This piece was originally published in the Spring 2013, Issue 06 of Nurture Magazine and the original (in pdf) can be seen here.
By Tracy G. Cassels
I used to be one of those people who thought that routine infant circumcision was a personal decision. And by personal, I mean parental. Yeah, I personally would never do it because there was just no point to it in my mind. But to be honest I also never really thought it was “an issue”. I knew wonderful, loving parents who circumcised their little boys. I also knew wonderful, loving parents who didn’t. I knew the stance in Canada (where I’m from) was that there was no reason to do it and officially there was a statement suggesting it best not to, but that it was still left up to the parent.
Then I learned.
I learned that what most of the Western world considers barbaric for females is actually acceptable for our male boys. Before you tell me that they are two totally different procedures, let me explain what female circumcision entails around the world I’m not saying any of these should be legal at all and in fact I am thrilled they’re illegal as the lack of medical care during the procedure is highly dangerous for females; however, the idea that even the more benign prick of Indonesia is illegal but our boys can have their entire foreskin removed is ridiculous to me. I would hope we value both our boys and our girls equally. I learned that the so-called medical benefits to male circumcision don’t really exist in the research and certainly not in a way that justifies the procedure. Three main areas are often brought up with respect to medical “benefits”: HIV/STIs, penile cancer, and urinary tract infections (UTIs). Though there is some research suggesting that rates of HIV in high-infection areas can be lowered with a combination of circumcision and sex education[2][3][4], much of the research is flawed and the trials that aren’t provide mixed results to efficacy[5]. Similarly, attempts to replicate findings for HIV or STIs in developed nations have failed far more than they have succeeded[6]. Penile cancer is an area in which there are consistent findings that infant circumcision is correlated with lower or non-existent rates of penile cancer[7]. However, further examination of the findings shows that it only holds for individuals with a history of phimosis (a condition in which the foreskin cannot fully retract over the penis after the age of adolescence – it is completely normal not to retract in childhood)[8]. Thus if phimosis is diagnosed early (i.e., in adolescence) it may be a medical reason for later circumcision. Finally, UTIs are brought up regularly in North America as circumcision is linked with lower rates of UTIs in Western samples and circumcision in childhood for children with recurrent UTIs seems to offer a type of cure[9][10]. However, this latter case would be a medical indication for circumcision. In all of these cases, however, the cost-benefit ratio is miniscule or even in the negative. For example, the base rates of STIs or HIV and the amount of protection that can be conferred is similar to or less than the risks of real complications from circumcision[11][12][13]. With penile cancer and UTIs, the risks of complications from circumcision actually outweigh the risks of either penile cancer or getting a UTI (for a discussion of this with UTIs, see [10]). This means that you are putting your child at a heightened risk of a medical complication instead of conferring a benefit from it. I learned that the pain from circumcision can send a baby into shock, that pain relief is only partial, and that there are practitioners who don’t use any pain relief at all on their newborn patients. Parents may tell you their child didn’t cry much. Doctors or nurses may tell you that your child is just in a deep sleep after undergoing a circumcision. It’s not that. It’s shock. Infants undergoing circumcision without pain relief (something that is sadly too common given that 26% of training programs in the United States don’t even teach pain relief for circumcision under the misguided notion that it’s not needed[14]) have their cortisol raised three to four TIMES their baseline levels[15]. In one study examining pain relief methods versus a placebo, the researchers had to end the trials early due to the extreme responses of the infants in the placebo group[16]. Ethically they could not continue. Even when there is pain relief used it’s not 100%, with the best relief options offering only partial relief[17]. Perhaps most importantly, pain relief or not, infant circumcision is linked with heightened pain responses to other stimuli months later[18]. This means that the experience of circumcision is altering our boys’ physiology in a way that we can actually measure. The degree of change is dependent on the degree of pain relief received, but even those boys with the best pain relief available show significant increases in pain to later stimuli. Thus I have to ask, is a cosmetic procedure worth altering our children’s physiological reactions to pain? And can we say we’re doing no long-term harm when we can measure this long-term effect? I learned that male circumcision may have negative effects on a man’s sexual functioning. Though you may not hear many adult males complain about their sex lives, you will hear some given that the foreskin contains some of the largest numbers of sensitive nerve endings in the penis. We know that a circumcised penis is far less sensitive to stimulation than the uncircumcised penis[19] (though the pleasure of sex involves so many other factors that it would be unfair to say that sex was less pleasurable and research on adults who have been circumcised shows no difference in subjective pleasure despite decreased sensitivity). Often though, men who are studied are those who underwent adult circumcision for specific problems[20], a factor that might influence sexual pleasure prior to circumcision. However, there is one study that has looked at non-adult circumcision and found that sexual satisfaction for both men and women was decreased when the men had been circumcised[21]. This is hypothesized to be due to the loss of sensitivity for men and the loss of lubrication for women as lubrication is a natural effect for an uncircumcised penis. A second potential problem that comes from the loss of sensitivity is that it may be linked with riskier sexual practices. One longitudinal study out of New Zealand[22] found that circumcised men were far more likely to engage in unprotected sex. This shouldn’t be too surprising given the further loss of sensitivity that can come from wearing a condom. Personally I hope my children would be careful regardless, but why would I want to stack the deck against them being careful? I learned that to value the male infant means to value him as a whole, with a right to bodily integrity. Unfortunately the idea that children have rights to their body is something we may give lip service to but rarely do we encourage it in practice. From physically forcing children into seats they are screaming to get out of, to forcing hugs to others they don’t want to touch, to the most invasive—cutting off a piece of a child’s body for cosmetic purposes. Children should have the right to bodily integrity and to take that away from them is to assume that somehow our child is born wrong. That we can’t value the intact child as much as we value the altered child because if we did, we would not see the value in changing his body. ***** I learned all these things and as soon as I did I could no longer say that routine infant circumcision was something parents should decide. It should not be a parental choice. When we make it such we are saying that boys are allowed to be born imperfect and that they should undergo a procedure no adult would want to endure. And to endure it without full pain relief (if they are provided any at all). Our boys deserve better than that. And yet, despite our growing awareness of complications and pain responses due to circumcision, the American Academy of Pediatrics changed their stance on circumcision[23]. Whereas it was once discouraged, the stance now more neutral but bordering on support, though the real focus is making sure it’s paid for by insurance companies. It’s not too surprising given the financial motivation doctors have but this change has wide-reaching implications. Already the Canadian Pediatric Society is revising their stance[24] to be more in line with the AAP[25]. Who knows if other countries will also follow suit. Remember, when you know more, you do better. And our boys need us to know everything there is. [1] World Health Organization. Eliminating Female Genital Mutilation: An Interagency Statement. WHO Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data (2008). [2] Gray RH, Kigozi G, Serwadda D, et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in men in Rakai, Uganda: a randomized trial. The Lancet 2007; 369: 657-666. [3] Bailey RC, Moses S, Parker CB, et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Kisumu, Kenya: a randomized control trial. The Lancet 2007; 369: 643-656. [4] Auvert B, Taljaard D, Lagarde E, et al. Randomized, controlled intervention trial of male circumcision for reduction of HIV infection risk: the ANRS 1265 trial. PLoS Med 2005; 2: e298. [5] Van Howe RS, Storms MR. How the circumcision solution in Africa will increase HIV infections. Journal of Public Health in Africa 2011; 2: e4. [6] Dave SS, Johnson AM, Fenton KA, Mercer CH, Erens B, Wellings K. Male circumcision in Britain: findings from a national probability sample survey. Sex Transm Infect 2003; 79: 499-500. [7] Schoen EJ, Oehrli M, Colby CJ, Machin G. The highly protective effect of newborn circumcision against invasive penile cancer. Pediatrics 2000; 105: e36. [8] Tseng H-F, Morgenstern H, Mack T, Peters RK. Risk factors for penile cancer: Results of a population-based case-control study in Los Angeles County (United States). Cancer Causes and Control 2001; 12: 267-277. [9] Wiswell TE, Smith FR, Bass JW. Decreased incidence of urinary tract infections in circumcised male infants. Pediatrics 1985; 75: 901-903. [10] Singh-Grewal D, Macdessi J, Craig J. Circumcision for the prevention of urinary tract infection in boys: A systematic review of randomized trials and observational studies. Archives of Disease in Childhood 2005; 90: 853-858. [11] Weiss HA, Larke N, Halperin D, Schenker I. Complications of circumcision in male neonates, infants and children: A systematic review. BMC Urology 2010; 10: doi:10.1186/1471-2490-10-2. [12] Ceylan K, Burhan K, Yilmaz Y, Can S, Kus A, Mustafa G. Severe complications of circumcision: An analysis of 48 cases. Journal of Pediatric Urology 2007; 3: 32-35. [13] Bocquet N, Chappuy H, Lortat-Jacob S, Cheron G. Bleeding complications after ritual circumcision: About six children. European Journal of Pediatrics 2009; 169: 359-362. [14] Howard CR, Howard FM, Garfunkel LC, de Blieck EA, Weitzman M. Neonatal circumcision and pain relief: Current training practices. Pediatrics 1998; 101: 423-8. [15] Gunnar MR, Malone S, Vance G, Fisch RO. Coping with aversive stimulation in the neonatal period: quiet sleep and plasma cortisol levels during recovery from circumcision. Child Development 1985; 56: 824-34. [16] Lander J, Brady-Fryer B, Metcalfe JB, Nazarali S, Muttitt S. Comparison of a ring block, dorsal penile nerve block, and topical anesthesia for neonatal circumcision. JAMA 1997; 278: 2157-2162. [17] Razmus IS, Dalton ME, Wilson D. Pain management for newborn circumcision. Pediatric Nursing 2004; 30: 414-7. [18] Taddio A, Katz J, Ilersich AL, Koren G. Effect of neonatal circumcision on pain response during subsequent routine vaccination. The Lancet 1997; 349: 599-603. [19] Sorrells ML, Snyder JL, Reiss MD, Eden C, Milos MF, Wilcox N, Van Howe RS. Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis. BJU International 2007; 99: 864-9. [20] Senol MG, Sen B, Karademir K, Sen H, Saracoglu M. The effect of male circumcision on pudental evoked potentials and sexual satisfaction. Acta Neurol. Belg. 2008; 108: 90-93. [21] Frisch M, Lindholm M, Gronbaek M. Male circumcision and sexual function in men and women: A survey-based, cross-sectional study in Denmark. International Journal of Epidemiology 2011; 40: 1367-81. [22] Fergusson DM, Boden JM, Horwood J. Circumcision status and risk of sexually transmitted infection in young adult males: an analysis of a longitudinal birth cohort. Pediatrics 2006; 118: 1971-7.
Very good article Tracy 🙂 . I struggle with how hard to push some of my friends and family who circumcise, or who would consider circumsicion. While I differ from your view somewhat (I do believe this level of body modification should properly fall under parental rights to bring their children up as appropriate citizens of their specific culture/subculture) I do not disagree with any of the actual points. I absolutely disagree with unnecessary ‘just because’ circumcision and 100% feel it shouldn’t be covered by insurance outside of medical necessity.
There is no justification for cutting off parts of childrens’ sexual organs except absolute medical need which is extremely rare. NONE. Not your right, not parental rights, not parental religious rights, NONE. It is his body, his penis and he is entitled to the whole thing. All of it. He is entitled to the same respect and protection as little girls.
The people who need education are those who think it is OK to cut off part of somebody’s sexual organs because of their preferences. It is not comparable to vaccines, ear piercing, surgery to correct something. tired of the excuses, justification and anecdotes. Leave HIS body and the man he will become ALONE.
It is, in fact, identical to ear piercings, vaccines, tattoos, shoes, scarification, cosmetic surgery, or any other form of body modification parents participate in on behalf of their children. There is nothing ‘more sacred’ about one part of the body than another part. It’s all ‘body’. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with the parent’s religious rights and everything to do with the child’s religious rights. It’s a parent’s job to bring up a child holding his rights in regentship. When a Jewish or Muslim parent consent to male or female circumcision on behalf of their Jewish of Muslim child they do so in regency of the child’s rights so that the child, not yet fully capable of expressing their own rights by themselves, may be properly brought up within their society. Just as an irreligious parent may in regency decide to pierce their child’s ears so they can properly belong within society as they see it, or how the American parent ties on permanently altering hard sholed shoes to shape their baby’s feet so they may fit into a society which wears hand soled shoes whenever in public, or teaches them to sit on the toliet for bowel movements. A great many more life-long, serious, and painful complications to the human body exist in the standard Western culture because we wear foot-deforming hand soled shoes and don’t squat to have a bowl movement than due to circumcision. That doesn’t make those things ‘mutilations’ or outside of a parent’s rights, or rather a child’s rights properly held in regency by the parent, they are simply examples of modifications that the average Westerner doesn’t bat an eye at. Societies have always modified children’s bodies, and certainly a specific society can disallow one type, even one type long-practicied. The Chinese did this when their government outlawed foot binding during the late 20’s and early 30’s of the 1900’s. But if a society, such as the U.S. or Canada, is going to pay serves to respecting cultural differences and allowing religious freedom is can not logically outlaw one fairly minor practice while blindly allowing another. As a Biblical Christian (and someone who is lame due to the popularity of hard-soled shoes and whose boy is intact) I have no objection to male circumcision going the way of footbinding. But as an American I recognize it is highly hypocritical to pretend circumsicion is somehow ‘more’ than the numerous body modifications we as a society allow. (Even more hypocritical is not allowing even a ritualized prick to members of religions which require female circumcision)
I can recognize a child’s right to fully belong to a community, any community, even if I don’t agree with the community. And that child’s right rests in the parent’s hands to express. Denying infant circumcision denies the child their right to freedom of religion.
What? Carving up your child’s body to conform to your religious views is denying your child’s right to freedom of religion. Every child should have the ability to learn and think for themselves and then decide which or any religion they want to be a part of. THAT is truly freedom of religion. Forcing them to conform to your views is not.
That’s not the way ‘religion’ (or ‘belief’ or more basically ‘truth’) works. See there is this thing called ‘The Law of Non Contradictions’, it states ‘a thing can not be both A and not A at the same time and in the same sense.’ Translated out of academic speak that means two things which contradict can not both be true. Ignoring ‘Truth’ for a moment, that’s what ‘belief’ is, you believe something to be the truth. If you know it to be truth and yet treat it as false than you are insane, likewise if you know it to be false and treat it as truth, you are insane. All world religions, including Athiesm/Humanism starkly contradict all other world religions. You believe whichever one you find to be the truth (again leaving aside ‘the Truth’ verses ‘truth’), if you do not, then again, you are insane. So, asuming you are not insane and you know the truth, not sharing that truth with your children by raising them appropriately into the (any) religion, would amount to hatred of your child because you don’t care if they find the truth or not. Again, dealing with one of the foundational laws of logic, either what you believe either is or is not true, there is no ‘let all be true’ middle ground within a sane worldview. Therefore, if that which you know to be true requires rights and rituals to be preformed upon the young in order for them to be properly raised within the truth, that is what you do. What you are asking is that all children be raised in the ‘truth’ of Athiestic Humanism (or at best agnosticism). That right there is absolute dogmatism, demanding other people’s children be raised according to your ‘truth’. If a Christian, Muslim, or Hindu demanded that the Secularists of the world would explode, but the theistic religious of the world are supposed to smile and nod and let their children be raised to believe what they know of as false so that Secularists can brainwash the children?? That’s not how parenting works.
Furthermore there absolutely *are* Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc children, just as there are French, Secularist, Wiccan, or Agnostic children. Every child belongs first to a world of their parents and then to a slowly expanding world of their parent’s social world and their own age peers. To many, in many places, this world is grounded first and foremost in the religion, to which the child is an active participant. His family, friends, and peers all require his compliance with certain religious precepts to fully engage him in this social world. A Jewish child goes to a special school, attends specific services, engages in specific rights and rituals, led by and facilitated by the parent, but done on behalf of the child, to properly educate and usher him into adulthood within the truth. The same of Hinduism, Paganism, Islam, Christianity, etc, etc, etc. Denying a child the right to practicipate fulling in *their own religion* (regardless of whether they end up believing a different truth in the future) is abusive, furthermore, since the answer can not be ‘none’, failing to bring up a child in one truth (again, regardless of Truth) explicitly requires them to be brought up in another truth. If it is inappropriate for a member of a certain religion to declare all children be raised believing in that religion, then it is inappropriate for *any* religion to make such a demand.
“It is, in fact, identical to ear piercings, vaccines, tattoos, shoes, scarification, cosmetic surgery, or any other form of body modification parents participate in on behalf of their children.”
But we must never, NEVER compare male genital cutting with female genital cutting, must we?
Actually that message is so confused it’s hard to know where to begin. Parents do not “participate” in” the child’s genital cutting on behalf of their children, Nor do they have “regency” but stewardship, holding the child’s body in trust until s/he is old enough to decide for him or herself what parts to have cut off.
There is no such thing as a “Jewish or Muslim child” any more than a Marxist or Tea-Party or Post-Mdernist child.
Much of what Jespren says would be true if circumcision were reversible, or if it made no significant difference to form or function, or if it was applicable only to childhood, but circumcision is none of those things. It is a permanent body modification/reduction that affects an adult, and it is the adult owner of the body who should decide whether it is to be done.
First off, I do compare it to female circumcision, it is, in fact identical. That the U.S. outlaw even ritualized ‘pricking’ of female genitalia while allowing all manner of male circumsicion is utterly sexist and inappropriate. They are identical in nature. Your faulty assumption is assuming I think such an utter ban on female circumcision is any better or more proper than a likewise male ban.
You realize the words ‘regency’ and ‘stewardship’ are synonms? It’s like saying ‘that shirts not red, it’s garnet’. I used the term ‘regency’, a more archaic term, as opposed to ‘stewardship’ or ‘trust’ because I wanted to convey the power a person’s rights have over their life and English speakers most readily regency with a monarch’s regent.
To your insistance that a child is not of a specific religion, see my reply above, I erroneously included it above by accident. My cell makes proofing things difficult. But the short answer is of course there are Marxists children, or Humanism children, or Agnostics, Hindus, Pagan, or Jewish children. It’s utterly absurd to say otherwise. It’s tantamount to saying ‘there are no American, French, or British children because they may decide to live and swear citizenship elsewhere as adults’.
And, again, *many* things we do to and with children irreversibly alter their adult forms and functions. And in much more daily-impacting ways than circumcision. Also, just like with female circumcision, there are many forms of male circumcision. The likely, probable, or theoretical affects to the body all vary greatly between the different forms. While Western routine circumcision falls on the more extreme end of that scale, it is not the most extreme form practiced, and there exists many milder forms (most of them religious in nature) as well. The fact is that the middle range cicumcisions, of both genders, do not significantly impact adult life or the function of a bodily organ. Orgasm is still achievable, sexual pleasure is derived, and sexual congress, along with resulting conception, along with urination, is all still capable. And such use is minimal when compared to say feet, which are used far more frequently, in more public settings, and to a greater range than sex organs. But we have no objection in Western culture to ruining feet. Hypocracy is unbecoming a mature mind. If you believe we can not permantly alter our children in such a way that their adult bodies may be impaired, then there are many things beyond circumcision that you must stand against. If you do not stand against them then your claim against circumcision is unrealistic in it’s hypocracy. Since you blythly passed by other versions of permanent body modification in my posts I am left with only an emotionally based, logically inconsistent objection with circumcision. And any logically inconsistent arguement fails under it’s own weight.
“Orgasm is still achievable, sexual pleasure is derived, and sexual congress, along with resulting conception, along with urination, is all still capable.”
Spoken like a typical circumcised man who knows nothing of the “symphony of sensation” conferred by the foreskin which makes sex so much more than merely “achieving orgasm”.
“And such use is minimal when compared to say feet, which are used far more frequently, in more public settings, and to a greater range than sex organs. But we have no objection in Western culture to ruining feet”
We certainly have the strongest possible objection to ruining children’s feet, and the classic case of Chinese footbinding, now mercifully consigned to the dustbin of history, has close parallels with circumcision: http://www.circumstitions.com/Foot.html.
“Regency” and “stewardship” are certainly not synonyms. One is about rule, the other about care – two concepts at the heart of the debate about circumcision. Those who want to cut (the best) part off children’s genitals seem to be all about ruling them, those who do not, about caring for them.
It won’t let me reply below but, first off, nice assumption there. I’m a female whose husband and son are both uncircumcised, and I would never consider getting a son circumcised. sex is so much more than merely ‘achieving orgasm’, but that ‘so much more’ has almost nothing to do with the physical and everything to do with the emotional and mental and doesn’t matter a whit how either side is ‘configured’. Are you seriously putting forth that the millions upon millions of men and women through out history who cultures in fact, that were circumcised were incapable of proper marital bonding? Your argument has just reached the truly absurd. And Chinese foot binding, which destroys the feet, is like the most extreme versions of male and female circumcision. It is comparable to certain African tribes which skin the penis along with the upper thighs. American/European male circumcision is similar to the standard wearing of hard soled shoes which American/European insist on wearing. The shoes you buy off the shelf and strap on your kid (or yourself) deform their feet, leading to life-long problems with the foot, knee, and back. When other cultures were exposed for the first time to such an unnatural thing they were wholly unable to walk. While only a portion (a minority) of Americans are circumcised almost every single American bares damage from shoes. Again, is that ‘wrong;? It’s not an ideal cultural concept, but it falls well within the normally accepted changes to the human body that adults have forever placed upon their children’s body to bring them into the cultural norm. You can not logically pick and choose, you either have to hold that parents have broad rights to the stewardship of their children, or you hold that parents have no rights to the stewardship of their children. If a parent has the right to raise their child, then they have a right to do so even if you disagree with it. That’s the concept of ‘freedom’. For generations we respected other people could disagree with us and still have a right to hold that position. The famous quote ‘I don’t agree with what you said but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it’ sums it up. I acknowledge that if I am to have the right to *not* circumcise my children, I must hold that others have the right to do so otherwise all that keeps my ‘right’ in place is the whims of current popular opinion. I have the natural right to raise my children as I see fit, that’s not even a U.S. ‘right’ it’s an internationally recognized right by the UN.. As someone who holds that right dear, I can certainly try to convince others that ‘my’ position is one others should follow, but I can’t, logically, seek to remove that right from others. A right that becomes wholly reliant upon what is politically popular at the moment is no longer a right, and is just as likely to be taken from me as from someone else.
Human Beings are born just that: HUMAN Beings! NOT Jewish, Muslim or any other MAN made invention! Your argument is pure unbelievable BULLSHIT!
“Religious practices deserve the most profound respect — but not when they result in irreversible harm to children.”
Brian,
Is the mind also part of the body? Given your line of argumentation, I question how you would justify a parent making any non-life-preserving decision for their child. What right did your parents have to teach you a particular worldview? Yet this decision impacted you far more than a minor surgery. (Unless you think the great questions of life revolve around your phallus.)
The simple reality is that parents make thousands of decisions for their children, without their child’s permission, on the simple premise that it will benefit their child in some way. If you think circumcision has no benefits, so be it, but arguing against it on the premise of children’s rights is remarkably myopic.
Do you believe female circumcision should be legal? After all, it’s the parent’s right to deform their child. What if parents decide to remove the breasts of their newborn girl, so she doesn’t get breast cancer later in life? Is that acceptable?
Jerry,
I don’t think the benefits of FGM or infantile masectomies outweigh the costs. Do you? (Are there any benefits to FGM?)
Also, no, I do not believe FGM should be legal. Again, because I don’t believe there are any legitimate reasons for the practice. Agree/disagree?
JL, Avoiding cancer is a great reason to mutilate a female child. Especially if we’re willing to mutilate a male child for something as minor as a yeast infection. As for the cost, can you really put a cost on avoiding breast cancer, and death? Male genital mutilate is a human rights violation.
Your argument presupposes that all surgeries have equally serious side-effects, which is false. You still haven’t grasped the idea of weighing costs and benefits—it’s all black and white for you. Farewell.
You miss a very important point. The integrity of the body – the only body we get to carry us through this life – deserves special protection by both parents and government. What is carved on the child remains carved into or off of the adult. The primary constitutional rights of the individual (the child) clearly outweigh any secondary rights of parents to practice their religion on the body of another person. There is no other constitutional basis to claim a right to circumcise.
Circumcision causes physical loss and cannot be remedied; the tissue does not regenerate. The scar created produces a high amount of collagen webbing under the wound, invisible after healing but nevertheless present and constrictive of normal penile shaft skin movement. Thus, the male affected is unable to compensate for the compromise of his penis.
The foreskin is an integral, functional part of the penis. As such, any treatment of it demands an extremely high degree of scrutiny, and its surgical modification or removal must be only for the most exigent of reasons. No amount of “belief” on the part of a parent justifies non-therapeutic surgery on a child. As a man’s foreskin likely will be a valued part of the adult body, parents must carefully exercise their duty to safeguard their children’s options for an open future. This is never more true than in regard to physical integrity.
Ultimately, the condoning of circumcision rests on ignorance and disrespect of the anatomy and function of the foreskin. It is not inherently prone to problems and not superfluous. It is as integral and at least as necessary as the glans penis.
Circumcision alters a part of the male body that interacts directly with the vagina during intercourse (common sense). It also ablates the most richly enervated part of the male body (Cold & Taylor 1996; Sorrels 2007). Hence circumcision has the capacity to alter materially the sexual experiences of the circumcisee and his partners (women who have been intimate with both kinds of men have attested to this.) Anything that materially alters a man’s sex life and that of his future partners should require his prior informed consent, unless his life is in immediate danger.
Foreskin feels REALLY good. Circumcision alters sex dramatically.
Informed adults can decide for themselves about their own bodies.
Most men qualified to speak on the topic would disagree with you. Just google “should I get circumcised?” and read the before-and-after stories (of men and their partners).
And then something awesome happens on follow ups a few years down the road, as the scar tissue desensitizes people find that they lose stimulation and sex is worse and they can’t feel things like they once were able too, , and that information is from some one qualified to speak on the subject. A lot if times thosd conversations of total loss and regret are private. But yes we are aware of the sites run by the GilGal society of circumfetish folks out there trying to lie to people about how awesome circumcision is, no need to google it.
You are so correct. An ignorant medic cut off my foreskin at 5 months old. 11 years later I learned to masturbate, and soon learned it was an uncomfortable act compared with what other boys enjoyed. Later on when I began having intercourse, lubricant was always needed, but then difficult to obtain easily. From the age of 40, orgasm became more and more difficult to achieve, until as I turned 60 it has been impossible. John Harvey Kellogg was not mistaken, circumcision does spoil sex, and that has always been true, as religionists knew well. That is why it must be banned, the sooner the better.
Hi Scion,
Polls indicate that you are in the minority.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2006/02/or_not_to_snip.html
Did you really just point me to a non scientific questionair one in which the author contrdicts himself in it numerous times???? Did you even read that entire thing hahaha I hope that’s not your “proof”
Scion,
What other “proof” do you want besides anecdotal evidence? Is there some machine out there that can measure penile pleasure? Has it been used on a “scientific” sample?
The only type of evidence available on the pleasure issue is a type of evidence you reject. You might as well bow out of the discussion since you’re arguing a point that by your own admission cannot be substantiated.
“Of the 79 men who’d experienced sex snipped and unsnipped, 43 said sex improved (55 percent) after their circumcisions, 23 said it went downhill (29 percent), and 13 said there was no change or a mix of pros and cons (16 percent).”
That’s very unimpressive.
1) It’s a self-slected sample, and hence has no statistical significance
2) It’s only 79 men, which is too few to draw a statistical conclusion from about every male in the world
3) We have no idea why they got circumcised. If they wanted to, or needed to, or thought they ought to, that already predisposed them to expect benefits.
4) After all that, nearly one in three found circumcision made sex worse. Just over one in two thought it made sex better. Hardly good odds for something that can’t be undone.
And the trivialising “snipped” suggests the author doesn’t know much about circumcision:
* With a Gomco, Winkelman or Mogen Clamp, or a traditional barzel, it’s sliced – and a Mogen may slice more than just the foreskin, which has led to successful claims worth millions and the Mogen company going out of business.
* With a Plastibell or PrePex it’s crushed and allowed to die.
* With an Accu-circ it’s chopped.
– but never “snipped”.
Ron Low is unusually qualified to speak on this subject. Like nearly all middle aged middle class Americans, he was circumcised at birth. In middle age, he rebuilt a foreskin by stretching the skin. This led to a marked improvement in the satisfaction he and his spouse derive from vaginal intercourse.
Men who chose to have (the best) part of their penis cut off are hardly a random sample of the population. Nor are those who needed to be circumcised to treat a condition that was impairing their sex lives, such that their circumcision made it less sub-ptimal than before. Nor are those who had themselves circumcised as a religious oblication and thereby gained “spiritual benefits”
Only men who needed to be circumcised for something completely neutrral would be unbiased observers of its sexual effects. Such information as we have is that the outcome is negative.
Until someone successfully sues both their parents and/or the person who perpetrated it, the US will still stay asleep. Money talks. However, I’m happy that this conversation is happening and I’m following it, not only just here. I am surprised that nowhere have i read a mention of unconscious anger at the mother/female which may be a factor in rape crimes. By allowing the child to be circumcised the mother unwittingly provides the man with the perfect instrument to inflict pain on her sex. I’m sure that uncircumcised men commit rape, though i’d be curious to learn of any studies. My own experience as an intactee is that it would be impossible for me to penetrate a non-lubricated woman because of the pain. Sure, there are ways around this, but the point is that the thought of it is not at all arousing to me and certainly not a way that I would choose to act out repressed anger, if indeed there is a correlation.
Scandinavian police forces report that a majority of men convicted of rape in their countries, are circumcised immigrants from Moslem cultures.
I warmly agree with you that using an intact penis to penetrate an unwilling and unlubricated vagina by force could lead to painful tension on the frenulum. I too suspect that circumcision cum destruction of the fremulum results in a penis that facilitates rape.
The rapists are… 1) Circumcised, 2) Immigrant, 3) Muslim.
I am in awe that you think, out of those three characteristics, the first one is the most significant in terms of explaining their propensity to rape. Wow. Can’t make this stuff up…
wow. any scientific studies to support the idea that rapists must be circumcised in order to commit rape? funny the different ideas/theories that this article has stimulated…..
How (the heck) did you get “must be circumcised” our of “facilitates”? Please take a course in elementary logic.
(Not that I support the “circumcision -> rape” hypothesis, but it hasn’t yet been ruled out. The proposition that an unlubricated i.e. unwilling vagina would be painful to an intact penis should be taken seriously, and good statistics of the circumcision status of rapists compared to that of thelr non-rapist peers would be useful data.)
I believe a man should be circumcised because it is stated in the bible that a male infant is suppose to be circumcised. If you are a christian or believe in the bible than it should be practiced.
Carol, but that’s actually wrong. If you believe in the Bible you SHOULDN’T circumcise unless only following the Old Testament. If you follow the Bible, or even consider the New Testament, you’re wrong. Male Jewish infants are to be circumcised, Christian babies are not.
Actually, as a Biblical Christian I have looked into this extensively, if you are Jewish, then yes, you should be circumcised, but if you are a Christian then you should no be circumcised. For the Biblical argument you should look In Romans. There in a long discussion about circumcision. there had been a fight i the early church where some of the Jewish Christians were demanding the Gentile Christians to be circumcised to become part of the church and Paul shuts them down hard, explaining that circumcision is a promise to the law and that their faith in Christ will make their ‘uncircumcision’ circumcision and the lack of the Jewish faith will make their circumcision uncircumcision. It starts in chapter 2 and goes through at least chapter 4. Then in Corinthians (among other places) it talks about how circumcision or uncircumcision means nothing to a Christian, only to those under the old law. (see Cor 7:19 for example). In Galatians it says how Paul was give the gospel to the uncircumcised and Peter was given the gospel to the circumcised (meaning Paul was witnessing to the gentiles and Peter to the Jews). Circumcision is a uniquely Jewish thing to show they are God’s chosen people and it represents their covenant with Him. While it ‘means nothing’ since the covenant was fulfilled in Jesus, we as non racial Jews are not part of that original covenant and as Christians ‘under a new covenant’ (see Hebrews 8:7, Mark 14:24, and 2 Cor 3:5-7)it’s inappropriate to place ourselves under it by ritual circumcision. Now there are some medical reasons for it, and since it’s not specifically forbidden (means nothing, see 1 Cor 7:19) there wouldn’t be a reason to avoid it as a medical procedure. But it is not recommended for Christians and is against a plain reading of scripture and the history of the early church for non racial Jews to be circumcised. The Levitical law was and is for the Jews, it can not be supported through Biblical texts for a follower of Christ to place themselves under Levitical law, and if you were to do so, through intentional circumcision based upon belief in the Levitical law, you would be responsible for upholding the entirety of that law, including all dietary, clothing, sacrificial, moral, and cultural obligations, Christ came to free us from that Law and provide us with a better way to connect to God. There is no cause to abide any longer in a works-based law.
“if you are Jewish, then yes, you should be circumcised,”
Or rather, if you are Jewish and take the Old Testament somewhat literally. And an adult can always have himself circumcised if he thinks his religion requires it.
Many modern Jews don’t believe that the almighty Creator of the Universe (which we now know to be 13.7 billion years old and at least 46 billion light-years across) literally ordered Abraham (whose historicity is in doubt) to circumcise himself and all his descendents, but they continue to circumcise their sons for the sake of “tradition” and because they have been taken in by the bogus or exaggerated “health benefits”. More and more do not, and here are more than 170 celebrants (more than 100 of them rabbis) of non-surgical Brit Shalom:
http://tinyurl.com/britshalom
His body, His choice !
Will an uncircumcised baby be angry at you for not circumcising him?
Many circumcised men are angry at their parents, doctors, society and women.
It doesn’t prevent STDs because circumcised men are so desensitized they don’t
want to put a condom on.
Circumcision is the same as branding cattle.
It is worse for men because they loose 20 000 sexual nerve endings.
Follow the money trail: doctors, hospitals, lubes, viagra.
It comes from evil to create angry men who are willing to go to war, kill, and rape.
When circumcision is stopped, peace on earth will prevail.
I have faith that this barbaric practice will end because in the past the religious
leaders circumcised to brand their followers and to create broken men who will
follow their religion submissively but now thanks to article like the one above
parents will protect their boys from the evil fetishists circumcision.
So i read the whole article… and it even cites a bunch of sources for their position. I took the citation from the most credible looking source, the American Academy of Pediatricians where the article claims that the AAP is now gone from pro-to-neutral in stance. So i clicked and followed through and read the AAP statement and it in fact stated the opposite, saying that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks. Thanks for the article though, I enjoy the debunking. In the end though, CDC and AMA > evolutionaryparenting.com
Actually I said it was discouraged and now neutral bordering on support…???
See: And yet, despite our growing awareness of complications and pain responses due to circumcision, the American Academy of Pediatrics changed their stance on circumcision[23]. Whereas it was once discouraged, the stance now more neutral but bordering on support, though the real focus is making sure it’s paid for by insurance companies.
Also, you can look solely at the US or you could look to the numerous health agencies in Europe for their views. How do they compare to the CDC and AMA?
And most credible sources? Um… the Lancet anyday over the AAP!!! At least that’s peer-reviewed without agenda.
[…] Parenting: Why You Should Care About Circumcision This is a big one, and a must-read if you’re not already against routine infant circumcision, […]
“Vomiting
It was my sad task to publish a case report about a baby who experienced severe vomiting after being circumcised. Following the vomiting spell, the baby stopped breathing and had to be hospitalized for five days so that he could receive intravenous antibiotics. Needless to say, this never would have occurred had the baby been protected from circumcision.
Infants respond to the pain of circumcision by screaming, just as we would if someone slowly crushed and cut off part of our sex organs without anesthetic. When the crying is especially intense, the baby may swallow air. Then, when the mother tries to soothe her baby by feeding him, it may lead to vomiting, followed by apnea.
Apnea (Stopped Breathing)
Apnea is the temporary cessation of breathing. The pain of circumcision is so severe that some babies stop breathing during the surgery. In an important study on the pain of circumcision published in The Journal of the American Medical Association, researchers discovered that serious complications occurred during circumcision. One infant experienced the same level of extreme distress as all the others in the study, but two and a half minutes after the conclusion of the surgery, the baby developed an abnormal posture, stopped breathing, and suffered projectile vomiting even though he had been denied food for more than three hours before the surgery. Another baby experienced a choking spell and stopped breathing three and a half minutes after the surgery.
The researchers noticed these serious complications because they were looking for them. One wonders how many babies suffer without anyone taking notice or caring, or even thinking there is anything wrong with projectile vomiting, choking, or cessation of breathing.
Rupture of Internal Organs
Circumcision is so traumatic, painful, and frightening that it literally terrorizes the baby. Some babies have suffered extreme reactions to this experience that few adults could ever imagine possible.
Rupture of the Lung
The medical literature details cases of circumcised babies whose lungs have burst as a result of intense crying. In one case, at Georgetown University School of Medicine, a fifteen-day-old baby with severe respiratory distress was circumcised. He turned blue, started breathing frantically, and cried incessantly. Finally, doctors discovered that the crying had caused the baby’s right lung to burst. A drainage tube was inserted and the baby was hospitalized for nineteen days.
Blood Clots in the Lung
A case of life-threatening blood clots in the lung was reported following adult circumcision.
Heart Damage
The serious injury that circumcision can cause to other parts of the body is made clear in reports of babies whose hearts were damaged as a result of circumcision . In one case from Rochester, New York, a newborn baby was circumcised in the delivery room, even though the American Academy of Pediatricians has condemned this practice. The baby immediately turned blue, experienced grunting respirations, his temperature dropped to a dangerous level, and his heart muscle was damaged. This baby miraculously survived, but spent eleven days in the intensive care unit of the hospital.
In another published report, four babies who were hospitalized following circumcision turned blue, were lifeless, had elevated heartbeats, frantic breathing, grunting, and extremely poor breathing. The liver was enlarged in three of the babies, and all babies showed signs of acute heart failure, enlarged heart, and fluid in the lungs. All four babies had been circumcised by the same circumciser, who had tried to controll the bleeding with epinephrine solution. The doctors who fought to save the lives of these babies believe that the drug may have induced the chain of events that nearly killed these innocent babies.
Rupture of the Stomach
In Richmond, Virginia, a healthy two-day-old baby was prepared for circumcision by denying him food for five hours. Terrified, the baby began crying hysterically as soon as the circumciser strapped him to the restraining board. After half an hour in this position, the baby vomited. Doctors pumped his stomach. The circumciser proceeded to amputate the baby’s foreskin without anesthesia using a Gemco clamp. The baby cried vehemently throughout the ninety-minute ordeal. After the surgery, the baby refused to feed. His abdomen became distended and doctors discovered that his stomach had ruptured, requiring emergency abdominal surgery and the insertion of a feeding tube. After twenty-five days in the hospital, the baby was released. This baby had a perfectly normal stomach when he was born, but the trauma, excruciating pain of circumcision, and his prolonged crying caused his stomach to burst and spill its contents into the abdominal cavity.”
[…] https://gku.flm.mybluehost.me/evolutionaryparenting.com/why-you-should-care-about-circumcision/ […]
THE BIBLE WAS SPEAKING IN PARABLES… PARABLES!! IT EVEN SAYS THAT IT IS AND NOT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY!
http://www.hiddenmeanings.com/storiesjuly02.html
There is a record of the Bible itself telling us not to take any of this literally.
There is record of the Bible itself telling us that all of this stuff, is parable, proverb, allegory and dark sayings.
2 Corinthians 3:6 “Who also has made us able ministers of the new testament, not of the letter but of the spirit, for the letter kills but the spirit gives life.”
Romans 2:29 “But he is a Jew which is one inwardly and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit , not in the letter.”
The Bible itself telling us that these things are not literal.
They did not happen.
They are mythical
They are symbolic stories that mean something else.