The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

[Darkside2009]

I have posted many links to sites from heterosexuals discussing circumcision, I could have posted a lot more, but I felt I was giving you the gist of what was out there. So, with respect, Pasa is mistaken in his belief that the topic isn't discussed outside Gay or bisexual circles.

This proposed legislation is taking place in California not Texas, so perhaps the debate hasn't reached Texas yet. No doubt it will in time. With the first cases of HIV and Aids, in California and New York, people thought it was just a virus or illness, confined to homosexuals. I believe it was referred to at that time as a 'Gay Plague'. It wasn't on any heterosexual agenda. People soon learned differently.

I think that those who drafted the proposed legislation, were all too aware that it clashed with religious beliefs and the freedoms outlined in your Constitution. I believe it was drafted that way on purpose to create the most controversy. Nothing creates more interest in the wider public than controversy, and nothing jumps onto a bandwagon faster than a legislator who thinks he/she might benefit from it.

I think your Constitution is a noble expression of ideas, with intentions that are to be applauded, but it has already had a number of amendments. I dare say, that future generations may decide it needs further amendments to better reflect their needs and aspirations. No legislation is set in aspic.

Just as Martin Luther King realised his dream would not come immediately, but he believed it would come one day. He dared to dream and now you have a Black Man as President of the United States. Go figure.

[Long Duck Dong]

Female Genital Mutilation of infants is illegal in the United States, eventually male genital mutilation of infants will be as well.

vulvectomy, the surgical removal of parts of the female genitalia for medical reasons, is a legal operation in the US.....

circumcision, the surgical removal of part of the male genitalia for medical reasons is a legal operation in the US

I am refering to the MEDICALLY NEEDED operations to treat issues with the genitalia, not elective surgeries...... so you will never get rid of circumcision or vulvectomy as long as people continue to develop issues that require surgery and surgery is the only option left for them to do.......

[Long Duck Dong]

Jamie,

I don't suppose the opposition to slavery was an easy ride either, or votes for women, or Gay rights, but if those early activists hadn't put in the effort the law would not have changed.

As Mao said, 'the longest journey will always begin with the first step'.

We owe it to the future generations of children to try.

those activists were fighting to end slavery for all people, to get adult females the right to vote and for gay people to have rights too

the so called fight for rights for the children to choose, is still not giving them rights, as they will still lack the right of consent with surgical procedures and the parents / court will still retain the right to put them thru the surgeries

what you are doing is fighting to end elective circumcision and I say elective cos medical circumcision is something that will still remain a form of circumcision that has to be done and in some cases on children......

based around the stats of many of the articles posted, people are making choices about circumcision, and choosing not to...... often using their own personal experiences
its the same as marriage, we have the right of choice, and according to the article I posted in another thread about the decline of marriage, people are exercising that right of choice by not getting married.......

and yes, i know it will be stated that its cos people are better informed... and all that is saying is that people can not make a choice by themselves, without somebody else telling them what to think and what to do......

the moment you say that better informed people make better choices, you are saying that you are incapable of intelligent thinking without people telling you what to think..... and darkside, I do give you a lil more credit than that as I am assuming that you have made a lot of major choices in your life, without the input of other people

[BiDaveDtown]

vulvectomy, the surgical removal of parts of the female genitalia for medical reasons, is a legal operation in the US.....what you are doing is fighting to end elective circumcision



Long Duck, that's a non-sequitur and has nothing to do with this topic.

We're talking and discussing and this topic is about non-elective or non-consensual genital mutilation of boys and girls who can't consent to the genital mutilation that's inflicted upon them either when they're born or as children.

You're going off about things that happen to adults, and only a very small percentage of the human adult population at that.

Most adult women DO NOT need any sort of surgery done to their vulva either as infants, girls, or as adults.

Make your own topic if you want to talk about adults who make their own choice to get surgery done to their genitals since it has nothing to do with this topic or thread at all.

10 Reasons NOT to Circumcise Your Baby Boy

1. Because there is no medical reason for "routine" circumcision of baby boys. No professional medical association in the United States or the rest of the world recommends routine neonatal circumcision. The American Medical Association calls it "non-therapeutic." At no time in its 75 years has the American Academy of Pediatrics ever recommended infant circumcision.
2. Because the foreskin is not a birth defect. The foreskin is a normal, sensitive, functional part of the body. In infant boys, the foreskin is attached to the head of the penis (glans), protects it from urine, feces, and irritation, and keeps contaminants from entering the urinary tract. The foreskin also has an important role in sexual pleasure, due to its specialized, erogenous nerve endings and its natural gliding and lubricating functions.
3. Because you wouldn't circumcise your baby girl. In the United States, girls of all ages are protected by federal and state laws from forced genital surgery, whether practiced in medical or non-medical settings, and regardless of the religious or cultural preferences of their parents. There is no ethical rationale for distinguishing between female and male genital alteration. If it is wrong to remove part of a baby girl's healthy genitals, then it is wrong to do the same to those of a baby boy.
4. Because your baby does not want to be circumcised. Circumcision painfully and permanently alters a baby boy's genitals, removing healthy, protective, functional tissue from the penis and exposing the child to unnecessary pain and medical risks –for no medical benefit. What do you think your baby boy would say if he could tell you?
5. Because removing part of a baby's penis is painful, risky, and harmful. We know babies are sensitive to pain. Many circumcisions are performed with no analgesic, but even when pain control is employed, the pain is not eliminated. As with any surgery, complications can and do occur with circumcision. These include infection, abnormal bleeding, removal of too much skin, loss of all or part of the glans, urinary problems, and even death. All circumcisions result in the loss of the foreskin and its functions, and leave a penile scar.
6. Because times and attitudes have changed. The circumcision rate in the United States is now below 40% (and much lower in some parts of the country), down from 81% in 1981. More than 60% of all baby boys in the U.S. leave the hospital intact, as more and more parents realize that circumcision is unnecessary and wrong.
7. Because most medically advanced nations do not circumcise baby boys. People in Europe, Asia and Latin America are often appalled to hear that American doctors and hospitals remove part of a boy's penis shortly after birth. Approximately 75% of the men in the world are not circumcised and remain intact throughout their lives.
8. Because caring for and cleaning the foreskin is easy. A natural, intact penis requires no special care, beyond gentle washing while bathing. Later, when the foreskin can be retracted (something that often does not occur until adolescence), a boy can be taught to pull back his foreskin to wash his penis. Forcible retraction of the foreskin results in pain and injury, and should not be done for the first two years.
9. Because circumcision does not prevent HIV or other diseases. Over the years, the claims that circumcision prevents various diseases have repeatedly been proven to be exaggerated or outright fabrications. Most men in the United States are circumcised, but our STD and HIV rates are as high as or higher than those in countries where circumcision is rare.
10. Because children should be protected from permanent bodily alteration inflicted on them without their consent in the name of culture, religion, profit, or parental preference. Under accepted bioethical principles, parents can consent to surgery on behalf of a child only if it is necessary to protect the child's life or health. "Routine" circumcision fails this test because it painfully and permanently removes a normal and healthy part of a boy's penis, does not protect the child’s life or health, and in fact creates new risks. Removing the foreskin is no more justified than removing a finger or any other healthy body part.

[Long Duck Dong]

I can not help but notice that every time people point out something that is relevent, you lot argue that its not

medical and elective circumcision are on the same parts of the body, they do the same thing.... and often they are done on children that do not have a say.... and a vulvectomy is also something that is both elective and medical, done on children and without their say..... the removal of cancerous growths and lesions on the genitalia of female children are operations you can google and see for yourself..... so drugstores statement is incorrect, as there are operations in the us that do mutilate the female genitalia, unless he is going to argue that his definition only applies to the things he wants it to apply to and that the children it doesn't apply to, are not mutilated ......

I love the way how its got nothing to do with the thread, but I do not see you telling drugstore that..... no... its only the people that are not kissing your ass and saying " oh great god of ego driven opinion, we agree with your every word "

thats the same with jamie the lawyer that apparently knows nothing, DD the parent that should shut up cos she doesn't have a penis, me that is still remaining neutral on circumcision, the adult circumcised male member that was told his opinion was not relevent, mikey who was told his study that showed that over 4000 guys did not find that their experience matched what you lot claim, his study was invalid cos it was part of a aids research project.... and if thats the case, any of the studies you posted dealing with aids / hiv / hpv etc are also invalid.... but no... you will argue they are valid cos you posted them

yet we have people like you posting your 138 women, incomplete and corrupted data study about how females think that guys with foreskins are better lovers

now do tell me how that is relevent to the topic when you are saying " We're talking and discussing and this topic is about non-elective or non-consensual genital mutilation of boys and girls who can't consent to the genital mutilation that's inflicted upon them either when they're born or as children. "

you are posting shit like that and telling other people to shut up and stay on topic...... so I would suggest you try taking your own advice, instead of telling other people to do what you are clearly not doing......

one word HYPOCRITE

[drugstore cowboy]

Let us look at the fine tradition of the pro-circ forces in this country. Starting with Kellogg (yes the founder of the cereal company) and his friends the pediatricians of the day.
Quotes from the medical journals of that day:

"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 being continued. For this purpose, if the prepuce is long, we may circumcise the male patient with present and probably with future advantage; the operation, too, should not be performed under chloroform, so that the pain experienced may be associated with the habit we wish to eradicate."
Athol A. W. Johnson, On An Injurious Habit Occasionally Met with in Infancy and Early Childhood, The Lancet, vol. 1 (7 April 1860)

"There can be no doubt of [masturbation's] injurious effect, and of the proneness to practice it on the part of children with defective brains. Circumcision should always be practiced. It may be necessary to make the genitals so sore by blistering fluids that pain results from attempts to rub the parts."
Angel Money, Treatment of Disease in Children. Philadelphia: P. Blakiston. 1887, p. 421.

You are judged by the company you keep; your fellow reptiles would speak well of you!

These were DOCTORS THAT TREATED CHILDREN! It was sick brains like this that introduced this country to circumcision. Of course as time went on this rational fell out of favor with the public so other reasons for continuing the mutilation for money had to be invented. All of a sudden it became impossible to clean an uncircumcised penis so the story of circumcision for hygiene came about. Then it was venereal disease, then it was cancer, then it was HIV AIDS, then it was ???, and the it was ????. All just one more load of crap after another!

"That is the ONLY accident (which is snipping too much foreskin) that was reported in the United States. That still only happen 1.2% of the time! More babies die during delivery than accidents happen to boys being circumcisied" Birth is a necessary part of life and things do go wrong and babies die; circumcision is an unnecessary elective surgery and things go wrong and babies do die from this too. SEE THE DIFFERENCE! Too much skin removed ONLY 1.2% of the time, that is a higher incidence than the rate of the dreaded UTI among the uncircumcised male. The UTI the one out of one hundred uncircumcised boys get is easily treated with antibiotics just like it is for the 9 out of one hundred girls. The problem of too much skin being removed is not so easily remedied; skin graft? yea right, the penis is a great place to have skin with limited nerve function. This shows how much you know (or care) about your son’s penis. To you it is just a waterspout that is supposed to look like a plastic dildo.

Complications occur at a rate of about one out of ten circumcisions, while most are said to be minor, some result in serious disfigurement or loss of function or even the total loss of the penis or life of the child. (CAN YOU IMAGINE DEALING WITH ANY OF THESE RESULTS OF AN UNNECESSARY ELECTIVE SURGERY?) These things happen in even major hospitals in this country!

The American Academy of Pediatrics has called the evidence "complex and conflicting, " and therefore concludes that, at present, the evidence is insufficient to support routine neonatal circumcision. "Oh, the reason you people are misreading the APP's recommendations is because it says it shows NO BENEFITS to the child's IMMEDIATE health. Meaning the baby, while you care caring for him would be fine. What about considering the future?" If you are treating people for diseases they MIGHT have in the future, consider this, the incidence of breast cancer is one out of eight women which is thousands of times higher risk than any problems which might require circumcision (even in the US which has an abnormally high rate of "medically required" circumcisions). Would you remove your own breasts and ovaries after menopause because it reduces the risk of cancer?

How about these facts?
Of the industrialized nations the US circumcises the highest percentage of baby boys.
Of the industrialized nations the US has the highest infant death rate. (Is this a coincidence?)
Of the industrialized nations the US has the highest incidence of HIV AIDs.
Of the industrialized nations the US has the highest gonorrhea rate. Roughly 50 times that of Sweden (non-circumcising) and eight times that of Canada (less circumcising)

The CDC says 15 million people in the United States become infected every year with an STD, ***half of which are INCURABLE viral infections such as herpes or human papilloma virus (HPV), the CAUSE of genital warts and cervical cancer****.

Such ***incurable* ** STD's affect 65 million Americans.

It says 5.5 million Americans are infected with HPV every year; 3 million get chlamydia, 1 million get herpes and 650,000 get gonorrhea.

The United States looks bad when compared to other rich countries. The dominance of circumcision among the currently sexually active population has done nothing to stop or even slow the spread of these diseases! If anything the reluctance of circumcised males to use condoms (they already have very low sensitivity) has contributed to the spread.

It is time to enter the 21st century and quit modifying people to match the tastes of others (male genital mutilation or female genital mutilation).

Teaching your sons about hygiene will open a channel of communications with them. This openness has been missing from family lives. You don't need to talk about these things when they seem to take care of them selves; so your sons get used to not talking about things sexual with their parents. Teach them about hygiene and it will be easier to teach them about safe sex.

The money that is spent on circumcisions would be better spent on condoms.

And why do you attempt to quote the Bible? If religion was really important to you, you would know the truth. Here it is the letter of Saint Paul to the Galatians 5:1-12
“It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm and do not let yourselves be burdened again by the yoke of slavery.
Mark my words! I, Paul tell you that if you let yourself be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. FOR IN CHRIST JESUS NEITHER CIRCUMCISION NOR UNCIRCUMCISION HAS ANY VALUE. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
You were running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth? That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. "A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough." I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he may be. Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!”

I really like that last part where it says that those that preach circumcision should emasculate (castrate) themselves. So if you really believe in circumcision, you should castrate yourself and then get back to us.

[Darkside2009]

[QUOTE=Long Duck Dong;201416]those activists were fighting to end slavery for all people, to get adult females the right to vote and for gay people to have rights too

the so called fight for rights for the children to choose, is still not giving them rights, as they will still lack the right of consent with surgical procedures and the parents / court will still retain the right to put them thru the surgeries

what you are doing is fighting to end elective circumcision and I say elective cos medical circumcision is something that will still remain a form of circumcision that has to be done and in some cases on children......

based around the stats of many of the articles posted, people are making choices about circumcision, and choosing not to...... often using their own personal experiences
its the same as marriage, we have the right of choice, and according to the article I posted in another thread about the decline of marriage, people are exercising that right of choice by not getting married.......

and yes, i know it will be stated that its cos people are better informed... and all that is saying is that people can not make a choice by themselves, without somebody else telling them what to think and what to do......

the moment you say that better informed people make better choices, you are saying that you are incapable of intelligent thinking without people telling you what to think..... and darkside, I do give you a lil more credit than that as I am assuming that you have made a lot of major choices in your life, without the input of other people[/QUOTE)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To repeat what I said:-

'It will also raise the public profile of the issue, and have the effect of making people think about it, and talk about it. I'm sure quite a number of those will go away and do the research on the subject themselves, and thus be better informed on the issue, when they come to make a decision.'

I already know what I'm advocating and saying, I don't have any difficulty whatsoever, in articulating, my thoughts. I reiterate, better-informed people make better decisions, you may not agree, that is your choice.

Thank you for your concern in this matter.

[BiDaveDtown]

you are posting shit like that and telling other people to shut up and stay on topic...... so I would suggest you try taking your own advice, instead of telling other people to do what you are clearly not doing......

one word HYPOCRITE

Long Duck there's no need to be immature, throw a tantrum, and resort to name calling.

Don't go off on tangents, complete non-sequiturs, moot points about completely unrelated topics and subjects that have nothing to do with the topic or subject of the post at all and expect people to reply to them or wonder just why you're doing this.

I read how you posted and were quoted as saying how you believe and have the opinion that male circumcision is genital mutilation and how your penis has lots of heavy scarring and other issues from being circumcised, you said that your penis has been mutilated by circumcision that was inflicted upon you when you were born, so you should take your own advice and stop being a hypocrite.


Mothers Who Observed Circumcision

"I didn't know how horrific it was going to be."

"The screams of my baby remain embedded in my bones and haunt my mind."


The typical hospital circumcision is done out of view of the mother in a separate room. However, a few are observed by parents, and many Jewish ritual circumcisions are done in the homes of the parents and observed by family and friends. Although some parents may report that this is a positive experience, this is not always the case. According to research, women are more likely than men to report distress from hearing an infant crying. Regarding circumcision, the father is more likely to deny his son’s pain because it could remind him of his own circumcision feelings. Therefore, witnessing the circumcision and the infant’s response can have a particularly shocking effect on the mother. Only recently have some parents been willing to describe their agonizingly painful experiences at their son’s circumcision. Though further research is needed to tell us how common these responses are, the fact that they exist at all is reason for concern and reflection.

Some mothers have written about their experiences with circumcision during the previous year. “It was as close to hell as I ever want to get!” one wrote. Another related this memory:


My tiny son and I sobbed our hearts out. . . . After everything I’d worked for, carrying and nurturing Joseph in the womb, having him at home against no small odds, keeping him by my side constantly since birth, nursing him whenever he needed closeness and nourishment—the circumcision was a horrible violation of all I felt we shared. I cried for days afterward.

Melissa Morrison was having a difficult time seven months after she had watched the (nonritual) circumcision of her son:


I’m finding myself obsessing more and more about it. It’s absolutely horrible. I didn’t know how horrific it was going to be. It was the most gruesome thing I have ever seen in my life. I told the doctor as soon as he was done, if I had a gun I would have killed him. I swear I would be in jail today if I did have a gun.

Two other mothers have reported to the Circumcision Resource Center that watching their son’s circumcision was “the worst day of my life.” Another mother noted that she still felt pain recalling the experience about a year later. She wrote to her son:


I have never heard such screams. . . . Will I ever know what scars this brings to your soul? . . . What is that new look I see in your eyes? I can see pain, a certain sadness, and a loss of trust.

Other mothers clearly remember their son’s circumcision after many years. Miriam Pollack reported fifteen years after the event, “The screams of my baby remain embedded in my bones and haunt my mind.” She added later, “His cry sounded like he was being butchered. I lost my milk.”

Nancy Wainer Cohen recalled her feelings connected with the circumcision of her son, who is now twenty-two:


I heard him cry during the time they were circumcising him. The thing that is most disturbing to me is that I can still hear his cry. . . . It was an assault on him, and on some level it was an assault on me. . . . I will go to my grave hearing that horrible wail, and feeling somewhat responsible, feeling that it was my lack of awareness, my lack of consciousness. I did the best I could, and it wasn’t good enough.

Elizabeth Pickard-Ginsburg vividly remembered her son’s circumcision and its effect on her:


Jesse was shrieking and I had tears streaming down my face. . . . He was screaming and there was no doubt in his scream that he wanted mother, or a mothering figure to come and protect him from this pain!! . . . Jesse screamed so loud that all of a sudden there was no sound! I’ve never heard anything like it!! He was screaming and it went up and then there was no sound and his mouth was just open and his face was full of pain!! I remember something happened inside me . . . the intensity of it was like blowing a fuse! It was too much. We knew something was over. I don’t feel that it ever really healed. . . . I don’t think I can recover from it. It’s a scar. I’ve put a lot of energy into trying to recover. I did some crying and we did some therapy. There’s still a lot of feeling that’s blocked off. It was too intense. . . . We had this beautiful baby boy and seven beautiful days and this beautiful rhythm starting, and it was like something had been shattered!! . . . When he was first born there was a tie with my young one, my newborn. And when the circumcision happened, in order to allow it I had cut off the bond. I had to cut off my natural instincts, and in doing so I cut off a lot of feelings towards Jesse. I cut it off to repress the pain and to repress the natural instinct to stop the circumcision. (italics added)

After several years, Pickard-Ginsburg says she can still feel “an element of detachment” toward her son. Her account is particularly revealing. That she “cut off” feelings toward her son by observing his circumcision suggests that her son may have responded similarly toward her by experiencing his circumcision. Furthermore, because she was willing to feel and communicate the intensity of her pain, we have a clue to why more mothers who observe their son’s circumcision do not report such pain. Denial and repression may keep this extreme pain out of their awareness.

Observing their son’s circumcision has left some parents with a deep feeling of regret. The following quotes are typical:


I am so sorry I was so ignorant about circumcision. Had I witnessed a circumcision first, I never would have consented to having my son circumcised.

Always in the back of my mind I’ve thought, “I wish he hadn’t been cut.” I have apologized to him numerous times.

If I had ever known, I wouldn’t have done this in a million years.

I felt as if I might pass out at the sight of my son lying there, unable to move or defend himself. His screams tore at my heart as his foreskin was heartlessly torn from his penis. Too late to turn back, I knew that this was a terrible mistake and that it was something that no one, especially newborn babies, should ever have to endure. A wave of shock coursed through me—my body feeling nauseatingly sick with guilt and shame. All I could think of was holding and consoling my child, but his pain felt inconsolable—his body rigid with fear and anger—his eyes filled with tears of betrayal.

Some mothers who did not witness the circumcision have since regretted allowing it:


The nurse came to take the baby for the circumcision. I have relived that moment over and over. If I could turn back the hands of time, that would be the one moment I would go back to and say, “I don’t think it’s a good idea. I need another day to think about it” and just hold on to him because I wasn’t sure. I think if I had held on to him it might have turned out differently. I just shouldn’t have let him go when I was so ambivalent. After they took him I went into the shower, and I cried.

When they brought him back to me, I could see that he had been crying and had a glassy, wild look in his eyes. I think it was terror. I didn’t know what had been done to him, but I could tell whatever it was, it hurt. I’ll never forget that look. They probably shattered every bit of trust he had. I’m very angry about it. I would never have done that to my own son. No mother would take a knife to her child. When I looked at his penis, I was again instantly sorry that I had allowed it to be done.

[BiDaveDtown]

Here's an idea: Everyone who actually cares about this topic and this thread should stop replying to Long Duck Dong who is doing nothing but going off on complete tangents that have absolutely nothing to do with male genital mutilation, female genital mutilation, or anything at all that this topic and thread are about.

He refuses to make his own topics about these completely random and unrelated subjects so everyone should just ignore him, stop replying to him, and stop feeding this troll.

If he wants to reply and actually act like a mature adult, write in complete sentences, and actually debate as well as stay on the actual subject and topic of the post then just maybe his ramblings will deserve a reply.

[Long Duck Dong]

To repeat what I said:-

'It will also raise the public profile of the issue, and have the effect of making people think about it, and talk about it. I'm sure quite a number of those will go away and do the research on the subject themselves, and thus be better informed on the issue, when they come to make a decision.'

I already know what I'm advocating and saying, I don't have any difficulty whatsoever, in articulating, my thoughts. I reiterate, better-informed people make better decisions, you may not agree, that is your choice.

Thank you for your concern in this matter.

better informed parents make better decisions,....

so why are they not hearing both sides of the debate ?? why are people being told they are wrong, instead of their opinion respected in the same way you want your opinion respected

most of this thread is a one sided argument geared at shutting down any people that may have a differing opinion, and abusing the hell out of them....and pushing a agenda in peoples faces....

I was always of the understanding that better informed parents have both sides presented in a unbaised and constructive way, so they can make the choice that works best for them..... regardless of what I may think of their decision and choice......

apparently that only applies when people want it to apply, the rest of the time, they want to ram their opinion down peoples throats until people conform and do what is wanted......

claims of being open minded were made in this thread, by people that were telling others not to express their opinion......... so again thats not my defination of open minded.....

I think I will stick to my opinion, thanks darkside, I may not agree with some opinions, but I am not telling people to STFU, I am keeping a open mind about what people are saying, while watching them invalidate their own arguments about what should be talked about in the thread, by posting things that are nothing to do with what they are saying, should be talked about in the thread..... etc etc

I still have the same stance, circumcision is neither right or wrong, its just a medically needed operation at times.... and the stance of fighting for the rights of the children is admirable and a good cause, but in all honesty, its not about the rights of the children and how circumcision is wrong.... its about removing the parental choice to circumcise or give consent to a circumcision

if the ban is put in place, a parent may not request you be circumcised but a doctor can perform one if its medically essential.... so the parent doesn't have a choice any more..., the child doesn't get one if its deemed medically needed, and they do not get a say in the matter..... but a adult male has the choice to be circumcised or not and a adult is not a child......

[Long Duck Dong]

Here's an idea: Everyone who actually cares about this topic and this thread should stop replying to Long Duck Dong who is doing nothing but going off on complete tangents that have absolutely nothing to do with male genital mutilation, female genital mutilation, or anything at all that this topic and thread are about.

He refuses to make his own topics about these completely random and unrelated subjects so everyone should just ignore him, stop replying to him, and stop feeding this troll.

If he wants to reply and actually act like a mature adult, write in complete sentences, and actually debate as well as stay on the actual subject and topic of the post then just maybe his ramblings will deserve a reply.

feel free to be the first to ignore me, then......while you continue to do the same thing that you are claiming I am doing.... cos its not me that is posting articles that have nothing to do with children being circumcised, unless you think that adult females having sex is relevant to babies being circumcised.....

[Katja]

its about removing the parental choice to circumcise or give consent to a circumcision



Not quite. It is about removing from parents the right to have circumcision performed on a child unless there is a pressing medical need.

[sammie19]

better informed parents make better decisions,....

so why are they not hearing both sides of the debate ?? why are people being told they are wrong, instead of their opinion respected in the same way you want your opinion respected

most of this thread is a one sided argument geared at shutting down any people that may have a differing opinion, and abusing the hell out of them....and pushing a agenda in peoples faces....



No one is shutting anyone out or trying to stop them debating the issue. Dont be so melodramatic. It is true that on our side there is an agenda, and we argue it but so do those on the other side. Is there something wrong with wanting to stop what we believe is a serious infringement of a child's rights? Most of us have not abused anyone in this debate and to suggest that is to stretch the truth.

The fact is that people are hearing both sides of the debate. That is why in most countries circumcision is not done routinely, why three quarters of males in the world are uncircumcised and why in the USA the numbers of routine circumcisions of new born children has been dropping steadily over the last few decades.

[Long Duck Dong]

No one is shutting anyone out or trying to stop them debating the issue. Dont be so melodramatic. It is true that on our side there is an agenda, and we argue it but so do those on the other side. Is there something wrong with wanting to stop what we believe is a serious infringement of a child's rights? Most of us have not abused anyone in this debate and to suggest that is to stretch the truth.

The fact is that people are hearing both sides of the debate. That is why in most countries circumcision is not done routinely, why three quarters of males in the world are uncircumcised and why in the USA the numbers of routine circumcisions of new born children has been dropping steadily over the last few decades.

thats why most of the thread is people that are against circumcision and telling other people how they mutilate their children and telling them that their opinions are irrelevant.....
its not who is saying it, its how much its being done......

no there is nothing wrong with wanting to stop it.... its your choice to take that stance..... and like I said, its admirable, until you see the result of what happens.....

the reasons why many people are not circumcised, is parents have a choice and choose not to... not cos they are well informed of the risks etc... but cos they choose not to.....

the well informed statement is used in a number of cases where a decrease is happening.... a example is the anti smoking group in NZ stating that the rates of smoking are dropping cos the people understand the risks better.... yet a nationwide survey showed that people did not give a shit about the risks,.... it was the cost that drove them to stop.... a pack of 30 cigarettes in NZ, is $18 and soon going up to $21.....
its been realised that the smokers are not quitting at the rate claimed, of 1000 smokers a week.... they are actually growing their own tobacco and smoking drugs cos marijuana is now cheaper than cigs..... the cops will tell you that, but the anti smoking campaigners will not......

another example is the anti drink driving campaign... no extra costs to alcohol, no extra tax, just advertising.... and the drink driving rate is climbing out of control......and people are constantly being advised of the risks and dangers of drink driving....so they are well informed.... but do they care... or is it more to do with their rights.....

[Long Duck Dong]

Not quite. It is about removing from parents the right to have circumcision performed on a child unless there is a pressing medical need.

something I said many times earlier in the thread

hence my stance, I did not view it as wrong or right, cos its medically needed at times.... and doing a medical circumcision on a child or adult, doesn't change one from wrong to right or right to wrong

but didn't you tell me yourself, earlier in the thread, that it was not about removing rights but empowering the children.....

you want to see empowerment of children gone bad.... check out the NZ abortion and privacy laws.....

until a female is 16, she can not have surgery without your consent....
but under the abortion and privacy laws, she can have a abortion at any age... IE 12,13, 14 etc and legally, you are not allowed to be informed about it by a doctor, nurse or hospital unless the CHILD agrees with it... or your signature is needed for emergency surgery as a result of the abortion....

imagine getting a phone call to go to the hospital to sign consent for the surgeon to operate on your daughter cos of a abortion gone wrong, at the age of 12/ 13 etc.... and you thought she was at a friends place......

for a country of 4.2 million people, we have a abortion rate that is equal to the US and sweden, at a average 20 - 22 abortions to every 1000 pregnancies according to the NZ abortion stats....and that is not including the under 15's that are not allowed to be recorded......

the morning after pill and abortions are known as the *best * forms of birth control and we have one of the highest rates of STI's in the world......

katja, they wanted to give children, rights and empowerment to make choices..... and the children are doing it....and look at the result.....

circumcision is a safer area, I will agree...... cos the people that are empowered, will have the choice when they are more mature enuf to make choices..... and thats why I respect the right to circumcise as a adult......
cos look at what has happened in NZ, when we empowered children with something that they are not ready to handle and deal with on their own.....

[Katja]

something I said many times earlier in the thread

hence my stance, I did not view it as wrong or right, cos its medically needed at times.... and doing a medical circumcision on a child or adult, doesn't change one from wrong to right or right to wrong

but didn't you tell me yourself, earlier in the thread, that it was not about removing rights but empowering the children.....

you want to see empowerment of children gone bad.... check out the NZ abortion and privacy laws.....

until a female is 16, she can not have surgery without your consent....
but under the abortion and privacy laws, she can have a abortion at any age... IE 12,13, 14 etc and legally, you are not allowed to be informed about it by a doctor, nurse or hospital unless the CHILD agrees with it... or your signature is needed for emergency surgery as a result of the abortion....

imagine getting a phone call to go to the hospital to sign consent for the surgeon to operate on your daughter cos of a abortion gone wrong, at the age of 12/ 13 etc.... and you thought she was at a friends place......

for a country of 4.2 million people, we have a abortion rate that is equal to the US and sweden, at a average 20 - 22 abortions to every 1000 pregnancies according to the NZ abortion stats....and that is not including the under 15's that are not allowed to be recorded......

the morning after pill and abortions are known as the *best * forms of birth control and we have one of the highest rates of STI's in the world......

katja, they wanted to give children, rights and empowerment to make choices..... and the children are doing it....and look at the result.....

circumcision is a safer area, I will agree...... cos the people that are empowered, will have the choice when they are more mature enuf to make choices..... and thats why I respect the right to circumcise as a adult......
cos look at what has happened in NZ, when we empowered children with something that they are not ready to handle and deal with on their own.....

Honestly you do waffle on.

In England and Wales the abortion rate last year was 17.5 per 1000 pregnancies and in Scotland 12.4. For girls under the age of 16 it was 3.9 per 1000 pregnancies in England and Wales even less north of the border. It hardly shows that under 16 girls are particularly abortion mad. The highest rates are among 16-19 girls but that isnt surprising given their bolt to freedom and the appalling sex education which are provided. Half of all abortions are for women with partners so are they too irresponsible as a species?

I have not studied new Zealnd but I will be surprised if their statistics are so bad that the world is comming to an end. You are typical of a certain kind of eprson who draws out every statiistic and makes it as black as can be. I do not consider an abortion rate of less than 0.4% among girls under the age of 16 in this country appalling. You do not record stats in your country fine but I bet they are somewhere and I will be surprised if they are so bad they deserve the kind of rebuke you give it. That they could be better no doubt and should be, but (ain the UK at least) they are improving, but a figure of less than 4 per thousand pregnancies is not something we should be so hysterical about.

The young are bad. They are out of control. I have heard it all before and there are always going to be rotten apples. But most are not bad and most are not rotten apples.

They should be respected for what they are. Children and young people who are our future. They will never be perfect, but they are not as bad as adults like you make them out to be.

It doesnt matter how children behave in any case. Or young teenagers. Not in the context of this debate. What matters is the respect we give them and the realisation and knowledge of who they are themselves and to respect. We do not give them that by forcibly removing a part of their penis or any other part of their body when there is no sound immediate medical reason.

[drugstore cowboy]

For a certain person claiming that circumcision has nothing to do with a man's sexual pleasure, a woman's sexual pleasure, or even another man's sexual pleasure here's something you should read. Also there are writings from men who were cut as adults.

You do lose an enormous amount of sensitivity. It has no effect on ejaculation, or whether you can get an erection or not. Because you lose so much sensation you have to work much harder to get the same sensation which affects sex completely.

Performance artist Peet Pienaar,
who filmed and exhibited his own circumcision in 2000

I have encountered people who assume that sex with an ‘uncircumcised’ man is unpleasant. Some have even gone as far as to say, it would be ‘nasty’. There is the stigma that men with a foreskin are unclean. It is time for this myth be laid to rest. The male with a foreskin can keep himself sufficiently clean with total ease. It is not a big production, just wash with soap and water like you would any other body part millions of boys and men around the world do it every day. Anyone who doesn’t bathe adequately runs the risk of causing a ‘nasty’ experience for their mate, whether it’s a male (circumcised or intact) or a female.

Our culture’s tendency to prejudge the man with a foreskin reminds me of a child who claims to dislike a particular food because he’s never tasted it. Think of how many kids have refused to try something new because it ‘looks funny.’

Familiarity is safe. Something new and different prompts fear and suspicion. Myths are generated. The world is flat, the foreskin -- repulsive. There is the assumption that women prefer the ‘look’ of a circumcised penis and the idea pervades that anyone with a foreskin is ‘smelly.’ We often believe negative generalizations about sex and the foreskin even if we know noone ourselves who has actually experienced these things. Having tracked many circumcision discussions online for a few years now, I’d be lucky if I saw more than two posts where a woman claimed to have had a ‘nasty’ experience. Rather, I have seen countless posts where people reiterate the generalization that sex with a foreskin is unpleasant. Therefore, it must be so. Somehow, the assumption alone is enough to worry parents and some young men.

I have been contacted by teenage intact boys online who are afraid that girls won’t like them sexually because they have a foreskin. (See The Sexual Preference for a Circumcised Penis and It's Disadvantages) This pervasive, constant knocking of the foreskin, a very natural, healthy, part of a male’s body, should stop so that young men who are intact do not become confused and worried. Before they’ve even had the chance to fully experience that their foreskin is definitely sexually worthwhile for both him and his mate, he may be affected by the omnipresent incongruous generalizations. He begins to question whether the girl will like an uncircumcised penis. He can get beyond the negative programming our society continually plants, by learning about the benefits. He can be confident, and if necessary, he can explain these benefits to a partner who also has been affected by this misinformation. Visit Male Sexuality - Foreskin Anatomy (and be fully prepared to see graphic photos of the male organ.)

Circumcision Diminishes Sensitivity

A recent medical study concluded that circumcised men engage in a wider variety of sexual practices than uncircumcised men. [Perlman] “Although there have been no studies to confirm the idea, it is a ‘reasonable hypothesis’ that if circumcision diminishes sensitivity during intercourse, then men will seek more effective stimulation through other forms of sexual activity or masturbation.” [Van Howe]

“Research published last year in the British Journal of Urology may well explain the links between circumcision, frequent masturbation and oral sex, however. A group of doctors headed by Dr. John R. Taylor at the University of Manitoba discovered that the small sheath of foreskin tissue removed during circumcision is filled with extremely sensitive nerve endings and mucus membrane cells. The head of the penis itself is extremely insensitive to light touch, although it can be stimulated by heavy touch, they found. That lack of sensitivity in the head of the penis may well account for an increased need by circumcised men for the more intense stimulation that masturbation and oral sex can provide, according to Dr. Robert Van Howe...”

The sexual experience of the male can directly affect the female experience. Mentally speaking, if a male’s sexual experience is immensely filled with pleasure, it will usually enhance her experience. In fact, it is often said that “sex is between the ears, not between the legs.” It has been suggested by circumcised men that any loss of sensuality can therefore be overridden mentally. Possibly this is true for some. However, mental effects on sex must vary widely. Some people are less mentally ‘plugged in’ then others. No matter what, it wouldn’t be an issue if all the sensitive nerve endings of the foreskin were never removed in the first place.

[drugstore cowboy]

Personal Accounts of The Female Experience:

“I've had a pretty modest number of lovers, but my uncirc husband is definitely, far and away, more sensitive than circ men I've known. This is such a plus - it is much more exciting for us both (the prematurity mentioned in some posts has never been a problem).”
AOL Member, 4/13/99: I have experienced both cut and uncut. Uncut is by far better, the feelings are more exquisite. It is gentler and the man seems to enjoy himself more. Size made a difference with some as far as reaching orgasms sooner and easier, but that might just be a fluke of my own anatomy, but orgasms with the uncut smaller one were equally if not more enjoyable. This was a long term relationship.

Sharon, Age 44, April 11, 1999 - Most of my boyfriends have been circumcized. I had more problems with size (some too large & impossible to use) than with cut or uncut. However, I had a few that were uncut. I was totally fascinated at looking at them with all the extra skin, and I discovered that since the penis goes in and out of its own skin, the vagina does not get sore from frequent sex. It is a much smoother process. I have had times when I was having frequent (what I call 'nuclear sex' at the beginning of a relationship) and got so sore and raw, from the common circumcized penis, of men in my age group, I had to sit in a hot bathtub, and then smear cortisone cream on my vulva. With a 'ragtop' that does not happen.

My present guy is circumcized but I accept that. I wish all guys were uncut, and I would never have a son of mine cut. I have never seen anything listed in the arguments against circumcision that it makes sex much easier and less painful for the woman. . . . I had more steady relationships with cut men simply because in the baby boomer age group there seem to be a lot more white men who are cut. I never performed oral sex on an uncut guy and they never seemed to want it. I assume they were getting enough stimulation from regular vaginal sex.

Being American born and 35, the chances that I or my peers to have experienced sexual relations with both intact and circumcised men is a rarity. Of the few friends that I know that have been blessed to experience both intact and cut first hand, we all agree.....the anatomically correct penis is a much better ride. I don't want to go into details *as I will start blushing* but at one point in my life I lived with two men....one was cut and one was intact. I have had the opportunity to compare the two side by side at the same time. If American woman only knew.....
A Talklist Member, 3/8/99
“I had my son circumcised at birth. His father was circumcised and all of my previous boyfriends were circumcised! My father and brothers were circumcised along with my cousins! It was just the way I was brought up to know.

I recently divorced and started to date again. I fell back in love with a wonderful all American born hunk! Blonde, blue eyed and full of muscles! We got serious in our relationship and that's when I saw my first uncircumcised penis. I was mesmerized and didn't know what to do next. He sensed my hesitation and asked if I had ever seen one before. I told him no and he proceeded to educate me first hand.

I learned and experienced the true nature of god's gift. The endless pleasures it gives to the both of us during foreplay and sexually. I found I could last longer without getting sore and to experiment with different oral techniques that I never could have performed on my previous lovers.

I would like other women to post their same experiences in detail. I feel that by opening up and letting the public know about the sexual benefits of having an intact partner would open the eyes of many skeptical women like myself and perhaps spark their curiosity to want to go out and experience it for themselves. In turn, this will help eliminate circumcision in the future.

If I knew then what I know now, I would have left my son intact so he and his future sex partner can enjoy the same experiences I have gratefully experienced.” Posted in Circumcision Discussion Folder, Moms Online, AOL in January, 1999. Put on this site with express permission from the poster, Samantha.
“Well, my college boyfriend was from Spain, so he wasn't circed. And I absolutely loved his penis. It was so sexy and exotic to me. In fact, I'm extremely disappointed that my husband is not intact.” In another post, the same person said: “Circumcision can harm sexual relations. If you've ever had sex with both a circed and an uncirced man, you'd know. Some women say that it doesn't make a difference, but I know that it definitely did for me. (Think "ribbed for her pleasure".) So I *do know better... and yes, I have heard a man complain about something he lost when he was 24-48 hours old.”

“Circumcised penises look ugly and unnatural to me! Also, with an uncircumcised penis, when you rub the penis with your hand, the foreskin makes it "glide" up and down easier. Sex is better, too, for the same reason - the foreskin helps it slide in and out better. My husband was the first man with an uncircumcised penis that I had had, so I had nothing to compare to with my previous partners. If my husband ever dies and I start dating again, I will look for an uncircumcised man. The sex is better, and I can't stand the sight of a circumcised penis. Not only that, my husband's penis seems far more sensitive than my other partners' were, so he seems to get more enjoyment out of sex, which helps me enjoy it more. The circumcised penis is ugly, ugly, ugly!!!! The penis intact is beautiful, natural, wonderful! I can't imagine ever sleeping with a circumcised man again.”

In later years, dry and painful intercourse is usually explained by the idea that women lubricate less. But sex with uncircumcised men is described as much more comfortable.

This future scenario is described very appropriately here: “Well, since you've been through menopause, your vaginal lining is much thinner than it used to be. You also have much less lubrication. Luckily for you, your husband is not circumcized. When his penis enters your vagina, it is one mucous membrane meeting another, and entry is easy and pleasurable. You shudder to think what sex would be like if your dh was circed, because your friends tell you that the glans keritinizes (sp?) over the years, and the skin becomes thicker and drier. Forcing the dry, leathered penis into your ever drier and thinner-skinned vagina would be less than wonderful...”

[drugstore cowboy]

Personal Accounts of The Male Experience:

My sexual partners also developed a preference for the uncircumcised penis. The one I am currently with enjoys performing oral sex on me very much, and believes that my penis is A LOT more sensitive than some circumcised men's, mainly because of her expert use of the frenulum, which gives me many "mini-orgasms" along the way, and plenty of aftershocks. I believe my orgasms through oral sex to be very powerful, almost nearing the experience of a female orgasm. Though we practice much less intercourse than oral sex, I have always found intercourse to be very pleasurable.

My partner will probably send in her account of the differences between her experiences with cut and intact males. You are correct in saying that a lot of it depends on the attitude of the male towards his penis, and his comfort with it. I have become VERY comfortable with mine, and would even entertain the idea of going to a nude beach. Because of this, all my sexual partners (okay, there were only thee of them... *S*) have developed a preference for intact men, though they did not have any prior dislike of them, to my knowledge, but were mainly unaware of the differences.

I believe a penis should be left intact unless absolutely necessary, and would fight to prevent the procedure should I one day have a son, as I would view that with absolute horror. And I pray that I, myself, do not have to have it done at any time in my life. I have gone from feeling very bad about myself and my anatomy to the polar opposite, loving myself, my body, and my penis. I am very proud to be uncut, and I can't help but feel a bit lucky.

I just finished reading almost all of the information on John Erickson's web site, In Memory of the Sexually Mutilated Child, and I must say, I am impressed. I recommend this site to everyone, especially those folks at the Circumcised American Academy of Pediatrics. In particular I would like to mention the series of photographs titled, "the three zones of penile skin." These [GRAPHIC] photographs suggest that, for coital purposes, the penis is actually an internal organ. We can easily see this in the dog, whose foreskin is thick and covered with fur. It is an internal organ and the thought of circumcising a dog is therefore repugnant to most of us. In fact, I would venture to guess that for most mammals the sexual part of the penis is similarly internalized. The photographs mentioned above tend to support the thesis that, for sexual purposes at least, the human penis is also an internal organ. As a 64 year old intact male who has engaged the female vagina (another clearly internal organ) in intercourse thousands of times, I can vouch for the fact that Mother Nature got it right, and that the biblical deity who flim-flammed Abraham into externalizing his organ and those of his descendants, got it wrong. There is no better sex than sex between two consenting internal organs.

The circumcised folks at the Circumcised American Academy of Pediatrics should delay their position statement until they have digested the material at Mr. Erickson's web site. Then they should take the position - a position clearly rooted in reality - that circumcision has no benefits, but has many disadvantages, and is contra-indicated. February 1999 - Permission granted to feature these comments here from the poster, Raymond Doherty

When I was 13 my body was growing, and like many teenagers, my hormones were raging. One night I had an erection that quickly turned painful. When I looked at my penis I discovered blood... blood coming from a tear in the skin of my penis. I was painfully aware that at that time I did not have enough skin to cover my own erection. It took several weeks for the tear to heal, with many lesser tears occurring any time I had an erection.

When I was 21 it happened again... This time while I was in bed with a girlfriend. The pain and embarrassment cannot possibly be described with words. Again it took weeks to heal, with several tears occurring while I was healing.

Do not [attempt to] rationalize the "minor discomfort" that an infant feels to the pain and suffering of those who have had painful erections, abnormal disfigurements, complete penile loss, and loss of life. (Did you hear about Dustin Evans Jr who died in Cleveland OH on 11/22/98)? This is a post excerpt from entry in Ethics in Wound Care discussion group under the thread of Anti-Circumcision, also posted in AC Talklist by MAC Member on 12/26/98

“Later in life, the foreskin plays an important part in arousement, penile sensation, and ease of penetration. I had my foreskin removed at the age of 47 to avoid those old age problems I read about. What I discovered is that I lost about 50% of penetration pleasure. ...I feel that I made a mistake to reduce the level of sensation and expose that very sensitive bare penis tissue to jockey shorts, athletic supports, etc. I believe the unit was meant to be covered and protected until ready for use. I believe I would have enjoyed the added pleasure of sexual intercourse with my foreskin intact.”
Getting circumcised was the most foolish thing I've done in my life. I had it done when I was 27.

It 's now been three full years since this grave mistake was made. Having grown up in the U.S., as hard as it is to admit, I got circumcised purely out of curiosity, as the subject had been so close to the top of my mind for all my life.

I was quite sexually active before marriage, and had a pretty normal sex life after marriage for two years before my reduction. Now I am essentially only interested in oral sex, as vaginal sex does not provide the detailed sensations that it did when I had a foreskin. The last thing a foreskin is - is a hindrance to sex. The analogy of "seeing without color" is perfectly apt to describe sex without a foreskin. Rather than being a touch-sensitive organ, it becomes merely a pressure-sensitive tool. BIG DIFFERENCE! 1/3/98

Describing what it’s like for her husband who was circed during his 20s, another person says: “He said that he lost a lot of sensitivity and masturbating with the foreskin was very nice and he missed doing that.”

“At 40 I sure wish that I had the benefit of the sensory nerve endings lost to circumcision and the protection and comfort afforded by a foreskin. All the interaction of my brain and thought process will never replace the pleasure lost. I want it back!”


I was born in a family where half of the boys were circumcised and half not. I always wondered about that and when I developed a subcutaneous cyst under my penis shaft, I discussed its removal and along with that a complete circumcision. I was 46 years old.

The surgeon removed too much foreskin under the shaft to excise the cyst and healing was uncomfortable during erections. When my healing did occur I did enjoy vigorous sex as the new wound stimulated me, however, I never did get over the uncomfortable sensation of the penis head.

I am now 64 and sure wish I did not lose that foreskin. In later life, in my opinion, not having that foreskin stroking sensation, is a bummer. If I had my druthers, I would opt to keep what my body came with, a complete foreskin. When a male gets older, that foreskin has to help him reach a climax due to the friction of the movement of the foreskin. I don't know because I ignorantly had mine removed. However, if there was a donor and no chance of cross contamination, I would certainly consider a foreskin transplant just to see if I am right. 6/18/97

I was very interested in your web site on the differences of circ'd vs uncirc'd men. I am a 28 year old straight male that was circ'd as a baby. I am currently practicing non-surgical foreskin restoration. I have found that there is a tremendous difference in feeling now that my glans has begun to heal from all the years of constant rubbing on my clothing. I haven't regained enough skin to cover the glans while erect, but I can feel the lubricating effect of the foreskin while making love semi erect. To those men thinking about getting circ'd later in life, Keep what you have! 12/18/97

I was circumcised in my late 30s after fathering three sons (all of whom were routinely circumcised shortly following birth). My surgery was entirely elective (both my spouse and I prefer the look of a circumcised penis) and I found it a both brief and relatively painless procedure. I entered a local hospital as an outpatient and the operation took less than 30 minutes. I was under local anesthesia (several shots at the base of my penis quickly numbed the organ). The urologist, using a freehand technique, first made a dorsal cut in my foreskin and clamped off the bleeding tissue. He then clipped away the foreskin around the entire circumference of my penis, using what appeared to be surgical scissors and a scalpel. He then neatly sutured the incision which was located approximately one-half inch below the corona. Bleeding was minimal and I felt no pain whatsoever, only a notable pressure where the foreskin was being cut away. Watching the surgery was fascinating.

No pain followed the operation although I would wake up with nightly erections (the pressure around my incision was uncomfortable but not really painful, quickly going away when the erection faded). Within two and one-half weeks the sutures were gone and I was left with a small, barely noticeable circumcision scar.

My first post-circumcision sex was normal and quite enjoyable, as it had always been prior to the surgery. With each erection I felt some pressure around the circumcision scar for a month or more after my surgery; however, the sensation of pressure soon faded and finally disappeared completely.

Now, decades later, having lived about half of my life intact and half as a circumcised male, I believe I can speak with some experience and authority on the subject, providing the type of personal information you seek. Following are my candid conclusions:

1. There is no question the head of my uncircumcised penis was more sensitive than it is today. Also, penetration was easier to achieve before my surgery, especially when my wife was not fully aroused and moist. Regardless, both oral and vaginal sex remain pleasurable today. Other than these two changes, I found absolutely nothing different between pre- and post-circumcision sex. My circumcised penis has less notable odor but that was never an issue or problem prior to surgery.

2. After my circumcision, over time I found I was able to delay ejaculation longer (perhaps due initially to the lack of penile sensitivity and later I assume due to my advancing age). This delay, for whatever reason(s), pleases -- and pleasures -- both my wife and me. If it is due even in part to my circumcision, that must be considered a plus.

3. Finally, I believe that adult circumcision is a mental as well as a physical act. Living in a country during a time when most males indeed have been circumcised, I honestly have enjoyed my post-circumcision years more than the first half of my life which were marked with some ridicule and feelings of "being different." Combine that with a spouse who always expressed a personal preference for the look, feel and taste of a circumcised penis and I cannot help but believe that I did the right and proper thing in having my own foreskin removed. My only regret was that I did not act sooner.

Circumcision certainly is not for everyone. For example, I would agree that routine infant circumcision is a practice whose time has passed. Inflicting needless pain on newborns -- or anyone -- is a barbaric act. Further, I respect the opinions of those individuals who have had adult circumcisions and lived to regret it (perhaps a foreskin restoration is the logical answer for these men). However, only people who have never been circumcised -- women and intact men -- can fail to fully understand and appreciate the welcome mental relief and physical satisfaction that an adult circumcision can offer a man and his mate.

As previously noted, my only regret is not being circumcised sooner in life. I know the differences for myself and find them largely inconsequental in the physical sense but quite major in building one's self-esteem and self-confidence. My experience and feelings may be the exception to the circumcision rule; however, my wife and I are happy with the results and that is what matters most to me. 7/14/98


Regarding your request to seek personal information from those, male and female, who have had sex with both circumcised and intact, I offer my experience as a male, circumcised, but half-way down the road to full foreskin restoration.

I guess I had what was the typical circumcised penis... no problems that were obvious to me, but the usual naked glans. When erect the skin was taught and I could feel the tension. The dominant sensation during sex was friction of the rubbing along the shaft and glans of my penis... not unpleasant, but I didn’t know the difference.

Now, 2-1/2 years into an on-again-off-again foreskin restoration I can definitely report differences! Cosmetically it's pretty obvious.. when flaccid the glans is usually half-way covered, or at least the skin bunches up into loose folds around the glans (my flaccid length varies a lot.. anywhere from 2 to 5 inches). Erect, the skin remains loose.

During sex, the dominant sensation is no longer friction, but the tension of the skin being pulled in and out... an additional pleasurable and very different sensation entirely absent before restoration. It's hard to describe, but I must say it was well worth the time and effort put into restoration... certainly enough to encourage me to complete my restoration efforts! Peter, 3/6/98

I was circumcised by personal choice at age 23. I am fifty now. I can not tell any difference in sensitivity whatsoever. I can not imagine how my pleasure would be more if I had not been circumcised. I was exposed before I was circumcised during intercourse and am similarly exposed now. There is absolutely no difference. It is much easier to keep clean now and my partner enjoys giving oral sex much more and more often. I am very glad I was circumcised and have no regrets. I have met numerous women that prefer circumcision. I have met none that did not. 1/16/98

I'm a British, uncircumcised, married man aged 37. I have what by any standards would be considered a tight foreskin. It retracts when my penis is flaccid but can't get more than halfway back over the glans when it's erect. And yet:

- I've never experienced pain in masturbation, intercourse, etc etc.
- I have never had any urinary tract infections.
- I'm quite happy as I am !

In fact I only found out that my penis wasn't "normal" when one of my girlfriends remarked on it once. Briefly - we were having fun at the time. She never mentioned it again. Neither have any of my other sexual partners (between 5 and 10, if I'm counting).

I suspect that my foreskin might be unusually long (I've never had another erect man around to check with... it's not the kind of thing us guys tend to compare notes on, y'know...), but in any case, it has plenty of "play" to move up and down. It just seems like maybe the opening is too small (not stretchy enough) to fit all the glans through.

I went to a doctor once - he was a urologist. I thought he might be able to help maybe make the opening a little wider. But he was of the "any problems - snip it off" school. He was amazed I had children! He also said (really - I am not making this up - "maybe your wife doesn't mind, but a good-looking chap like you, you'll be getting yourself a mistress, and if she has any sort of sexual experience, she'll think you're weird". Well, I live in France, after all, but I think the guy probably spends too many hours each day looking at penises!

In my case the decision is clear: if it ain't broke, don't fix it, and in my case, it might not be exactly visually correct, but it works ! 2/10/98

I’m 33 and recently married. My father was circumcised at birth but he had no strong feelings one way or another. I guess that after the births of five daughters my parents didn’t really see why their newborn boy automatically needed surgery. The doctor in our small hometown was flatly opposed to circumcision and counseled them, also. I imagine that whole town was full of foreskins by the time he retired.

My mother told me about my penis’ being different from most other boys’ (90 percent in my age group) about the age of six. Unfortunately her way of conveying this made me feel ashamed, or at least very private about it. I wouldn’t shower or urinate in a trough with the other boys because I feared ridicule. (I was undoubtedly right, and it took years before I would even use an open stall in a public men’s room with my foreskin held back.) Showering at scout camp in my underwear, though, earned me plenty of razzing.

Finally, I explained to my best friend why I did that, and he told me his cousin was intact, too. It was a mild relief to exchange this information. Only one other boy I ever saw was intact. I spotted the red tip of his child’s foreskin as he was dressing in the school locker room. I didn’t know him, though, so it would have been difficult to ever raise the subject with him, boys being so averse to anything that might be construed as a gay come-on.

My favorite fantasy when I was a teen was to be lying on a bed and have all the attractive girls I knew standing around me, stroking my penis. They watched each other and me, and all of them got really worked up by the competition, since the winner would be the one with my penis in hand when I reached orgasm. I suppose this was my way of winning acceptance for being physically different from all the other boys -- difference as an advantage with the girls.

I was 18 the first time I had sex, but the room was so dark I don’t think the girl ever got a look at it. We were both awkward for a number of reasons, and she tried to make me climax manually with baby oil, which just didn't work. I showed her how the foreskin functions, but her efforts still fell short. I think there were too many other complications in that encounter for it to have gone well at all. The second time was a girl who took my penis in hand and slowly drew the skin all the way forward a couple of times before we proceeded with intercourse, as if she wasn’t sure what to make of it. It was a spur-of-the-moment encounter, and we never followed up.

My early girlfriends weren't close enough emotionally for me to talk much about my foreskin, or else maybe I was too hung up on the matter to be frank and forward about it. None of them seemed to dislike it. I keep it clean, so I guess the most obvious objection never came up. Mostly they wanted to know why I was an exception, what my parents were thinking. (Incidentally, my parents and I have not discussed the matter since the conversation noted earlier. We were not a close family.)

As an adult, I discovered Uncut magazine on a newsstand. It’s a gay porno magazine with pictures and stories about foreskin-related experiences. It was the first time I really “shared” other men’s experiences with their intact status, and I felt much better about myself from that point on. I quit hiding my penis in the gym, for one thing. Other men stared, but of course none would ever say anything. I should add that I’m not gay and have no desire for a same-sex encounter; however, being in such a small minority makes me curious about other men’s penises. I suppose this is akin to being one of only two persons of one race in a room full of people of another race -- your consciousness of what makes you different is greatly heightened.

Now I’m comfortable with my intact status, though socially careful about speaking up on the subject. As you undoubtedly know, the Web is just about the only place where foreskin comes up as a matter of conversation.

I mentioned earlier that I’ve just gotten married. Since my foreskin is the looser variety, reaching just over the tip when flaccid and automatically rolling back when erect, my wife really didn't know about it at first. (It was, of course, always erect by the time she saw it.)

Finally, after our first two sexual experiences together, I pointed my foreskin out to her and showed her what part comes off in a circumcision. She toyed with it a while, then said she couldn't imagine why anyone would want to be circumcised. She decided then that she would encourage any girlfriends of hers not to have their baby boys cut.

Later, while I was entering her lying on her back with her knees up high, I reached below us and held the skin back to demonstrate how abrasive a cut penis can be when there's no rolling skin to "give" just a little with each stroke. She got a look of sudden familiarity -- that was how it felt to have sex with her first (circumcised) boyfriend, and she had never liked the feeling. During sex, his fully exposed penis would dry just enough to make the friction slightly painful. She had thought that was the way sex was supposed to be.

I think intact men who are considerate can offer their wives a benefit. Before entering my wife, I roll my foreskin forward, then push slightly inside her to moisten the loose skin and glans. Then I hold the skin still and push the glans through it and into her. She loves this because the head enters her with no “dry” friction.

My wife has been wonderful about my foreskin. She loves and is fascinated by it. Once, on a trip to the zoo, she started laughing uncontrollably in the reptile section. I asked her why, and she pointed to a turtle just pulling his head back into his shell. “He has a foreskin, too!”

In my opinion, the most persuasive arguments against circumcision are (1) it is unnatural to force an internal organ (the glans) into becoming an external organ, and (2) if God meant for us not to have foreskins, he wouldn’t have put them on us in the first place. 3/10/98

Here is a description of the differences in sex between circ and uncirc men from a circumcised man who is gay. This will surely raise a lot of eyebrows. I would imagine a lot of you will get upset and question how I can include the experience of a gay man when talking about this. Obviously, women’s bodies work much differently. A woman can describe the difference for her personally, but she cannot feel what a man feels and cannot describe how it might be different for him. We women are often criticised for even discussing circumcision because we don’t have penises.

In my opinion, a gay circumcised man would be quite qualified, possibly even more than a woman, to clearly define the differences. Who better to give such a review? What we are talking about here is “the sexual value of the foreskin”. A gay man knows what men are capable of feeling. I would think a gay man has more insight because, unlike a woman, he possesses the very same equipment he is talking about. So here is what was sent to me from a gay man:

“I do think I have a lot of insight about this subject... Over the years I have noticed that uncircumcised men plainly have more intense pleasure (I see it as uncontrollable and very intense), erections last much longer and with much less stimulation. Circumcised men always need to be stimulated just so or they loose the feeling of pleasure.”

[jamieknyc]

So the rest of you know, the people adovating the law are little better than neo-Nazis. Here is a sample of their propaganda. The adversary of this image taken straight from nazi propaganda is the blonde, Aryan superhero "Foreskin Man."

[drugstore cowboy]

So the rest of you know, the people adovating the law are little better than neo-Nazis. Here is a sample of their propaganda. The adversary of this image taken straight from nazi propaganda is the blonde, Aryan superhero "Foreskin Man."

Playing the Victim card and Anti-Semetic card yet again eh? :rolleyes:

Yeah, those little girls in Africa should stop whining about their non-mutilated genitals too! You're a mindless ideologue.

The people who are against circumcision are not Anti-semetic or Neo-Nazis. You can claim that the comic's author might be but he's not affiliated with the law or voting, just producing a comic book that is a social commentary on why religious male genital mutilation because of an outdated religion is bad, nor does it mean that someone is "Anti-Semitic".

Jewish law also allows circumcision to be postponed indefinitely if a child is ill, offers a waiver to hemophiliacs, and lets parents skip it all together if two of their sons die from their circumcision. It's not as if it wasn't anticipated there would be risks.

There are even Jews who are against circumcision and they refuse to have it done to their sons at all I have dated them.

Incidentally, some of these risks arose after the rabinnical council decided around 150 AD that instead of just cutting off the bit of foreskin that overhangs the glans in a newborn, as had been practiced previously, the entire skin should be detached from the glans and cut off behind the head. This also meant that dads could no longer safely do it, as instructed in Genesis, and a new operator (mohel) had to be introduced.

Nowhere in the Torah or Talmud does it say you should have a party around the circumcision with out-of-town guests and serve lox and carrot cake.

Neither being "private" nor "ancient" protects a barbaric ritual from legitimate human rights condemnation. See female genital mutilation in Africa.

"TWO MORE BABIES have contracted herpes through an ancient circumcision rite, leading the city's top health official yesterday to release an open letter to the city's Orthodox Jewish community urging caution.

The practice, known in Hebrew as metzitzah b'peh, involves a practitioner, or mohel, drawing blood from a child's circumcision wound by mouth."

A Jewish or Muslim man should be allowed to decide for himself whether or not to have his foreskin removed in observance of his religious beliefs.


Forcing a religiously-motivated circumcision on him before he is an adult violates his religious rights. It's his penis, his beliefs, his decision, and it should not be anyone else's.

Religion does mess with peoples' minds. A lot of crazy stuff has been legitimized by religion. Why is it so important to do this to a small child? Could it be that if they can have a choice the vast majority would reject silly bronze age superstition?

Regardless of your idea on religion. Circumcism on someone who doesn't want it (or is too young to make a decision) absence any medical need is mutilation. A lot of people don't think of it that way because it was routine for awhile, but it is still mutilation. No different that female circumcism... which people get all riled up about. It still takes over a third of the nerve endings in a penis and can cause more harm than good. Infants should not be forced into taking on other people's beliefs. They can wait until they are adults to make their own decision about it.

Technically, the foreskin prevents kerotinization of the skin that it would ordinarily cover, reduces requirements for lubrication, and provides a degree of protection from external irritants.

As in the skin dries and becomes tougher... much as what happens to the skin at the heel of your foot. Obviously not to the same degree but the process is similar. The skin at the head of the penis is "normally" kept moist but when circumcised, the skin that would maintain moisture there is gone and thus allows the head of the penis to dry out for an extended period of time.

In simpler terms... ever jack off and had it feeling like it's rough on your skin? Bingo... keratinized skin.

As in the skin dries and becomes tougher... much as what happens to the skin at the heel of your foot. Obviously not to the same degree but the process is similar. The skin at the head of the penis is "normally" kept moist but when circumcised, the skin that would maintain moisture there is gone and thus allows the head of the penis to dry out for an extended period of time.

In simpler terms... ever jack off and had it feeling like it's rough on your skin? Bingo... keratinized skin.

If you want to cut off parts of your own dick as an adult, knock yourself out - just don't sit there and tell me you have a "right" to do something like that to someone else, anyone else - especially children.

The debate is whether it's ethically okay to perform an irreversible medical procedure on males who are unable to consent to it and in the absence of any consensus in the medical community that the procedure is warranted in all cases.

How anyone can argue that it is ethical totally escapes me.

I will say that I find it rather ironic that this is the same community which is offended by the idea that a religion might teach that a man having sex with another man is morally wrong and thinks that such a belief is antiquated and bigoted given the other parts of that same religious text that are gleefully ignored. It is Hypocritical in Judaism how they claim that getting a tattoo is somehow "mutilation" yet they practice mutilation of the male penis to infant boys.

And here y'all leap to the defense of that same religious text and its instructions to perform optional cosmetic surgery or a mutilation on an infant's sexual organs... why? Because it's somehow more rational than the prescription against eating pork or wearing a garment of mixed fibers? Getting a tattoo (in violation of that religious text) is a personal choice but having the most sensitive part mutilated off your child's dick is sacrosanct.

[Katja]

So the rest of you know, the people adovating the law are little better than neo-Nazis. Here is a sample of their propaganda. The adversary of this image taken straight from nazi propaganda is the blonde, Aryan superhero "Foreskin Man."

I assume you mean advocating you offensive little shit. Don't you dare equate what I do or people like me on this or any other issue as being little better than neo-nazi. Your insecurity doesn't become you and drugstore cowboy has a valid point about you playing the victim and anti semetic card.

You claim to be a lawyer just answer me this little poser; by advocating legislative change within a democratic society is necessary how is that neo nazi? You yourself are advocating use of the law to resist change. Does that make you also a neo nazi?

Or is it only those who advocate change who are neo nazi? Do you not accept that legislative change is very often necessary and desirable? If so, and you advocate legislative change does that not also make you in your own ill considered words, a neo nazi?

I suggest that as a lawyer you prepare your arguments a little more thoughtfully and carefully before you are hoist by your own petard.

[littlerayofsunshine]

I assume you mean advocating you offensive little shit. Don't you dare equate what I do or people like me on this or any other issue as being little better than neo-nazi. Your insecurity doesn't become you and drugstore cowboy has a valid point about you playing the victim and anti semetic card.

You claim to be a lawyer just answer me this little poser; by advocating legislative change within a democratic society is necessary how is that neo nazi? You yourself are advocating use of the law to resist change. Does that make you also a neo nazi?

Or is it only those who advocate change who are neo nazi? Do you not accept that legislative change is very often necessary and desirable? If so, and you advocate legislative change does that not also make you in your own ill considered words, a neo nazi?

I suggest that as a lawyer you prepare your arguments a little more thoughtfully and carefully before you are hoist by your own petard.

Katja,

If I am not mistaken he was not referencing anyone on this site in his statement, just merely pointing out/describing to... those who are advocating for the law to pass in the US who are inside US borders. Yours and others (outside of the US) opinions though relevant to the forum. Are not relevant to a law you can not vote for, which if I am not mistaken, is the basis for this post.

I find the venom in your post to Jamie uncalled for. This is only one topic of many he has ever posted on. Experts none of us are, but to base character on one topic in one forum when one topic does not a character make.

Keep it Civil. The Nazi card was played early on in the topic and it wasn't offensive then, shouldn't be relevant now..

[jamieknyc]

I see that exposure of what the people pushing this referendum stand for hit a nerve. Their teacher Julius Streicher shouted the same sort of things at his execution at Nuremberg.

[TaylorMade]

Walks into thread. . . picks up hot dog and puts catsup and mustard on it. Picks up cider on the way out.

Fuck this shit, man. :tongue:

*Taylor*

[mikey3000]

Personal Accounts of The Male Experience:

My sexual partners also developed a preference for the uncircumcised penis. The one I am currently with enjoys performing oral sex on me very much, and believes that my penis is A LOT more sensitive than some circumcised men's, mainly because of her expert use of the frenulum, which gives me many "mini-orgasms" along the way, and plenty of aftershocks. I believe my orgasms through oral sex to be very powerful, almost nearing the experience of a female orgasm. Though we practice much less intercourse than oral sex, I have always found intercourse to be very pleasurable.

My partner will probably send in her account of the differences between her experiences with cut and intact males. You are correct in saying that a lot of it depends on the attitude of the male towards his penis, and his comfort with it. I have become VERY comfortable with mine, and would even entertain the idea of going to a nude beach. Because of this, all my sexual partners (okay, there were only thee of them... *S*) have developed a preference for intact men, though they did not have any prior dislike of them, to my knowledge, but were mainly unaware of the differences.

I believe a penis should be left intact unless absolutely necessary, and would fight to prevent the procedure should I one day have a son, as I would view that with absolute horror. And I pray that I, myself, do not have to have it done at any time in my life. I have gone from feeling very bad about myself and my anatomy to the polar opposite, loving myself, my body, and my penis. I am very proud to be uncut, and I can't help but feel a bit lucky.

I just finished reading almost all of the information on John Erickson's web site, In Memory of the Sexually Mutilated Child, and I must say, I am impressed. I recommend this site to everyone, especially those folks at the Circumcised American Academy of Pediatrics. In particular I would like to mention the series of photographs titled, "the three zones of penile skin." These [GRAPHIC] photographs suggest that, for coital purposes, the penis is actually an internal organ. We can easily see this in the dog, whose foreskin is thick and covered with fur. It is an internal organ and the thought of circumcising a dog is therefore repugnant to most of us. In fact, I would venture to guess that for most mammals the sexual part of the penis is similarly internalized. The photographs mentioned above tend to support the thesis that, for sexual purposes at least, the human penis is also an internal organ. As a 64 year old intact male who has engaged the female vagina (another clearly internal organ) in intercourse thousands of times, I can vouch for the fact that Mother Nature got it right, and that the biblical deity who flim-flammed Abraham into externalizing his organ and those of his descendants, got it wrong. There is no better sex than sex between two consenting internal organs.

The circumcised folks at the Circumcised American Academy of Pediatrics should delay their position statement until they have digested the material at Mr. Erickson's web site. Then they should take the position - a position clearly rooted in reality - that circumcision has no benefits, but has many disadvantages, and is contra-indicated. February 1999 - Permission granted to feature these comments here from the poster, Raymond Doherty

When I was 13 my body was growing, and like many teenagers, my hormones were raging. One night I had an erection that quickly turned painful. When I looked at my penis I discovered blood... blood coming from a tear in the skin of my penis. I was painfully aware that at that time I did not have enough skin to cover my own erection. It took several weeks for the tear to heal, with many lesser tears occurring any time I had an erection.

When I was 21 it happened again... This time while I was in bed with a girlfriend. The pain and embarrassment cannot possibly be described with words. Again it took weeks to heal, with several tears occurring while I was healing.

Do not [attempt to] rationalize the "minor discomfort" that an infant feels to the pain and suffering of those who have had painful erections, abnormal disfigurements, complete penile loss, and loss of life. (Did you hear about Dustin Evans Jr who died in Cleveland OH on 11/22/98)? This is a post excerpt from entry in Ethics in Wound Care discussion group under the thread of Anti-Circumcision, also posted in AC Talklist by MAC Member on 12/26/98

“Later in life, the foreskin plays an important part in arousement, penile sensation, and ease of penetration. I had my foreskin removed at the age of 47 to avoid those old age problems I read about. What I discovered is that I lost about 50% of penetration pleasure. ...I feel that I made a mistake to reduce the level of sensation and expose that very sensitive bare penis tissue to jockey shorts, athletic supports, etc. I believe the unit was meant to be covered and protected until ready for use. I believe I would have enjoyed the added pleasure of sexual intercourse with my foreskin intact.”
Getting circumcised was the most foolish thing I've done in my life. I had it done when I was 27.

It 's now been three full years since this grave mistake was made. Having grown up in the U.S., as hard as it is to admit, I got circumcised purely out of curiosity, as the subject had been so close to the top of my mind for all my life.

I was quite sexually active before marriage, and had a pretty normal sex life after marriage for two years before my reduction. Now I am essentially only interested in oral sex, as vaginal sex does not provide the detailed sensations that it did when I had a foreskin. The last thing a foreskin is - is a hindrance to sex. The analogy of "seeing without color" is perfectly apt to describe sex without a foreskin. Rather than being a touch-sensitive organ, it becomes merely a pressure-sensitive tool. BIG DIFFERENCE! 1/3/98

Describing what it’s like for her husband who was circed during his 20s, another person says: “He said that he lost a lot of sensitivity and masturbating with the foreskin was very nice and he missed doing that.”

“At 40 I sure wish that I had the benefit of the sensory nerve endings lost to circumcision and the protection and comfort afforded by a foreskin. All the interaction of my brain and thought process will never replace the pleasure lost. I want it back!”


I was born in a family where half of the boys were circumcised and half not. I always wondered about that and when I developed a subcutaneous cyst under my penis shaft, I discussed its removal and along with that a complete circumcision. I was 46 years old.

The surgeon removed too much foreskin under the shaft to excise the cyst and healing was uncomfortable during erections. When my healing did occur I did enjoy vigorous sex as the new wound stimulated me, however, I never did get over the uncomfortable sensation of the penis head.

I am now 64 and sure wish I did not lose that foreskin. In later life, in my opinion, not having that foreskin stroking sensation, is a bummer. If I had my druthers, I would opt to keep what my body came with, a complete foreskin. When a male gets older, that foreskin has to help him reach a climax due to the friction of the movement of the foreskin. I don't know because I ignorantly had mine removed. However, if there was a donor and no chance of cross contamination, I would certainly consider a foreskin transplant just to see if I am right. 6/18/97

I was very interested in your web site on the differences of circ'd vs uncirc'd men. I am a 28 year old straight male that was circ'd as a baby. I am currently practicing non-surgical foreskin restoration. I have found that there is a tremendous difference in feeling now that my glans has begun to heal from all the years of constant rubbing on my clothing. I haven't regained enough skin to cover the glans while erect, but I can feel the lubricating effect of the foreskin while making love semi erect. To those men thinking about getting circ'd later in life, Keep what you have! 12/18/97

I was circumcised in my late 30s after fathering three sons (all of whom were routinely circumcised shortly following birth). My surgery was entirely elective (both my spouse and I prefer the look of a circumcised penis) and I found it a both brief and relatively painless procedure. I entered a local hospital as an outpatient and the operation took less than 30 minutes. I was under local anesthesia (several shots at the base of my penis quickly numbed the organ). The urologist, using a freehand technique, first made a dorsal cut in my foreskin and clamped off the bleeding tissue. He then clipped away the foreskin around the entire circumference of my penis, using what appeared to be surgical scissors and a scalpel. He then neatly sutured the incision which was located approximately one-half inch below the corona. Bleeding was minimal and I felt no pain whatsoever, only a notable pressure where the foreskin was being cut away. Watching the surgery was fascinating.

No pain followed the operation although I would wake up with nightly erections (the pressure around my incision was uncomfortable but not really painful, quickly going away when the erection faded). Within two and one-half weeks the sutures were gone and I was left with a small, barely noticeable circumcision scar.

My first post-circumcision sex was normal and quite enjoyable, as it had always been prior to the surgery. With each erection I felt some pressure around the circumcision scar for a month or more after my surgery; however, the sensation of pressure soon faded and finally disappeared completely.

Now, decades later, having lived about half of my life intact and half as a circumcised male, I believe I can speak with some experience and authority on the subject, providing the type of personal information you seek. Following are my candid conclusions:

1. There is no question the head of my uncircumcised penis was more sensitive than it is today. Also, penetration was easier to achieve before my surgery, especially when my wife was not fully aroused and moist. Regardless, both oral and vaginal sex remain pleasurable today. Other than these two changes, I found absolutely nothing different between pre- and post-circumcision sex. My circumcised penis has less notable odor but that was never an issue or problem prior to surgery.

2. After my circumcision, over time I found I was able to delay ejaculation longer (perhaps due initially to the lack of penile sensitivity and later I assume due to my advancing age). This delay, for whatever reason(s), pleases -- and pleasures -- both my wife and me. If it is due even in part to my circumcision, that must be considered a plus.

3. Finally, I believe that adult circumcision is a mental as well as a physical act. Living in a country during a time when most males indeed have been circumcised, I honestly have enjoyed my post-circumcision years more than the first half of my life which were marked with some ridicule and feelings of "being different." Combine that with a spouse who always expressed a personal preference for the look, feel and taste of a circumcised penis and I cannot help but believe that I did the right and proper thing in having my own foreskin removed. My only regret was that I did not act sooner.

Circumcision certainly is not for everyone. For example, I would agree that routine infant circumcision is a practice whose time has passed. Inflicting needless pain on newborns -- or anyone -- is a barbaric act. Further, I respect the opinions of those individuals who have had adult circumcisions and lived to regret it (perhaps a foreskin restoration is the logical answer for these men). However, only people who have never been circumcised -- women and intact men -- can fail to fully understand and appreciate the welcome mental relief and physical satisfaction that an adult circumcision can offer a man and his mate.

As previously noted, my only regret is not being circumcised sooner in life. I know the differences for myself and find them largely inconsequental in the physical sense but quite major in building one's self-esteem and self-confidence. My experience and feelings may be the exception to the circumcision rule; however, my wife and I are happy with the results and that is what matters most to me. 7/14/98


Regarding your request to seek personal information from those, male and female, who have had sex with both circumcised and intact, I offer my experience as a male, circumcised, but half-way down the road to full foreskin restoration.

I guess I had what was the typical circumcised penis... no problems that were obvious to me, but the usual naked glans. When erect the skin was taught and I could feel the tension. The dominant sensation during sex was friction of the rubbing along the shaft and glans of my penis... not unpleasant, but I didn’t know the difference.

Now, 2-1/2 years into an on-again-off-again foreskin restoration I can definitely report differences! Cosmetically it's pretty obvious.. when flaccid the glans is usually half-way covered, or at least the skin bunches up into loose folds around the glans (my flaccid length varies a lot.. anywhere from 2 to 5 inches). Erect, the skin remains loose.

During sex, the dominant sensation is no longer friction, but the tension of the skin being pulled in and out... an additional pleasurable and very different sensation entirely absent before restoration. It's hard to describe, but I must say it was well worth the time and effort put into restoration... certainly enough to encourage me to complete my restoration efforts! Peter, 3/6/98

I was circumcised by personal choice at age 23. I am fifty now. I can not tell any difference in sensitivity whatsoever. I can not imagine how my pleasure would be more if I had not been circumcised. I was exposed before I was circumcised during intercourse and am similarly exposed now. There is absolutely no difference. It is much easier to keep clean now and my partner enjoys giving oral sex much more and more often. I am very glad I was circumcised and have no regrets. I have met numerous women that prefer circumcision. I have met none that did not. 1/16/98

I'm a British, uncircumcised, married man aged 37. I have what by any standards would be considered a tight foreskin. It retracts when my penis is flaccid but can't get more than halfway back over the glans when it's erect. And yet:

- I've never experienced pain in masturbation, intercourse, etc etc.
- I have never had any urinary tract infections.
- I'm quite happy as I am !

In fact I only found out that my penis wasn't "normal" when one of my girlfriends remarked on it once. Briefly - we were having fun at the time. She never mentioned it again. Neither have any of my other sexual partners (between 5 and 10, if I'm counting).

I suspect that my foreskin might be unusually long (I've never had another erect man around to check with... it's not the kind of thing us guys tend to compare notes on, y'know...), but in any case, it has plenty of "play" to move up and down. It just seems like maybe the opening is too small (not stretchy enough) to fit all the glans through.

I went to a doctor once - he was a urologist. I thought he might be able to help maybe make the opening a little wider. But he was of the "any problems - snip it off" school. He was amazed I had children! He also said (really - I am not making this up - "maybe your wife doesn't mind, but a good-looking chap like you, you'll be getting yourself a mistress, and if she has any sort of sexual experience, she'll think you're weird". Well, I live in France, after all, but I think the guy probably spends too many hours each day looking at penises!

In my case the decision is clear: if it ain't broke, don't fix it, and in my case, it might not be exactly visually correct, but it works ! 2/10/98

I’m 33 and recently married. My father was circumcised at birth but he had no strong feelings one way or another. I guess that after the births of five daughters my parents didn’t really see why their newborn boy automatically needed surgery. The doctor in our small hometown was flatly opposed to circumcision and counseled them, also. I imagine that whole town was full of foreskins by the time he retired.

My mother told me about my penis’ being different from most other boys’ (90 percent in my age group) about the age of six. Unfortunately her way of conveying this made me feel ashamed, or at least very private about it. I wouldn’t shower or urinate in a trough with the other boys because I feared ridicule. (I was undoubtedly right, and it took years before I would even use an open stall in a public men’s room with my foreskin held back.) Showering at scout camp in my underwear, though, earned me plenty of razzing.

Finally, I explained to my best friend why I did that, and he told me his cousin was intact, too. It was a mild relief to exchange this information. Only one other boy I ever saw was intact. I spotted the red tip of his child’s foreskin as he was dressing in the school locker room. I didn’t know him, though, so it would have been difficult to ever raise the subject with him, boys being so averse to anything that might be construed as a gay come-on.

My favorite fantasy when I was a teen was to be lying on a bed and have all the attractive girls I knew standing around me, stroking my penis. They watched each other and me, and all of them got really worked up by the competition, since the winner would be the one with my penis in hand when I reached orgasm. I suppose this was my way of winning acceptance for being physically different from all the other boys -- difference as an advantage with the girls.

I was 18 the first time I had sex, but the room was so dark I don’t think the girl ever got a look at it. We were both awkward for a number of reasons, and she tried to make me climax manually with baby oil, which just didn't work. I showed her how the foreskin functions, but her efforts still fell short. I think there were too many other complications in that encounter for it to have gone well at all. The second time was a girl who took my penis in hand and slowly drew the skin all the way forward a couple of times before we proceeded with intercourse, as if she wasn’t sure what to make of it. It was a spur-of-the-moment encounter, and we never followed up.

My early girlfriends weren't close enough emotionally for me to talk much about my foreskin, or else maybe I was too hung up on the matter to be frank and forward about it. None of them seemed to dislike it. I keep it clean, so I guess the most obvious objection never came up. Mostly they wanted to know why I was an exception, what my parents were thinking. (Incidentally, my parents and I have not discussed the matter since the conversation noted earlier. We were not a close family.)

As an adult, I discovered Uncut magazine on a newsstand. It’s a gay porno magazine with pictures and stories about foreskin-related experiences. It was the first time I really “shared” other men’s experiences with their intact status, and I felt much better about myself from that point on. I quit hiding my penis in the gym, for one thing. Other men stared, but of course none would ever say anything. I should add that I’m not gay and have no desire for a same-sex encounter; however, being in such a small minority makes me curious about other men’s penises. I suppose this is akin to being one of only two persons of one race in a room full of people of another race -- your consciousness of what makes you different is greatly heightened.

Now I’m comfortable with my intact status, though socially careful about speaking up on the subject. As you undoubtedly know, the Web is just about the only place where foreskin comes up as a matter of conversation.

I mentioned earlier that I’ve just gotten married. Since my foreskin is the looser variety, reaching just over the tip when flaccid and automatically rolling back when erect, my wife really didn't know about it at first. (It was, of course, always erect by the time she saw it.)

Finally, after our first two sexual experiences together, I pointed my foreskin out to her and showed her what part comes off in a circumcision. She toyed with it a while, then said she couldn't imagine why anyone would want to be circumcised. She decided then that she would encourage any girlfriends of hers not to have their baby boys cut.

Later, while I was entering her lying on her back with her knees up high, I reached below us and held the skin back to demonstrate how abrasive a cut penis can be when there's no rolling skin to "give" just a little with each stroke. She got a look of sudden familiarity -- that was how it felt to have sex with her first (circumcised) boyfriend, and she had never liked the feeling. During sex, his fully exposed penis would dry just enough to make the friction slightly painful. She had thought that was the way sex was supposed to be.

I think intact men who are considerate can offer their wives a benefit. Before entering my wife, I roll my foreskin forward, then push slightly inside her to moisten the loose skin and glans. Then I hold the skin still and push the glans through it and into her. She loves this because the head enters her with no “dry” friction.

My wife has been wonderful about my foreskin. She loves and is fascinated by it. Once, on a trip to the zoo, she started laughing uncontrollably in the reptile section. I asked her why, and she pointed to a turtle just pulling his head back into his shell. “He has a foreskin, too!”

In my opinion, the most persuasive arguments against circumcision are (1) it is unnatural to force an internal organ (the glans) into becoming an external organ, and (2) if God meant for us not to have foreskins, he wouldn’t have put them on us in the first place. 3/10/98

Here is a description of the differences in sex between circ and uncirc men from a circumcised man who is gay. This will surely raise a lot of eyebrows. I would imagine a lot of you will get upset and question how I can include the experience of a gay man when talking about this. Obviously, women’s bodies work much differently. A woman can describe the difference for her personally, but she cannot feel what a man feels and cannot describe how it might be different for him. We women are often criticised for even discussing circumcision because we don’t have penises.

In my opinion, a gay circumcised man would be quite qualified, possibly even more than a woman, to clearly define the differences. Who better to give such a review? What we are talking about here is “the sexual value of the foreskin”. A gay man knows what men are capable of feeling. I would think a gay man has more insight because, unlike a woman, he possesses the very same equipment he is talking about. So here is what was sent to me from a gay man:

“I do think I have a lot of insight about this subject... Over the years I have noticed that uncircumcised men plainly have more intense pleasure (I see it as uncontrollable and very intense), erections last much longer and with much less stimulation. Circumcised men always need to be stimulated just so or they loose the feeling of pleasure.”

Dude, why don't you ever include your sources? How can anyone believe you without your links? It sounds just like stuff you'd make up.

[Long Duck Dong]

Honestly you do waffle on.

In England and Wales the abortion rate last year was 17.5 per 1000 pregnancies and in Scotland 12.4. For girls under the age of 16 it was 3.9 per 1000 pregnancies in England and Wales even less north of the border. It hardly shows that under 16 girls are particularly abortion mad. The highest rates are among 16-19 girls but that isnt surprising given their bolt to freedom and the appalling sex education which are provided. Half of all abortions are for women with partners so are they too irresponsible as a species?

I have not studied new Zealnd but I will be surprised if their statistics are so bad that the world is comming to an end. You are typical of a certain kind of eprson who draws out every statiistic and makes it as black as can be. I do not consider an abortion rate of less than 0.4% among girls under the age of 16 in this country appalling. You do not record stats in your country fine but I bet they are somewhere and I will be surprised if they are so bad they deserve the kind of rebuke you give it. That they could be better no doubt and should be, but (ain the UK at least) they are improving, but a figure of less than 4 per thousand pregnancies is not something we should be so hysterical about.

The young are bad. They are out of control. I have heard it all before and there are always going to be rotten apples. But most are not bad and most are not rotten apples.

They should be respected for what they are. Children and young people who are our future. They will never be perfect, but they are not as bad as adults like you make them out to be.

It doesnt matter how children behave in any case. Or young teenagers. Not in the context of this debate. What matters is the respect we give them and the realisation and knowledge of who they are themselves and to respect. We do not give them that by forcibly removing a part of their penis or any other part of their body when there is no sound immediate medical reason.

I notice how you are quoting stats for your part of the world, when I was refering to my part of the world...... and something that is happening in MY country as a result of OUR laws..... not your country as a result of YOUR laws......

its not about making the youth out to be bad, as the youth are not adults of a past generation that can see a difference and a change.... the youth of today are growing up with things they see as normal.... while people like me can remember when pac man and space invaders hit the scene for the first time and we were blown away by it......

the youth may be far better informed and have far better access to info than we did growing up...... but the rights they have, are also far wider than we had.... and they are growing up, seeing that freedom and their rights are normal..... people like us, know that it never used to be like that.....

its part of the reason we have anti abortion groups surfacing everywhere.... we created a situation where abortions could grow at a alarming rate, not cos the youth are bad... but cos there is a alarming increase in the number of abortions....and the youth do not see they are doing anything wrong, just exercising their rights that they have been informed about

sure you can argue that the youth are not as bad as I make out.... but I think I will trust the stats that are showing that the youth of today are out of control.... and the government that is now working to cut back on the freedoms the youth have..... and if they are reacting to PUBLIC PRESSURE to take action... then its clearly not just me that can see there are issues....


so here is the link to the stats page for NZ....since you have not studied them....
NZ abortion stats (http://www.abortion.gen.nz/information/statistics.html)

remember its not about making the youth look bad.... its showing the results of rights of choice going bad...... when use of a condom could change so much.... IE STI, abortion, teen parents etc..... but the right of choice with a condom is still a right of choice

[drugstore cowboy]

Dude, why don't you ever include your sources? How can anyone believe you without your links? It sounds just like stuff you'd make up.

I found what you quoted at mothersagainstcirc.org

If you want to actually read or find my sources you easily can. At least I'm not posting junk science like you are.

[Long Duck Dong]

lol just out of curiosity, how the hell do some people manage to have a conversation / debate face to face... cos they can not copy and paste everything, they actually have to talk......

and out of curiosity... if people are making the * right * choices, based on being well informed, and doing the right thing, why do we always seem to end up banning things or making them illegal.... unless it proves that we can not respect freedom of choice, we want to control what people do with their lives....

its not really about respecting freedom of choice is it... its about control of others..... in the same way the anti LGBT want control over marriage and the right to tell others what they can and can not do.... when often, the anti LGBT are not interested in being married themselves.....

its what I am seeing in the thread... control over other people and their children, when we have none ourselves, so can not really live by the same rules we want others to live by......

yeah I can see jamies point very clearly..........

[drugstore cowboy]

I see that exposure of what the people pushing this referendum stand for hit a nerve. Their teacher Julius Streicher shouted the same sort of things at his execution at Nuremberg.

*Yawn* Big surprise! Yet another Holocaust reference! :rolleyes:

Don't you ever get tired of the bad stereotypes, faux martyrdom, and false victimhood that you fall into? Do you ever stop being too easily offended and get tired of forcing political correctness and your brand of censorship on people?

Have you actually read the comic strip, all of it? All of the issues?

The character Foreskin man is not antisemitic. He obviously likes jewish people. His girlfriend is jewish and the baby's mother is his girlfriends sister. He seems to love the baby Glick in the comic. The conflict is between the boy's father (Jethro - pro cutting) and baby Glick's mother (anti-cutting). That said, you don't need to hold old traditions as unchangeable issues. Judaism must evolve past the 2000 BCE era. Reform Jews who are against male circumcision yet still Jewish realize human rights, infant/children's rights to their genitals, science and love are key to success and that mutilating a boy's penis while there are other ways to have a covenant with G-d besides mutilation are what actually work instead of mindless religious dogma, groupthink, resistance to change, and performing outdated barbaric male genital mutilation do.

If you have issues with the comic or the artwork in the comic books, take it up with the comic's author and the comic's illustrator.

Then again I'm sure you'd consider the TV show Southpark, the Jewish characters on Southpark, the character Eric Cartman on Southpark and Southpark creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone all to be "Anti-Semitic".

Earlier in the thread and when you first mentioned the comic strip you falsely claimed that everyone that's against male genital mutilation and for this law is somehow "Anti-Semitic" in your mind.

Orthodox and Conservative Jewish political groups are now claiming that everyone that's against male genital mutilation is somehow "Anti-Semitic". Orthodox and Conservative Jews are also highly homophobic/biphobic, against GLBT rights, and against same gender marriage.

I know many Jews who are against circumcision and they consider it to be mutilation, and they did not get their sons circumcised.

I guess you'd consider them to be Anti-Semitic as well since they're not conforming to their religion's silly dogma or familial pressures that say that they must mutilate their sons' penises.

Then again perhaps you do not even consider these Jews who are against male genital mutilation to actually be *really* Jewish at all in your mind or opinion. I'm sure you do not consider Jews that get tattoos and do not keep Kosher, and who were born Jewish or raised Jewish but who are now very liberal Jews or even Atheist Jews or Agnostic Jews to somehow not be Jewish at all.

The people who are against male genital mutilation and who are for this proposed law in California both in the United States and worldwide, are not Anti-Semitic even if you wish that they were.

I'm in SF and I am for the proposed law that will ban male genital mutilation here. Most people gay, bisexual, and straight of all ages and even Jewish and Muslim are for the circumcision ban as well since there needs to be equality when it comes to genital mutilation as it is hypocritical to say "Female Circumcision is wrong, illegal, rightfully illegal, and disgusting! But male circumcision is fine, must be done because of a religion, must be protected by law, and it's OK to mutilate a baby boy's genitals!"

[nakedheathen]

I note the lack of comments regarding circumcision and STDs? How about some facts on the number of STDs that decrease as circumcision increases in non industrialized countries?

I am cut and it works fine. Dont feel strongly one way or the other except that I really dont think that governments have the right to tell parents how to raise their children. But before all the "but what if you were beating your kids to death" arguements come running out, there is a difference between abhorent behavior, ie killing abusing children, and having a surgical procedure performed that doesnt threaten the life and is in keeping with that families religous traditions.

Finally, is male circumcision illegal any where else in the world?

[Bisexualnewbie]

Being British I'm uncut as are most guys and boys in England, it's just not something that is done.
It is strange being in the US and telling partners that I am uncut, usually they want to see or touch it.
Personally I love the way my own penis looks and if I could find a guy with a cock like mine I'd be all over him with a drooling mouth.;)

[BiDaveDtown]

I note the lack of comments regarding circumcision and STDs? How about some facts on the number of STDs that decrease as circumcision increases in non industrialized countries?

I am cut and it works fine. Dont feel strongly one way or the other except that I really dont think that governments have the right to tell parents how to raise their children. But before all the "but what if you were beating your kids to death" arguements come running out, there is a difference between abhorent behavior, ie killing abusing children, and having a surgical procedure performed that doesnt threaten the life and is in keeping with that families religous traditions.

Finally, is male circumcision illegal any where else in the world?

Do more research on HIV/STDs and circumcision or read the posts about it here that are not fradulent junk science promoted by the WHO which have been picked apart and dismembered by people who know what they're talking about when it comes to HIV/STDs, studies and research, and raw data.

You'll see how there's no link between circumcision or male genital mutilation and decreasing HIV and STD rates, and in fact that in many cases circumcision increases the risk of HIV infection and transmission and the infection and transmission of STDs.

Condoms and having safer sex work better than any sort of circumcision or genital mutilation does.

You can claim that "I'm cut and it works fine!" much like women and girls from Africa and the Middle East who have been cut but don't know the difference can claim this about their genitals.

Male circumcision decreases sensitivity and pleasure in the penis, and for women and men who've never been with an intact man with a foreskin they don't know the difference.

Yes male genital mutilation has been restricted in some Scandinavian countries and other European countries as these countries are in the modern age of 2011 and are against the mutilation of a child or baby boy or girl's genitals without their consent.

There are many doctors, surgeons, and nurses in these countries who will refuse to do a circumcision on any baby or child.

[Long Duck Dong]

I note the lack of comments regarding circumcision and STDs? How about some facts on the number of STDs that decrease as circumcision increases in non industrialized countries?

I am cut and it works fine. Dont feel strongly one way or the other except that I really dont think that governments have the right to tell parents how to raise their children. But before all the "but what if you were beating your kids to death" arguements come running out, there is a difference between abhorent behavior, ie killing abusing children, and having a surgical procedure performed that doesnt threaten the life and is in keeping with that families religous traditions.

Finally, is male circumcision illegal any where else in the world?

as of 2007, no its not illegal anywhere in the world, and that may have changed... but I can not find any countries where it is...... only countries where it is restricted.....
its female circumcision ( non medical ) that is illegal in a number of countries.....
( updated ) can not find any countries in the world, where circumcision is illegal, only restricted as of january 2011... so would love to see what countries bidived is talking about....

yes there are people that will not circumcise a child, but that is personal choice.... a bit like the chemists that refuse to fill birth control prescriptions cos of their religious beliefs ( there is one in the town I live in,... and its been stated that its legal for them to refuse to fill prescriptions, but not legal for them to preach personal beliefs in a professional role )

one of the reasons why african countries are used for circumcision studies and STI studies, is the catholic movement is strong over there and opposes the use of birth control ( ironic that they oppose it in places with children dying and starving to death in their 1000's ) and due to the different culture and way of life, and high aids / hiv infection rate, it is one of the perfect places for studying the effects of circumcision / aids, hiv, std

be careful of the studies and reports tho....a few years ago, there was a set of studies that turned out to be totally false, the * guy * that wrote them, was actually a female, using info from other studies and altered to reflect findings that were truely false...... what makes me laugh, is that the pro and anti circumcision groups still use them as proof of their claims, without checking the validity of the studies.....and they are posting and proclaiming the findings of a female that worked in a pizza parlour and never finished high school... yet 3 of the actual experts listed on it, stated they were true findings, even after the truth came out.....

[sammie19]

its not really about respecting freedom of choice is it... its about control of others.....



LDD, what is more controlling than having an amost helpless infant child who is unable to answer for himself strapped down on a tray and a scalpel taken to his healthy little cock?

[Long Duck Dong]

LDD, what is more controlling than having an amost helpless infant child who is unable to answer for himself strapped down on a tray and a scalpel taken to his healthy little cock?

a circumcision is one operation.... not multiple ops,... but as I got told in this thread, multiple ops are different cos they are done out of love.....

speaking from the experience of a child that was old enuf to understand on going pain and suffering, mentally and emotionally, and hearing their parents constantly say its cos they loved me that I was going thru operation after operation and begging them to stop cos it hurt so much.....

you want to talk about the rights of a child... then apply the fucking rights to all children, not just the ones that suit your purpose.....

you wanna really know about pain, go spend a week in a childrens ward and see what they go thru.... and the way people stay around and say the children are so courageous and strong...... and ignore the fact the children have no fucking choice......

sure reason it out that you are saving the childrens lives by your actions so its a good thing.... but tell me something... who feels the pain, you or them.....

don't tell me about childrens rights when its about your own agenda.....and you are ignoring 99% of the hell children go thru cos you can not say its wrong to do it.....

[TaylorMade]

Tenni, Please.. have an on topic opinion or move on. You are like the old fart still combatin the cowboys and the indians that only live in your mind, but try to make us all relive your delusions. You are the second most mysoginystic, xenophobic, and damn near racist bloke on the block. So many people are too scared to get involved in your pettiness, But damn man, At your age, and how you try to show yourself as an "artistic" man. You should be able to rise above all this childishness that you relay. You offer less insight and ramble on, spending 40 minutes to edit and re edit thoughts to make yourself feel better, diluting any point you might have potentially made. In fact I never understood why you never have a full opinion. But normally end on a question or a smirk. BTW The story of the little girl you wrote twice in two different post, Made me shutter.


Back to the topic of circ. I wish molestation would stop being used as a term in reference of. Honestly as a child victim of it. Its an insult to us. The thousands year old practice of removing a piece of flesh that doesn't inhibit growth, function, or remove all sensitivity is not molestation. Molestation involves sexual gratification and deviancy or a way to gain power and control over an individual. Circ is a preference, a preference granted the infant doesn't have choice in. But neither does an infant that gets her ears pierced, or a tribal child that gets forced tattooed to show status or tribe.

Male circ shouldn't be banned, If it was you would see so many religious followers leave, their technology leave, their tax dollars, money... Leave.. There are still grown men that go and have it done, there are grown men that wish that it hadn't been done to them. Some boys need it, due to the fact that their foreskin didn't develop normally and it is too tight around the head of an erect penis, that friction from movement, sex, masturbation, causes intense pain and sometimes tearing, the scars remaining can cause even more pain and lessen retraction of the foreskin. They split the scars and hope it works, so for some circ may be what helps them lead a normal healthy sexual life.

FEMALE CIRC is not comparable to male circ and to even be able to compare. the removal of the glans would have to take place. So lets back off that argument. Female circ is done in pubescent times, male circ at newborn stage, where chemicals are flooding through the body and even a action such as suckling a nipple, dummy, or bottle will cause pain relieving hormones to ease the discomfort.. Male circ is done to this day for esthetic reasons and health reasons *Where proven or not* Based on religious values. Female circ is done to make a woman less sexual, to make a girl less responsive, to make them not get pregnant at a young age, to make them less likely to cheat on their husband to whom they were most likely promised to by the time the child was school age. To gain power over the girl and to control her.. That is the true molestation.

Shout out to Ninny ******Hugs girl**** You gave me a lady boner when I saw your post. LTNS!

I'm just quoting this post because it's awesome. :D

*Taylor*

[drugstore cowboy]

For those who believe male circumcision should be allowed for religious reasons; GET REAL.

Do you know what the bible, what Orthodox Judaism and most of Islam says about us bisexual and gay men?!

I guess it also means that you condone female circumcision for religious reasons and the fact that Christianity, Orthodox Judaism, and especially Islam put women in a subservient position to that of men.

If you're arguing for male circumcision because of religion/culture, or freedom of religion then you are for female circumcision as well since there are various religions and cultures worldwide who do this to girls as a part of their religion or culture.

No one chooses their religion when they are born. Boys are born Jewish through their Jewish mother or they are Moslem because of their Moslem mother or Moslem father, therefore they are Jewish or Moslem, therefore they DO NOT need their foreskins chopped off to become Jewish or Moslem. Also, let them decide if they want to be Jewish or Moslem when they are older.

Religion is not a sufficient reason to mutilate a child's genitals. Actually there is not sufficient reason.

If I know anything I know dick. Circumcision makes masturbation more difficult. It makes sex harder and less pleasurable for the receptive partner. And it desensitizes the penis, POTENTIALLY decreasing sensitivity and sexual pleasure.

Now of all the things about life on Earth as a human male, sex is one of the best things to look forward to. What kind of sick fucks are you that would POTENTIALLY limit that for a child.

There is nothing that can be gained by circumcision that can’t be gained by a little soap and water. And there is so much to lose.

Everyone is born with foreskin, girls too.

It's commonly referred to as the clitoral hood in females, it's totally analogous to the male foreskin. ALL FORMS of infant and non-adult female circumcision is illegal in America, ALL FORMS to include: pin prick, clitoral removal, clitoral hood removal, labioplasty, etc.

Because ALL forms of female circumcision in America is illegal, ALL forms of male circumcision ought to be illegal in America as well! Was their an outcry from religious groups in America, who practice any and/or ALL forms of female circumcision, when female circumcision became illegal? I think not. It's time that ALL MALES are protected from ANY form of genital mutilation when they are born. PERIOD!

Women should stick their noses out of boys' and mens' sex organs and leave them to us to do with as we chose. Mens' penises in Mens' own hands.

When women foolishly claim "male circumcision makes no difference! It's just some useless skin!" I ask them when the last time they had an actual penis was? Since they'd like to falsely claim that the foreskin "makes no difference and that it's just skin" that they should be perfectly OK then with the removal of their clitoral hood, clitoris, or a reduction of their labia since this would make their vagina cleaner and more aesthetically beautiful than one that still has its clitoral hood and sloppy roast beef labia and all of that excess useless skin on their vagina. A cut vagina is cleaner since it does not produce any yeast or smegma. Why not remove the breasts or cervix too? She won't get breast cancer or cervical cancer if they're removed!

Amputation of sexual tissue is a parental decision, and circumcision should be mandatory.

There's nothing nastier than an uncircumcised clitoris or uncircumcised labia - yuck! All that smegma, and yeast! You can't get vulvar cancer if this icky nubbin of skin is cut off. There's no proof that circumcised women have any less sensation! Heck, if I had any more senstation it would drive me crazy, and I plan to circumicse my girls for health reasons. Clearly nature made a mistake, and all girls need to be cut.

I'm being sarcastic here but it's a good thing that this is being done in San Francisco.

Most people don't understand why circumcision is so widespread in the United States: it was promoted as a procedure to prevent sinful masturbation (didn't work out too well now did it?). I've met many men whose circumcisions were too extensive, leaving very heavy scarring they hated, nasty ugly skin bridges, or making their penile skin so tight that they felt pain when I lightly jerked them off. I have one friend that had his circumcision "botched" and they took skin from his balls and graphed it onto his cock and his balls do not hang at all and his penis is truly mutilated and deformed with heavy ugly scarring.

I've seen other men both in person and in porn who had flat out ugly penises and it was because of circumcision.

Also, allowing male circumcision diminishes our moral argument against female circumcision.

I see ALL circumcision, both male and female done to infants to be genital mutilation.

It's one thing to have it done elective as an adult but it's wrong to have it done to infants both boys and girls who have no consent over their bodies or genitals even though they should.

Male circumcision reduces the amount of nerve endings in the penis and that decreases the lack of sexual pleasure, sensitivity, and control over the penis. Premature ejaculation is in the mind so don't give me that "If I was more sensitive I wouldn't be able to stand it!" BS.

I know TONS of men bisexual, gay, and hetero who are very mad that they were cut and wish that they were left intact with a foreskin.

The idea that a cut cock is somehow "cleaner" is a joke, it's called washing with soap and water like you should be doing anyway.

Foreskin is the essence of man! It adds SO MUCH pleasure to sex and it's fun to have the inside licked and gently chewed on, and it's fun to fill it with piss or cum.

Women's vaginas produce pungent smegma-it's seriously way worse than a man's, and a vagina produces yeast but nobody is saying how we should cut a baby girl's labia or her clitoral hood.

Let's just stop cutting infants' and boys' and girls' genitals completely and be done with this barbaric and outdated practice that should have been outlawed thousands of years ago.

I'm just quoting this post because it's awesome. :D

It is very hypocritical that lots of women such as LittleRay and Taylor Made are all for male genital mutilation yet decry what's done to women and girls as female circumcision and falsely claim that you simply can't compare female circumcision with what's done to infant boys at all. :rolleyes:

Or maybe Taylor and these other women are OK with the removal of the clitoral hood of the vagina? Lots of women get their clits pierced and put holes into their clitoral hood.

[littlerayofsunshine]

I'm just quoting this post because it's awesome. :D

It is very hypocritical that lots of women such as LittleRay and Taylor Made are all for male genital mutilation yet decry what's done to women and girls as female circumcision and falsely claim that you simply can't compare female circumcision with what's done to infant boys at all. :rolleyes:

Or maybe Taylor and these other women are OK with the removal of the clitoral hood of the vagina? Lots of women get their clits pierced and put holes into their clitoral hood.


FWIW, I did not say that I am pro circ.. I just said that it should not be banned. I also would never have an abortion, but would never stand against a woman's right to choose. Circ should be left to choice of the parents. You don't know what my children have between their legs, and I would rather keep it that way. I find it kind of creepy you're more concerned with what's between their legs than I am.

And male and female circ DOESN'T compare. You can't compare a paper cut to an AMPUTATION. Which is essentially what female circ is. Men who are cut or uncut are typically not looked at as less of a man and stigmatized as a woman who has had her sexual organ REMOVED, and is deemed as a broken unsexual, unsatisfiable mutation of what a woman should be. IF breasts weren't necessary to feed children in many countries, I am sure there would have been practices in place to remove them too, because those countries and groups that practice female circ want women desexualized not less sexualized (YES I KNOW I CREATED WORDS THAT DONT REALLY EXIST>>LOL). They do perform breast ironing which is "supposed" to lessen breast tissue and keep puberty at bay and to cause chest/breast scaring to make them less attractive. This is in addition to what I have already stated on the subject of Male v. Female circ.

So you attempt to generalize me and claim to know my standings, So in correction to your consistent argumentativeness.. I am for choice and basically want you to stay out of my kids pants.

[TaylorMade]

I'm just quoting this post because it's awesome. :D

It is very hypocritical that lots of women such as LittleRay and Taylor Made are all for male genital mutilation yet decry what's done to women and girls as female circumcision and falsely claim that you simply can't compare female circumcision with what's done to infant boys at all. :rolleyes:

Or maybe Taylor and these other women are OK with the removal of the clitoral hood of the vagina? Lots of women get their clits pierced and put holes into their clitoral hood.

She wasn't pro or anti, she was ... RATIONAL. That is why I quoted her. She didn't exaggerate or fling accusations like a damn ninny, which seems to be what happens to a lot of Anti-Circumcision activists on this board. Not all, but a lot.

You guys are a gross out picture away from being like the Operation Rescue people.

Stay out of how people raise their children. If you don't circumsize your children, good for you. Don't tell me what to do with mine.

*Taylor*

[sammie19]

a circumcision is one operation.... not multiple ops,... but as I got told in this thread, multiple ops are different cos they are done out of love.....

speaking from the experience of a child that was old enuf to understand on going pain and suffering, mentally and emotionally, and hearing their parents constantly say its cos they loved me that I was going thru operation after operation and begging them to stop cos it hurt so much.....

you want to talk about the rights of a child... then apply the fucking rights to all children, not just the ones that suit your purpose.....

you wanna really know about pain, go spend a week in a childrens ward and see what they go thru.... and the way people stay around and say the children are so courageous and strong...... and ignore the fact the children have no fucking choice......

sure reason it out that you are saving the childrens lives by your actions so its a good thing.... but tell me something... who feels the pain, you or them.....

don't tell me about childrens rights when its about your own agenda.....and you are ignoring 99% of the hell children go thru cos you can not say its wrong to do it.....

Are you droning on about children who need medical and surgical treatment again? No I cant say it is wrong to operate and help make them better and even save their life when its necessary.

I can say its wrong to operate on a child for no medical reason and occasionally, very rarely I accept, be the cause of the end of that life. Emotive? Yep. I agree. But not over emotional, just how it is.

It is because I can't ignore the children who have no choice because of illness and go through hell, and my inability to prevent that hell, that I feel as I do. To try and make people see that when we can prevent a child going through hell we do. That is why I believe as I do, and its no use getting narked at me for it. Don't worry, I forgive you. :)

[mikey3000]

I found what you quoted at mothersagainstcirc.org

If you want to actually read or find my sources you easily can. At least I'm not posting junk science like you are.

LOL! Right. Dude, you get less creditable with every post you make. Keep going!!! :tongue:

[drugstore cowboy]

LOL! Right. Dude, you get less creditable with every post you make. Keep going!!! :tongue:

I don't care if you don't like my posts or sources.

This just shows that they're going against what you want to hear and foolishly believe that circumcision is something that's not genital mutilation at all and that somehow magically protects men and women from HIV and STD infection and transmission better than practicing safer sex correctly or condom use does. :rolleyes:

[drugstore cowboy]

She wasn't pro or anti, she was ... RATIONAL. That is why I quoted her. She didn't exaggerate or fling accusations like a damn ninny, which seems to be what happens to a lot of Anti-Circumcision activists on this board. Not all, but a lot.

You guys are a gross out picture away from being like the Operation Rescue people.

Stay out of how people raise their children. If you don't circumsize your children, good for you. Don't tell me what to do with mine.

*Taylor*

So based on your logic parents who are for female circumcision in its many forms as it is not just removing the clit, and immigrants and residents from countries where female circumcision is practiced should somehow be allowed to do this because it's their private right as parents.

Everyone that's anti-genital mutilation when it comes to male genital mutilation performed on non-consenting infant boys should all just STFU since you want to live in denial and pretend that male circumcision performed on infant boys without their consent isn't genital mutilation at all. :rolleyes:

[Long Duck Dong]

Are you droning on about children who need medical and surgical treatment again? No I cant say it is wrong to operate and help make them better and even save their life when its necessary.

I can say its wrong to operate on a child for no medical reason and occasionally, very rarely I accept, be the cause of the end of that life. Emotive? Yep. I agree. But not over emotional, just how it is.

It is because I can't ignore the children who have no choice because of illness and go through hell, and my inability to prevent that hell, that I feel as I do. To try and make people see that when we can prevent a child going through hell we do. That is why I believe as I do, and its no use getting narked at me for it. Don't worry, I forgive you. :)

sammie, you are the only anti circumcision person in this thread that has not ignored it, side stepped it or called it irrelevent....... and I appreciate you sharing your own opinion on what you think about medical surgeries... as circumcision can be a aspect of them......

when a person can say, they are against circumcision, but talk from another angle, using their own words, instead of posting numerous sites, articles and vids, ... then I can respect their stance a lot better, cos it means that they could debate in the street face to face and hear the other person expressing their stance too..... rather than have to abuse people cos they have no sites, vids or articles to copy and paste.....

so thank you for your reply, I appreciate it and the fact you replied in your own words without side stepping, ignoring or calling my post irrelevant

[drugstore cowboy]

FWIW, I did not say that I am pro circ.. I just said that it should not be banned. I also would never have an abortion, but would never stand against a woman's right to choose. Circ should be left to choice of the parents. You don't know what my children have between their legs, and I would rather keep it that way. I find it kind of creepy you're more concerned with what's between their legs than I am.

And male and female circ DOESN'T compare. You can't compare a paper cut to an AMPUTATION. Which is essentially what female circ is. Men who are cut or uncut are typically not looked at as less of a man and stigmatized as a woman who has had her sexual organ REMOVED, and is deemed as a broken unsexual, unsatisfiable mutation of what a woman should be. IF breasts weren't necessary to feed children in many countries, I am sure there would have been practices in place to remove them too, because those countries and groups that practice female circ want women desexualized not less sexualized (YES I KNOW I CREATED WORDS THAT DONT REALLY EXIST>>LOL). They do perform breast ironing which is "supposed" to lessen breast tissue and keep puberty at bay and to cause chest/breast scaring to make them less attractive. This is in addition to what I have already stated on the subject of Male v. Female circ.

So you attempt to generalize me and claim to know my standings, So in correction to your consistent argumentativeness.. I am for choice and basically want you to stay out of my kids pants.

It is men who are circumcised in this country, not women. Male circumcision deprives men of the most sensitive areas of their penis and full pleasure during sex. There is nothing a man can do to fully restore sexual function. That's oppressive, wouldn't you agree?

Yes you can compare both male and female circumcision.

Claiming that you somehow can't compare the two just shows how little you know about either male or female genital mutilation.

"…(B)oth male and female circumcisions raise the same human rights questions. Our mutual fight is against ignorance. People like us, those who have the pain, are the best fighters, because we know the pain of circumcision. What happened to you, you can’t change it, but you can help to stop it from happening to other children."
--Shamis Dirir, Coordinator, London Black Women’s Health Action Project, interviewed in NOHARMM Health & Human Rights Advocate/July, 1997 (read the full article)

People who accept male circumcision as the cultural norm and who are unfamiliar with this debate are sometimes initially surprised when male circumcision is compared to female genital modification (FGM). Can male circumcision be compared to female genital modification? Yes, most definitely male circumcision can and should be compared to female genital modification.

Promoters of male circumcision like to say that there is no comparison between male circumcision and FGM. They point out the differences between male circumcision and the most severe form of FGM, infibulation. They are reluctant to admit that male circumcision is not the only form of male genital modification (MGM) and infibulation is not the only form of FGM.

There are different types of MGM ranging from minor to severe; they include genital piercing, circumcision, subincision, and castration. There are also different types of FGM ranging from minor to severe; they include genital piercing, sunna circumcision, excision, and infibulation.

The different forms of MGM have an analogous form of FGM in terms of damage done to the person whose genitals are being modified. Piercing a boy's penis is analogous to piercing a girl's clitoris or labia. Surgically removing the prepuce of a boy's penis is analogous to surgically removing the prepuce of a girl's clitoris (sunna circumcision). Cutting open the urethra of a boy's penis (subincision) is analogous to cutting off all or part of a girl's clitoris and/or labia minora (excision). And castration is somewhat analogous to infibulation, the most damaging form of FGM, which removes the clitoris and labia and then sews the sides of the vulva together leaving only a small opening.

MGM vs. FGM Male
Genital Modification Female Genital Modification
piercing the penis piercing the clitoris or labia
male circumcision sunna circumcision
subincision excision

All forms of genital modification, including genital piercing, are a violation of a child's right to their own bodily integrity. No national medical organization anywhere on the planet now recommends any form of genital modification for children, not even male circumcision. There is no medical indication for any surgical modification of a child's genitals unless there is a medical condition present that has not responded to less invasive treatments.

Should parents be allowed to pierce their son's penis or their daughter's labia? If it is unethical for a parent to pierce their child's genitals, why is it ethical for a parent to ask a doctor surgically remove a normal, healthy, functional part of their son's penis?

People who say that MGM and FGM can't compare often point to the different conditions that they're usually performed under, with MGM being performed by doctors in a hospital setting while FGM is performed in unsanitary conditions by an unqualified person with no medical training which results in a high complication rate. It may be true that most forms of FGM practiced in the Middle East are done this way, but what neglect to mention is that on these same countries boys are also circumcised in these same conditions, and with similar results yet they don't get nearly as much attention by human rights activists as the girls. Here are some news stories describing how circumcision is performed in these countries and what kind of complications result from it:

Circumcision That Didn't Heal Kills Boy
The Boy's Circumcision Wasn't Healing Properly

CLEVELAND, Posted 6:46 a.m. October 20, 1998 -- A 3-week-old boy died while doctors were trying to fix a problem with his circumcision.

A pediatrician noticed the circumcision performed on Dustin Evans two weeks ago wasn't healing properly and the urethra was blocked.

A routine surgical procedure was needed to correct the problem and clear the hole. While being administered anesthesia on Friday, the boy's heart stopped, said his father, Dustin Evans Sr., 27.

Doctors at Rainbow Babies Childrens Hospital attempted to save the baby by massaging his heart and inserting breathing tubes. He was kept on a life-support ventilator system during the day until it was determined that his heart was healthy, but he had suffered massive brain damage.

Dustin was disconnected from life support about 7:30 p.m. Friday.

."You think," Evans said, "'What could go wrong with a circumcision?' The next thing I know he's dead. The doctors didn't tell us nothing. All they said was that they were sorry. So I guess my 3-week-old son died from nothing."

Here's something you should read if you claim to know anything about male or female circumcision:
www. boystoo.com/fgm&mgm.htm

Here are the ways you can compare female and male circumcision and show how they both are mutilation and are the same thing but done to different genders.

Both involve cutting or mutilation of the genitals of babies and children who do not consent to it, both are done at the insistence of the parents because of silly religions and their dogma or cultural/societal factors and conformity such as: "OH NOES! MY CHILDREN WILL BE SEEN AS FREAKS IN THE LOCKER ROOM!!!!1", they're both supposedly beneficial both asthetically and with health benefits in countries where male and female circumcision is done, the effects of male and female circumcision are minimized by the supporters, many men and women who have been circumcised or had their genitals mutilated go on to have it done to THEIR OWN CHILDREN, both are extremely painful, both can cause very severe damage and death, and both are done in hospitals.

Ultimately, the message is clear: genital mutilation is gendered. These male and female genital operations are not merely seen to differ in degree, they are seen to differ in kind. Thus, despite the heterogeneous voices speaking out against female circumcision, a common thread unites many: all forms of female genital cutting are seen to constitute a sexual mutilation and violation of bodily integrity, and male genital operations are dismissed as benign.- Anthropologist Kristen Bell Genital Cutting and Western Discourses on Sexuality Medical Anthropology Quarterly, Vol. 19, Issue 2, pp. 125–148

[littlerayofsunshine]

It is men who are circumcised in this country, not women. Male circumcision deprives men of the most sensitive areas of their penis and full pleasure during sex. There is nothing a man can do to fully restore sexual function. That's oppressive, wouldn't you agree?

Continues on.. Blah blah Yadda Yadda. Redacted for lack of personal opinion authenticity and continual hyperbole......

Men's Full pleasure.. Hmmmmm. I have yet to fuck a man cut or uncut and one say " awww it would of been better if I had a foreskin" Or "Damn Ain't nuthin like fuckin with my foreskin!".. Pretty much get the same response from both.. "Damn baby your pussy is so good" or some other words of satisfaction. I find it kind of sad, that to further your aguement, which it is for you, as much as it is a game, That for one.. You pretty much spend half your time pretty much insulting men who have had circs whether as an infant or chosen as an adult as one member has come out and spoken for himself how much better he enjoys it. But they are "mutilated" and therefor less of a penis to you. On to number 2. Posting a rare infant death, which even with the information contained within, doesn't attribute the infants death to the circ itself. So medically its irrelevant. I do not know if that infant was born with an inadequate urethra. Which does happen, Just like babies are born with too tight of sphincter in their anus and their body can not pass necessary gas or waste and they become incredibly ill. So he could have been born with the medical issue and his body became toxic due to not being able to properly void itself. The correction of the circ could have been a subsequent issue that was being dealt with simultaneously and not actually what put him into surgery. So You went for shock value and bolstering. Babies die for many reasons. Its a sad fact but it happens.


So you can disagree with me all you like, but to argue with me. You will lose. It takes two and let me just put it kindly.. You're not my "type"

[drugstore cowboy]

Men's Full pleasure.. Hmmmmm.

Continues on.. Blah blah Yadda Yadda. Redacted for lack of personal opinion authenticity and continual hyperbole......

Sorry but you're wrong. Who cares about who "wins" or "Looses" with attitudes like "circumcision of infant boys isn't genital mutilation at all and simply can't be compared to female circumcision at all!"

There have been cases where infant boys died from the shock that they went into during a circumcision.

Circumcision can cause death indirectly in a variety of ways, such that if the baby had not been circumcised, he would not have died. Below are cases of death caused by:

* Loss of blood
* Anaesthetic
* Infection (septicaemia)
* Painkiller
* Urethra blocked by a circumcision ring

No it is not "rare" for an infant boy to die from being circumcised.

Infant circumcision causes 117 deaths each year in US

April 26th, 2010

A new study published yesterday in Thymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies estimates that more than 100 baby boys die from circumcision complications each year, including from anesthesia reaction, stroke, hemorrhage, and infection. Because infant circumcision is elective, all of these deaths are avoidable.

The study concluded: “These boys died because physicians have been either complicit or duplicitous, and because parents ignorantly said ‘Yes,’ or lacked the courage to say ‘No.’” And called the deaths “an unrecognized sacrifice of innocents.”

The study found that approximately 117 neonatal (first 28 days after birth) circumcision-related deaths occur annually in the United States, one out of every 77 male neonatal deaths. The study also identified reasons why accurate data on these deaths are not available, some of the obstacles to preventing these deaths, and some solutions to overcome them.

what your repeated objections to the word "mutilation" ignore is the botched circumcisions which result in mutilation. For example, when part or all of the glans is removed "accidentally" during routine circumcision, that's mutilation, and removal of the foreskin itself on infants is a mutilation because the infant boy cannot consent at all.

Since I was a horny young man living in San Francisco in the late 1970s, I had the opportunity (and took it) to play with a lot of men. So I know from personal experience that there are plenty of botched infant circumcisions, with various degrees of botchedness. And some of them definitely DO rise to the level of mutilation, even if you don't agree that cutting off pleasurable, sensitive skin is mutilation. It's safe to argue that I know what I'm talking about.

Another point to remember is that an erect penis will often show problems that are not apparent when it's flacid. Most doctors see flacid, not erect penises. They don't see the skin that's so tight that it pulls the head of the penis almost flat, or damage to the glans that is not evident until it tries to expand when aroused, or places where the cut skin didn't grow together properly, and has pockets where bacteria can cause serious problems. So medical opinions that are based on visible damage to flaccid penises are inadequate - it's erect penises that show the damage most clearly.

It's men with backgrounds like mine who have seen the unfortunate, sometimes mutilated, results of botched circumcisions.

I'm sure that Katja or Sammie will write about a woman's perspective of how sex between a man that's cut and one that's intact with a foreskin is completely different and that men who are intact with a foreskin get way more sexual pleasure and give women more sexual pleasure than men who are cut or mutilated can imagine or perceive since they've never had a foreskin with its sensitive nerve endings that was taken away from them moments after they were born without their consent at all. That my dear is mutilation even if you want to wish and claim that it is not.

The overwhelming majority of males on this planet are intact or uncircumcised without and are living perfectly fine without HIV/STDs, penile cancer, or the other dire problems that circumcision proponents declare happen to all or most men who have foreskins that simply don't happen at all to men who are cut. :rolleyes:

[TaylorMade]

So based on your logic parents who are for female circumcision in its many forms as it is not just removing the clit, and immigrants and residents from countries where female circumcision is practiced should somehow be allowed to do this because it's their private right as parents.

Everyone that's anti-genital mutilation when it comes to male genital mutilation performed on non-consenting infant boys should all just STFU since you want to live in denial and pretend that male circumcision performed on infant boys without their consent isn't genital mutilation at all. :rolleyes:

Nope. That is not what I am saying. If that is what I meant, that is what I would have said.

Once again, you're playing reductio ad absurdum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum). From what I can tell in this thread, there is no definitive proof executed by non biased sources that male circumcision is equivalent to clitoral removal. But you had to go there in order to make your argument, which turns me off even FURTHER to what rational arguments could be made.

I've had sex with both cut and uncut men. There really isn't much of a difference once it's at full mast. The uncut man was great, but it wasn't his cock that made it great. It was his instruction and patience, it was his kissing, his oral skill and primal energy that knocked my socks off. Plus, he was Russian. Those guys are amazing in bed.

I'm pretty much done here. Some of you guys are basically the Jerry Fallwells of this site when this issue comes up.

*Taylor*

[Annika L]

I'm pretty much done here. Some of you guys are basically the Jerry Fallwells of this site when this issue comes up.


Oh, but I've had it on good authority (and only two pages ago) that this debate is coming to its end on this thread! Why leave just before the show ends anyway?

D'oh, yeah, you're one of those reasonable people I like, aren't you? :tong:

[tenni]

From my perspective, it doesn't matter a damn bit what women think about a circumcised or natural penis. This is not about women and their bodies nor does it have to do with any mutilation of female bodies other than to show the hypocrisy of a double standard due to cultural differences. It is a man's body that is mutilated in infancy by his parent or not mutilated. Using such words as "mutilate" and the furthering of information about the sensual nerve fibers in the foreskin will eventually (hopefully) stop this act on males who are not given the right to decide about their own body. Whether parents were not sufficiently educated when they mutilated their sons in the past, has little to do with the present and future. I believe that my parents did not intend to mutilate me when they circumcised me as a two day old boy. They followed cultural customs under the incorrect believe that this was best for males. I doubt very much that they were told that this would reduce my sexual pleasures as an adult. It was a time when such things would not have been discussed by the medical community. That was then. Maybe, this bylaw will lead to stopping this act on males without their permission.

[Long Duck Dong]

The overwhelming majority of males on this planet are intact or uncircumcised without and are living perfectly fine without HIV/STDs, penile cancer, or the other dire problems that circumcision proponents declare happen to all or most men who have foreskins that simply don't happen at all to men who are cut. :rolleyes:

what i can find is that rates of HIV / aids and STI transmission is higher where condoms are not used...... and that there is no difference between cut and uncut males when it comes to using condoms.....

I would love to see your study / stats.... and I mean valid study / stats that show that uncut males are mostly disease free with or without the use of condoms, cos it would be a study that I would find most interesting.....

I tried the NZ sexual health sites and none of them have any studies that support your statement as they too, talk about the usage of condoms, not the state of the penis....

I wonder if that has a lot to do with the fact that females can carry and transmit STIs etc... and they do not have penises but can also use condoms....

[Long Duck Dong]

From my perspective, it doesn't matter a damn bit what women think about a circumcised or natural penis. This is not about women and their bodies nor does it have to do with any mutilation of female bodies other than to show the hypocrisy of a double standard due to cultural differences. It is a man's body that is mutilated in infancy by his parent or not mutilated. Using such words as "mutilate" and the furthering of information about the sensual nerve fibers in the foreskin will eventually (hopefully) stop this act on males who are not given the right to decide about their own body. Whether parents were not sufficiently educated when they mutilated their sons in the past, has little to do with the present and future. I believe that my parents did not intend to mutilate me when they circumcised me as a two day old boy. They followed cultural customs under the incorrect believe that this was best for males. I doubt very much that they were told that this would reduce my sexual pleasures as an adult. It was a time when such things would not have been discussed by the medical community. That was then. Maybe, this bylaw will lead to stopping this act on males without their permission..

the constant argument that a females opinion doesn't matter cos they do not have a penis, shows a great deal of ignorance on the behalf of some of the people in the thread

the thing is.... females are parents and make up a lot of solo mothers, with the power of choice over circumcision ...... and watching people in the thread, tell females their opinion is not really of value, is a very stupid thing for anti circumcision advocates to do.... cos its insulting one of the parents that can choose to circumcise or not...... and implying that a female doesn't have the right or ability to decide for her children

[Katja]

[QUOTE=Annika L;201602]Oh, but I've had it on good authority (and only two pages ago) that this debate is coming to its end on this thread! Why leave just before the show ends anyway?

QUOTE]

I do not think I was much wrong either reading the subsequent posts to my statement. Unpredictable thing debate when it is uncontrolled. I am prepared to argue the matter ad infinitum just as so many others seem to be.

What matters is not what we say in these pages but what occurs in the wider world. That is where the battle is being won and lost. This isn't even a skirmish, just a little local bit of bother.:)

[Katja]

I see that exposure of what the people pushing this referendum stand for hit a nerve. Their teacher Julius Streicher shouted the same sort of things at his execution at Nuremberg.

I was going to apologise for my previous outburst. I dont think I shall bother now. Play it if you wish, I've bitten, didn't like the taste much and spat it out. Now if you don't mind can we concentrate on the argument?

[tenni]

"the constant argument that a females opinion doesn't matter cos they do not have a penis, shows a great deal of ignorance on the behalf of some of the people in the thread

the thing is.... females are parents and make up a lot of solo mothers, with the power of choice over circumcision ...... and watching people in the thread, tell females their opinion is not really of value, is a very stupid thing for anti circumcision advocates to do.... cos its insulting one of the parents that can choose to circumcise or not...... and implying that a female doesn't have the right or ability to decide for her children."

OK....if that is what you understood from my post, then let me correct this. It doesn't matter what women think about the form of penis because it is not their body as I stated. They should not have the right to mutilate a male infant unless there is a medical penial emergency. It matters if a parent (mother or father) thinks that they should circumcise their male infant or wait for the man to decide about his own body and circumcision at a later date. There is a need to alter perspectives in North America on this matter. The solo mothers or solo fathers should not have this non medical right. It is not their body. As I stated, I do not believe that my parents or any parent intended male infants harm and I suspect that they were not informed properly about the nerve endings in the foreskin being of anything but not relevant. That is how I suspect that the matter was treated. It is time to stop such incorrect information continuing this custom. It is not however the end of my world that I am circumised and I'm happy with my pecker. I don't miss what I can not remember but I see it as time to stop this custom. The number of men who have commented and gone from natural to cut as an adult is sadly lacking on this thread. Those are the guys to listen to but let your baby boys decide as an adult.

The opinion of a woman doesn't matter as far as to which form of penis gives them pleasure from intercourse. Several women have spent time posting and thinking to state that the form of penis didn't affect them during intercourse. That point is not relevant as far as parents circumcising infant boys.

"The statement about the ignorance of many people on this thread with regard to parents and circumcision seems "selective interpretation" and inflamatory rather than rational and calm in my opinion.

[Long Duck Dong]

[I]

OK....if that is what you understood from my post, then let me correct this. It doesn't matter what women think about the penis because it is not their body as I stated. They should not have the right to mutilate a male infant unless there is a medical emergency. It matters if a parent (mother or father) thinks that they should circumcise their male infant or wait for the man to decide about his own body and circumcision at a later date. There is a need to alter perspectives in North America on this matter. The solo mothers or solo fathers should not have this non medical right. It is not their body. As I stated, I do not believe that my parents intended me harm and I suspect that they were not informed properly about the nerve endings in the foreskin being of anything but not relevant. That is how I suspect that the matter was treated. It is time to stop such incorrect information continuing this custom.

The opinion of a woman doesn't matter as far as to which form of penis gives them pleasure from intercourse. Several women have spent time posting and thinking to state that the form of penis didn't affect them during intercourse.

"The statement about the ignorance of many people on this thread with regard to parents and circumcision seems "selective interpretation" and inflamatory rather than rational and calm in my opinion.


no, I did not get it from your post tenni... its happened a few times in the thread and its some of the anti circumcision advocates that did it.... but it was not you doing it.....

telling a mother of male sons that her opinion didn't matter cos she did not have a penis, then slamming her for having a opinion that the advocates did not agree with...

telling me that supporting the rights of another female to express her opinion was irrelevent as she was not a parent or a mother, yet she is anti circumcision and pro rights of choice....

telling a male that was circumcised as a adult, that his opinion about his circumcision was incorrect, cos studies said different.....

telling females that their opinions do not matter when it comes to sex with cut / uncut males, while posting studies involving females preferences of cut or uncut penises, to support a anti circumcision stance.....

telling a circumcised male father that his study showing the statements of males circumcised as adults was invalid cos it was part of a hiv aids study... and then studies about hiv / aids and circumcision, are posted by anti circumcision advocates......

so tenni, if its selective interpretation and inflammatory, why have other members noticed the same thing going on and posted about how they are seeing the same thing I am...... and the ironic thing is, that telling the ladies that their opinions do not matter, means that sammie and katja, who are both anti circumcision and pro rights for children, are having their opinions rubbished by the same people they are standing with... the people that want a end to circumcision.....

all that aside.... tenni... who better to know about your penis than you.... who better to know if you are happy with the way your penis works than you..... who better to know if you have any issues over your circumcision than you.......
I am circumcised and I am the same way as you.... I am happy with my penis.... and I am getting a lil pissed off with being told that I can not be happy with my penis cos some study by somebody I have never met, is posted as proof that I can not be happy with my penis cos its cut, therefore I am not allowed to be happy with my body cos somebody else has a issue with circumcision......

so, grab a beer ( or perfered drink ) and join the ranks of the males that are not allowed to be happy with their penises.... cos we are cut males... and are not allowed to be happy.... as stated by anti circumcision males in this thread

[tenni]

"all that aside.... tenni... who better to know about your penis than you.... who better to know if you are happy with the way your penis works than you..... who better to know if you have any issues over your circumcision than you.......
I am circumcised and I am the same way as you.... I am happy with my penis.... and I am getting a lil pissed off with being told that I can not be happy with my penis cos some study by somebody I have never met, is posted as proof that I can not be happy with my penis cos its cut, therefore I am not allowed to be happy with my body cos somebody else has a issue with circumcision......

so, grab a beer ( or perfered drink ) and join the ranks of the males that are not allowed to be happy with their penises.... cos we are cut males... and are not allowed to be happy.... as stated by anti circumcision males in this thread"


Well, I agree with most of the quoted section. Those of us who were circumcised as infants can be happy with what we have. This may be particularly true if we have lived our lives unware about the sensual pleasures by having a foreskin. We will never know or be able to compare. I won't be unhappy now that I know either. I won't want to regrow my foreskin since I'm told that won't bring back the nerve endings.

I don't think if any guy has posted this..funny/pecular sorta issue. Many young men tend to orgasm quickly. Over time most guys learn some control or it happens naturally. This early ejaculation can be a problem for some guys and really isn't funny to those guys. Wouldn't it be amusing if being circumcised was easy on ..easy off...lol Young guys could be circumcised to slow down their pre mature ejaculation. Older guys could bring out their "ol foreskin" and reconnect it if the sensations reduce with age...lol This is maybe a fantasy for today but who knows where technology might go if demand..lol. The discussion of the role of foreskin and ejaculation may be an amusing point of this thread.

[sammie19]

Selectivity in debate is a time honoured and inevitable consequence of debate. It is done sometimes deliberately and sometimes inadvertantly. Often it is done because in a structured and formal argument no one can cover every angle involved in an issue and time does not allow anyone to have the time to do so.

In an informal argument, some people try to debate as honestly as their knowledge, instincts and beliefs allow but we are human and with the best will in the world not one of us will ever be the perfect debater. We sidetrack and distract, ambush and talk crap, take detours round the houses, are rude and often personal. For many reasons we are also selective. It doesn't make pleasant reading, but it is the best we are able to do in the circumstances we find ourselves.

We can be as rude or polite as we like, and argue about the rights of parents and the roles of law and the medical profession and the medical evidence. We can argue about all the studies we like and their value. But what it all comes down to is this, just actually owns our bodies and has the power of decision over them? :)

[Long Duck Dong]

honestly sammie, I would love to believe that we do..... but lol disease and illness have a way of showing us that we do not have control and ownership.... its something that only exists when we have a choice.....IE surgery ( most ), diet, exercise etc....

I have the choice of what I can and can not do with my body ( arguing with the hospital over the need for more surgery and losing, I need it, they will not do it )... so I know that running down the road is not a good idea... nor trying to power lift 180 kgs as I did when I was younger ( much to the doctors horror )....

yes I smoke ( much to the doctors horror ) cos it is my body... and I know that giving up smoking is good for me and will help me live longer ( having more surgeries, and being in more pain is a good thing ???? ) but I have people telling me that smoking is wrong and I have to stop ( ahh whose body is it again and whos right is it....... not mine apparently..... according to the anti smokers ) and as such I should have the right to terminate my * lease * on my body and let my soul upgrade to the pent house version of a body...lol ( legally I am not allowed to... its my body but not my choice.... unless.... my friend, MR .45 calibre has a say )

so yeah sammie, its my body, my choice..... I think... let me check with the anti smokers and the hospital and the dietician and the doctor.... cos they seem to disagree :tong::tong::tong:

[Bluebiyou]

littlerayofsunshineyour position is so stereotypical 'cookie cutter' of female members of cultures that embrace MGM.

FWIW, I did not say that I am pro circ. Yes, you are pro circ. Contrast this with your different opinion about female circumcision. Female circumcision should be a parent's decision if you stand by your moral criteria.
I just said that it should not be banned. I also would never have an abortion, but would never stand against a woman's right to choose.Different subject altogether, but related in a way that contradicts your argument.
The core moral argument of abortion is self determination (you didn't know this?!?). A woman's right to the functions of her own body (while pregnant). True. But killing, circumcising, or any other abuse of the baby after it is born is infringing on the baby's rights to its own body (whether MGM or FGM) and in direct contradiction to the moral tenant supporting abortion.
Circ should be left to choice of the parents. You don't know what my children have between their legs, and I would rather keep it that way. I find it kind of creepy you're more concerned with what's between their legs than I am. **Sigh** diversional, silly.

And male and female circ DOESN'T compare. You can't compare a paper cut to an AMPUTATION. Which is essentially what female circ is.My, how radical feminist. Female pain and mutilation is far worse than male; I understand your logic. Then your opinion on modern female circumcision performed in hospitals still suffers from your bias?
Men who are cut or uncut are typically not looked at as less of a man and stigmatized as a woman who has had her sexual organ REMOVED, and is deemed as a broken unsexual, unsatisfiable mutation of what a woman should be.Wow, you are way out, here; I don't think you want to play this card; it is very detrimental to your position. In cultures where FGM is practiced, uncircumcised females are looked on as dirty, poor, second rate. Just like in cultures where MGM is practiced, uncircumcised males are looked upon as dirty, poor, second rate.
IF breasts weren't necessary to feed children in many countries, I am sure there would have been practices in place to remove them too, because those countries and groups that practice female circ want women desexualized not less sexualized (YES I KNOW I CREATED WORDS THAT DONT REALLY EXIST>>LOL). They do perform breast ironing which is "supposed" to lessen breast tissue and keep puberty at bay and to cause chest/breast scaring to make them less attractive. This is in addition to what I have already stated on the subject of Male v. Female circ.But breasts aren't necessary in most of the free world. There is baby formula available to most of the free world. There is baby formula available to you. If your had your male children circumcised to prevent cancer (an extremely rare cancer, occurring almost exclusively to men of abysmal hygiene; that is now entirely preventable with HPV virus immunizations), then clearly you've already had a double mastectomy because you would never inflict morality that would savagely victimize an innocent child but ignore the same to save your precious flesh. To the point, you view your breasts as disposable as the flesh of your innocent infant males, right?
So you attempt to generalize me and claim to know my standings, So in correction to your consistent argumentativeness.. I am for choice and basically want you to stay out of my kids pants.

LittleRayOfSunshine,
No one here, except perhaps you, has gotten into your kids' pants with any harmful intent. I wonder if you can realize this; I suspect not. Neurosis, cognitive dissonance/adaptive preference formation will follow. People have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance. They do this by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and actions. Dissonance is also reduced by justifying, blaming, and denying.

Of all your argument here I find the "FGM isn't the same as MGM" the most important and alarming.
Yes, FGM and MGM are far more alike than unalike.
Every single MGM is different from the next; just as every single FGM is different than the next. How much the tissue damage, how aggressive the tissue damage... so the "it's different" argument by presenting the worst of what you're opposed to and contrasting it with the 'best' of what you're ignoring... is invalid. I might just as well point to the most unsavory Jewish circumcision where not only is the penis is ripped and cut apart (as in every MGM, Jewish or not), but if there is no bleeding, the priest sucks on the penis to produce blood so there is a blood sacrifice acceptable to God (little known fact of the Hebrew culture); and then contrast that with anesthetized modern female circumcision in a hospital.
but lets go over it again.
MGM and FGM are customs, VERY seldom medically required.
FGM and MGM are painful and cause permanent physical harm to the victim.
MGM and FGM are intended to rob the victim of sexual feeling/sensation without destroying basic reproductive function.
FGM and MGM are performed without consideration of the personal rights of the child to their own body.
In cultures where FGM and MGM is practiced there are great efforts via wives' tales, etc, to medically, pseudo scientifically, or socially justify the custom.
**Sigh**
The very topic of 'how much pain can I inflict upon an innocent child without warping that child'...
**Sigh**
In order to gain true scientific perspective on the effect of sexually traumatizing a newborn infant... we would have to cut off all sorts of other appendages of the human body, reducing their function and feeling (morally justifying it under "well, if they never know it, they will never miss it" ethics/logic)...
...puts us down in the level of Josef Mengele. We would have to perform this study by the tens of thousands minimum, over a lifetime (80-90 years) using double blind medical standards (please note, none of the pro circumcision medical 'studies' were unbiased double blind studies).

Aside question, why aren't there hundreds of funded studies on the benefits of female circumcision (against dirty snatches, disease, cancer) just like there are on male circumcision?
Aside answer, social bias and custom.

This is one topic where the truth is very ugly (especially to those who cling to custom).

I am against customary FGM and MGM on the basis it is a person's right to their entire body unless they chose, as an informed adult to modify their own body (or something is horribly medically wrong and requires extreme action like FGM).

[drugstore cowboy]

I see that exposure of what the people pushing this referendum stand for hit a nerve. Their teacher Julius Streicher shouted the same sort of things at his execution at Nuremberg.


I was going to apologise for my previous outburst. I dont think I shall bother now. Play it if you wish, I've bitten, didn't like the taste much and spat it out. Now if you don't mind can we concentrate on the argument?

Being critical of the Jewish religion and being critical of religious rites of male genital mutilation is not even close to the same thing as hating an ethnically Jewish person or someone being an actual Neo-Nazi or Anti-Semite who hates Jews as well as Palestinians since they are Semitic people as well.

By the logic these Jewish groups are using, we can't be critical of Christianity, Islam, or any other religions either.

Which is rather hypocritical since these Jewish groups do claim that all people who practice Islam are ubiquitously against Jews or Israel which is not true.

[Bluebiyou]

The Jewish Question

I deliberately invoke the previous WWII intention of this phrase as an argument to MGM and FGM. Think about it when the table is turned.

Doubtless, the Jewish community (not in entirety as has been previously pointed out) will oppose the San Francisco measure. Even those procircumcision Jews outside the SF area will oppose it to save their right to harm their babies for the sake of tradition and culture. Once the measure comes up, it spells the end... of MGM... faster, if the measure passes in SF.

On another note, the legal jewish argument fails for at least the following reasons:

1. The torah shows many examples of Jews killing philistines, Sampson is a great example. Israelis can't go on doing it... oh, wait, Palestinians are being killed nearly daily by Israeli forces and this is ignored by the world unless Israelis are killed (and then just to show the death ratio of Jew vs Palestinian)... my bad. Bad example.

Start again

1. Law prevents Jews from sacrificing big and little animals to God. Killing, mutilating, and burning animals has been a Jewish custom (in direct worship of God) for millennia.
2. Laws prohibiting female circumcision sets a legal precedent against male circumcision. A different set of rules for a different gender is not legally viable (no moral basis).
3. The victim (of MGM) cannot give informed adult consent to permanent damage to his penis. In cases such as personal consumption of peyote, the law is inclined heavily to lean toward the worshipper (of strange religious customs) who can chose for him or her self, in worship of God, consumption of peyote - potential drug problems - consumption normally prohibited by federal laws. However, an infant cannot choose for himself (lack of informed self adult consent). MGM is something inflicted on an innocent 3rd party.


Bring up a child to worship God however you will, but harming the child, especially irreversible destruction of an innocent party, is outside the protection of religion.

End legal argument.

Jamie knyc is showing himself to be highly zionist. To not collude with zionism is to be anti semitic, I think that is his point. Judging from his posts (from a previous thread "we all know the REAL reason", and other posts from this thread), we (folks against harming children) were so hateful and against Jews that we invented this thing called 'morality' just so we could criticize many (but not all) Jews for harming babies and thus defeat them (in the arena of their religion). Yeah, that's it. That's my motivation, that's our motivation, certainly. I was so hateful of Jews, I walked the moral path.

Wow, Jamie, I realize I exaggerated your position here slightly, but the scary part is... I didn't exaggerate very much...

[JP1986UM]

When the Anti-Circ crowd is as adamant about the childs right to live as they are about a piece of skin, I would be more inclined to support their view.

As it is, they worship a piece of skin and foresake the child for political expediency.

[Bluebiyou]

Molestation
Mutilation

The words fit.
I stand that FGM and MGM are unquestionably both.
I have stated before and will state again that I have not nor will ever date or marry a woman who is a child molester or a proponent of child molestation (very difficult in USA). Although, I have been stupid from time to time in reducing my standards.

Mutilation is the deliberate destruction of healthy tissue.
No argument - standard neonatal male or unindicated preadolescenct female circumcision is mutilation.

Molestation
At what point did the male or female child give their adult consent to this sexual harm/engagement that has no medical basis?

Uh, tying down an innocent male newborn to deliberately, horribly, destroy part of his his healthy penis is not molestation? WTF?!?

Perspective:

If an adult (m or f) picks up an infant (and therefore incognizant) child and sucks upon it's genitals for sexual gratification... it is clearly molestation.
If an adult (m or f) picks up an infant (and therefore incognizant) child and mutilates it's genitals for social conformity... it is still clearly molestation.

What is the difference to the child between an adult that performs non permanent physical harm in pursuit of sexual gratification

and

an adult that knowingly, permanently, with apathy aforethought, harms an innocent child for his/her sole social conformity needs?

What is the difference in terms of harm to the child?

Molestation
includes knowingly, sexually, harming an innocent child.
(for those of you who harmed, did you think the foreskin was part of the elbow... knee... toe...?)
You contracted someone to sexually harm an innocent.
How could you do that?
What lapse was there?
If you're sorry and repentant that's fine! That's more than fine, you're really human! We can make horrible mistakes in this test called 'life'.
else
If you can give back the 12-15 (typical loss) square inches of the most sensitive, most evolutionary advanced flesh, reconnect all the nerves, arteries, veins, basically undo the evil you have done, then offer it to your male child upon maturity. Tell him all he's missed and all he is missing and all he will miss without a complete penis.
But of course, you can only destroy, so the last line is ludicrous.
You are no more than the most destructive males you might criticize.
else
If you're female, guilty, unrepentant, then you're a cunt... a filthy radical feminist. One who regards feminist rights, then suddenly becomes brain-dead when it regards rights of an infant male and his rights to his penis.

Again, I repeat my stand against FGM or MGM. I stand upon a humanist platform.

[drugstore cowboy]

Here are more cases of how circumcision really is genital mutilation.

$$$ 1,200,000 Recovery
One Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollar Recovery

Bronx County N.Y.
Plaintif Nozik #20875/90
11-22-95

3 year old Jewish Russian Immigrant child Operated by a Mohel in the
Urologist's outpatient clinic. Consent was for urologist to perform circ.
Instead, Mohel negligently amputated the head of the of the penis. The
urologist attempted to reattach the penis and transferred the boy to Bellvue
hospital by ambulance. 80% of the head of the penis necrosed and was lost.

one month long trial
$500,000 Outpatient Clinic
$550,000 Urologist
3rd party (not stated in report-possible the Anesthesiologist?) $150,000
Mohel declared bankruptcy

BOY DIES FROM CIRCUMCISION

Gaines said the ordeal began July 18, when she and
his mother, British Gaines took the boy to Doctor's
Hospital-Airline for a circumcision. Brenda Gaines said
they believed the 30-minute procedure went successfully
until a doctor told them the boy's heart had stopped in the
operating room shortly after the operation.

NEW YORK (AP) -- A clinic has agreed to pay $1.2
million to an 8-year-old immigrant boy who was mutilated
during a botched circumcision five years ago, his lawyer
said.

The settlement was reached a month after a civil
trial began in state Supreme Court on allegations the boy,
then 3, lost part of his penis during the operation,
according to his attorney, Mark Pruzan.

The boy and his family, who asked that their names
be withheld, are Russian immigrants who were referred to the
Brook Plaza Surgical Ambulatory Center in Brooklyn by
agencies that help new Jewish immigrants.

The clinic's attorney, Neil Ptashnik, was quoted in
Wednesday's Daily News as saying that the settlement was
``a business decision'' that carried ``specifically no
admission of guilt.''


The clinic, a doctor and the rabbi who performed the
operation were being sued for causing ``permanent shortening
and disfigurement of the penis.''

BOY IN COMA MOST OF HIS 6 YEARS DIES

The Associated Press

Spartanburg, South Carolina

A boy who was in a coma for more than six years while a legal battle raged
around him has died. But the legal fighting will continue.

Allen A. Ervin was born in July 1985 and had been on life support since
December 1985, when his brain was damaged from oxygen deprivation during
circumcision.

FAMILY GETS $2.75 MILLION IN WRONGFUL SURGERY SUIT

by Vincent Lupo
American Press Staff Writer

The family of a young boy, whose penis had to be
amputated after it was severly burned during a routine
circumcision perfromed at a state-run hospital, was awarded
$2.75 million by a jury in 14th Judicial District Court.

Jurors made the award against the State of Louisiana
Department of Health and Human Resource (DHHR) and the LSU
Board of Supervisors. The family of the boy asked that they
not be named.

According to testimony during the week-long civil trial
before Juge L. E. Hawsey Jr., the boy who was 2 years old at
the time, was to undergo a routine circumcision at W. O.
Moss Regional Hospital on February 2, 1984.

A third-year surgical resident undergoing training
through the LSU medical program supervised the operation in
which an electrosurgical instrument manufactured by Valley
Lab of Boulder, Colo., was used. The device, commonly used
to stop bleeding during surgery, can cut tissue through heat
transmitted by an electric current.

"Facts: 3 July 91: Plaintiff was born at the Oak Knoll Naval Hospital in
Oakland, California. Twelve hours following a normal delivery by C-Section,
the Plaintiff underwent an elected circumcision. During the course of the
circumcision, Dr. Tam, a pediatrician, amputated approximately 30% of the
distal glans penis and transected the glandular urethra. A less than
successful attempt was made to reattach that which had been excised.
Subsequent plastic surgery has been attempted and there is resultant
deformity at the tip of the penis.

[drugstore cowboy]

Here's a link to a gallery of mutilated penises or botched circumcisions.

http://circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched3sc.html

For those of you who reading this thread who have never seen an intact penis with a foreskin here are some pictures of them next to cut penises.

http://circumstitions.com/Restric/comparison.html

[drugstore cowboy]

Most men in the world are intact with foreskin, and have no issues with being intact with a foreskin despite what pro-circ advocates like to falsely claim happens if you're intact with a foreskin.

There are 23 medically advanced nations. The U.S. is the only nation which routinely circumcises nearly 63% of its newborn males. Our country represents less than 1/20th of the world population, yet it performs more than half of all infant circumcisions worldwide. If the foreskin is so prone to problems, why haven't other advanced nations adopted routine circumcision? One can't help but wonder why the U.S. is the only medically advanced nation that performs routine infant circumcisions without any medical indication.

Routine Infant Circumcision is limited to English speaking countries. The practice was intoduced to the U.S. through England, but they abandoned it nearly 50 years ago, practicing it now at the rate of only 1%. The rate is 3% in New Zealand, 10% in Australia and 20% to 25% in Canada. RIC is not offered in most non-English speaking countries. It never caught on in Europe, Asia, South or Central America. If the majority of men elsewhere in the world were having medical problems because their penises were left intact, wouldn’t these countries begin the practice?

Worldwide Statistics

The population of the United States is 260 Million. The entire world population is 5 Billion, 700 Million. Out of those, 2 Billion, 647 Million are males currently living. 18% of them are circumcised.

Of the world's male population, the breakdown of the circumcised and intact are:

79 million American infant circs
9 million American child or adult circs
13 million Canada, UK, New Zealand & Australia infant circs
27 million rest of world infant circs
44 million child or adult circs other parts of world
315 million Muslim child/adolescent circumcisions

487 million = TOTAL MEN CIRCUMCISED WORLDWIDE (18%)
2 billion 160 million = TOTAL MEN INTACT WORLDWIDE (82%)

2 billion 647 million = Total Men Living Worldwide

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Out of the Worldwide Total of 487 Million Circumcised Men:

65% occur as Muslim cultural circumcisions
15% occur in other countries
3% occur in other English speaking countries
17% occur in the U.S.

**Above statistics complied by Demographics International

U.S. Statistics

According to the National Center for Health Statistics in Washington, D.C., the latest figures on circumcision for the four basic regions of the U.S. as of 1994 (the latest reported date) are:

Northeast 69.6%
Midwest 80.1%
South 64.7%
West 34.2%

Average for entire U.S. is 62.7%

[drugstore cowboy]

Here's an excellent article.


Is it ethical to perform
routine infant male circumcisions?
By M. Paul Vance

Ethical Discussion

Circumcision-the most common surgery performed in the U.S.- is a procedure in search of a disease.

But let us suppose that circumcision causes no "harm" to the male: that it does not lead to death between one in twenty-four thousand and one in five hundred thousand cases; that no penises are inadvertently ablated and that no chromosome XY infants are raised chromosome XX; and that circumcision does not remove erogenous tissue and lead to altered sexual practices.

Let us suppose that adequate pain control techniques are developed (and used) so that during the procedure infants do not rupture their stomachs, vomit, and stop breathing due to overwhelming, intractable pain. Let us suppose that a safe post-operative analgesic is also developed so that the infant does not suffer irritation as urine and feces bathe his raw penis.

Let us also suppose that circumcision prevents masturbation; that circumcision prevents penile cancer, and that circumcision prevents cervical cancer; and that circumcision prevents sexually transmitted diseases; and that circumcision cures meningitis; and that circumcision prevents childhood diseases; and that circumcision prevents urinary tract infections; and that circumcision prevents HIV infections.

Let us suppose all these things.

If we suppose all these things-then, is routine infant circumcision ethical? No.

Medical professionals and parents have fearlessly faced the daunting task of deciding whether an extremely invasive and painful procedure fraught with complications will be medically beneficial to the newborn male at some time in his life. But that is not the issue-the issue is whether an infant male has an "inherent right, inalienable right to his own intact body." (192)

There can be no justification for amputating normal tissue from a normal child.

"I think I could accept a deformity that was an accident of nature, but I can't accept that someone did that to me. I have never been able to accept the fact that when I was a baby someone cut part of my penis off." (193)

"We recognize the inherent right of all human beings to an intact body. Without religious or racial prejudice, we affirm this basic human right. We recognize that the foreskin, clitoris and labia are normal, functional body parts. Parents and/or guardians do not have the right to consent to the surgical removal or modification of their children's normal genitalia. Physicians and other healthcare providers have a responsibility to refuse to remove or mutilate normal body parts. The only persons who may consent to medically unnecessary procedures upon themselves are the individuals who have reached the age of consent (adulthood), and then only after being fully informed about the risks and benefits of the procedure. We categorically state that circumcision has unrecognized victims. In view of the serious physical and psychological consequences that we have witnessed in victims of circumcision, we hereby oppose the performance of a single additional unnecessary foreskin, clitoral, or labial amputation procedure. We oppose any further studies which involve the performance of the circumcision procedure upon unconsenting minors..." (194)

Routine infant circumcision violates principles I, III, IV, and V of the American Medical Association Principles of Medical Ethics:

"A physician shall be dedicated to providing competent medical service with compassion and respect for human dignity." (195)

Physicians are not ethically obligated to provide the care a patient's parents or physician's superior want the physician to perform. The physician's primary ethical loyalties are to his own conscious and to the welfare of his patient.

Numerous studies, cited above, have conclusively shown that circumcision is an extremely painful operation; equally numerous also previously cited studies have conclusively shown that effective intraoperative pain relief is available; and physicians have been repeatedly advised-with little avail-to anesthetize infants while they are being circumcised (196, 197, 198).

Routine infant circumcision does not save lives or reduce suffering and it is not medically indicated. It simply is not compassionate to perform an extremely painful, medically unnecessary operation even with (and that is not the case here) the patient's consent.

The foreskin has several functions: protection of the glans during infancy and throughout life, to facilitate copulation, and to detect sensual stimuli. Removing non-diseased, functioning tissue from an infant at the parent's request violates the infant and does not respect the infant's "human dignity".

Circumcision is a non-therapeutic procedure with definite risks and only potential benefits. Proper penile hygiene accomplishes the same potential benefits-without the pain or loss of function-and is far less intrusive. Circumcising 100,000 infants without anesthesia to prevent one case of penile cancer later in life, or circumcising 195 infants without anesthesia to prevent one case of hospitalizable urinary tract infections is not "competent medical service".

"A physician shall respect the law and also recognize a responsibility to seek changes in those requirements which are contrary to the best interest of the patient."

The U.S. has realized that routine female circumcision is "genital mutilation"-that it violates the female's privacy and harms the female physically and psychologically for life.

Routine circumcision began in the U.S in the 1870's to prevent children (boys and girls) from masturbating and as a punishment for masturbation, and to prevent/cure a variety of psychological disorders in males and females of all ages. All the original reasons for instituting routine infant circumcision have been disproved; not a single "new reason" for routine male circumcision is accepted outside the U.S. and Canada. Does the U.S. and Canada know something the rest of the world doesn't know?

No.

It is time for the U.S. to realize that routine male circumcision-although currently legal-is unethical. Routine male circumcision mutilates the genitals, violates the male's privacy, and physically and psychologically harms the male for life. Let it be said here-as is true for most of the females who have been mutilated in Africa, the Middle East, and the U.S.-that most U.S. male victims do not realize they are victims.

Physicians break no law or principle by refusing to circumcise infants. By agreeing to circumcise however, physicians serve the interests of everyone except the person he is ethically obligated to serve: the infant. Circumcision removes normal functioning tissue, inflicts great pain, and induces long-lasting behavioral changes. Circumcising physicians are not performing a procedure "in the best interest of the patient".

"A physician shall respect the rights of patients..."

Like it or not, an infant is a person.

All patients, including infants, have the right to privacy and bodily integrity-physicians have the duty to refrain from violating these rights without sufficient justification.

A parent's desire is not sufficient justification for a physician to violate an infant's rights.

"Physicians shall continue to study, apply and advance scientific knowledge, make relevant information available to patients, colleagues, and the public...."

As covered previously, circumcision is an extremely painful procedure that permanently removes functioning tissue. Complication rates of circumcision exceed benefit rates; extra hospitalization times for circumcision exceed urinary tract infection hospitalization times; deaths to circumcision approximate deaths to penile cancer. Recommending-even tacitly-circumcision as a beneficial procedure is a failure on the part of the physician to "study, apply.... (and) make relevant information available to patients". Physicians have an ethical obligation to "apply...scientific knowledge" by dissuading parents from seeking to circumcise their infant boys and girls

Physicians who circumcise also violate the medico-ethical principles of autonomy and non-malifience.

Autonomy. For individuals without decision-making capacity, it is at times necessary to violate their present autonomy so as to preserve their future autonomy. (For example, treating an unconscious individual).However, circumcision is non-therapeutic: the infant does not need the operation. Thus, by circumcising the infant, the physician violates the patients autonomy by forever negating the patient's right to decide whether or not he will be circumcised.

Non-malifience. As healers, physicians are bound to practice beneficence and non-malifience. Beneficence commands the physicians to attempt to heal, treat, or alleviate suffering in his patient; non-malifience directs the physician to avoid unnecessarily harming his patient. Circumcising physicians refrain from practicing beneficence and do malifience. Prior to circumcision, the infant is not diseased, does not require treatment, and is not suffering. Here then, the physician can indirectly practice beneficence by recommending to the parents not to have their son circumcised. However, if the physician agrees to circumcise the infant, he inflicts extreme pain on an infant: he inflicts a wound that serves no purpose other than being a result of fulfilling-not the infant's-but other peoples wishes. The only term that can describe such an act is malifience.

Evil is unspectacular and always human, and shares our bed and eats at our own table. W.H. Auden



192. Milos, Marilyn, National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC), http://www.nocirc.org/

193. Denniston, G.C. (1989) "First, do no harm." The Truth Seeker (3):37

194. Excerpt, Declaration of the First International Symposium on Circumcision http://www.nocirc.org/declare.html

195. American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics Council on the Ethical and Judical Affairs 1996-1997 Edition,

196. 1996 Position Statement: Routine Circumcision of Normal Male Infants and Boys. Australian College of Paediatrics.

197. Lannon, Carol M., (1999). "American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision, Circumcision Policy Statement." Pediatrics 103(3).

198. 1996 Position Statement: Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) Canadian Medical Association Journal 154(6): 769-780

[darkeyes]

You are no more than the most destructive males you might criticize.
else
If you're female, guilty, unrepentant, then you're a cunt... a filthy radical feminist. One who regards feminist rights, then suddenly becomes brain-dead when it regards rights of an infant male and his rights to his penis.

Again, I repeat my stand against FGM or MGM. I stand upon a humanist platform.

Wasn't and isn't my intention to involve myself in this latest spat over infant circumcision, but wish you hadnt said that, Blue.. as a filthy radical feminist myself really do wish you hadn't said that.. cos u know zactly where I stand on this issue.. am not gonna make a big hoohah bout it, just think u should hang your fucking head in shame for those words.... it makes feminism sound dirty and that feminism has come down on one side of this argument which it has not in the US to the best of my knowledge.. and in Europe mostly feminist views on circumcision reflect me own... yes Blue it always was gonna take a lot 2 make me say ne thing but ya managed it hun.. congratulations on a job badly done.

[dbltrbl69]

You are born with foreskin or clitoral hood. It is supposed to be there!!! If you don't have it, you have know clue how good it fuckin is. Like any part of your body, keep it clean!!

[sammie19]

Being critical of the Jewish religion and being critical of religious rites of male genital mutilation is not even close to the same thing as hating an ethnically Jewish person or someone being an actual Neo-Nazi or Anti-Semite who hates Jews as well as Palestinians since they are Semitic people as well.

By the logic these Jewish groups are using, we can't be critical of Christianity, Islam, or any other religions either.

Which is rather hypocritical since these Jewish groups do claim that all people who practice Islam are ubiquitously against Jews or Israel which is not true.

The anti semetic argument is one which is quite fascinating. It is an easy argument to make that the most anti semetic group on earth are the Jewish people themselves, particularly the more extreme elements of orthdox Jews, since the actual amount of semetic blood within most is so diluted by centuries of inter breeding with other ethnic groups after Jews were forced to flee Palestine in the very early Christian era.

I don't know what my personal ethnic history is going back to the 1st or second century, but my hair, skin and eye colouring suggests northern European/scandinavian/german. I may live in Northern Europe but I am neither scandinavian or german. My paternal grandmothers maiden name suggests Italian (Anthony from Antonio), and my maternal grandfather (Sinclair from St Clair) French both much more recently. I am neither Italian or French either ethnically or culturally. My surname is of Pictish origin, and the Picts are known to have been little dark people, and although quite little, I am hardly dark. I am none of these things.

The arguments I make on this issue are not ethnic, although it can be said that there is a religious element to it, but they are human and a desire to allow chidren to grow as nature intended them. That I would also include Jewish and Islamic chidren in any bill to abolish circumcision is not out of animosity or religious prejudice. It is out of concern for young children and for them to be allowed at some stage in their lives to decide for themselves what to do with their body.

Once we burned witches because of interpretation of scripture. Our ancestors did many things which now we consider unfortunate and barbaric in the name of God because of what scripture and tradition told them. The issue of circumcision of infants to my mind is no different and that in this day and age, both Islam and Judaism should move on.

Attempts by some to paint this as as some kind of nazi plot and born out of anti semetic prejudice just dont hold water. Freedom of religion I agree with but not when it harms helpless human beings for no reason other than some ritual steeped in the ancient past.

[sammie19]

When the Anti-Circ crowd is as adamant about the childs right to live as they are about a piece of skin, I would be more inclined to support their view.

As it is, they worship a piece of skin and foresake the child for political expediency.

As many people who are pro infant circumcison are as likely to be pro abortion as those of us who are anti and vice versa. So that argument holds as much water as Lisa's bucket.

Would you like some straw?;)

[DuckiesDarling]

Well gee Sammie, I for one, as the mother of three sons am pro circ and pro abortion. I don't mean abortion as a means of birth control but in cases where the child is the result of rape, incest or has severe medical issues that would not only result in the death of the child but also the death of the mother if carried to term. But just because I am doesn't mean that anyone who supports circumcision as a medical need is also pro abortion. Two completely distinct different issues.

[jem_is_bi]

There is now 324 replies (including me) to this awful thread.

[sammie19]

Well gee Sammie, I for one, as the mother of three sons am pro circ and pro abortion. I don't mean abortion as a means of birth control but in cases where the child is the result of rape, incest or has severe medical issues that would not only result in the death of the child but also the death of the mother if carried to term. But just because I am doesn't mean that anyone who supports circumcision as a medical need is also pro abortion. Two completely distinct different issues.

Well gee DD, I havent said anything different. It isn't me that raised the issue so I suggest u take it out on your chum.

[Katja]

.

the constant argument that a females opinion doesn't matter cos they do not have a penis, shows a great deal of ignorance on the behalf of some of the people in the thread

the thing is.... females are parents and make up a lot of solo mothers, with the power of choice over circumcision ...... and watching people in the thread, tell females their opinion is not really of value, is a very stupid thing for anti circumcision advocates to do.... cos its insulting one of the parents that can choose to circumcise or not...... and implying that a female doesn't have the right or ability to decide for her children

You are quite right LDD. The woman's opinion does matter and matters a great deal. She is a parent every bit as much as the father, and has the same rights and duty of care to her child her husband or partner.

An American couple (now both also British naturalised citizens) of my aquaintance who are resident in this country had a son several years ago and the father wished his son circumcised. The mother did not. Under the laws of England and guidelines which exist for such disputes, the child was not circumcised. A infant cannot be unless both parents agree, and these rules are pertinent to religious circumcision as well as cultural. The father was prevented legally from taking his son out of the country against the mother's will to prevent just such a circumcision taking place in the land of their birth.

This whole debate is about whether or not in the case of infant circumcision, the parents should retain that right absolutely. Few of us on this side of the debate, and are anti infant circumcision, would ever dispute that a mother's rights and duty of care, legally and morally are, and should be, equal to the father's. I assume few on the other side do either, but one can never be quite sure about such things.

[Katja]

There is now 324 replies (including me) to this awful thread.

You are quite right. It is an awful debate. Sometimes however awful debates need to be conducted however much we dislike them. This is especially true when it is something which is long established and dear to our heart is under challenge and severe threat.

[BiDaveDtown]

There is now 324 replies (including me) to this awful thread.

This thread is not awful.

What's awful is mutilating a child's genitals under the ruse of religion, hygiene, and because you think it will help prevent HIV and other STDs better than safer sex and using a condom will.

[drugstore cowboy]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kosher means pure or clean according to Jewish law, in regard to food, prepared according to Jewish dietary law.

In Judaism the female is not circumcised, just the male at eight days old.

A valid medical procedure in the eyes of whom? Certainly not in the eyes of your own countries medical associations, or cancer associations. Not in the eyes of their counterparts in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, Germany, France, I could go on but suffice to say of every other industrialised country in the World. Hardly my own personal opinion.

Considered preventative care by whom? Insurance companies? You pay the premiums they will happily insure you against any risk, even that of a satellite in outer space falling down and hitting you on the head.

And there are fewer such insurance companies accepting that it is preventative care each year, which is why the rate for routine circumcision of infants is falling year by year in the US.

Calling an uncircumcised person a freak is insulting too. I got over it so will they and you.

As to a circumcised male posting on this board that they don't feel they are missing any pleasure. If they were circumcised as infants, how would they know? They don't have a history of having a sex life whilst having a foreskin to compare it with. I've never been to Vegas, how am I meant to know what I might be missing if I've never been there?

In circumcision, a great many nerves are removed completely. The nerves simply aren't there to transmit the sensation they would otherwise have had. If the nerves and sensation are absent, the pleasure can only be curtailed, it cannot be enhanced without the nerves to transmit it.

No, studies are invalid if they do not prove what they set out to prove. In order for a study to be viable the correct methodology has to be adopted. Too many variables and you just get useless data.

The study has to be capable of achieving the same results if the procedure is followed elsewhere. Verification is the key.

Now if you had been following the thread from its inception and the links posted, you will have seen the holes in the Ugandan experiment and how it was discredited.

Not just, that it was discredited, but that it put poorly-educated people at risk, by making them think they were immune to HIV. Leading many of them as a consequence, into behaviour that increases their risk of their being infected by HIV and other STI's. So instead of providing protection from what it set out to do, it makes the complete opposite more likely to occur.

So in conclusion, it is not just a matter of personal opinion. It is a matter of a human infant being allowed to grow as God and Nature intended, free from the whims of any other person. To make cosmetic choices about their body a choice for them, and them alone and all the excuses in the World can't change that.

QFT. :)

It is an antiquated barbaric practice that mutilates babies, why wouldn't a caring mother care about causing pain to their infant son?

Jennifer Margulis, a contributing editor at Mothering magazine, recently blogged about the topic on Babble.com and says if parents knew more about the procedure, they’d be running for the hills when asked whether they want to circumcise their baby.


“Most parents do not watch their baby being circumcised and do not know that the procedure can be excruciatingly painful, even with anesthesia. Anyone who has ever witnessed a circumcision and heard the high-pitched scream of a newborn having part of his penis cut off (you can watch one on the Internet if you don't believe me) knows that this surgery causes pain.”


"Circumcision is barbaric and stupid. Who are you to correct nature?" the Oscar winner Russel Crowe tweeted Thursday. "Is it real that God requires a donation of foreskin? Babies are perfect."

"I will always stand for the perfection of babies. I will always believe in God, not man's interpretation of what God requires," Crowe shared. "Last of it, if you feel it is your right to cut things off your babies please unfollow and f**k off; I'll take attentive parenting over barbarism."

[BiDaveDtown]

A boy has a right to all of his healthy body-including and intact penis with a foreskin, and how he experiences it should be his choice--not the choice of a parent, a religious leader, a government, a medical board, surgeon/nurse, a philanthropist, or a doctor.

[bib4u]

Let's see, we are ALL born with certain parts, but "medical society" has deemed certain parts to be better off REMOVED!

Do you really need 8 fingers, two eyes? two nostrils, two ears, two testicles, two nipples, ALL that hair, after all you gotta cut it SO often,etc,etc,etc...?

Wonder what physical part[s] the hierarchy of medical society will deem "better off DELETED" in the future?

btw, personal choice anyone? it's not just for pregnant women any more!

[ExSailor]

Let's see, we are ALL born with certain parts, but "medical society" has deemed certain parts to be better off REMOVED! Do you really need 8 fingers, two eyes? two nostrils, two ears, two testicles, two nipples, ALL that hair, after all you gotta cut it SO often,etc,etc,etc...? Wonder what physical part[s] the hierarchy of medical society will deem "better off DELETED" in the future? btw, personal choice anyone? it's not just for pregnant women any more! Right on! :)

[Young pussy and dope]

Bizel, cool it. Please. You show compassion, yet misunderstanding. My father also was natural (uncut). In WWII the army required him to be cut. He refused. It didn't happen. He had no regrets (why should he? I'm sure he would have told them to also go to hell if they told him to get lobotomized or cut toes or fingers off). I could see if I was forced into doing something and was afraid to stand up to it, and allowed it to be done, I would look back on it with my male ego like 'it was probably the best thing', and find some incidental positives too. A clear form of 'adaptive preference formation' (subset of cognitive dissonance). We've already seen many examples of this on these threads. And despite modern rhetoric, FGM and MGM share much in common. Both are done on innocent children. Both are sexual mutilation/molestation. Both are intended and succeed to critically reduce sexual feeling/gratification hopefully without killing procreation ability. Both are for the cleanliness of the victim. Both are very painful. Except for Rizzababies male children. She assured us they escaped all pain when she did it to them/him. We can take her word for it. Both are customs. Both are farces. Both are wrong, doubly so when enforced by a member of the opposite sex. A man has no business endorsing FGM as a woman has no business endorsing MGM. If you're unable to see why that's wrong on two levels... take some time. As far as your references of 'cut guys'... Don't write any masters' thesis papers using your logic method, you'll never graduate. But keep with your empathy and you'll find the right path. Agree with you 1,000%

[DiamondDog]

The worst reasons by far for circumcision are that it's part of someone's religion and simply has to be done because Allah/Yaweh said so in an outdated religious text that's been translated so much for thousands of years that it no longer has the same meaning now as it did when it was first written and it does not apply to the modern world in 2011. Then you have parents who think that their kid is going to go neurotic if his penis does not look like his father's and that other boys/men in the school locker room or even men's room will notice him and tease him. Circumcision is nothing but genital mutilation and it does not make the penis somehow cleaner or less prone to STDs. It actually makes the penis less sensitive and removes a vital part of the penis the foreskin which has lots of nerve endings and the foreskin is designed to protect the glans or penis' head. It would be like going out into icy cold wearing and not wearing gloves and then wondering why your hands become chapped, bleeding, and rough. Doctors and nurses do frequently tell lies about circumcision to the parents such as "Oh he slept through the entire thing!" or "He didn't cry at all!" which is all total bullshit since infants are strapped down and even with anesthesia they do feel lots of pain since a very sensitive part of their penis is being cut off. They actually do pass out from the pain or stay awake and fully conscious and then go into shock from it. Then you have American parents like Twyla, Pasadena, and even Canadian parents believing these lies and trying to justify just why they had their sons' penises mutilated when it's a completely barbaric and useless operation that serves no medical benefits at all. Ontheside posted how doctors do happen to make a lot of money from circumcision and even a gay male German friend of mine who happens to be cut and in the minority in his country he claims it was done just so some doctor would make some money while his brothers are not cut. It's common sense people. You're cutting off a very sensitive part of someone's penis. How could the boy somehow not be in pain even if they were pumped full of anesthetics? Consequently lots of boys do die from being circumcised or they get their penises even more mutilated and damaged from "accidents" and some even do die from the anesthesia and none of this would have happened if the boy never had his genitals mutilated because his parents wanted it based on their selfish ideas or because of pointless outdated religious beliefs. There is even a case where a Rabbi gave a boy herpes when he was mutilating the boy's genitals. The idea that a penis that is cut is "normal" is totally an American concept that's false and most men in the world and most countries and cultures in the world do not practice male genital mutilation unlike in the United States. Even in the United States and Canada less and less parents are mutilating their boys' genitals which is a good thing. As far as teasing goes nobody gets teased for being intact with a foreskin and even if they do people get teased over everything from their hair style to the clothes they wear to their nose or they way that they talk. Premature ejaculation is significantly more common among circumcised men. The term intact is used since uncut states the false theory that being "cut" is normal when actually less men in the world are cut than are actually intact with a foreskin. The fact that male circumcision is performed on infants hides somewhat the barbarity of it in some American parents' minds like Twyla and Pasadena have shown here. Babies' only means of communicating distress verbally is through crying, so one more instance of crying brought on by the trauma of circumcision just disappears into the excuse of, well, that's what babies do - cry. It's much easier to dismiss the cries of anguish of a baby as normal than it is to dismiss the cries of anguish of pre-adolescent or adolescent girl. Male circumcision is directly related to the rediculous religious and cultural idea that Yahweh's Chosen People have a special mark. That is a barbaric idea. That cultural ideas about male circumcision have changed, using so-called medical or aesthetic reasons does not diminish the barbarity of the practice when it is performed on infants unable to grant consent. Male circumcision (as it is usually practised) is an elective procedure performed upon an individual that has not granted consent. It is either done for religious purposes, or aesthetic purposes. Any claim to sexual health benefit is dubious; condoms provide far better protection than what is claimed for circumcision. the fact that the child can't protest such a procedure, violates the right of the child to be free from physical intrusion. Why parents are so obsessed with the genitals of their children that they choose to remove a part of it, is beyond me? It's pretty offensive to say that women have a little bit more right to their complete genitalia than men. Of course the female mutilation is also grounded in misogyny-so that women will be faithful to their husbands. Some cultures even sew up the vagina after they mutilate the clitoris. This is disgusting and repulsive and it needs to stop. But we ALL equally deserve to be born without being mutilated, and without our permission. It's ludicrous to suggest otherwise. some of the more well known benefits of not being circumcised such as easier masturbation and being more in control of your orgasm (premature ejaculation) it apparently also has some benefits for the sexual partners of uncircumcised men. I've been told that it's somewhat nicer for women and men to have vaginal and anal intercourse with an uncircumcised male because the foreskin acts like a natural cockring. People say that circumcision doesn't not affect sexual function: it does. The foreskin helps the penis slide in and out during copulation, it contains sensitive nerve endings that enhance sexual pleasure, and it protects the head of the penis (as anyone knows how has worn pants with jeans in them without underwear-and I won't do that again). It is not just some flap of skin. Every body is under this misapprehension because of the propaganda from centuries ago that was scientifically unsound. Furthermore, the goal was to reduce sexual desire-because it's sinful. If circumcision were free of acute risks and perfectly painless it would still be a huge violation of human rights. It takes away about half a male's pleasure-receptive nerve endings, removes protection for the mucosal parts meant to keep them supple and sensitive, and changes intimacy for the worse by eliminating the frictionless rolling/gliding action of the slinky skin that makes sex more plush for a man and his partner. It also makes the penis THINNER, reducing the diameter by 4 skin thicknesses (the skin doubles under and enfolds over the glans upon a withdrawal phase so there are two layers on either side of the glans). In the only study to carefully measure the fine-touch sensitivity on various spots on the penis for over 150 men, of 17 spots they measured the 5 most sensitive were all on the foreskin. You might ask why they measured the foreskin more than once. That's because it comprises about 15 square inches in the adult. It includes some outer skin like the surviving shaft skin on a cut guy, the roll-over point which is very ticklish, the ridged band of highly concentrated sexual nerve endings, the frenular delta, and the frenulum (the neurological homologue to the clitoris). Involuntary penis reduction surgery? Bloody brilliant idea! It's no coincidence that circumcision has its greatest detrimental effect on sexuality. Maimonides (or Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, a twelfth-century philosopher, legal scholar, and physician often called "Judaism's Aristotle") said: "As regards circumcision, I think one of its objects is to limit sexual intercourse and to weaken the organ of generation as far as possible, and thus cause man to be moderate... The bodily injury caused to that organ is exactly that which is desired; it does not interrupt any vital function, nor does it destroy the power of generation. Circumcision simply counteracts excessive lust; for there is no doubt that circumcision weakens the power of sexual excitement, and sometimes lessens the natural enjoyment; the organ necessarily becomes weak when it loses blood and is deprived of its covering from the beginning." The "weakening" of sexuality was precisely the reason circumcision was introduced into medical practice in the United States as a "prophylactic" during the 19th century. Until that time, the practice was virtually nonexistent. Here in good ol' God-fearing, Puritanical America, masturbation was not only considered sinful, but was deemed a major health peril as well. Countless maladies were thought to accrue from this "degenerate" practice, and, in 1888, J. H. Kellogg--the All Bran laxative king--together with other Victorians of his ilk, began proselytizing for mass circumcision as a deterrent to "self abuse." Their purpose was to keep the male youth of America from masturbating, going blind and insane with hair growing on the palms of their hands. Kellogg said, "Tying the hands is also successful in some cases... Covering the organs with a cage has been practiced with entire success. A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision... The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment." These self-promoting defenders of public health and morality claimed that circumcision also cured a vast litany of masturbation-related ills and proselytized for its mass acceptance as an "immunizing inoculation." They claimed it cured everything from alcoholism to asthma, curvature of the spine, enuresis, epilepsy, elephantiasis, gout, headache, hernia, hydrocephalus, insanity, kidney disease, rectal prolapse and rheumatism. In the face of rationality and modern research, contemporary circumcisionists have abandoned most of these claims but have now updated their list to include cancer, urinary tract infections, sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV, and premature ejaculation. The cancer argument has been an especially effective scare tactic, prompting officials of the American Cancer Society to write a letter to the American Academy of Pediatrics condemning the promulgation of the myth that circumcision prevents penile cancer. "The American Cancer Society does not consider routine circumcision to be a valid or effective measure to prevent such cancers... Perpetuating the mistaken belief that circumcision prevents cancer is inappropriate." Of course it is. Penile cancer is an extremely rare condition, affecting only one in 100,000 men in the United States. Penile cancer rates in countries that do not practice circumcision are lower than those found in the United States. Fatalities caused by circumcision accidents may approximate the mortality rate from penile cancer, and, for circumcised men who do contract penile cancer, the lesion may occur at the site of the circumcision scar. Portraying routine circumcision as an effective means of prevention distracts the public from the task of avoiding the behaviors proven to contribute to penile and cervical cancer: especially cigarette smoking and unprotected sexual relations with multiple partners. The ACS has recently reiterated this position on their web site and also notes that "...circumcision is not medically necessary." On a recent BBC radio broadcast of "Case Notes", pediatric urologist Rowena Hitchcock pointed out that "Even using the figures of those who support circumcision one would have to perform 140 circumcisions a week for 25 years before you could prevent one case of cancer. Of those cancers, 80% are treatable and they are avoidable by simply pulling the foreskin back and washing it, which I would prefer to 140 circumcisions a week for 25 years." The "cancer prevention" argument would have greater persuasive appeal if applied to breast cancer in women. The American Cancer Society estimates that 44,000 women will die of breast cancer in 1998. This same year, by comparison, an estimated 200 men, most of them beyond 70 years of age with poor hygiene habits, will die of penile cancer. If amputating healthy tissue is an antidote to cancer, it would make far more "sense" to routinely perform radical mastectomies on adolescent girls and remove the breast buds of all newborn females than to amputate the foreskin of male infants to prevent such comparatively paltry numbers. But nobody in their right mind would suggest this as appropriate therapy... except when applied to infant boys, that is. Go figure. The HIV scare is another in the continuing effort of circumcision advocates to view their favorite "surgery" as a hedge against disease. Despite the fact that the United States is a "circumcising country," where the majority of sexually-active men are cut, we nevertheless have the highest HIV infection rate among advanced industrialized countries. In fact, the U.S. has an infection rate 3.5 times greater than the next leading country, or 16 cases per 100,000 population. None of the other advanced industrialized countries circumcise routinely. France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden, Norway, New Zealand, Finland and Japan all have near-zero infant circumcision rates, yet their AIDS infection rate goes from 3.5 cases per 100,000 down to 0.2, respectively. Consequently, not only is it clear that circumcision does not prevent HIV or AIDS, the infection rates suggest that circumcision may actually contribute to HIV infection by depriving the penis of the natural immunological protection of the foreskin. But rest assured, as soon as medical science debunks these latest "benefits" for mass mutilations, the pro-circumcision industry will invent new reasons and new diseases for continued use of their favorite treatment of nonexistent ills. The circumcision epidemic is a national scandal in this country and a crime against infant boys. Simply put, infant circumcision is child abuse. It is gratuitous genital mutilation and should be banned along with thumb screws, hot pincers and boiling in oil as nothing short of perverse. In a recent article appearing in ObGYN News, doctor Leo Sorger says, "Circumcision causes pain, trauma, and a permanent loss of protective and erogenous tissue. Removing normal, healthy, functioning tissue violates the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 5) and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Article 13)." The foreskin is not a birth defect needing remedy by the A.M.A. Nobody in all of Europe, non-Muslim Asia, or Latin America is routinely circumcised. In fact, the only people who routinely cut off the most erogenous part of their boys' penis are Jews, Muslims, certain tribal groups in far-flung parts of the world and... the United States. Everybody else leaves their sons intact as nature made them." This is a fact. Indisputable. Most leave their girls intact, too. Roughly one million baby boys a year in this country are rudely welcomed into the world by the amputation, without anesthesia, of an integral, sexually important part of their anatomy. By definition, the removal of a normal, healthy, functional body part is mutilation. Pure and simple. These one million babies represent around 60% of all male infants born in this country, a figure that is down from a high reached in the 1970's and 1980's of around 90%. And what is truly astounding is that, while we become incensed over the female genital mutilations going on in Africa and other third-world countries far, far away, we ignore the routine mutilations perpetrated here against our own sons. The sexism of this perspective is stunning. In fact, in 1996 the U.S. Congress, eager to appease feminist groups and appear to be the Great White Protectors of American Girlhood, passed a law against female circumcision or any other form of genital modification of girls below the age of consent. This was pure political theater, baby kissing, butt patting. As a society, we simply do not cut the genitals of baby girls in this country... only the genitals of baby boys. Passing a law against female genital mutilation (FGM) was a slam dunk for the politicians. They could look big and strong and macho and foursquare in favor of protecting babies... as long as the babies were girls, that is. In our culture, unlike other more civilized societies, it is perfectly acceptable to amputate the male prepuce against the shrieking protests of the victims. Our national chauvinism has blinded us to our own human rights abuses and genital mutilation against our sons. in the United States there is a huge industry based on circumcision just like there is in certain parts of Africa and the middle east. forskins are not just flushed away,but they are used in a variety of ways,so someone is making money off this barbaric practice. ome are used in a facial cream (ironically enough) that is supposed to get rid of wrinkles. Costs US$130. for a six week supply. In fact FGM and MGM are THE SAME. Both can boast studies pointing to reduced HIV incidence (and the opposite). Both are done by coercion and force. Both are often loudly condoned by the victims. Both send hundreds to the morgue and thousands to the hospital annually. Both leave victims with an altered abililty to enjoy sex. I find it amazing that, in a culture where almost no one would support tattooing a baby girl or boy, so many people support amputation of a functional organ. I can just imagine what would happen if a parent said "My religion demands a cross or Star of David be tattooed on the child's forehead". It would be on the news, and the parents would be vilified. Yet, tattoo removal is reasonable to acheive. Expensive, yes, and painful, yes. But it's done all of the time. But circumcision reversal is not so easy, and does not fully replace what was taken. Even where circumcision is done for a therapeutic reason, the issue (usually phimosis) could usually be resolved without removal of the entire prepuce, and possibly without actual surgery. We (the USA) don't cry out against male circumcision because it's 'our' accepted brand of genital mutilation. We've only recently begun to examine it as a society, as far as I know. We’re still attached to it as a custom and don't see it as being aberrant yet. Here are my reasons it should fall by the wayside, in some sort of order: - It has never been shown to be necessary - The object of the procedure is generally not the one choosing it. - It’s permanent, barring restoration attempts. - It’s a very unpleasant procedure. - The advantages come mainly from societal conditioning. There's neither a reason nor any reasoning for circumcision. I've heard a fellow atheist assert that parents fundamentally have the right--because they're the parents--to do whatever they want to their kid, because apparently being able to have sex and yield an infant is magic. If the removal of the body parts of other people were to be discussed for any set of people and body parts other than children/infants and genitals, we would straightforwardly reject it: "No, you have no grounds upon which to have your fellow adults' bodies altered." "No, you may not have any of the toes of your baby removed." Apparently, genitals and babies are magic. Circumcision started being done routinely in the USA to stop boys from wanting to masturbate. It was encouraged by Kellogg (of Corn Flake fame), who also encouraged using acid on the female clitoris for the same reason. When the US medical industry realised they could make good money this way, but public opinion was starting to turn, they changed the story and said it was for 'health reasons'. Watch the Penn and Teller: Bullshit! episode on circumcision. It's horrific what they do to these poor kids, without consent. The kids are strapped down, and go into a catatonic state of fear and pain. Kellogg was beyond a loon. He bragged in his memoir that he had no sex on his honeymoon. Many doctors back then thought all sexual acts drained you of life-force. For all of the fools proclaiming that being cut somehow makes a penis "clean" a foreskin is easy to take care of and you just wash it with soap and water like you would any other body part. Circumcision is not some magic bullet that will prevent you from getting STDs or transmitting them if you have them. You get STDs including HIV by having unprotected sex with people who have them and from not using condoms or having safer sex. Like other people have written in this thread condoms and safer sex work far better than any genital mutilation does. 117 newborn boys die as a result of circumcisions each year. Hundreds of others survive botched jobs and are seriously deformed for life. It is abuse. It is mutilation. It should be an adult male's decision. And as elective surgery, it certainly should not be covered by health insurance. I agree with this post, and the facts it outlines.

[DiamondDog]

A penis that's intact vs a penis that's cut are completely different. Male circumcision is akin to female circumcision and both are done for the exact same reasons. Men who have foreskins like us have far more sensitive penises and get more sexual pleasure than men who are cut do. They have done many studies about this that showed how intact men have more sexual pleasure, give more sexual pleasure to male/female partners during sex, and get more sexual and masturbatory pleasure. Synthetic lube is not the norm it's chemicals and it's not a naturally produced lubricant like a man's precum, saliva, or a woman's vaginal secretions are. All men who are cut (circumcised) have a gross unsightly scar where their foreskin used to be, and the frenulum or the skin that connects the head to the shaft is mutilated or in many cases completely torn off of a cut man's dick; but in men who have foreskin it's completely intact and left alone. I have also been with cut men who had completely dried out penises from being cut, and I felt really bad for them. Actually circumcision is pretty horrific both for the infant and for the adult man who owns the penis and is masturbating or sexually active. I have met a lot of cut men over the decades who have told me how if they had the choice instead of their parents or some doctor they would have kept their foreskin. I also have seen guys who had botched circumcisions-google pics or look on the site http://www.circumstitions.com/Botched.html at the pics there-and they had nasty deformities like skin bridges, and one guy I grew up with they actually had to graph skin from his scrotum onto his penis since they mutilated his penis even more when he was getting cut.

[dafydd]

All men who are cut (circumcised) have a gross unsightly scar where their foreskin used to be, and the frenulum or the skin that connects the head to the shaft is mutilated or in many cases completely torn off of a cut man's dick; but in men who have foreskin it's completely intact and left alone.

dd that is simply not true.
I am surprised that one so seemingly balanced as urself, would let personal feelings cloud their public judgement of issues.
'All men'?
are u that much of a slut that u can claim this? I doubt it.

i am uncut but.... I have *never* seen a 'gross unsightly scar' in cut men who I have been with, including sexual partners I know intimately well.

I *do not* support casual circumcision, and believe the foreskin should remain intact.
But I also do not support casual condemnation of men who are cut, by using catch-all generalisations based on personal fear or horror.

D

[DiamondDog]

dd that is simply not true. I am surprised that one so seemingly balanced as urself, would let personal feelings cloud their public judgement of issues. 'All men'? are u that much of a slut that u can claim this? I doubt it. i am uncut but.... I have *never* seen a 'gross unsightly scar' in cut men who I have been with, including sexual partners I know intimately well. I *do not* support casual circumcision, and believe the foreskin should remain intact. But I also do not support casual condemnation of men who are cut, by using catch-all generalisations based on personal fear or horror. D My comment isn't based on fear or horror. Where I'm describing on cut men is where the foreskin used to be before it was taken off of the person it belonged to without their consent. Circumcision of a penis is genital mutilation and it detracts or takes away the natural astheticism of a penis the way it is supposed to be, and when it's done on an infant or young boy it's done without consent and just as bad as female circumcision. Also there are health issues associated with circumcision such as how if a man is cut he is a lot more likely to have erectile dysfunction, not to mention how circumcision makes a man's penis dry, less sensitive, smaller in length and circumfrence, and a lot of nerve endings are removed. I guess the term I'd say that a cut penis is that it's lacking something major which is a completely whole foreskin. I have seen some men who had half of their foreskin taken off and the rest left on but it begs the question why do anything to it at all in the first place? I feel bad for cut men since they have a penis that's far less sensitive than those of us who are in the majority and have a foreskin. When I have been single I did not refuse men who were cut but I felt bad for them since they didn't have a choice and their genitals were mutilated. Men should make this decision on their own bodies themselves, not have it made for them when they're an infant. I have met a lot of men who are cut who have told me how they are not happy with being cut and how they wished they'd been left intact instead of getting their foreskin literally ripped off which is what happens during a circumcision. Yes you can see the scar from genital mutilation on all circumcised men, and you can tell that the penis is not supposed to be that way. You do not have to be promiscious, a "slut", or have had lots of male sexual partners in order to tell this. Or as I once wrote before, "Having sex with a guy that's cut is like having sex with a woman who is missing her clitoral hood and who has mutilated labia" as both female and male circumcision are equally as barbaric and are both mutilating someone's genitals. A circumcision scar represents conformity, abuse, genital mutilation, and in some cases pointless religious dogma. It's 2013 there's no need to mutilate anyone's genitals. Eventually the practice of mutilating a infant or boy's genitals will die off and become illegal, since worldwide most men are intact, have no issues with having an intact penis with a foreskin, and there are even Jews and Muslims who are not blinded by religious dogma who are against doing this to their sons. I found this image and it shows just what exactly is lost and just how majorly desensitized a penis is when it's cut or mutilated during a circumcision. This is a graphic that shows how severly less sensitive a cut penis is compared to an intact penis. It also references a study. http://i.imgur.com/SgS9q.png This is an excellent article which has more reasons why genital mutilation of boys should be illegal and a thing of the past. http://www.theguardian.com/science/the-lay-scientist/2011/dec/06/1?commentpage=all#start-of-comments

[NMCowboys]

My partner and I are both very anti-circumcision and know that one day circumcision of boys will stop both in the United States and worldwide. It's sad that so many young boys have the best part of their penis taken away from them, and have mutilated penises instead that don't work nearly as well or give them nearly as much sexual pleasure!

[darkeyes]

My partner and I are both very anti-circumcision and know that one day circumcision of boys will stop both in the United States and worldwide. It's sad that so many young boys have the best part of their penis taken away from them, and have mutilated penises instead that don't work nearly as well or give them nearly as much sexual pleasure!I trust u don't use with ur partner as many names as u use on .com babes.. God knos how he/she/it/them keeps track of ya.. do ya have a diff 1 for each ID? Hope not or u will soon b on here calling yasel summat else talking 'bout wot a cheating, 2 timing ratbag u r;)...we manage 2 keep track ofya cos we r clever.. hope he/she/it/them is half as much.. and I say that as 1 who agrees wiv ur stance on circumscision.. just don't think u do our side ne favours that's all.. but no matta.. u give us gud laff at times:cutelaugh:tongue:..

[NMCowboys]

I hold that male genital mutilation, called circumcision, of children in the USA is indeed illegal, and unconstitutional.

It is illegal to circumcise female minors, and it's even illegal to prick with a pin the genitals of female minors---------so where is "equal protection under the law" for male minors?

If it's wrong to force genital mutilation on female minors, it should be equally illegal to do the same to male minors----it is sexist in the extreme, and unconstitutional as such to prohibit circumcision of minors of one sex while allowing it for the other.

In addition, parents are NEVER given complete information about the adverse effects and complications resulting from male genital mutilation---the psychological effects of the mutilation are never discussed or even considered. Each year a lot of infant and young boys die from having their genitals mutilated, and they all get their genitals disfigured when they are mutilated by a Rabbi, surgeon, doctor, nurse, etc. The pain for an infant boy going through a mutilation is so bad that they go into complete shock over it. The right of the male child to genital integrity is never considered.

Parents cannot choose to circumcise a female minor in the USA, as in almost all civilized countries, and they shouldn't be allowed to do it to males minors, either.

In addition, there are no standards to male genital mutilation; the damage varies wildly, as clearly evidenced by the scarring from the wounds to the penis, which can appear anywhere from the base to the glans (head of penis) which disfigures the penis. Not only doctors circumcise male minors; nurses and inexperienced medical students can even indiscriminately hack away at the genitals of male babies and rip off the foreskin.


Circumcision is a fraud, male genital mutilation that's involuntarily done to the owner of the penis, and a hoax.

A foreskin is not a birth defect; it is a birthright.

The newest (most advanced) medical thinking is there is never a need to amputate the parts of the penis called the foreskin (no more than any NEED to cut off the clitoral hood of a baby girl). But most societies and cultures around the world do not practice male or female genital mutilation and see no need for it, and those boys, girls, men, and women who have their genitals left fully intact are perfectly healthy and fine.

The US so wants to justify what they have done to so many men that the push to pass it on to the next generation continues. There is a cycle of mutilation that needs to be broken. Until then boys and the men they become are being harmed. The parts cut off are the MOST innervated parts of the HUMAN MALE. When you cut the parts off you shut down a huge part of the kid’s/man’s sensory system. That can never be returned (it is shut down for good). Also, many cut men have sexual function issues from the start of sexual activity. However, most will get ED at a much younger age than they would otherwise (cut men are 4.5 TIMES as likely to get ED). Most cut guys reach middle age and then problems can and do occur (NUMB dick, and a penis that's totally dry and far less sensitive than a penis that's been left intact with a foreskin). Most guys don't talk about these issues, but it is a fact that most VIAGRA is consumed by cut men. Cut guys are missing out on natural sex and masturbation from the start of sexual activity. Male genital mutilation or circumcision has also been proven to decrease the circumference and length of a man's penis.

MGM (male genital mutilation or circumcision) doesn't protect against HIV and other STDs. Many nations that don't mutilate their sons have lower rates of HIV and other STDs than nations that do mutilate their sons. Teaching PROPER sex education is the key to lowering HIV and STD rates. Amputating erogenous tissue, and mutilating an infant or young boy's penis doesn't teach safe sex.

The only person that has the right to cut off erogenous tissue is from their penis is the owner of that penis. Any religion or society that allows otherwise is primitive and BARBARIC.

[NMCowboys]

The worst reasons by far for circumcision are that it's part of someone's religion and simply has to be done because Allah/Yaweh said so in an outdated religious text that's been translated so much for thousands of years that it no longer has the same meaning now as it did when it was first written and it does not apply to the modern world in 2011. Then you have parents who think that their kid is going to go neurotic if his penis does not look like his father's and that other boys/men in the school locker room or even men's room will notice him and tease him.

Circumcision is nothing but genital mutilation and it does not make the penis somehow cleaner or less prone to STDs. It actually makes the penis less sensitive and removes a vital part of the penis the foreskin which has lots of nerve endings and the foreskin is designed to protect the glans or penis' head. It would be like going out into icy cold wearing and not wearing gloves and then wondering why your hands become chapped, bleeding, and rough.

Doctors and nurses do frequently tell lies about circumcision to the parents such as "Oh he slept through the entire thing!" or "He didn't cry at all!" which is all total bullshit since infants are strapped down and even with anesthesia they do feel lots of pain since a very sensitive part of their penis is being cut off. They actually do pass out from the pain or stay awake and fully conscious and then go into shock from it.

Then you have American parents like Twyla, Pasadena, and even Canadian parents believing these lies and trying to justify just why they had their sons' penises mutilated when it's a completely barbaric and useless operation that serves no medical benefits at all.

Ontheside posted how doctors do happen to make a lot of money from circumcision and even a gay male German friend of mine who happens to be cut and in the minority in his country he claims it was done just so some doctor would make some money while his brothers are not cut.

It's common sense people. You're cutting off a very sensitive part of someone's penis. How could the boy somehow not be in pain even if they were pumped full of anesthetics? Consequently lots of boys do die from being circumcised or they get their penises even more mutilated and damaged from "accidents" and some even do die from the anesthesia and none of this would have happened if the boy never had his genitals mutilated because his parents wanted it based on their selfish ideas or because of pointless outdated religious beliefs. There is even a case where a Rabbi gave a boy herpes when he was mutilating the boy's genitals.

The idea that a penis that is cut is "normal" is totally an American concept that's false and most men in the world and most countries and cultures in the world do not practice male genital mutilation unlike in the United States.

Even in the United States and Canada less and less parents are mutilating their boys' genitals which is a good thing. As far as teasing goes nobody gets teased for being intact with a foreskin and even if they do people get teased over everything from their hair style to the clothes they wear to their nose or they way that they talk.

Premature ejaculation is significantly more common among circumcised men. The term intact is used since uncut states the false theory that being "cut" is normal when actually less men in the world are cut than are actually intact with a foreskin.

The fact that male circumcision is performed on infants hides somewhat the barbarity of it in some American parents' minds like Twyla and Pasadena have shown here.

Babies' only means of communicating distress verbally is through crying, so one more instance of crying brought on by the trauma of circumcision just disappears into the excuse of, well, that's what babies do - cry. It's much easier to dismiss the cries of anguish of a baby as normal than it is to dismiss the cries of anguish of pre-adolescent or adolescent girl.

Male circumcision is directly related to the rediculous religious and cultural idea that Yahweh's Chosen People have a special mark. That is a barbaric idea. That cultural ideas about male circumcision have changed, using so-called medical or aesthetic reasons does not diminish the barbarity of the practice when it is performed on infants unable to grant consent.

Male circumcision (as it is usually practised) is an elective procedure performed upon an individual that has not granted consent. It is either done for religious purposes, or aesthetic purposes. Any claim to sexual health benefit is dubious; condoms provide far better protection than what is claimed for circumcision.

the fact that the child can't protest such a procedure, violates the right of the child to be free from physical intrusion.

Why parents are so obsessed with the genitals of their children that they choose to remove a part of it, is beyond me?

It's pretty offensive to say that women have a little bit more right to their complete genitalia than men. Of course the female mutilation is also grounded in misogyny-so that women will be faithful to their husbands. Some cultures even sew up the vagina after they mutilate the clitoris. This is disgusting and repulsive and it needs to stop.

But we ALL equally deserve to be born without being mutilated, and without our permission. It's ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

some of the more well known benefits of not being circumcised such as easier masturbation and being more in control of your orgasm (premature ejaculation) it apparently also has some benefits for the sexual partners of uncircumcised men. I've been told that it's somewhat nicer for women and men to have vaginal and anal intercourse with an uncircumcised male because the foreskin acts like a natural cockring.

People say that circumcision doesn't not affect sexual function: it does. The foreskin helps the penis slide in and out during copulation, it contains sensitive nerve endings that enhance sexual pleasure, and it protects the head of the penis (as anyone knows how has worn pants with jeans in them without underwear-and I won't do that again). It is not just some flap of skin. Every body is under this misapprehension because of the propaganda from centuries ago that was scientifically unsound. Furthermore, the goal was to reduce sexual desire-because it's sinful.

If circumcision were free of acute risks and perfectly painless it would still be a huge violation of human rights. It takes away about half a male's pleasure-receptive nerve endings, removes protection for the mucosal parts meant to keep them supple and sensitive, and changes intimacy for the worse by eliminating the frictionless rolling/gliding action of the slinky skin that makes sex more plush for a man and his partner. It also makes the penis THINNER, reducing the diameter by 4 skin thicknesses (the skin doubles under and enfolds over the glans upon a withdrawal phase so there are two layers on either side of the glans).

In the only study to carefully measure the fine-touch sensitivity on various spots on the penis for over 150 men, of 17 spots they measured the 5 most sensitive were all on the foreskin. You might ask why they measured the foreskin more than once. That's because it comprises about 15 square inches in the adult. It includes some outer skin like the surviving shaft skin on a cut guy, the roll-over point which is very ticklish, the ridged band of highly concentrated sexual nerve endings, the frenular delta, and the frenulum (the neurological homologue to the clitoris).

Involuntary penis reduction surgery? Bloody brilliant idea!


It's no coincidence that circumcision has its greatest detrimental effect on sexuality. Maimonides (or Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, a twelfth-century philosopher, legal scholar, and physician often called "Judaism's Aristotle") said: "As regards circumcision, I think one of its objects is to limit sexual intercourse and to weaken the organ of generation as far as possible, and thus cause man to be moderate... The bodily injury caused to that organ is exactly that which is desired; it does not interrupt any vital function, nor does it destroy the power of generation. Circumcision simply counteracts excessive lust; for there is no doubt that circumcision weakens the power of sexual excitement, and sometimes lessens the natural enjoyment; the organ necessarily becomes weak when it loses blood and is deprived of its covering from the beginning."

The "weakening" of sexuality was precisely the reason circumcision was introduced into medical practice in the United States as a "prophylactic" during the 19th century. Until that time, the practice was virtually nonexistent. Here in good ol' God-fearing, Puritanical America, masturbation was not only considered sinful, but was deemed a major health peril as well. Countless maladies were thought to accrue from this "degenerate" practice, and, in 1888, J. H. Kellogg--the All Bran laxative king--together with other Victorians of his ilk, began proselytizing for mass circumcision as a deterrent to "self abuse." Their purpose was to keep the male youth of America from masturbating, going blind and insane with hair growing on the palms of their hands. Kellogg said, "Tying the hands is also successful in some cases... Covering the organs with a cage has been practiced with entire success. A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision... The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment."

These self-promoting defenders of public health and morality claimed that circumcision also cured a vast litany of masturbation-related ills and proselytized for its mass acceptance as an "immunizing inoculation." They claimed it cured everything from alcoholism to asthma, curvature of the spine, enuresis, epilepsy, elephantiasis, gout, headache, hernia, hydrocephalus, insanity, kidney disease, rectal prolapse and rheumatism. In the face of rationality and modern research, contemporary circumcisionists have abandoned most of these claims but have now updated their list to include cancer, urinary tract infections, sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV, and premature ejaculation.

The cancer argument has been an especially effective scare tactic, prompting officials of the American Cancer Society to write a letter to the American Academy of Pediatrics condemning the promulgation of the myth that circumcision prevents penile cancer. "The American Cancer Society does not consider routine circumcision to be a valid or effective measure to prevent such cancers... Perpetuating the mistaken belief that circumcision prevents cancer is inappropriate."

Of course it is. Penile cancer is an extremely rare condition, affecting only one in 100,000 men in the United States. Penile cancer rates in countries that do not practice circumcision are lower than those found in the United States. Fatalities caused by circumcision accidents may approximate the mortality rate from penile cancer, and, for circumcised men who do contract penile cancer, the lesion may occur at the site of the circumcision scar. Portraying routine circumcision as an effective means of prevention distracts the public from the task of avoiding the behaviors proven to contribute to penile and cervical cancer: especially cigarette smoking and unprotected sexual relations with multiple partners. The ACS has recently reiterated this position on their web site and also notes that "...circumcision is not medically necessary."

On a recent BBC radio broadcast of "Case Notes", pediatric urologist Rowena Hitchcock pointed out that "Even using the figures of those who support circumcision one would have to perform 140 circumcisions a week for 25 years before you could prevent one case of cancer. Of those cancers, 80% are treatable and they are avoidable by simply pulling the foreskin back and washing it, which I would prefer to 140 circumcisions a week for 25 years."

The "cancer prevention" argument would have greater persuasive appeal if applied to breast cancer in women. The American Cancer Society estimates that 44,000 women will die of breast cancer in 1998. This same year, by comparison, an estimated 200 men, most of them beyond 70 years of age with poor hygiene habits, will die of penile cancer. If amputating healthy tissue is an antidote to cancer, it would make far more "sense" to routinely perform radical mastectomies on adolescent girls and remove the breast buds of all newborn females than to amputate the foreskin of male infants to prevent such comparatively paltry numbers. But nobody in their right mind would suggest this as appropriate therapy... except when applied to infant boys, that is. Go figure.

The HIV scare is another in the continuing effort of circumcision advocates to view their favorite "surgery" as a hedge against disease. Despite the fact that the United States is a "circumcising country," where the majority of sexually-active men are cut, we nevertheless have the highest HIV infection rate among advanced industrialized countries. In fact, the U.S. has an infection rate 3.5 times greater than the next leading country, or 16 cases per 100,000 population. None of the other advanced industrialized countries circumcise routinely. France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden, Norway, New Zealand, Finland and Japan all have near-zero infant circumcision rates, yet their AIDS infection rate goes from 3.5 cases per 100,000 down to 0.2, respectively. Consequently, not only is it clear that circumcision does not prevent HIV or AIDS, the infection rates suggest that circumcision may actually contribute to HIV infection by depriving the penis of the natural immunological protection of the foreskin. But rest assured, as soon as medical science debunks these latest "benefits" for mass mutilations, the pro-circumcision industry will invent new reasons and new diseases for continued use of their favorite treatment of nonexistent ills.


The circumcision epidemic is a national scandal in this country and a crime against infant boys. Simply put, infant circumcision is child abuse. It is gratuitous genital mutilation and should be banned along with thumb screws, hot pincers and boiling in oil as nothing short of perverse. In a recent article appearing in ObGYN News, doctor Leo Sorger says, "Circumcision causes pain, trauma, and a permanent loss of protective and erogenous tissue. Removing normal, healthy, functioning tissue violates the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 5) and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Article 13)."

The foreskin is not a birth defect needing remedy by the A.M.A. Nobody in all of Europe, non-Muslim Asia, or Latin America is routinely circumcised. In fact, the only people who routinely cut off the most erogenous part of their boys' penis are Jews, Muslims, certain tribal groups in far-flung parts of the world and... the United States. Everybody else leaves their sons intact as nature made them." This is a fact. Indisputable. Most leave their girls intact, too.

Roughly one million baby boys a year in this country are rudely welcomed into the world by the amputation, without anesthesia, of an integral, sexually important part of their anatomy. By definition, the removal of a normal, healthy, functional body part is mutilation. Pure and simple. These one million babies represent around 60% of all male infants born in this country, a figure that is down from a high reached in the 1970's and 1980's of around 90%. And what is truly astounding is that, while we become incensed over the female genital mutilations going on in Africa and other third-world countries far, far away, we ignore the routine mutilations perpetrated here against our own sons.

The sexism of this perspective is stunning. In fact, in 1996 the U.S. Congress, eager to appease feminist groups and appear to be the Great White Protectors of American Girlhood, passed a law against female circumcision or any other form of genital modification of girls below the age of consent. This was pure political theater, baby kissing, butt patting. As a society, we simply do not cut the genitals of baby girls in this country... only the genitals of baby boys. Passing a law against female genital mutilation (FGM) was a slam dunk for the politicians. They could look big and strong and macho and foursquare in favor of protecting babies... as long as the babies were girls, that is. In our culture, unlike other more civilized societies, it is perfectly acceptable to amputate the male prepuce against the shrieking protests of the victims. Our national chauvinism has blinded us to our own human rights abuses and genital mutilation against our sons.

in the United States there is a huge industry based on circumcision just like there is in certain parts of Africa and the middle east.

forskins are not just flushed away,but they are used in a variety of ways,so someone is making money off this barbaric practice. ome are used in a facial cream (ironically enough) that is supposed to get rid of wrinkles. Costs US$130. for a six week supply.

In fact FGM and MGM are THE SAME. Both can boast studies pointing to reduced HIV incidence (and the opposite). Both are done by coercion and force. Both are often loudly condoned by the victims. Both send hundreds to the morgue and thousands to the hospital annually. Both leave victims with an altered abililty to enjoy sex.

I find it amazing that, in a culture where almost no one would support tattooing a baby girl or boy, so many people support amputation of a functional organ.

I can just imagine what would happen if a parent said "My religion demands a cross or Star of David be tattooed on the child's forehead". It would be on the news, and the parents would be vilified.

Yet, tattoo removal is reasonable to acheive. Expensive, yes, and painful, yes. But it's done all of the time. But circumcision reversal is not so easy, and does not fully replace what was taken. Even where circumcision is done for a therapeutic reason, the issue (usually phimosis) could usually be resolved without removal of the entire prepuce, and possibly without actual surgery.


We (the USA) don't cry out against male circumcision because it's 'our' accepted brand of genital mutilation. We've only recently begun to examine it as a society, as far as I know. We’re still attached to it as a custom and don't see it as being aberrant yet.

Here are my reasons it should fall by the wayside, in some sort of order:

- It has never been shown to be necessary
- The object of the procedure is generally not the one choosing it.
- It’s permanent, barring restoration attempts.
- It’s a very unpleasant procedure.
- The advantages come mainly from societal conditioning.

There's neither a reason nor any reasoning for circumcision. I've heard a fellow atheist assert that parents fundamentally have the right--because they're the parents--to do whatever they want to their kid, because apparently being able to have sex and yield an infant is magic.

If the removal of the body parts of other people were to be discussed for any set of people and body parts other than children/infants and genitals, we would straightforwardly reject it: "No, you have no grounds upon which to have your fellow adults' bodies altered." "No, you may not have any of the toes of your baby removed." Apparently, genitals and babies are magic.

Circumcision started being done routinely in the USA to stop boys from wanting to masturbate. It was encouraged by Kellogg (of Corn Flake fame), who also encouraged using acid on the female clitoris for the same reason. When the US medical industry realised they could make good money this way, but public opinion was starting to turn, they changed the story and said it was for 'health reasons'. Watch the Penn and Teller: Bullshit! episode on circumcision. It's horrific what they do to these poor kids, without consent. The kids are strapped down, and go into a catatonic state of fear and pain.

Kellogg was beyond a loon. He bragged in his memoir that he had no sex on his honeymoon. Many doctors back then thought all sexual acts drained you of life-force.

For all of the fools proclaiming that being cut somehow makes a penis "clean" a foreskin is easy to take care of and you just wash it with soap and water like you would any other body part. Circumcision is not some magic bullet that will prevent you from getting STDs or transmitting them if you have them.

You get STDs including HIV by having unprotected sex with people who have them and from not using condoms or having safer sex. Like other people have written in this thread condoms and safer sex work far better than any genital mutilation does.

117 newborn boys die as a result of circumcisions each year. Hundreds of others survive botched jobs and are seriously deformed for life.

It is abuse. It is mutilation. It should be an adult male's decision. And as elective surgery, it certainly should not be covered by health insurance.

Well said. There's no need to mutilate anyone's genitals at all.

[Annika L]

Well said. There's no need to mutilate anyone's genitals at all.

Huh. Not "too long, didn't read", eh?

[James1A1]

I just posted to another thread about my experience with circumcision as a consenting adult (19) and the social pressures to have it done.

I don't blame anyone Except MYSELF for being a stupid whimp.

[tenni]

Statisically, there is a high rate of people who bring this thread back as ending up being banned or cooling off. In memorial BiDave, Bluebiyou, Drugstore Cowboy, JP1986UM, NCCowboy, ExSailor, Young Pussy and Dope, Top Fucker. When will trolls ever learn?

[darkeyes]

Well said. I'm not cut and there's no need to get cut as it's genital mutilation. Bollox... well said ur arse... it may be right and proper and I may agree with every word that is said.. but the last thing it is, is well said... and the last thing I am going to do is wade through that wall of words to find out:eek2:...

[ghost_of_bluebiyou]

Statisically, there is a high rate of people who bring this thread back as ending up being banned or cooling off. In memorial BiDave, Bluebiyou, Drugstore Cowboy, JP1986UM, NCCowboy, ExSailor, Young Pussy and Dope, Top Fucker. When will trolls ever learn?

Statistically, there is a high rate of people who hate this discussion being brought back because they could very well end up with the logical conclusion that they've harmed someone they supposedly love... if you want to play Erik Cartman's "discredit your opponent" game.

I'll admit, we abolitionists are strong willed. Our logic is solid; don't sexually mutilate healthy babies (how difficult is that?).
I can't even read through all of DD's lengthy quotes, but from what I have read they are correct (not his own creation but a real quote). Wow! The extent of medical literature extolling this mutilation as merely a cultural tradition. Imagine the cognitive dissonance of those who did this to their children.
Personal Aside:
I was abused as a child. When I grew up I was a big fellow and abuse nearly disappeared (except from guys with little man syndrome, I ignored them as effectively as I could). But I remember what it was like to be smaller and have someone - larger/with more power - abuse you because they could. I see circumcision (male or female) as the same. But rather than sexual needs or greed, the motivating force was mostly conformity needs of the aggressor, or worse - passive indifferent compliance.

While I'm almost entirely a very gentle man, I can lose my shit when I see a bigger person abuse a smaller person.

When I see an adult publicly assert (s)he has the absolute right to sexually harm a child... and the right itself cannot be questioned... I have to restrain myself here because of the rules of this site.
My problem just a few years ago on this board was that I also had a psychopath coworker who was trying to kill me over a 7 year period (my stress level was up), and sometimes I'd have a few too many drinks, then I'd log onto this board. I became abusive and would totally lose my shit when a woman would declare it was totally wrong to sexually harm a girl but totally right to sexually harm a boy (this brings back memories of my childhood abuse). I would write scathing stuff and then delete it and then start over. I bet I wrote a hundred posts as a "letter you never intend to send". On a couple occasions I accidentally or drunkenly hit 'send' or 'post' instead of deleting. Thus I was (rightfully) banned. Yes I was... to a social extent, a troll. And on st least 5 occasions I was just an an angry troll poster/personal emailer (I especially regret these).
I've calmed down.

However the logic of this subject in incontrovertible, except to those mired in denial.

The most definitive/comprehensive work done on this subject was a book by a Jewish man: Circumcision: An American health fallacy by Edward Wallerstein in 1980.

1980 was 34 years ago. It's one thing to claim ignorance withing a year or two or three, but a decade or two?
This book is available in nearly every public library in the usa. If you are a parent within the last 30 years and you haven't read it, it is because you don't care.
Do any of the pro mutilation people on this site have any real logical argument with any of the logic of that book?
Has a single pro mutilation person read the book cover to cover?
Not yet on this site. :(

I suspect the pro factions will simply recycle the weak/false (already disproved) arguments:

It looks better.
It's venereal disease prevention.
It'll just become diseased and have to be cut off later.
My culture/family have done this for a long time.
The doctor told me to do it.
I want my son to look culturally "normal" in the locker room for a couple years in high school.
(add additional wive's tales here -there are many)

or worse:

"I've already done this and I emotionally can't accept that I've harmed my child(ren), my ego can't accept that I've made such a horrible mistake, so therefore I shall cling to denial and endorse mutilation for eternity (but only my own localized culturally accepted form of mutilation - people who do different forms than 'us' are wrong)."

Tenni, I think I've got this subject (and subsequent reactions) "statistically" down pat, wouldn't you?
Blue

[ghost_of_bluebiyou]

Wow, had I been an efficient troll I would have already noticed the fact that:


nobody is playing any games, I have you on ignore tenni ...

you got banned for that by drew...

As it was I wasn't searching for it, I just stumbled into it, as a thread you started in close time to your posting in this thread.
Tenni you are clearly opinionated. I sometimes agree with you.

It is my stand that the horrible tradition (as it is nothing more and tragically nothing less than tradition) of sexual mutilation of girls and boys is wrong... and we must collectively stop it in recognition of the same. Just as we overcame as - somewhat - a world society, property status of women. "It's okay to beat your woman, just not too bad... How can you rape your wife? She gave sexual consent at the marriage!".
Now, in 2014, we're just fighting "We have a God given right to sexually mutilate our children." Tradition is the toughest bitch of all. Look at the middle east Islamic "don't show your face woman, wear a burka, else you're a slut wanting to be raped!" common attitude (even for an ugly loving old grandma).
So there will always be parents demanding to sexually mutilate their sons and/or daughters. Tradition, culture, and emotion frequently override logic.

Tenni, it is also interesting that you use an argument tool (trolls, being banned, cooling off) that in retrospect condemns yourself as well, hoping no one remembers. My respect for... any of your arguments has just declined due to your use of argumentative technique over logic.

[pole_smoker]

I note the lack of comments regarding circumcision and STDs? How about some facts on the number of STDs that decrease as circumcision increases in non industrialized countries?

I am cut and it works fine. Dont feel strongly one way or the other except that I really dont think that governments have the right to tell parents how to raise their children. But before all the "but what if you were beating your kids to death" arguements come running out, there is a difference between abhorent behavior, ie killing abusing children, and having a surgical procedure performed that doesnt threaten the life and is in keeping with that families religous traditions.

Finally, is male circumcision illegal any where else in the world?
You're totally incorrect that involuntary genital mutilation or circumcision reduces STDs.

It's not nearly as effective as actually having safer sex, and using condoms. Plus there's no need to mutilate anyone's genitals and that includes women and men.

There are even lots of cut/mutilated men who think that because they are cut/mutilated they do not need to use condoms or practise safer sex. :rolleyes:

You have a tiny penis and that's because you are cut/mutilated...as circumcision does reduce penis size/length, and circumference.

Actually, a lot of boys do die from circumcision, and the ones that live have mutilated genitals.

It's so painful that infant or young boys go into shock. It should be illegal the way female genital mutilation is in most countries, and eventually it will become illegal. Even in the United States a lot of people are choosing not to mutilate their sons' genitals.

[charles-smythe]

As a cut male, I really can't understand the big deal...

My cock works fine, it is easier to keep clean and I have never seen any valid medical data showing that male circumcision is harmful.

Personally I do not waste my time on MALE circumcision, I DO think that outlawing FEMALE circumcision is a MUCH more worthy fight since the clitoris and hence the primary means to orgasm is removed.

So I guess the Jewish folks in SF will have to cross the bridge... I wonder if they plan to have cock cops to check incoming...

There are so many more important things to fight about, outlawing male circumcision seems insignificant in light of all the prejudicial things us dis-oriented folks have to deal with.

Just my 2 cents...

Liz …if you think your dick works just fine…consider how it would work if all those nerve endings hadn’t been destroyed & you felt 10 or 20% (I don’t really know how much feeling they predict you lost) more pleasure…you don’t miss what you never had…but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t there before it was cut off……

[charles-smythe]

I have always been in two minds about male circumcision. On the one hand I do see the likes of Fran's argument that until such times as a child is old enough to be able to make up his own mind based on information available to him, it can be argued that to remove the foreskin is an assault on a helpless child. It has taken from him the the right to choose, and, arguably deprives him of much additional sexual pleasure he will now never know.

I also see from the other point of view the concern parents have over the sexual health and hygeine of their child and the strong religious motivations and traditions which involve male circumcision. The argument that what he doesn't remember he will never miss is sound also and so I can see Lizard's point of view. Another issue is that I am told that circumcision is a more serious operation for an adult male than for a baby boy. Something which may create mental obstacles in the way of many men choosing circumcision or otherwise based on the principle of informed consent.

From a strictly female point of view, living in a country where most men are uncircumcised it is what I have been most accustomed to, but have had sufficient experience of circumcised men to know I prefer the other kind. That is not to say I have not enjoyed sex with circumcised men it is merely to say that there are options available to a woman that a man without a foreskin cannot provide. Women of America for instance will probably have quite the opposite experience and preference to those in the UK and Western Europe. So from a purely sexual point of view it is a subjective judgement we will all have made or have to make.

It is an issue which pours forth very strong emotions, and should I ever have a child, shall I have him circumcised? No I will not. Do I think it should be banned unless informed consent is given by the person upon whom the procedure is carried out? Instinctively I say yes, but there are far more serious issues in our world than something which divides two continents. Clitorectomy being one. Poverty, discrimination and prejudice being just a few others. I would argue for the principle of informed consent of the individual concerned except in cases of medical need, but I don't think I would go to the wall for it. …well said…thanks…

[charles-smythe]

It was a moot point for us. My son was born with a serious version of hypospadias. The surgeon used his foreskin to do the penile reconstruction. I think the number of boys born with hypospadias is about 1% in the US (and the numbers are apparently on the rise).

We talked about it at the time, (two decades ago), before we knew about the hypospadias, and I remember that all the information we could find indicated that it was healthier to circumcise. The doctors all recommended it. We never saw anything to indicate otherwise. Now of course, with the growth of the internet, you can find both sides of the discussion.

If I were having a boy now, I don't think I would do it. Though in the US, it would make him a minority and a potential target for bullying in middle and high school. …no he wouldn’t be a target for bullying…the bully would have to admit looking at your dick in the shower in gym class or whatever & no teenager is going to admit that…

[charles-smythe]

Drew will deal with him how? By banning him? What has the man said to justify that? That you don't like the message or messenger? So much for the much lauded American ideal of freedom of speech. I don't like the pro-circumcision lobby's stance but the last thing I would do is to try and have its advocates gagged or banned however inflammatory they may be.
…this was what I was asking myself too…what did he say to rate banning?....

[charles-smythe]

For those who believe male circumcision should be allowed for religious reasons; GET REAL.

Do you know what the bible, what Orthodox Judaism and most of Islam says about us bisexual and gay men?!

I guess it also means that you condone female circumcision for religious reasons and the fact that Christianity, Orthodox Judaism, and especially Islam put women in a subservient position to that of men.

If you're arguing for male circumcision because of religion/culture, or freedom of religion then you are for female circumcision as well since there are various religions and cultures worldwide who do this to girls as a part of their religion or culture.

No one chooses their religion when they are born. Boys are born Jewish through their Jewish mother or they are Moslem because of their Moslem mother or Moslem father, therefore they are Jewish or Moslem, therefore they DO NOT need their foreskins chopped off to become Jewish or Moslem. Also, let them decide if they want to be Jewish or Moslem when they are older.

Religion is not a sufficient reason to mutilate a child's genitals. Actually there is not sufficient reason.

If I know anything I know dick. Circumcision makes masturbation more difficult. It makes sex harder and less pleasurable for the receptive partner. And it desensitizes the penis, POTENTIALLY decreasing sensitivity and sexual pleasure.

Now of all the things about life on Earth as a human male, sex is one of the best things to look forward to. What kind of sick fucks are you that would POTENTIALLY limit that for a child.

There is nothing that can be gained by circumcision that can’t be gained by a little soap and water. And there is so much to lose.

Everyone is born with foreskin, girls too.

It's commonly referred to as the clitoral hood in females, it's totally analogous to the male foreskin. ALL FORMS of infant and non-adult female circumcision is illegal in America, ALL FORMS to include: pin prick, clitoral removal, clitoral hood removal, labioplasty, etc.

Because ALL forms of female circumcision in America is illegal, ALL forms of male circumcision ought to be illegal in America as well! Was their an outcry from religious groups in America, who practice any and/or ALL forms of female circumcision, when female circumcision became illegal? I think not. It's time that ALL MALES are protected from ANY form of genital mutilation when they are born. PERIOD!

Women should stick their noses out of boys' and mens' sex organs and leave them to us to do with as we chose. Mens' penises in Mens' own hands.

When women foolishly claim "male circumcision makes no difference! It's just some useless skin!" I ask them when the last time they had an actual penis was? Since they'd like to falsely claim that the foreskin "makes no difference and that it's just skin" that they should be perfectly OK then with the removal of their clitoral hood, clitoris, or a reduction of their labia since this would make their vagina cleaner and more aesthetically beautiful than one that still has its clitoral hood and sloppy roast beef labia and all of that excess useless skin on their vagina. A cut vagina is cleaner since it does not produce any yeast or smegma. Why not remove the breasts or cervix too? She won't get breast cancer or cervical cancer if they're removed!

Amputation of sexual tissue is a parental decision, and circumcision should be mandatory.

There's nothing nastier than an uncircumcised clitoris or uncircumcised labia - yuck! All that smegma, and yeast! You can't get vulvar cancer if this icky nubbin of skin is cut off. There's no proof that circumcised women have any less sensation! Heck, if I had any more senstation it would drive me crazy, and I plan to circumicse my girls for health reasons. Clearly nature made a mistake, and all girls need to be cut.

I'm being sarcastic here but it's a good thing that this is being done in San Francisco.

Most people don't understand why circumcision is so widespread in the United States: it was promoted as a procedure to prevent sinful masturbation (didn't work out too well now did it?). I've met many men whose circumcisions were too extensive, leaving very heavy scarring they hated, nasty ugly skin bridges, or making their penile skin so tight that they felt pain when I lightly jerked them off. I have one friend that had his circumcision "botched" and they took skin from his balls and graphed it onto his cock and his balls do not hang at all and his penis is truly mutilated and deformed with heavy ugly scarring.

I've seen other men both in person and in porn who had flat out ugly penises and it was because of circumcision.

Also, allowing male circumcision diminishes our moral argument against female circumcision.

I see ALL circumcision, both male and female done to infants to be genital mutilation.

It's one thing to have it done elective as an adult but it's wrong to have it done to infants both boys and girls who have no consent over their bodies or genitals even though they should.

Male circumcision reduces the amount of nerve endings in the penis and that decreases the lack of sexual pleasure, sensitivity, and control over the penis. Premature ejaculation is in the mind so don't give me that "If I was more sensitive I wouldn't be able to stand it!" BS.

I know TONS of men bisexual, gay, and hetero who are very mad that they were cut and wish that they were left intact with a foreskin.

The idea that a cut cock is somehow "cleaner" is a joke, it's called washing with soap and water like you should be doing anyway.

Foreskin is the essence of man! It adds SO MUCH pleasure to sex and it's fun to have the inside licked and gently chewed on, and it's fun to fill it with piss or cum.

Women's vaginas produce pungent smegma-it's seriously way worse than a man's, and a vagina produces yeast but nobody is saying how we should cut a baby girl's labia or her clitoral hood.

Let's just stop cutting infants' and boys' and girls' genitals completely and be done with this barbaric and outdated practice that should have been outlawed thousands of years ago.
…these are the people who only quote the bible if it fits their agenda…

[charles-smythe]

Bizel, cool it.
Please.
You show compassion, yet misunderstanding.
My father also was natural (uncut). In WWII the army required him to be cut. He refused. It didn't happen. He had no regrets (why should he? I'm sure he would have told them to also go to hell if they told him to get lobotomized or cut toes or fingers off).
I could see if I was forced into doing something and was afraid to stand up to it, and allowed it to be done, I would look back on it with my male ego like 'it was probably the best thing', and find some incidental positives too. A clear form of 'adaptive preference formation' (subset of cognitive dissonance). We've already seen many examples of this on these threads.

And despite modern rhetoric, FGM and MGM share much in common.
Both are done on innocent children.
Both are sexual mutilation/molestation.
Both are intended and succeed to critically reduce sexual feeling/gratification hopefully without killing procreation ability.
Both are for the cleanliness of the victim.
Both are very painful. Except for Rizzababies male children. She assured us they escaped all pain when she did it to them/him. We can take her word for it.
Both are customs.
Both are farces.
Both are wrong, doubly so when enforced by a member of the opposite sex. A man has no business endorsing FGM as a woman has no business endorsing MGM. If you're unable to see why that's wrong on two levels... take some time.

As far as your references of 'cut guys'...
Don't write any masters' thesis papers using your logic method, you'll never graduate.

But keep with your empathy and you'll find the right path. …Three cheers for your dad for having the balls to say no…

[charles-smythe]

Then I can't wait for the ban on breast implants. We'll see how that goes over.:eek:

Why is it that the strongest resentment against circumcision comes from the homosexual front? That is the one thing I've learned within these stupid threads. I like my cut cock. I don't care if you do or not. If you don't then don't suck it. Very easy. It is nothing but pure politics and a certain group pushing their agenda for their own good.

For fuck's sake!!! Get over yourselves already!!! …because straight guys are afraid to discuss the subject for fear they’ll be called gay…

[charles-smythe]

Tenni, Please.. have an on topic opinion or move on. You are like the old fart still combatin the cowboys and the indians that only live in your mind, but try to make us all relive your delusions. You are the second most mysoginystic, xenophobic, and damn near racist bloke on the block. So many people are too scared to get involved in your pettiness, But damn man, At your age, and how you try to show yourself as an "artistic" man. You should be able to rise above all this childishness that you relay. You offer less insight and ramble on, spending 40 minutes to edit and re edit thoughts to make yourself feel better, diluting any point you might have potentially made. In fact I never understood why you never have a full opinion. But normally end on a question or a smirk. BTW The story of the little girl you wrote twice in two different post, Made me shutter.


Back to the topic of circ. I wish molestation would stop being used as a term in reference of. Honestly as a child victim of it. Its an insult to us. The thousands year old practice of removing a piece of flesh that doesn't inhibit growth, function, or remove all sensitivity is not molestation. Molestation involves sexual gratification and deviancy or a way to gain power and control over an individual. Circ is a preference, a preference granted the infant doesn't have choice in. But neither does an infant that gets her ears pierced, or a tribal child that gets forced tattooed to show status or tribe.

Male circ shouldn't be banned, If it was you would see so many religious followers leave, their technology leave, their tax dollars, money... Leave.. There are still grown men that go and have it done, there are grown men that wish that it hadn't been done to them. Some boys need it, due to the fact that their foreskin didn't develop normally and it is too tight around the head of an erect penis, that friction from movement, sex, masturbation, causes intense pain and sometimes tearing, the scars remaining can cause even more pain and lessen retraction of the foreskin. They split the scars and hope it works, so for some circ may be what helps them lead a normal healthy sexual life.

FEMALE CIRC is not comparable to male circ and to even be able to compare. the removal of the glans would have to take place. So lets back off that argument. Female circ is done in pubescent times, male circ at newborn stage, where chemicals are flooding through the body and even a action such as suckling a nipple, dummy, or bottle will cause pain relieving hormones to ease the discomfort.. Male circ is done to this day for esthetic reasons and health reasons *Where proven or not* Based on religious values. Female circ is done to make a woman less sexual, to make a girl less responsive, to make them not get pregnant at a young age, to make them less likely to cheat on their husband to whom they were most likely promised to by the time the child was school age. To gain power over the girl and to control her.. That is the true molestation.

Shout out to Ninny ******Hugs girl**** You gave me a lady boner when I saw your post. LTNS! …damn…I couldn’t have said it any better…

[charles-smythe]

I don't believe that immunisation and circumcision are valid comparisons. One has proven medical benefits without pain or personal injury and the other except in certain rare cases, doesn't.

I think the point that is being made again and again, is that modification of the body, whether it be by tattoos, piercings, augmentation or reduction should be made by the individual concerned, and not by any other person.

It is not as though we are talking about life threatening conditions that require immediate surgery, we are discussing an elective operation in which the patient concerned is not given a say in the matter.

I seem to recall that there was a recent outcry in the US about some mother giving her child botox injections.

If the child on reaching adulthood decides for themselves that they wish to be circumcised, tattooed or pierced, that is entirely their decision. As a society we quite rightly place restrictions on minors buying alcohol or firearms or driving a vehicle. In the UK at least it is illegal for a minor to be tattooed in a tattoo parlour, and yet it is somehow deemed acceptable to cut bits from the penis of infants that are unable to defend themselves.

To my mind, we abrogate the trust reposed in us when we allow such procedures to happen. As I see it, our duty is to nurture and care for our offspring, until such time as they are able to fend for themselves.

I only hope debate on this matter leads more parents to question the validity of the advice they are receiving from doctors. The Chinese once bound the feet of their women, causing deformity and damage in the process. This practice has died out, one can only hope, that circumcision in time, will also be consigned to the dustbin of history.

I would refer everyone to this article regarding circumcision in the US, it makes for interesting reading. I would also suggest they watch the link to the video posted by Sammie, above, showing an actual circumcision being performed on an infant.

It is graphic and disturbing, but perhaps that will help clarify in people's minds what we are actually debating, something that no amount of words could convey.

The article I refer to :-

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ljZZ9ZvD_kQC&pg=PA237&lpg=PA237&dq=Incidence+of+penile+cancer+in+European+Union&source=bl&ots=GyVKiwOEIe&sig=6-ClqXQDRAFhCbCI_R7O2M6KLYo&hl=en&ei=hhTbTZCONMKxhAeSpMm_Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CFoQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Incidence%20of%20penile%20cancer%20in%20European %20Union&f=false
…Goog point…

[charles-smythe]

No. Mikey, it's a gross oversimplification (and clear manipulation on your part) to state that circumcision is just "the appearance". I could rip apart just "the appearance" if that were your true motivation; but it's not, it's just an argumentative/distractive ploy on your part.

No Mikey, I believe you're trying to belittle, in every manipulative way *sigh*
1 molesting/mutilating innocent children is not petty, not even by custom.
2 "possible performance", possible Mikey, possible??? WTF? there is no question of circumcision damage, it is intentional, the damage and loss of feeling is the substantiation... the reason for circumcision! Possible performance?!?! Really Mikey?!? Please immediately present this argument if you want to use it again... present it prominently as a principle argument.
3 "of another's body part", same evasive moral angle as "why do those abolitionists cause trouble? They're not the ones being enslaved."
By the way I thought you claimed the center of this matter (in your first sentence) was only about the appearance of a dick...


Forgive me Mikey, I disliked you before, but I quickly get over it. I'd much rather be friends with you, Pasa, Duck, Twyla, ...
My opposition to you is entirely because you're maintaining a stance where harsh language required here.

Bullshit 101

How can deliberate destruction of 1/4 to 1/3 (complete destruction by complete removal of nerve paths and nerve endings) and incidental destruction of 1/4 shaft feeling (formerly transmitted via electrical signals through nerves now simply gone), desensitization due to direct glans continuous exposure and kerotinatization of penis glans.
And all of this destruction does NOT reduce feeling of penis? ... Really Mikey? Are you going to tell us "day is night" next?
I expect no less of neurosis.

Everyone would have to be a willful idiot... to wish this (circumcision) destruction into non destruction.


Fertile ground for bias.
Isn't homosexualty illeagal in Uganda (death penalty), and isn't the USA pathetically (via cultural tradition) pro-circumcision? (violation of medical standards)
Why is HIV mentioned here, if this is an unbiased article?
These people set out to prove circumcision is okay for HIV prevention... they unashamedly announce it for God's sake!
Double blind medical standards gone (in addition to ethical abandonment)??????????

Yeah, "problematic" inasfar as not solidly supporting circumcision...


HELLO! openly declared medical bias!Red flag!!!

Wait... WHAT?!?!?!?!?

Please note the careful selection and wording of the statistics. This isn't a legitimate medical study with anything to do with the thesis or conclusions (for anyone familiar with the medical ethical standards).

Nice vague reference and generalization.

Reannouncement of bias.

Uganda... Right... The sexually unbiased capital of the world with no other agenda.


Mikey, I wish I didn't have to rag you; anger/rebuke takes so much energy from me...
But your position, even your proof is very full of holes, bias, and manipulation, all towards sustaining an evil.

Please do not harm any more children than you already have.
I beg you.
This insanity (of harming children) must be resisted and countered by all morally cognizant human beings.
If you simply uttered doubts to your children, they might pick up the torch from there and end family 'tradition/logic' in harming little ones. It might not have to be inflicted on the next generation. It might be stopped.
This is the entire point of personal growth affecting social progression; to stop the stupid crap, the harm, to allow children to grow up and exceed the parents.

I steadily maintain that since circumcision has not, cannot grab medical or ethical high ground in any logical argument that it is doomed by it's very discussion... I am ecstatic San Francisco has taken the initiative. Even if they lose, the question is brought publicly up... and thus will eventually die by logic, reason, and ethics.

To quote the last 20 year stand by the American Pediatric (Association?)...
There is no medical indication for routine circumcision of newborns.

…thank you…

[pole_smoker]

…damn…I couldn’t have said it any better…

What that person wrote about tenni is correct; but the rest is not. Female circumcision and male circumcision are both just as bad as each other.

All female circumcisions are different and they are not all as extreme as removing the clit or sewing up the vagina.

In most countries where it's practiced they do it in a hospital and just remove the clitoral hood, and it's done because it's supposed to make a woman's vagina more aesthetic and "clean"...which are false reasons why male genital mutilation is practiced.

[pole_smoker]

A boy has a right to all of his healthy body-including and intact penis with a foreskin, and how he experiences it should be his choice--not the choice of a parent, a religious leader, a government, a medical board, surgeon/nurse, a philanthropist, or a doctor.
Well said. Nobody should have their genitals mutilated without their consent and this includes boys and girls.

[pole_smoker]

http://41.media.tumblr.com/e88f85bd08c8e378db398cf1d3ce2780/tumblr_npff416OE51tsnnf6o1_500.jpg

[pole_smoker]

The worst reasons by far for circumcision are that it's part of someone's religion and simply has to be done because Allah/Yaweh said so in an outdated religious text that's been translated so much for thousands of years that it no longer has the same meaning now as it did when it was first written and it does not apply to the modern world in 2011. Then you have parents who think that their kid is going to go neurotic if his penis does not look like his father's and that other boys/men in the school locker room or even men's room will notice him and tease him.

Circumcision is nothing but genital mutilation and it does not make the penis somehow cleaner or less prone to STDs. It actually makes the penis less sensitive and removes a vital part of the penis the foreskin which has lots of nerve endings and the foreskin is designed to protect the glans or penis' head. It would be like going out into icy cold wearing and not wearing gloves and then wondering why your hands become chapped, bleeding, and rough.

Doctors and nurses do frequently tell lies about circumcision to the parents such as "Oh he slept through the entire thing!" or "He didn't cry at all!" which is all total bullshit since infants are strapped down and even with anesthesia they do feel lots of pain since a very sensitive part of their penis is being cut off. They actually do pass out from the pain or stay awake and fully conscious and then go into shock from it.

Then you have American parents like Twyla, Pasadena, and even Canadian parents believing these lies and trying to justify just why they had their sons' penises mutilated when it's a completely barbaric and useless operation that serves no medical benefits at all.

Ontheside posted how doctors do happen to make a lot of money from circumcision and even a gay male German friend of mine who happens to be cut and in the minority in his country he claims it was done just so some doctor would make some money while his brothers are not cut.

It's common sense people. You're cutting off a very sensitive part of someone's penis. How could the boy somehow not be in pain even if they were pumped full of anesthetics? Consequently lots of boys do die from being circumcised or they get their penises even more mutilated and damaged from "accidents" and some even do die from the anesthesia and none of this would have happened if the boy never had his genitals mutilated because his parents wanted it based on their selfish ideas or because of pointless outdated religious beliefs. There is even a case where a Rabbi gave a boy herpes when he was mutilating the boy's genitals.

The idea that a penis that is cut is "normal" is totally an American concept that's false and most men in the world and most countries and cultures in the world do not practice male genital mutilation unlike in the United States.

Even in the United States and Canada less and less parents are mutilating their boys' genitals which is a good thing. As far as teasing goes nobody gets teased for being intact with a foreskin and even if they do people get teased over everything from their hair style to the clothes they wear to their nose or they way that they talk.

Premature ejaculation is significantly more common among circumcised men. The term intact is used since uncut states the false theory that being "cut" is normal when actually less men in the world are cut than are actually intact with a foreskin.

The fact that male circumcision is performed on infants hides somewhat the barbarity of it in some American parents' minds like Twyla and Pasadena have shown here.

Babies' only means of communicating distress verbally is through crying, so one more instance of crying brought on by the trauma of circumcision just disappears into the excuse of, well, that's what babies do - cry. It's much easier to dismiss the cries of anguish of a baby as normal than it is to dismiss the cries of anguish of pre-adolescent or adolescent girl.

Male circumcision is directly related to the rediculous religious and cultural idea that Yahweh's Chosen People have a special mark. That is a barbaric idea. That cultural ideas about male circumcision have changed, using so-called medical or aesthetic reasons does not diminish the barbarity of the practice when it is performed on infants unable to grant consent.

Male circumcision (as it is usually practised) is an elective procedure performed upon an individual that has not granted consent. It is either done for religious purposes, or aesthetic purposes. Any claim to sexual health benefit is dubious; condoms provide far better protection than what is claimed for circumcision.

the fact that the child can't protest such a procedure, violates the right of the child to be free from physical intrusion.

Why parents are so obsessed with the genitals of their children that they choose to remove a part of it, is beyond me?

It's pretty offensive to say that women have a little bit more right to their complete genitalia than men. Of course the female mutilation is also grounded in misogyny-so that women will be faithful to their husbands. Some cultures even sew up the vagina after they mutilate the clitoris. This is disgusting and repulsive and it needs to stop.

But we ALL equally deserve to be born without being mutilated, and without our permission. It's ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

some of the more well known benefits of not being circumcised such as easier masturbation and being more in control of your orgasm (premature ejaculation) it apparently also has some benefits for the sexual partners of uncircumcised men. I've been told that it's somewhat nicer for women and men to have vaginal and anal intercourse with an uncircumcised male because the foreskin acts like a natural cockring.

People say that circumcision doesn't not affect sexual function: it does. The foreskin helps the penis slide in and out during copulation, it contains sensitive nerve endings that enhance sexual pleasure, and it protects the head of the penis (as anyone knows how has worn pants with jeans in them without underwear-and I won't do that again). It is not just some flap of skin. Every body is under this misapprehension because of the propaganda from centuries ago that was scientifically unsound. Furthermore, the goal was to reduce sexual desire-because it's sinful.

If circumcision were free of acute risks and perfectly painless it would still be a huge violation of human rights. It takes away about half a male's pleasure-receptive nerve endings, removes protection for the mucosal parts meant to keep them supple and sensitive, and changes intimacy for the worse by eliminating the frictionless rolling/gliding action of the slinky skin that makes sex more plush for a man and his partner. It also makes the penis THINNER, reducing the diameter by 4 skin thicknesses (the skin doubles under and enfolds over the glans upon a withdrawal phase so there are two layers on either side of the glans).

In the only study to carefully measure the fine-touch sensitivity on various spots on the penis for over 150 men, of 17 spots they measured the 5 most sensitive were all on the foreskin. You might ask why they measured the foreskin more than once. That's because it comprises about 15 square inches in the adult. It includes some outer skin like the surviving shaft skin on a cut guy, the roll-over point which is very ticklish, the ridged band of highly concentrated sexual nerve endings, the frenular delta, and the frenulum (the neurological homologue to the clitoris).

Involuntary penis reduction surgery? Bloody brilliant idea!


It's no coincidence that circumcision has its greatest detrimental effect on sexuality. Maimonides (or Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, a twelfth-century philosopher, legal scholar, and physician often called "Judaism's Aristotle") said: "As regards circumcision, I think one of its objects is to limit sexual intercourse and to weaken the organ of generation as far as possible, and thus cause man to be moderate... The bodily injury caused to that organ is exactly that which is desired; it does not interrupt any vital function, nor does it destroy the power of generation. Circumcision simply counteracts excessive lust; for there is no doubt that circumcision weakens the power of sexual excitement, and sometimes lessens the natural enjoyment; the organ necessarily becomes weak when it loses blood and is deprived of its covering from the beginning."

The "weakening" of sexuality was precisely the reason circumcision was introduced into medical practice in the United States as a "prophylactic" during the 19th century. Until that time, the practice was virtually nonexistent. Here in good ol' God-fearing, Puritanical America, masturbation was not only considered sinful, but was deemed a major health peril as well. Countless maladies were thought to accrue from this "degenerate" practice, and, in 1888, J. H. Kellogg--the All Bran laxative king--together with other Victorians of his ilk, began proselytizing for mass circumcision as a deterrent to "self abuse." Their purpose was to keep the male youth of America from masturbating, going blind and insane with hair growing on the palms of their hands. Kellogg said, "Tying the hands is also successful in some cases... Covering the organs with a cage has been practiced with entire success. A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision... The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment."

These self-promoting defenders of public health and morality claimed that circumcision also cured a vast litany of masturbation-related ills and proselytized for its mass acceptance as an "immunizing inoculation." They claimed it cured everything from alcoholism to asthma, curvature of the spine, enuresis, epilepsy, elephantiasis, gout, headache, hernia, hydrocephalus, insanity, kidney disease, rectal prolapse and rheumatism. In the face of rationality and modern research, contemporary circumcisionists have abandoned most of these claims but have now updated their list to include cancer, urinary tract infections, sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV, and premature ejaculation.

The cancer argument has been an especially effective scare tactic, prompting officials of the American Cancer Society to write a letter to the American Academy of Pediatrics condemning the promulgation of the myth that circumcision prevents penile cancer. "The American Cancer Society does not consider routine circumcision to be a valid or effective measure to prevent such cancers... Perpetuating the mistaken belief that circumcision prevents cancer is inappropriate."

Of course it is. Penile cancer is an extremely rare condition, affecting only one in 100,000 men in the United States. Penile cancer rates in countries that do not practice circumcision are lower than those found in the United States. Fatalities caused by circumcision accidents may approximate the mortality rate from penile cancer, and, for circumcised men who do contract penile cancer, the lesion may occur at the site of the circumcision scar. Portraying routine circumcision as an effective means of prevention distracts the public from the task of avoiding the behaviors proven to contribute to penile and cervical cancer: especially cigarette smoking and unprotected sexual relations with multiple partners. The ACS has recently reiterated this position on their web site and also notes that "...circumcision is not medically necessary."

On a recent BBC radio broadcast of "Case Notes", pediatric urologist Rowena Hitchcock pointed out that "Even using the figures of those who support circumcision one would have to perform 140 circumcisions a week for 25 years before you could prevent one case of cancer. Of those cancers, 80% are treatable and they are avoidable by simply pulling the foreskin back and washing it, which I would prefer to 140 circumcisions a week for 25 years."

The "cancer prevention" argument would have greater persuasive appeal if applied to breast cancer in women. The American Cancer Society estimates that 44,000 women will die of breast cancer in 1998. This same year, by comparison, an estimated 200 men, most of them beyond 70 years of age with poor hygiene habits, will die of penile cancer. If amputating healthy tissue is an antidote to cancer, it would make far more "sense" to routinely perform radical mastectomies on adolescent girls and remove the breast buds of all newborn females than to amputate the foreskin of male infants to prevent such comparatively paltry numbers. But nobody in their right mind would suggest this as appropriate therapy... except when applied to infant boys, that is. Go figure.

The HIV scare is another in the continuing effort of circumcision advocates to view their favorite "surgery" as a hedge against disease. Despite the fact that the United States is a "circumcising country," where the majority of sexually-active men are cut, we nevertheless have the highest HIV infection rate among advanced industrialized countries. In fact, the U.S. has an infection rate 3.5 times greater than the next leading country, or 16 cases per 100,000 population. None of the other advanced industrialized countries circumcise routinely. France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden, Norway, New Zealand, Finland and Japan all have near-zero infant circumcision rates, yet their AIDS infection rate goes from 3.5 cases per 100,000 down to 0.2, respectively. Consequently, not only is it clear that circumcision does not prevent HIV or AIDS, the infection rates suggest that circumcision may actually contribute to HIV infection by depriving the penis of the natural immunological protection of the foreskin. But rest assured, as soon as medical science debunks these latest "benefits" for mass mutilations, the pro-circumcision industry will invent new reasons and new diseases for continued use of their favorite treatment of nonexistent ills.


The circumcision epidemic is a national scandal in this country and a crime against infant boys. Simply put, infant circumcision is child abuse. It is gratuitous genital mutilation and should be banned along with thumb screws, hot pincers and boiling in oil as nothing short of perverse. In a recent article appearing in ObGYN News, doctor Leo Sorger says, "Circumcision causes pain, trauma, and a permanent loss of protective and erogenous tissue. Removing normal, healthy, functioning tissue violates the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 5) and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Article 13)."

The foreskin is not a birth defect needing remedy by the A.M.A. Nobody in all of Europe, non-Muslim Asia, or Latin America is routinely circumcised. In fact, the only people who routinely cut off the most erogenous part of their boys' penis are Jews, Muslims, certain tribal groups in far-flung parts of the world and... the United States. Everybody else leaves their sons intact as nature made them." This is a fact. Indisputable. Most leave their girls intact, too.

Roughly one million baby boys a year in this country are rudely welcomed into the world by the amputation, without anesthesia, of an integral, sexually important part of their anatomy. By definition, the removal of a normal, healthy, functional body part is mutilation. Pure and simple. These one million babies represent around 60% of all male infants born in this country, a figure that is down from a high reached in the 1970's and 1980's of around 90%. And what is truly astounding is that, while we become incensed over the female genital mutilations going on in Africa and other third-world countries far, far away, we ignore the routine mutilations perpetrated here against our own sons.

The sexism of this perspective is stunning. In fact, in 1996 the U.S. Congress, eager to appease feminist groups and appear to be the Great White Protectors of American Girlhood, passed a law against female circumcision or any other form of genital modification of girls below the age of consent. This was pure political theater, baby kissing, butt patting. As a society, we simply do not cut the genitals of baby girls in this country... only the genitals of baby boys. Passing a law against female genital mutilation (FGM) was a slam dunk for the politicians. They could look big and strong and macho and foursquare in favor of protecting babies... as long as the babies were girls, that is. In our culture, unlike other more civilized societies, it is perfectly acceptable to amputate the male prepuce against the shrieking protests of the victims. Our national chauvinism has blinded us to our own human rights abuses and genital mutilation against our sons.

in the United States there is a huge industry based on circumcision just like there is in certain parts of Africa and the middle east.

forskins are not just flushed away,but they are used in a variety of ways,so someone is making money off this barbaric practice. ome are used in a facial cream (ironically enough) that is supposed to get rid of wrinkles. Costs US$130. for a six week supply.

In fact FGM and MGM are THE SAME. Both can boast studies pointing to reduced HIV incidence (and the opposite). Both are done by coercion and force. Both are often loudly condoned by the victims. Both send hundreds to the morgue and thousands to the hospital annually. Both leave victims with an altered abililty to enjoy sex.

I find it amazing that, in a culture where almost no one would support tattooing a baby girl or boy, so many people support amputation of a functional organ.

I can just imagine what would happen if a parent said "My religion demands a cross or Star of David be tattooed on the child's forehead". It would be on the news, and the parents would be vilified.

Yet, tattoo removal is reasonable to acheive. Expensive, yes, and painful, yes. But it's done all of the time. But circumcision reversal is not so easy, and does not fully replace what was taken. Even where circumcision is done for a therapeutic reason, the issue (usually phimosis) could usually be resolved without removal of the entire prepuce, and possibly without actual surgery.


We (the USA) don't cry out against male circumcision because it's 'our' accepted brand of genital mutilation. We've only recently begun to examine it as a society, as far as I know. We’re still attached to it as a custom and don't see it as being aberrant yet.

Here are my reasons it should fall by the wayside, in some sort of order:

- It has never been shown to be necessary
- The object of the procedure is generally not the one choosing it.
- It’s permanent, barring restoration attempts.
- It’s a very unpleasant procedure.
- The advantages come mainly from societal conditioning.

There's neither a reason nor any reasoning for circumcision. I've heard a fellow atheist assert that parents fundamentally have the right--because they're the parents--to do whatever they want to their kid, because apparently being able to have sex and yield an infant is magic.

If the removal of the body parts of other people were to be discussed for any set of people and body parts other than children/infants and genitals, we would straightforwardly reject it: "No, you have no grounds upon which to have your fellow adults' bodies altered." "No, you may not have any of the toes of your baby removed." Apparently, genitals and babies are magic.

Circumcision started being done routinely in the USA to stop boys from wanting to masturbate. It was encouraged by Kellogg (of Corn Flake fame), who also encouraged using acid on the female clitoris for the same reason. When the US medical industry realised they could make good money this way, but public opinion was starting to turn, they changed the story and said it was for 'health reasons'. Watch the Penn and Teller: Bullshit! episode on circumcision. It's horrific what they do to these poor kids, without consent. The kids are strapped down, and go into a catatonic state of fear and pain.

Kellogg was beyond a loon. He bragged in his memoir that he had no sex on his honeymoon. Many doctors back then thought all sexual acts drained you of life-force.

For all of the fools proclaiming that being cut somehow makes a penis "clean" a foreskin is easy to take care of and you just wash it with soap and water like you would any other body part. Circumcision is not some magic bullet that will prevent you from getting STDs or transmitting them if you have them.

You get STDs including HIV by having unprotected sex with people who have them and from not using condoms or having safer sex. Like other people have written in this thread condoms and safer sex work far better than any genital mutilation does.

117 newborn boys die as a result of circumcisions each year. Hundreds of others survive botched jobs and are seriously deformed for life.

It is abuse. It is mutilation. It should be an adult male's decision. And as elective surgery, it certainly should not be covered by health insurance.

Well said. I agree 1,000% nobody should have the 'right' to mutilate a baby boy, or young juvenile male's genitals.

Especially since there are no real benefits to circumcision or involuntary male genital mutilation except for a mutilated dick with disgusting scars that is a lot less sensitive and that makes anal and vaginal sex more painful, and oral sex and masturbation less enjoyable for women and men. Circumcision or male genital mutilation also decreases penis length, and circumference.

Ever wonder why Viagra and other ED meds are so widely prescribed and even abused here in North America? Male genital mutilation greatly increases the chances for a man to get ED or become impotent.

[pole_smoker]

My husband and I feel bad for any guy who unfortunately had his genitals mutilated.

[pole_smoker]

http://33.media.tumblr.com/2d617b22fef1ec8012865bf57add21e1/tumblr_n7jo8noGm51qjiw8ro1_500.gif

[pole_smoker]

http://33.media.tumblr.com/c02aec2d891068ccb54387beace81aa6/tumblr_mxlp4jCxMs1s4ah51o1_400.gif

http://smutty.so.clients.cdn13.com/media_smutty/o/r/a/l/b/oralb1949-bbzol-b7f27a.jpg

[pole_smoker]

http://33.media.tumblr.com/c02aec2d891068ccb54387beace81aa6/tumblr_mxlp4jCxMs1s4ah51o1_400.gif

http://smutty.so.clients.cdn13.com/media_smutty/o/r/a/l/b/oralb1949-bbzol-b7f27a.jpg

I do not know why Norah Jones cannot come but it's not my fault or problem.

[bw299]

LongDuckDong - "...its a sad day when some bisexuals forget that there is more to the world than sex, cocks, pussy, casual sex and other bisexuals....."

Yes it is! And leave it up to California to come up with an issue like this. California truly is the "land of the fruits and nuts." Some of the worst legislation we have, and some of the worst that has ever been attempted and stricken down by the courts, has come from California. There are far more important issues to deal with right now than a piece of skin on the end of a dick.

For what it's worth, I was circumcised at age 2. The decision was made by my parents. (My father was circumcised, but many of my first cousins were not) There are other decisions my parents made on my behalf that trouble me more than deciding to clip a piece of skin off the end of my cock. Anyway, I like the appearance of a circumcised cock. I think it looks sexy as hell. And it certainly isn't "mutilation."

[pole_smoker]

Molestation
Mutilation

The words fit.
I stand that FGM and MGM are unquestionably both.
I have stated before and will state again that I have not nor will ever date or marry a woman who is a child molester or a proponent of child molestation (very difficult in USA). Although, I have been stupid from time to time in reducing my standards.

Mutilation is the deliberate destruction of healthy tissue.
No argument - standard neonatal male or unindicated preadolescenct female circumcision is mutilation.

Molestation
At what point did the male or female child give their adult consent to this sexual harm/engagement that has no medical basis?

Uh, tying down an innocent male newborn to deliberately, horribly, destroy part of his his healthy penis is not molestation? WTF?!?

Perspective:

If an adult (m or f) picks up an infant (and therefore incognizant) child and sucks upon it's genitals for sexual gratification... it is clearly molestation.
If an adult (m or f) picks up an infant (and therefore incognizant) child and mutilates it's genitals for social conformity... it is still clearly molestation.

What is the difference to the child between an adult that performs non permanent physical harm in pursuit of sexual gratification

and

an adult that knowingly, permanently, with apathy aforethought, harms an innocent child for his/her sole social conformity needs?

What is the difference in terms of harm to the child?

Molestation
includes knowingly, sexually, harming an innocent child.
(for those of you who harmed, did you think the foreskin was part of the elbow... knee... toe...?)
You contracted someone to sexually harm an innocent.
How could you do that?
What lapse was there?
If you're sorry and repentant that's fine! That's more than fine, you're really human! We can make horrible mistakes in this test called 'life'.
else
If you can give back the 12-15 (typical loss) square inches of the most sensitive, most evolutionary advanced flesh, reconnect all the nerves, arteries, veins, basically undo the evil you have done, then offer it to your male child upon maturity. Tell him all he's missed and all he is missing and all he will miss without a complete penis.
But of course, you can only destroy, so the last line is ludicrous.
You are no more than the most destructive males you might criticize.
else
If you're female, guilty, unrepentant, then you're a cunt... a filthy radical feminist. One who regards feminist rights, then suddenly becomes brain-dead when it regards rights of an infant male and his rights to his penis.

Again, I repeat my stand against FGM or MGM. I stand upon a humanist platform.
Well said.

[T1m34fun]

Terrorists are mowing down people in England, France and Germany.
People are becoming addicted to, and dying from rampant opioid use.
Healthcare costs are going through the roof.
Infrastructures around the US are crumbling and becoming more and more dangerous.

I'm not discounting people's right to choose not to circumcise their child. That is entirely up to them to make that decision. It should remain that way.
Conversely, it is also the right of people to choose to have the circumcision done. It, too, should remain that way.

Are there not more important things, such as homelessness, that municipal governments should be spending their time on?

How about a little prioritization?