Duluth.Talk

By Brian Curtis

October 30, 2006 07:42 PM | Link to this

The African genital-cutting ritual, the Jewish bris, and the Christian circumcision are all performed on minors… indeed, usually before they can even speak.

As such, I’m opposed to all of them, across the board. Mutilation is mutilation. Let ‘em wait till they’re 16 and get it done at a mall if it’s still important to them.

But “religion” and “custom” are no excuse for performing body-altering procedures on hapless infants.

By Mary

October 30, 2006 08:16 PM | Link to this

I agree with the first poster. No one should have their genitals cut, because of the beliefs of someone else. When you are an adult, if you want to have surgery — that is one thing; but infants and children should not have others making decisions about their bodies that may affect their physical and emotional health and sexual function throughout their lives.

Most genital cutting is about power and control that others enforce against those weaker than themselves; children of both sexes and older girls and women. The issue of circumcision is a public health issue and everyone should do what they can to stop this cruel practice. Clearly some cultural and religious traditions need to be examined and changed.

By Sorsha Anderson

October 30, 2006 08:59 PM | Link to this

I agree with the first two posters - but let’s be sure to include baby boys in this category as well. If they decide they don’t need the full sexual organ that nature endowed them with - let them choose to have their foreskin removed as an adult.

By catlady

October 30, 2006 09:36 PM | Link to this

If there is one place to have a zero tolerance policy, this is it!

By SammyJr

October 31, 2006 04:17 AM | Link to this

I agree with the first three posters. Only an adult, male or female, should be able to consent to having their genitals cut. Little babies don’t need their genitals cut and their parents shouldn’t be allowed to make that choice for them. Some cultures need to adapt to modern ideas of human rights.

By katie

October 31, 2006 05:43 AM | Link to this

I think it’s disgusting what people do in the name of religion, or custom. I am shocked and horrified about this story and am speechless.

By KA

October 31, 2006 08:56 AM | Link to this

There should be NO TOLERANCE for this primitive, barbaric abuse of girls and women. It is sick.

By Rod

October 31, 2006 09:09 AM | Link to this

The first few posters are INSANE. You’re recommending that boys have the circumcision when they’re older, like 16? MY GOD - THE PAIN! When the boy is a few days old, it’s much easier, quicker and less painful. By the time the child is a week older, they will not remember any of that pain. However, doing that to a 16 year old is just plain stupid.

Circumcision on a boy - leads to a healthier life and fewer problems with the penis —> that’s a fact. Deal with it.

By Jake

October 31, 2006 09:21 AM | Link to this

“Circumcision on a boy - leads to a healthier life and fewer problems with the penis —> that’s a fact. Deal with it.”

Rod, any honest doctor will tell you that there is NO medical need for a baby boy to be circumcised. The circumcision of baby boy’s is a cultural practice and a way for doctor’s to make extra money in the delivery room. That’s all!

If a young man wants to have his penis circumcised when he is older — then let him do that. It is no different than a young man deciding to get a tattoo or body piercing; except that this is NOW HIS PERSONAL CHOICE about his body and sexual function and not a choice imposed upon him by someone else.

By GrammarPolice

October 31, 2006 09:28 AM | Link to this

Jake, you make a reasonable argument. Unfortunately, you take away from it with bad grammar. Any grammar teacher will tell you that to make “baby boys” and “doctors” plural, you do not need to use an apostrophe. You just made them possessive instead of plural.

By Ken Tucker

October 31, 2006 09:47 AM | Link to this

My wise parents went against our religious “culture” and did not allowed my circumcision as an infant. I did the same for my sons. We’re all happy with our penises. Circumcision of children, male or, especially female, is barbaric mutilation.

By drjay

October 31, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this

circumcised males have 10 times lower risk of uti’s lower incidence of penile cancer and there is evidence of lower std (including hiv) rates among the circumcised. not saying it has to be done, but i will not call it an outragious assault on a male child either

By AceyMan

October 31, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this

It’s wonderful to see the vocal and well considered reaction’s of the people who have already commentted. Circumcision is a barbaric injury inflicted by our closest relatives intentionally. If that’s not a horrible wrong, I don’t know what is.

To Jake: Your comments that infant circumcision for boys is “much easier, quicker and less painful,” is rubbish. Go find the tinyURL that ends in ycvg4g if you want to open your eyes.

By Jake

October 31, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this

To AceyMan:

Rod, made the comments that you are referencing; I only quoted him.

To GrammarPolice:

Okay, thank you for the correction:-)

By AceyMan

October 31, 2006 10:29 AM | Link to this

I’m was surprised to see AJC.com actually allows links, so I’ll link this story here.

Do an internet search for male genital mutilation or circumcision mutilation and prepare to be enlightened and appalled.

As for the medical aspect, I have physcians in my family and am not afraid to talk honestly with other doctors I know; it’s true that natural penises have some occurances of dermatological problems like minor infections and irritaton. However, these complications are largely caused by improper hygiene, and cannot be used to justify the removal of body parts.

I hypothesize that because so many men in the USA have already been cut, the resulting lack of knowledge by parents in general (mothers as well as fathers) contributes to these skin problems. In the other countries that don’t have this practice, fathers teach their boys how to take care of their equipment and as a result there are very few issues.

By SammyJr

October 31, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this

To Rod:

Pain? Newborns feel pain, too. Worse, they can’t understand why they are in pain. Newborns also cannot get decent anesthesia. Some doctors use EMLA cream, a topical anesthestic. That’s not even effective enough when getting a mole removed, but they expect that its enough to block the pain of penis surgery? Doesn’t make any sense to me. After surgery, the baby gets nothing expect maybe Tylenol, which again, is barely enough for a headache or toothache, not penis surgery.

If its ok to hurt a baby because they won’t remember, is it ok to rape a girl as long as you slip her a roofee first? After all, she won’t remember, so it by your logic, it is ok, right?

An adult who decides to get circumcised knows exactly why they are in pain and has chosen to be in pain. Also, they can have the surgery done under general anesthesia so they really don’t feel anything. Afterwards, they can have effective narcotic pain relievers like codiene until their chosen wound heals.

Routine medical circumcision of baby boys is a dead procedure. The United States is the last advanced country clinging to the it. I imagine it has something to do with the yacht payments of various doctors.

By SammyJr

October 31, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this

To drjay:

UTIS: Girls have more UTIs than any baby boys, intact or cut. We treat girls with antibiotics, why the difference?

Penile cancer: Probably caused by HPV. Vaccine in the works. Affects men aged 67+, plenty of time for them to choose circumcision for themselves. Mostly caused by very poor hygiene, smoking, and other non-foreskin related risk factors. Penile cancer is more rare than male breast cancer. Routine infant circumcision is not recommended by the American Cancer Society.

HIV: This experiment has been tried before and failed. The United States has nearly universal male circumcision in the adult population and among the highest HIV rate amoung similarly advanced nature. If circumcision had anything to do with HIV, you’d expect the United States to have very low rates considering our high circumcision rate. Not true. Countries like the UK, Japan, Germany, and even Mexico have much lower rates of HIV infection compared to the US but generally don’t circumcise.

Want to avoid STDs and HIV? Have sex within a monogamous relationship and wear a condom. Look for the circumcisors to combine this brilliantly obvious revelation in HIV prevention with circumcision and claim that circumcision, not well known safe sex practices, saved the people.

By Brian

October 31, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this

It’s interesting to see the comments on a female circumcision story degenerating into war over male circumcision. It shows that Beni’s title of Genital mutilation: What’s your cultural tolerance limit? is right on the money. She didn’t qualify it with the sex of the genitals being mutilated.

It seems like everyone who’s adding comments grew up in USA, where male circumcision is deeply ingrained in our culture. Rod, you and people on your side will be quick to say “I can’t understand those foreigners who would cut their daughters.” However, you are already living the same life as them, cutting your sons instead of daughters, assuming it has to be done, assuming noone will marry him unless you do it, assuming the benefits outweigh the risks, assuming it’s the right thing to do.

Some of Beni’s opening lines can be rewritten by rotating the countries and name.

In Rod’s country of origin, USA, male genital cutting is practiced. There in Norway and other European countries, it is a heinous crime (male circumcision on a minor).

The practice of male genital mutilation is widespread throughout much of USA, the Middle East and pockets of Asia and Africa, according to news reports.

By Ashleigh

October 31, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this

I definitely agree with the others when they say that no one should have their genitals cut because of the beliefs of others. It’s horrible to think of putting someone through that amount of pain, especially a small child. Just because children don’t have memories prior to the age of two, doesn’t mean that they don’t feel. People should really look up child psychology and study it. It will really bring a lot of subjects to light.

By Richard

October 31, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this

Female circumcision does not exist anywhere that male circumcision is not well established. (Some claim there is one exception to this rule, within one isolated culture in Africa, though it is not substantiated.) If the US wants to take a meaningful stand against female cutting, we must become an example of a society honoring the genital integrity of all children, without regard to gender.

We cut off healthy, sexually important tissue from baby boys for cosmetic reasons. It inflicts horrible pain, sometimes kills with hemmorrhaging or infection, and may leave a male with no feeling in the penis. It always leaves less penis, and most often less sexually sensing capacity.

The study that says intact boys have 10X as many urinary tract infections (UTIs) was biased by including boys with hypospadias, who have extremely high rates of UTI. They are left intact so their foreskin tissue can be used for surgical repair of their congenital anomaly if needed. Leave out those cases and the rate of UTI is likely to be the same for intact and circumcised. The best spin (10X rate), is based on these percentages: intact boys have a 1% risk of UTI, circumcised a .1% risk. So you circumcise 100 boys to prevent one case of UTI? Most UTIs are minor and respond well to antibiotics. The complication rate of circumcision is much more danger than the risk of UTI.

HIV? Other STDs? Europe and Japan do not circumcise (80% of males on Earth are NOT circumcised, 16% are circumcised because they are Muslims; why does the US make up most of other 4%?). Europe and Japan rates for all alleged “foreskin caused problems” are much lower than in the widely circumcised USA. The US has the highest circumcision rate, and the highest HIV/AIDS rate, of any industrialized country. If circumcision prevents HIV/AIDS, why hasn’t it worked here?

Why do US physicians still sell circumcision? Someone mentioned yachts; then, there are imported luxury cars made by non-circumcised labor in Germany or Japan. Doctors have to make their payments too, you know. The fees from circumcision can add $60,000-$80,000 annually to a good OB/GYN practice (yes, that’s who does most US circumcisions, specialists in WOMEN’s health). Is anyone wondering why?

By Renee

October 31, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this

I have a son and daughter. They are both still as whole as when they entered the world. There are many great reasons not to circumcise that have already been addressed by previous posters. Here’s another reason, the size and elasticity of the foreskin is hard to imagine unless you see it for yourself. Yesterday, our two year old son didn’t want a diaper change. While putting his hands in the way of the diaper, he grabbed his foreskin and pulled it away from his body. When stretched, his foreskin was longer than the shaft of his penis. When he let go, it sprang back to it’s normal position. If parents knew how much tissue was lost to circumcision, would they still feel comfortable amputating it?

~Nay

By charles b

October 31, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this

This trial is a complete sham.We are all hypocrits for allowing male circumcision for our own religious beliefs,but yet we persecute someone for female circumcision for their own religious belief.First i don’t believe the father did it,for in their society,only the women did it,either the grandmother or an older woman whose job was to do it ,scince it was a female only ritual,never the father or any male, that was outside the scope for any man’s duties.Secondly when the act occured,there was no law in georgia against it.This is a hypocritical witch hunt.When we don’t share someone’s view we persecute,welcome to the new socialist republic!!!!!

By drjay

October 31, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4371384.stm

hope this link works—from my admittedly limited knowledge of the subject—because the foreskin is a nonkeratinized squamous cell epithelium it is much more susceptable to hiv infection—and we are talking hetero tranmission here as anal sex would still give the virus access the the same type of permeable tissue. also as i recall from school if you overlay a map of africa with it hiv rates and male circ rates there was a correlation of lower hiv rates and higher male circ rates.(at least in the late 90’s)

By kenny h burton

October 31, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this

Tradition (refrain) Copyright 2005 Kenneth Hugh Burton

I cringe at the thought of this dominance perpetuated against the ones who should be adored She, who is most certainly created in the image of the Most High She, of whom the Most High hath said let us make them in our image female and male

Has the Most High committed error that we should subdue all of creation and call the womb profane instead of sacred?

Has the Most High committed error that we should subdue the senses of pleasure? And make of little girls, eunuchs, scarred and mutilated by tradition by parents, grandparents, families, and nations who mutilate what the Most High called good

A heavy burden is cast upon the guiltless who are innocent and responsibility is avoided by those empowered by fear who continue making myth who continue to press and oppress their equal female and male

But no cover of fig leaves can suppress the imaginings from the heart of the senseless spring forth rapes, molestations and inconsequential penetrations making fatherless babies and creation is reduced to an act of aggression against her his equal

So I cringe at the thought of the Most High committing error to be corrected by tradition

How many wrongs have continued through tradition?

By Renee

October 31, 2006 03:43 PM | Link to this

Drjay,

Circumcised men are still encouraged to wear a condom to prevent infection by the HIV virus, same as intact men. If both intact and circumcised men need a condom for protection, then what is the point of foreskin amputation?

~Nay

By drjay

October 31, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this

i did not say it was a panacea—just unlike female circ—there are reasonable reasons why one might get a male circ—there are risks — there are benefits to both choices—i would neither encourage or discourage either choice

By Jane

October 31, 2006 04:45 PM | Link to this

In order not to offend immigrants especially Middle Eastern and North African Immigrant, we will need to be more tolerant of their customs and traditions toward women. This will be especially true if we want to compromise with those fighting for their freedom and local customs in Iraqi and Afghanistan. As American we are the oppressors, the crusadors, so we need to adopt the customs of others in order to redeem ourselves for thinking the Islamic treatment of women is someway wrong.

By toni

November 1, 2006 02:07 PM | Link to this

I may be showing my own ignorance here,as I do not know alot about genital circumcision. But it seems to me, that cutting off the c****** of a young girl is much worse than penile circumcision of a boy. Female circumcision, as it’s called, I thought was done to deny a girl/woman of all sexual feeling and identltiy. Some cultures do not allow women to be sexual beings. But male circumcision does not impede his sexual appetite or satisfaction. So I think the two are very different in terms of what type of satisfactory life a person can lead.

By Elane

November 1, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this

The key difference between the two types of cutting is, for males, it either positively enhances the sexual experience later in life, or it does not have a negative impact. Their female partners generally are not affected one way or the other. But female genital mutilation is exactly that. The c****** is removed and the vagina is made narrower. Why? Not to enhance a female’s pleasure. Quite the opposite. It is designed to eliminate sexual desire in females so that they will not “stray� from their husbands, or more accurately, their owners. It is also believed that the smaller vagina will preserve the man’s notion of having sex with a virgin. If male circumcision did not have benefits later in life, I assure you that male doctors would never perform it. Why adult women continue to inflict this atrocity on younger girls is a tragic mystery.

By Food for thought

November 1, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this

Food for thought: In Africa and the other countries where female circumcision is performed in nearly ALL instances the person who performs the circumcision is an older and revered female and NOT A MAN.

Usually the girl is taken away by older women who are not kin to her and the procedure is done out of sight and sound of the parents. Several women hold the girl down and open her legs; while the cutter excises parts of her genitals. It would be rare and strange for either parent to be directly involved in performing the circumcision.

Although many cultures approve and expect their daughters to be circumcised, the procedure is a difficult, painful, and bloody. It is often too hard on the parents to hear their screaming and struggling daughters as the surgery is done.

By SammyJr

November 1, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this

to toni and Elane:

Male circumcision does not improve the sexual experience later in life. Removing a large part of the man’s sexual nerves and skin has a negative affect on a man’s ability to enjoy sex. A man might convince himself otherwise, but like a circumcised female, he is missing many sexually sensitive nerves and the function of his sexual organs is forever changed. Why would it even make sense that removing a woman’s sexual nerves makes sex worse, but removing a man’s sexual nerves makes sex better? The “circumcised men have better sex” idea is basically circumcised American male ego stroking. If circumcision really made sex that much better, European and Mexican men (to name a few) would be flocking to the urologist or plastic surgeon, but they’re not. 80% to 85% of the world’s men have their foreskins and they aren’t eager to have them cut off.

American male doctors are mostly circumcised. They have no idea if their sex lives would be better with a foreskin and their ego won’t allow them to consider the possibility. They continue performing circumcisions because it makes them money and they can’t and won’t believe they’re causing a problem. Don’t think for a second that an American doctor considers anything but money when they cut into that helpless infant.

In the United States, circumcision was originally performed on men and women to prevent masturbation.

“A remedy for masturbation 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. In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the c****** an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement.

(John Harvey Kellogg, M.D., “Treatment for Self-Abuse and its Effects,” Plain Fact for Old and Young. Burlington, Iowa: F. Segner & Co. (1888). P. 295)

Doctors just keep inventing new reasons to practice their craft and continue making money.

Read: History of Male Circumcision Female Genital Cutting

Note that Blue Cross paid for female circumcision, specifically clitoridectomies (removal of the c******), until May 18, 1977. You girls are lucky that female circumcision never caught on in a big way or you’d be on here defending your missing c****** as making your sex life better.

By Richard

November 1, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this

To toni, Elaine, Food for thought: Your ideas about male circumcision are the result of cultural indoctrination. You believe male circumcision is for good “medical” reasons, that it enhances sexual performance, that it does no harm. These ideas are absolutely incorrect, but have been cunningly sold to the US public for about 75 years now, by a medical industry that makes hundreds of millions of dollars from it. US parents think they are doing a good thing for their sons, but they are not fully informed. In cultures that practice female cutting, parents give all the same reasons US parents give for male circumcision: It’s cleaner, it looks better, it makes sex better. They don’t know the difference, just as US men and their partners don’t know the difference.

This is not about “style” or some superficial issue; it’s about sexual health without hidden psychological denial. What do you expect circumcised men to say, other than “Oh, it’s fine.” That’s what they HAVE to say to keep their sanity when they someone has cut off 30%-50% of the epithelial tissue on their penises, including its most erogenous parts. Worldwide, 80% of males are NOT circumcised. Muslims are 16% of world population and circumcise for religious reasons (as do Jews who are <1% of world population). The US makes up most of the other 4%. Europe and Japan have health care and health standards similar to the US; without circumcision they have lower rates of everything circumcision is supposed to “protect” US males from. They do not circumcise because they know it’s not necessary. They are not stupid. Again, no one is urging “European” style on anyone. But why can’t US medicine provide world class health care for an intact penis just as they do in Europe and Japan? Answer is simple: They make too much money doing it their way.

Circumcision creates circumcisers (cutters) and circumcisionists (advocates). A circumcised US physician is typically challenged by the sight of an intact penis. It needs to be cut right away. He cannot stand the thought of another male having more penis than he does. A circumcised new father is likewise prey to the suggestion from a physician selling circumcision, “You want him to look like you, don’t you? You want him to look like other boys in the locker room, don’t you?” Of course, of course. That father will be uncomfortable knowing his son has more penis than he does. I can tell you from personal experience; it is not easy for a circumcised male to break out of this pattern. But it is most liberating once you do it, because you’ve broken one link in the chains of hazing.

Yes, the worst female circumcision is worst than typical male circumcision. But some female cutting is quite mild and is condemned as equal to the worst. Even the worst male circumcision has not been condemned by human rights activists who condemn very mild female circumcision. Ever heard of subincision and flaying? It’s done to teen boys in some places in Africa and Australia and it is a truly horrible thing. But US sensibilities don’t let us condemn it because it’s MALE circumcision, which some of us believe is ALWAYS right.

Get educated. Don’t be afraid of the truth. Make a decision to think out of the box US medicine has put us in. A start would be to read As nature made him: the boy who was raised as a girl, by John Colapinto. You’ll meet Bruce/Brenda/David Reimer, whose penis was totally destroyed in a botched circumcision. These cases are kept under wraps as much as possible by grief stricken parents who are also humiliated, and physicians who don’t want it to be known how many cases of ablatio penis happen in the US, nor how many deaths from circumcision annually: 220-230. A few make it into the press, but most are suppressed. The Reimer case made headlines because of the dispute over the handling of his sex change operation and attempts to socialize her/him as a girl. When “she” learned she had been born a boy, “he” was permitted to change back. You want to treat your son to such a possibility? You want local examples? Just a year or two after Bruce/Brenda/David was born, Northside Hospital in Atlanta managed to do the same thing to two boys on the same day (about 1974-76). One set of parents opted for sex change as did the Reimers. The other parents opted for surgery to try to reconstruct a penis on their son. There is no news of how either came out. Want to subject your newborn son to such possibilities? David Reimer committed suicide about two years ago, about one year after his twin brother killed himself. The twin was spared circumcision after the disaster, but was devastated by what happened to David and how it affected his (Brian’s) life.

By the way, someone has said there is no pain in an infant circumcision. That’s a big lie; it involves absolutely horrible pain. Go watch a video with sound (not one with dubbed in elevator music in a pro-circumcision video, but one with a real live recording of the baby’s screams, gasping, gurgling, and loss of breath as he goes into shock (shock is where doctors get the idea to say, “Oh, they just sleep through it”). Another big lie.

I want it stopped. I don’t understand how anyone can say keep doing it. After we stop doing it, we can show the world we are serious about stopping female cutting.

By Food for thought

November 1, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this

To SammyJr:

The John Harvey Kellogg, M.D., who you mention in your post is the Kellogg of Kellogg’s Cornflakes. Kellogg was a big proponent of circumcision to cure masturbation and he believed that diet could also control sexual urges and masturbation in particularly.

Kellogg thought that masturbation was terrible and that eating meat lead to increased sexual urges. His “Kellogg’s” cornflakes were invented as an alternative to eating traditional breakfast meats, like bacon or sausage, which he thought might increase one’s libido.

Cornflakes “cures” masturbation, go figure!

Here is more about Kellogg’s war on masturbation: http://english.pravda.ru/science/health/27-03-2006/77873-circumcision-0

By Richard

November 1, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this

To Brian Curtis
I love it that you started this discussion with your very good ideas, but I want to nit-pick one thing. There is no such thing as a “Christian” circumcision. Some Christians say they have it done because of their religion. They should go to their bibles and read Galatians 5 (and other things Paul said about circumcision in other letters). St Paul warns that Christians who circumcise themselves will be “cut-off” from Christ. It is very clear: A Christian cannot circumcise for religious reasons. Parents who resort to this excuse must be very uncertain about why they are doing such a thing to their infant sons. St Paul taught that “the greatest of these is love,” and Christ taught us to love one another. Inflicting such pain and mutilation on a child is NOT love.

Apparently the doctor’s “locker room” and “look like Dad” arguments aren’t always enough to carry the day in favor of circumcision. And when did “social” reasons for circumcision become “medical” reasons a doctor should offer as a reason to perform surgery that amputates healthy tissue? Yes, US doctors know that circumcision has no proven medical value, so they sell all the “potential” (“not proven” in medical parlance) “medical reasons” for the cut, and then make medically irrelevant pitches that appeal to parental anxiety at a time of great stress.

Hey, parents-to-be out there: It’s not about something you buy because you got a good sales pitch, it’s about your son and his lifelong sexual health. He can learn to wash it. What do we cut off to avoid body odor and halitosis?

By nikky

November 1, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this

I get really surprised at a lot of Americans. You can’t call someone a Barbarian just cos the person’s beliefs are different from yours. A lot of people perform circumcision because that’s their cultural norm not because they are cruel. They believe in a passed down set of traditions….which to them makes sense. To educate is one thing but to accuse is another.

By SammyJr

November 1, 2006 05:30 PM | Link to this

nikky, a person’s human right to their whole body is more important than their parents’ desire to cut up their childrens’ genitals. It really doesn’t matter why the parents want to cut their boys and girls, its just not their body to cut.

By Renee

November 1, 2006 07:22 PM | Link to this

nikky,

There is enormous difference between calling a person a barbarian and calling a practice barbaric.

There are barbaric practices even among middle class white Americans. Here in America, spanking is the cultural norm. Parents tell themselves that adults hitting little kids unable to defend themselves and often too young to even offer an intelligent argument is the only right way to raise a child.

Cultural norms are nothing more than ideas and practices passed down from one generation to another. They aren’t necessarily healthful, safe, or cognizant of human rights. As individuals, we can either admit to ourselves that practices that hurt innocent people are wrong and stand up for those people, or we can sit idly and allow the customs to continue. I have chosen to fight for the baby boys whose voices aren’t heard. What have you chosen to do?

By toni

November 1, 2006 08:57 PM | Link to this

In my opinion, you cannot compare a penile circumcision to female mutilation. For women, you are not simply removed a piece of skin from the organ which may dull sexual satisfaction. Instead, the ENTIRE organ is removed. That is a HUGE difference! Men can still orgasm with a circumcised penis. However, most female orgasms come from this organ… that we conspicuously are not allowed to even mention on this forum(without having the word censored as if it is a dirty word or something. Yet, we talk at length about the penis and forskin…which is interesting considering this entire court case was based on FEMALE mutilation. I guess that just goes to show that we are not as tolerant or accepting of the female body as we think we are.

To SammyJr and Richard, I think you misunderstood me. I never once said that Male circumcision improves a man’s ability for sexual satifacton. I don’t beleive that. I personally think that circumcision is not necessary, and that we probably do only because the previous generations have done it that way.

By Darnel Jamison

November 1, 2006 10:09 PM | Link to this

This is another example of the double standard that exists between males and females in America. Genital mutilation of male infants is widely accepted and even encouraged in this country, based upon religious and cultural norms, and is performed daily in every hospital. At the same time, female genital mutilation is widely considered to be an abhorrent and illegal practice with stiff penalties.

The bottom line is that any form of genital mutilation against an infant, male or female, is a horrible and perverted violation of their fundamental human rights. What gives a parent the moral right to mutilate part of an innocent baby’s body, simply because their beliefs have become tainted by generations of cultural and religious brainwashing? It’s time to put a stop to this evil and sadistic practice. It would seem that, in addition to the abominations of abortion and substance abuse, the modern human has yet another battle to fight before entering the protective sphere of human rights, legal protection - indeed the very priviledge of being considered “human”.

By Wedi Mendeera

November 1, 2006 10:23 PM | Link to this

I am so glad to see the discussion in this page. Unlike many of you,I can be described as an Ethiopian-American. As far as this case, I do not know who did what. But on the whole Issue of Female circumcision, I have been barking alone the hypocracy of Western Human Rights Organizations who are so quick to condemn African and middle eastern cultures practices on female while they are totally silent about similar practices on males in the Jewish, American as well as African countries. To me, it was a sign of condescending cultural superiority snubbery rather than geniuine concern for the daughter and children of Africa.

All I have to say it, Shove it. Clean up your own cultures first before you start to lecture me about my thousands year old culture. Who the hell do you think you are? I did not ask for your help on how to care for my people.

Wedi Mendefera

By Wedi Mendefera

November 1, 2006 10:58 PM | Link to this

By making the above comment,I do not mean that circumcision of Girls or Boys is ok. (Infact I will not circumcisize neither my Boys nor Girls), I was just tired of the Hypocracy. I wonder if there is any CONSTITUIONAL Ground for challenging the federal law on Equal Protection Clause? Any lawyers here? I would appreciate any response to my curiousity on the constituionality of the law because it discriminates against equal protection on the bases of gender.

Thanks again Wedi Mendefera

By Renee

November 2, 2006 12:12 AM | Link to this

Wedi,

First of all, it is nice to hear from someone familiar with female circumcision as a cultural norm speaking their mind.

Second, I’m happy to hear you’ve chosen against infant circumcision.

Third, I agree with you. The United States has no business telling other peoples not to perform cosmetic surgery on unconsenting minors when around half of our minor boys have a similar surgery.

By SammyJr

November 2, 2006 12:57 AM | Link to this

to Toni, PART I

Caution: anatomy lesson ahead.

From: The World Health Organization

Types of female circumcision: Type I - excision of the prepuce, with or without excision of part or all of the cl——-s; Type II - excision of the c****** with partial or total excision of the labia minora; Type III - excision of part or all of the external genitalia and stitching/narrowing of the vaginal opening (infibulation);

American male circumcision is the equivalent of Type I female circumcision.

The foreskin is the male prepuce. The clitoral hood is the female prepuce. Male circumcision and all types of female circumcision remove this.

By SammyJr

November 2, 2006 12:59 AM | Link to this

to Toni, PART II:

Male circumcision usually removes all but a remnant of the penile frenulum. For examples of a frenulum, look under your tongue or behind your lips. In an intact male, a frenulum connects the foreskin to the underside of the glans. You also have a frenulum attaching from your clitoral hood to your c******. If you have seen a cut man, you recall the V-shapped indention on the underside of the glans? That’s where his mother’s doctor scrapped away his frenulum.

The penile frenulum is important because some consider it to have the same pleasure functions as the c******. I don’t know from experience, being a victim of an American doctor’s yacht payment, but I can tell you that the small remnant of my frenulum is by far the most sensitive part of my entire penis. I can only imagine how good the entire thing would have felt.

By SammyJr

November 2, 2006 01:00 AM | Link to this

to toni, PART III:

If you are interested, watch the Doctors Opposing Circumcision’s video entitled “The Prepuce”. Its dry, like a high school science film strip, and is very educational. It will show you the functions of the anatomy that American men are denied. The foreskin is not just a bit of skin.

The Prepuce Doctors Opposing Circumcision

But the real issue is the human rights issue. No person should have healthy parts of their body removed without their consent. Parents can consent to necessary medical treatment for their children, but should not be allowed to request or perform cosmetic, unneeded sexual surgery on their children.

By Jesse's Girl

November 2, 2006 08:08 AM | Link to this

My husband and I are Jews. We refused the tradition of a Bris…in or out of the hospital. We also announced his name moments after his birth…traditionally this is done at the Bris. My point….sometimes tradition sucks. DO NOT let tradition dictate what you know in your heart is best for your child. What this child had to brave is deplorable. When you come to this country to make a better life, you assume our laws and basic cultural notions. You want to keep your worship style? Fine. You want to keep your food traditions? Fine. But do not ask us to stand by and allow your children to be abused or mutilated in the name of cultural continuity.

By Keep It Real

November 2, 2006 08:40 AM | Link to this

Culture is one thing…child mutilation and breaking OUR laws is another. If you wanted to follow your customs and laws from your home country, you shouldn’t have left it.

By Just a note

November 2, 2006 08:46 AM | Link to this

I had my son circumcised the day after birth in the hospital. I’m glad I did, and so is he.

Here are the pro’s for circumcision:

Circumcision lowers your son’s chances of getting a urinary tract infection (UTI) in the first year of life.

Although a rare condition, cancer of the penis is essentially eliminated in circumcised males.

Research shows that males who are circumcised have a slightly lower risk of getting sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).

Circumcision eliminates foreskin infection that occur at the peak ages of 3 to 5 years.

Circumcision prevents phimosis, a narrow opening that makes it impossible to retract the foreskin at a later age.

Genital hygiene, which is particularly important in unsanitary conditions, may be easier after circumcision.

By Just a note

November 2, 2006 08:53 AM | Link to this

The cons for circumcision are fewer. It’s a matter of choice.

Reasons Many Parents Choose Not To Circumcise

There are also good reasons why parents choose NOT to have their son circumcised. Circumcision may be more risky if done later in life. Parents should try to make a decision about circumcision before or soon after their son is born and not wait until later.

As with all kinds of surgery, circumcision has some risks. Although uncommon, complication such as local infection and bleeding can occur as a result of the circumcision. On rare occasions, the foreskin may be cut too short or too long, or circumcision may heal improperly. Since many parents see circumcision as a cosmetic procedure, they choose not to have their son exposed to these risks.

Many view the foreskin as an important part of the human body that is necessary for the protection of the penis. If the foreskin is removed, the exposed end of the penis may become irritated and cause the opening of the penis to become too small. This may cause difficulty in urination and may need to be surgically corrected.

Many also believe that the removal of the foreskin can desensitize the tip of the penis, causing a decrease in sexual pleasure later in life. (Not in the men I’ve known!)

Almost all uncircumcised Boys can be taught proper hygiene that can lower their chances of getting infections, cancer of the penis, and sexually transmitted diseases.

By Just a note

November 2, 2006 08:56 AM | Link to this

And in keeping with the subject:

Female Circumcision

Female genital mutilation, sometimes referred to as female circumcision, is a common practice in many cultures. It involves the removal of part or all of a female’s c******. Sometimes the opening of the vagina is sewn almost completely shut. It is often done without any pain medicine. The purpose of this practice is to prove that a female is a virgin before she gets married, reduce her ability to experience sexual pleasure after marriage, and promote martial fidelity. There are several serious side effects, including:

Pelvic and urinary tract infections

Negative effect on self-esteem and sexuality

Interference with a female’s ability to have a normal vaginal delivery

The Academy (Pediatric Urology) is absolutely opposed to this practice in all forms as it is disfiguring and has no medical benefits.

This information contained in this publication should not be used as a substitute for the medical care and advice of your doctor. There may be variations in treatment that your doctor may recommend based on individual facts and circumstances.

Hence, ten years is not nearly enough for the father who circumcised his daughter.

By Brian Curtis

November 2, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this

Richard: Thanks for pointing that out.

To the circumcision fans: If your beliefs (religious, traditional, or faux-medical) suggest that circumcision is a good thing, by all means go ahead and get one. For yourself.

Inflicting such a needless procedure on a minor should be considered a criminal act. You have the right to alter YOUR body, not anyone else’s—and certainly not an infant’s, who by definition cannot consent.

By Brian

November 2, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this

Dear Just a note,

How old is your son? When I was a child, I was glad I was circumcised, because I loved the head of my penis. I thought it was the result of my circumcision. However, when I discovered that natural boys also have a head on their penises, that only comes out when it’s time to play, and furthermore that I had lost more than half the nerve endings on my penis (the foreskin is as sensitive as the lips of your mouth, fingertips, and labia), I got mad. Mad at the doctors who would do this to me and mad at my parents for consenting to cutting off my normal bodypart.

NONE of your medical arguments can be used for any other body part. Doctors NEVER cut off other body parts to prevent disease. Tonsils, Appendecies, Gallbladders, hands, feet, arms, legs, all get cut off when the patient is going to die if you don’t cut it off. If you removed all the toenails on your son, saying “he might get ingrown toenails, or fungal infections, or even cancer” the police will call you crazy and throw you in jail for child abuse anyway.

When will USA wake up and notice its hypocracy on this issue?

By Toni

November 2, 2006 10:47 AM | Link to this

Thanks SammyJr…I’ll check it out!

By SammyJr

November 2, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this

Just a note,

You do realize you are talking about infections, right? You do realize that girls can and do get similar infections, right? You do realize that we are living in the year 2006, right? You do realize that there are antibiotics and anti-fungal medications that can easily treat all of those infections, right? You do realize that girls recieve these treatments with an excellent success rate, right? You do realize that a girl would never be offered a surgical option for a simple genital infection, right? You do realize that a girl’s parents would never be offered a preemptive surgical option to prevent simple genital infections, right? You do realize that premature retraction, as recommended by many American doctors, can cause most of these infections, right? You do realize that condoms and monogamy are, by far, the best way to avoid STDs, right? You do realize that male breast cancer is more common and more deadly than penile cancer, right? You didn’t preemptively amputate his breat tissue, right? You do realize that congenital phimosis can exist up through puberty, right? You do realize that premature retraction, as recommended by many American doctors, can cause acquired phimosis, setting up that doctor to profit from a future circumcision, right? You do realize that your boy is smart enough to wash himself, right?

So why’d you cut him?

By SammyJr

November 2, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this

Just a note, (REPOST hopefully with better formatting)

You do realize you are talking about infections, right?

You do realize that girls can and do get similar infections, right?

You do realize that we are living in the year 2006, right?

You do realize that there are antibiotics and anti-fungal medications that can easily treat all of those infections, right?

You do realize that girls recieve these treatments with an excellent success rate, right?

You do realize that a girl would never be offered a surgical option for a simple genital infection, right?

You do realize that a girl’s parents would never be offered a preemptive surgical option to prevent simple genital infections, right?

You do realize that premature retraction, as recommended by many American doctors, can cause most of these infections, right?

You do realize that condoms and monogamy are, by far, the best way to avoid STDs, right?

You do realize that male breast cancer is more common and more deadly than penile cancer, right?

You didn’t preemptively amputate his breat tissue, right?

You do realize that congenital phimosis can exist up through puberty, right?

You do realize that premature retraction, as recommended by many American doctors, can cause acquired phimosis, setting up that doctor to profit from a future circumcision, right?

You do realize that your boy is smart enough to wash himself, right?

So why’d you cut him?

I’m so glad that I learned about the circumcision fraud long before I became a parent.

By Dr. Richard L. Matteoli

November 2, 2006 07:23 PM | Link to this

Any genital mutilation is criminal behavior, even social forms of circumcision. Circumcision is psychologically the same as serial sexual predation shared by serial rapists, serial child molesters and serial killers. Circumcision is a form of Munchausen Syndrome. Munchausen Syndrome in Collective Transmission.

The MO’s are the different ways each culture performs them. The Signature is a genital attack. The Signature is the ritual. Signature never changes and is the motivation for the criminal act.

Signature’s Desire is: power, control and authority for domination through manipulation out of selfishness.

Most medical statistics do not consider people’s innate habit of Genital Play with premature retraction of the prepuce. This alone is reason enough to increase UTI’s. Also, penile cancer, like cervical cancer, is caused by a virus. What all this amounts to is behavior. Why should we have a genocidal purification ritual of everyone having to be circumcised because of other people’s behaviors and fears. Education is more appropriate.

My opinion to the case of the Islamic man just convicted - it is a miscarriage of justice. The criminal social profile does not support the verdict. Possibly from discrimination of Muslim men. In these societies circumcision is same sex perpetrated. And, further, it is the grandmothers who often take the girl child and has her circumcised.

It is just horrible that the jury did not listen to expert testimony that was allowed for the father’s defense, and as horrible that the judge did not allow other evidence to be submitted that would have helped the man.

In California where I live there was a time in divorce and custody litigation when one-third of the cases included child abuse charges against the man.

As Wedi Mendefera inferred: Wake up America. It is time we clean up our own act. And, to keep it clean from other people’s criminal practices. It is a sad comment on our legal and juridical system that MGM cannot be Equal Protection under the FGM bill and that MGM needs a bill of its own to be passed.

Richard L. Matteoli

By Jakew

November 3, 2006 07:35 AM | Link to this

Richard claimed “The study that says intact boys have 10X as many urinary tract infections (UTIs) was biased by including boys with hypospadias, who have extremely high rates of UTI.”

Why do I see this claim occurring over and over again? The claim is founded in ignorance, as is demonstrated by the fact that there have been at least a dozen studies on circumcision and UTIs. These have used a range of different methodologies (including a randomised controlled trial, which would not be subject to the confounding you describe), yet have all found a protective effect. Please see Singh-Grewal’s review

Male circumcision has minimal risks and several documented health benefits. It’s a perfectly legitimate parental decision, and cannot be reasonably compared to the harmful practice of FGC.

By Out-ter

November 3, 2006 08:54 AM | Link to this

Assuming this is Jakew of the infamous Circlist, avid circumcision enthusiast, read this post, in his own words.

By Out-ter

November 3, 2006 08:57 AM | Link to this

Oh, and I’m not going to link to Circlist. There might be small children in the room and we don’t want to give them nightmares. Its still close enough to Halloween for a good fright, so Google it and learn about some of the mentality behind the push for universal cutting of baby boys and adult men.

By Renee

November 3, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this

Even the worst case of FGM does not completely remove the c******. In its entirety, the c****** is an organ nearly the size of the penis. Only a little bit shows through on the outside, the Link:majority is inside the pelvic area wrapped around the vagina and urethra . I have read about cases in which surgeons were able to pull a little of the internal c****** to the outside of the body after a women’s genitals were damaged by FGM.

By Renee

November 3, 2006 02:05 PM | Link to this

I want to mention some double standards in one of the previous posts. This isn’t an attack on the poster. I’m simply trying to point out how easily our society accepts men being dehumanized.

Language is our most powerful weapon in the fight to end infant and minor circumcision. No person should be reduced to just a foreskin or just labia.

By Charles

November 3, 2006 06:19 PM | Link to this

Ever since I came to an awareness of what happened to me, I have been angry and aggrieved by male genital mutilation, commonly euphemized as ‘circumcision’.

As others have noted the individual suffers considerable reduction in the erotically sensitive tissue of the penis—for some men the foreskin amounts to three-quarters of the total skin surface of the penis. This means the individual suffers considerable reduction in the physical pleasure receptors & sliding function of the mobile skin surface of the penis.

The individual also suffers a considerable alteration of the physical appearance of the penis along with, for many, a significantly prominent ring of scar tissue—for some a continual reminder of the cutting process, the pain of loss, the defacement, and the permanent exposure of the glans, a structurally and anatomically semi-internal organ.

The individual suffers, in the case of infanct genital mutilation (circumcision) an irreversible asault of untold painful consequences, immediate and longterm, on his rightful full physical integrity, since, whatever his later attitudes and sentitivity to the invasive procedure, he is always at the time of the assault an unconsenting subject of a perhaps unwanted irreversible amputative surgical procedure with its attendant risks, always present in any surgery and only admissable given the presence of disease or dysfunction—virtually never present in the newborn—for, to be sure, the foreskin is healthy functional normal erogenous tissue.

To my mind, infant circumcision should be a criminal act fully punishable by law.

By Roger G.

November 3, 2006 06:46 PM | Link to this

This is what is so hypocritical about the mutilation proponents in our great American nation. They go around saying FGM “is like a male penectomy”. Yet they will not acknowledge the objective fact that a tight “American-cut” of foreskin is more tissue (by weight, volume, and nerve count) than what is taken by most FGM, say in Nigeria. It’s basic cell biology. We are initially androgenous in the womb and grow the same number of genital cells. Then they take sex-selective shape.

It’s important to realize that male genitals are not larger. They are just an externalized version of the massive crura of the c******. Oh yes, massive. So try to guess now. If you cut off 15 square inches of a man (let’s say my long lost foreskin) and say “it is nothing”, what is an even smaller amount of a woman worth?

If you guess “well, it has to be more than nothing”, there you go. Apparently it is not “severity” after all. It is just who’s got estrogen. Good luck with that system of values. At least get some therapy for those feelings of brutal rage against young boys.

It is funny, because the pro-mutilators are no different than a gang of pedophiliacs. It is hard not to laugh at the cowardice of the stinking circumcision cartel.

By Nancy

November 4, 2006 02:20 AM | Link to this

I have read most of the postings on this site and am fascinated at all of the contradictory information. Through all of these posts about circumcision, not one woman has commented on the sexual experiences of being with both kinds of men: the circumcised and the natural. My first sexual experience was with a man who was natural. He later became my husband so natural was all I knew. Through the many years that I was with him, I had to tolerate the smell of a urinal that filled the room whenever we got naked. I frequently had to ask him to shower, or at least clean up, before I could get intimate. If anything turns a woman off, it’s a bad odor emanating from her partner. Since my divorce, I have been pleasantly surprised at the lack of odor in my circumcised partners. I’m not saying that I advocate cutting infants. I’m only saying that from a sexual female’s perspective, circumcised men are naturally cleaner and much more pleasant to have sex with. If you offered me two men who were exactly alike in every way except circumcision, I’d have to choose the one who was circumcised. I have been divorced for many years and that smell still haunts me.

By SammyJr

November 4, 2006 03:55 AM | Link to this

To Nancy,

Its unfortunate that your ex-husband didn’t know how to wash himself. I’ve known some women who smell pretty funky themselves, but it wouldn’t be fair to describe all women as stinky. Its certainly not fair to paint all intact men as smelly. I’m certain that most of them have learned how to wash, just like most women. Its unfortunate that one bad experience has so damaged your opinion of natural men.

By Jakew

November 4, 2006 05:56 AM | Link to this

Nancy, your remarks seem to reflect the credible research that has been done in this area.

Williamson and Williamson found that 92% of women reported that a circumcised penis stayed cleaner, and 71-83% preferred circumcised partners for this and other reasons. More recently, Westercamp and Bailey reviewed thirteen studies of circumcision’s acceptability in Africa. 69% of women preferred circumcision for their partner.

Amusingly, two anti-circumcision activists - the O’Haras - conducted their own survey a few years ago, but chose to recruit their participants from anti-circumcision activist mailing lists. Needless to say, the results were rather different!

By Mary

November 4, 2006 07:02 AM | Link to this

To Nancy,

Your husband just STANK and that has nothing to do with being circumcised or uncircumcised. His stench has EVERYTING to do with whether he washed and cared for himself. Believe me that there are many circumcised men who have bad body odor.

Do we cut off our arms, because some people have putrid under arm odor?

Should we cut out people’s tongues, because the tongue causes most mouth odors?

In countries where women have circumcisions often body odor is increased because some very invasive mutilations can cause a vaginal fistula (hole in the vagina) that causes constant incontinence and urinary odor.

Bottom line: Everyone needs to practice good hygiene.

Also, there is NO medical or hygienic excuse to cut anyone genitals.

By Out-ter

November 4, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this

Jakew, wow, another self-serving, anti-natural male link from your website. Thanks, buddy.

Go back to trolling on parenting message boards and try to convince more niave parents to mutilate their babies because you didn’t like your foreskin. Oh yeah, how are your kids doing, Figment and Imaginary?

Its so incredible that you have dedicated your life to taking away a choice from baby boys that you had yourself. There’s a special place in Hell for people like you.

By SammyJr

November 4, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this

To Nancy,

I forgot to mention two things:

Cut men can stink down there too. I’m cut and after a week camping with no showers, no one is going near my crotch until I shower. Cut men as well as intact men can get jock itch which doesn’t smell to pleasant, either. If a cut or intact man doesn’t clean up back there properly, well, you get the picture.

Knowing how to wash is critical and obviously something your husband didn’t know how to do. Its also possible that he had an untreated yeast infection or something of that nature.

The reason that you don’t see more women posting there experience is this. Up until 1990 or so, American doctors managed to cut almost every single baby boy leaving an American hospital. The rates finally started to drop 15 to 20 years ago. It is just unlikely that most adult American women have ever known an intact adult American man, let alone been intimate with one.

That’s why “circumcised” always wins on American surveys - simple familiarity. I imagine a similar European survey would favor intact men since circumcision is quite rare over there. It’ll be interesting to see how the results change over the next 30 years as boys like my son and the dozens of other intact boys in my Midwest neigborhood and millions across the country grow into men.

Fortunately for baby boys - and American hypocrasy regarding FGM, this is changing. Parents are educating themselves about Medical fearmongering and greed. Its wonderful.

By Jakew

November 4, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this

Sammy,

Your claim that familiarity is the sole cause of the preference for circumcised males isn’t supported by the available data. In an earlier post, I gave a link to a review of 12 studies in mostly-uncircumcised areas of Africa. Women expressed the same preference.

Also, the notion that there was a sudden fall in US circumcision rates appears to be largely a myth (the decline was no more than 7-8%). If you look at the CDC’s presentation of NHDS data, you’ll see that the rate of boys circumcised in hospital during the neonatal period has remained more or less steady since the survey began in 1979.

Of course, that’s not the whole story. The true circumcision rate includes not only those performed in hospital, but also those performed elsewhere. Consequently, if we look at studies of the circumcision rate among adult men, we find higher rates.

Here’s another CDC survey, this time of adult men. 91% of men born in the 1970s were circumcised, and 83% of men born in the 1980s. If we compare this with the NHDS data, we see that the NHDS data is approximately 20% too low. If this pattern holds for boys born more recently, that would mean that the true rate at present is about 84%.

By SammyJr

November 4, 2006 04:59 PM | Link to this

Jakew,

Doing studies on the preference of some women is all well and good, but does it really matter much beyond a point of trivia? Its still not a good reason to cut a baby. After all, who can predict what that baby boy’s future lovers will like? Its a rather permanent choice to make wrong.

If an adult man lacks self confidence and blames it on his foreskin, its his foreskin to chop off, but I doubt it’ll solve the underlying problem.

The rates are falling, however slowly, much to the dismay of advocates like you. The rates will continue to fall as our public aid system and our private insurance system discontinues coverage. If the United States ever joins the first world as far as health care coverage goes, I suspect we’ll follow the lead of organizations like the NHS and not cover it at all. The United States will join the first world as far as ending male genital mutilation. Its just a matter of time.

And you should know that a lot of men over in Africa and the Middle East prefer circumcised women. Is that a justification for FGM?

By Jakew

November 4, 2006 05:30 PM | Link to this

Sammy,

I’m sorry that you feel that the evidence I provided was “trivia”. Whether important or not, I hope that you’ll remember it, and will therefore be able to give people accurate information in future.

I don’t see much point in debating whether one (or more) aspect justifies circumcision or not. Intelligent people can make their own decision on that. What interests me is that they have full and accurate information.

Best wishes

By SammyJr

November 4, 2006 05:44 PM | Link to this

Jakew,

I fully agree that intelligent people can make their own personal decision regarding circumcision. My problem is when someone else makes that decision for them, as in my case.

But I am absolutely certain that we disagree on this point.

By Renee

November 4, 2006 06:23 PM | Link to this

I would have much more respect for parents having their sons circumcised if they fought to make it their right to choose whether a doctor performs surgery to remove any of their child’s body parts which are non-essential for life, and that could potentially become damaged or diseased at any point during his or her lifetime.

By Thomas

November 4, 2006 06:54 PM | Link to this

Division of Medical Assistance still pays for non-therapeutic circumcision of boys.

Why on earth does Georgia Medicaid pay for unnecessary circumcisions when there is not enough money to pay for all of the necessary health care children need?

Thomas

By Dave

November 4, 2006 08:44 PM | Link to this

It is incorrect that only women do the female circumcisions in Africa. It depends upon where one is. In Egypt it is done by men upon occasion - including M.D.s who there give the same reasons for it that some Americans give for male circ. NOCIRC’s video comparing male circ in the US with female circ in Africa shows a male circumcising two little girls. See www.nocirc.org.

If any of the posters are here in the Atlanta area and would like to get involved in educating parents about the reasons not to circ their sons or in getting the legislature to remove circ from Medicaid benefits, please contact me at llew.hm@mindspring.com. It is ridiculous that Georgia Medicaid still pays for an unnecessary and damaging procedure while refusing to pay for many necessary procedures and while denying all benefits to many lower income children.

By Richard

November 5, 2006 02:07 AM | Link to this

Jakew said: “Richard claimed ‘The study that says intact boys have 10X as many urinary tract infections (UTIs) was biased by including boys with hypospadias, who have extremely high rates of UTI.’ “Why do I see this claim occurring over and over again? The claim is founded in ignorance, as is demonstrated by the fact that there have been at least a dozen studies on circumcision and UTIs …”

Jake knows the answer: He keeps hearing it because it’s the truth. It’s also the truth that given the best possible spin, you have to circumcise 100 boys to prevent one case of UTI, no matter how many studies you talk about.

Jake’s statement is a classical case of deceptive, misleading rhetoric. If Jake wants to talk about ALL the studies in question, let’s talk about them. They are all conducted by circumcised US American men (or US women who are married to circumcised men) who are most often also US American physicians with a financial stake in having circumcision continued. They also need to validate their own circumcisions (or those of husbands or other males in their lives), and to validate all the circumcisions they have done, listening to screaming babies in agonizing pain, or who are silent because they go into shock early in the procedure. Great emotional stress results when one participates in such an activity, which has no proven medical value and is not recommended by any national medical association. That stress is relieved by creating or reading a study that somehow bolsters circumcision with yet another POTENTIAL (not proven, but maybe possible) medical benefit.

Richard was talking about the ONE article and study most cited, and the ONE most recent study, done by Thomas Wiswell, MD, who has been quoted in a New York newspaper saying that any doctor can make an easy, extra $1,400. a week, by doing circumcisions. The inclusion of hypospadias cases is FACT. Not ingorance. What is ignorance is for Jake to come here and deceive people about who he is and what he stands for. Jake lives in a non-circumcising culture (UK, circumcision rate less than 5%), was born with a foreskin, and got to keep it. He decided, as an adult, to have it whacked off. Now he seems unhappy about what he decided to have done to himself, and hopes to comfort himself by having baby boys born in the future sexually assaulted by masked criminals who escape prosecution because they have medical licenses.

Nowadays Jake presides over a circumsexual (circumcision as a sexual pleasure event for observers, and participants as they recall the event later), circumfetishist (circumcision as an event for viewing and enjoying by others) website where he urges intact men to have themselves circumcised. He once conducted a poll that showed less than 40% of men who followed his advice were entirely happy with their circumcisions. These were men who hyped themselves up for the event, wanted, and expected the results to be just great, not men who discovered later in life that someone had done it to them when they were infants.

Please notice that Jake did NOT counter the idea that it’s ludicrous to circumcise 100 baby boys to keep one of them from having a UTI. You can’t counter that. UTI is easily treated with antibiotics. An amputated penis is not easily treated. Galloping Gangrene contracted through circumcision is not easily treated. http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched4ga.html . And you can’t counter this: Non-circumcising cultures in Europe, and also Japan, have fewer UTIs than the widely circumcised USA. Are their doctors better than ours, or what?

Circumcision was started in English speaking cultures to prevent masturbation. Physicians said masturbation caused blindness and insanity, a bunko scheme to separate anxious parents from their money, and when the public learned the truth about that, the medical industry “discoveredâ€? other reasons to do it. As each “benefitâ€? is disproved, they look for another one. They try to overwhelm with many studies and articles that support each reason. The urge to circumcise remains constant; the reasons to do it change with the seasons. Now that UK(<5%), NZ(<1%), AUS(~10%), and CDN(10%-15%) have stopped, or almost stopped, doing it, advocates in the US are grasping at anything to save their golden goose. The US West Coast rate is now around 30%-35%; the national rate is around 55%-60%. The medical industry knows that once it falls below 50% nationwide they will have trouble sustaining the practice. No, not all doctors are fraudulent: ~90% of US circumcisions are done by ~10% of physicians in the country. “Professional” courtesy keeps things quiet. But the babies still scream.

By Richard

November 5, 2006 02:29 AM | Link to this

To Thomas: “Why on earth does Georgia Medicaid pay for unnecessary circumcisions when there is not enough money to pay for all of the necessary health care children need?”

Watch for news about this in the next few months. Several states have defunded circumcision because it was keeping old people from getting glasses and hearing aids, and keeping urgent dental care from many children. These include Arizona, Missouri, North Carolina, Montana, Utah, and Florida just last year, who have joined California, Mississippi, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, and Washington.

Many states are now looking at this problem. There may be a move in Georgia this next legislature, or one after it. You can help by writing your state representataive and state senator to support an end to that waste of money.

By Richard

November 5, 2006 03:08 AM | Link to this

To Brian Curtis: I like it: “If your beliefs (religious, traditional, or faux-medical) suggest that circumcision is a good thing, by all means go ahead and get one. For yourself.”

For those around Atlanta who want to do this, there is a Dr Cornell (he has a website) who just loves to do circumcisions for those who want one as an adult. He will let you bring your party to watch if you want. If you don’t get enough pleasure out of the first one, he will do as many “revisions” as you want. Just imagine, circumcision revision, circumcision revision, from now ‘till the cows come home. And a good time was had by all.

Dr Cornell is in one of the doctor’s buildings on Peachtree or West Peachtree. If the revisions are not about pleasure, why doesn’t he get it right the first time? After all, it’s just a little snip, right? Just a little flap of skin, right? It’s minor surgery, right?

Doctors who know, say that the TRUTH, not ignorance, about minor surgery is this: Minor surgery is surgery being done on someone else.

By Europian

November 5, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this

What’s my cultural tolerance limit?

• When I came to USA and found out what was routinelly done to baby boys. There was my limit.

No words to discribe what I felt when I learned about that.

I hope that American immigrants who come to Europe quickly and fully assimilate to the European values and stop doing such a horrible thing to their babyboys.

By Jakew

November 5, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this

Richard,

You’ve made a number of frankly extraordinary claims. For those of us who doubt their veracity: what evidence do you have that they are true?

By Betsy

November 5, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this

I am an intact woman happily married to an intact man. I have never experienced a cut man (and have absolutely no desire to). My husband has no unpleasant odors because he knows how to wash himself. I am perfectly satisfied and am more grateful to my mother-in-law for protecting my husband as an infant than I can put into words.

I do have many female friends who have experienced both intact and circumcised men and every last one of them prefers intact men. I have never met anyone who, after being with an intact man, prefers a circumcised man. I believe that it is only through cultural bias and limited experience that most US women “prefer” circumcised men. They “prefer” circumcised because it’s all they have known. Women in countries such as England and Australia are appalled to learn what we do to our men in the name of making them “prettier.” As if a scar and partially deadened tissue is a “pretty” sight.

For those men who have posted who were circumcised as infants without their consent - I encourage you to check out restoration of the foreskin. Many men have much improved their sex lives (and the sex lives of their wives/girlfriends) through the simple process of stretching out the skin to re-create part of what they lost as infants.

Male circumcision harms the female partner as well. Many women I know thought there was something wrong with them, but once they found an intact man, they learned that it was the deadened tissue and lack of natural male lubrication of their circumcised partners that was the problem.

Check out this link if you want to find out more about how male circumcision adversely affects women (warning - there are a couple black and white photos of penii)

http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com/

Best wishes and consider leaving ALL your children intact, not just your daughters. Your future daughter-in-law will thank you. Of course you should teach your children to bathe as well, but you would have to do that whether you leave your son intact or not.

By Andrea

November 5, 2006 04:22 PM | Link to this

I’ll pipe in as an American woman who has had sexual experiences with both cirucmcised and intact men (one, my husband). I’ve experience no cleaniless or odor issued w/my husband. He cleans his penis just like any other part of his body. The idea of hacking off a body part to prevent either minor issues (UTIs) or the miniscule risk of major one (cancer) is insane to me. I stand a much, much greater risk of breast cancer than any man circed or intact stand of getting penile cancer. I don’t see any huge rush to go hacking of women’s breasts to prevent it.

Jakew - You are twisted. What is so wrong with the idea that it should be an adult male’s CHOICE. So you had to shop around a little to find a doctor willing to perform your circ…you got it done and are apparantly happy with it. At least YOU HAD THE CHOICE!!!!

By Dr. Richard L. Matteoli

November 6, 2006 12:50 AM | Link to this

The so called academic thread of referencing medical authorities is like looking at the glitter on a Christmas tree ornament. Get to the little piece of wire that is used to keep the ornament on the tree.

My previous post of 02 Nov dealt with the criminology of circumcision. The behavioral analysis, for starters, comes from FBI texts of Burgess, Douglas, Hazelwood, Lanning, and Ressler.

Ritual shares the same Signature Desire. The beginning source references that connect Signature Desire are from: Bell, Bourdieu, Geertz, Hobbsbawn, Heesterman and Rappaport.

So, this post will include ritual and its motivation.

There is nothing more powerful than getting someone to share your ritual. A form of domination is created. Once that ritual is performed, and accepted, there is an identity transferrence into the social body that advocates any such ritual.

Circumcision is a form of Munchausen Syndrome in Collective Transmission. It constitutes group behavior. This restructures society. Ritual creates relative forms of domination and subordination within the social body. And the ‘Ritual Expert’ gains another riding form of social power. Ritual Experts alter the meaning of reality. The identity transmission of circumcision is a form of Munchausen Syndrome in Social Transference.

All rituals manipulate an object. Here, it is the genitals. Yet, this also constitutes a genitalization of the body so that the person, through genital identification, can belong to that certain social order. This identification is represented as a ‘totem.’ Thus the circumcised genitals are the clan’s totem.

Also, serial sexual predators often take ‘tokens’ like jewelry from their victims to relive the experience. With circumcision just the knowledge of getting someone to circumcise themselves is enough to be used as a totem psychologically. And, with social circumcision a totem is created with each ritual event, thus there is not need to keep the old one in a drawer somewhere. The power gained from such an act, and acts, is sufficient.

Munchausen is a form of glorification. The genitals are the mark of the social order, thus glorifying the social order and each of the members within that social body. Simple Munchausen where a person harms only themselves is not necessarily a crime, but extended forms from Munchausen by Proxy, Transgeneration, and Collective Transmission may be considered crimes with a perpetrator and a victim.

Serial sexual predators are narcissistic. They often use a Service Personality to lure. In the process they search for a Narcissistic Supply who are the people they capture. They impress upon the person a reflection of themselves. And, as long as they are achieving there is no threat. But, if the Narcissistic Supply is threatened then they become defensive and aggressive to reestablish and justify themselves. For this source just Google the name: Sam Vankin.

Circumcision as a social ritual allows everyone to participate and bring into the ritual their own particular quirk.

Richard L. Matteoli

By Robert

November 6, 2006 10:17 PM | Link to this

Jake, if my son wants to have sex with women his grandmother’s age from the Midwest maybe she should consider circumcision. However I am confident that women in his generation will have a more progressive and more enlightened attitude about intact males than women in his grandmother’s generation.

Even if you cited 100 studies that found African men prefer circumcised women it would still be a violation of a girl’s basic human rights to cut her genitals.

From an ethical point of view using the sexual preference of adult women as a justification for cutting the genitals of boys is no different from using the sexual preference of adult men as a justification for cutting the genitals of girls.

Cutting the genitals of children, both boys and girls, is an ethical and human rights issue.

Robert

By Robert

November 6, 2006 10:24 PM | Link to this

Fixing typo… if my son wants to have sex with women his grandmother’s age from the Midwest maybe he should consider circumcision.

By Renee

November 7, 2006 08:47 PM | Link to this

Not to mention the fact that it’s creepy any adult would even think of changing a baby’s genitals to match their aesthetic preference. Am I alone in considering that pedophilia?

By greg

November 8, 2006 06:34 AM | Link to this

i’m sure this has already been discused but are we talking about the removal of the c******?? is this female circumsision? i seem to recall it being the case. it was done so girls would be more loyal to thier husbands. i find that to be horrifying.maybe i’m wrong.

By aysha

November 11, 2006 06:17 AM | Link to this

Egyptian muslim girls like female circumcision

Three months ago, 22 year old medical student Najwa Khasmera Abdullah decided to have herself circumcised.

Female circumcision was banned in Egypt in 1998. As a result, many young women of Najwa’s age did not recieve circumcision at the age they were normally have it, around 15 or so.

However, in the past few years, the ban started to lose its grip, due to pressure from religious leaders. ” Uncircumcised women have strong lust and often commit adultery, just like western women. The government made a mistake by banning it. We Egyptians should not be pressured by the western countries. We need to keep our women chaste” a religious leader stated.

” A lot of my friends are getting it done. My sister and cousins too. We didn’t get circumcised when younger because it was banned, but now I’m glad I’m finally circumcised” Najwa said.

Her claims were confirmed by Dr. Yasmina Shamir, who runs a circumcision clinic and also performed Najwa’s circumcicion. ” I circumcise more adult patients lately, sometimes 10 young women a day. Mostly of Najwa’s age. “They didn’t get circumcised when younger because of the ban. But when they want to get married, usually the men demands that the women must be circumcised before marriage.”

Being a medical student, Najwa is completely aware of the female anatomy and the function of the c******, which is removed during circumcision ” I think circumcision is good for women. I know the c****** can bring pleasure, but it is also a great temptation for women. It’s best to remove it. Women don’t need their c****** for marriage and having children anyway.” She said

“I don’t agree with girls being circumcised by untrained village midwife with unsterile razor. That’s why I chose to have my circumcision done by a doctor” Najwa said while showing her preserved c****** in a jar.

“Female circumcision is a very minor and safe surgery under modern medical supervision. The wound is even smaller than that of male circumcision” Dr. Shamir stated. She also stated that female circumcision procedure done by trained doctors has become increasingly affordable even by poor families. Some Islamic Foundation or Mosque even routinely provide free circumcision for the poor, both males and females.

Well, old habit die hard, people say. Looks like Egyptian women are not going to let themselves go wild like their western sisters.