Stop Circumcision - Med/Law Prof declares:"“technically criminal assault"

[KurtNYC]

This is a puritanical, barbaric ritual and should be stopped. There is no medical basis for the routine circumcision of infants. It is traumatic (see the website)and in some cases, lethal: July 18, 1995; Houston, Texas: A 5-year-old boy goes into a coma while being circumcised. He dies a week later.

It gained popularity partly based on a misguided societal fear of all things sexual. It should only be done to address specific medical issues such as phimosis and paraphimosis (inability to position the foreskin back over the head of the penis after it has been retracted).

I can see why many medical professionals now refuse to do this procedure. A dose of sanity from our northern neighbors:

It may all come down to the basic human rights of the child. In 1996, the Canadian Medical Association approved a code of ethics that instructs doctors to “refuse to participate in or support practices that violate basic human rights.” This suggests that, in the case of circumcision, parental preference should not override the child’s physical rights to his body.

Margaret Somerville, professor of law and medicine at McGill University in Montreal and founding director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law, recently raised the hair on the necks of all North American pediatricians by declaring circumcision “technically criminal assault.”

“Once you decide that circumcision is not medically necessary, you take away the therapeutic intent. Take away therapeutic intent, and circumcision becomes an unjustified wounding,” she says.

http://www.noharmm.org/separated.htm

[CornField]

1. Totally agree

It was my one non-negotiable issue for my son.

[BOHICA06]

2. And stop piercing infant girls' ears too! ... n/t

[The Sushi Bandit]

32. Ribbit!!!!

[Jack_DeLeon]

226. ear piercings usually heal up on thier own...

I havent heard of any cases of foreskins growing back on thier own.

[BOHICA06]

232. It's about consent, isn't it?

Not to many infants give it to be mutilated! Why not tattoo the little tykes too?

[aquart]

3. Biased, much?

If you're worried about your weenie, DON'T circumcise. Don't do it to your kids.

It's nice not to be forced to do something someone else's way, isn't it?

[Hamlette]

6. people don't understand circumcision, attempts to educate should not

be treated with derision.

When my son was born I assumed everyone did it. The hospital provided me with an informational sheet which was 3 and one-half pages of the reasons against it and one half page on the reasons for it. The reasons for circumcision were basically "everyone does it, society demands it." We did not have it done to our son.

I was surprised how many of my friends circumcised their children. Because they didn't want them to be "different." I'm talking about atheistic Democrats living in Utah. We're already different.

My friends are idiots.

[KurtNYC]

11. Yes, I have an opinion

I didn't say outlaw and I mentioned medical reason TO have it done.

Btw, why are you FOR it?

[girl gone mad]

71. But isn't infant circumcision..

forcing a child to do things someone else's way?

I don't have very strong feelings on this issue, but there is some amount of hypocrisy in defending circumcision as a civil rights issue.

[Mandate My Ass]

4. They didn't even ask me when my son was born

the doc visited my room one morning and announced the circumcision was done. The nurse then brought him into my room to show me how to care for the incision site and his face was crimson from screaming in pain. :cry:

[KurtNYC]

9. they mention that on the site

often done with NO consent from anyone (and obviously not the child)

[Mandate My Ass]

17. I'm surprised that still goes on

My brother is a nurse (not in obsetrics anymore, he went to the other end and is in geriatrics now) and he said he always brought paperwork to the parents and tried to engage them in conversation about the pros and cons. He said most were dismissive and just said go ahead with it, like they couldn't be bothered to discuss it.

At least *they* were asked. When I had my son 25 years ago it was a whole different ballgame.

[question everything]

201. I don't think that you get the consent of the child when you

vaccinate him/her, or when you have to administer other medical care. You certainly don't get the consent of the child when a mother chooses to breast fed him/her or not.

How ridiculous can you get?

[UdoKier]

25. That's disgusting. You should sue.

That should never be done without the parent's consent.

[RadicalMom]

228. I think I would have circumcised that doctor! n/t

[Mike Niendorff]

5. At a minimum, anesthesia should be mandatory.

Whatever else we may disagree on, all Americans should at least be able to agree on this much. I cannot simply imagine a legitimate argument in favor of withholding anesthetic from children undergoing this surgical procedure.


MDN

[Hamlette]

7. I was told infants of that age don't feel pain

then I heard my son scream when they took blood from his heel.

I couldn't believe they were telling me he didn't feel pain.

[Mike Niendorff]

12. Years ago, one of my neighbors hosted a briss.

I could hear the child screaming for nearly 30 minutes -- this, from inside their closed house, coming into MY closed house, at a distance of probably 50-60 yards. How people can make the claim that kid didn't feel pain is just beyond me.


MDN

[UdoKier]

27. The Jewish bris is different than the standard medical procedure.

The bris involves the rabbi using a sharpened stone and is a laborious process.

The typical medical circumcision involves a bell-shaped apparatus that is fitted over the glans of the penis that removes the foreskin relatively quickly and painlessly.

But I am still opposed to the needless use of the procedure.

[WoodrowFan]

36. owwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

I may walk cross-legged the rest of the day....

[bloom]

40. I find it difficult to believe that it would be painless no matter what...

[UdoKier]

42. It's not entirely painless.

But apparently the bell method is less painful than the old-fashioned way.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

67. Very few are done this way..My ex is a mohel and an OBGYN

She uses surgical tools and the baby is either given topical anesthetic or sweet wine following the procedure which is a known pain killer

[UdoKier]

198. Fair comment. Just relaying what Jewish friends told me as a kid.

They did mention the wine, by the way.

But I do think the "bell" method is supposed to be quicker and more humane, but apparently is not "kosher".

Good to know that the sharpened stone is no longer the only way.

[Bouncy Ball]

72. Yikes

I'm glad you are opposed to it but it is not quick or painless even in a hospital.

The entire procedure involves first taking a blunt instrument and forcing it between the glans and the foreskin, because at birth the foreskin is attached to the glans. Then they have to work the blunt instrument around the circumference tearing the foreskin from the glans. Then the clamp is placed, the foreskin pulled up around it, and clamped that way for a few minutes to try to stem a lot of the bleeding. Then the scalpel is used to cut around the base of the clamp in order to remove the foreskin.

I am simplifying quite a bit but it is not quick and far from painless in a hospital. There are videos available on line from circumstitions.com (an anti-RIC organization started by pediatric nurses) in which you can watch and hear the babies.

[TankLV]

242. Ow ow ow ow ow - I don't think I'll walk upright for the rest of the day.

And mine was "done". I always assumed my father's was, too, until I saw him in my bathroom a few years before he died - I always assumed he was like me - just never really payed attention to it. We used to go camping, the gym, etc. Never asked why I was done and he wasn't. Go figure.

Ow.

[thinkingwoman]

127. in what century?

A doctor did my son's bris, with a rabbi present.

Oh, and anesthesia was used.

[gulogulo]

200. Um - why do you speak of things you don't know?

http://www.circumcision.net/essay/Legacy.htm

"sharpened stone" indeed. Where do you get such ideas?

[RadicalMom]

229. Many babies end up with NO penis as a result of this procedure!

[thinkingwoman]

230. oh really? Source?

Honestly..."many"? I have never heard of "ANY" babies "ending up with NO penis" so I'd be interested in a source for your statement.

Could you provide one please?

[Ms_Mary]

281. There have been a small number of cases where the penis was accidentally

cut off or damaged. In one often used case, the surgeon accidentally cut off the baby boy's penis and the parents decided to have him surgically altered into a girl. It did not go well for him when he learned. Poor, poor kid. He never understood why he didn't feel like a girl.

[JohnLocke]

286. You're an idiot (nt).

[The Sushi Bandit]

33. They dont do that when they brand cattle!

[Bouncy Ball]

69. Infants cannot handle general anesthesia

and local is tricky at best for routine infant circumcision.

They usually get a topical ointment that is next to useless. (Think of the stuff they put on your gums before you get a shot of lidocaine. Now imagine them cutting on your genitals with a scalpel after just that ointment. Yeah.)

It's really more than that, though. There really is no reason to circumcise, barring extremely RARE indications to do so. I mean VERY rare.

The chances of a baby boy being left intact needing circumcision in his lifetime are less than 1%.

[one_true_leroy]

8. wholeheartedly agree...

it's barbaric!!

My sister, who's been blessed with three boys, didn't even know what circumcision was. She's never seen one 'uncut,' and was never told about it. When she delivered they just chopped away like it was part of the umbilicus. It's the only surgical procedure the Drs DON'T need your permission or informed consent to perform.

Edit: It was, to say the least, awkward explaining to her about A) what it was, and B) that it had been done to her sons without her knowing.

[sushi]

10. The problem is

how to stop the Muslim and Jewish parents having it done to their baby boys for religious reasons.

[Bridget Burke]

14. The site linked is totally biased.

Quite a few circimcised men have managed to live normal lives.

And quite a few of those totally against the procedure would probably be deficient, anyway.

[The Sushi Bandit]

34. I like my circimcised penis and so does my wife.

this sounds dirty ... dosent it?

[barb162]

94. you'd probably like it the other way too.

[The Sushi Bandit]

152. I actually like it a lot of different ways

[barb162]

154. LOL, LOL, LOL

[fleabert]

210. my dh and I say the same thing, but from my research,

the four of us would like it a lot better if you had been left intact! (now THAT sounds dirty)

basically, the head of the penis is not designed to be exposed all the time, over years and years the exposure desensitizes it. Also, the foreskin that is removed does have a purpose, it allows the erect penis to have enough skin to become fully erect comfortably. understand that uncirc'd and circ'd penis' look almost identical when erect. Unless of course if the dr. cut too much foreskin off and the cut penis curves when erect or worse. the foreskin is also nice for your partner, as it allows for more movement and friction during sex without as much need for lubrication. (this theory has been held up by my best friend, whose DH is intact, but her partners before marriage were not.)

It could be even better is all I am saying! One of the reasons it was begun was to discourage handling of the penis due to the pain and/or discomfort created during an erection, to stop boys from masturbating and from wanting to have sex.

http://nocirc.org/
http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/
http://www.aloha.net/~uncut/

[TankLV]

243. That is utter bullshit.

I have always had plenty of pleasure and feeling.

Your other statements have no basis in fact - are just your wacked opinion.

I've known persons who've grown to adulthood uncut and then had it done for whatever reason - no difference in pleasure - easier to keep clean, too.

[Bouncy Ball]

250. What's utter bullshit is your assertion that the

cut penis is easier to keep clean. When I hear stuff like that, it's hard not to just laugh out loud after seeing my husband of 14 years just STRUGGLE :eyes: to keep his intact penis clean. Oh yeah it's such a damn trial. It involves something called soap and water.

Oh yeah, the same thing cut guys do! He simply showers!

Geeez, where did these ideas come from?

Also, she never said circed sex was BAD. No one says that. But no one can deny that losing 10,000-20,000 nerve endings (which is what you lose with no foreskin) will physiologically affect sensation.

A male circed from before he was sexually active, though, will never know any difference. So of course they have nothing to compare the experience TO!

[TankLV]

288. What is utter bullshit is a WOMAN commenting on NOTHING she could

ever know personally about.

Spew all you want, doesn't make is any truer.

[fleabert]

261. it's not utter bullshit to say that it 'could be' better...

you have no idea if it could be better for you, that choice was taken out of your control. I am all for adults choosing to do whatever they want, I have tattoos and piercings, but I am against babies being subjected to body modification. Esp. when RESEARCH shows there is a marked difference for the majority of men when comparing sensitivity of the penis cut and uncut.

If it is too hard to wash the head of your penis, I am sorry, but it's silly to say that that is a good reason to cut off a piece of functioning skin on a child. It's hard to wash your hair, but we don't shave kids bald into adulthood because of it. We simply wash.

het.

[Rush1184]

240. I was about to say the same thing...

minus the wife part (single).

I am glad I had it done.

[KurtNYC]

18. As long as they want it, I see it as less of an issue

There are a lot of religious practices I disagree with but I do believe in general freedom of religion. I knew it was a jewish tradition; didn't know it was a muslim practice though.

To be less vague than my thread headline -- I think we should move away from this being something that is still common enough that it is done without consent of the parents, etc. to something that is done only when asked for and only when the patients or guardian are advised of the risks involved. In other words, the way every other procedure is regulated.

[Mike Niendorff]

30. You won't. But for the child's sake, at least require anesthetic.

MDN

[Tacos al Carbon]

45. Anesthetic is very, very dangerous

when it comes to newborns. You'll have more death, brain damage, etc. as a result of anasthetic than you ever would because of circumcision.

[bloom]

48. Well - they could wait until the boy is 13,14

and let him decide. And use anesthesia...

I wonder how many would?

[one_true_leroy]

56. it has to be done eight days after birth to be valid...

according to religious tradition.

[bloom]

57. I'm talking about all the people who have it done just because

it's a societal thing. Which I would guess accounts for 90-95% of them. :shrug:

[bloom]

58. It's gone from 90% to 60% over the past 30 years...

according to:

http://theweekmagazine.com/briefing.asp?a_id=368

"But over the past 30 years, the practice has been rapidly losing favor; the percentage of newborns who are circumcised has dropped from a high of 90 percent in the late 1960s, to 80 percent in 1980, to 60 percent today. In Canada, the rate is only 17 percent and in Britain 5 percent. Everywhere else in the non-Muslim and Jewish world, circumcision is almost unknown."

[one_true_leroy]

62. who'd bother?

if someone asked me at 12-13 would i like to lop off a part of my penis..... no sirree!!

[bloom]

66. That would be my guess, as well.

And if babies could choose - their decision, also. :)

[LeftyMom]

173. That's the idea

The bearer of the penis in question should make the decision. Nobody'd be dumb enough to consent because cutting off perfectly good erogenous tissue is dumb.

At least then the dr wouldn't have to guesstimate growing room after painfully separating the foreskin from the glans, so the harm would probably be reduced somewhat.

[question everything]

203. "I have never had to remove a cancerous circumcised penis"

a urologist said in a conference about cancer treatment and prevention.

It is not "societal thing."

[Bouncy Ball]

205. And I heard a doctor say

he sees far more problems with circumcisions than with foreskins.

By the way, an intact mans chance of getting penile cancer in his lifetime is approximately .08%. A circumcised man's chance of getting penile cancer in his lifetime is .06%. Just .02% difference.

Now when you consider that the standard chance of complications from a surgery such as circumcision is at about 5% (this includes both operative and post-operative complications, which can range from infection to death), what parent would choose the higher, 5% risk of complications over just a .02% chance of penile cancer?

The cost-benefit analysis comes down clearly on the side of not circumcising.

[Bouncy Ball]

73. When the boy is left alone and allowed to grow up intact

he very rarely chooses circumcision. So rare, they don't even have reliable figures. Most intact men (as in almost all of them) choose to stay that way and usually feel quite strongly about sharp instruments near their genitals!

[Warren DeMontague]

106. I beg to differ.

I have a 16 yr. old nephew who is LIVID that he wasn't circumcised. He's right now planning on getting it done. My dad wasn't when he was born, and had it done at age 14 I believe. When it is done later in life it is extremely painful and more difficult- that's just a simple fact.

I also have several friends who aren't, and several other friends who didn't have it done to their sons.

I'm not saying there aren't real, valid reasons to argue against circumcision and to not have it done on your own kids- everyone should have a choice- but hyperbole and screeching judgements at people who do choose to have it done don't further anyone's arguments.

[Bouncy Ball]

107. Where are the screeching judgements?

When a guy is 18 years old, if he wants it done, then he can have it done.

Actually it's far LESS painful when a boy is older because he can have both general and local anesthesia and pain relief afterwards.

A baby CANNOT have pain relief that is effective during the surgery because of their physiology.

Not only that, but at birth the foreskin is attached to the glans. Pretty tightly. It has to be torn away from the glans, all the way around, with a blunt instrument that is forced in there.

In an older male with a foreskin that is retractable that part is not necessary.

Another thing to consider is the tiny size of a newborn penis. Doctors have to be VERY careful not to be too aggressive in the foreskin they remove as they have no idea what size the adult penis will be in this child. With an adult male, that isn't a problem.

For all those reasons the infant circumcision is far riskier than a teenager or an adult being circumcised.

[Warren DeMontague]

116. I think there's plenty of judgement in this thread against parents

who choose to have it done.

My point was, you claimed that pretty much everyone who is not circumcised is thrilled with that fact as they grow into self-awareness. I know of two people in my immediate family for which that has not been the case.

Is it for everyone? No. Is there legitimate room for debate? Sure. But, I'm sorry, half of my family is Jewish. Do I think that we should be issuing blanket indictments of everyone who chooses to circumcise their sons--- at birth? Personally, I don't.

And -another statistically meaningless sample of one- I was circumcised, and I don't feel mutilated, or angry, or unhappy in the least about the whole thing.

[Bouncy Ball]

126. Of course you don't.

It's all you have known.

And I haven't addressed religious reasons for doing it at all. Not one word.

The instance of intact men choosing to be circumcised is still extremely rare, the medical literature bears this out. And 85% of the men in the world are intact.

I'm glad you are happy, no one is saying circed men have to go around clawing their faces and rending their garments in misery.

I'm saying the foreskin is a fully functioning part of the penis. It is meant to be there. And removing it routinely at birth is not medically indicated. Therefore, why have it done? (Remember I am not addressing religious issues.) Why not let the boy decide when he is older, and like I said, when the surgery is far less prone to complications and risks.

[Warren DeMontague]

133. Actually, I personally suspect

that the reasons for circumcision lie deeper in the human psyche. Specifically, it is, like shaving, a way to distinguish ourselves physically from other animals. Deep down we can't accept that we're apes. That's my personal hunch.

Look, I'm not interested in getting into a knock-down fight over this. Infant circumcision is not going away any time soon. Is it traumatic? Probably- but so is being born. Are there reasons not to do it? Certainly. I believe every potential parent should go into the decision making process with full information and go from there- which is far different from the situation, lo, many, many decades ago, when I was born, and everyone had it done as a matter of routine. I think this is good, that people question it and debate it. What I'm not going to do is sit here and issue blanket proclamaitions on what other parents should or shouldn't do. You believe the foreskin should be left until the adult male can decide on his own- I respect that, but it's my experience that doing that can lead to trauma of it's own. Beyond that, I see no point in going around and around on this issue any more than I feel like getting bogged down endlessly in one of the PETA threads. It's not a front-burner for me.

Peace.

[Bouncy Ball]

136. I think you might be right in regard to your first paragraph.

I've often wondered myself why doctors, even doctors who know it isn't medically indicated, continue to do this.

Parents who aren't as well-informed...well I think the medical community has a responsibility to help them be more informed. You can't make an informed decision without all the facts.

You are right that when you were born, it was just a matter of routine. Fortunately we have given up many things we now know to be ineffective at best and harmful at worst, such as "bleeding out" a patient when they are sick.

Your analogy to birth is not parallel. The child HAS to be born. They do not have to be circumcised.

I understand this isn't a biggie for you. Thanks for responding!

[Warren DeMontague]

141. Don't get me wrong- It's a legitimate debate.

Although my wife's family is Jewish and so is half of mine, it's by no means certain we would circumcise any male sons. We've talked about it quite a bit, and we'll cross that bridge when the time comes. My own, personal inkling is NOT to do it, although this fairly recent development with my nephew certainly made me think some more on the issue.

[Bouncy Ball]

146. You are certainly very reasonable on this issue

and I commend you for that. It's not an easy thing to think about or talk about at all.

[phylny]

178. Once your nephew finds out that his sexual pleasure

will most likely be enhanced with his foreskin intact, he may change his mind.

Then again, he may not.

[bloom]

184. I think there can be some difficulty

for teenage boys if they feel esp. different.

I wonder if there are any websites that would be helpful.

[Warren DeMontague]

192. I also suspect that if he lived where I do...

namely, a rather progressive part of Northern California, he might not feel as "unusual".

My only point was, it's not necessarially black and white. And I'm not going to point blank condemn everyone who chooses to circumcise their sons.

[Bouncy Ball]

196. I'm sorry if anyone thinks I condemn them for anything

I simply think parents need to have more information and I hold responsible the medical profession for not being forthcoming with all the information. Some doctors are very good about this, but sadly, not enough of them. I don't think routine infant circumcision is right because it's not medically indicated surgery.

I suspect your nephew probably does have issues with acceptance, considering his age and the fact that you said he doesn't live in a very progressive area. My husband grew up in the 60s and 70s and played sports and sadly, told me he went around pushing the foreskin back during showers and such, to "fool" other guys into thinking he looked like them.

But isn't that sad? He is just the way he was made. No one ever said anything to him, but he was paranoid about it.

Unfortunately there aren't many resources for a teenage boy dealing with these issues. The good news is more and more baby boys are being left intact. The ones being born today will be in good company by the time they are teenagers.

This is for kids, but I found this:

http://www.circumstitions.com/Different.html

My husband told me there was a period of time (as a teenager) when he wished he weren't different but if you asked him now if he'd like to go get circumcised, he's not a violent person, but I can see him getting highly agitated, LOL!

[Warren DeMontague]

194. I think he's getting to the age where sex is a factor, that's part of it..

I was sexually active at his age. I grew up in a relatively conservative, midwestern area. I mean, it was hard enough to get around teen shyness with regards to sex.. I can't imagine if I had been the only guy on the block with a foreskin.

[Bouncy Ball]

197. The thing is, though....

um, I am going to put this in a way that is appropriate for this forum.....

When I first was intimate with my husband, I had no idea he was intact.

When erect, you cannot visually tell ANY difference.

I only discovered so later!

But yeah, that is probably a factor for him.

[TankLV]

244. That is only a bogus opinion.

It has no bearing in fact.

[Bouncy Ball]

251. And how do you know this?

The only way you could possibly know that would be if you were intact long enough to be sexually active, then were circumcised, then went back to being sexually active. That's the only way anyone can say with certainty what you are saying.

When you lose your foreskin, you lose 10-20,000 nerve endings and some of the most sensitive skin on the human body (more so than eyelids, lips or fingertips).

[TankLV]

289. I know this because I know of at least 4 persons who have experienced both

which is a hell of a lot more experience that you - a WOMAN - could ever fantacize about!

ALL of these men have said what I am saying.

That is the proof.

But, of course, you will fantacize about your imagined "proof" because, after all, you are a WOMAN and know EVERYTHING about a man's dick personally.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You are so ridiculuous.

[Mike Niendorff]

52. nonsense

I'm talking local here, not general.


MDN

[Bouncy Ball]

74. Niendorff

there is a local block they can and do give, but the effectiveness is dubious. They've done studies I'd need to go dig up in which they have found that very often the local block only takes in parts of the penis, not the whole thing, as it is supposed to. Sometimes it doesn't take at all. There's no way of knowing. So you roll the dice.

The anesthesia thing is not really an issue to me, anyway, as the foreskin is a healthy, fully functioning part of the penis that was meant to be there and meant to be left alone.

[Mike Niendorff]

151. how about something simple, like novocaine?

Or maybe a topical anestheic, following by novocaine?

Like I said before, at least this approach reduces the pain suffered by the child. It's not a perfect solution, but it's a lot better than nothing.


MDN

[Bouncy Ball]

158. The most they get is a topical cream

that is similar to what is rubbed on your gums before a shot of Lidocaine AND a small local. The problem with the local is it doesn't work well in newborns. They have found, in studies of sensitivity, that it only partially blocks the nerve endings from pain and only in parts of the penis. Local is supposed to pretty much knock out that area, not just parts of it here and there.

But yeah, it's better than nothing.

My biggest gripe is still with permanently removing a healthy part of the penis that was meant to be there. Even if they made it totally pain free, I'd still be against it for that reason. If the boy wants to be circumcised, let him make that decision for himself. When he's older he can be under general and local anesthesia and have more effective pain relief after the surgery, too. It's far less risky in adults than in newborns, for a lot of reasons.

[Mike Niendorff]

159. no argument here, just trying to find a middle ground that might be viable

As for myself, I think the practice is an abuse of the child regardless of how it's performed. But I also realize that there are a lot of people who won't give it up anytime soon (primarily for religious and cultural reasons, but also just because "I was, dad was, grandpa was", that sort of continuing-the-trend thing). While that debate goes on, though -- and it will for a long time, I suspect -- I'd at least hope that we can all agree that making anesthetic a mandatory part of this procedure is long overdue.


MDN

[Bouncy Ball]

160. Yes, agreed on that.

Thanks!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

233. How About The Bu$h-Coulter Solution..

We invade their countries and convert them to Christianity...

[One_Life_To_Give]

13. Religious Freedom?

I think there are two major religions that demand the practice. And while I view the practice as no longer necessary. Does that give me the right to interfere in others religious beliefs? I think not!

[UdoKier]

29. Many well-minded folks are trying to do just that...

...in trying to stop female genital mutilation in Africa.

Are the two things so very different?

[Caoimhe]

50. ACTUALLY

yes they are very different. Female genital mutilation means actually cutting the clitoris out. In order for it to be the same, you'd have to cut the penis off. Without the clitoris, the nerve center, there is no chance for orgasm. That is the reason for the procedure. To ensure that these future "breeders" never have pleasurable sex.

So yes, they are different. I have never met a circumsized male who was unable to orgasm, but then again.. maybe it's just the reaction I inspire. My husband is circumsized and we are both pleased with it. I will however leave that decision up to him when/if we have kids. I've never owned a penis, cut or uncut. He has. He can decide. It may be one of the only decisions I leave up to him :P

[Bouncy Ball]

75. The foreskin has up to 10,000 nerve endings.

You are correct, a circumcised man can orgasm, of course. But he has lost up to 10,000 nerve endings and he has still permanently lost part of his genitals that was meant to be there.

This idea that parts of baby boys are disposable is, to me, crazy. They aren't.

[fleabert]

212. actually, there is more than one type of female circumcision

>snip<
Some confusion occurs in discussing this topic as there are several distinct practices that are all generally referred to by this name. In particular, while female circumcision is generally thought of in the West as involving the complete destruction of the female sexual organs in an effort to eliminate the female's sexual pleasure, in some forms female circumcision is claimed to be analagous to male circumcision, in that both procedures can involve the removal of the prepuce and the frenulum.

Type I, "clitoridotomy" (also called "hoodectomy" as a slang term), or sunna circumcision, after one of the Islamic traditions, involves the removal or splitting of the clitoral hood. This type of female circumcision is claimed to be comparable to male circumcision, although the physical functions of both genders have been reported as impacted one way or another.

>snip<

Other forms are collectively referred to as Type IV. This includes a diverse range of practices, including pricking the clitoris with needles, burning or scarring the genitals as well as ripping or tearing of the vagina. Type IV is found primarily among aboriginal tribes and isolated ethnic groups as well as in combination with other types. An example, was practiced as an initiation rite among Australian Aborigines. It involved cutting or tearing the vagina of a pubescent girl to enlarge it, after which the girl engaged in coitus with several male tribal members.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_circumcision#Other_types_of_female_circumcision

[lazarus]

220. So what?

Apparently, we can't object to male circumcision because it's a religious thing.

If female circumcision is a religious thing, then we can't object to that, either. Doesn't matter how much worse it might be.

If one form of genital mutilation is protected religious activity, why isn't the other?

[fleabert]

211. I have a very good friend (she's Jewish and has six kids) who has told me

that the rule of circumcision, when read in Hebrew, only states that blood must be drawn. a cut must be made. so many Jews today, armed with the medical knowledge now available about circumcision and it's drawbacks, are choosing a 'symbolic circumcision'. Only a small cut is made to represent the law perscribed in the bible. Or, for others, a strictly symbolic covenant ritual is performed, with no cutting at all.

Check out this link for an interesting perspective from a Jewish writer. It is from an anti-circ site, but valid nonetheless, as the writer does not solely write for that site.

http://www.nocirc.org/symposia/second/moss.html

[City Lights]

15. My son is not circumcised.

Nor is my husband, father, and FIL. I casually mentioned to the nurse that we weren't going to have the procedure done, and she informed me that it's basically automatic unless the parents request otherwise. He was immediately tagged with a "No Circ" sign. Thank goodness I spoke up.

[ArkDem]

16. Well, you have to admit is results in a much more

aesthetically pleasing penis.:shrug:

[radwriter0555]

20. I disagree, and chances are, I've seen many more penises than you have...

I think a cut penis looks freaky, abnormal, like some alien bobblehead.

An uncut penis looks robust, sturdy, healthy.... far more appealing.

I prefer an uncut man far, far more than a sliced and diced fella.

[ArkDem]

22. Well, I guess, you'll be in the short line.

[radwriter0555]

28. All those european men have managed to survive for centuries,

and all those european women sure SMILE a lot more than american chicks!

:O

[DemocratSinceBirth]

87. then why does europe have a declining birth rate

and susprising americans have sex more often then most other peoples...


in fact the spanish were last...


it's really a matter of preference....

[ldf]

169. declining birth rate

you say that like it is a bad thing!

ALL countries should be so proud as to boast a declining birth rate. there are too many of us here, already.

one of the main functions of all that extra skin on the penis is to allow the penis shaft to slide back and forth during sex (and, yes, masturbation).

it is there for a reason.

chopping it off as a tribute to some old man in the sky with a long white beard, who, just 10,000 years ago, snapped his fingers and in 7 days created all in existence, sounds like adhering to some cult's bizarre practices.

consider it this way. if you left religion out of it, would anyone be circumcised, other than for the legitimate correction of phimosis and paraphimosis?

phimosis = foreskin being too tight to expose glans without pain

paraphimosis = glans exposed with foreskin trapped behind glans, unable to cover glans without pain

[tjdee]

120. Jude Law is uncircumsized, and that's A-OK with me!

[The Sushi Bandit]

35. sliced and diced fella??? LOL

your TOOO funny!!

I guess they use a "Veg-o-matic" in the hospitals now!

[radwriter0555]

44. well it kinda IS a DICK-o-MATIC! Insert HERE and

WHACK!

[Rush1184]

241. And many feel the same...

about an un-cut one.

[Occulus]

21. I'd rather have the sensation I never had, thanks

And while it IS possible to "grow it back" by sslloowwllyy stretching the skin that's left with weights, and thus at least have something to cover the glans with so it's not constantly being rubbed and desensitized by fabrics, there are tissues present in foreskin which exist nowhere else on the male body. Once it's gone, it's gone for good and won't ever "work right" again.

edit: ladies, there's a cluster of nerves on the underside of the penis, directly below the glans, which I've been told is (sexually speaking) the most "sensitive" location there. This spot gets damaged during a normal, routine circumcision, and we're left with less feeling. That can't be fixed, as the circumcision produces scar tissue there.

Incidentally, the point of weighting the skin left to "grow it back" is to eventually provide a 'makeshift' foreskin. Since the whole purpose of foreskin is to cover the glans, the technique is usable, but imperfect. What you're after is the same difference in sensation you would get from covering the tip of your index finger with a bandaid for several days and then taking it off. It's also been said that the difference in sensation for circumcised v. uncircumcised men is like the difference in sensation between the back of your hand and the palm of your hand, respectively.

Men can learn how to actually do this for themselves at http://www.eskimo.com/~gburlin/restore/ , http://www.cirp.org/pages/restore.html , and many other sites. Google "foreskin restoration" for more links.

[ArkDem]

23. I bet there is BIG money in foreskin restoration!

[Occulus]

26. not really; it's an in-home technique

toilet paper cardboard tube, duct tape or something similar, and some way to stretch the skin by tension (elastic suspenders with clips would be appropriate). It's not a surgical procedure; there are kits for it you can buy, but it's far easier to just make the materials yourself.

I actually tried this once several years ago, but it got real old real fast because for it to wok, whatever you make to accomplish the goal has to be worn every day for a year or more. That's how long it takes the stretched skin to accommodate being constantly stretched.

[ArkDem]

53. I was (I thought obviously) joking.

[Occulus]

55. I know.

;)

[fleabert]

213. have you seen this site? it seems more humane than the ones you mention

and seems relatively cheap, and they say it works faster...

http://www.aloha.net/~uncut/

I put it on this thread before, so I hope no one thinks I work for them or something, just pertinent to your post and I am sure not everyone is going to reread this whole dang thread!

[The Sushi Bandit]

38. Like "Hair Club for Men"??

I can see the comercials now!

[Bouncy Ball]

78. No there's big money

in hospitals selling baby foreskins to high-end skin cream manufacturers for women. That "growth complex" they boast about in creams that cost up to $500 per ounce is infant foreskins they have purchased from the hospital. Contains some of the most senstive and wonderfully pliant skin cells known. They pay good money for them, too. Google it. You'll find it.

[bloom]

82. Well that adds another layer to the idea about people

not even having a choice in the matter - unless they initiate the conversation.

That is really disgusting.

[Radical Activist]

86. I thought it was disgusting when I found out about that

I was dating someone who wanted me to try her eye cream and told me where it came from. Personally, I think you have to be pretty sick to use that knowing where it comes from. I'd guess women are less likely to care.

[Bouncy Ball]

90. Oh they shell out the bucks for it!

I'm trying to remember the name of one particularly good one---Oprah even mentioned it on her show once, she said it was so good.

It is highly expensive. I found the website at one time, but didn't bookmark it.

[Bouncy Ball]

77. That spot is called the frenulum

and you are right, it is either lost or permanently damaged in circumcision.

[CornField]

37. I'll disagree as well

I find the un-cut variety much more visually pleasing.

[UdoKier]

41. Yes! And there is also nothing more aesthetically pleasing...

than a vagina with the labia removed! So sleek and streamlined!

:eyes:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

235. I Have A Cut Cock...

And lots of my partners have dug it...


I have never met a straight man or gay female who dug a vagina with the lips removed....

[Bouncy Ball]

252. Your partners most likely have never experienced

a penis that WASN'T cut. So how can they possibly compare? You have most likely never experienced (or possibly even seen) a vulva with labia removed. So of course you don't know anyone who would like that.

This gets to the very heart of the issue--we have a cultural bias for cut penises (at least a certain generation and older does) because that is what we know. We have to get past the familiar to question whether it is a practice that has any benefit. The medical community admits the potential benefit is so small that it is offset by the risk of complications both during and after surgery. So simply saying "well everyone likes mine and it's what we're used to" skips over the medical indication question, which is vital to explore.

[UdoKier]

267. The issue is not whether others might "dig it".

The issue is the removal of a normal, healthy, functioning part of the body without medical cause or the consent of the person being altered.

I would not characterize it as "assault" but I do think it is unethical to do that to an infant.

A significant percentage of circumcised men have been disappointed as adults with the loss of foreskin and have gone to great lengths to try and restore it.

That being the case, why not wait until a son is old enough to decide for himself what he wants done to his body.

If it's about what people "dig", why not chloroform your 12 year old daughter and get her implants without her consent? I'm sure those would go over great with the boys during the teen years.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

274. Wheres the percentage?

"The issue is not whether others might "dig it"."
Posted by UdoKier

"A significant percentage of circumcised men have been disappointed as adults with the loss of foreskin and have gone to great lengths to try and restore it."



Show me a link of a randomly done survey of circumcised men and the percentage of those men who wanted to have their circumcisions reversed...


Anecdotal information of unhappiness is not scientific proof of anything...


I have a cut cock now.. I have seen what uncut cocks look like...... I'm glad your happy with your cock, be it small, be it large, be it fat, be it thin but I wouldn't trade my cut cock for any cock in the world....

[UdoKier]

293. I'm cut too, and I don't know if I'm happy with that or not.

since I had no choice in the matter, and have no way of comparing. I'm not about to sue my parents for blindly conforming when I was born, but even 5% is enough of a percentage to make it unethical to chop people without their consent.

There is no ethical or medical justification for the routine use of this procedure.

[RayOfHope]

46. I would say that depends

on whom you ask. My husband is circumcised, our son is not. Now, actually, it is my husband who doesn't look 'right'.

Also, I imagine if you asked many European women, they'd be in the 'short line' as well (you know the US is in the minority on circumcision, no?)

[donheld]

60. As a gay man I've seen my share

I do adore seeing that naked trimmed head, but i would have liked to experience life with a foreskin, to see how it feels.

[Bouncy Ball]

76. What does?

Circumcision?

That's a matter of opinion. Personally I think intact penises are beautiful and would have a hard time going back to a circed one. They look horribly naked to me. Wrong.

See how it's a matter of opinion? And it's mostly a matter of what you are used to.

[LeftyMom]

174. Are you kidding?

Nothing attractive about the frankenpenis. The scar, the too-tight skin.... eeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

[DemocratSinceBirth]

183. I Just Looked At My Cut Weenie And There's No Scar And Too Tight Skin....

but, hey, whatever....

[Ms_Mary]

283. Really? I never considered them all that cute, useful, but not pretty.

[zbdent]

19. How often is it pointed out that this is done without anesthesia?

Imagine abusing a baby girl with this.

Of course, I would bet a lot of "pro-lifers" circumsize their baby boys without regard to the kids' pain . . . as much as they decry the brutality if "ripping apart a six-week fetus".

[ArkDem]

54. I think most republicans enjoy hurting their children.

[Lorien]

156. Girls ARE "circumsized" without anesthesia

all over the world, and usually around age ten or twelve. It's a barbaric practice done to ensure that women never enjoys sex, and many girls die from it, or live in continual pain.

[UdoKier]

24. Circumcision is unnecessary and unethical.

It is the removal of a normal, functional part of the body for no reason other than the misconception that it prevents a cancer that is very rare, and that is is more "hygienic".

We left both our sons intact, as is standard procedure in Japan where they were born.

But I disagree that it is an assault. I was circumcised as an infant without significant ill effects as are many men. I just wish I had had some choice in the matter.

Unfortunately Jews and muslims are forced by religious law to perform this operation on their babies, but what is the excuse for the rest of America that does this? Blind, unthinking conformity.

[sweetheart]

31. A foreskin makes penetration easier

As the skin folds back with the less-moist outer labia... a little
discussed detriment to circumcision. I wonder if impotence is
correlated in any way to circumcision?

[Bouncy Ball]

79. Actually

there are studies I have read that suggest that very thing.

But you are completely correct about making penetration easier, which is really nice for a woman with lubrication problems.

[arwalden]

39. It's Brutal Mutilation

[itcfish1]

43. Well I dont Agree

My husband is muslim and it is a religious thing. My daughter has her ears pierced too. I dont see anything wrong with either.

[RayOfHope]

47. You don't see anything wrong

with permanently and painfully altering the body of another person without that person's consent? :eyes:

[Bouncy Ball]

81. Your daughter's ears being pierced

isn't analogous. Nothing was removed from her body.

[lazarus]

221. So

it's not brutal mutilation because it's "a religious thing"?

Yeah, that makes all the difference in the world.

I guess we can allow virtually anything now, so long as beatings, rapes and murders are "religious things". Right?

[indigobusiness]

49. Stop, hell. Give me back my foreskin...!

===>

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

51. I let my husband decide whether or not to circumcise our son.

Being a woman, I really have no opinion on the issue. My husband wanted the procedure done, so our son was circumcized when he was a day old. My husband is circumcized, and he likes it. His younger brother (by 1.5 years) is not circumsized. He thinks it is easier for a little boy to clean a circumcized penis. I've read that being circumcised reduces the risks of getting infections (like urinary tract infections).

Frankly, the blood test they did with the heal of our son's foot hurt him much more than the circumcision. They had trouble getting enough blood for the test, so they kept repricking and squeezing him in different spots. They gave up the first time and came back to do it later a second time.

BTW, My son was born in Florida back in 2002, and they would not do the procedure without our permission.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

180. Common misconception

I have 2 boys that are not circumcised. Neither of them have now or have ever had a urinary tract infection, or any other similar infection for that matter. One is now 20 the other 15. Neither of them had any trouble at all with hygiene. Teaching a child proper hygiene doesn't really have a lot to do with circumcision. If you have poor hygiene you are likely to get infections either way.

[fleabert]

215. I felt the way you do until I watched a circumcision.

My husband is in no place to decide, as he has never known the difference between an intact penis and a circ'd one. The only way I would give up the decison to anyone is if they did at least a month's worth of research on the subject and watched one be performed, in person.

That's a lie, I will never allow it, but I still want DH to do the research and see it done so he understands.

[Richardo]

59. Gee: Where are all the pro-choice advocates now?

Get your laws off my penis.

[bloom]

61. I am for the male making his own choice.

When he is old enough.

Except for those who believe it is a religious event...

That seems like the sensible decision.

[Richardo]

64. I can live with that, but I'd prefer it to be the parent's decision.

Banning it altogether is akin to banning abortion.

[KurtNYC]

70. As I understand it

currently this is the only procedure that a doctor can perform WITHOUT permission. There is a loophole that prohibits anyone from suing over it. An earlier poster said that the hospital just did it without any discussion.

I think we need to at least move to making sure that a parent has given approval/requested it. Additionally, they need to stop this BS about how it isn't painful and isn't harmful. Let people make an informed decision. If they still want it done, so be it.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

63. I am completely pro choice on this issue and think circumcision is genital

mutilation. I feel young men can make the choice for themselves with minimal pain when they become of an age old enough to choose.

[Richardo]

65. Unless it's a religious imperative.

Hoever, I do not understand why they cannot anesthetize the infant for the procedure. That IS cruel.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

68. They can and do

see my post above

[DemocratSinceBirth]

80. I Like My Circumsized Penis.....

My mom was a secular Jew and my dad was a gentile but I'm glad a doctor and not a mohl did the procedure...

[Lorien]

157. Every man that I've dated was circumsized

and they felt the same way. To each his own, I guess.

[Sandpiper]

83. I've never understood why we condone infant male genital mutilation

As just "part of our culture" and "something that everyone does."

Aren't those the same reasons they give in cultures that practice female genital mutilation?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

84. I Was Circumsized...

I don't feel I was mutilated and neither did or do any of my partners...

[bloom]

85. and that is why it keeps going on...

I think a lot of men choose to have their son(s) look like them and not for any other reason. It's what they know.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

89. not really...

i have seen circumsized and uncircumsized penises and i like my circumcized one but it's a matter of choice...

[bloom]

91. I'm assuming

it's also the only way you've ever known it to be.



I think most people choose what they know.

[Bouncy Ball]

92. They do.

It's all he's ever known, so of course he's happy with it. There are more and more circed men realizing what they lost and not happy about not having a say in it, but you will still find most circed men say things like this. Nothing wrong with that, it's all they've ever known.

Problem is, he never had a choice about it. A boy who is left alone can decide for himself at an older age whether to keep his foreskin or not. Then it's his choice.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

93. of course

but those guys in the article who say they can't get off because they are circumcized are wack...

[Bouncy Ball]

97. How do you know?

You aren't them, right?

The foreskin is rich in nerve endings and research has found that skin is more sensitive than the eyelids, the fingertips or the lips. And the frenulum, typically lost in circumcision, is the most sensitive part of the male anatomy.

There have been just a few intact men who have chosen to become circumcised later in life, usually at the urging of a partner. Nearly every single one of them said sex went from like seeing in Technicolor to being blind.

The male glans wasn't meant to be exposed to air and constantly rubbing on clothing. After a number of years, the skin cells of the glans become thicker and tougher in a process called keritanization.

Here is an article on the functions of the foreskin:

http://www.angelfire.com/ca5/intact/foreskin.html

[DemocratSinceBirth]

153. I Can Only Speak From Personal Observation...

I can climax in two minutes or two hours...


It's really a function of my partner's endurance....

[Bouncy Ball]

161. So because of that

you know that those other guys are whack?

You are right, you can only speak from personal observation. And that's what they are speaking from too.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

163. For The Study To Be Scientific You Would Have To Do A Random Sample Of

Circumcised Men....


A bunch of disgruntled circumcised men does not constitute scientific proof either...

[Bouncy Ball]

165. Certainly their feelings deserve respect, though

just as yours do, right?

[TankLV]

246. And I personally know men who would refute everything you have said.

Most of the nerves are in the glans/head, not the foreskin. I would say that the sex is MORE pleasurable because the head is exposed - and my opinion would have just as much if not more validity as yours.

That must be some rough clothing - my underware doesn't "rub" at all -keeps my boys and everyting very stable and still, in fact. No "rubbing" going on at all unless I initiate it!

[Bouncy Ball]

253. What is meant by that

is that with a circumcised penis, the glans is always exposed and ALWAYS up against fabric, which is not the same as the soft inner skin of the foreskin. Not even comparable. So of course keritanization is the natural result. The glans wasn't MEANT to be exposed like that all the time. It was meant to be protected by the foreskin! The cells of the glans, in response, become thicker and harder and even the skin color changes on the glans. An intact man's glans is pinkish in color, in a cut man it is the same color as the skin, say on the back of his hand, or his arm. Just skin color, in other words. It hasn't been protected and so has changed as a result.

You lose 10,000 nerve endings when you lose the foreskin and you also lose the complex rolling motion during sex, which provides even MORE stimulation to the intact man.

No one is saying circed sex is BAD. And all you have ever known is circed sex. But it's kinda hard to deny that losing 10,000 nerve endings would have an affect on the total sensation. It would and it does.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

276. How Can A Woman Possibly Know What A Male Orgasm Is Like....

eom

[DemocratSinceBirth]

277. And How Can A Man Possibly Know What A Female Orgasm Is Like....

eom

[donheld]

132. You are right

It's very easy for me to say it's no big deal that it was done to me, but it would be nice to experience the difference in feelings. With and Without.

[Bouncy Ball]

147. You make the point in far fewer words than I do!

LOL! Thanks for that. Conciseness is not one of my strong points.

And you make a very compelling point: you cannot experience both because of a decision that was made for you that wasn't even medically indicated.

(You do know about "restoration" right?)

[donheld]

130. I was too

If it killed sensation i can't say as i notice it. it works just fine. To me that's what matters.

[fleabert]

214. women in Africa say the same thing.

Usually, it's the women who do the circumcising of the young girls.

>snip<
She says that she thinks pharaonic circumcision is a good practice, and feels she has lost nothing by her own circumcision.


She claims there was no pain whatsoever (when she was circumcised without anesthetic at age 6). She says she has had "no problems at all" because of her circumcision, and is very happy about it. She feels that circumcision is a good practice.

<50-year-old Sudanese village housewife. From "Interviews with Women" History #1, p. 247, Prisoners of Ritual: Odyssey into Female Genital Circumcision in Africa, Hanny Lightfoot-Klein, 1989>

According to a government study earlier this year, 97 percent of 14,779 Egyptian women polled had been circumcised…Eighty percent of those circumcised said they were pleased with the results.



To defend themselves from feelings of inferiority, many women deny that FGM damages their bodies or their sexuality.



"Until recently, it never occurred to me that there was anything strange about women’s circumcision."



"They (parents) do not want her to suffer the stigma of being different from other girls. She…comes to accept that what has been done is in her best interest."


http://www.noharmm.org/trivial.htm

on edit: I have tried like heck to get rid of all the white on this, but it's behaving very strangely...sorry for the bad formatting.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

234. Since Your Post Referred To Me...

To compare my cut cock to a clitordectomy is just plain silly....


Lots of partners have had nothing to say but nice things about my cut cock .....

I can get off... I can get my partner off. One time or several...


In some clitordectomies intercourse in painful if not impossible... Some times the hole left is so small it can't accommodate a pencil...

[fleabert]

239. No need to get upset.

I was merely pointing out the similarity between the manner in which men in this country speak of circumcision, and the manner in which women in Africa speak about theirs. If you read further, you will see that there is a direct correlation between 'hoodectomy' and the typical american circumcision.

the simple fact that men can still function sexually, some quite well, does not detract from the reality that it is done on non-consenting individuals. My DH is circumcised and we have a very healthy and happy sex life, but that does not mean that I can't logically see that it could be even better if he had been left intact, for me and him.

There are varying degrees of female circumcision, you are correct that there is one type that removes the clit, the outer and inner labia and sews the vagina almost completely shut. There are other types as well.

the male foreskin and the female hood are virutally identical in nerve endings, in the fetal development, they are the exact same until testosterone is released to determine gender. I think that makes my comparison quite the opposite of 'silly'.

[Bouncy Ball]

254. The hole left?

In a clitordectomy, the clitoris is removed. That doesn't have anything to do with the vagina, so I don't understand what the hole left part has anything to do with what you said.

In both cases, children too young to consent have their genitals permanently altered. How is it different?

You are only gauging this by ability to orgasm. There is so much more to this than that.

Why should either gender have their genitals surgically altered without being able to give consent and without any medical indication for it?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

273. You Asked For It..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation




Infibulation
The form of female circumcision regarded as the most severe is Type III, which is also referred to as infibulation or pharaonic circumcision. It consists of a clitoridectomy, the removal of the labia minora, the cutting of the labia majora and then suturing of labia majora to cover the vagina, leaving an opening to allow urine and menstrual blood to pass through. The sewn-together labia majora are opened by the woman's husband before sexual intercourse. The labia that are sewn together are not like a mocassin sewn with leather thread which can be opened when the thread is cut. Since the skin is abraded and raw after being cut, it will heal together and form a smooth surface with a scar if joined together with thread and the woman is prevented from moving the wound for some time. Sometimes the legs are bound together to prevent movement. This healed surface must be cut or ripped open for intercourse or childbirth. The husband or wife may insist on the vagina being closed afterwards with subsequent rehealing of the tissue. This procedure may be repeated for subsequent intercourse or childbirth.

This practice is often reported as causing disappearance of sexual pleasure for the women affected, as well as major medical complications. Although advocates of the practice deny this, and continue to carry it out.

[TankLV]

245. Same here.

I have no regrets, no "second thoughts" - never have.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - I've seen beautiful ones of both types - and I consider myself a "connoisseur" on the subject!

It's what I'm VERY familiar with (my own) and although this is a very interesting discussion, I'm much more upset with the repukes -that's what occupies my every waking moment.

[Bouncy Ball]

88. This is a subject I did a lot of research on for years.

Why? I got pregnant about ten years ago. Before we knew what the baby was (it was a girl!) I decided to do a lot of research on this topic. It wasn't just a yeah we'll do it thing for me because of one unusual thing: I happened to have married an intact man.

He was the first intact man I ever saw in my life. Born in the late 60s in the US, which makes him quite the rarity. But he has a German father who, when asked about circumcision, said "Why would we do that???" The medic came in to ask my mother in law another SEVEN times when they were going to agree to the procedure and she kept having to say "we aren't." Finally the doctor came in to tsk-tsk and tell her of all these horrible things that would befall their son if they didn't circ. My father in law stood there listening then told the doctor to leave the room, that he was intact, and he hadn't experienced a single thing he said and neither had any man he knew (grew up in Germany).

So by accident of being born to a European man, my husband was allowed to keep all his factory-issued parts.

And the fact that he, too, has never experienced a single one of these "problems" the doctor was just convinced he would, made me question circumcision. That and the fact that being with him proved wrong every woman I had ever heard who said an intact penis was "gross" "smelly" etc. It was none of those things. It just wasn't-an-issue at all. In fact, I saw that he experienced quite a few advantages over the circumcised guys I had known. I won't go into details here.

All that being said here's what I learned:

1. Not one major health organization recommends routine infant circumcision. Not even the American Academy of Pediatrics. Their statement is rather wishy-washy but they do not recommend it.

2. Many insurance companies, and Medicaid in 11 states, are dropping coverage of it. Why? They are terming it "elective cosmetic genital surgery," probably the most honest description I've heard from the medical community. Some people have stronger words for it. But it is indeed elective and cosmetic, as every problem it is said to "cure" really isn't much of a problem if at all. RIC (Routine Infant Circumcision) is said to be the "cure in search of a disease" since at first it was supposed to prevent masturbation, then it was said to prevent STDs (Teach them to use condoms!), then penile cancer (a man's chance of penile cancer in his lifetime is less than 1%--I'm not having elective surgery performed on a newborn for those kind of chances!), then urinary tract infections (unfounded--the studies that said this were done on intact PREEMIE infants whose chances of infection in general were higher), etc. Every time one benefit is shot down, someone comes up with a "new" one. Makes you wonder, it really does.

3. The foreskin is a healthy and fully-functioning part of the penis. It is there to protect the glans. Attached to it, in fact, at birth and until the boy is a little older. (FYI, only the owner of the penis should retract it once it becomes retractable. Most cases of phimosis are due to forced, early retraction!!) It has up to 10,000 nerve endings. It is part of the frenulum, one of the most sensitive parts of the male body (said to be like the male clitoris). There's more, but I won't go into it here. The information is out there and easily googled. Twelve known functions of the foreskin.

4. Why in the world would every male member of a species be born so defective they are in need of immediate surgery?

5. Most of the men in the world are intact. Most men throughout history have been intact. If being intact is such a horrible problem, my gosh, why haven't mens lives just been pure misery? Short answer: because being intact ISN'T a problem. It's how men are made, how they are meant to be.

Inevitably this subject sometimes causes people to become quite defensive. I wish that weren't so, because it's a subject that more parents need information on. And I don't see the medical community being forthcoming on it.

If you really want to circumcise a son, I suggest you at least watch one being performed. Google for an online video. There are several out there. You most likely would not be allowed in the room if you chose to have this done to an infant, so a video is as close as you will get.

It is not quick and it is far from painless and the worst part is, it is unnecessary.

On edit, many men say they do not remember the pain, thus it is ok. But if I lived in a culture which valued throwing the baby down a small flight of stairs upon leaving the hospital and everyone said "But they won't REMEMBER the pain!" people would be horrified. If we had all baby girls' labia trimmed up at birth, we'd be horrified. The idea of saying "oh but she won't remember it" would be scoffed at. That's not the point.

[bloom]

96. Over 20 years ago

I chose not to have my son circumcised. I always hoped it was a good choice.

At least that way - he could choose to go have it done if it were terribly important to him for whatever reason.

I expect he is OK with it.

I appreciate your viewpoints.

[Bouncy Ball]

99. LOL, I expect he is, too!

When my husband realized how prevalent circumcision was where and when he was born (US, late 60s), he felt like sending a thank you note to his parents! But decided that would be a bit weird, LOL.

I've also wanted to send them a thank you letter, for....certain reasons! ;-)

[TankLV]

247. Ahh - now we understand - a WOMAN making decisions about a man.

VERY telling - about a subject she could NEVER know anything about.

I'd tell you to butt out.

Just as I have no business deciding what a woman does with her body, you have no business deciding on what a man does - and ALL of your "evidence" is at best annecdotal.

[Bouncy Ball]

255. You are quite defensive about this.

That's obvious. But as a mother, I very much had a responsibility to research the topic thoroughly.

Would you say that female circumcision should be allowed to continue if the mother of the daugher agrees to it, and even if the father disagrees?

It's not a male/female thing. In both the case of male and female circumcision, it's a matter of permanently altering the genitals of children too young to consent in a surgery that is medically unnecessary.

[TankLV]

290. It IS a male-female thing - of the biggest magnitude!

We're talking about a dick here - something you can only fanticize about.

Damn right I'm defensive about this. You know NOTHING about what you are talking about - you can only fantacize and imagine what it must be like.

It's not "mutiliation" - that's your - a WOMAN's - opinion.

I like the way I look - I like the way some uncut ones do to.

To argue whether it's unnecessary and such is one thing - but to make claims as to nerve endings and feelings is beyond your reach - unless you have a dick - which you don't.

[barb162]

95. how much do the MDs make on each procedure; reminds me of

unnecessary hysterectomies except the baby has no choice. If there is no scientific reason for this to be done, it shouldn't be done.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

100. there's no scientific reason for rhinoplasty or breast augmentation or

liposuction....

Should those procedures be forbidden...


Having me circumcized was a gift from my parents.....

[Bouncy Ball]

102. Um we don't perform

boob or nose jobs on newborns. Nor do we suck fat off of them.

The point here is that a person should be allowed to CHOOSE. A baby who is circumcised is not given that choice, it is taken from them.

I have no problem at all with an adult choosing to have themselves circumcised, get a boob job, a nose job, get lipo, whatever. That's their choice, they are an adult.

But to have healthy tissue cut off a baby.....no.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

104. I Am Happy I Was Circumcised...

I think I will call my mom and thank her...

[Bouncy Ball]

112. That's great.

I'm happy you are happy. It's sure better than the alternative, which is you not being happy about it, because then what the hell could you do about it?

Nothing.

So it's certainly a good thing you are!

[ldf]

171. you say: I Am Happy I Was Circumcised

and I say i'm sure as hell happy you weren't allowed to make the decision for me.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

179. Did I Say I Wanted To?

eom

[LDS Jock]

264. I'm happy I was not

I'll never be able to thank my parents enough for it.

[barb162]

148. okay, cosmetic "beauty" is a reason to many people to have surgery

no, these shouldn't be forbidden; if someone wants to spend money and have pain to make their body parts look "nicer" well, that's their business. But circumcision is one person having another person undergo surgery with zero consent by the person having the surgery.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

dupe

[DemocratSinceBirth]

101. dupe

[Warren DeMontague]

125. It's all because of money-grubbing doctors--- funny, that's

the same argument the anti-abortion crowd loves to use.


And, for the record, I'm middle of the road on circumcision. I think there are very plausible, solid arguments against it. I won't decide until I have a son of my own. But I respect the rights of parents to make up their minds either way.

[Bouncy Ball]

138. Hey I'm not out

protesting at hospitals or something!

So you don't think $500 for 20 minutes work is nice change? ;-)

[barb162]

149. I hope you aren't lining me up with that crowd! I'd take real umbrage

on that.

But a little sideline here, I and my brother had our tonsils removed when we were five even though they were perfectly good because that was the real rage, the surgery du jour, at that time and a way for the MDs to make some extra cash.

[barb162]

155. by the way, I have been listening to the arguments of the

bible beaters for years and never really heard the MDas are doing abortions because they are money-grubbing. I always hear it that the MDs are just plain old baby killers

[Warren DeMontague]

162. One of their big saws is about how PP and the abortion "industry"

make millions off of abortion, which is why they fight to defend it.

At least I've heard them take that tack.

[barb162]

164. PP is what?

I don't think there are that many (re millions of dollars) abortions in this country, but I am talking off the top of my head as I haven't looked at stats on it lately.

[Warren DeMontague]

167. Planned Parenthood.

No, obviously it's not about making lots of money.. But it's just another one of the anti-choice crowd's bullshit arguments.

[barb162]

170. PP and ACLU are going to be banned out of existence soon I

think. Abortion may very well be made illegal this year or next ( it wouldn't surprise me) as the fundies keep up their march for theocracy. Then things will be back to the way they were 40 or 50 years ago with back alley abortions.

[Chicago Democrat]

98. Originally I felt as you do...Then the AIDs epidimic and guess what?

Uncircumsized men are like 10 times more likely to contract HIV virus. Why? The area under the foreskin is extremely easy to transmit the virus! This has been born out per my experience. Its also easier to get syphillus.

So be careful what you wish for.. I would say 10 times more likely to get HIV virus is "medically necessary".

Personally I like them either way esthetically speaking.

[Bouncy Ball]

103. No that is not true.

Where is the logic in cutting off the healthy tissue of a baby who can simply be taught to wear condoms?

Crazy!

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/

http://www.circumstitions.com/aol/HIV.html

http://www.noharmm.org/AIDShysteria.htm

http://www.noharmm.org/spreadAIDS.htm

[DemocratSinceBirth]

105. wow...

circumcision opponents are saying that a lack of foreskin reduces pleasure but wrapping your penis in latex doesn't...

i'm confused...

[Bouncy Ball]

109. What?

You totally lost me. Do you not advocate using condoms for men? Heck intact AND circumcised men should unless they are in long-term monogamous relationships.

Not sure where you are going with that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

119. I Like Condoms So Much I Have Worn Two

but I have read that two condoms are potentially ineffective because of the friction of one on the other.....

Your argued that circumcision reduces sensation and then argued that uncircumcized men should wear condoms which also reduces sensation...


So your sensation argument goes out the window...

[Bouncy Ball]

131. No it doesn't

ALL men not in monogomous relationships should use condoms.

That's just common sense, unless you want to take your chances, intact or not, on STDs and HIV.

It still remains that the intact guy, in a monogomous relationship, has that foreskin, those extra thousands of nerve endings and the extra sensation.

The circumcised guy does not. Circumcision is pretty darn permanent.

[Chicago Democrat]

122. An uncircumcised penis "works" better...ie more skin surface area,

plus lubrication is not needed for stimulation. Also and uncircumcized penis is easier for both anal and vaginal sex, for both parties.

All that said, there is no doubt, whatsoever, that circumcised men are safer from an array of diseases.

People of earth: Quit being so crazy about this.

1) nature only designs us to last as long as we can procreate. After that, we are all excess baggage. THINK ABOUT THAT. Thus the penis was designed with maximum please and procreative abiility. BUT! after lots of non monogamous sex, the uncircumcised males got horrible infections

2) Civilizations, Such and the Ancient Hebrews developed circumcisn NO DOUBT primarily for heath reasons. (same thing about pork, monogamy etc)

Get over it.

[Bouncy Ball]

128. Wow.

Someone upstream accused the anti-RIC people of screeching judgements. I think they need to look here.

Get over it?

We live in a civilized society where condoms are readily available. The attitude that being circumcized serves as protection against STDs and HIV actually causes men to be MORE reckless. ALL men not in monogomous relationships should be using condoms.

So why would you circumcize if you need to use a condom anyway? That defeats the purpose and permanently removes a heathly functioning part of the male organ.

[Chicago Democrat]

135. Yes, get over it... This is probably the most ridiculous topic I have

seen here in a while.

This has nothing to do with war or peace or starvation or poverty. This is a health issue, to which many have a visceral reaction to, and that visceral reaction puzzles me.

[Bouncy Ball]

139. I didn't start the thread and I believe it's in General Discussion

not the politics forum. But hey talk to the person who started the thread.

[Chicago Democrat]

142. Hey I support your right to a foreskin...

Peace and happy season

[Bouncy Ball]

144. LOL

It's my husband who has one, but thanks! :cheers:

[Chicago Democrat]

110. The Protective Effect of Circumcision Against HIV

FROM MEDICINET.COM
The Protective Effect of Circumcision Against HIV

Among the foremost factors favoring male circumcision today is its protective effect against HIV (the human immunodeficiency virus), the agent of AIDS.

Uncircumcised men are known to be at much greater risk of becoming infected with HIV than circumcised men. Over 40 studies have found that men who are circumcised have a lower risk of becoming infected with HIV from an infected sexual partner than uncircumcised men. Circumcised men are two to eight times less likely to contract HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) than uncircumcised men.

Perhaps the most dramatic evidence for this protective effect has just appeared in a new study published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ). The study was of couples in Uganda where each woman was HIV positive and her male partner was not. Over a period of 30 months, no new infections occurred among 50 circumcised men, whereas 40 of 137 (29.2%) of the uncircumcised men became infected -- even though all couples were given advice about preventing infection and free condoms were available to them.

see...
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=13603

[Bouncy Ball]

115. Your article doesn't even say

whether or not to circ because of this. Here's the last paragraph:

"In light of the available evidence, male circumcision should clearly be considered as a measure to prevent HIV in countries with a high level of infection. Should the matter of AIDS (and other STDs) figure into the decision whether or not to circumcise a boy here?"

I noticed they said "in countries with a high level of infection."

Again, even IF I were to concede the point (which I don't....did you see the articles I posted?) why in the world would I have healthy tissue removed from an infant when he can engage in behaviors (condoms) later in life to protect him from these possible things?

Have something healthy cut off him at birth OR teach him to always use condoms.

That's a pretty easy decision.

Again, routine infant circumcision being a cure in search of a disease.

I didn't have my daughter's appendix removed at birth. I didn't have her toenails and fingernails pulled out of their beds (possible infection), etc.

[Chicago Democrat]

129. Do whatever the heck you want... I'm presenting facts to you and

do what thou wilt.

FROM THE BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL

Perhaps the most dramatic evidence for this protective effect has just appeared in a new study published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ). The study was of couples in Uganda where each woman was HIV positive and her male partner was not. Over a period of 30 months, no new infections occurred among 50 circumcised men, whereas 40 of 137 (29.2%) of the uncircumcised men became infected -- even though all couples were given advice about preventing infection and free condoms were available to them.


NO INFECTIONS IN THE CIRCUMCISED MEN

vs

29% INFECTION IN THE UNCIRCUMCISED MEN

with infected partner in ONLY 10 Months!!!!


So chooose whatever for your progeny. Frankly I wouldn't bring ANY children into this horrible world.

[Bouncy Ball]

134. Well ok

that's your choice, obviously, not to have kids.

But you still didn't address why you would advocate surgery being performed on an infant when you could simply teach them to use condoms.

Even a circumcised man should use a condom. Are you saying if you are circed you are safe?

[Chicago Democrat]

140. Its the parents decision

and the health benefits should be weighed with full knowledge of those studies I cited.

It shouldnt be automatic.

[Bouncy Ball]

145. I agree, it shouldn't be automatic.

Do you think circed men don't have to wear condoms?

[Chicago Democrat]

150. I am gay and basically

to have sex with me the other guy has to wear a condom for non-oral sex.

Once a guy took it off during the middle of it and I could have decked him. Its each person's responsibility to take the risks or not.

I have been moderately safe, but not completely. Oral sex is largely safe but not completely.

[Ms_Mary]

284. I thought oral sex was also a risk

Not that latex tastes all that great, but better safe...

[TankLV]

249. When presented with proof that one of your major arguments is bullshit

you change the subject.

And did I mention that you are a WOMAN!

You have no business making ANY decisions for a MALE!

None. Nada. Zip.

Very telling indeed.

[lazarus]

222. So

Did they bother to check all the other possibilities? STD rates? The fact that that's an incredibly tiny sample? Anything?

[LeftyMom]

175. Not really

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/

You know what actually does work? Rubbers. A hell of a lot safer and more ethical than removing erogenous tissue, too.

[fleabert]

216. not true, those studies are flawed and poorly reviewed.

Summary: Thirty-five articles and a number of abstracts have been published in the medical literature looking at the relationship between male circumcision and HIV infection. Study designs have included geographical analysis, studies of high risk patients, partner studies and random population surveys. Most of the studies have been conducted in Africa. A meta-analysis was performed on the 29 published articles where data were available. When the raw data are combined, a man with a circumcised penis is at greater risk of acquiring and transmitting HIV than a man with a non-circumcised penis (odds ratio (OR)=1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.01-1.12). Based on the studies published to date, recommending routine circumcision as a prophylactic measure to prevent HIV infection in Africa, or elsewhere, is scientifically unfounded.

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/vanhowe4/

Flawed Studies

But in any case, each of these studies is flawed in one way or another.

* In the study of Kenyan truck drivers,
o 95 had intact penises, and of those, eleven men contracted HIV-1 in a 20 month period, compared to 32 of the 651 circumcised men in a 21 month period. That is to say, six more intact men contracted HIV-1 than the 5 out of 95 than the aggregated rate of 3.34 per hundred per year would predict. While this might look like a big difference, it is far too few, outside a laboratory, to draw any meaningful conclusions. "The law of small numbers" applies. Those six might have just been unlucky. Applying high-powered statistical methods to such a small sample as this, and with so many unknown variables, is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
o There were significant unexplained numerical discrepancies between two different publications of this study.
o The study's authors admit that circumcision is so closely tied to ethnicity that it was not possible to assess the effects of circumcision independently from those of ethnic origin.
o Nor were the effects assessed of ethnic origin or religion on other practices that might influence HIV-1 transmission, such as
+ anal sex. An analysis of same-sex activity by the truck drivers, and how that is affected by ethnicity and religion, might cast a completely different light on the results. In the nature of things, membership of a tribe or ethnic group correlates with a variety of different customs, including sexual practices, and it may be those, rather than circumcision, that is responsible for any difference in HIV transmission.
+ "dry sex": the use by women of herbal and other astringents to dry their vaginas (to increase men's pleasure, though it decreases their own). This causes micro-tears which can facilitatte HIV transmission.
+ Female Genital Mutilation, which is practised only where male circumcision is also (with one exception, the Pokot of Kenya, and they used to circumcise males, but have given it up).

http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html#flawed

http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_hiv.html even more meta-analysis of those studies...debunking them.

[TankLV]

248. Bullshit - I've paid close attention to the issue - and what he says is

CORRECT.

But you - a WOMAN - has already made up her mind on something that concerns a MAN'S body.

[Bouncy Ball]

256. Yeah you're really hung up on this.

I was carrying my child and did not know what the gender was. I had a responsibility, as that child's mother, to make an INFORMED decision and research this issue, with my husband, thoroughly. That DID make it my business.

And by the way, there are men involved in both the pro-choice and the anti-choice sides of the abortion question. Should they just butt the hell out?

I don't blow off someone's entire argument because of their gender. It's illogical and bad form. You might not want to, either.

[TankLV]

291. No - YOU'RE the one on the soap box - YOU'RE the one whose been posting

a zillion posts on this.

YOU'RE the one who is "hung up on this".

[GodHelpUsAll2]

259. I would venture to guess

That it was probably a WOMAN that made the decision for just about every male that has been circumcised. Like maybe the WOMAN that gave birth to them. So, in a sense you are correct. A woman has no place making decisions about a male's body. Which pretty much agrees with the original posters opinion.

[bloom]

280. I would venture to guess just the opposite

That men would have gone on either not paying attention - while the doctors continued to perform circumcisions without even bothering to ask. Just because it was always done.

As the mother - I was the one to read about it and question the sensibility of cutting off a part of the baby for no particularly good reason. _MY_ husband wouldn't have paid any attention - at least. He would have assumed there was a good reason for doing it.

[LeftyMom]

176. You know what really does reduce HIV transmission?

Condoms.

No thorny ethical issues or surgery on squalling newborns needed.

[raggedcompany]

108. give me a break

This ranks up there with "stop torturing chickens." I just don't care. We have much bigger things to worry about. Like stolen democracy and war.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

113. Read The Whole Thread...

There's folks who want to force Muslims to abandon the practice of male circumcision...


I am sure that will sit very well with them...

[ldf]

172. uh, you forgot (poland) the jews...

god told them to chop the kid's weiner, too.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

182. Is Poland The Only Country With Jews In It?

eom

[fleabert]

218. I think this does have legs here...

medicaid still pays for this procedure in most states, costing millions of dollars! there are many more things this money could pay for that are necessary and needed.

"Medicaid is a state program that pays some medical expenses for the poor. Florida is the 11th state to drop elective circumcision coverage.

The rule is designed to save the state $2.3 million a year."
http://www.cirp.org/news/miamiherald07-03-03/

this is from 03, not sure if this held up.

http://www.circumstitions.com/$$$.html


also, if this were happening to girls (removal of an infant girls' clitoral hood for no medically sound reason) we would all be outraged! why the double standard?

[ISUGRADIA]

111. It's a nice fast money maker for doctors

I don't think it is needed in most cases though I think the anti-circ crowd tend to go overboard a bit on the rhetoric at time. The biggest reason not too, the very small but possible chance of a botched job leading to no penis or death. Slim but still there.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

114. They Didn't Lob Off My Pepe Nor Anybody's Pepe I Know

but that would suck....

[Bouncy Ball]

121. It does suck.

http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html

Be forewarned, you may find disturbing images.

It's one thing to have a complication or death from a necessary surgery, but it is far worse when you think of the surgery not even being medically indicated.

[Book Lover]

202. May I introduce you vicariously to this gentleman?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1077617&mesg_id=1081815

[Bouncy Ball]

117. It is a nice money maker.

A doctor averages about $500 for 20 minutes of work. Not too shabby.

I think the biggest reason not to is that there isn't any medical indication for it.

[tjdee]

118. There is NO REASON to have circumcisions done unless you are a Jew.

(on edit: or Muslim, or obviously have it done for religious reasons.)
My kid's dad was 'intact', and things worked for him just fine.

Most Europeans are intact as well. HIV isn't running rampant in Europe, nor are European men dying of penile infections.

Unless you are Jewish, there really isn't a logical reason to have it done. I can understand feeling that as a parent you may not know how to clean/deal with an uncircumcized penis (if the father is circumsized).... but it seems like such an unnecessary thing to put a kid through.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

123. Muslims Also Circumsize Their Male Children

http://www.familymedicine.co.uk/features/circum3.htm

[tjdee]

124. Yes, just read that above....

and edited accordingly.

If people perform it for religious reasons, that's a lot different in my mind than doing it "just because" (as most Americans do).

[Bouncy Ball]

143. And dealing with an intact penis

as a parent is insanely easy.

It doesn't retract until the child is older (between 3 and 7) and only the boy should retract it, no one else.

The care of an intact penis in a small child is as follows: clean the outside.

Period. No open wound in a diaper, no ointment, no watching for redness or infection, etc. The glans is protected as it should be.

When the child discovers it is retractable, you simply tell them that when they bathe, they should retract it and clean. Easy. Takes a half second longer than a circed kid (to push it back). My husband's dad told him this when he was a kid, he listened, he did it. He still does. He doesn't even think about it. It's just not a big deal at all. I don't know where people got the idea that the intact penis is such a hassle. MY bits are far more of a hassle than his are, LOL!

And how did all those boys survive all those generations otherwise?

[idiosyncratic]

137. Read "As Nature Made Him" to learn what can happen

with a botched circumcision.

Of course, what happened to David occurred 30 years ago, but circumcision was a disaster for this family.

As Nature Made Him : The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl

His twin brother committed suicide. Then David committed suicide last year.

PBS has a documentary about this that I've seen a couple of times. The doctor who recommended the "treatment" is still alive. He should be hung by his thumbs!

[charlie]

166. Nasty, ugly practice

I'm cut and I refused to have it done to my son. What surprised me at the time was that not only many of the hospital staff, but so many of my friends thought I was doing the wrong thing, I was doing my son a disfavor. Nutz.

Of all the biblical observances people choose to honor or ignore, I can't fathom how that one retains its popularity.

[Bouncy Ball]

168. I can't remember where I read it

but two hospitals, one in California and one in New Mexico, commissioned a study to find out why parents choose to circ. Obviously there would be a bit of regional influence, etc. But they found that most of the time, they did it because of two reasons:

1. They thought it "had" to be done.

2. They wanted the boy to look like the dad.

No information given to the parents to tell them it is not medically indicated to cut off healthy tissue.

No one telling them that what little boys notice is different when they see their dad's bits are size and presence of hair. Not circumcision status. No one pointing out that when routine infant circumcision first became widespread in the early 1900s, there was, at one point, a generation of sons who were circed and dads who weren't. No one seemed concerned that the sons were looking different from the dads back then (just the other way around).

For the most part, it is just something people do because it's something people have done.

It reminds me of the story someone told me a while back. A woman would cut off the ends of her pot roast every time she made it. When her teenage daughter asked why she did that, the mother said, I always have, because my mother did. So the teenage daughter asked her grandmother "Why did you always cut off both ends of the pot roast?" and the grandmother said "Because I never had a pan big enough to cook it in." The mother didn't know and was just doing the same thing out of habit, even though she had plenty of pans big enough.

But that's not a completely accurate analogy, since in the case of the pot roast, there was originally a valid reason for doing it. In the case of routine infant circumcision, it was originally done (Victorian times) to stop masturbation. And we all know how well THAT worked, don't we? ;-)

[Mabeline]

177. We had both of our sons circumcised right after birth...

DH isn't, and is very seriously considering having it done now (he's 42). He has a friend who had to have his father, an older man, done and it was an awful experience for everyone.

Before they did our sons we made sure they used (I cannot remember the name of it) the cream that cancer patients put on their skin where a port has been implanted to numb it. It worked wonderfully, neither son even acted like they even knew anything was done. There was a few days of discomfort after urination, but they are fine.

I don't regret our decision.

[Bouncy Ball]

186. Were you in the room when it was done?

I'm sorry but if all your boys had was ELMA cream and they were circumcised, there is no way they just acted like nothing was being done. Go check out the websites of pediatric nurses who have assisted in hundreds, thousands of circs and have never once seen a baby "sleep through" a circ or act as if they weren't even in pain.

I've asked pediatric nurses this very question, even nurses who are for routine infant circumcision and they laugh and say there is NO baby who doesn't scream his head off during circ. A couple of them told me they DO get very quiet towards the end sometimes for a few reasons:

1. They are exhausted from the crying
2. They have gone hoarse
3. Possible shock

They have seen them scream to the point of vomiting, pass out, etc. Then they say mothers always report they are so "serene" and "quiet" and "calm" when they get them back and assume the surgery must not have hurt because of that and it's actually because the baby is just plain worn out from screaming. Plus the biggest part of the pain is over, they are wrapped up again and off that board.

Heck they start screaming before it even starts because no newborn baby likes to be naked OR strapped to anything in a spread-eagle position.

Think about it: some topical numbing cream on the skin, then cutting on your genitals. Think you'd feel it?

Why is your husband considering having it done? If he does, at least it was his decision and he's an adult. I'm all for that--consentual adults choosing what to do to their own genitals.

Yeah, there's always some poor old man people trot out who had to have some horribly painful circumcision. I'd like to know why the old man had to have it done. Only 1% (some say less) of intact men would ever have any medical indication for circumcision in their lifetime. Those are pretty darn low odds, yet everyone in favor of circumcision seems to know all these nightmare cases. Odd, that.

[Mabeline]

231. We weren't allowed in the rooms..

when they were circumcized, for obvious reasons. But with DS 1 we were next door. He never cried. They did a little boy right before him and the parents/ped didn't use the cream and he SCREAMED, I believe with all my heart babies (and yes, even fetus')feel pain. Now those people I got angry at.

With our second son we weren't very close, but we'd have heard if he'd screamed, yes he did cry from being held down, he still doesn't like that. I believe they gave him another type of pain killer as well as the cream because he was sleepy when they brought him back to my room.

In both instances we were present when the cream was put on, an hour before surgery.

The older man had to be circumcised because he wanted to be independant (live alone and take care of himself) and didn't take tub baths or showers too very often, he "washed up" as a lot of really older people do, but didn't wash under his foreskin. He kept a yeast infection all the time. The doctor said unless he was put into a home to be taken care of that this was his recommendation.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

181. Some Of The Intolerance In This Thread Is Disappointing

Folks comparing a cut penis to women who had their labs removed...


Folks saying Jews and Muslims should be compelled to abandon their practice of riutual circumcision...


Folks saying a man would have to be a idiot to have the "most erogenous" part of his body cut off.. That's a pisser because aren't enlightened folks supposed to believe the brain is the most erogeous part of a person's body...


Folks saying a uncut dick represents strength and a cut dick represents weakness...

Folks saying men who are circumcised have "frankenpenises"...

I said I was cut and happy but didn't make judgements on those who weren't ..... And my partners never had a problem with it either...

[bloom]

185. I agree people should be happy about it either way.

For the most part it is a decision the parents are going to make ... for now the majority of males are still circumcised in this country.

I think reasonable discussion is good. Who knows who is going to read this.

There may be future parents out there wondering "should I have it done on my son or not"?

There may be teenage boys wondering "why the heck didn't my parents have it done and now it's up to me or not?"

So I think it's good to hear all of the sides. (Without insults).

[Bouncy Ball]

188. One small point

The latest figures (I read this about two years ago, so they aren't very latest, LOL!) have a 40% circ rate nowdays. It varies from one region of the US to the other, but it averages out to about 60% of boys being left intact now.

The last time a majority of baby boys were being circed (average across the US) was sometime in the early 90s. It's been going down for a long time.

In the late 60s, the infant circ rate was as high as 90%.

[bloom]

189. I was just quoting this:

http://theweekmagazine.com/briefing.asp?a_id=368 (from 2003?)

If it's 40% - that's great.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

191. Since The Muslim Population Is The Fastest Growing Population

a greater percentage of men will be circumcised each year but I don't believe the value of a practice can be measured by those who engage in it....

[Bouncy Ball]

193. I was referring to the United States

the number of people in the US choosing not to is greatly outstripping any Muslim growth.

Plus many many Hispanics do not circumcise. It's not a common thing to do in Hispanic countries.

[Bouncy Ball]

187. WHere's

this cut dick representing weakness part? I must not have seen that.

For the record, and I know I'm just speaking for myself here, I never once mentioned religious reasons.

I also never said a man would be an idiot to have a circumcision. What I am in favor of is the man getting to CHOOSE. If he's old enough to make that decision and wants to, great, have at it! But a newborn baby can't consent.

Now as far as comparing a cut man to a woman having her labia cut off....that is actually a pretty apt comparison, except that the labia aren't as sensitive as the foreskin. It still works as analogy.

You don't hear people saying "well she might have problems with that mess down there later so let's just trim this up a bit, it won't hurt and even if it does she won't remember so it doesn't matter..."

If a parent suggested a doctor do that, they might call CPS on them. At the very least they'd be highly disturbed by that suggestion.

So why is it ok to do the same to a baby boy?

I saw the frankenpenis post and while it wasn't mine, and I don't condone passing judgement, she was apparently responding to a woman who insulted the appearance of intact penises. I found THAT offensive (the one insulting the intact penis) and believe me, I've read worse about intact penises. The lack of information on stuff like this is astounding and leads to a cultural prejudice.

(Baby boys aren't born defective.)

I've been in enough circ debates on other websites in years past to know this is a very sensitive issue, and I can appreciate how you feel.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

190. here's your answer

radwriter0555 (1000+ posts) Fri Dec-17-04 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #16

20. I disagree, and chances are, I've seen many more penises than you have...


I think a cut penis looks freaky, abnormal, like some alien bobblehead.

An uncut penis looks robust, sturdy, healthy.... far more appealing.

I prefer an uncut man far, far more than a sliced and diced fella.


For the record I think the cut-uncut dichotomy is an aesthetic thing... The way some guys dig women with large breasts while others like small ones....

I resisted the cracks about uncut penises because I realize one person's work of art is another person's work of junk...

[Bouncy Ball]

195. That's unfortunate.

Since having an intact partner, I have to say I greatly prefer the intact over the circumcised, but I wouldn't put it the way he did. I'm extremely mindful of the fact that this is a very sensitive subject and try to be as inoffensive as possible when discussing this. Comments like that only serve to get the defenses of people way up.

I usually try to ignore posts that I find insulting on a personal level. It's VERY hard to (you can see I posted to her, too, only I didn't quite describe it that way) and I don't even have a penis, but being the age I am (mid 30s) and married to an intact man, I find I have to ignore a lot of insulting and inaccurate statements by people who think the intact penis is gross, ugly, unclean and any number of negative things.

Once I was playing Taboo or some sort of board game with a bunch of girlfriends and somehow the subject came up because one of them had a friend who was with an intact guy and this woman began going on and on about absolutely disgusting she imagined them to be (she had never seen one), how she thought they were just dripping with pus out the end, and the best part: she had a theory that you could tell if a guy was intact by getting close to him and SMELLING him and if he smelled "nasty" he probably was.

I couldn't keep my mouth shut. I told her if ANYONE'S penis is dripping pus out the end, intact or otherwise, he needs to see a doctor, pronto. I told her no, they do not smell at all and they are not high maintenance. OUR equipment is far more high-maintenance and prone to problems than theirs is. I also asked her how she could possibly know these things if she had never even seen an intact penis. She said she just "figured."

Then I told her I didn't blame her for what she just said. When I was in high school, I remember giving a very similar speech to a girlfriend (except for the smell test part) and saying I would LEAVE a guy if I discovered he was intact!!! We had a good laugh, she admitted she might just be a tad bit irrational and prejudiced about it, and TWO other women piped up and said their husbands were intact and they were glad I said something.

I'm rambling, I think, but my point is that sometimes people need to get past the insulting prejudical behavior to start really communicating. Which I think is what your point was! So we agree! LOL!

(Boy I'm long winded tonight, sorry!)

[Hippo_Tron]

199. Umm, I kinda like having a circumcised penis

Granted I've never had one that's not circumcised so I wouldn't know what it's like, although the idea that it's more difficult to clean doesn't seem too appealing.

Honestly though, I'm not too concerned about whether parents decide to have the foreskin cut off of their baby's penis, or not.

[Bouncy Ball]

207. You make a good point.

There is no way for you to know what it would have been like to be intact. That wasn't left up to you.

As for cleanliness, see my post just below this to the next response to this thread. It's really not any big deal at all,though there are persistent myths that having a foreskin is bothersome. I don't know where those ideas came from, but I've been married to an intact man for 14 years now and I can't possibly imagine anyone thinking an intact penis is any more trouble than a circed one. It's not.

[Hippo_Tron]

270. I just can't imagine missing my foreskin

Frankly I just don't care that much one way or another. I did see an interesting episode of "Nip Tuck" where Sean (a plastic surgeon)'s sun wants one because he never got one as a baby.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

272. This is so silly...

And I like my circumcised one better but I repect the choice of folks who want to keep the foreskin...



It's a matter of choice...

[FM Arouet666]

204. Intolerant atheist with a mutilated penis

I am generally intolerant of religious nonsense, of which, circumcision owes its roots. However, I am circumcised and except for a few purulent fantasies, I am glad that I am. Having never contemplated a foreskin in adulthood, I cannot comment on personal cleanliness. But I would wager a bet that a circumcised male finds it easier to keep this part of the body cleaner than a non-circumcised male. As for the comparisons to female circumcision, there is no comparison. Removing labia and clitori is mutilation, in the sense that it adversely affects the sexuality of the individual, whereas male circumcision, as far as I can tell, does not.

[Bouncy Ball]

206. On the cleanliness:

An intact man does not have to go to any trouble to clean his penis. He gets in the shower just like circed men, he uses soap, the only difference is while he is soaping himself up, he pushes back his foreskin, then rinses just like the circed man would do and lets the foreskin go back to its natural place. So the only difference is a half second to push it back in the shower, an act done so often and so natural to an intact man he doesn't even think a thing about it. My husband was even in Desert Storm in the middle of Saudi Arabia for six months with no access to proper showers, and he simply washed the same way the other soldiers did: sponge, water, soap, bucket. Face, head, armpits, privates and feet. When he was washing his genitals he did the same thing he would do in the shower: take that split second to push it back, wash, rinse, that's it. He had zero problems. Never has.

Actually there is a comparison to female circumcision, but you'd have to know more about the functions of the foreskin to understand. The foreskin is analogous to the hood of the clitoris. The clitoris is analogous to the glans of the penis. They are both highly sensitive and rich in nerve endings. The foreskin plays an important role sexually, just like the clitoris and the hood do in a woman. Only the foreskin's role is more dramatic than the hood in a woman.

Circumcised men certainly enjoy sex. And so do intact men. But circumcised men are missing some 10,000 to 20,000 nerve endings and the complex "rolling" motion during intercourse that is not possible without a foreskin and both cuts down on the extreme friction and is pleasurable to the man and woman (the rolling action).

Please don't think I'm telling you you don't enjoy sex. I had circed partners who enjoyed it greatly! But removing the foreskin does affect the sexual experience, because it is not just a piece of skin, but a part of the sexual organ. It was originally done in this country (circ) to stop masturbation. Doctors felt the foreskin was highly sensitive and it definitely makes masturbation easier, so if they remove it at birth, no "sexual deviance" with all that wanking off! LOL!

[TankLV]

292. So now it's 20,000?!?! Wow, your "evidence" seems to be growing with

every post.

You are blowing your figures out of your ass. Of that, I am sure.

[Raiden]

237. Much ado about nothing

to-may-to...to-mah-to

I myself am circumsized and I am glad. I like the way it looks, as opposed to an uncut penis. I have had ZERO problems with my penis, and for the record, sex (and masturbation for that matter) is just fine for me. I don't appreciate the condescension on this thread regarding people who choose to get their boys circumsized. I assure you all that my parents are fine people and I couldn't love them any less than if they hadn't decided to circumsize me. And no, my uncut penis does not look like a mutant alien bobblehead.

I have no problems with people who are not circumsized. With that being said, some of the opponents of circumcision on this thread are sounding like anti-choicers. "The doctors are getting rich off of it!" "The child should make the choice!" "They're butchering babies!" I like this one, "Have you ever seen a circumcision (abortion) happen? If you did, you'd never consider it!" Someone even posted a link to pictures! And calling a circumsized penis a "mutilated penis" while calling an uncircumsized penis as an "intact penis." This is entirely a parental decision in my opinion, whether for religious, aesthetic, or hygienic reasons.

Circumcision is also completely different than female genital mutilation. FGM is a misogynistic and barbaric ritual designed to deprive 'breeders' from having sexual pleasure, and very often having fatal consequences. FGM severely damages a females sexual organs. It is a practice designed to keep women subservient. I don't think the motive of circumcision is to keep men subservient; that would be the only way FGM and circumcision are similar.

Both circumsized and uncircumsized penises have their benefits...

CIRCUMSIZED

---Religious (for Jews, Muslims, etc.)
---Easier to clean
---Decreases chances of AIDS infections

UNCIRCUMSIZED

---More sexual pleasure
---More natural
---No painful circumcision for the baby

[Bouncy Ball]

257. The easier to clean part

just has me shaking my head. Can anyone explain to me just what is so difficult about an intact penis? Circumcised men are always saying how difficult it is to keep an intact penis clean, yet when I ask them HOW it's difficult, they can never tell me in any detail.

Oh yeah, that's because they aren't intact! LOL! I've been living with an intact man for 14 years. The care he takes in keeping himself clean is NO DIFFERENT from the care a circumcised man takes. (I had circumcised partners, as well.) None. It's called a shower. Soap and water. Takes less than half a second to push the foreskin back in the shower and wash as anyone would. Rinse, that's it. It's automatic, not even a thought process.

It'd be nice if people actually asked intact men what it's like before just deciding it's difficult to deal with.

Buncha myths and superstition.

The stuff about AIDS? Well, there's two sides to that story and the idea of subjecting a baby to surgery as an infant for something he could (and would anyway!) wear a condom to prevent later is just insane.

As for your points as to how female and male circ are different, did you know routine infant (male) circ in this country started as a way to prevent boys and men from masturbating and to cut down on the sexual pleasure a man has? This practice has, at its roots, a desire to diminish sexuality and sexual pleasure for a man.

Now tell me again how they are different?

Here are some quotes:

1860"In cases of masturbation we must, I believe, break the habit by inducing such a condition of the parts as will cause too much local suffering to allow of the practice to be continued. For this purpose, if the prepuce is long, we may circumcise the male patient with present and probably with future advantages; the operation, too, should not be performed under chloroform, so that the pain experienced may be associated with the habit we wish to eradicate."
On An Injurious Habit Occasionally Met with in Infancy and Early Childhood, Athol A. W. Johnson. The Lancet, vol. 1 (7 April 1860): pp. 344-345.


1888"A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision. The operation should be performed without administering anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutory effect upon the mind, especially, if it is connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases." John Harvey Kellog, creator of the Corn Flake, Treatment for Self-Abuse and Its Effects, Plain Facts for Old and Young," Burlington, Iowa: P. Segner & Co. 1888, p. 295.

1902"I have repeatedly seen such cases as convulsions, contstant crying in infants, simulated hip joint diseases, backwardness in studies, enuresis, marasmus, muscular incoordination, paralysis, masturbation, neurasthenia, and even epilepsy, cured or greatly benefited by the proper performance of circumcision." W.G.Steele, MD. "Importance of Circumcision." Medical World,Vol. 20 (1902): pp.518-519.

1935"I suggest that all male children should be circumcised. This is "against nature", but that is exactly the reason why it should be done. Nature intends that the adolescent male shall copulate as often and as promiscuously as possible, and to that end covers the sensitive glans so that it shall be ever ready to receive stimuli. Civilization, on the contrary, requires chastity, and the glans of the circumcised rapidly assumes a leathery texture less sensitive than skin. Thus the adolescent has his attention drawn to his penis much less often. I am convinced that masturbation is much less common in the circumcised. With these considerations in view it does not seem apt to argue that 'God knows best how to make little boys.'"
R.W. Cockshut. Circumcision. British Medical Journal, Vol.2 (1935): p.764.

[LDS Jock]

266. it takes me hours to clean my foreskin

or at least you would think to hear some talk about the difficulty. I am uncircumcised and happily so. I don't know how long it takes for a circumcised man to clean himself, but I can tell you for myself. It does not take long. It takes such a minimal effort that this should in fact NOT be a determining factor in whether or not to have it done.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

279. If They Thought Circumcision Reduces Sexual Pleasure They Failed

I have been enjoying sex since I was tweleve by myself as in the case of most twelve year olds and with others....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

278. The Intolerance On This Thread Is Amazing...

I agree with you...

[fleabert]

208. I will second that motion!

http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/
http://nocirc.org/

this is due to be a flaming thread in no time...everyone seems to feel very stongly about this, one way or another.

After two months of research and questioning, I feel very strongly that it is wrong. I was on the fence before beginning my research about 2 yrs ago.

On edit: okay, it's already flaming. I wrote without looking ahead, no pun intended.

[JohnnyCougar]

209. Government shouldn't be making decisions for people.

Not with abortion, not with circumcision. You can't outlaw one and not the other...you just can't.

Government shouldn't legislate religion, and religion shouldn't legislate government.

[CroixRoussienne]

217. I agree!

Bless my old mother, an old farm-girl, who told the doctor "Hell, no!" when the subject came up. It was an immediate and visceral reaction, not a doubt in her mind that it was a form of genital mutilation.

An uncircumcised penis is extreeemely sensitive, just for the record, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

Doctor, Leave Those Kids Alone!

[KSAtheist]

219. Who cares?

I was circumcised. I don't remember it, since I was an infant, so I DON'T CARE.

The amount of hysterics people pour into this issue amuses me to no end. Either circumcise your kid or don't, and mind your own business. It's a personal choice; hemming & hawing, and dredging up the professor of dick science from Bumfuck University telling everyone that it's assault only offends people.

[lazarus]

223. who cares?

It's genital mutilation of an infant. That doesn't mean anything to you?

It's not personal choice, because the infant can't make that choice. Unless you've figured out a way to communicate with newborns.

[KSAtheist]

224. Nope.

I didn't say it was the infant's choice. I said it was the parent's choice. Which it is.

[lazarus]

225. So the infant has no choice?

Nice. Infant mutilation at the parents' discretion.

What else can the parents do as a matter of choice? Infanticide? Neglect? Who are we to interfere with how they choose to raise their child?

[thinkingwoman]

236. equating circumcision with infanticide

that's really insulting...especially to those who believe it must be done as a matter of faith.

[lazarus]

262. So be insulted

What about faiths that require more extreme abuse of infants than genital mutilation? Those are okay, right?

And women should have to wear burqas in Islamic states, and it's just fine, because it's a matter of faith, right?

And the stonings in Saudi Arabia and Iran recently are okay, because it's a matter of faith, right?

And when Saudi Arabia beheads a man because he's gay, it's okay, because it's a matter of faith, right?

[KSAtheist]

268. What the hell are you talking about?

We aren't talking about burqas and stonings; that's a bogus, fallacious argument meant to draw attention away from the statement at hand.

The fact that you equate circumcision with beheading and ritual murder shows that you cannot be engaged in a rational debate on this subject.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

275. The Parade Of Horribles Or The Slippery Slope...

eom

[thinkingwoman]

294. Happy holidays to you too.

That was a truly bigoted, hateful, anti-semitic response to my post. Equating circumsion with murder...that's great. Thanks.

Next time my kids ask me again why we hide that we're Jewish in this red state, I'll recount your post.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

227. I Like The Look Of My Circumcised Penis....

I don't consider it genital mutilation at all..

Also, I don't consider it genital mutilation ...


There's are lots of men and women who like the look of a circumcised cock...

[lazarus]

238. Because they've been raised to like it

It's the removal of a perfectly healthy functioning part of the genitals. How is that not mutilation?

If everyone had their earlobes snipped off at birth, we'd think that's normal, too. But it would be mutilation just as much.

It's a cultural thing, this acceptance of mutilation. I doubt seriously that many unmutilated men in Europe or Asia are willingly having it done.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

271. I Once Had A Girlfriend-Half Pakistani/Half Saudi Arabian

She said she wouldn't sleep with a uncircumcised man...


I was 30 when we dated... I would have circumcised myself on the spot....



With a dull knife....

[Bouncy Ball]

258. Because they think that is normal.

They think it's normal because that's all they have known.

The fact is, a circumcised penis is NOT normal. That is not what you were meant to have, it is not how your penis was meant to function.

A normal, natural penis has all its factory-issued parts.

Baby boys aren't born defective.

[KSAtheist]

269. Meant to function?

How does circumcision change the function of the penis? Please elaborate.

Besides, who's to say that the foreskin isn't an evolutionary throwback; an unneccessary remnant of a previous ancestor--like the appendix, or wisdom teeth?

[sakabatou]

260. Is brit milah exempted?

[seg4527]

263. happily uncircumcised 18 year old. here .:-)

[Hamoth]

265. right there with you.

STOP GENITAL M"UJTILATION!!!

[rbnyc]

282. My boy was not circumcised.

They offered circumcision about 20 times. I kept having to say no.

Anyway, I very much agree with you.

[shanti]

285. as the mother of four sons

all of them circ'd, i would NOT do it again!! my oldest is 27, born in a military hospital, and i wasn't even asked whether or not i wanted it done to him. the middle two were born at home, and i took them to their pediatrician to have it done a couple days later. the waiting room was horrific, because i could hear their screams. oddly enough, their father was not circ'd as an infant, but had the procedure done when he was 13-14 because of phimosis. he said it was extremely painful.

my last son was born in a hospital and he was circ'd too because my husband was. i think that's the most popular reason - because daddy was too.

i've gone 180 degrees on this issue tho. it's UNNECESSARY surgery, imo!

[frustrated_lefty]

287. Contentious Issue

My wife views it as a form of torture.

I, being circumsized, view it as a rite of passage.

In retrospect, I think it's a thing a guy should be able to decide about on his own, like any form of piercing, scarring, or tatoo-ing. You are responsible for your child to a point. Once that point arrives, THEY are in charge. The body they deal with is their own.