I admit there's a whole lot more to my life than circumcision -- which explains why I don't post something on my blog every day. But I have been increasingly struck by how -- for the anti-circumcision crowd -- the only thing in life that's important to them is "Saving the Foreskin."
Why is that so? What drives the foreskin lovers into such rage that they surf the internet to post mind-numbing repetitive comments on every reference to circumcision? Have you noticed that, too? What is their deep-set psychological problem that life for them begins and ends with the foreskin?
I was reminded about that when I noticed that almost all the "blogs" called up by Google when you type in "circumcision" are authored by anti-circs. This blog is one of the few mainstream blogs out there that espouse normal American behavior, the circumcision of male newborns. It got me wondering if I was really all alone out there -- or whether the anti-circs are just so angry that everyone of them needs to hyperventilate on the internet.
For most Americans at least, circumcision is hardly ever thought of. When our sons are born, we circumcise them for all the right reasons, then move on. It's a topic that never really comes up again. At some point -- for me it was health class in school -- we learn that we were circumcised, told it was the healthy thing to do (that's what my health teacher said), and then again move on. The next time it comes up is when we have a son and, once again, we do the right thing and have the kid circumcised just like us. That pretty much ends the circumcision discussion in the average American household!
But for the anti-circ fanatics, every day begins and ends with the foreskin. I don't know how they carry on a normal life being so obsessed with this useless piece of skin. But guess is that the whackiness of it all comes through to the vast majority of Americans -- which is why we so easily dismiss them when they march on the Capitol, demand "genital integrity," and deride our medical institutions when they seek to follow the medical evidence towards universal circumcision.
I'll leave it to commenters to deduce the psychological hang-ups of the anti-circumcision crowd. Those of us who favor a clean foreskin-free society don't need to get rabid about it. We'll just go about our daily business, knowing that sound science is our side.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Amusingly, I just found a petition to "stop the anti-circumcision movement". I'm not sure how this could actually be done — laws protect free speech, after all, no matter how irrational — but I found it interesting that people are actually thinking of it!
ReplyDeleteUmm, that "useless piece of skin" just happens to include the most sensitive parts of my penis, and I don't think anyone other than me should be able to have it cut off without a real medical reason. It's illegal to remove a girl's prepuce, or to make any incision on her genitals, even without removing any tissue. Why don't boys get the same protection?
ReplyDeleteBut then, I guess I'm just an "anti-circ fanatic" like the CPA, RACP, and BMA.
There are people like you who are just as zealous in trying to promote various forms of female circumcision btw, and they use pretty much the same arguments.
Umm my earlobe is the most sensitive part of my ear. But it is perfectly fine to pierce it. Plus it is a vestigial organ! And I would like to know why any parent would even consider not circumcising if there is even a slight chance of fewer UTIs STDs or Penile cancer! What grinds me the most is these darn moral crusaders attack me for the decisions my parents more than 40 years ago! I agree there must be some kind of psychological disorder that is at the root of this.
DeleteI agree. Anti Circumcision Crusaders Need To Become More Fanatic About Mental Health Care For Themselves. How The Hell Sits Around Worrying About Other People's Foreskin All Day!? If They Don't Want To Be Circumcised, Then Don't Be Circumcised and Don't Circumcise Your Son's, But Shut Up About Everyone Else. These People Even Tell Grown Men That They Have No Right To Be Circumcised!
DeleteI agree. Anti Circumcision Crusaders Need To Become More Fanatic About Mental Health Care For Themselves. Who The Hell Sits Around Worrying About Other People's Foreskin All Day!? If They Don't Want To Be Circumcised, Then Don't Be Circumcised and Don't Circumcise Your Son's, But Shut Up About Everyone Else. These People Even Tell Grown Men That They Have No Right To Be Circumcised!
DeleteTo reply to Mark Lyndon:
ReplyDeleteUmm, that "useless piece of skin" just happens to include the most sensitive parts of my penis,
Extraordinary. Why on earth are people still making this claim, when there is no evidence for it?
It's illegal to remove a girl's prepuce, or to make any incision on her genitals, even without removing any tissue. Why don't boys get the same protection?
To borrow and adapt my words from this thread:
There are no known medical benefits to female genital cutting (and no reason to suspect any unknown ones), and there are real risks. As such, the net effect is negative (this is a mathematical certainty, since zero minus any non-zero quantity must be negative).
In the case of circumcision, however, there are several known medical benefits (eg., HIV, UTI, HPV), and more benefits for which the evidence, while not consisting of randomised controlled trials, is nonetheless very strong. These must be weighed against the risks, which again are small but real. There's some debate over the magnitude of both the benefits and risks, leading to different assessments of the risk:benefit balance. However, most reasonable observers agree that the net effect of circumcision is either neutral or positive.
Clearly, then, the law against FGC protects children from harm. But a law outlawing circumcision would not fulfill the same function: rather than protecting children from harm it would "protect" children from neutral or beneficial actions. That, of course, would be nonsensical.
But then, I guess I'm just an "anti-circ fanatic" like the CPA, RACP, and BMA.
It's unclear why you're naming these organisations, who haven't made the arguments you've made, and indeed who generally support parental choice, itself a rejection of the anti-circumcision position.
The ethical dilemma is the biggest reason I oppose circumcision. You can compare it to vaccinations which are also done without consent but vaccinations protect against diseases of which there is no other cure. If you do not circumise (and for the sake of argument we assume circ does prevent these diseases) there are other methods to protect yourself: breastfeeding and anti-biotics for UTI's ; and condoms and safe sex practices for STI's.
ReplyDeleteRegarding sensitivity - use common sense - of course exposing the glans will mean keratinization and therefore a covering of the nerves. Studies don't trump common sense and logical thinking as a basis for knowledge.
Also, it isn't just sensivity that is worsened, it is functionality in general. Masturbation is harder as there is no skin to move up and down. You could use an artificial lube, but why should you have to? Sex is supposed to be spontaeous and natural - not artificial. Mutual masturbation too - play with the foreskin will obviously be restricted.
I reckon a lot of those in favour of circing have some sexual/psychological reasons for their advocacy.
Really, these health arguments are moot when it comes to infant circ. If infant circ was banned and this was just about adult circ and who is better off - intact or circed guys - the circ debate would be a lot less impassioned. That tells you something - what people most object to is the infringmenet of bodily integrity. If you are asking why poeple care so much - that is the answer. If it were just adults making their own decisions based on the health evidence, most people wouldn't care at all - there would be no real "debate".
Foreskin feels REALLY good for both parties. You don't have to agree with that yourself but must acknowledge that lots of people feel that way.
ReplyDeleteOnly the owner of a body has the moral right offer consent for cosmetic amputations of body parts. The only ethical exception is an immediate threat to life and limb during which we must assume the patient - if he could express an opinion - would choose to remain healthy and alive.
I just have to comment on this:
ReplyDeleteRegarding sensitivity - use common sense - of course exposing the glans will mean keratinization and therefore a covering of the nerves. Studies don't trump common sense and logical thinking as a basis for knowledge.
There you have it, people. Evidence comes in at second place to theory: an inversion of the scientific approach, in which theories must always be tested against evidence. This attitude — which Richard describes so well — is why I find the circumcision debate so entertaining, and yet so infuriating at the same time.
Evidence comes in at second place to theory
ReplyDeleteShrug. Masters and Johnson didn't bother with evidence either when they said that circumcision doesn't reduce sexual pleasure. People who are bit insane on this subject, which not only includes "anti-circumcision crowd" but people like PD and you, Jake, have an axe to grind, and will grind it.
Like it or not, the general opinion of most Americans is that it's a "personal decision" and that one can come down on either side of this debate without being fundamentally evil/wrong. The extremists on both sides strike us as nuts.
FWIW, I am cut, and don't think of myself as mutilated, but when it came to my own sons, like Richard above, I decided that there were no sufficiently compelling reasons to do it, and that it was a decision that they could make for themselves. Honestly, I'd be surprised if they do opt for circumcision, but if they do, well, IMHO, it's their body their choice.
Actually Jake, Richard said that
ReplyDelete"The ethical dilemma is the biggest reason I oppose circumcision."
but you ignored this and cherry-picked his assertion about common-sense with your "There you have it, people."
You used the same approach with Hugh7 when you ignored his thesis, rambled on about some other topic, while claiming to address his post.
Your entertainment and infuriated feelings are really off-topic.
-John
Sigh.
ReplyDeleteJohn, do you seriously mean to suggest that I am only permitted to respond to the parts of people's posts that they characterise as the "biggest reason" for their opposition to circumcision? Or are you suggesting that I have an obligation to respond to each and every paragraph?
Neither of these would make much sense, would they? Just like you, I'm posting here because I choose to do so, and can respond to as much or as little as I want. There were a lot of falsehoods in Richard's post, but - as with several other posts in this thread - it also served to illustrate PD's main point. Since the focus of this thread is the behaviour and thinking of anti-circumcision activists, rather than circumcision itself, I felt it made sense to stick to the subject. And the obviously anti-scientific basis of Richard's thinking was exactly on topic.
I'm sorry to say, I think your post speaks volumes, too.
PD's main point is mandatory circumcision. The sub-topic here - fanaticism - could equally well be "Why are pro-circumcision people so fanatic?"
ReplyDeleteBut phrases like "there you have it, people" is a diversion from Richard's main point. It suggests you have found the kernel of truth that nixes everything else in his post.
Of course you don't have to respond to every part of people's posts, even though you often do in detail.
Yes, I think our posts both speak volumes. To reveal that you think the circumcision debate is entertaining is rather painful for me to consider when I look at the mess made of my penis.
-John
I would hardly call a blog that supports the universal circumcision of all males (possibly making it a required for entering school) a very "mainstream idea".
ReplyDeleteI think you are right in the sense that most people dont give circumcision much or any thought. They dont create blogs around the subject, railing on about saving boys from the threat of their "dirty", or "filthy" foreskins.
That would be just... weird...
I think most people in the US, and around the world dont give it any thought at all. After all its just another body part, who cares? It seems to only really be the pro-circers who have a creepy campaign to make every soon to be couple think about subject as something they even need to think about in the first place.
Most parents around the world, and increasingly more and more in the US think about circumcision once, only when they are asked. And their answer is simply, no.
This post is essentially the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem - argument against the person. "X is a bad (in this case, fanatical) person, therefore what X says is wrong." When you spell it out, the fallacy should be obvious. The short answer is "So what?" Neonatal circumcision is still a bad idea even if some kooky people oppose it.
ReplyDeleteBut when someone resorts to fallacious arguments, such as ad hominem, that often indicates that they have run out of good arguments.
The anti-circ movement has based their entire campaign on ad hominem arguments, vilifying and denouncing everyone who moderates or opposes their bizarre claims. How does the latter attack campaign by intactivists get a free pass, yet pointing out such histrionics is suddenly seen as ad hominem? Is pointing out that someone is engaging in an ad hominem type argument an ad hominem type argument? If so, then let me introduce you to the mirror.
DeleteThis post is essentially the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem - argument against the person. "X is a bad (in this case, fanatical) person, therefore what X says is wrong." When you spell it out, the fallacy should be obvious.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely. If, of course, that's what is intended. But PD might just be venting - it's a perfectly normal reaction when involved in a debate, especially with ... unusual people.
The short answer is "So what?" Neonatal circumcision is still a bad idea even if some kooky people oppose it.
Your reasoning being, presumably, "X is a bad (in this case, fanatical) person, therefore what X says is right." If I may borrow your words, when you spell it out, the fallacy should be obvious. In other words, whether neonatal circumcision is good or bad has nothing to do with the personalities of those who oppose or promote it.
But when someone resorts to fallacious arguments, such as ad hominem, that often indicates that they have run out of good arguments.
Oh, how true.
No, Jake may not presume that my reasoning is the reverse of what I wrote, put that in quotation marks and call it "borrowing my words".
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing...unusual about wanting to protect babies from unnecessary surgery and the permanent loss of functioning body parts.
There is everything...unusual about wanting to do that to every (male) baby.
And as for "There you have it, people," Richard left off one word that would have spelt out his meaning for those determine to miss it: "Bad studies don't trump common sense and experience as a basis for knowledge" (eg studies claiming to show that circumcision does not affect sexual functioning, that ignore the foreskin).
To reply to Hugh7:
ReplyDeleteNo, Jake may not presume that my reasoning is the reverse of what I wrote, put that in quotation marks and call it "borrowing my words".
Well, I did in fact use your words: "when you spell it out, the fallacy should be obvious". I'm sorry that upset you. Next time, I'll use quotation marks.
There is nothing...unusual about wanting to protect babies from unnecessary surgery and the permanent loss of functioning body parts.
There is everything...unusual about wanting to do that to every (male) baby.
As a person with strong views on the subject, it is not very surprising that you should want to characterise your own views as normal, and those with which you disagree as unusual. However, you indicated that you wanted to separate people from arguments; a laudable goal. In order to do so fairly, you have to take a step back and recognise that not everyone shares your own views. Put another way, "There's a difference of opinion over whether neonatal circumcision is a good or a bad idea, which is a separate issue from whether some kooky people oppose it."
And as for "There you have it, people," Richard left off one word that would have spelt out his meaning for those determine to miss it: "Bad studies don't trump common sense and experience as a basis for knowledge" (eg studies claiming to show that circumcision does not affect sexual functioning, that ignore the foreskin).
The onus remains on you and Richard to show that studies are bad: merely disliking the results does not count, I'm afraid.
Jake would love to bring the debate back to "to cut or not to cut" as though cutting an integral part off a newborn's genitals (but only if male) and leaving him alone were equal and opposite, and if you can't make up your mind, you might as well toss a coin.
ReplyDeleteBut in fact the default position is leaving babies alone, and it is the cutting - and only the cutting - that has to be justified, up to the hilt.
This is readily apparent if we consider cutting any other normal, healthy, non-renewing part off his body, and any part at all off hers, or circumcising an adult man. But there isn't a lot of point in considering those because - lacking pressing medical need - they would all be illegal.
PD writes:
ReplyDelete"But for the anti-circ fanatics, every day begins and ends with the foreskin. I don't know how they carry on a normal life being so obsessed with this useless piece of skin. But guess is that the whackiness of it all comes through to the vast majority of Americans -- which is why we so easily dismiss them when they march on the Capitol, demand "genital integrity," and deride our medical institutions when they seek to follow the medical evidence towards universal circumcision."
Actually, intactivists are promoting bodily integrity for children. It is hard for me to see anything wrong with that.
In reality, circumcision amputates and destroys part of the penis - the part with the greatest sensation - and this preys on the mind of the victims of circumcision. Denial of loss is the first stage of grief, so the victim of circumcision must deny his loss by such devices as minimizing the value of the foreskin and by claiming that he is more healthy because of his missing body part.
This is, of course, delusional but it serves to protect the feelings of the circumcised man. Some victims of circumcision have so much pent up emotion about their phallic deconstruction that they start websites such as this one. Some victims of circumcision are the true fanatics.
In reality, circumcision amputates and destroys part of the penis - the part with the greatest sensation - and this preys on the mind of the victims of circumcision. Denial of loss is the first stage of grief, so the victim of circumcision must deny his loss by such devices as minimizing the value of the foreskin and by claiming that he is more healthy because of his missing body part.
ReplyDeleteYou're making a lot of assumptions here, Anon. Let's analyse them one by one.
"circumcision amputates and destroys part of the penis - the part with the greatest sensation"
Although anti-circumcision lobbyists often make this claim, there's no evidence to suggest that it is true.
"and this preys on the mind of the victims of circumcision"
Really? Every "victim" (by which presumably you mean a person who has been circumcised) feels this way? This seems a rather absurd proposition. And if you don't mean every circumcised male, then you must instead mean some percentage of circumcised males, so you'd then face the question of whether your argument applied in a particular case.
"Denial of loss is the first stage of grief, so the victim of circumcision must deny his loss"
That is illogical. Unless we know that a particular person is grieving, we can't base any conclusions on that. But even if a person was grieving, we can't say that he "must" deny his loss - everybody's different, and although there are common patterns, people behave as individuals. So a more rational statement might be: if a person grieved for his lost foreskin, he might deny his loss.
"by such devices as minimizing the value of the foreskin and by claiming that he is more healthy because of his missing body part."
Here you seem to be making two assumptions: 1) that the true value of the foreskin is high (unproven), and 2) that a "claim" that a person is more healthy due to being circumcised is false (contradicting most available evidence showing that there are indeed medical benefits associated with circumcision).
This is, of course, delusional but it serves to protect the feelings of the circumcised man. Some victims of circumcision have so much pent up emotion about their phallic deconstruction that they start websites such as this one. Some victims of circumcision are the true fanatics.
Ah, so you want to dismiss everything PD says as a "delusion". Very nice. An elaborate form of argumentum ad hominem.
Here's what you need to do to give your case any credibility whatsoever. First, you need to show that PD is among the unknown percentage of circumcised males who grieve for their lost foreskins. Second, you need to show that PD deals with this grief by denying his loss. Third, you need to distinguish between rational argument and denial; that is, you need to show that PD's arguments can be explained only as a denial mechanism, and not as a rational analysis of the evidence. So you'd have to show, for example, that the value of the foreskin is high and that benefits of circumcision are nonexistent.
I had myself circumcised as an adult.
ReplyDeleteEngineering is my University training, and I consider myself to be a very rational and logical person.
I had constant problems with my foreskin since I was a child. Curious about circumcision as a cure for my problems, I started taping my foreskin back to see what it would feel like. I liked it to the point that I was grossed out by having my foreskin cover my head again.
At 22, I had myself circumcised under a local anesthetic. I watched it being done. It was the best decision of my life, and I'm angry I was deprived of the many benefits of circumcision since birth.
Guess what? Surprise, surprise! No more trips to the doctor with my foreskin swollen up like an old inner tube!
My viewpoint is that the foreskin became a liability after man invented clothing, and simply hasn't had the time to evolve away yet.
I have had sex both with and without a foreskin. I can assure the readers who were lucky enough to have been circumcised at birth that the "gliding mechanism" the foreskin provides really means you're just having intercourse with your own penile skin rather than your partner - masturbation was often better.
I never found my foreskin to be erogenous. It's just shaft skin which is too long. To me, the erogenous tissue on my penis, before or after circumcision, remains limited to the shaft *inside* the skin which is sensitive to pressure, and to the glans itself.
While my glans is now keratinized and my brain has learned to ignore the constant gentle rubbing inside my pants, my anecdotal observations corroborate many scientific studies which show no loss of sensitivity in the circumcised glans. I recognize this is counterintuitive, but nonetheless true. In fact, I believe the texture my glans gained in the days following the start of my pre-circumcision taping experiments has helped it - and my partner - experience more pleasurable friction on my head.
I love being circumcised, I wish I'd had it done at birth. Any male sons of mine will be circumcised. I'll insist on anesthetics (no question - anesthetic should be used for *all* circumcisions), I'll insist on a Gomco clamp for safety, good cosmetic results and fast healing, and I'll insist on being there to hold my son's hand during the procedure.
Here in Canada, no matter what the anti-circ propagandists say, most men are circumcised. When a friend finds out I was circumcised as an adult, I always tell him to thank his parents for having his circumcision when he was born.
Lawrence Wade
slant6mopar@yahoo.com
Re the petition to stop the anti-circumcision movement--Rachel #17 is so right---"The medical standard is a fully circumcised penis. A circumcised penis is the only one to have." A lady MD who frequently circumcises infant males and has done so for 14 years addressed our Sunday School class in a long 2 hour session as to the methods she uses to remove the foreskin, lack of need for anesthesia, preferred cosmetic result, uses of harvested male foreskins, and why male circumcision needs to be made mandatory by law. Her lecture was a big hit with everyone and left the women smiling at the men. When there is enthusiam regarding circumcision of the penis, it should always be in FAVOR of foreskin excision.
ReplyDeleteUmmm... Who's the fanatic here?
ReplyDeleteYou have made a block that praises mutilation...this is so sick!
I'm proud to state that in MY country infant circ IS ILLEGAL! Also any under 18yo circ without heavy medical reason is also ILLEGAL here!
I'm proud to have been circumcised. If you insist that my country must follow the pattern and mandates of your country, then the answer to your question, "Who's the fanatic here?" is simply thus: YOU are!
DeleteLike, woah. I thought NOT cutting off more or less vital parts of the body was a very rational way of thinking. Guess I was wrong.
ReplyDeleteIt's also pretty unbelieveable that people still people the foreskin serves no purpose. Hand lotion much?
You really think it should be law to cut off over half of every infant males perfectly normal, functional penis, leaving them mutilated, incomplete and deprived of a choice and freedom which was a birthright, a gift? You are starkraving mad. There is a hidden agenda behind circumcision and we are entitled to examine all theories, regardless how cynical they may be. Cynicism is also a gift and a freedom. This is not a debate blog, it is an argument blog. Leave those kids alone. Circumcision should only be performed on consenting adults, never on children or defenceless infants. We can still hear without our ears, but if we had our ears cut off without anaesthetic at birth as a rite of passage into this human world, we would be extremely fanatical about the issue, would we not? We're talking about our sexual organs here - the most sensitive and pleasurable parts of our body. Let it be as it has been created - STOP the cruelty and unnecessary cutting.
ReplyDeleteWhen you look at the very low rates of hiv infection among so many native ethnic populations of western Europe compared to that of U.S., it's clear that education and health care are far superior there. Why do we see ourselves as Sub-Saharan African? If a circumcised man in U.S. now believes, due to the inevitable wishful thinking of those who have frequent
ReplyDeletecasual sex,that he can have unprotected sex up to the point where he feels no more or less at risk than he did before, is he as safe as an informed uncircumcised man who does not have such an illusion, as the very safe Norwegian ethnics ( German,Dutch,British, Danish,etc.)?We would do well to even approach the low rates of those and other countries that do not remove a part of a boy's most private part with a rich endowment of species of sensory cells that exist only in the foreskin? Those who promote circumcision without asking themselves these questions are not even trying, and could be called "fanatic", since the burden of argument for denying the boy his choice is very heavy. We in our shallow self-image marketplace, have no wish to be reminded through the depth of feeling sparked by the denial of that choice that there are primal levels of the human psyche that few of us are forced to visit,while we all would do well to to ask ourselves whether those we are sure are deranged are not in touch, at least, with disrespected but powerful source of energy that people in some way or other must visit. So many considering themselves "sane" and unfanatic can still in the end (lead?) a life entirely on the safe side.
I agree entirely that alot of ani-circ people are fanatics, in fact the repetition is obnoxious. However, I do think that the argument is valid, and that circumcision may soon be a thing of the past, and seen as mutilation. I joined a "peaceful parenting" site on facebook, and the repetition that I see is like beating a dead horse, however, I agree with the basic principles. If the kid wants to circ when he's able to make a decision, so be it. I don't think parents should make that call when it's not medically recommended nationally or internationally.
ReplyDeleteI'm researching as I'm thinking about getting a circumcision, I prefer how it looks but am only worried about desensitization.
ReplyDeleteThe amount of anti-circumcision activists is scary... and they all come across as nut-cases... it's just a bit of skin at the end of the day. what makes them talk about it online, why don't they just get on with their lives? lol
This horrible mutilation named: circumcision, is criminal when it is made on a minor child. And all those that would say otherwise, are merely of abject loose!
ReplyDeleteCircumcision can be seen as a form of mutilation and a form of abuse when done to a child or baby against it's will and the systematic routine practise of this disgusts me. In hospitals all over America right now, babies are strapped into a plastic mould called a 'circumstraint' with two arm restraints and two leg restraints and a clamp fitted onto the end of each baby boy's penis which is fixed so tightly it crushes the tissue, damaging the penis, just so there is less blood when they make the incision and cut off the foreskin. It's a pretty horrific and barbaric practice.
ReplyDeleteIt is not a normal act to lob off a piece of skin and flesh from a baby. When you think about it, anyone caught doing this in any other circumstance would be inprisioned. Under the guise of religion and tradition however, it slips under the radar. What would happen if, let's take Scientologist's as an example (as they are considered a relatively new religion) announced to the world that all their babies were to have their ear lobes removed at birth as standard practise? There would be outrage from most if not all communities of the world. And why? - because it's a very weird, unnecessary thing to do and morally wrong to permanently change a baby physically, cause it pain and scar it, emotionally and physically. However, because people have been practising circumcision for many years, it's deemed as being perfectly ok to do - even though it's no different to removing an earlobe, nipple or eyelid. There is absolutely no good reason to cut off a boy's foreskin, unless in adult life it is causing complications and the reason is medical. Even circumcision for women is deemed 'wrong' by the western society, but for men it's supposed to be okay?
How does this affect you if you are religious? Well, it states nowhere in the Koran anything at all about circumcision. Nor do you have to be circumcised if you are a Jewish - it is simply a 'gesture' of dedication, but not necessary. The main culprit of circumcision is actually Americans.
The reason why American's first started the procedure in 1870's was because they thought it 'cured' 'diseases' such as 'masturbation' and 'madness'. It was done to children as soon as they were born as a sort of 'vaccination' against these 'diseases'. In the 1890's there was also an attempt to make it law for all "Negro boys to be circumcised so as to reduce their sex drive and protect white women from rape." Dr John Harvey Kellogg's, of Corn Flake fame, was a huge supporter of this, and actually wrote in a book in 1877 that he thought the procedure should be done to babies with no anaesthetic so that the baby would have an emotional pain memory to learn not to masturbate;
"The operation should be performed without administering an anaesthetic, 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."
(CONTINUED....)
"Nor do you have to be circumcised if you are a Jewish - it is simply a 'gesture' of dedication, but not necessary." -- That is not true. It is one of the 613 mitzvahs given in the Torah. Jake, I admire your courage and scholarly debate skills.
ReplyDeleteCircumcision is juste an horrible mutilation and excision too.
ReplyDeleteWhat could your poor child therefore make to deserve that? He is not a human being him? Doesn't he have right to have another opinion that your own opinion of churlish?
ReplyDeleteThe foreskin is a normal body part. It is really no different from the clitoral hood of a woman, or even the big toenail of a man. We do not make little kids have their big toenails cut off to prevent ingrown toenail, nor do we make little kids have their tonsils out to prevent tonsillitis.
ReplyDeleteThe parents have no right to amputate a normal, healthy body part. This is ultimately a civil rights issue, plain and simple. As men, we do not demand any special rights or privileges. We merely demand the SAME rights and privileges afforded to women.
The hygiene issue is no excuse. We teach our little girls how to clean their private parts. If a little girl can be trusted to clean her private parts, then I'm sure that a little boy can be trusted to clean his. As a male, I find it to be VERY insulting to my intelligence (and also very degrading) to think that I somehow can't be trusted to keep my private parts clean, even though a little girl can clean her private parts without any trouble.
Furthermore, the fact that women have a foreskin also goes to prove how inconsistent and hypocritical people really are with regard to this. So many of these people claim that a parent has every right to cut off a boy's foreskin. Yet I can guarantee that these are the same people who would scream bloody murder if a doctor were to do so much as make a pinprick in a little girl's foreskin.
That was a part of MY penis that they removed without MY consent (how would a woman feel if they cut off her clitoral hood)? I have to be reminded of this every time I go to the bathroom. If that alone is not a good enough reason to criminalize the practice then I do not know WHAT IS
And that your poor children could make therefore well to the world to live crippled of the sort put to part to be born at bastards of criminal parents?
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with circumcision but there are those that do strongly support it. While the harm and benefit appear to not significant, one thing is indisputable - it hurts!
ReplyDeleteUp until very recently circa were done without anaesthetic of any sort because of concerns about the effect of the anaesthetic on the child's breathing. A study done at the University of Alberta http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/lander/#a and published in the American medical journal was stopped on ethical grounds after those involved noticed a significant difference in the heart rates and cries of the four trial groups. One infant stopped breathing for almost a minute and then projectile vomited. The conclusion of the study was simple - it hurts, use anaesthetics, specifically a ring block.
So, regardless of if you are for or against circumcision I don't think there are many people who want to intentionally cause their son to suffer. Make sure the Dr uses a ring block for pain control.
It might also be a good idea to wait a bit so the child is a bit stronger before doing the procedure on him. There is no harm in waiting a week, a month or even a year.
The Foreskin which comprises up to 50% (sometimes more) of the mobile skin system of the penis. If unfolded and spread out flat the average adult foreskin would measure about 15 square inches( the size of a 3x5 inch index card).
ReplyDeleteSome of the penis length and circumference because its double-layered wrapping of loose and usually overhanging foreskin is now missing, making the circumcised penis truncated and thinner than it would have been if left intact.
An Australian survey in 1995 showed circumcised men to have erect penises an average of 8mm shorter than intact men.
Circumcision means less Penis
- Doesn't that matter?
Whose penis is it ? Whose body is it ? Whose rights ?
ReplyDeleteINTACT GENITALS are a BASIC human right for EVERYBODY : girls AND boys !!
INTACT GENITALS are a BASIC human right for EVERYBODY : girls AND boys !!
INTACT GENITALS are a BASIC human right for EVERYBODY : girls AND boys !!
INTACT GENITALS are a BASIC human right for EVERYBODY : girls AND boys !!
INTACT GENITALS are a BASIC human right for EVERYBODY : girls AND boys !!
INTACT GENITALS are a BASIC human right for EVERYBODY : girls AND boys !!
INTACT GENITALS are a BASIC human right for EVERYBODY : girls AND boys !!
INTACT GENITALS are a BASIC human right for EVERYBODY : girls AND boys !!
INTACT GENITALS are a BASIC human right for EVERYBODY : girls AND boys !!
You're basically making the author's point.
DeleteWow, people do get really worked up. Fanatacism pretty much sums it up. Soon they will be protesting "circumcision" clinics, waiving signs saying things like "Save the Foreskin" and shouting "Foreskin Killer!" It really is creepy.... Are they going to start throwing blood, fake foreskins, or worse? Does it sound like another "anti" movement to you?
ReplyDeleteCircumcision is rape
ReplyDeleteDrs who Circumcise are rapists,
PArents who Sign circumcision consent forms, are (In most cases unwitting) accomplices to rape.
if this seems fanatical to you, its solely because your culture has taught you not to cast things in these terms.
It's traumatic. Extreme trauma is triggered in people who feel completely helpless. I don't see it as rape as the poster above me mentioned; I see it as child abuse. But I will compare it to rape victims as they both feel completely helpless to defend or prevent against the situation. I'm sure you can understand how a rape victim would feel trauma. That trauma develops out of the sense of helplessness.
ReplyDeletePsychology can't offer much on foreskin trauma because there isn't that much research on it. We only just recently discovered infants feel pain and now take precautions to reduce some of that pain during the procedure so as not to inflict as much trauma. Something psychology can shed light on is child abuse--such as getting beaten-- can lead to personality disorders later in life.
To be circumcised, a child is strapped down to a table; his arms and legs are bound in a submissive position, and then has a body part amputated with minimal (or no) pain relief. Infants often pass out from the pain because their nervous system is so overwhelmed or they go into a complete state of shock which allows them to disassociate from the situation (think multi-personality disorder). Multi-personality disorder develops in response to abuse as a child. It's when a child becomes so disassociated, they switch back and forth between personalities and can't recall any event that happens between personalities. I don't think you can develop this kind of disorder from a single traumatic event, but to me it does sound like these infants being circumcised might be at risk for. What we can diagnose though is post traumatic disorder (PTSD) in infants who were recently circumcised. They are withdrawn, hyper-sensitive to similar stimulus, and experiencing this months after circumcision. The memory of this may not be stored cognitively, but I would argue some people are still experience PTSD symptoms even into adulthood. Some people cope with trauma better than others based on their personality type; this is clear even in infancy.
I've reviewed the evidence supporting circumcision to be beneficial and find all those studies to be complete bogus. Circumcision is difficult to study because there are so many different variables that need to be considered. I found many of their evidence lacking because they fail to address variables such as body condition immune system, and behavioral differences between cases. A lot of the studies use adult males who sought out circumcision for the benefits. Anyone seeking out circumcision for its benefits is less likely to engage in risky sexual behavior. The studies do report they are all sexually active, but that has nothing to do with how risky they are being. If you were to show me all the data they collected in their studies, I would conclude a difference in behavioral psychology, not a difference in physiology. To make that assumption is completely bogus.
So when you ask me about circumcision, I will tell you its a disturbing abusive ritual (I say ritual because its actually performed in many cases as a re-enactment experience). I don't care if its intended to be beneficial, the fact is it's deeply traumatizing. Many people grieve in adulthood over this, and rightfully so. Their "extremist view" is perhaps their attempt to regain some of that helplessness that was lost in infancy. But it is a disturbing act nonetheless. And just like I find animal cruelty disturbing and wish it to be banned, I will support any ban on the disturbing cruelty of circumcision.
it's not about foreskin. if someone had amputated my arm, without anesthesia, when i was 7 days old, for no good reason; i'd be bitching about that too. the rage comes into play when other people dismiss my pain, and continue to do this to other babies. we wouldn't be having this discussion if anyone had cared about my screams the first time.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who was circumcised without his informed consent at 14 and who experienced a foreskin/frenulum/ridged band, I can state with 100% certainty that it destroys sexual pleasure.
ReplyDeleteMale genital mutilation is worse than ll forms of FGM bar type 3. There isn't one medical reason to do it; it's not a medical procedure, but an anachronistic, unnecessary religious rite.
People who circumcise are rapists and mutilators, and people who support circumcision are rape and mutilation advocates.
It's amazing the mental gymnastics people culturally conditioned will go through in order to rationalise and obviously barbaric procedure.
!AnonymousAugust 6, 2012 at 9:32 PM
ReplyDeleteWow, people do get really worked up. Fanatacism pretty much sums it up. Soon they will be protesting "circumcision" clinics, waiving signs saying things like "Save the Foreskin" and shouting "Foreskin Killer!" It really is creepy.... Are they going to start throwing blood, fake foreskins, or worse? Does it sound like another "anti" movement to you?!
So you agree with rape then? So why is it illegal to rape a woman, but it's okay to rape and mutilate a baby boy?
I think the question should be "why are pro-circumsion people so fanatical?
ReplyDeleteforeskin is extremly sensitive much like a clitorius. before I had no opinion on circumsision, then I learned that some cultures cut off the clitorus on baby girls before they can understand. Since I am again female circumsion I see great hypocrosy in not being against male circumsion. after much thought and reasearch I've come down to the conclusion that circumsion was made to control people's sex lives and does very little if any to protect their health. in fact the build up of smegma is needed lubricant.
I just don't see why cutting off the foreskin is so important to the point were some people want it to be manditory.
Female "circumcision" and male circumcision are nothing alike for the simple reason that the female and male genitalia are nothing alike. A girl is more readily able to clean herself simply by separating the vulva (labia major), giving her ready access to the labia minor, vagina and clitoris. It is otherwise with the prepuce. In many cases, the prepuce in males is not even retractable until a certain age. Inevitably, urine left in the eurethra, shed skin and oils will collect and form bacterial smegma. Bizarrely, anti-circs know this and argue that the kid is not supposed to retract his foreskin, because the body just magically takes care of this. Imagine making the argument that one needn't have to clean his dermis! But this is precisely what the intactivists do argue! Female and male genitalia are treated differently for the precise reason that they are different. The only way they are the same is by way of homologue. For one to remove the labia minor would be analogous to removing the scrotum, which cover the testes, in the male. Only removing the clitoral hood would be comparable to male circumcision, since such a sheath is the homologue of the prepuce. But even that procedure is medically unnecessary and unsound. Female circumcision is actually a misnomer. Moreover, the claim that male circumcision reduces sexual sensation is illogical and unproven. Rubbing the glans does not produce pleasure, but irritation and the sensation of urination. A foreskin during masturbation would only exacerbate this. Much of the sexual sensation in the male stems from the penile shaft and testes.
DeleteWhat is really scary about the anti-circ movement is the lengths to which their adherents will go to malign male circumcision. They even defend female "circumcision" using the same arguments favoring male circumcision. Ostensibly, they only use such arguments as devil's advocates, to expose the supposed "fallacy" of such arguments. However, they would never think to reverse the order, and use pro-male-circ arguments to repudiate female "circumcision." They are careful not to say one word in favor of male circumcision, even rhetorically. So in an attempt to claim that denouncing female circumcision is a double standard, they are really embracing a double standard of their own. Thus, they're not really against circumcision as such, but only MALE circumcision.
ReplyDelete