A Poll: Circumcision
[Edited To Add: Please, do not attack others for their personal beliefs if you choose to leave a comment. I have respect for your opinions and allow you to voice them on my blog, so I would appreciate it if you would be mature in your responses to other readers. Thank you.]
Loading ...I don’t feel like it’s my place to judge someone for their parenting decisions, and I have full respect for both sides of this particular spectrum.
However, I personally would never circumcise my son unless it was a medical necessity because… well, it just doesn’t seem natural to me to snip a perfectly healthy piece of skin off of an infant’s body. Plus, there is not enough of a medical benefit to the procedure to convince me that it’s the better thing to do. If I ever have a boy (James, please get a vasectomy, I just know you’re gonna get me pregnant again one of these days if you don’t, and besides, it just feels so much better *without* a condom…), I’m all for keeping his perfect little penis exactly the way that God made it… whether his daddy’s parents made a different decision or not. Again, that’s just the choice that I would make, and I don’t believe it’s the right choice for everyone.
Luckily, James is in agreement with my reasoning. Otherwise I’d have to go at his member with a cigar snipper to prove my point.
No, I wouldn’t actually cut him. I like his penis waaaay too much to alter it.
Current Mood:
Playful
October 1st, 2009 at 3:14 pm
My thing is, I’ve seen the uncircumcised variety, and it grossed me out. My reasoning is that I’ll go ahead and do my son’s future wife or partner a favor and make it pretty.
October 1st, 2009 at 3:18 pm
I like ‘em both ways… Unless they’ve got a woody with a hoody and they don’t keep it clean… now THAT is just disgusting.
October 1st, 2009 at 5:10 pm
I am in full agreement with you (the poster). The foreskin is a normal, healthy, functional body part that belongs to my son, not me.
If you’re new to the subject, (and not easily offended), I highly recommend
Penn and Teller’s Bullshit: Circumcision
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIZLna_uzLQ
October 1st, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Mia, my intact grandson’s wife just thanked me for becoming educated on this subject and making sure his body stayed intact. His mother protected him, too! I didn’t know enough, when my sons were born (1958, 1961, and 1969), to protect them from the pain and trauma of circumcision. I didn’t know circumcision was a primal wound that interferes with the maternal/infant bond, disrupts breastfeeding and normal sleep patterns, and undermines the baby’s first developmental task of establishing trust. I didn’t know that the foreskin is a gliding mechanism, provides the skin for a full erection, and houses 20,000-70,000 specialized, erogenous nerve endings that allow a male to ride the wave to orgasm. Sadly, circumcised males only ejaculate, and that’s often prematurely, due to loss of feedback to the brain about what the penis is feeling. Circumcision diminishes the penis in size and sensitivity. And, as for how it looks, have you never seen Michelangelo’s David? Go to the library and take in some classical art. The glans is never exposed–except in erotic or American art. An Englishman just said to me, “I was left with a stick and a nob, not a whole, sensitive, normally working penis.”
Go to http://www.nocirc.org and watch the educational video, featuring Dr. Dean Edell to educate yourself. Your future sons will thank you for that!
October 1st, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Re Mia’s notion of ‘pretty’ – the esthetic of function and sensation’s a hundred or more time important than the look – it’s not a type of action you watch during sex and the foreskin makes sex more gentle, keeps moisture inside where it belongs, and keeps the whole penis cleaner than if the naked glans in bouncing around inside clothing picking up lint and detergent.
By the time your son is an adult, info on the foreskin may convince international legal systems to insist babies, male and female be left intact – his future wife will probably be grossed out by an injured looking penis – the circumcised penis is and injured penis. That dark ring is scar tissue symbolizing a cruel, cowardly mercenary trick – a doctor and two parents against a 1 day old baby.
Come to your senses and have the humility to realize every part of your son’s body belongs to him. He may be your baby but his penis is not yours to mutilate.
October 1st, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Circumcision carries risks that I am not willing to accept for what is essentially cosmetic surgery. Those risks vary from infection (funny, isn’t that why people circumcise?) to death or penile loss or disfigurement. Its not the snip that it is purported to be. Its intensely painful and its NOT WORTH THE RISKS….period.
I have two boys, neither of whom have had a single issue stemming from their natural state.
October 1st, 2009 at 5:36 pm
How sad and short sighted that someone would sexually mutilate a child for social, aesthetic purposes. The clitoral hood looks a bit baggy for my liking. Maybe I’ll trim up my six year old daughter’s clit so that my shallow beliefs will alter her future, private sexual experiences. Circumcision is NEVER a parent’s choice. If even ONE grown man is upset about being circumcised as an infant then this “custom” must be halted on ethical grounds. I am that man and maybe your son will be like me too?
October 1st, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Well, I voted “no way” but I should elaborate. I have two adopted sons (from different biological moms). The first son came to us circumcised, the second was not. We left the uncircumcised one that way instead of opting for the surgery. My husband is circumcised and I don’t like the thought of pain and surgery but I honestly have no idea what my hubby would vote for if we had a biological child (I can’t, so it’s kind of a moot point). But I’ve read about some circumcisions poorly done and I personally wouldn’t want to risk it.
And for what it’s worth, my son’s have never noticed or been bothered by their difference down there (or if they have, they haven’t mentioned it).
October 1st, 2009 at 9:23 pm
I voted that I would let my partner decide. I don’t have one of those parts so I don’t know what its like with or without it. Caleb is not circumcized and I’ve had many conversations with him about it. He told me after we’d been dating for a while that the first time we dtd he was nervous about how I’d react, and I think that’s terrible that he had to feel that way about it. We’ve decided that we would not circumcize our son if we had one, but I’ve told Caleb that its totally up to him to decide since he’s the one with that part. (Sorry that was rambley.)
October 1st, 2009 at 9:32 pm
While I was pregnant with Brinley(before we knew she was a girl obviously) Bryan and I had this discussion. I told him I’d defer to him since like Devin mention he has those parts and I don’t. He decided to circumcise which is fine by me. I won’t go as far as to say “not doing it is disgusting” or “circumcision is disgusting/cruel/barbaric” I think it’s a personal choice.
October 1st, 2009 at 9:52 pm
This has been discussed between Kyle and I, and without me stating my opinion first. He said he would opt to do it, and of course, I agreed. If he had said no, it would have been an open ended discussion between the two of us, and I probably would have supported that decision, since he is the one with the penis. What I do know is that he is a fully functional, well endowed man who has no problems with premature ejaculation. As for the “if one person is against it, it should be outlawed” statement, we all know that that is not how this country works. I don’t particularly like the way our government is working right now, but that doesn’t mean that I can rise up and overthrow them. There are many of us that don’t like restrictions on gay marriage, yet it still stands as it is. As Tamra said, it is no ones place to judge others for their decisions. We all just agree to disagree. Thank you for your (mostly) respectful replies. Having healthy opinions supported by fact is the best way to stand by your argument.
October 2nd, 2009 at 12:09 am
As a man with the very body part in question (a foreskin)… I can’t believe some of the comments people make! It is not hard to clean (really, its SIMPLE!).. and its not ugly.
I appreciate the way a female’s genitals look, but I have to say, females are hardly in a position to complain about “extra” skin (as though something we all naturally have should be classified as extra).
It also bothers me when people say its a “personal choice” but forget that its really the personal choice of the individual, not the parents! No one owns MY genital tissue but ME.
I also would like to confirm that it is extremely sensitive tissue, and it is most certainly functional – both in protection, and due to its mobility.
Normally I would agree with Mia that it is no one’s place to judge, and that we should all respect each other’s decisions – but we’re talking about painfully and permanently removing the healthy, sensitive, functional, erogenous genital tissue from an infant – we’re talking about a human rights violation, and there is no denying that if you do the research.
Cut off your own genitals if you want, but lets protect all infants from COMPLETELY unnecessary genital surgery.
October 2nd, 2009 at 12:41 am
Circumcision is rarely required although often performed to correct a problem, the conditions circumcision is used to rectify can in the vast majority of cases be corrected by less invasive and satisfactory ways. If circumcision is done for religious reasons it is to satisfy the religious belief of the parents and not that of the child.
As the sexually sensitive parts of the male penis are far less than that of the female and the inner mucosal tissue of the foreskin is part of the sexually sensitive and sensual parts. It makes sense that to amputate this functional tissue is not only a danger to health (even sometimes resulting in death), it reduces the functionality and pleasure during intercourse. As males get older the circumcised will be more disadvantaged in sensitivity than their intact counterpart, often with undesirable effects. It is fact that in the UK a study found,as a side issue, that the female partners of circumcised males had greatly increased occurrences of vaginal ‘thrush’, opposite to what might be universally thought. I think this is because sex with an intact male is more gentle and the increased vigour of sex by the circumcised male causes micro-abrasions in the vagina allowing the infection to take up residence.
All in all, circumcision is for the informed adult to make for himself, to impose it is genital mutilation and sexual abuse.
It seems strange that the largely circumcised USA has a greater incidence of HIV then Europe with a very low rate of infection. Europeans have no problem being intact so why force it on newborns or children?
I sincerely hope that mothers and fathers of children decide NOT to decide and let the adult the child will become to make a decision (or not)later in life.
Kevin Elks
October 2nd, 2009 at 12:47 am
Absolutely, definitely, positively not.
You wouldn’t cut a baby girl’s prepuce off, so why would you cut a boy’s off? It’s his body, so let him decide for himself. If you wait, it’s safer than an infant circumcision, it hurts less, and the results are cosmetically better. In England, only 1 in 140 males left intact ever needs to be circumcised for a medical reason, and it’s getting rarer.
If my son wants to be circumcised when he’s 18 (16 if he knows what he’s going), I’ll gladly pay for it, and help him find the best surgeon. Until then, no-one is cutting parts of his genitals off. His body, his decision.
It’s worth remembering that no-one except for Jewish people and Muslims would even be having this discussion if it weren’t for the fact that 19th century doctors thought that :
a) masturbation caused various physical and mental problems (including epilepsy, convulsions, paralysis, tuberculosis etc), and
b) circumcision stopped masturbation.
Both of those sound ridiculous today I know, but if you don’t believe me, then google this : “A Short History of Circumcision in North America In the Physicians’ Own Words”.
Over a hundred years later, circumcised men keep looking for new ways to defend the practice.
October 2nd, 2009 at 5:30 am
I did .. I would .. I will again! I typed a long post with my reasons, but then I deleted it because it doesn’t matter to any of you why I have or would. My husband agrees with the decision and I am pretty sure my son will to.
“Circumcision diminishes the penis in size” This made me laugh.. you have got to be kidding!!! If my husband was any larger I would be dead.
October 2nd, 2009 at 7:42 am
LaRaeven, you make a great point. None of these people do or probably will ever know us, so let them judge!! Personally I really don’t care what people think. If my fiance were any larger, sex would be impossible. If he lasted any longer during sex, sex would be impossible. He always “rides the orgasm,” which generally lasts a sufficient amount of time. I’m thankful to my MIL for doing what she did. I did learn some things from this, but my choice, and yes, it is a parents choice, remains unchanged.
October 2nd, 2009 at 3:03 pm
LaRaeven and Mia, you really distress me with your attitudes.
Why do you insist on supporting this practice?
Is it because admitting you may have done something wrong to the people you should love the most would cause you too much painful guilt?
Well, welcome to the real world; people make mistakes, and it takes a big person to admit their mistakes and learn from them.
I feel you are not big enough to do so.
So many people here and in many places have and will continue to tell you that circumcision is not good, is not required, is not ‘cleaner’ or ‘prettier’ (what a disgusting reason for giving cosmetic surgery to a fully conscious baby).
The sooner the USA wakes up and realises what it’s doing is no different from the ‘backward cultures’ they condemn for FGM, the better. The fewer babies that have to endure that insult, the better. Studies have shown that such tremendous pain within days of birth affects response to pain and probably emotional balance throughout life. Why do it? Laziness? Ignorance? Whatever the reason, I’m amazed people are still supporting it in the 21st century.
At least the writer of this blog and most of the commenters are on the right track.
It should not be a parent’s choice. Beating a child is also a parent’s choice, that does not make it right. The body belongs to the child, let them decide for themselves, educate yourself and stop depriving generations of men the full sexual pleasure they’re born to experience throughout their adult lives.
October 2nd, 2009 at 3:44 pm
OPPS!
Hit the wrong button and now there are two who say they didn’t mutilate but wish they had. I was trying to go the other way. Did agree to allow the mutilation of my son and now consider it the most evil thing I have done in my life.
October 2nd, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Whose penis is it anyway? Let the owner decide when he is old enought to make the decision. I did not have that choice and mine was botched in a totally unnecessary procedure.
October 2nd, 2009 at 6:05 pm
I horrid barbaric mistake doesn’t make you a bad person until you let yourself get so defensive about it that you would try to talk others into going down the same road.
Only the owner of the foreskin owns the right decide about his own pleasure-reducing cosmetic penile reduction surgery. I simply can’t believe a caring human being wrote that a baby should be cut because her husband has too much penis. I think pre-marital sex should be required to get a marriage license, and you wouldn’t be bitching about marrying the wrong penis.
To those women who think the husband should decide because HE has a penis: That’s nonsense. Chances are YOU still have your prepuce (over your clitoris) so you know far more about how good it feels to be rubbed on that nerve-laden enfolding skin (both genders are identical until 3 months gestation, so a prepuce is a prepuce is a prepuce).
It’s just so simple. No national medical association on earth endorses routine circumcision. Foreskin feels REALLY good. It’s HIS body, and HIS decision.
October 2nd, 2009 at 9:11 pm
“None of these people do or probably will ever know us, so let them judge!! Personally I really don’t care what people think.” – Mia.
Mia, no one said anything about judging you. People are simply responding to a question that YOU asked and created a POLL about. If you didn’t want to know what other people thought, then why did you create this post?
“I typed a long post with my reasons, but then I deleted it because it doesn’t matter to any of you why I have or would.”- LaRaeven
LaRaeven, if you wanted to talk about the choices you made, then why didn’t you? I’m sure if you had a good reason for circumcising your son, we all would have been eager to read it. If when reading your own words, you realized that you didn’t make a good decision, then maybe it would be better to just say so, or not post, rather than attacking us for what we DIDN’T say to you.
October 2nd, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Wow, hot topic!
The earlier posts were very insightful and educated. I learned a lot. As for the more recent comments…I’d just like to draw your attention to one of my favorite posts.
Don’t let your passion for this issue alienate the very people you’re trying to convince.
October 2nd, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Okay, Mia, I was wrong. You didn’t create this post or the poll, so I apologize for that. But in that case, what I said still stands, no one said anything about judging you. But if you’re still bothered by other people’s comments, you, like the rest of us, are free not to read them anymore. I think others are going to keep posting comments as long as the owner of this blog keeps it up, though.
October 2nd, 2009 at 9:26 pm
“Mia, no one said anything about judging you. People are simply responding to a question that YOU asked and created a POLL about. If you didn’t want to know what other people thought, then why did you create this post?”
Actually, for the record, this is my personal blog and my poll, not Mia’s. It was created out of curiosity because I truly wanted to know what people’s thoughts were. After 100+ answers, I think it’s safe to say my question has been answered.
October 3rd, 2009 at 1:23 am
Circumcise all child genital torturers and mutilators right above the shoulder line and then throw them in jail for life. They look much prettier when they are balled and behind steel bars.
October 3rd, 2009 at 5:20 am
Thank you James…not alienating those you are trying to convince would be a lesson well learned here.
There is plenty to be shared on this topic, but posts like many of these do little to sway opinion, rather they lead people to dig in their heals and refuse to consider alternatives.
October 3rd, 2009 at 8:39 am
Who has the right to cut normal, healthy, living body parts off of a human being, or give others permission to do so?
Only the human being whose body parts they are.
When others do it to someone without that person’s fully informed adult consent (children can’t give lawful consent), the illegal amputation is called “human vivisection”. Human vivisection is the human rights violation and crime against humanity that licensed German doctors were jailed after World War II for committing against Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and others during the war. Circumcision is human vivisection.
No one has the right to commit human vivisection against anyone else. That issue was decided at Nuremberg in the 1940s after the war.
Most people learned it before they went to kindergarten.
October 3rd, 2009 at 10:45 am
Many of you have left educated, insightful responses. Thank you!
October 3rd, 2009 at 11:08 am
Having suffered the grievous, painful loss of the most sensitive tissue on my body, I would never inflict similar violence to another person, certainly not someone in my care. Others will have to answer for themselves, but in my humble opinion, forcing one’s beliefs on another person by amputating part of his or her is a criminal offense. And, no, I don’t have respect for someone’s “opinion”, when another person must suffer the consequence.
October 3rd, 2009 at 2:45 pm
While the revolution against all those disgusting parent deceivers, those despicable sex criminals, those insane and brutal child genital torturers and mutilators is on its way why not putting out a poll that asks?
1)Should all those liars, circumcision promoters and those that actually use knives and torture clamps on children’s genitals die in jail?
or
2)Should they be executed right away?
October 3rd, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Mia, I just think it is so sad and backward what you said. What if someone said that about your vagina? I don’t think you have ever stopped to think how heavily influenced you are by U.S. circ culture.
October 3rd, 2009 at 8:09 pm
I vote for “die in jail”. It’s coming, folks. (See article below.) Jail is the only place circumcisers will be safe from the angry mobs. They’ll need to be in solitary confinement in a maximum security prison to have a chance of dying of natural causes. I don’t want them to suffer any violence at the hands of livid people. Solitary confinement for life is the only option they’ll have. They’ll be grateful for their safety at taxpayer expense.
I’ll give you the juicy parts first, then you can read the whole fascinating article if you like at
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jTrYMaNZkHykUniByp0xQI30hqxAD9B2FKUG0
or
http://bit.ly/jGhlG
Here’s the bottom line: “You can’t permanently disfigure a child.” Circumcising does that. It’s mayhem. In California, anyway, you can get a life sentence for mayhem.
Child’s tattoo: disfigurement or poor parenting?
By TRACIE CONE (AP) – Th 1 Oc 2009
FRESNO, Calif. — Enrique Gonzalez wanted his 7-year-old son to have a gang tattoo, like the many that adorn his own body. About that there is no dispute.
The question that a judge says she will decide Friday is whether placing a tattoo on a minor is a permanent and painful disfigurement worthy of the potential life sentence that comes with a mayhem conviction, or is it something less?
Are there other procedures children routinely undergo that are decidedly more painful and permanent?
The tattooing case became international news in April, not just for the quarter-size dog paw print on the right hip of the young boy, but for what the paw represented: Fresno’s most notorious criminal street gang, the Bulldogs.
…
Law enforcement officials threw the book at Gonzalez and Gorman.
But testimony at the preliminary hearing this week to establish which charges the evidence supports gave pause to Fresno County Superior Court Judge Hillary Chittick.
A defense attorney, seeking to undermine the potential mayhem charge, raised the issue of a painful, irreversible, and increasingly controversial medical procedure with the boy’s pediatrician, a witness for the prosecution.
“Which is more painful, circumcision or a tattoo?” asked public defender Manuel Nieto about the practice performed on a decreasing number of newborn boys.
“I would guess the circumcision,” Dr. Carmela Sosa responded.
“Do you recommend it to your patients?”
“There may be medical reasons that develop, but not on a routine baby.”
…
It is a misdemeanor in California to tattoo anyone under the age of 18. But prosecutor William Lacy conferred with gang investigators before applying the more sinister charge of aggravated mayhem, which California statutes describe as “extreme indifference to the physical or psychological well-being of another person” that intentionally causes disfigurement “unlawfully and maliciously.”
Conviction means life in prison with the possibility of parole.
“It seems to the court,” Judge Chittick said as she asked Monday for a few days to think, “that mayhem requires a certain level of bodily injury, and I’m not sure a quarter-sized tattoo meets that.”
Disfigurement doesn’t have to be permanent to qualify as mayhem, says law professor Laurie Levenson, director of the Center for Ethical Advocacy at Loyola Law School. Gonzalez could argue that he didn’t intend to harm his son, she said, but that won’t necessarily take the life sentence off the table either.
“It’s an interesting issue,” Levenson said. “I don’t think kids belong to their parents. You can give a child the haircut you want him to have, but you can’t permanently disfigure a child.”
…
October 3rd, 2009 at 11:47 pm
Mia (and LaRaven): “If my fiance were any larger, sex would be impossible.”
While it is technically true that circumcision means less penis, the difference a foreskin makes is actually to the smaller woman’s advantage, because the change in thickness is negligible and the difference in length vanishes, while a foreskin provides a unique rolling bearing, making entry gentler and easier.
“If he lasted any longer during sex, sex would be impossible.” (Do you mean it’s difficult now?) The extra nerves of a foreskin (actually, the normal complement) mean more control, so an intact man can last as long as you both like. But as he grows older, it will be more and more difficult for him to reach orgasm at all, and sex will become impossible at an earlier age.
“As for the “if one person is against it, it should be outlawed” statement, we all know that that is not how this country works.”
But the person in question is the person it was done to, the person who bears its full brunt. There is no other healthy, functional, non-renewable part of a baby boy’s body it is even legal to cut off, and no such part at all of a baby girl’s. Nor, of course, is it legal to circumcise an adult man against his will. This operation is anomalous.
October 4th, 2009 at 12:04 am
Of course I meant “…no other healthy, functional, non-renewable part of a baby boy’s body it is even legal to cut off, lacking pressing medical need…”
October 4th, 2009 at 6:26 am
I was unfortunately circumcised for shallow reasons. I lost a lot of respect for my mother and we are no longer close.
October 4th, 2009 at 7:03 am
Circumcision, or any other surgery to the genitals of defenceless babies or children, regardles of their gender, is a human rights violation and a crime. The only exception is medical emergency, after every effort has been made to avoid a circumcision.
Those who allow and those who perform these mutilations should be held accountable and brought to book.
October 4th, 2009 at 8:47 am
NO WAY! My husband is intact and healthy!!!!! I have decided to respect his bodily integrity and let HIM decide later in life if he wants to cut off part of his penis.
If you decide to leave your son intact, look at this video how easy is to clean an intact penis of a baby boy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIOP5EA8jd0
October 4th, 2009 at 8:49 am
I meant my SON is intact and healthy. My husband is NOT intact, he is circumcised. Leaving our son intact was the best decision we have ever made in the parenting journey. Circumcision is an irreversible decision, he could always have it done later, but you can’t never put it back.
October 4th, 2009 at 8:54 am
Stop Infant Circumcision Society
http://www.StopInfantCircumcision.org
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PB0oQEFN7qs&feature=PlayList&p=CF3A13A9F11BBF57&index=2
Doctors Opposing Circumcision Statement on HIV/Circumcision
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html
http://www.MGMbill.org
Bill to end male genital mutilation
October 4th, 2009 at 10:38 am
Beauty is in the eye and mind of the beholder.
Many, if not most people, are unable to see how the culture they live in has shaped what they think of as beautiful, or erotic. For approximately 1000 years the feet of little girls in China were hideously deformed with foot binding, Chinese culture demanded this imposed deformity and handicap for its notions of “beauty.”
When a young mother claims that she had her son’s penis surgically reduced to “make it pretty” she is ignorant and unaware of how this circumcising culture has cruelly shaped her idea of what is beautiful.
As for the comments from women who claim they are glad their husband’s foreskin was cut off because his penis is big enough and they couldn’t take any more, the obvious ignorance of natural anatomy is astounding. Without a foreskin his penis rubs the vagina and pulls lubrication out. With a foreskin he would be able to move smoothly within his own foreskin while inside. Quite frankly smoother intercourse for all involved.
Conscious parents who are able to look honestly at this issue and recognize their children’s autonomy over their own bodies at to my mind, truly beautiful.
October 4th, 2009 at 10:40 am
oops that last line should read:
Conscious parents who are able to look honestly at this issue and recognize their children’s autonomy over their own bodies are to my mind, truly beautiful.
October 4th, 2009 at 11:48 am
My husband and I educated ourselves on the subject prior to our sons being born and glad that we did. The foreskin is there for a purpose and is a normal part of the human body. My husband also came to the conclusion while doing our research that he was robbed of some highly erogenous tissue by being circumcised as a baby.
We found some great information at http://www.ksnocirc.org
October 5th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
I’m sorry but you can’t say that cutting off the foreskin of an underage male is a “personal decision” but cutting off the clitoral hood of an underage female is “child abuse” and illegal.
It starts as the same skin. Actually since most male circumcisions also remove the frenulum its more nerves and more skin. And at least the clitoris is still protected by the labia majora.
Just view the photos of male and female fetuses (alive, not creepy or gross) if nothing else:
http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/09/history-of-female-circumcision-in.html
October 5th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
I am a professor of human sexuality with a specialization in health topics surrounding birth and babies. The prepuce (’foreskin’ in boys or ‘hood’ in girls) and circumcision are subjects I have studied extensively and have had the opportunity to teach on at the university level for the past decade. The myths and misconceptions surrounding this topic are asinine. Even our medical personnel do not know what they are talking about most of the time. There is NO WHERE that accurate, research-based information is taught on the subject in the United States (not even in medical school). So it is no wonder most people end up getting their information from pop media news pieces and well-meaning (often misinformed) relatives.
The prepuce organ (certainly NOT ‘just skin’) is one that all mammals – both boys and girls (men and women) are born with. This organ (amputated via circumcision) has MANY vital, important functions and purposes (health, immunity, protection, sexuality, etc). Drs. Fleiss and Hodges (who have studied the prepuce and circumcision for 30+ years) wrote an excellent book titled, “What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Circumcision”. I highly encourage everyone to read it. In the meantime, a chapter excerpt on “The Functions of the Foreskin” is here: http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/09/functions-of-foreskin-purposes-of.html
The idea of cutting a baby boy for ‘cleanliness’ reasons is completely absurd. The prepuce is a self-cleaning organ AND in infancy and childhood it is 100% securely attached to the glans (head) of the clitoris (in girls) and penis (in boys). There is NOTHING you need to do to care for or ‘clean’ an intact baby’s penis. One of my colleagues in pediatrics once told new parents the only thing they needed to care for their intact son was a ruler – to slap the hand of anyone who tried to ‘mess with’ their son’s foreskin.
The best pediatric word of advice: INTACT = DON’T RETRACT. ONLY CLEAN WHAT IS SEEN.
If you haven’t already checked out these articles on protecting our sons, they are outstanding resources by doctors in the field of human health and sexuality:
Protect Your Intact Son
http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/08/protect-your-uncircumcised-son-exper...
Medical Tests: DO NOT RETRACT
http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/09/uti-testing-on-boys-do-not-retract.html
Only Clean What is Seen
http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/09/only-clean-what-is-seen-reversing.html
Ask the Experts
http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/09/ask-experts-forced-foreskin-retracti...
In addition ~ while the stats some people like to throw around (usually from news media) are not quoted in context, (and therefor not accurate) a few things should be pointed out about the supposed claims of prepuce amputation and health:
STDS:
As far as the whole STD/HIV myth is concerned – fact of the matter is that every empirical study we have done in the United States over the past 30 years show that intact men above and beyond have less disease and illness of every kind (HIV included). In addition, on a worldwide scale, the U.S. has the highest rates of HIV of any developed nation and we also have (by far) the highest rates of circumcised adult men. The countries where 99% of men are intact have the LOWEST rates of STDs and HIV. This alone tells us something. http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/08/here-we-go-again-new-york-times.html
Reviewing some of the primary purposes of the prepuce will explain why we see these numbers.
The prepuce makes and emits its own antibodies, antivirals, and antibacterials — it is a self-cleaning, protective organ that serves the immune system. The prepuce, the eye lids and the mammary glands are the only body organs that produce all these immune-supporting concoctions. For all these reasons it is not surprising that just this week the latest news from the African ’study’ on Circumcision & HIV is that ALL the areas where adult men have been circumcised in Africa are seeing exponentially higher rates of HIV: http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/09/hiv-increases-in-africa-where-most-men.html In addition, the study was ended early because so many WOMEN were contracting HIV from their circumcised male partners: http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/07/african-hiv-circumcision-study-ends.html
Condoms prevent STDs and HIV – not circumcision.
Cancer:
Men have a higher chance of getting BREAST CANCER (0.7% likelihood) than they do of getting penile cancer (0.09%). To argue that circumcision decreases the rate of penile cancer is like arguing that if we keep kids locked inside their bedroom their whole life they won’t get struck by lightening outside. It is absurd. Yes, if you cut an organ off your body, you will not ever get cancer in that organ. Cut off the breasts, we will not get breast cancer. Skin a person, and we won’t see melanoma. Maybe we should severe all organs & limbs & live as vegetables.
Cervical Cancer:
First, cervical cancer is not a common cancer.
Second, it is one that is easily treatable when malignant cells are found on the cervix – they are simply scraped off. Rarely is cervical cancer a terminal disease. It is one of the least ’scary’ forms of cancer.
Third, only the rarest few strains of HPV are linked with cervical cancer (HPV is what we are ‘worried’ about when we talk about men spreading diseases to women).
Fourth, repeated peer-reviewed, empirical, valid and reliable studies done in both the United States and Canada have shown that there is NOT A STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE in the rate of cervical cancer between those with sexual partners who are cut vs. intact. Specifically, the odds of getting cervical cancer go from 0.72% to 0.49% in large groups of women whose partners are intact vs. cut. Rather, what DOES significantly increase a woman’s chance of contracting HPV (but not necessarily getting cervical cancer) include: having sexual partners without condoms prior to the age of 17; having 6 or more sexual partners without condoms; having sexual partners who have been with prostitutes. Again, condoms prevent HPV (and some cervical cancer instances), not circumcision.
UTIs:
Women/girls have a 900x greater likelihood of getting a UTI than men/boys. Should we cut off the prepuce organ of all girls at birth? Obviously they would ‘benefit’ more than the boys… No, of course not. Because UTIs are minor and EASILY and quickly treated with antibiotics. Among men/boys UTIs are very rare anyway, and when they do happen, they are almost always due to an unknowledgeable adult messing with/forcibly retracting/over-cleaning a baby boy’s penis. UTIs RARELY occur when the prepuce organ is left alone. It has its own antibodies and sphincters to protect it from any invaders or infection. The prepuce is securely adhered to the glans (head) during infancy and childhood. The way we could better prevent these is to educate people on the prepuce: DON’T RETRACT! ONLY CLEAN WHAT IS SEEN!
This whole discussion reminds me of something Eliyahu Ungar-Sargon recently told “The New York Times” in an interview. Ungar-Sargon is the Jewish film maker of the highly informative documentary, CUT: Slicing Through the Myths of Circumcision. (Watch/Buy Here: http://www.cutthefilm.com) After spending years researching this topic and studying with some of the ‘experts’ in the fields of human sexuality, human health, religion, history, and genital cutting, he concluded, “Circumcision was a cure in search of a disease. When you look through history, you see that whatever the scary disease of the generation was, that was the one that circumcision would help prevent. So in the early 20th century it was syphilis, a scary disease that there was no cure for then. Later, it was cancer. Then UTIs, and now HIV.”
Female and male circumcision in the United States actually share a VERY similar history. All the myths we now toss around concerning MGM, we once held about FGM. http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/09/history-of-female-circumcision-in.html
I wholeheartedly agree with what others (and Ungar-Sargon) have said — genital cutting and the amputation of a healthy, functioning body organ from a non-consenting human being is a severe violation of human rights. If we did such a thing to a dog, we would be charged with animal abuse. And what we do to babies due to our own ignorance is certainly more criminal than that.
In response to the idea of having religious freedom to genitally mutilate our sons…We (in the U.S.) have outlawed, through the FGM Bill, any mutilation of baby girls for religious or non-religious reasons. Hopefully soon we pass the MGM Bill (http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/09/history-of-female-circumcision-in.html
I would encourage anyone who believes they are genitally cutting for religious reasons to dive into the subject further as well. If you are Christian, you will find that it is FULLY against what the early Christians taught, and how it is presented in the NT, by Jesus’ followers, and the Christian Church. http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/06/information-on-circumcision-for.html
If you are Jewish, hopefully you are well aware that cutting the blessing in antiquity was done in a MUCH different fashion than in modern day U.S. culture where we amputate the entire prepuce organ. While Hebrews and early Jews sliced the tip of the prepuce as a blood sacrifice of part of the covenant, Americans started the amputation practice in the late 1940s in an effort to curtail masturbation among men/boys. Many Jews today are opting instead for a Brit Shalom rather than cutting their perfectly born sons. http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/06/circumcision-jewish-fathers-making.html
Penn & Teller have recently done a few pieces that seem to especially speak to fathers. As long as you’re okay with their (sometimes crude) language, I’d encourage you to check out their documentary pieces. http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/09/fatherson-matching-penises-stop.html
For more information, see these excellent sites:
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/ – especially for medical personnel and parents wishing to know the latest pediatric research on the topic
http://www.circinfosite.com/
http://www.nocirc.org/
http://www.intactamerica.org/
October 5th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Danelle- You give a lot of excellent information. Thank you.
As for the pediatric saying: “INTACT = DON’T RETRACT. ONLY CLEAN WHAT IS SEEN,” I wish I would have known that a few years ago while I watched a friend retract her adopted infant son’s foreskin to clean his penis during a diaper change. She’d already decided that she was going to have him circumcised (a decision I tried very nicely to talk her out of), but her cleaning methods created a ton of infection and problems that made it “medically necessary” to remove the foreskin when he was a toddler. The situation broke my heart. I wish he could have made the choice himself, but even more so, I wish that someone would have told my friend that pediatric golden rule.
October 6th, 2009 at 7:03 am
We chose to leave our son the way he was born. We are very happy with that decision. It IS a personal decision… but should be left to the individual, NOT the parents. I don’t understand why it is still considered a “parenting decision.” It has zero to do with parenting.
October 7th, 2009 at 10:35 am
In case anyone is faced with their boys foreskin being forcibly retracted:
http://www.nocirc.org/publish/6pam.pdf
And for those moms that did circumcise you should be aware that the “only clean what is seen” applies to intact boys only. Its common practice not to preform a loose circumcision, which means some of the foreskin has been left. However it isn’t protect by being sealed to the head of the glans or having a tight opening, fecal and other matter may become lodged there. Also the area may not produce enough smegma and other natural lubricates. To prevent penile adhesions from happening to a circumcised penis it is probably best to retract it and very gently, without soap, rinse underneath. If the area is inflamed from “diaper rash” then consider using barrier creams to prevent the raw surfaces from touching.
http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/gracely1/
A penile adhesion can cause problems. The major one is that it can completely fuse, causing total reattachment of the shaft skin, and require surgical release or “recircumcision.” Usually the adhesions can be released by simple retraction, done either by the practitioner or the parents. Sometimes, however, the fusion is so complete that simple retraction will not work, and the child must be referred to a urologist. Another problem is that smegma or bacteria can accumulate under the adhesion if it covers the preputial cavity and can cause infection.7 Also, if a bridge-like adhesion is present, it can produce a tethering of the erect penis which can cause pain, penile curvature or both.7-8
To prevent the occurrence of penile adhesions, nurses and parents must be shown the proper technique of caring for the penis following a circumcision. Most nursing textbooks discuss the procedure and the initial care following a circumcision, which involves observation for bleeding and the application of Vaseline gauze or a lubricant and sterile gauze for 24 to 48 hours but do not discuss later retraction of the shaft skin.9-13 but usually this is all that they are taught. The penis looks different immediately following a circumcision than it does a few days later (at which time most babies are home from the hospital). With the swelling that occurs after a circumcision, the natural appearance of the shaft skin cannot be appreciated. The skin must heal after the circumcision and should not be retracted for approximately 10 to 14 days. However, the mother and the father must learn to pull back the shaft skin every day after the circumcision is healed so that the corona is free from any adherent skin. Another reason to retract the skin is to clean around the base of the glans, being certain to remove smegma and any other debris. Then the shaft skin should be returned to its original position, or a paraphimosis (constriction of the penis by the shaft skin) could occur.
October 20th, 2009 at 12:08 am
Who the heck are all these people? Anyways, in Europe no one but Jews and Muslims cut…so…You couldn’t find a doctor here who would know how to perform it. The natural penis is not gross, it just has its own jacket. Besides when it is hard it pretty much looks the same as a circd penis once you pull back the foreskin.
I would never alter something someone was born with. It just ain’t normal…
November 12th, 2009 at 8:20 am
I read the post before and haven’t commented until now. We have two boys, both of whom we chose to leave exactly the way they were born.
I was shocked at how many “friends” made comments about how the boys will be made fun of, ridiculed, how they’ll get UTIs and STDs so easily…some nasty comments were made even in a “supportive” online group for new moms about how I could do something so horrible to them.
I believe we are made the way we are for a reason. Just as I wouldn’t cut off a part of a baby girl’s genitalia, I will never circumcise my boys. Brutally removing parts of the body, to me, is cruel and nothing short of a violation of human rights.