Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Are Circumcision Advocates Psychologically Damaged?

Bereft of medical evidence -- now that the most recent scientific studies point to the health benefits of male circumcision -- the anti-circ crowd has taken to accusing those of us who promote a foreskin-free society as being psychologically "damaged" because of our circumcisions.

You've heard the whacky argument. The first premise is that everyone who promotes circumcision is circumcised. Now how the foreskin lovers know this is beyond me. Maybe there's an assumption that all American doctors and researchers are circumcised (clearly debatable), but it's not likely that our European counterparts are circumcised. Unless they are Muslim or Jewish (ah, yes, the Islamic/Zionist plot), foreign scientists are more likely to be uncircumcised than cut.

Moreover, the assumption is insulting to anyone who believes in the scientific method. The fact that one is circumcised ought not to lead to a biased result in an ethical evidence-based study, any more than the fact that one is uncircumcised should prejudice the results. Scientists follow the evidence -- not make things up because of their penile status.

The broader attack by the FLs ("foreskin lovers") is that the reason most males (at least in the USA) are pro-circumcision is that they have "never come to terms" with their own cut state. Circumcised males are, supposedly, deeply resentful of their clean-cut penis, so they "take it out" by wanting to circumcise everyone else. What a crock of BS! But read the comments posted by some of the FLs on my blog, and you will know this is what they believe.

Once again, the resort to ad hominem attacks on those who want a healthier society, healthier males, and healthier females through universal male circumcision only demonstrates, once again, how desperate the FLs have become. They are losing the debate on the merits of the argument, so they are doing what good debaters do. But it won't work -- not this time.


  1. I am circumcised. I got it done at my own wish, with no medical or even religious reason. I am very happy with and proud of my circumcision. I do not feel psychologically damaged, nor mutilated due to the loss of my foreskin.

    I think that all men should be circumcised. It would be better for them, better for the women they meet with, and consequently, better for the community as a whole.

    Like the owner of this blog, I do not think that legislation itself could get it done on every male, I rather believe in persuasion and good example.

    circumcised at 35

  2. I was circumcised at age 61, low & tight. I was born at a midwifes house so circumcision was not an option. I was circumcised because of a foreskin that was getting tight & felt like a fire burning upon retraction. I wish this surgery had taken place at least 50 years ago. My wife & I believe this is the best love making we have had in our marrage & I too am not psychologically hurt or feel mutilated. I have never felt more of a man until now. Roger, USA.

  3. Neither of your supporters was circumcised in infancy, and one had it done by his own choice. Bravi to his parents for leaving him that choice! The other had a medical need. The vast majority have no such need. Together their case for cutting the most erogenous part off every boy's penis is lacking. Others may speculate about the psychological condition that makes them want to do this.

    "Our European counterparts"? What counterparts? All the "scientific claims" for circumcision originate in the US, though their guinea pigs are hapless Africans. Europeans are baffled by the US preoccupation with circumcising. The one exception, Bertam Auvert from Belgium, well who knows what his story is?

    You are quite right that "The fact that one is circumcised ought not to lead to a biased result in an ethical evidence-based study," but we are talking about research on men's dicks here, and you know how defensive all men are about their dicks. "...any more than the fact that one is uncircumcised should prejudice the results." But they are not on all fours. Having a whole penis needs no explanation or defence, so it is not going to have any psychological effect.

    Your new ad hominem term for Intactivists, Foreskin Lovers (FLs) immediately reminded me of that other term of abuse, "N***** Lovers", for people who believe all men and women are born equal. Fair enough, because circumcision is another human rights issue. But I guess you wouldn't be seen dead wearing a hood....

  4. The anti-circ folk are so predictably disingenuous!

    They claim there are no medical benefits from circumcision despite scientific proofs. They deride the direct evidence in favour of circumcision from those who had to be circumcised later in life for medical need. At the same time they totally accept the vituperation against circumcision from the exceptionally tiny minority who also needed to be done later in life but didn't like having it done.

    They claim that those circumcised in infancy had no choice (but they had no choice in many other more important things either!) and hence have no right to speak out in favour. At the same time they claim that those who did have that choice and used it cannot speak in favour either as they 'cannot accept that they made a mistake'. However, they hold great score by the pronouncements of a handful of hysterical feminists who don't even have a penis to actually KNOW what is good or bad about being circumcised.

    They claim that the scientific methods used by highly respected researchers all over the world are 'flawed' but cannot come up with one single piece of genuine, repeatable, science to counter these claims - on the contrary they have to resort to lies and distortions as Van Howe has been doing for years, and has been caught out so many times.

    So who is psychologically damaged? Those who accept genuine open-minded science or those who want to manipulate the figures to support their preconceptions? Those who say that parents have a right to do what they believe best for their children's health (including vaccination and circumcision) or those who would deny all parental rights? Those who would make circumcision readily available to those adults who desire it for whatever reason or those who would abolish this right at all costs?

  5. As a guy who was done later in life, I can tell you that intimacy is as good or better, if you can appreciate loving longer. I no longer forget to pull back so I don't spray all over the place when I pee. I don't catch the thing in my zipper anymore, or wake up with pubic hairs trapped inside my foreskin. I no longer have the endless smegma. If I were promiscuous, rather than the father of three, I am at lower risk of uncomfortable, contagious, some deadly or recurring diseases, whether getting them or passing them on. I had many infections "down there" while growing up, being of little concern to my parents. My sons never had to live with the problems of comfort, cleanliness, or increased risk of contagious illness and also risk of death. I had a(n uncut) cousin who died of AIDS, and a neighbor lady who died of cervical cancer. I still wonder if either of them needed to die so young. Done properly, circumcision is safe and painless, even for me as an adult. And no guy has ever in my life said to me that he wished he still had his foreskin. Some have said they wished not to have it. Circumcision is not necessary, but then neither is clothing. They are just both very good ideas.

  6. With all due respect, circumcision doesn't cause AIDS. The HIV virus is spread through unsafe sex. Circumcised or not, all men should use condoms.

  7. I am a physician, circumcised at 34yo for no medical reason. It took me lots of time to do the research, which was hard to come by 20 years ago, and find much support for circumcision.

    I had already dispelled the lie that the foreskin is the most erogenous zone on the penis-- THAT was not hard to figure out... and evolutionarily speaking that would make no sense whatsoever. It is simply a cover with some pleasant sensations but certainly no better than dozens of spots in the genital/pudendal region.

    Circumcision's medical benefits can no longer be refuted as a public health measure-- dozens of recent well done studies show this to be true. It has clear benefits for society, though the intactivists would argue that ii is the impact on the person, not the society that counts.
    To date, without exception, these who claim such to me, are liberals who, of course have no problem plundering other people's assets for the "good" of the society when it comes to assets other than a penis.

    Given that we now have a near useless vaccine to diminish the prevalence of the virulent strains of HPV to lower cervical cancer rates, and that circumcision provides a better and sustainable defense against this disease, wouldn't you think that might be a strong case for it?

    No way! There were a plethora of conflicting reports on the rates of cervical cancer among different ethnic groups and this led to an impasse on the role of circumcision in the genesis of cervical Ca. Yet, for decades it was shown that Jewish women (and Muslims too) had very low cervical cancer rates. Nuns had virtually none! You might think a penis had something to do with that but not according to the Danes who pointed their (almost) as good cervical cancer rates compared favorably to -- no, not Jewish women- but American women, who typically have circumcised partners. Thus, the argument went, no way could circumcision be the determinant here.

    No study of course looked at the women in the US who only had circumcised partners. Given the, then, lower rates of circumcision among blacks, the near virtual absence of clipped penises in immigrants, it is a wonder that the US had as good a prevalence rate as it did ---and better than Denmark.

    Finally, after decades of poo-poohing the obvious, the medical journals are now replete with studies that show just how effective circumcision is.
    This wont stop the activists, who cling to beliefs in corpuscles, ridged-bands and other puerile nonsense that purports to prove that the foreskin is THE only erogenous spot on the penis worth a hoot.

    Yet no one has demonstrated any adverse effect on adult males undergoing the procedure- indeed, number upwards of 80% are reported for as good as, or better than the intact state.

    The US will not abandon this procedure until national health comes in at which time the liberals will win this by cost arguments.
    Meanwhile we need to keep educating men and the women they love, that they can have far better and safer intimacy without the hooded barrier that impedes pleasure and promotes disease.

    Given just how much better the sensations of intercourse are after circumcision makes you ask: why so men want their fellow man not to have the best sex possible? It simply amazes me, There must be an answer but I don't know what it is. Note that the anger and vitriol on this subject RARELY comes from circumcised men- the very one who ought to be outraged if it were true that they had diminished penises- but no, it comes form the intacts, who of course, are angry on behalf of their clipped brethren. It is so patently absurd it hardly is worth pondering save for some insight in to where they are really coming from.

    1. Good points on cervical cancer. Renate Dorrestijn said years ago that circumcision should be mandatory.

  8. robin wd you disregard the thousands of men who are very distressed about having been cut at birth as a mere triviality but the real fact is many are complaining but you chose not to notice because your mind is closed. in any case many cut guys who are unhappy about it do not make a fuss after all what can be done the skin is lost and no amount of complaining will restore it to its original state so why bother to complain the only option is restoring and thats a lengthy task so they do not bother .these are the silent majority ,you were lucky you could select your options as an adult so back off and remember the less fortunate who had their choices made for them at birth.

  9. Sex is all between the ears - which is why female circumcision doesn't reduce sensation very much and is so popular - and if the U.S. doesn't make circumcision mandatory, well, hell, us circ lovers are gonna have to take matters into our own hands, like we did in Indonesia. Cut cut cut, it's for your own good. It shouldn't be a choice. It has to be done. Like the blog title says, Mandatory Circumcision.

  10. What is all that obsession of cut people with cutting up others? Are you all obsessed with cocks? Mandatory circumcision? Only plausible in third world countries. Besides, I don't care about the benefits (if any), I just like my cock pouch and if I were to get a disease with it, I guess I will take my chances. Or are you worried that your mother will catch something?...

    1. you sound like you need cutting i guess from now on every time i see on the web adirty talker i should tel him to go cut himself forskinwise and the talk will improve