Friday, April 10, 2009

Mandatory Circumcision: Isn't It Time to Require Male Circumcision?

Just a little post to see how much interest there is in mandatory circumcision. Am I alone, or are there those who think that the medical evidence to circumcise males is now so substantial and overwhelming that all males should be required to be circumcised? Of course, as with all laws such as those that require vaccination, there ought to be an allowance for a religious reason not to circumcise or some unusual medical condition (i.e., hemophilia) that precludes a clean-cut penis. But doesn't public health now dictate that all males be circumcised?

46 comments:

  1. let me ask you a question. Supposing it were found that removing sexual tissue from a females conferred the exact same medical benefit as removing sexual tissue from males does.

    And suppose the same number of sexual nerve endings are lost in this procedure on females as are typically lost in the male procedure.

    Would you then support mandatory female genital cutting?

    I'm guessing the answer is a definite NO.
    And i'm also guessing the reason for your NO is that you value female sexual tissue and you also think that if a woman is to have sexual tissue removed then it should only be done when absolutely medically necessary, or if it's her choice as an adult.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for your perspective, Space. If you assume that all the health advantages to the male, his partner, and society as a whole (in a world with less AIDs, HIV, HPV, etc.) would result from some sort of FEMALE CIRCUMCISION as well, then how could you conclude that certain sexual tissue trumps life-long health benefits. But comparing male and female circumcision is a canard, as most understand. I know of NO scientific studies that suggest that female circumcision, unlike male circumcision, offers any health benefits to the female, her partner, or society as a whole. Do you?

    ReplyDelete
  3. http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/abstracts.aspx?aid=3138

    ReplyDelete
  4. The stallings study linked to above is one example. But that's not the point. The point is that in this thought experiment, we are assuming that removal of female sexual tissue confers precisely the same benefits.

    Let us imagine a procedure, thousands of years old, which involves scraping away the inner walls of the vagina, and trimming down the infant's vulva. Suppose this it has become medicalized, and is done using sterile equipment by trained professionals, and causes little to no pain. Suppose that the resulting scar tissue and loss of delicate mucosal surfaces renders the female significantly less likely to transmit and receive infectious pathogens, including HIV. Furthermore, suppose the risks of the procedure are of little significance.

    Imagine this procedure has taken place for thousands of years, and is an important cultural aspect, and a source of pride in the millions of women which undergo it. They consider an intact vulva to be a dirty and ugly object in need of trimming. Very few women complain about it, and much of the sexual research done, which largely involves verbal self report, doesn't show any consistent loss of sexual function.

    In order to be consistent, you would have to concede that such a procedure is not an abuse of human rights, and that it should be mandatory.

    Others would disagree. They would claim that it is very hard to objectively measure the sexual effects of the procedure, and until physiologic measures are taken (such as measuring the strength of a cut woman's sexual response via measures such as changes in blood pressure, skin conductance, heart rate, strength and duration of orgasmic contractions, and release of hormones associated with orgasm), it would be foolish to rely on verbal self reports, which are extremely limited in their methodological power.

    Instead, they would argue, there is a prima facie case to be made that the removal of erogenous tissue decreases the range of sexual sensation, and that it is better to err on the side of caution and assume that it is sexually detrimental, regardless of what the vast majority of cut woman claim.

    They would appeal to the sound judgement that the removal of sexual tissue from a nonconsenting female, unless absolutely medically necessary, is fundamentally horrifying.

    The step that many have not yet taken is to understand that it is fundamentally horrifying to do so from a nonconsenting human, female or male.

    Or take the example of routine neonatal mastectomy, whereby removing parts of breast tissue at birth or a young age, the chances of breast cancer are significantly reduced. I realize this isn't quite analagous to HIV since breast cancer is not contagious, but if we are speaking of life long health benefits of the individual, then why is it that we already know that certain breast tissue (or the right to choose the fate of one's own breast tissue) trumps "life long health benefits".

    So do you actually think we should follow up on the stallings study and start conducting randomized trials on the effects of female circumcision on HIV reception?

    ReplyDelete
  5. It is just amazing that troglodytes of the 21st century are able to disseminate such tripe about "advantages" of circumcision. You can also end headaches by drilling into the brain and letting out spirits. That most or all mammals, male and female, have some form of foreskins for a variety of functions suggest nature put them there for a purpose. Circumcision is sexual assault, and purveyers of it have a financial or a macabre, perverse motive to try to keep it going. Folks, don't swallow the utter nonsense from those who would try to justify such absurd and cruel procedures.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I wouldn't go so far as to assign those motives to those who condone the procedure. My own experience suggests that people who condone the procedure are almost always circumcised themselves, and believe the foreskin to be a useless ugly health risk. To them, the circumcised penis is the healthy norm. They believe the glans to be the exclusive platform of sexual sensation.


    Many of them are quite unaware of the complex anatomy of the foreskin.

    I would recommend they start with the following video, which draws upon peer reviewed literature and just scratches the surface of what there is to know about the physiology of the intact human penis.

    http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=prepuce&emb=0&aq=f#

    That said, I will not assume that the originator of this blog falls into the category described above.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I reckon "provoking" is the operative here. Trot out the 'C' word and watch people bark.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thanks for the comments, although let's not disparage each other on this blog. Calling someone a "troglodyte" for espousing male circumcision would impugn most of the American medical establishment, to say nothing of the vast majority of Americans, Jews, Muslims, and the many others who believe there is medical value in circumcising our sons.

    I appreciate Space's efforts to equate male and female circumcision as a debating tool, but it makes no sense to most Americans. Indeed, many women find it offensive to equate an unnecessary genital mutilation with a procedure that renders a positive health benefit. The fact that you cannot appreciate the benefit of male circumcision does not mean it does not exist. [Excuse the double negatives].

    You are quite right, Anglican, that when the "c" would comes up, it brings out almost every anti-circ around. That's okay by me. I welcome hearing their views because the pro-circ world must be able to confront their arguments, when reasonable, if we are to move to mandatory male circumcision.

    In the end, what will move countries to universal male circumcision will not be bloggers like us, but established health organizations, like the World Health Organization or the American Academy of Pediatrics, urging a foreskin-free world for the health of all of us.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Provoking Debate:

    A useful way to morally assess male genital cutting (MGC) is to reflect upon the aspects of female genital cutting (FGC) which are deemed minimally sufficient to cause moral outrage, and see whether they map onto MGC.

    MGC and FGC are certainly not identical. For one, the subjects of the procedure are of different sexes. MGC largely takes place in relatively sterile conditions, using anaesthetic and surgical technologies, while FGC is primarily associated with dangerous circumstances. MGC may offer health benefits that are not to be found with FGC.

    This does not mean they do not share properties that render them, in the minds of many, both morally abhorrent.

    They are both rarely medically necessary, and they both invariably involve the removal of varying amounts of erogenous tissue.

    These two features are critical.

    Did you watch the video I posted yet?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Let's see. Seven out of ten men in the world are not circumcised. This includes virtually all of the male population of Japan, China and Scandinavia, and the great majority of Europe, Central and South America and South East Asia (except Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and South Korea) and the majority of the English-speaking world except the US. Are they collapsing in their billions from infectious diseases transmitted through the foreskin? Apparently not. Next!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Marwan: In much of Africa, male genital cutting takes place tribally in circumstances very similar to female genital cutting, and 35-40 boys die of it each year in Eastern Cape Province alone - heaven only knows the total for the whole of Africa. In Indonesia and Malaysia, female genital cutting is minimal, sometimes purely tokenistic, and hygienic. Interestingly there is almost nowhere they practise FGC where they do not also practice MGC (one tribe used to do both, but gave up only the male variety). FGC used to be not unknown as a "medical" procedure in the US until they made it all illegal.

    Provoking debate: are you suggesting that if a doctor has not diagnosed haemophilia or some such absolute contraindication, or parents can not prove they belong to some religion (such as Sikhism) that forbids it, boy babies should be circumcised contrary to the wish of their parents?

    ReplyDelete
  12. And adults? Are you suggesting that healthy men (you did say "all males") in the developed world should be forcibly circumcised?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hugh, I think we do have do be realistic in the manner in which we achieve universal circumcision. You cannot forcibly drag adult males out of their homes to circumcise them, and you know how utterly ridiculous that is. But you can certainly inform them on the value of a clean-cut penis and then provide free circumcision services to them. Over the next five years, I expect all the major medical organizations to endorse male circumcision -- and most, not all, adult males are likely to heed the warnings.

    As for children, a recommendation to restore routine neonatal circumcision will go a long way to achieving 100% circumcision among the young. I would also require all male children to be circumcised before attending school, just as we do with vaccinations -- again, with the appropriate exceptions.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Provoking, you do realize that there has been a growing hostility to routine neonatal male circumcision among all national medical organizations on this planet. It is unlikely that the finding that circumcision reduces risk of HIV transmission and reception will change this view.

    You still haven't addressed my question: If it were found that female genital cutting conferred similar health benefits on a female as male genital cutting confers among males, would you, or would you not, require all female children to be circumcised before attending school?

    Secondly, have you watched the video I posted?

    ReplyDelete
  15. "You cannot forcibly drag adult males out of their homes to circumcise them, and you know how utterly ridiculous that is." That is exactly what has been happening in Kenya, as a direct result of the claim that "circumcision prevents HIV".

    And what can schoolchildren infect each other with through their foreskins?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Space, I did see that lengthy video purporting to itemize the benefits of a foreskin. Thanks for sharing it even though it was very one-sided. Obviously, if there were demonstrable health benefits to female circumcision, the WHO would be recommending it. It does not.

    Hugh, I think that isolated Kenyan example has more to do with tribal warfare than health. It's hardly a model for the USA. As for circumcising before school, every study on the subject suggests that that circumcision is less costly and traumatic before puberty.

    ReplyDelete
  17. You still haven't answered the question Hugh.

    *IF* removing female sexual tissue were shown to confer similar medical benefits to females, *WOULD* you recommend mandatory female circumcision?

    I'm not concerned about *WHETHER* there are or are not such benefits - i'm asking *IF* there were, what would your recommendation be?

    ReplyDelete
  18. and the video wasn't itemizing the benefits - it was a video slide lecture detailing physiology and anatomy of the prepuce.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Sorry, ignore my post before last. You already answered it.

    So Hugh, don't you think that based on the stalling study, we should be further investigating the benefits of female genital cutting?

    After all, those ugly useless folds of skin that vulva fetishists call labia, are in fact nothing more than moist mucousal membranes that are perfect breeding grounds for infection. Furthermore, there's good reasons to suppose that the dry scar tissue will render the barriers for transmission and reception of pathogens that much more unlikely.

    And we can do it when they're young, using the latest in surgical and anaesthetic technologies.

    ReplyDelete
  20. sorry that last post was addressed to provoking, not hugh. This is what happens when you try to do this sort of thing when you're in a rush.

    my apologies for the chaos.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Provoking: "It's hardly a model for the USA."
    Yet the trials of circumcision in Kenya, Uganda and South Africa are?

    "every study on the subject suggests that that circumcision is less costly and traumatic before puberty" Can you give references for some of those studies, please? It must be hard to compare trauma to a newborn, who has to just take whatever is coming, without warning, with trauma to an adult who can be told what to expect, and even self-medicate afterwards, as he needs it.

    It's considerate of you to be factoring in cost and trauma, but the reason vaccination is required before school, where it is required at all, is to protect schoolchildren from infecting each other, hence my question.

    ReplyDelete
  22. The human rights to our own bodies have not been sufficiently examined yet in this debate. The Nuremberg trials and UN motions have confirmed these rights. Adult, informed consent and the sanctity of flesh and blood must trump public opinion.

    Provoking Debate; I remember thinking the same as you. I’m circed and have only had cut friends. We commonly discussed how our German helmets are superior to the anteaters. I look back and see that I didn’t know. I, or my friends, did’t have the body part with which to know what we were talking about. I have since spoken with countless European men about it and to my surprise none express any problems from having this natural part of their body. They are the experts and they insist that it is an erogenous organ worth fighting for.

    In Finland only one half of one percent are circed. This includes nonmedical voluntary surgery. It is medically rare that it is necessary.

    All those medical conditions you list (that circ might prevent) America has as much as countries that do not cut their children. Condoms actually do prevent AIDs, HIV, HPV, etc.

    OK, now that that is over with, lets go tease that one kid in gym class with a ‘Ricky’s turtle neck’.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Well, to answer the question posed by this blog, it appears that no comment yet supports the proposition that circumcision be universally mandated. So that should answer your question: yes, you are alone in believing that circumcision should be mandatory and universal!

    ReplyDelete
  24. All people who advocate mandatory circumcision should suffer mandatory castration of the entire sex organs, or, better yet, mandatory castration of the brain. This would do wonders to improve the public's mental health.

    "I only wish that those troublemakers who want to mutilate you by circumcision would mutilate [or castrate] themselves."
    St. Paul, Galatians 5:12

    ReplyDelete
  25. I guess according to you my intact boy is going to infect the world.

    Yes there have been studies showing that female circ reduces the risk of a female getting herpes/hpv. We should just circ everyone right?

    This entire blog is about the most repulsive thing I have ever read.

    ReplyDelete
  26. millions of intact men against youApril 21, 2009 at 3:42 AM

    Provoking Debate said... "You cannot forcibly drag adult males out of their homes to circumcise them,..."
    You are right about this Morris but do you child rape promoting bastard think you can forcibly drag babies out of their homes? You are doomed baby fucker!

    ReplyDelete
  27. I gladly gave up my foreskin when I was an adult. But as a kid I had frequent UTIs, and it felt like fire or razor blades peeing. My foreskin would balloon and pee wildly all over the place, and I would get infections on my dick head. I caught the thing in my zipper or come puberty, would wake up with pube hairs under the foreskin. I knew about circumcision, but my parents would not allow it, even thought the doctor agreed it was a good idea. I was able to be free of all that thanks to the Army. Most of the guys who picked up STDs while I was in the Army had their foreskins. These days young kids ten and eleven years old are having sex and getting STDs. I had an uncut cousin who got AIDS. The last six months of his life were the most horrible thing a person might endure. He died at age 36.
    Many "facts" quoted by the forekin fanatics are simply not true, and science and statistics say so. So those things they call flawed. Circumcision brings benefits of health, cleanliness and comfort to the individual and society. I support mandatory availability of circumcision for every newborn male, for every young boy with problems with his foreskin, and every adult male who chooses it. The benefits are not absolute. A driver who drives drunk will get equal benefit from wearing a seatbelt as a non-drunk, but will more likely need it, and the seatbelt cannot protect from everything. It is a myth that a foreskin improves intimacy, and there are no health benefits of having a foreskin. Every parent should be free to choose the benefits of circumcision for their newborn son, their growing son, and for the welfare of society. Even if they choose circumcision for religious reasons or looks, the health benefits, cleanliness and comfort benefits are all there. The anti-circers are like the Taliban... nobody should have the right... and most of us who support circumcision say that every family should have the right to decide for themselves. They deserve honest and true information, and the right to choose circumcision, or not. The truth, and the choice should be theirs.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anonymous, too bad nobody told you that you could have treated your tight foreskin with steroid creams before you chose the knife to chop off the most pleasurable and most sensitive part of your dick. But at least you had the choice, you were old enough to make your own decision. By the way, circumcised North America has the highest AIDS rate compared to other first world countries which do not circumcise. That's a fact that you just don't want to accept. When you circumcise you cut off a very important part of the body's natural immune system and you also expose the urethra to pathogens by cutting away the protective cover in front of it. Urine is also disinfecting and the foreskin acts like a one way valve. If any dirt should get in, it will get flushed out every time the boy takes a pee and guess what, it feels real good to pull that naughty little skin back and let water run over your pee-pee. Every boy loves it once the foreskin has naturally detached from the glans. Go educate yourself before you misguide other people any further.
    Reveal the truth * http://www.StopInfantCircumcision.org
    National Organizations for the Human Rights of Children:
    http://www.cirp.org
    http://www.nocirc.org
    http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/
    Nurses for the Rights of the Child * www.cirp.org/nrc/
    Attorneys for the Rights of the Child * www.arclaw.org/
    Circumcision Resource Center * Jewish Issues * www.circumcision.org/
    Students for Genital Integrity * www.studentsforgenitalintegrity.org/
    Halt Abuse and Routine Mutilation of Males * www.noharmm.org/
    Mothers Against Circumcision * www.mothersagainstcirc.org/
    In Memory of the Sexually Mutilated Child * www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/
    Ashley Montagu Resolution * Nobel laureates * www.MontaguNOCIRCpetition.org/
    National Organization of Restoring Men * foreskin restoration * www.norm.org

    ReplyDelete
  29. "I had an uncut cousin who got AIDS. The last six months of his life were the most horrible thing a person might endure."
    I had a circumcised cousin who had a piano fall on his head. My anecdote is just as relevant as yours.

    Let's see
    * UTIs
    * ballooning
    * zipper injuries
    * pube hairs (My heart bleeds. Were there no scissors in your house?)
    * STDs
    * AIDS
    * religion
    * cleanliness
    * comfort
    But wait. You've missed some!

    "most of us who support circumcision say that every family should have the right to decide for themselves"

    Just change one word (which really does look strange in this context: does little sister get a vote?): All of us who oppose infant circumcision say that every individual should have the right to decide for himself. (And in the vast majority of cases he won't dream of it.)

    ReplyDelete
  30. Ah, Hugh7, the old 'female circumcision' canard.

    You know, and we all know, that what is euphemistically called 'female circumcision' is totally unrelated to male circumcision. If what is normally done to a female under this euphemism were done as the closest equivalent to a male we would be removing his whole penis and his scrotum - a far cry form the tiny amount of flesh removed by male circumcision.

    Were it not for the wholesale mutilation (and here I do use that word absolutely correctly) of the female's external genitalia that is the norm in the tiny minority of cultures supporting and practising it, there would be no legislation against any form of female genital cutting. Thus the often useful direct analogue of male circumcision - true female circumcision, or the removal of the clitoral hood alone - would be perfectly lawful and practised where the female desired it for sexual pleasure or where there was a direct medical benefit to be achieved.

    No long-term prophylactic benefit has yet been found to support the general removal of the clitoral hood, whereas there are hundreds of studies (many performed initially by anti-circumcision folk) that prove the prophylactic benefits of male circumcision.

    There are many cases where the clitoral hood has had to be removed to cure an immediate medical problem or to allow a female to enjoy sexual satisfaction in just the same way as male circumcision can have an immediate medical or sexual benefit. These cases are, in general, actually allowed for by the legislation.

    Men and women are anatomically and hormonally different and each can contract adverse medical conditions that the other cannot. Even analogous parts react differently and need different treatments.

    The 'female circumcision' argument is a total non-starter when discussing the legal, sexual and prophylactic aspects of male circumcision.

    ReplyDelete
  31. In respect of the original post, I accept that the blog owner was being deliberately provocative in choosing the title of the blog and in his first post. I am sure that he would accept this and that he is not actually advocating total compulsion.

    Nations and States strongly advocate the routine immunisation of children and spend considerable sums of money on promoting immunisation. Some go so far as to make immunisation a 'mandatory' requirement for school entry. However, barring possible totalitarian states such as the former Soviet Union, all have made some provision in their legislation for an opt out on the grounds of religion, parental conviction and of course medical contraindication.

    Such opt out clauses usually require some proof that the opt out request is genuine, but nevertheless are a generous offering to those who genuinely believe that their own children should not receive any, or certain, immunisations despite the scientific evidence that immunisation protects not only the individual who is immunised but also the whole population.

    Circumcision has now been absolutely proven to offer significant medical benefits to both the man concerned and to all his future partners, and that these benefits last a lifetime - something that has as yet to be proven for many immunisations which can and do 'wear off' over time.

    It is therefore right for circumcision to be promoted and made readily available on the same basis as immunisations. The earlier in life that circumcision is performed the easier, safer and cheaper it is and the greater the cost-benefit of it. Circumcision must therefore be made available to any parent who feels that it is the right thing for their son.

    Provided that there are alternative schools available, it is the right of any independent school to decide what health requirements its pupils must meet. Some schools quite rightly have an absolute requirement for all normal immunisations before/at entry with only a strong and immediate medical contraindication being allowed an opt out. It would be perfectly proper should such a school also decree mandatory circumcision for all its male pupils. Those who don't want their sons immunised or circumcised can choose another school!

    Circumcision has been claimed to be directly harmful with many adverse side effects including death. Firstly, one must know what the medical fraternity class as a side effect - that is ANY result, symptom or outcome which differs in any way from the ideal and expected result. Thus a slight difficulty in stopping a tiny bleeding point is a 'side effect'. That the bleeding was stopped a few minutes later than hoped for doesn't prevent this classification. There have indeed been a few serious side effects from circumcision or its accompanying anaesthesia, but all of these have been attributable to lack of practice or training of the doctor, or failure of parents to take prompt action when their infant is clearly having problems. All the other side effects are minor and were easily treated with no long term adverse outcome. The same cannot be said for immunisation, which is rightly strongly promoted. Here it is the direct adverse effect of the vaccine which has caused death or disablement. Apart form the occasional slight rash or high temperature, the side effects of immunisations are usually permanent when they do strike. However, this is not an argument against immunisation, only for better screening whenever possible. Similarly, the few serious adverse effects of circumcision point to the need for greater availability and better training for doctors rather than stopping an otherwise proven activity.

    Provided, as I believe is the case, that the original poster proposes to allow some opt-out clauses then I totally support the idea of 'mandatory' circumcision before school entry. I would, however, prefer to see a less controversial term used, but cannot immediately think of a suitable one which is close enough to the desired effect.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I’m Dave

    Vernon said
    “Circumcision has now been absolutely proven to offer significant medical benefits”

    Neither the American Academy of Pediatrics nor any other international pediatric association on earth recommends routine infant circumcision.

    Choices can be made as to how an adult deals with preventing diseases i.e. condoms, abstinents, monogamy etc. To second guess the future chooses you child will grow up and select is impossible.

    The underside of the foreskin is tender mucus membranes continuing ten thousand specialized nerve endings. Removing them will not prevent his classmates contracting any diseases. Inoculations do not remove sensitive parts of our children’s sex organs for life.

    The concept that we will amputate parts of our bodies to prevent discomfort and expense later in life needs some examining. Only when we have no respect for a particular body part can we come up with such an idea. For instance, my mom contracted breast cancer and in her pain of surgery and chemo she wished she had had them removed at birth (besides, I was a bottle baby so what was the use). See, if we have respect for a body part, mass amputation at birth because someone, some where, may have a problem with it some day makes no sense.

    Yes, men and woman have different body parts with different problems but logic is constant.

    ReplyDelete
  33. The whole anti-circumcision debate is so last century. This is the 21st Century in case many of the anti-circumcision movement haven't noticed. Most of the misleading information if not all of it dates back to the early 60's. The rate of circumcision in the 21st Century is not going down as they would have you believe. If you tell your own story often enough, you get to believe it. And this is what is happening with the anti-circ groups. With AIDS and other STD's, circumcision should definately be considered by all parents as a prophylactic measure. And it is the decision of the parents and their right to make a choice for their infant sons. No one has the right to tell them not to make decisions for the protection of the health and welfare of their sons. Too many times the anti-circ movement rhetoric is fueled by those who do not have a penis. As a man I certainly would not seek out the advice of a gynacologist. I was circumcised as an adult at age 22 and I was always angry that my parents didn't have me circumcised when I was born. To that argument works both ways. It is a parent's obligation to see that they make the best decisions available to them in regard to the care of their infant sons. Circumcision in my estimation is the best and only way to go.

    ReplyDelete
  34. If "The whole anti-circumcision debate is so last century", circumcision is literally stone-age. Modernity is the last thing that cam be claimed for it.

    When considering prophylactic measures, medical science uses the Number Needed to Treat. With HIV in the African trials, it would take 30-50 cirumcisions to prevent one transmission (if the trials were not flawed). In the US the number is in the hundreds or thousands. All the other circumcisions, with all their attendant risks and certain harm, are wasted. With STDs, the results from diffferent studies are contradictory, studies from the UK, Australia, New Zealand and the US showing no benefit.

    Parents may make many decisions for their infant children, but cutting off parts of their genitals is not among them. When the children are girls, this is specifically enshrined in law (no matter how minor, sterile, and painless). What happened to equality of the sexes?

    Spartan had the choice to be circumcised, and he took it. He should thank his parents for giving him that choice. Angry? He'd have been as mad as hell if their choice and his had gone the other ways!

    ReplyDelete
  35. I would have preferred it just the opposite way around. It would have been better for me to have had my parents make the choice. I would not have suffered endless bouts of balanitis, itchiness and other problems that I had as a child growing up. I trust parents to make wise decisions. In this case my parents did not. Let me decide as to what my parents should have done, not you. I notice that in my home town in upstate NY, most of the boys were uncut, at that time. Today all of those boys who have sons have had them circumcised. Why? For the same reason I mentioned. How did we learn about circumcision? From the 2 or 3 Jewish lads in our school. We were all interested in that since there were only 18 boys in my class. I notice today that my brother's children all have had their sons circumcised. One tried to keep her son intact for about a month, and she gave up after seeing all the problems the baby was already having. So I speak from experience, cut is so much better. Spartan206

    ReplyDelete
  36. I’m Anonymous Dave. I’m the one that pointed out that “In Finland only one half of one percent are circed. This includes nonmedical cosmetic surgery”.

    Spartan206 gave us his antidotal story on April 26. I feel for Spartan206’s pain. Fortunately it is a rare a condition. We live in a circed population and don’t know but every body with a foreskin has life wrenching traumas or not. Finish medical stats are a window to the intactl world.

    ReplyDelete
  37. This is a fantastic site....of course circumcision should be mandatory for all boys and the school system can insure the little procedure has been done as they do with other immunizations. Why a very few but very vocal minority insist on making such a huge issue over such a small piece of useless skin is beyond me. Now let's work to get any lad with a foreskin well clipped back.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I agree, this is a fantastic site. It is a great source of public information. The underside of the foreskin houses ten thousand nerve endings (our tongue has ten thousand nerve endings). To take that much unique experience from a man or woman's life is not a small thing. If we were doing that kind of damage to a woman’s sex organ, you would complain.

    This sort of Innocent lack of specific knowledge is charming and common in a population of circumcised people. Anonymous dave

    ReplyDelete
  39. the zealots are here with there b.s. blah blah blah burn witches hang criminals lets get back to the good old days when circumcision was for everyone legs were amputated in 50seconds with no pain releif etc. BUT this is 2009 and things have changed human rights is here individual choice is not quite here if your a baby but it should be ,well i dont want to be cut !! tough parents choose !!,how can that be fair ? its not but its getting better very slowly
    even dr spock modernised and said circumcision is wrong

    ReplyDelete
  40. You are one sick asshole!
    Why don't you make a world a favor and end your own life!

    ReplyDelete
  41. All boys should get circumcised before they leave the hospital. It should not be optional. It provides them with a lifetime of health and hygene benefits which are too great to ignore. All boys born anywhere in the world, regardless of religion, class, race, should have their foreskin removed. Once again, this should not be optional, it should not be optional to have all the benefits circumcision produces (especially if circumcised as a newborn), it should be a birthright of all boys to be given the best chance at living a happy, and healthy life!

    ReplyDelete
  42. Mandatory circumcision, compulsory circumcision for every male, from the President down to every homeless street drunk---yes. No driver's license, no bank account, no job, no permit to eat in restaurant, no permit to buy groceries, no diploma for any uncircumcised male. HOWEVER only females should do circumcisions! No pain relief, make it illegal! Use solid silver Gomco clamps (best electrical conductor) and while it's crushing the foreskin, SHE turns on electrical current to heighten the pain of the sexual sausage grinder! Afterwards she repeatedly pops raw head of freshly circumcised penis with stinging rubber band over and over, and nurses take turns popping him every hour on the hour until the little sexist woman hater goes home! Replace Washington Monument with obelisk showing penis being stripped of its skin! Remove scrotum skin so as to make that approach to restoration impossible! Any male speaking ill of circumcision gets edge of his exposed (circumcised) corona SCALLOPED by female hands! Then brand star of David onto his glans!

    ReplyDelete
  43. "My body, my choice"

    'nuff said.

    ReplyDelete
  44. The dubious medical "evidence" in favor of the healthful benefits of male circumcision provides for, at the very most, an almost negligible benefit. Such a mandate would be an enormous and unjust imposition on individual liberty. And frankly, anyone who advocates mandatory male circumcision is an enemy of Western civilization. So to put no too fine a point on the matter...fuck you, sir. Fuck you, and the horse you rode in on.

    ReplyDelete
  45. i do agree with you, i believe that male circumcision should be mandatory simply because it is cleaner, and better in every way

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And what follows next? Mandatory castration of just one testicle? A man can still produce sperm without two testicles - just as he can ejaculate without a foreskin!
      So should we also add mandatory partial castration for all males?
      Timothy

      Delete