´óÏó´«Ã½

Why do we still do this, it is unforgivable to subject babies to this form of abuse, and forcing older children to udergo it by force, its out of date and should only be done for genuine medical reasons. The foreskin is there for a reason or nature would have sorted it out long ago.

Stop this mutilation in the name of religion, its barbaric!!!!!

#1 - keith - "The foreskin is there for a reason or nature would have sorted it out long ago."

I essentially agree with your comment about circumcision, but I am intrigued by the phrase "nature would have sorted it out long ago".

Why would "nature have sorted it out"?

Is "nature" so predictable and purposeful? Is "nature" supposed to comply with certain desires and expectations?

You make "nature" - which is a blind and impersonal force - sound like a person, who is supposed to act morally or according to some anthropological blue-print.

Or is this just a case of the naturalists not being able to face up to the fact that nature really is blind and without purpose, but who can't face the "unacceptable" alternative concerning the origin and development of life?

Male and female circumcision are equally harmful to the health and well being of children.

With respect to male circumcision the practice disrupts the infant maternal bond,externalizes the glans leading to life long toughening which may lead to sexual problems. The emotional impact of both practices can be depression, social isolation and attempted suicide.

The Tasmania Law Reform Commission is currently examining the legality of male circumcision as are Professors of Law in the UK

A new international campaign to protect all children from these practices was launched in London last year by the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Tasmaina, NORM UK, FORWARD, and NOCIRC.

There are many Jewish and Muslim people opposed to male circumcision as they too have learnt the harmful nature of this practice.

It is time to protect male children legally in the same way that females are protected.

It's no skin off my nose...

Another name for "nature sorting it out" is evolution. If the foreskin had been harmful - especially since it's so intimately involved with reproduction - those with one would have been weeded out by that harm, leaving those without one. And to answer your first objection, the same is not true of the appendix, which is genetically associated with the rest of the intestine; but men are occasionally born without a foreskin.

The only way to discuss this is to go through the ten points above and comment on them. Are these really ten reasons not to circumcise an infant?


"1. Because there is no medical reason for "routine" circumcision of baby boys."

Well this is the hottest potato, isn't it. Whether there is or isn't medical reason to circumcise a baby is the most important consideration here. It would appear that this is correct, there is no medical reason to circumcise routinely, unless you consider future possible infection or vulnerability in the case of possibly unhygienic people (in which case they should remove the sphincter and a lot of other body parts also). This is definitely a good reason not to circumcise.


2. Because the foreskin is not a birth defect.

Well neither is the umbilical cord, but you remove it. Not a very good reason of itself.


3. Because you wouldn't circumcise your baby girl.

This seems logical but, IF health concerns are valid, then baby girls and baby boys may be treated differently for valid medical reasons. Again, not a very good reason not to circumcise if there were reasons to do so that wouldn't affect girls.


4. Because your baby does not want to be circumcised.

This calls upon the nature of circumcision as a personal choice rather than a necessary medical procedure. If there were valid health reasons, then the parents could justifiably make any necessary medical choice on behalf of the baby and it wouldn't matter whether the baby 'wanted' it or not. But if there isn't, then this would perhaps be a choice more like whether to get a tattoo or not.


5. Because removing part of a baby's penis is painful, risky and harmful.

It may be painful, but risky? If it's standard practice how risky can it be?


6. Because times and attitudes have changed.

More people are doing such-and-such, so you should do it too. That's the argument here! Irrelevant.


7. Because most medically advanced nations do not circumcise baby boys.

That isn't a reason either. A proposal like, 'Let's cut off the end of this wee lad's penis!' stands or falls on its own merits, regardless of what "most medically advanced nations" are doing.


8. Because circumcision does not prevent HIV or other diseases.

A good reason not to circumcise. If it doesn't have any other health benefits (as per #1) and it doesn't prevent
STDs, why continue to do it?


9. Because caring for and cleaning the foreskin is easy.

Okay.... though whether it's easy or hard shouldn't be the basis of a decision... I guess this is an adjunct to #1 and #8.


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.

Yes, the only valid basis of a permanent bodily alteration to an infant is for the health of the infant. Culture, religion, parental preference, profit (what are they doing, selling it?), are invalid reasons for doing so. Here we could call on Richard Dawkins' belief that inflicting religious belief upon a child is abusive... the Jewish rite of circumcision being one very obvious and potent form of this infliction.


I should mention one very valid reason they fail to mention which is important.... the potential lessening of sexual sensation. (That, too, is disputed.)

Still, 4 out of 10 ain't bad!

Good points, John_Wright, but bear in mind that this group is Intact AMERICA.

2. In America, the foreskin almost IS regarded as a birth defect, defined for medical students as "the part removed by circumcision" and left out of anatomy texts, sex guides etc. (The umbilical cord is unique; it falls off by itself, so it's not a birth defect but nor is it an integral part of the baby.)

3. One big reason for circumcising boys in the US (and a certain Dr Wiswell has just about made a career of it) is Urinary Tract Infections, which are rare, and more common in girls.

5. When there's no pressing need, any risk is an important counterindication, but the risks are greater than people imagine. The actual death rate is unknown (a scandal in itself), and circumcision deaths are commonly blamed on side-factors such as anaesthetic or consequences like haemorrhage or sepsis. Lesser damage may go unnoticed till puberty or later, and the man may think what he has is normal.

6. Non-religious circumcision was introduced to prevent, "cure" or punish masturbation (without success at the first two, of course, though it may have delayed its onset and driven it further underground). We no longer believe masturbation is harmful, let alone a cause of epilepsy, TB, etc.

7. ... and no harm befalls. The English-speaking world tried circumcision, found it did no good, and has almost completely given it up. The US continues largely out of habit.

9. In the US, the difficulty of cleaning is seriously given as a reason. "Boys can't be trusted to clean it" (Boys need to be encouraged to handle the willies? Yeah, right!) and "I wouldn't know what to do" are adjuncts.

4 & 10. And men may bitterly resent that this was done to them before they had any chance to have a say. It seems to me their resentment is entirely justified: how much more intrusive and invasive can it get?

You are quite right about sexual sensation, not just the quantity (circumcised men commonly say "If I had any more sensitivity, I'd have a heart attack" suggesting something is wrong with what they do have) but the quality - the foreskin has been described as conferring "a symphony of sensation" and some men circumcised in adulthood have compared the difference to going colourblind.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Here is another good study to look at that shows that effect of circumcision in reducing HIV is overplayed by pro-circ researchers:

Long-term population effect of male circumcision in generalised HIV epidemics in sub-Saharan Africa. Michel Garenne. African Journal of AIDS Research 2008, 7(1): 18.

Post that was removed removed (without explicit link)

Sexual dysfunction is rife in the USA:


This is because most men have been circumcised. Circumcision has a negative effect on sex for both woman and man. A site was set up to show what impact circumcision has on sex for the woman in particular. Just search for sexasnatureintededit.

Unfortunately circumcision is now being used to fight the African AIDS epidemic on the basis of 3 African trials:


Unfortunately, although these were randomised control trials , they still suffer from flaws:


Circumcision is probably the cause of the epidemic judging by the number of botched circumcisions there are:

that open wound is going to increase the transmission rate from the normal 1 in 2000 for a man who has vaginal sex with an HIV-infected woman.

Circumcision is associated with becoming a man. Having sex with an open wound isn't a good idea as I just said.

There is also a lot of sexual violence and a lot of women are raped:


There are studies which show that being circumcised is associated with violence later in life. It is likely that it does have some negative pychological effects:

The foreskin is also a very handy little piece of spare tissue if you need to surgically correct certain injuries involving the eyelid.

The scrotum is great if you need to fix the elbow ;-)

Plus don't forget the loss of head hair in men in later life, Helio. The pubic hair is an excellent source of material for transplant.

Foreskins in America are being sold and used to test cosmetics and generate billions of dollars so that the cosmetic industry can claim their products have not been tested on animals.

Unfortunately children die from circumcision in American and in the UK. Profit is the motivating factor driving those who continue in the mass circumcision of children in America.

The foreskin is a central part of male human anatomy. It was easy for western countries to look at female genital mutilation and claim that it is harmful as it has not been part of our cultural traditions.

In those countries where FGM and MGM is practiced it is very difficult for parents to accept that they have harmed their children as they may also have been harmed themselves but do not associate that harm with the surgery.

You mean I could get some money for my foreskin? Hmmmm....

Who wants to start the bidding? ;-)

Fore dollars.

Woman's Hour recently covered this subject majoring heavily on the issue of prevention of cervical cancer. They oppose female circumcision as forced mutilation, but they are happy to have their baby boys shocked, traumatised and mutilated at risk of serious sexual dysfunction and loss of erogenous zones, etc. I protested the imbalnce in the article on Woman's Hour and guess what? The production team did what ´óÏó´«Ã½ production teams always do: they claimed they got it right. The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is beyond control and has no appropriate complaints procedures. The rampant feminism of Woman's Hour is so outdated - they should be moved to a slot late at night.

William Crawley:

Simple answer: It is genital mutilation....Nothing more than this....


=Dennis Junior=

In 2007, the Department of Molecular Cell Biology and Immunology, University Amsterdam, Netherlands, researchers found that the foreskin is actually a natural barrier to the HIV-virus. It is destroyed.
Please find the full report at the following link...
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
This shows that circumcision interferes with the body's natural processes.

Researchers have discovered that cells in the mucosal lining of human genitalia produce a protein that "eats up" invading HIV -- possibly keeping the spread of the AIDS more contained than it might otherwise be.
Even more important, enhancing the activity of this protein, called Langerin, could be a potent new way to curtail the transmission of the virus that causes AIDS, the Dutch scientists added.
Langerin is produced by Langerhans cells, which form a web-like network in skin and mucosa. This network is one of the first structures HIV confronts as it attempts to infect its host.

I was circumcised as an infant and every day I think about the capacity for pleasure that I have lost. I am a medical student and have learned about the anatomy, innervation and the incredible erogenous specificity of the foreskin. This is something I only really realised while in medical school.

The foreskin has 8 different types of specific sensor including vibration and temperature sense. The argument is often made that female genital mutilation is worse because it usually entails the removal of the clitoris, but as the clitoris is analogous to the head of the penis, and the head of the penis is not actually what brings the pleasure to a male, I would extrapolate (although not entirely certain) that it is the movement of the clitoral hood (analogous to the male foreskin) which brings intense female pleasure rather than the clitoris itself (hence the receptivity to vibration etc).

I, and virtually every other man I have spoken to, have no feeling of vibration, no feeling of temperature, no real feeling of position. Sometimes I am so numb I wonder whether I am actually penetrating during intercourse.

Yes, ejaculation does still happen with circumcised men, but it is a sheer myth that male ejaculation and orgasm constitute the same thing. I only have an orgasm maybe once every 10 times I ejaculate.

The psychological impact, to men who realize what they've lost, is huge. I have met hundreds of circumcised men who feel that they've been violated, some have described it as rape. How can someone have held me down without anaesthetic, and cut off the single MOST sensitive, MOST pleasurable part of my body. Why is it played down, why is there so much propaganda? Uncircumcised guys aren't dropping dead all around me!

Maybe the religious interest overcomes the lack of validity of the supposed benefits - HIV prevention?! What about the confounding factors? What about the fact that men who contract HIV or pass it on are more likely to be sexually promiscuous and virtually all major religions forbid sexual promiscuity? The religous are more likely to circumcise and thus the religious, often circumcised individuals pass on and contract less HIV.

CLEANLINESS?! It's very insulting to men to say that men can't keep clean and women can clean their more complex anatomy without a problem.

Every single bit of propaganda seems to get accepted by this moronic society and most other supposedly developed societies.

STOP the MALE GENITAL MUTILATION. The foreskin is not just a bit of skin, it is the most specifically erogenous, sexually sensitive pleasure organ.

Two points;

i) How many children have died through infection after circumcision?

ii) Does anyone know of the deaths in New York caused by a middle aged Rabbi biting the foreskin off during circumcision? Two babies died through infection.

Ban it.

Regards

DK

Oddly enough, images and information that I could have lived without!!!!

If there was EVER any evidence that our society has become obsessed with the mechanics of sex it's post 21. This is how we rate sex? Count the nerve endings???? Long term statistical analysis of orgasm rates??!!!

And why on Earth would anyone share that information about themselves???? Even under a pseudonym!!!!I mean, gross!!!! Too much information!! WAYYY too much!!!!
The post looks like a copy click paste job, any way.

As for the Rabbi - what???? Even if that was true - and I DON'T WANT TO KNOW!!!! - its hardly part of the Jewish faith now, is it? It doesn't take modern medicine to work out that it was a pretty dumb idea to use your teeth!!!

What happened to this blog?????

GV

#24 Graham

Sorry,GV it happened in New York in 2004.

GV it happened in 2004!

David

Stop putting freaky images in peoples head!!!
(Especially when they're about to eat a bacon butty!)
lol
:-D

#24

"What happened to this blog?????"

You've forgotten the reason y'all are here.

A good friend of mine, a Baptist Minister who teaches Biblical Hebrew, maintains that one cannot properly understand Christianity without a basic knowledge of Judaism.

Yes, but I don't need to understand the details of bloggers sex lives! Or what crazy rabbis are doing in New Yoik!

#29

Agreed!

>8-D

#29 and #30
"Circumcision: male genital mutilation"

I enjoyed your posts but have I made a mistake writing about circumcision: male genital mutilation on a post about circumcision: male genital mutilation?

Chill guys.

regards

dk

DK

A bit of leg pulling on my part.

But *NOT* what a bloke wants to read when he's tucking into a bacon butty.

GV

hello.

I'm from South-Korea.

I can't speak english well.

So you understand my circumstances.

I wonder British men were circumcised.

Otherwise circumcision rate.

For example, our country's 80% men were circumcised.

Hi Invincible - welcome to the blog. The circumcision rate in Britain is probably somewhere in the region of 15/20 % and falling.

I believe circumcision for anything other than medical reasons is mutilation. Adults have the right to self-mutilate they ought not to have the right to mutilate children. Infant circumcision is abuse.

Thank you for your kind answer^^

I also think circumcision is genital mutilation. Especially infant
circumcision

Above all our country's big problem is a blind belief.

They think mondial men is circumcised.

Anyway, circumcision is out of date. Except for special occasion.

A birthday party, for example?

Or a special anniversary present?

NO no...^^; my mistake.

I mean special case.

Maybe, 2% men in the world.

God: Okay here's the deal. You can be my people but you have to cut the end of your penis off!
Jews: Are you haveing a laugh?
God: No.
Jews: I thought you were a loving god?

Yes, but with a mean sense of humour

Hi Invincible - I hope you are enjoying the blog. Quite apart from the pleasure to be derived from the exchange of ideas, it is an excellent place to build vocabulary across a whole range of topics.

I am interested in what you say about the problem of 'blind belief' in your country - can you enlarge upon that?

Hoping the tensions between the two halves of your country soon ease.

Parr

The comment I would make is that circumcision is not an exact science. My experience is that there is a significant amount of difference in the amount of scar tissue left behind and that sometimes, not always, it leads to a less than optimum sexual experience (I really had to think about how to say that).
The other issue is prejudice, many American men in particular regard uncut men as unclean, deceased, ugly and to be avoided. They can actually be very hurtful, even evangelical, in their condemnation of those uncut. Another example of righteous prejudice without evidence.

Further to my earlier postings, here is html abstract
of the removed link.