circumcision

http://www.rifuture.org/is-circumcision-a-progressive-issue.html

Progressive is as useless a word as conservative for me, but this is a well written article about an interesting topic. I don't have a penis, so I feel sort ofunqualified to have a solid opinion about this. I'm not Jewish or Muslim either. As a mom of sons I prefer to let them make the decision about cosmetic surgery on their own genitals.

Years ago I was dating someone whose "issue of the day" was female genital mutilation. She didn't share my viewpoint of the correlation between that and circumcision. Baffling.

I do not consider it baffling that anyone would consider male circumcision and female genital mutilation uncorrelated . If two thirds of the penis was removed leaving just enough of the organ for reproduction to occur and this was done on a 5-10 year old boy without anasthesia - by his father , brothers , uncles as a mob - then I would call it baffling to not see a correlation . Religously, circumcision is done to males as a symbol of joining in covenant with God . Females are circumcised to keep them from enjoying sex so they don't commit adultery . Circumcision has never stopped a man from commiting adultery . Unless threatened with it by an angry wife .

My older brother was circumcised, but my mother decided thankfully not to circumcise me. I do not understand the motivation behind the change in decision, but I can say my brother has expressed his wishes that our mother did not mutilate his penis. Circumcision is a form of genital mutilation and the purpose is purely circumstantial when excluding religious tradition. Personally, I have replicated the effects of a circumcision (by obvious means) and I find it highly uncomfortable, irritating and unnatural. I managed to convince my wife when we had our son to not seek circumcision and though she initially was against my suggestion she has since shifted her opinion away from the conventional norm and expressed her approval after extensive research on the matter.

On another angle there was an argument made that circumcision is hygienic and the foreskin has little purpose. This by the same organization which once claimed the appendix has no purpose. Either way, similarly there was a big push to promote circumcision as a weapon against the spread of AIDS in Africa, but this was the "practical" approach presented because promoting responsible sex for obvious reasons was not an option... Well, in evolution every animal in the world protects the penis membrane by covering it. Its hard to argue with billions of years of evolution what is the better strategy in my opinion. Looking at the membrane itself, the skin is thin and non-callous proving prone to puncture - it is not designed to be left unprotected!

The funniest cultural oddity concerning the penis, has to be the penis sheath worn by the New Guinea highlanders. The other creatures in the forest survive just fine with their dicks sucked into their body cavities or swinging in the wind. Only humans give their weiners this much attention. Gives me the willies. I'd feel like the cock of the walk, if I were able to strut my stuff downtown wearing only a penis sheath. The cops would probably tell me to quit acting like a dork. What a bunch of dinks (:

I admit I like to shock people sometimes.

My favorite shocker is if someone casually asks me, "hey, you live in the same town as the Smiths, do you know them?"
And then I get to say, "Do I know the Smiths? Do I know the Smiths? My son was circumcised on their kitchen table!!! I know the Smiths." Commence look of horror!

This was a religious ceremony. Did it hurt? My son cried and then the doctor/mohl dipped a rag in sweet wine and gave it to him. That was all it took to stop the crying. A women at the ceremony had to have her son circumcised when he was 6 for medical reasons and that was apparently traumatic.

I don't think all males need to get circumcised because 1 out of 1000 have problems. I suspect that circumcision makes sense in the parts of the world where it is done - and that's why they do it.

Here's another shocker, I'm a Jewish woman that raises pigs. I think it's OK because I don't live in a desert and because pork is quite tasty and I'd rather raise my own so I'm sure of the quality.

I was born in the 50s in the US, so like pretty much every other white male, I was subjected to this procedure as an infant. While it may not be as extreme as the female version, it is without question a form of genital mutilation. The glans is a mucous membrane, and the foreskin functions to cover it. The glans of uncircumcised males is soft and moist, but circumcision causes it to become keratinized and cracked like alligator skin, vastly decreasing its sensitivity. Think about sticking your tongue out permanently and you'll get an idea of how unnatural this situation is. Furthermore, some of the most sensitive erogenous zones are obliterated, and those who have endured it as adults have confirmed that sexual pleasure is significantly diminished. Although certain structures are gone forever, it is possible to regrow a foreskin through gentle stretching, at least regaining its covering function. Those who have accomplished this testify that their sexual pleasure is greatly enhanced. I'm thinking about trying it; takes a few years. Were it not for the religious association, infant circumcision would probably be considered outrageous and banned. It's not something that should be visited on anyone without his consent.

in much of the world where girls are circumcised it is actually done by doctors and their mothers take their baby daughters to have it done and say one reason is hygiene the same as parents say here. I am against all circumcision and am glad that neither my son nor daughter have had their bodies mutilated. it is something if eel pretty strongly about but it also is a topic that can upset a lot of people. most of the people i have known who got upset where circumcised men who felt that it happened tot hem and they where fine so it should continue happening to future generations. the history of it in the united states is interesting and sad.

Olivia Helmer wrote:in much of the world where girls are circumcised it is actually done by doctors ...

Where is that?

Cj Verde wrote:

Olivia Helmer wrote:in much of the world where girls are circumcised it is actually done by doctors ...

Where is that?

that is a good question. i am sorry i am unable to site the source. there was a video about it I once saw on an anti circumcision group that I am a "fan" of on facebook. it is possible they where wrong but they had interviews with mothers talking about circumcising their daughters and it sounded almost the same as what parents int he united states say about circumcising their sons. I know it is done in very violent and terrible ways in much of the world but it is also done in hospitals by doctors in places. that does not make it ok. the way I see it it is never ok to do cosmetic surgery on someone who is unable to consent to it and too young to even comprehend what it is. My younger brother was circumcised because his parents believed it would lower his chances of cancer and be better for hygien and now he lived in a country where it is very rare for men to ever be circumcised. I will try and find the video and if I can I will post a link

I know a guy who got circumcised when he was in his early 20's because his girlfriend at the time objected to foreskin and talked him into it.

Apparently it was an extremely painful ordeal lasting for weeks.

Nick Kitchener wrote:I know a guy who got circumcised when he was in his early 20's because his girlfriend at the time objected to foreskin and talked him into it.

Apparently it was an extremely painful ordeal lasting for weeks.

My roommate in the Army had it done in his 20s too...definitely didn't look too thrilled afterward. There are plenty of accounts online of guys lamenting the foreskins they sacrificed as adults. They're the only ones in any position to make a firsthand comparison, and appear to usually favor their original condition, for a number of reasons (including erotic sensation).

Cj Verde wrote:

Olivia Helmer wrote:in much of the world where girls are circumcised it is actually done by doctors ...

Where is that?

this is not the video I mentioned previously but has mothers who where circumcised talking about taking their daughters to doctors to also be circumcised. It took me a long time to find it mostly because I hate watching videos about circumcision so didn't actively look but once a video popped up I remembered this thread from ages ago.

https://youtu.be/qsqEyGdLh8I

wayne stephen wrote:I do not consider it baffling that anyone would consider male circumcision and female genital mutilation uncorrelated . If two thirds of the penis was removed leaving just enough of the organ for reproduction to occur and this was done on a 5-10 year old boy without anasthesia - by his father , brothers , uncles as a mob - then I would call it baffling to not see a correlation . Religously, circumcision is done to males as a symbol of joining in covenant with God . Females are circumcised to keep them from enjoying sex so they don't commit adultery . Circumcision has never stopped a man from commiting adultery . Unless threatened with it by an angry wife .

If you research the origins of circumcision in america you will find that it was not religious but initially to stop males from masturbating. The same guy who first sold it to the American public also thought pure carbolic should be applied to young girls clitoris. He also admitted that the operation causes as much harm as good, but the threat of masturbation was too great so circ became the status quo.


history of circumcision

May not be 2/3 of the boys penis but I found a little factoid about how much is removed, seems like a lot to me.

Myth – Circumcision is just a little snip.
Fact – Surgical removal of the foreskin involves immobilizing the baby by strapping him face-up onto a molded plastic board. In one common method, the doctor then inserts a metal instrument under the foreskin to forcibly separate it from the glans, slits the foreskin, and inserts a circumcision device. The foreskin is crushed and then cut off. The amount of skin removed in a typical infant circumcision is the equivalent of 15 square inches in an adult male.

intact america

Victor Johanson wrote:it is possible to regrow a foreskin through gentle stretching, at least regaining its covering function. Those who have accomplished this testify that their sexual pleasure is greatly enhanced. I'm thinking about trying it; takes a few years.

I've been working on this for a few years. Have a few more years to go. I highly recommend it. I love the increased pleasure. People claim that size doesn't matter, but I am loving the increased size because a too-tight sheath isn't interfering with full expansion.

I started this project after my daughter came home from college ranting about female genital mutilation. She just couldn't understand my claim that mutilation is mutilation whether it's done to a girl or to a boy.

My approach has been slow and steady rather than using traction devices. As a farmer I do a lot of hard physical labor and don't want to be distracted by devices... In 18 months the skin has grown about 1.6 inches. It was hard to measure progress at first. Tattoos helped.

My family is white, my husbands is mexican. My family circumsizes, my husbands didn't. I didn't have a real standing on the issue, not having a penis, so I let my husband decide. Thus, our son is not circumsized. My sisters circumsized their boys and I do not condemn them for that decision. I would not want them to condemn me for mine. It was a lesson though. No one in my family, aside from me obviously, had seen an uncircumsized penis until my son came along. So they were all interested. lol

Condemnation's bad, but enlightenment's good--people make this decision for their sons without adequate information, and permanently altering a person's physiology without good reason and without their consent isn't trivial. This has become an assembly line procedure that most people don't question, because the medical establishment recommends it and "doctor knows best." Well, doctors used to recommend lobotomies too.

This story is weird and sad.

The parents split up before the kid, now four and a half, was born. The father wants him circumcised, the kid doesn't want it and the mother doesn't either. Just this past week the mother was arrested for not signing court ordered papers allowing the unneccessary cosmetic surgery on her little boy. I happen, right now, to be the mother of four-and-a-half year old twins and I just can't imagine.

For updates and the petition look here

Sad case, but as always there is another side to the story.

The judge found the mom had willfully violated the plan she signed when the boy was 1. The judge also said Hironimus had committed a "direct, contemptuous violation" of court orders by continuing to team with circumcision opposition groups — called "intactivists" — that have "plastered" the child's photos and name "all over the Internet."

The mother originally agreed to the circumcision and signed papers to that effect. It is quite a different legal position to the "father wants it mother and child don't" that is painted in some of the new stories and articles.

News article reporting on the judgement

this was when the mother did not know as much as she knows now and when no one knew the boy suffers from sever keloid scars (he has one from a needed surgery) as well as other medical problems. the mother and boy should not be punished because the mother did not know about circumcisions. so many people in this country don't know about circumcisions being completely unnecessary and that they have a horrible history. this case is how I found the video I posted recently which seems to have revived this old thread.

Michael Cox wrote:Sad case, but as always there is another side to the story.

The judge found the mom had willfully violated the plan she signed when the boy was 1. The judge also said Hironimus had committed a "direct, contemptuous violation" of court orders by continuing to team with circumcision opposition groups — called "intactivists" — that have "plastered" the child's photos and name "all over the Internet."

The mother originally agreed to the circumcision and signed papers to that effect. It is quite a different legal position to the "father wants it mother and child don't" that is painted in some of the new stories and articles.

News article reporting on the judgement

I understand that, however she agreed to a legally binding document regarding childrearing arrangements. It could well be argued that she should have educated herself before agreeing, but contracts are not simply voided because one of the parties changes their mind and wants to back out of it.

I would question the morality of the father forcing this issue when the mother and the child are both against it, but from a technical legal point of view he appears totally in the right.

yes legally children's bodies can be mutilated in this country. a lot of forms of child abuse are legal actually.

From my perspective, circumcision falls somewhere on the spectrum of things we do that hurt our children while hoping the benefits outweigh the costs. Vaccinations are another data point on that spectrum. Looking around the interwebs, it appears that about 10 babies die each year from the measles vaccine which dwarfs the number of people that actually died from measles in the USA. Like getting a vaccine, circumcision certainly is going to be painful, but like the vaccines there are some long term benefits such as a 90% reduction in urinary tract infections or a 60% reduction in HIV infections.

If you read through some of the studies and info about the studies of circumcision and hiv you will find some often reffered to ones were self reported surveys of sexual behaviour, in other cultures than your own, and misleading. We know how to prevent hiv, we just teach that to the kids. Not to mention the child could choose to get circumcised later if they wanted to be supposedly safer while having unprotected sex.

link to info on studies about hiv

A few years ago when my twins were born the doctors discussed circumcision with me. The American association of pediatrics said that it is generally not a harmful practice although there are risks (children die and are maimed every year by botched circumcisions) and that it is a cosmetic procedure.

The studies about HIV were done in Africa in places where many HIV positive people were having unprotected sex with multiple partners. I have friends who were there in the peace corps at the time. It's not an effective protection against HIV at all, it lowers the rate somewhat. Having only protected sex is much better. Circumcision for the purpose of lowering your kids chances of getting AIDS is not a good plan.

Regardless of the legal case against the mother, her actions to protect her child are morally right, in my eyes. If something horrible is legally right, I consider it my duty to go with right rather than the law. In particular when it comes to cutting parts of my children off.