPV, but not sleeping around will!

If you can watch this video and still say it’s okay to circumcise, and still think the way that Jessica wrote this article/blog was okay then I’ll eat my foot!

@Brandon I think that the information you gave is quite useful – while some people may claim to know all of that, I’m sure there are many out there that don’t or just don’t really think about it. I find that men and women often don’t really understand the inner workings of each others bodies (and even their own, sometimes!)

I can vouch for the comfort thing – I’ve had sex with both circumcised and intact. I’ve always had problems with lubrication and sensitivity and thought I was just resigned to some discomfort and lots of man made lubrication. I was surprised to discover that I had no discomfort during or afterward with someone who was intact. My (female) friends and I have talked about it, as girls tend to do, and one of them had a similar experience.

@Stacey Great story. I think there’s a lot of things in this world that many of us do just because that’s how it’s been. Sometimes it’s good to stop and think about what we’re doing and wonder if it’s still necessary or the right way.

While my intent may have been misguided when my sons were born and I agreed to circumcision, it never entered my mind that someday, some radical would call me a pedophile for doing it.

People like this are misguided. The level of anger and hatred they possess goes way beyond their belief system about the subject at hand.

Something else, someone else is at the root of this sort of anger and they are using this topic to vent.

They need help, but in the meantime, Im with Summer, they shouldnt be allowed to come here and post such out and out vitriol and think they can get away with it.

LOL…Summer: I have a fair amount of Zing Zang left from the holidays……

Dont YOU get it??

GO AWAY!

Meaning I give my opinions (and facts) where they may or may not be wanted. A lot of the time I piss people off. I think people that take this subject lightly should be offended.

No shit you piss people off. What a sad life you must lead that you enjoy going around pissing people off.

Your crusade isnt about information or education, its about YOU being center of attention. This is ultimately ALL about you and your need to show off and take center stage on a subject which the ONLY people who should be center stage are the very infants you proclaim to be crusading for!

You need help. I cannot state it clearer than that. Your violent rhetoric speaks volumes about the type of person you are. Stacey and I have both told you, almost ad nauseum, how much of a disservice you are doing a noteworthy cause and yet you persist in your need to show the world what? how much you know about circumcision? How against it you are? Both could be achieved in a less grandstanding way than yours and in fact, already have.

Whatever message you had hoped to convey, youve lost that chance.

I pity the poor people who might have come to this blog in an attempt to actually understand and get some information on this subject. Once theyve read your callous, selfish, bitter, angry words, I would wager they left without giving themselves a chance to read other, more caring posts.

You dont come across as caring about anyone but yourself and making sure the world sees your anger. An anger, which seems very misdirected. So, many of us are left to wonder just exactly what the root of that anger REALLY is.

BTW. Your analogy of your style..comparing yourself to someone between MLK and Malcolm X? You are MUCH closer to Malcolm X whose activist anger is easily traced back to his roots and childhood.

I have to wonder if the same is true of you.

I have to wonder what your stance on partial birth abortion might be?

Do you support it?

Are you against it and if you are, are you as vehemently against it as you are circumcision. After all, IMO, its tantamount to actual murder,

I have to wonder where all of you “intactivists” stand on this heinous, crimimal procedure.

It would seem to me that the same criteria you use to judge the practice of circumcision would have to apply to the procedure used to perform partial birth abortion.

Or….has that procedure and the resulting effect of it (death to an innocent, WITH NO RIGHTS, infant) gotten, somehow, caught up in political rhetoric which makes it okay, in your mind, to suck the brains out of a fetus as far as 8 months into gestation?

Well, well, well…at least we know where all of the “sudden” posters are coming from.

From Brandon:

Brandon Cheshire The thread is really in need of people who aren’t blathering idiots on the matter. Please feel free to help out!

Interesting Brandon, that on the Save Our Sons Facebook page, where you are joined in your common hatred for others who might not see things the way all of you do concerning this issue, you call us “idiots”.

Seriously? Idiots? Because we arent as informed as you might think we should be?

Brandon Cheshire: Okay, seriously, they refuse to accept that what I am personally going through is anything more than my personal experience. I really need more people than just me in there to let them know that these effects are the norm for circumcised men. I.e. tight erections, loss of feeling, etc.

Gather the troops! Send them all to the whack job, nut cases, pedophiles here on Imperfect Parent! Make sure you tell them that you consider them sexual perverts. Piss them off! Rile them up!

Oh yeah…thats the way to gain support and notoriety for the cause!

Joseph Lewis: This subject makes people uncomfortable, and they would like for nothing more than for the conversation to be OVER. The fact that they’re TALKING about it is a big win for us, because no, the conversation isn’t over how they’d like it to be. Whether they like it or not, the debate is here to stay, so they might as well get used to it. Good job to all who posted!

WRONG! The subject didnt make us uncomfortable you arrogant, self-serving snot! You people are sickening to me! You get on a soapbox about an issue that the majority of people in this country dont consider an issue. Is that a crime? No! It isnt. The fact is that most adult men dont consider the fact that they were circumcised to be a problem. If it IS a problem for some of you, I am sorry for that, but you have taken the word “cause” to a whole new level.

Again, patiently, and for the umpteenth time: If you have a message to deliver, try doing it thru a less abrasive manner.

Shame on all of you who demean and denigrate people simply because they didnt see this issue the way all of you have.

I do have to wonder how many of you were guilty as charged at one point in your lives? One of you even posted about her husband and how he questioned what might happen when his son compared himself to other little boys. So dont act all high and mighty with us, here, as though you are perfect examples of humanity and never considered that the procedure of circumcision was acceptable and normal in our society.

The way your group decided to come here and literally gang up on us is despicable.

All of you make me sick with your patronizing, arrogant, and over-bearing attitudes and comments.

Interesting Brandon, that on the Save Our Sons Facebook page, where you are joined in your common hatred for others who might not see things the way all of you do concerning this issue, you call us “idiots”.

Seriously? Idiots? Because we arent as informed as you might think we should be?

Mully, you misunderstand me, I was requesting people to enter the thread who weren’t blathering idiots. Meaning, people that aren’t hostile. On another thread, I asked for people who “don’t hate their mothers and can speak eloquently on the matter.”

After reading the many comments on your groups FB page, Brandon, I have to tell you this: you failed miserably in your intent to bring support from your group of friends who would post with sincerity and conviction within themselves and their beliefs.

A person knowns as “woh-man uncensored” actually thought it was adult and mature to comment on the mistaken use of the word “breed” by Jessica in her original article.

After reading Woh-man’s personal FB page where she tells the world just how she sees things, I would have expected more from someone who sees herself as mature and a trail blazer for the cause.

God help ALL the causes our world has had to face for the past, many centuries if every group supporting those causes were as spiteful as yours.

My apologies, Brandon. You are correct. I did mis-read the comment about “idiots”.

That said…I dont apologize for the anger which I feel for the way your group spins this controversy.

Ultimately, for anything to ever be changed, the “us vs. them” thinking has to go away and your group is very much steeped in that.

God help ALL the causes our world has had to face for the past, many centuries if every group supporting those causes were as spiteful as yours.
-mully

I think I understand why you’re so fixated on somebody’s style. You are very uncomfortable with the fact that you now clearly see what a circumcised infant goes though, what a circumcised penis has lost, what circumcised men will endure to undo some of the damage, and what most of the world takes for granted: Foreskin feels REALLY good.

HIS body, HIS decision.

I’m trying to take something positive from this as well. I’m so very grateful that you’ve been able to see the difference between those trying to simply raise awareness and those that must relay their own anger. I agree that that anger could be channelled so very effectively by sticking to the gesture of simple awareness raising with no lashing out.

There are places where anger can be released in its more raw form: Therapy, support groups, etc, that will not hurt one’s cause.

Thanks, good luck to you as well, and thank you also for listening. I’m going to take my leave from this thread because it seems what I wished to accomplish has been achieved as much as is possible.

blah blah balh

In my first post I was commenting on the article and the fool who wrote it, not any poster here. If you actually read what I wrote, “The only people who support infant circumcision are pedophiles…”

If you don’t support it, I wasn’t talking about you, if you thought I was that’s your own guilty conscience.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPxjhLq3eUQ

You people are actually defending this just to spite me?

Your violent rhetoric speaks volumes about the type of person you are.

I’m more concerned with real life violence than with a few words that hurt people’s feelings. I’m not the one torturing infant children daily. This whole article is hateful “violent rhetoric.”

It’s not always that people have a “nonchalant attitude” …some of us just DIDN’T KNOW!

Now you do.

It’s not always that people have a “nonchalant attitude” …some of us just DIDN’T KNOW!

Ok, now that you do know and you’re a mod here, would you like to drop a note to Jessica Carlson (the author of this article) letting her know that she is condoning and promoting the abuse of children by publishing material like this?

Please show her the video that made you cry as well as Soraya Mira equating it to male circumcision. If you want I can dig up a full length operation that is even more graphic and disturbing than the one you viewed. I can also find the video of Ayaan Hirsi Ali saying that male circ is worse than some types of FGM.

I would send it myself but I wouldn’t want to put her off with the “violent rhetoric” that I’m prone to.

I would be curious as to what Ms. Carlson would think of the procedure after actually seeing one or two performed and if she would be moved to write a retraction or if she still thinks it’s “right for [her] neighbors.”

Now I’m really confused. Are you saying that the doctor did nothing wrong in performing your particular circumcision?

I’m saying that the effects of my circumcision are the common, if not de facto results of the procedure.

I’m saying that the effects of my circumcision are the common, if not de facto results of the procedure.

You’re muddying the waters here, Brandon. The effects of your circumcision are not common results of the procedure.

I am also a strong advocate against partial birth abortions, yet I noticed that not one of the many ardent supporters of “intactivism” spoke up when I mentioned it earlier.

The only reason I could guess no one replied is that the issue is a red herring. We are discussing the rights of individuals who have been born, which has nothing to do with the rights of the unborn.

I was merely pointing out that much of America is sick and tired of the idea that someone or some group needs legislation in order to shove THEIR idea of what is right for the rest of us, down our collective throats.

I agree. This issue specifically though is for the protection of a group that cannot testify on their own behalf, and need some outside source to protect their “individual rights” against the wishes of others, so in a way its right up the alley of individual preferences/rights, its just inverted from the usual way of thinking about it.

Maybe all of you think that circumcision is a much more serious issue than where we feed our kids or what books our kids read, and that is fine and I am all for your opinion, but when it comes to legislation and someone telling me that I HAVE to abide by that law, despite the fact that I live in the United States…oh yeah, you can bet your sweet asses, there will be resistance.

Circumcision though isn’t stopping you from acting in your own behalf, it is only curtailing your right to force your opinion or preference on another individual without their consent, which I’m sure you agree with stated as such.

Ultimately, whatever videos you watch, whatever pamphlets or articles you read, or whatever your personal experiences might be, there are probably thousands of others out there who have something in their lives to counterpoint your point.

This is an interesting argument. So because someone is alright that they had no say in the flaying of their genitals, it means that the right to continue this is fine. Whereas, the other side will say, if there is the chance that this infant will grow up to despise that decision being made for him, that possibility could apply to anyone, and thus must be extended to everyone to protect them from that possibility.

Its the American way and the choice is the choice of everyone to make for themselves.

But in reality this is protecting the american way of having people make choices for themselves. The baby in question: His genitals, his choice.

So I would say to all of you, yes, I have changed much of my opinion and attitude about the actual procedure itself..but I am still with Jessica. Its a personal choice and until it IS legislated, I will respect the rights of any parent to do what they feel is best for their own child.

And this I cannot fathom, if you are against the procedure itself being forced upon infants, then how is it a personal choice of the parent, and not the personal choice of the person whose body contains the genitals and who will ultimately have to live with the choice for the rest of his life?

I don’t think that’s necessary. Jessica isn’t only the “author” of this article. She’s co-creator of IP, and a moderator. She reads it.

Then having so many responsibilities I would imagine she may not have the time to read every single comment made on her articles, especially not from “raving nutjobs” like me.

Again, I’ll ask Stacey S_MOD, as a staff member here, to direct Ms. Carlson’s attention to the graphic circumcision video you viewed earlier, as well as Soraya Mira equating FGM to MGM.

After actually watching the procedure performed, seeing the obvious trauma it causes and after listening to what female genital mutilation victims think of it, I’m curious if Jessica will have a new perspective on this issue.

This article is very one sided and filled with ignorance, I believe it is irresponsible to publish something like this having such a myopic view of a controversial topic. If Ms. Carlson is open minded enough to see other perspectives (and not just my own “idiotic” views) on this issue, I wonder if she will change her mind.

Antimutilation: I think I speak for everyone from the Imperfect Parent blog when I say to you…that you and your opinions are not welcome here.

The site moderators who let my comments go through think otherwise.

I would hope that you would realize that your serious loss of credibility has rendered you completely ineffective.

Ad hominem defined.

Stacy S_MOD wrote:
I have no words for how I feel about that video. My heart sank & it made me cry. If I have ever had wavering thoughts…that cured it.

At least some of my sentiments got through to someone.

For me, only an apology, from you, for your insensitivity (and Im being kind using that word) would even remotely make me re-consider my attitude toward you.

I won’t apologize for any comment I made here. Not even for the ones which were deleted for “racism and/or hatred.” You probably could have guessed that. The writer of this article should apologize for her irresponsible ignorance and “insensitivity” on this subject.

Again, Stacy, please direct Ms. Carlson’s attention to the graphic circumcision video you viewed earlier, as well as Soraya Mira equating FGM to MGM.

Again, I’ll ask Stacey S_MOD, as a staff member here, to direct Ms. Carlson’s attention to the graphic circumcision video you viewed earlier, as well as Soraya Mira equating FGM to MGM

.

You’re a big boy. Why should she do anything for you? Don’t ask somebody else to do what you are perfectly capable of doing. Do it yourself if you want it done. If you can’t control your “violent rhetoric” long enough to do that, then you have a problem bigger than your circumcised penis.

Brandon: One more thing.

When I said that I have changed my opinion, let me be clear.

I recognize that, apparently, the medical community CAN be guilty, in some cases of not performing this operation correctly. I also recognize that because of that, some men are left with permanent emotional scars which seem to result in serious issues later in life.

This is all something I was never aware of before.

I am also on the fence about how I go forth, now, in my private life, with this information. Since I am past my own child bearing years, this issue will more impact my children and any of their (possible) unborn sons.

I will more than likely point out to family and friends that there can be serious complications associated with circumcision and encourage them to at least do some research before making a decision.

What I WILL NOT do, however, is force feed whatever my opinion might be on anyone else.

If that doesnt agree with you or your group or if that somehow indicates that you failed in your attempt to control my thinking, rest easy. I am a free thinker and it is because I am, that YOUR words have impacted me as much as they have.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TYTBvTWz-M

Brandon: My last comment since I have dinner plans tonight.

Ive seen them both, circed and not circed. Again, delicacy has gone out the window in this conversation so what I am about to say shouldnt shock anyone.

If its appearance we are talking about, as you mentioned, Ill take the circumcised one ANYDAY over the uncircumcised one.

Maybe its just a matter of personal taste, and I rather doubt that this serious of a subject should be relegated to appearance, but since you brought it up, I find an uncircumcised penis to actually be quite ugly. That said, its wholly a matter of what one gets used to, I guess and penis-es in general, arent exactly a good looking part of the male anatomy. Again, just my opinion.

I believe it was you who mentioned oral sex in an earlier post. I can also (tossing ALL deceny aside) that I have partaken in oral sex with both cut and not cut. I prefer cut if my mouth and nose are going to be in the general vicinity. One never can really be sure of cleanliness issues until its possibly too late and (sorry) there is nothing quite as disgusting as ummmm….having the mood broken by finding you have just happened upon a glob of smegma.

I am not trying to be facetious here either, nor am I trying to come up with arguments in favor of circumcision. I am merely stating facts as they relate to my experiences.

They had the most sensitive part of their penis amputated shortly after they were born. Its illogical to say this hasn’t damaged, or censored, an entire part of their sexual existence, as the functions and innervation of the foreskin are just medical/anatomical facts

See..heres the thing. Your above comment is difficult for me to get my head around. Im fairly certain that my daughter in law enjoys a full sexual experience with my son and knowing my sons, since they are very much like their father, they, too, enjoy full sexual experiences.

Your argument is based on crying for something you never knew. If you never knew that losing your foreskin also meant losing sensation (which I think is subjective and dependent on which article etc you read)then how can it be an issue which, according to many of you, is devastating?

Again, your aim is to educate. I think, based on much of what I have read for the past few days, there is much to educate parents about the pros and cons of circumcision.

I dont get the feeling that the medical community, at large and especially these days, are cloaked in some mysterious conspiratorial agenda to have a quota of circumcisions under their belt.

As with most things, educate the parents. Teach them to be better advocates for their children and dont assume that what is wrong for you, is necessarily wrong for someone else.

So Dr. Warren would have us believe that it took him until he was middle aged before he began realizing that he had little or no sensation in his penis?

Im sorry Brandon, again, I am not trying to dismiss you or your issues, but I watched that entire video and Im struck by the one thought which I typed above.

If sensation was gone because of the removal of the foreskin, then why did he not notice that many years before?

Its a fair question.

So Dr. Warren would have us believe that it took him until he was middle aged before he began realizing that he had little or no sensation in his penis?

Im sorry Brandon, again, I am not trying to dismiss you or your issues, but I watched that entire video and Im struck by the one thought which I typed above.

If sensation was gone because of the removal of the foreskin, then why did he not notice that many years before?

Its a fair question

I guess you missed it, but I’ve said repeatedly that the glans defence mechanism for missing its protective covering is to build up keratine as the man ages. That means progressively it gets worse. A lot of ED is based on diminishing sensitivity as a man ages. Americans might think its a natural part of getting older, but Europeans don’t have hardly as much cases of ED, because their glans don’t keratinise from missing their foreskin.

Basically, the layers continually build up. When men restore their foreskin, little by little these layers shed off and the glans begins to restore itself until it again becomes a thin supple mucous membrane.

“Is it wrong to amputate a healthy tissue from an infant without it’s consent?”

It’s hard to take anything you say seriously when you use such hyperbolic, inflammatory language which makes one wonder how much of the rest of what you say are gross exaggerations to invoke drama. In your world, a haircut would be an “amputation of filamentous biomaterial.”

No, since hair doesn’t contain 20,000 sexually purposed nerve endings, I wouldn’t draw the same conclusion from a hair cut.

When a baby is born, it is extremely rare that the foreskin has a defect or diseased state, so it is healthy tissue designed for sexual and other purposes. Your argument is a strawman.

It wasn’t an “argument,” it’s my opinion. When you use over-the-top words like “amputation” I tune you out as an obvious zealot.

Amputation: the removal of a body extremity by trauma or surgery.

Circumcision: surgical removal of the foreskin (prepuce) from the penis.

Seems to check out.

So you know how to troll, too. Feels good, doesn’t it? I won’t take the obvious bait, though. Just don’t try to take any moral high ground over me since you’ve just proven how low you’ll go. I didn’t even address you before.

Thank you, and I feel blessed that you didn’t. Jessica, Stacey, et al. Hasn’t this poster gone far enough in personal attacks/hateful comments to warrant a warning and/or ban? He/she obviously hasn’t the tactfulness to be able to discuss anything with any credibility without resorting to viscious, condescending and hateful statements. If you go back several posts, you can read snippets of his cruel diatribes.

My message was an appeal to Stacy’s conscience, since she has shown she has one. Since I have Stacy’s ear and she is an employee or volunteer for Ms. Carlson, I think her opinion might carry a bit more weight with Jessica than mine. Stacy’s a big girl and a site mod, she doesn’t need you to back her up.

You piss Stacey off to the point that she’s more upset with you and your postings of anger and hate than she has ever been on IP, and yet you have the balls (okay, I said it) to ask her to do something for you?

Stacey’s opinion might carry a bit more weight with Jessica than yours? Gee…you think? Why would you think that ANY of your opinions would carry ANY weight with any of the mods? Mully was right. It’s all about YOU. This smacks of depotism.

Jessica! Stacey! Prescott!

So, is it wrong to remove a healthy, irreplaceable organ from an infant without their consent?

I’m willing to keep them on a short leash, for now, but first I should address this comment by “antimutilation”:

“The site moderators who let my comments go through think otherwise.”

Just because a comment winds up live on the site does not mean that it is approved/condoned by site moderators/owners. There are two levels of moderation — the first is an automated process, where the blog software flags comments based on keywords, spam-like qualities, etc. (there is neither the staff nor time to physically read each and every comment). The second level is done manually if a comment on the site comes to our attention and violates our terms.

Again, Stacey was on last night, read all of my comments, and even deleted a few. Everything you read here (from last night) went by Stacey.

Again, Stacey was on last night, read all of my comments, and even deleted a few. Everything you read here (from last night) went by Stacey.

And I know she approved them because she replied to nearly every one.

Just because Stacey posted a comment at or around the same time as your rant doesn’t mean it “passed” her moderation or that she was “on at the time.” Stacey is not an employee of Imperfect Parent, and the main role we gave her as a moderator was to keep an eye on the tens of thousands of comments over on a couple of Jon and Kate blog posts which in the past have spun out of control. Any other moderating she does on the site is out of the kindness of helping us out when she stumbles across something offensive.

To shut down any further arguments from you about the supposed appropriateness/acceptance of your comments, as the editor of the site I will say that trying to denigrate an entire religious group will not be tolerated, and if you even come close to that fine line your IP address will be banned.

First, I wasn’t trying to “denigrate an religious group.” I was only trying to give information about a practice which is on topic to this article.

Again, she replied to almost all of my comments, some of them didn’t go live right away, so I’m guessing she approved them, and she didn’t make “a comment or two,” she replied to nearly all of my posts.

P.S. I’m actually personally against circumcising my children! And I still wouldn’t slog through some of your comments for fear that my eyeballs would become permanently lodged pointing at the back of my skull. Consider it “constructive criticism.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPxjhLq3eUQ

Please watch this, this had quite an impact on Stacey.

Ok, Prescott, forget deleted comments, I don’t care, just watch this and tell me what you think of the practice:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPxjhLq3eUQ

I imagine you have a few minutes to spare since you’re on chatting with us.

The video is very relevant to this article and this discussion.

Of course it would! As a woman/mother, her maternal instinct would make her very uncomfortable hearing an infant crying from discomfort/pain. Nice editing to make the procedure seem like it takes much longer than it actually does. More emotional pap to appeal to the “heart” instead of reasoned arguments or logic.

Just a wee bit sexist are we? You have no empathy.

Did you get to the part where Soraya Mira equates FGM with male circumcision?

Wow, you guys even attack somebody that’s tipped their hand and said they agree with your basic premise on a personal level. Masters of persuasion, you two!

You’ve missed the point of the article. As long as you think it’s a personal choice for parents, then we are philosophically opposed.

It’s not the parent’s decision to remove a healthy *component* of another’s body.

Mully said:

“I am also a strong advocate against partial birth abortions, yet I noticed that not one of the many ardent supporters of “intactivism” spoke up when I mentioned it earlier.”

For give me for point this out but the poster Tony did provide a reply to this issue; a reply which seemed to parallel your own position.
Yet this, and your subsequent post, seem to imply that by not posting, “intactavist” as a whole must support abortion at any stage and are therefore hypocrites. I wasn’t aware that there was such a litmus test.

WOW – this discussion has really slid way downhill. I was just checking in to see what was going on and I must say, I’m totally disgusted. I’ve been following this blog from the beginning and I skimmed through most of today’s comments. Here’s my two cents and then I’m done.

Circumcision wasn’t something I’ve thought about since my husband and I decided to have the procedure done to my sons. When I saw Jessica’s article, I thought the idea of banning circumcision was ridiculous. I have learned alot since then. I haven’t changed my mind about it, but I did learn things I’ve never known. The reason I didn’t know these things, I guess, is because my husband who is circed, as well as my son never, ever had a problem with it. My husband has always overly enjoyed sex without any complaints. My son is a very happy newlywed with a very happy wife and a great life. We are all very close.
What I’ve learned is that there are men out there who are not happy, to say the least. I think you are in the minority, but you’re trying to get the word out. The problem as I see it is that the majority of the intactivists commenting here are going about it in all the wrong ways. You are trying to guilt people into agreeing with you. You are using shock tactics, exaggeration and name calling. This just isn’t working. I don’t feel guilty, I don’t regret my decision. Mully was right when she said that it really is too late for our generation to learn anything new because the decisions were made a long time ago. The most we can do is pass the information along to the young parents who are facing this decision now. The way most of you are presenting this info is just going to insult their intelligence and I’ll bet you will just be ignored.
For example, someone mentioned having recurring nightmares since childhood of having body parts removed and attributed them to having been circumcised. I say HOG WASH!!!!!!!!!!! My son was born prematurely. He had a spinal tap within 24hrs. of birth. He was poked and prodded with needles, had tubes shoved down his nose and throat into his stomach, and yes, he was circumcised. He has never had any nightmares. He is and always was a happy, well adjusted child and has grown into a happy productive young man.
I still don’t know for sure whether there are medical benefits of being circumcised, but you haven’t prooved to me that there aren’t.
Some of you feel that it should be the choice of grown men to have it done or not have it done. My husband has a friend who elected to be circumcised when he was in his early 30s. I don’t remember the reason why. He was in terrible pain for days following the procedure and his exact words were “why didn’t my parents do this when I was an infant.”

As far as the female version of circumcision. I had never heard of this before. I absolutely learned something new there. I asked my self how I would feel now if my parents had let this be done to me.
My honest answer is: If it was a widely practiced procedure and was done following the advice of a doctor for medical benefits and if most girls at the time had this done, I would be OK with it.

BTW, the doctor who performed the circumcisions on my sons was my obstetrician. I trusted my obstetrician with my life as well as my unborn babie’s lives. Of course I would trust that he knew what was best and would not in any way harm my boys.

There are two sides to every story and every debate and I would glady listen to the other side if the other side would learn how to debate in a civil manner without condescension and labeling. That does not seem to be the case, so I’m out of here.

BTW, Stacey is a great moderator. She is very fair and tries to let everyone be heard, but when someone becomes overly offensive, that someone needs to go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry, I can’t help this next comment. It reminds me of one of the classic episodes on Seinfeld when Elaine says “how do you guys walk around with those things?”

377. Summer

January 22, 2011 @ 10:46 pm

Brandon:

Please tell me that ANTI is not a member of the troops you gathered for support here.

Summer: Brandon wont answer, but I can for him.

Brandon and Antimutilation are both contributing posters/members of a site called Foreskin: Restoration.Net where Brandon did put out an SOS for help in convincing us that he had a true issue with having been circed.

Anti responded with this:

Sorry, comments are moderated, no way anything I have to say is going to get through.

edit:
Nevermind, my comment was approved.

Approved? Hardly. No one on this blog would “approve” of him or his tactics. Apparently he has little understanding of how a blog like this one works, despite Prescott telling him many times.

Moses Maimonides (1135-1204), also known as the “Rambam”, was a medieval Jewish rabbi, physician and philosopher.

From “THE GUIDE OF THE PERPLEXED”

Awhile back, I was doing some work on the ancient philosophers (a fact to which both Mully and Valerie can attest). I came across the works of old Moses. He may regarded as a great thinker during his time, but I wouldn’t put too much stock in his beliefs. He was really hung up on sex to the point of making it an obsession. He wrote that if a woman had a lesbian affair, her punishment should be severe flagellation by her husband. He couldn’t quite make up his mind, though, if female homosexuality should be forbidden because no seed was spilled, but it was the husband’s responsibility to administer punishment, which took the form of beating. Nice guy!

He also asserted that no unmarried man should be responsible for herding animals (for fear of bestiality), and that two single men should never sleep under the same blanket. They could sleep in the same bed if they wore bed garments and didn’t use a blanket. I’m not sure what would have happened if they slept in the same bed sans both pajamas and blanket. He didn’t mention that option.

There was much more, and I remember thinking at the time that Freud would have had a field day with his guy!

WOW! st knows foul language!

What a scholar!

By the early 19th century, the circumcised penis had become fashionable among British aristocracy, who wore it proudly as a badge of honor—proof of having served the Motherland in foreign service. Gradually, this mark of distinction gained a prestigious recognition among the privileged upper class, and young squires of elite all-boy schools began to get circumcised to match their parents or peers.

Except for the upper classes, however, the majority of English males remained uncircumcised. But upon the publication (1891) of a paper by the president of the Royal College of Surgeons entitled, “On Circumcision as Preventive of Masturbation,” an anti-masturbation frenzy swept through Britain and even working-class boys began to be routinely circumcised (8). This anti-masturbation mania soon invaded America.

Why would the foreskin be blamed as a cause of masturbation? Because, during urination, or when retracting it for cleaning purposes, a male has to handle the penis and pay attention to it. This extra handling and attention was blamed for an increased incidence of masturbation, and in the 1800s, the medical community was beginning to associate masturbation with a wide variety of purported ills. Reports like the following began to commonly appear in medical literature ascribing many harmful effects to masturbation:

One of the two men who indulged in excessive masturbation
became insane; the other dried out his brain so prodigiously
that it could be heard rattling in his skull…. The effects of
masturbation range from impotence to epilepsy, and include
‘consumption, blindness, imbecility, insanity, rheumatism,
gonorrhea, priapism (painful continuous erection due to
disease), tumors, constipation, hemorrhoids, female
homosexuality, and finally lead to death’ (9).

When anti-masturbation mania took possession of the medical psyche, the scientific practice of medicine was in its rudimentary stages of development. The causes, contagions, and cures for nearly all diseases were unknown. One of the prevailing British theories of illness was that “All disease could be reduced to one basic causal model, either the diminution or increase of nervous energy” (10). This theory was picked up by a famous American physician, Dr. Benjamin Rush, who espoused that if nervous energy were the basis of all disease, then orgasm was a target to control. In 1812, Dr. Rush wrote that overindulgence in sex or masturbation resulted in:

…seminal weakness, impotence, dysury, tabes dorsalis,
pulmonary consumptions, dyspepsia, dimness of sight,
vertigo, epilepsy, hypochondriasis, loss of memory,
malangia, fatuity and death (11).

In 1903, Mary R. Melendy wrote The Ideal Women—For Maidens, Wives And Mothers, which stated:

It (self-abuse) [masturbation] lays the foundation for
consumption, paralysis and heart disease. It weakens the
memory, makes a boy careless, negligent and listless. It even
makes many lose their minds: others, when grown, commit
suicide. How often mothers see their little boys handling
themselves, and let it pass, because they think the boy will
outgrow the habit, and do not realize the strong hold it has
upon them! I say to you, who love your boys—‘Watch!’
Don’t think it does no harm to your boy because he does not
suffer now, for the effects of this vice come on so slowly
that the victim is often very near death before you realize
that he has done himself harm. It is worthy of note that
many eminent physicians now advocate the custom of
circumcision, claiming that the removal of a little of the
foreskin induces cleanliness, thus preventing the irritation
and excitement which come from the gathering of the whitish
matter under the foreskin at the beginning of the glans. This
irritation being removed, the boy is less apt to tamper with
his sexual organs. The argument seems a good one,
especially when we call to mind the high physical state of
those people who have practiced the custom. Happy is the
mother who can feel she has done her duty, in this direction,
while her boy is still a child (17).

With typical writings like the above, the early 20th century found the American medical establishment in general agreement that masturbation and hypersexuality had devastating and damaging effects on one’s physical and emotional well-being.

The evil foreskin, and its supposed propensity toward masturbation, had to be eliminated, according to the belief of the time. This dangerous activity had to be brought under control —for one’s own good! Thus, routine circumcision began its infiltration into American society and subsequently escalated throughout most of the 20th century.

Any custom that infiltrates a society may continue on after the original reasons for its inception have been forgotten. In America, circumcision continued to be practiced long after the medical profession and the general public had abandoned, even forgotten, its original purpose, which was to thwart the supposed evil effects of masturbation. Once circumcision became accepted, a variety of straw medical benefits were attributed to its practice during the 1900s, thereby perpetuating its further acceptance and continuance.

Although circumcision never gained universal acceptance in the United States, it persisted and gradually picked up momentum, for two reasons. Firstly, hospital births became increasingly common, and the medical profession in these situations began doing routine circumcisions “for the child’s own good.” Secondly, World Wars I and II brought with them an epidemic of venereal disease. Taking the advice of their British counterparts, who associated VD with the foreskin, American military doctors presumed that soldiers without foreskins were less likely to contract venereal disease. Thus began the “unofficial” campaign of the United States Armed Forces to circumcise the troops “for health and cleanliness” reasons. This policy of “short-arm” inspections followed by circumcisions became routine throughout the military and did not abate until the human rights of GI’s were finally given some recognition during the Vietnam Conflict. Even so, many American soldiers who still had foreskins were routinely circumcised if they picked up any “problems” from the “girls” in town. By 1970, the circumcision rate had risen to an estimated 80%, mainly because of the greater number of hospital births. This, combined with the military’s policy of circumcising for “health and hygiene” reasons, left the great majority of American men without foreskins. The rate continued to rise until 1980, when circumcision was at its peak, estimated at 85%.

So the foreskin is an organ, now?

It’s exactly as much of an organ as an eyelid is.

It includes not just MORE skin, but specialized TYPES of skin (and muscle fibres, and mucosa, blood vessels, and nerves) with a zone that has a very high concentration of Meisners Corpuscles.

But you’re very right in one sense. There really is no such thing as a foreskin. There’s no standard definition of where it starts and ends (evidenced by the utterly random outcomes of infant circumcision – some guys have no inner mucosa left, while others have almost no outer shaft skin left). The foreskin is just that part of the single continuous penlie skin system that’s easiest to hack off.

The source of my peace around the circumcision issue is knowing I’ve done what I can to undo the damage, and I’m doing everything I can to help others avoid the same fate.

Question — and this is by no means a put-down or snide remark, but a legitimate question. How much of this pleasure has its source in the brain and not in the penis?

So if my wife sneaks a hand to my side of the bed and starts manipulating me, I respond by swelling under her touch almost instantly,

This statement caught my eye after I posted my above comments.

I dont think you, or those like you, understand that for sooooo many couples,(husband having been cut) there isnt anything unusual about what you described.

THAT sort of intimacy isnt a new thing for many men who have been circumcised. I know this because, at my age, and being a woman, Ive talked to friends (women do) and even if I hadnt, my husband has always been this way, is still this way.

Your group’s insistence that sensitivity is lost due to circumcision just doesnt hold water for me if you are going to continue to insist that its true for all men who have been circmucised and therefore I would ascertain that perhaps it IS true for some, but that ascertation would also then lead me to think that something must have gone wrong in your, own surgeries.

**facepalm**

I step away for the weekend and this erupts? I have strong opinions on many of the disgusting comments, and I wish I’d been around to counter them from my side at the time. Doing so now would not be helpful. I hope my prior statements were enough to make it clear that not everyone against child circumcision thinks like that or believes that it’s acceptable behavior.

Mully,

I have two quick thoughts on things you’ve said or asked. First, your latest comment includes your husband’s thoughts on circumcision and what he is/isn’t missing. I recognize that I’m currently in the minority in the U.S. That minority is much bigger than perceived, but it is currently the minority. That doesn’t mean I’m wrong about myself. The idea that each individual is competent to determine what he likes and doesn’t like for himself is an important, valid basis for my position.

For me, it’s not about convincing him that he’s wrong or should change his mind about his experience. My only request is that anyone who is okay with his circumcision understand that I am equally correct in being not okay with my circumcision. It’s no more logical to expect me to apply to my body the way he feels about his than it would be for me to expect him to apply to his body the way I feel about mine. That’s why my primary focus is on each individual male’s choice for himself and what society does going forward, in spite of all the stuff we discussed about me.

Second, I don’t want to open the abortion debate again because I said what I needed to say earlier. But I’ll clarify on partial birth abortion: I’m against it, and it shouldn’t be legal.

Tony: As always, your comments and thoughts are much appreciated.

It is unfortunate that there are those, from Intactivist groups, who came here full of venom and hate and really caused intelligent and well meaning discourse and the back and forth on this issue to go right down the drain.

As before, I wish you well and hope that whatever damage done to you can somehow be made right and also, as before, I do hope that you can find some peace, in your heart, where your mother is concerned.

Its not my business, but as a Mom, probably close to your Mom’s age, it would absolutely break my heart if one of my sons felt toward me, the way you feel toward her.

Try.

Ron, in Post#382 you expound on the whole sensitivity issue and yet, as I mentioned in a post late last night, I asked my husband, who has been circumcised, about this.
-Mully

And as I said, infant circumcision yields very HAPHAZARD results.

Further, people have quite variable degrees of “sexual intensiveness.” Some are satisfied with less, because – perhaps for spiritual reasons – they think humans should be focused onmore noble pursuits. Just an example.

Regardless, it is not for me to decide how much pleasure someone else gets from sex.

There are women who SWEAR there is no such thing as a G-Spot, and others who can’t climax UNLESS the G-Spot is prodded.

Response varies. That doesn’t justify doing anything to helpless boys OR girls.

It can’t be disputed that teh foreskin includes thousands of specialized nerve endings and that about 15 square inches (in the adult) of sexual interface surface is taken in circumcision.

Whether someone wants to lose that is HIS OWN decision.

Ron Low:

As you are some sort of administrator representing a group of Intactivists, I am hoping you will receive my next comments in the spirit in which they are intended.

Your entire cause, which I would hope to be to educate and enlighten, was seriously hurt this week by your member called Antimutilation.

Now, I am not certain if you approve of his tactics, but if you do, then I would present to you that you are doing more harm, than good, by allowing him to represent your group and its cause.

Moreover, I would also hope that you would have come here, considering you ARE in the capacity of being a “leader” and apologized for his behavior and the way he attacked people. No one invited him and certainly no one asked him for his rude opinion, let alone his hateful speech. I realize that this is an open forum and therefore he doesnt need an invitation, but while we, here at IP, welcome lively debate, Antimutilation proved to be someone who served nothing and no one in any useful purpose.

I can only hope that IRL he is less defensive and (you can insert any other adjective you like here to describe his behavior)

People like Tony and to a certain extent, Brandon and even yourself have helped many of us see things differently, but if your community is to go forward in hopes of having more people enlightened, if you have people like Antimutilation representing you, you’ll lose good opportunities.

I can just imagine someone like him at your rally in Washington DC, in March, spewing his brand of venom. I would consider him to be embarrassing and no amount of passion in one’s beliefs can excuse his behavior.

As I have said to others who took the time to come here with good intent…good luck and I wish you well.

*Shrug* I am probably the most empathetic person anyone would know. In part due to things I have had thrown at me in life, but I dont go around making others pay for those, unfortunate circumstances.

I am sorry you didnt choose to admit and apologize for the behavior of yes, one of the members of a group you are a part of as witnessed on one of your sites.

I am also sorry that instead of agreeing with me, that rhetoric flung here was out of line, you chose the defensive mode as tho, somehow, everything he said was supposed to be ignored because we are supposed to have empathy for “his loss”.

As I said, no amount of pain, suffered in anyone’s life, gives anyone the right to strike out at others for the injustices done to them and for you to defend that, strikes me as almost as bad as the things he said.

You people, in your group, need to understand that baby steps will get you to the top of the stairs A LOT quicker than alienating the very people you are trying to get to see your viewpoint and calling people “pedophiles” and “child sexual abusers” shuts down discussion pretty quickly.

PLEASE just try to have some empathy. Just picture yourself waking up one day and learning – I don’t know – that you were born with nipples, but some cultish tradition caused your family to amputate yours and tattoo on facsimiles. Until now you thought everything was fine, no guy really noticed or if he did he didn’t say anything. But you just will NEVER know what your body was supposed feel like.

I dont even quite know what to say to this statement!

We ALL have crosses to bear! Some worse, by a long shot than what has happened to you and yours. Are you seriously telling me that because of something that was done to you, with absolutely NO malice intended, that its okay for people like Antimutilation to talk the way he did to all of us here? And also that I am supposed to just look the other way and feel sorry for his loss?

Consider what you are asking, Ron, and be man enough to admit that if it is pity what your group wants, the LAST way to gain that is to lash out at innocent people who are only trying to understand.

You want to know what really sucks here? After I typed my last comment to you about apologizing, I left the PC and went to my living room to finish putting my damned Christmas tree away. While vacuuming I thought to myself, “hes going to come back and say something about how it should have been up to us to be more understanding”. And the next thought I had was “and saying that takes away all responsibility for the actions of the jerk who made the harsh statements and somehow puts the onus on all of us to be more understanding”.

Unfortunately, Ron, I was right wasnt I?

Consider what you are asking, Ron, and be man enough to admit that if it is pity what your group wants, the LAST way to gain that is to lash out at innocent people who are only trying to understand.

I have no control over what other people say, or how they respoond to having been mutilated.

I speak

FOR

ME.

When I said be empathetic, I meant

TO

ME! ! ! !

You just keep saying “I don’t get it.” No matter how many times I try to explain that I have had an exquisite body part stolen, you dismiss it.

Again, I suggest you are incapable of saying the same thing to a female.

I have a question for Mully, since you asked others about abortion:

The topic of this original article was that it is an invasion of parents’ rights to outlaw circumcision. Basically saying that the rights of the parent supersede the rights of the child. You say “the government shouldn’t tell you what decision to make.”

You are against partial abortion and want that to be illegal. But, in your logic, shouldn’t the rights of the “parent” supersede that of the child? Should we make no laws about abortion, whatsoever, because “the government shouldn’t tell me what decision to make”? Is that a big case of the government telling every woman what she can and cannot do?

I just read an interesting post, elsewhere, about Michele Bachmann (I’ll refrain from commenting on my opinion of her and the tea party), but she’s a tea party conservative and recently said, about “Obamacare” that the government doesn’t have the right to tell me what to do with my body (a philosophy shared by many conservatives – this whole “the government can’t tell me…”). Isn’t this a contradiction? So don’t tell me what to do with my body, but abortion should be illegal (so we CAN tell people what to do with their bodies SOMETIMES), but circumcision should be allowed because parents have the ultimate right over their children… but not abortion, because in THAT instance, the child’s rights are more important than the pregnant woman’s/”mother”. It seems a bit backwards to me.

And if the government doesn’t have the right to tell you what decisions to make, as a parent, than should we get rid of all the laws pertaining to child abuse, corporal punishment, etc? Why are some things ok for the government to mandate, but not others?

Where are the laws drawn? The law says we cannot perform female genital mutilation and you’re ok with that law, correct? But isn’t that a law telling you what decision you can make about your child?

you have a monetary incentive to convince circumcised men that they are missing out
-Prescott

I’ve been speaking out since long before I figured out how to offer a better tool to help the men who are restoring. I always find it most useful to consider ideas on their merits.

While you’re ruling out sources who make a living helping people you need to stop trusting your dentist that cavities need fillings.

You certainly can’t listen to any OB/GYNs about circumcision since for some odd reason they sell 70% of the male baby cuttings in the US even though their patients are female adults, and the baby HAS his own doctor – the pediatrician.

Circumcising damages every person victimized by it and kills some of them. It does not help every person victimized, only a very few, if any, and in ways they usually can be helped later, less invasively, more safely, more effectively, and more cheaply IF, in the unlikely event, they ever need such help. Therefore, circumcising them, damaging them and risking their lives in infancy to try to prevent future unlikely problems more logically treated IF they ever occur is medically and morally wrong. No parent or doctor should be allowed to harm and risk the life of a healthy child in the name of God, preventive medical treatment, parental “rights”, or anything else. Our founding fathers did not claim that parents have the right to injure and risk the lives of their children. It’s not in the constitution. Parents have no such right. What sex the child happens to have been born is 100% irrelevant, of course. Girls should be protected just as much as boys from genital alteration, cutting, amputation, mutilation or whatever you want to call it. I don’t care what you call it. Just stop doing it.

It should be the right of the parents to decide what is best for their child? Why can’t I remove part of my baby girl’s clitoral hood then?

From my inbox today; typical of the letters I get every week:
- – - – -

I was hoping that you could answer a few questions that I have related to complications that I have due to my circumcision (I was circumcised as a baby).

My circumcision left me with a very uneven cut along with malapposition, which causes some curvature, as well as a great amount of tightness, discomfort, and even pain upon erection. Also, I believe that too much skin taken – particularly on the right side – has caused the skin from my scrotum to be pulled up the shaft of the penis, which is present both when erect and flaccid. Additionally, I believe that the extreme tightness impedes proper erection, and does not allow my penis to achieve an optimal erection.

First off, I was wondering whether or not the malapposition can have a negative effect if the frenulum is removed. Although my frenulum is not completely intact, it is still partially there, running from the glans to the base of the scar line. Since I am pretty sure that the malapposition (rather than the uneven cut) is causing most of the extreme tightness and pain, is it possible that having the frenulum removed would reduce these sensations? Just to give you an idea, the frenulum lies far to the left of the raphe, which definitely causes a significant amount of twisting of the glans. I guess my thinking is that if the frenulum is removed, this would permit the glans to untwist. (Am I somewhat correct?)

Second, I believe that a fair amount of the tightness is also due to the fact that too much skin was removed, which causes the skin from my scrotum to be pulled up along the shaft of the penis. This occurs not only upon erection, but while flaccid. In fact, it appears that the scrotal skin is always pulled up along the shaft even in a flaccid state. Also, although the scrotal skin is forced up onto the shaft on all sides, it appears that the right side has a lot more scrotal skin pulled up, which I believe is a result of the fact that a lot more skin was removed on the right side of the shaft. (Does this make sense?) Am I correct that the scrotal skin being pulled up onto the shaft could be contributing to some of the tightness I experience? Either way, is there a relatively safe/easy way to correct the problem of the skin from the scrotum being pulled up onto the shaft other than foreskin restoration?

One last thing…As I mentioned before, the right side of the shaft has a lot more of the scrotal skin being forced up onto it. In addition to tightness, this seems to have caused the proper hanging position of my testicles – with respect to the front of my body – to change. In other words, if I am standing straight, instead of my testicles hanging directly in front of my body parallel to each other, they are now on a diagonal slant, with the right side pulled up and to the right more. Have you ever seen/heard of anything like this before?

I greatly appreciate your help with these issues. Thank you very much for your time.

- – - – -

This poor kid didn’t do anything to deserve a mutilated painful penis. He’s obviously researched all over the web to find out what’s wrong with his body, and probably the most painful part is knowing that what he will live with for life was done for no reason at all and the doctor died years ago never knowing what an atrocity he had committed. None of this kid’s horrid results would be listed as possible complications on a parental consent form, or be filed in his medical chart after the procedure.

The effects of the procedure (either female or male cutting) are irrelevant. Both have effects that can be considered beneficial (even from a medical standpoint, and even in the case of the most heinous forms of female circumcision). Did you know female circumcision prevents yeast infections and unplanned pregnancy? It does. Do you care? No? Me neither.

The only difference between an American who cuts their son and an Ethiopian who cuts their daughter is that you think you’re more civilized than they are, so your ideas must automatically make more sense (even though they’re not really yours). Well, if you are any more civilized than they are, then you have no excuse for thinking just as badly as they do. If you’re an American who supports male circumcision, every single one of your arguments is exactly the same as those of the Somali witch doctor with the rusty razor blade (or alternately, the Somali-American university-educated doctor with the white coat and sterile instruments who is using your support of male circumcision to justify cutting newborn girls – they won’t remember it, right?).

The religious or cultural reasons used to justify the procedure are irrelevant. Even if there were no religions that supported FGM (and there are), anyone could start such a religion, and they would have the same right to practice it that anyone else does. They still wouldn’t have the right to cut their kids’ genitals, or tattoo pictures of prophets on their kids’ foreheads. If your faith and human rights are in opposition, then your faith is the thing that needs to change. Your feelings about it are just as meaningless as those of the witch doctor. This is not anti-Semitism. Opposition to one single part of the Jewish faith is not discrimination against the ethnic group. The religion, unlike the race, is an idea. And all ideas are fair game, open to absolutely any criticism that can be voiced.

Any part of a person’s body could develop disease or infection, and any of those diseases might be communicable. New diseases pop up all the time. But tonsils and appendices and cancer-prone breasts aren’t treated like ticking time bombs that should be removed in advance without the patient’s consent. A burst appendix is far more dangerous than warts or even cancer (considering that it can kill so quickly). What if we found a new strain of HIV or MRSA that could only be contracted through the clitoris? That wouldn’t change your mind about female circumcision, nor should it.

A person’s body belongs to them. There is nothing else to consider.

Is it more or less sensitive uncut? There are as many answers to that question as there are men on the planet, and you don’t know those answers. Only the owners of those bodies do.

And then, of course, there’s the money involved in converting the stolen tissue into cosmetic products so braindead Orange County housewives can cannibalize kids to make themselves look younger for 20 minutes. If you’re okay with that, how can anything you believe in be taken seriously?

You’re entitled to decide for yourself whether any part of your body should be cosmetically altered or not. If you’re a woman in the United States, that right isn’t too likely to be violated. This is one of the few examples of a little-discussed human right actually being upheld for any large population, and it only happened because it didn’t require any effort.

You have that right. Uphold it for everyone if you want your daughters to keep it. FGM is practiced in the US, and you don’t have any arguments against it because you compromise your own right to bodily integrity by saying boys don’t have it.

But back to rights that were gained without effort. You see, I think anything gained without effort should be taken away.

I have an unusual tactic with regard to certain issues. I call it ‘Extreme Devil’s Advocate.’ It’s inspired by the Erisian prayer to protect one’s enemies. I oppose the sex offender registry by helping a local prosecutor put innocent people and teenagers on it. I also donate to organizations that promote female circumcision in the US, since you can only fight them by giving up your own right to mutilate your sons. In effect, I try to make sure that when history repeats itself it repeats itself as horribly as possible. So maybe this time the lesson will be learned. Or not. Your call.