One of the theories I have always held dear is the notion that there’s an industry dedicated to making money out of creating problems out of thin air and then offering solutions to them. For instance, in this country, the usual dark skin is suddenly a horrible, career-threatening problem. But rub in Fair and Lovely ointment, and you know what? Any job you want can be yours!
A mite less transparent is something I came across recently on the net, which informed me that, as a circumcised male, I was sexually crippled and was missing out on virtually all the delights coitus had to offer. Not too surprisingly, most of these sites also provided nice helpful links to nice helpful surgeons willing and ready to reconstruct my foreskin for me and return me to sexual non-dysfunctionality.
I kind of passed by with a mutter and a shake of the head until I came across this site here, and especially thispage from the site, which somehow or other tipped me over the edge from mere irritation to full-fledged anger with its blatant conflation of circumcision and female genital mutilation and its open and obvious bias. Since the latter page provided a link for people to tell the site’s owner how clever he is, I wrote the following true account from my youth and sent it to him.
I hope he suffers from a swollen glans.
********************************
Hugh:
I’ve been reading, with some interest, your web page, on reasons not to circumcise.
Let me tell you a little story.
I am an Indian. Among Indians, circumcision is (barring Muslims) exceedingly rare. As I’m not a Muslim, I wasn’t circumcised in childhood. Nor was I given any kind of instructions on genital health or hygiene.
Now, being a normal teenager, I began to have erotic dreams, and, of course, I’d have erections. One morning (I was 16 at the time) I woke to find that my foreskin had retracted behind my glans, the entire glans was swollen to twice its size, and if you haven’t experienced this, my friend, you don’t know what you’re talking about when you blab on about penile pain, may I assure you.
I was, naturally, mortified. I could not discuss this with my parents because they had never even spoken of sex to me, or of genital health, or anything. Besides, I was terrified of what had happened, and I was – being young and stupid – hoping it would go away by itself.
Well, it didn’t. I walked three kilometres to school and back, and spent the day in agony so excruciating every anti-circumcision writer should be forced to go through it for at least a year, if not eternity. On the second day I summoned up the nerve to tell my dad. He did nothing much except phone his brother, a doctor, who lived several hundred kilometres away. This brother prescribed some medicines and that’s all he did.
By the third day I was no longer capable of walking properly, and my dad finally took me to a doctor. This guy pulled the foreskin back without the benefit of anaesthetic (later I discovered anaesthetic is compulsory for this procedure). Can you imagine what I went through while he was pulling back the foreskin? No? Or would you rather not think about it?
I had phimosis – which nobody told me at the time. Nobody, including this doctor, thought fit to inform me that it was a medical condition.
The swelling, of course, went down swiftly once the pressure on the glans had been removed, but it left me with a phobia of it happening again. And of course it would happen, whenever I slept and had erotic dreams, which of course was something outside my control. On several occasions I woke in a panic, fumbling between my legs to pull back the foreskin before it got stuck behind the glans.
Over time, then, this thing led to the following problems:
1. I became phobic of falling asleep. I never slept well, and would start awake multiple times a night, afraid of what might be happening. This became a health problem. Ask anyone who’s suffered from chronic insomnia.
2. I became, literally, terrified of having an erection. Remember that I was at an age when the hormones have just begun surging, and you get the full picture. More than once I had to break off proceedings with girls at a crucial juncture because I could literally feel my foreskin shifting as I erected, and I had to rush off to the bathroom to try and pull it back – a procedure that was always extremely difficult and often painful. This, of course, did for my chances with the lady of the moment each time. Do you think this is funny? Can you imagine what it did to my sexual self-confidence to be functionally impotent in my late teens and early twenties?
Most doctors I consulted were indifferent, since according to them (just as according to you) it wasn’t a problem. I only wish they’d experience what I went through, and then I’d have wanted to hear what they said.
Finally, when I’d saved up money for the surgery, I got myself circumcised at the age of 29. I wonder if you know what it feels like to be circumcised at that age? I wonder if you can comprehend the agony of glans rubbing on clothing until the nerve endings grow accustomed to the sensation? How do you like the idea of walking around the house, doing chores, and looking back to see a line of drops of blood behind you on the floor, huh? How about the itching as the wound dried, itching more like a blazing fire while you were trying to work? I went through hell for a month, and purgatory for almost a year afterwards, my friend, before the last of the irritation went away.
It was worth it, though. My word, it was. I can sleep now, and have sex (it’s a different matter that I have no sex drive left, and that might be in part because of what I’d gone through during my formative years).
I don’t have any kids nor will I ever have any kids; but I’m a passionate advocate of early circumcision, and I believe that people like you who militate against it either don’t know what you’re talking about, or have an ulterior motive (those of you who advocate surgery to recreate the foreskin certainly do have an ulterior motive, one clear to understand).
All the best of luck in spreading your message. I shall do my utmost to spread the truth, instead.
In Germany, and I think allover Europe, we generally don't circumcise little boys. Just in case of phimosis and maybe other health problems. Free information about genitals, personal hygiene and sexuality helps a lot. No need to have scars instead of a foreskin for every man.
Not much written on the subject except in certain venues which are off limits for the healthy teen and young dude. So, I had never heard of such an experience and your description was well written and easily visualized. The fact that men in America do not talk about the condition of their "thing," keeps info away from sons who may or may not get a thorough bit of training in sex ed class. And the age old dilemma: Too much attention to the sex organs outside of marriage, a comitted relationship or for the need to procreate. Otherwise, the thing is just a third arm or leg and should be considered such. Sex is so horrendously overrated - starting in that stupid teen "locker room" in America that it can literally destroy the average life as the poor kid begins to learn that what his stupid "peers" tell him is all that is important in life. Until, of course, he graduates or leaves school and finds that that appendage is more trouble than it is worth. And, that his stupid teen peers never did know anything about anyting.
kittigory wrote on Mar 6, '10, edited on Mar 6, '10
Actually, in countires where circumcision is not the first thought, informed and sensible parents have been pulling the foreskin of their baby sons back from birth to clean the penis, and to make sure the foreskin moves regularly, such that by the time the little boys are old enough to wash themselves, they have a foreskin that has already been retracted over the glans, and moves easily, and they can clean themselves to avoid bacteria growing, which can cause them to stink, as well as to become ill. It's what we did with our two sons, who, unless they've had themselves circumcised since they moved out, still have their foreskins, and are apparently none the worse for wear either physically or sexually.
I'm not against circumcision. It just wasn't our practice. Everything hinges on common sense, doesn't it? Which, if it were really all that common, would make for a much better world all round!
Now why would you think they had ulterior motives, surely the profit motive is not a true motive? Is it? LOL Very good response. I always get ticked when anybody makes a statement that their way or conditiion is the only acceptable one.
Phimosis is relatively rare. I believe that pediatricians should always look for signs of it during examinations and recommend early circumcision when necessary.
When I was a child, circumcisions were performed pretty-much-universally on infants (at least the White ones [I've heard tell that persons of color often didn't receive adequate medical care]), and perfectly good tonsils and adenoids were also routinely removed (my pediatrician didn't believe in doing this, so I still have mine).
I do not have a political agenda regarding circumcision, but I DO believe that unnecessary surgeries should be avoided as a "general principle."
I've heard tell that persons of color often didn't receive adequate medical care
Actually, many persons of color had far better than average medical care, from doctors who understood that circumcision isn't usually necessary if one uses common sense and regular, normal hygiene. Lots of things are easily fixed without a doctor's intervention!
It should be easy enough to figure which traditions actually began as preventative measures in the age of little medical science, like circumcision and pork avoidance, and which did not, so that we don't throw the bath out with the babywater.
We know now that well-cooked pork probably won't kill you, and if we had a natural openness and education about our pleasure parts, perhaps the tip-snip would be superfluous too.
The uncircumcised are said to be more sensitive. But I wonder, if mutual pleasure is a goal, who needs that? Most guys, especially when young, have too much sensitivity already and need to learn to slow it down.
Regarding the statement that "sex is over-rated", I reply, "No, it isn't-- it's almost impossible to over-rate sex!" But we do need to eliminate the impediments to learning honestly and positively the healthy enjoyment of it.
informed and sensible parents have been pulling the foreskin of their baby sons back from birth to clean the penis
You're not supposed to pull back a baby boy's foreskin. Neither of us has ever done that with our (intact) seven-year-old, and he's just fine:
AAP - "Care of the Uncircumcised Penis" "foreskin retraction should never be forced. Until separation occurs, do not try to pull the foreskin back — especially an infant's. Forcing the foreskin to retract before it is ready may severely harm the penis and cause pain, bleeding and tears in the skin."
RACP policy statement on circumcision "The foreskin requires no special care during infancy. It should be left alone. Attempts to forcibly retract it are painful, often injure the foreskin, and can lead to scarring and phimosis."
Canadian Paediatric Society "Keep your baby’s penis clean by gently washing the area during his bath. Do not try to pull back the foreskin. Usually, it is not fully retractable until a boy is 3 to 5 years old, or even until after puberty. Never force it."
It sounds like you had a problem with your foreskin, and got what appears to be poor medical advice, but that doesn't make it ok to promote the same operation for small babies. I had to have my appendix out (and a relative died of appendicitis), but that doesn't mean that it should happen to newborns. I think you actually had paraphimosis btw. I'm sorry it caused you so many problems, and I'm glad you're happy to be circumcised, but I still don't think it comes close to justifying doing it to babies who don't have a problem.
Most of the world's men are intact, and they're just fine. Less than 1 in 100 UK males ever need to be circumcised for a medical reason and it's getting rarer. That means you'd need to circumcise 99 boys unnecessarily to prevent 1 circumcision later. Circumcision later actually hurts less though, since you can use general anesthetic, and the foreskin doesn't need to be separated from the glans (the most painful part). Most men circumcised as adults say it was no big deal, so I'm surprised there were so many problems in your case. Adult circumcision is also safer btw. There are rare cases of death and amputation for infant circumcision.
I don't see a fundamental difference between cutting parts off female genitals, and cutting parts off male genitals, and neither do the people that cut girls (talk to them). Some forms of female circumcision do less damage than the usual form of male circumcision. Sometimes there's just an incision with nothing actually removed. One form just removes the clitoral hood (the female foreskin), so it's the exact equivalent of cutting off a boy's foreskin. In some countries, female circumcision is performed by doctors in operating theatres with pain relief. Conversely, male circumcision is often performed as a tribal practice. When circumstances are similar, so are outcomes, and 79 boys died of circumcision in just one province of South Africa last year.
Is this what they mean by "having skin in the game"? Here are the US circum-stats http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/ It varies by region, and every time a medical authority gives a new opinion, it goes up or down (the numbers, I mean). I like the term "genital integrity". I know it's a medical term, but it sounds like a penis with ethics, which might be quite rare. I believe there is an enormous difference between male and female circumcision. The latter has the purpose of depriving women of sexual pleasure, which is a cruel and criminal act.
dockbillin wrote on Mar 7, '10, edited on Mar 7, '10
It sounds like you had a problem with your foreskin, and got what appears to be poor medical advice, but that doesn't make it ok to promote the same operation for small babies.
There is a difference doing it to neonates and doing it to kids at three to four years of age when they are better able to handle it. It’s better to do it to neonates than not to do it at all, in my opinion. I would certainly have been infinitely happier had it been done to me in my babyhood or childhood. A neonate may feel pain but its half-developed brain cannot relate to that pain in the same way as an adult, and it is well over the pain long before it can even crawl.
Most of the world's men are intact, and they're just fine.
By “most of the world’s men” aren’t you ignoring the fact that all Muslim and Jewish men and virtually all black Africans of whatever religion are circumcised, even apart from circumcised non-Jewish white males? If you remove the populous nations of India and China from the picture, where for historical reasons circumcision is rare, aren’t you coming across a somewhat different picture? And as for India, I know several non-Muslim men who have been circumcised for the identical reason as I have. I’m sure many, many more simply don’t admit to being circumcised because hereabouts circumcision is equated with Islam, and Muslims are often contemptuously referred to as “cut-pricks”.
Circumcision later actually hurts less though, since you can use general anesthetic (sic), and the foreskin doesn't need to be separated from the glans (the most painful part). Most men circumcised as adults say it was no big deal, so I'm surprised there were so many problems in your case. Adult circumcision is also safer btw. There are rare cases of death and amputation for infant circumcision.
First, my circumcision was done under local anaesthetic, which is much safer than general anaesthetic. But the operation isn’t the point; any surgery ought to be painless, and mine was. Your argument is a red herring because the problems begin after the surgery is over, during the recovery phase. Even the Bible recognised the fact; the Old Testament talks about how the inhabitants of some city or other were murdered by the Chosen People of YHWH while they lay sore after their mass adult circumcisions.
I assume you’ve never, personally, been circumcised, and certainly not as an adult. If you had, I can assure you that you wouldn’t believe any tough-guy act from people who have been through it.
I would suggest an experiment. Pull back your foreskin and rub your underwear over your glans. Get it? Now imagine that sensation over your entire glans, all the time for weeks on end...and extreme stinging and itching at the base of the glans, besides, as the wound dries.
Amputation of the glans can occur if the foreskin is stretched and cut blindly. It cannot happen if the foreskin is divided and stripped away in the proper manner, which procedure is generally condemned by the anti-circumcision lobby though it’s safer and surer.
Death cannot occur from circumcision. It can occur from anaesthetic complications and secondary infection.
I don't see a fundamental difference between cutting parts off female genitals, and cutting parts off male genitals, and neither do the people that cut girls (talk to them).
OK, now you’ve gone into seas of red herrings. Part of what’s wrong with your explanation has already been pointed put by Captain Rat (cosmicrat). Circumcision is different from female genital mutilation because the one and only purpose of the latter practice is to decrease or eliminate female sexual pleasure as an aid to keeping women “faithful” to their spouses. There is no, and has never been, any medical reason to mutilate female genitalia.
I see anti-circumcisers love to collate the two because the worldwide and perfectly correct revulsion towards the practice of female genital mutilation means that if one keeps trying to confuse it with male circumcision the two can be somehow associated in the average mind and hopefully an anti-circumcision opinion built up. It’s not a red herring, it’s a red whale.
In some countries, female circumcision is performed by doctors in operating theatres with pain relief. Conversely, male circumcision is often performed as a tribal practice. When circumstances are similar, so are outcomes, and 79 boys died of circumcision in just one province of South Africa last year.
First, female genital mutilation is, if I recall right, legal only in Egypt and Somalia, and in the latter nation it involves removal of virtually the entire vulva and – wherever in the world it is performed – is performed by family members in most cases. Also, if those boys had been compulsorily circumcised in hospitals (since they’d end up circumcised anyway) their chances of survival would have been much better.
All in all, I don’t find any part of your arguments convincing.
Postscript: Since I – obviously – lost my virginity only after I was circumcised, I can’t speak about pleasure in sex before and after circumcision. I can, however, compare masturbation. After circumcision there was a sharp drop in masturbatory pleasure and sensitivity. But as time went on the sensitivity and pleasure built up again and today I can’t find any difference between pleasure then and now; and we all know about the adaptability of the human body. So I think that the allegation that circumcision decreases sexual pleasure is yet another red herring.
The pain isn't really the issue, but I see no reason to suggest that post-operative pain should be less for infants than for adults. I'd expect it to be worse. Recent evidence suggests that neonates are more sensitive to pain than children or adults btw. They show more problems breastfeeding if they've been circumcised, and more response to vaccinations years later.
Death can and has occurred from circumcision. Even if the secondary cause is blood loss, heart failure, or post-operative infection, circumcision is still the primary cause.
The only people that reject any comparison at all between male and female circumcision are those that practise one, but not the other.
FGM/FC/FGC is legal in several countries. It was only made illegal in the USA in 1996.
Are you aware that the USA also used to practise female circumcision? Fortunately, it never caught on the same way as male circumcision, but there are middle-aged white US American women walking round today with no external clitoris because it was removed. Some of them don't even realise what has been done to them. There are frequent references to the practice in medical literature up until at least 1959. Most of them point out the similarity with male circumcision, and suggest that it should be performed for the same reasons. Blue Cross/Blue Shield had a code for clitoridectomy till 1977.
One victim wrote a book about it: Robinett, Patricia (2006). "The rape of innocence: One woman's story of female genital mutilation in the USA."
Nowadays, it's illegal even to make an incision on a girl's genitals though, even if no tissue is removed. I believe boys should get the same protection.
Male circumcision also became popular to decrease sexual pleasure. No-one except for Jewish people and Muslims would even be having this discussion if it weren't for the fact that 19th century doctors thought that : a) masturbation caused various physical and mental problems (including epilepsy, convulsions, paralysis, tuberculosis etc), and b) circumcision stopped masturbation.
Both of those sound ridiculous today I know, but how that's how they thought back then, and that's how non-religious circumcision got started. If you don't believe me, then google this "A Short History of Circumcision in North America In the Physicians' Own Words".
Heck, they even passed laws against "self-pollution" as it was called.
Boy, you didn't give me a lot of time to reply before you went public, did you? Here is my reply, which may not have reached you privately yet.
Dear Bill
Thank you for your story, which is very sad.
I'm sorry to tell you that you are the victim of ignorance at every step of the way, and that your problem could have been prevented or cured without circumcision.
This page is, of course, only part of a much larger website, other pages of which are of more relevance to you. In the first instance, http://www.circumstitions.com/phimosis.html
>... Nor was I given any kind of instructions on genital health or > hygiene.
And that is the first and most important issue.
> ...my foreskin had retracted behind my glans, the entire glans > was swollen to twice its size, and if you haven't experienced this, my > friend, you don't know what you're talking about when you blab on about > penile pain, may I assure you.
> I was, naturally, mortified. I could not discuss this with my parents > because they had never even spoken of sex to me, or of genital health, > or anything.
Exactly. This is the real problem.
> ...This brother prescribed some medicines and that's all he did.
Again, that was negligent on his part.
> ... This guy pulled the foreskin back without > the benefit of anaesthetic (later I discovered anaesthetic is compulsory > for this procedure).
No, actually it isn't, but he certainly should have used a lubricant, and more gentle pressure. There are other techniques on the page I mentioned.
> Can you imagine what I went through while he was pulling > back the foreskin? No? Or would you rather not think about it?
I can imagine what you went through.
> I had phimosis - which nobody told me at the time.
Actually, as you will see from my pages, you had paraphimosis, a different condition.
> Nobody, including this > doctor, thought fit to inform me that it was a medical condition.
This gets worse, but it is not the fault of the Intactivist movement. We are all in favour of free and frank discussion of these matters.
> ...And of course it would happen, whenever I slept and had erotic > dreams, which of course was something outside my control.
No, as you can see from the two pages i mentioned, if your case had been handled properly even then, that would not have happened.
> ... Do you think this is funny?
Absolutely not.
> Can > you imagine what it did to my sexual self-confidence to be functionally > impotent in my late teens and early twenties?
I certainly can.
> Most doctors I consulted were indifferent, since according to them (just > as according to you) it wasn't a problem.
I never have and never would say that. Please don't put words into my mouth.
> I only wish they'd experience what I went > through, and then I'd have wanted to hear what they said.
They ought to have given you better advice without you even beginning to have gone through that.
> Finally, when I'd saved up enough, I got myself circumcised at the age > of thirty. I wonder if you know what it feels like to be circumcised at > that age?
I don't, of course - thank providence.
> ...I went through hell for a month, and > purgatory for almost a year afterwards, my friend, before the last of > the irritation went away.
This certainly sounds as though your circumcision was poorly performed, and you were given inadequate after-care.
But contrary to your implication, I am not to blame for your problems. On the contrary, one of the purposes of my pages is to protect young men in your position from anything like that.
> ...I'm a > passionate advocate of early circumcision,
This is unfortunate. Your problem was very rare, and many early circumcisions would be wasted on boys and men who were never going to have it, while many would cause other problems of their own.
> and I believe that people like you who > militate against it either don't know what you're talking about, or have > an ulterior motive
We do know what we are talking about, and our only motive is to grant to all boys and the men they become the freedom to choose for themselves what part of their own genitals they want to keep.
> (those of you who advocate surgery to recreate the foreskin > certainly do have an ulterior motive, one clear to understand).
The only people who advocate surgical foreskin restoration are cosmetic surgeons, and even they are pretty half-hearted about it. The form of restoration we Intactivists advocate is non-surgical and cheap (some devices are home-made and virtually free).
> All the best of luck in spreading your message.
Thank you.
> I shall do my utmost to > spread the truth, instead.
The truth is that you are the victim of a long history of ignorance. In the first place, if your parents and doctors had been more willing to talk frankly about sexual issues, this could have been headed off early.
You probably would have learnt to masturbate before you had any erotic dreams.
This French doctor argues, based on 300 cases, that a major cause of phimosis in adolescents is if they do not retract their foreskins when masturbating. He prescribes the appropriate change in technique, which generally results in success within three weeks.
Beaugé M. The Causes of Adolescent Phimosis. British Journal of Sexual Medicine, September/October 1997
He offers some self-stretching exercises - which also give pleasure.
Beaugé M. Conservative Treatment of Primary Phimosis in Adolescents [Traitment Médical du Phimosis Congénital de L'Adolescent] Saint-Antoine University, Paris VI, 1990-1991
"We can be happy that manipulation of the tissues allows the avoidance of surgical intervention, and in other circumstances the limitation of the problems when surgery has unfortunately occurred."
I am sorry to hear how your experience, unfortunate as it was, has so hardened your mind against intactness, which was a necessary, but not sufficient cause of your problems, and is the normal state for men. Obviously any problem in any organ can be prevented by cutting it off, but that alone never justifies doing it.
While I agree that intelligent medical care and enlightened sexual attitudes are important for healthy and functional penises throughout the world, I cannot help but wonder at the vehemence of the anti-male-circumcision argument.
As the satisfied owner of a circumcised penis, I have found its usefulness unimpaired. Its wisdom in pointing my way into relationships has been, I suspect, neither greater nor less than it would have been with an unsnipped foreskin.
The "vehemence of the anti-circumcision argument" is proportionate to the ferocity of the determination to cut a healthy part off babies, the great majority of whom would never have any problems.
"I have found its usefulness unimpaired" - compared to what? I agree with cosmicrat about its wisdom, which is generally rated at zero in both cases.
Wellllll.... I dislike unneeded interventions, politically, medically, no matter. For women isn't much difference between circumcised or uncircumcised penises anyway. They are not half as important for us as they think they are.
Count me as one of the victims of male genital mutilation/mayhem(circumcision). Because of it I have a hypospadia and it takes twice as long and requires twice as much effort as most other men to reach orgasm, a problem that worsens with age. May the quack that butchered me rot in Hell.
An overview of medical benefits of circumcision is available here http://www.circs.org/library/wiswell/index.html and one of the things mentioned there as possibly happening to uncircumcised males - trapping their foreskins in their zippers - actually happened to me at age nine, with concomittant pain, swelling and incidentally the missing of a school outing.
I should point out that there is still no compelling evidence for or against the ability of circumcision to prevent HIV. http://www.circs.org/library/ofarrell/index.html But you can be sure circumcising won't increase the risk of HIV.
Well, personally, I am able to achieve better sleep, more sustained and less disturbed erections, and equivalent masturbation. Since I no longer possess a libido, and since I had no pre-circumcisional experience of intercourse, I can't go into the sexual aspects.
However, I can say this: that penile hygiene is infintely easier now than it used to be.
Video evidence in this case is no more than basic emotional manipulation; you're actually trying to raise a primitive reaction of revulsion in order to stop people thinking about what the long term effects may be.
dockbillin wrote on Mar 8, '10, edited on Mar 8, '10
About 70% of the world's men are intact.
Let's see. From West Africa to Indonesia, virtually every male is circumcised, except for the hugely populous bulk of India. And in India, as I said, the actual number of circumcisions is unknown and is liable to be far greater than publicly admitted.
I see no reason to suggest that post-operative pain should be less for infants than for adults. I'd expect it to be worse.
Neonatal pain isn't going to leave emotional scars later on in life. And this is much less than other pain inflicted on young children by their parents, including mental procedures like systematic religious brainwashing.
Even if the secondary cause is blood loss, heart failure, or post-operative infection, circumcision is still the primary cause.
Deaths - many deaths - have also occurred from penile cancer. Your point?
The only people that reject any comparison at all between male and female circumcision are those that practise one, but not the other.
That is precisely my point. Those who perform circumcision, and not female genital mutilation, will reject any deliberate concatenation of the two as an attempt to obfuscate the issue, and quite rightly, too.
FGM/FC/FGC is legal in several countries. It was only made illegal in the USA in 1996. Are you aware that the USA also used to practise female circumcision?
Here is a list of nations which have banned it: http://reproductiverights.org/en/document/female-genital-mutilation-fgm-legal-prohibitions-worldwide and you will notice that it is practised in secrecy in countries where it is illegal. If at all your comparison of the two has any relevance, it is that you prove that banning male circumcision will simply drive it underground and increase the very health risks you talk about.
No-one except for Jewish people and Muslims would even be having this discussion
OK, Circumcision began in West Africa some thousands of years ago, and was certainly practised by the ancient Egyptians (see midway down this page here for proof http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/timelines/topics/medicine.htm) The Jews probably got it from them - and certainly didn't find the procedure harmful, else they'd have abandoned it. The Prophet Muhammad allegedly was born without a foreskin (yes, this is possible, and can be read up on here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aposthia). This is one reason why the Muslims are circumcised. So there are plenty of reasons apart from "curing" masturbation why mass circumcision is beneficial or practised. See my reply below for links to medical journals.
It still has not reached me, and looks like it never shall.
Exactly. This is the real problem.
Almost no Indian parents ever speak of sex to their offspring, and it's almost unheard of for Asians of any description to discuss sex with their offspring - and from what I know the situation in Africa is similar. If you live in the real world, you have to deal with real conditions and not as they should be.
You probably would have learnt to masturbate before you had any erotic dreams.
See reply above. Masturbate??? The average Asian parent would have had a heart attack. Incidentally, not everyone can masturbate in the conventional manner. I cannot.
Frankly, your site has one positive aspect: it openly expresses its bias and therefore one can approach your ideas accordingly.
Your before and after experiences are obviously a special and rare case, and likewise since you were phimosed before, penile hygiene would have been unusually difficult.
I recommended viewing a video to someone who called it a "snip" to demonstrate that it is much more serious than that.
And at the age of a day or two, how and where was he supposed to shop around for a competent operator? Maybe there is some Platonic ideal circumcision (though I doubt it) but real babies in the real world get what they get, and it often isn't pretty.
Penile cancer is one of the rarest of cancers, rarer than breast cancer in men. So should we cut off baby boy's breasts? It would take hundreds or thousands of circumcisions to prevent a single case - if that.
Circumcised men can also get caught in zippers, and the glans is acutely sensitive to pain. If that were a serious concern, the solution would be Velcro™, not surgery.
Circs.org is just as biased as circumstitions.com - in the opposite direction - but it isn't so open about it.
A Ugandan study found 18% of the partners of circumcised HIV+ men contracted HIV while only 12% of the partners of the non-circumcised HIV+ control group - but the study was called off before it could reach statistical significance, so you can not be sure circumcision won't increase the risk of HIV.
You're not supposed to pull back a baby boy's foreskin.
I don't remember all the details, but I do remember that my pediatrician recommended that I frequently pull my son's foreskin back. I did this regularly until it went back more easily. I don't remember that it caused my boy severe grief, but it was hard for me to do, because I was afraid that it would.
pissycat wrote on Mar 8, '10, edited on Mar 8, '10
In response to Henry: To my knowledge, hypospadia is a birth defect, and it has nothing to do with circumcision. The frequency of this uncommon birth defect is theoretically increased by exposure to environmental xenoestrogens. I had one boyfriend whose urethra was on the underside of his glans, and this didn't seem to cause him any sort of sexual dysfunction.
Regarding pulling back the foreskin of a young boy: I suspect that many mothers were not given instructions regarding genital hygiene for their young sons during the period between the time (in the USA) when circumcision was near-universal and the time when rates dropped to under 50%. I have read complaints, in various forums, from young women about boys who evidently NEVER clean "under there," and I suspect that thpse boys' parents never gave them hygiene lessons, simply because the parents never gave it any thought.
I also remarked, in my prior post, about men of color evidently not being routinely circumcised back when White boys typically were, and I INFERRED that from a couple of things: 1-An offhand remark from a friend who was in the military about the tremendous frequency of IMPACTED SMEGMA (!) under the foreskins of Black soldiers, and 2-my having had a couple of East Asian BFs who'd been circumcised in mid-childhood, due to having had phimosis. I also knew an uncircumcised Latino fellow who said that he'd actually BLED when he lost his virginity, as his foreskin had torn at that point: I presume that he, too, had phimosis.
About 20 years ago, I was reading a Blue Cross-issued health manual, and there WERE instructions in it for parents regarding their sons' genital hygiene. The manual stated that the foreskin doesn't naturally retract until some time after age four, and that regularly cleaning-out underneath the foreskin should begin only after the organ retracts naturally.
But the whole point of this is that guys who are circumcised and don't get a smegma buildup, as well as grown women who have never had to be aware of the potential problem might not even know to be concerned about it with regard to their uncircumcised sons. It's up to pediatricians to keep parents educated on such things.
dockbillin wrote on Mar 8, '10, edited on Mar 9, '10
I know of at least two of my classmates from college who suffered frenulum tears and bled heavily during their first intercourse. I also, very recently, got a panicky phone call from a close friend whose friend had just had sex for the first time and suffered a retracted foreskin which wouldn't come back, causing exactly the problem I had.
I suspect that phimosis and paraphimosis are genetically quite common in Indians and that it's only the sheer number of males in this hyperpopulated nation which masks the phenomenon. Most people here do not take their children to paediatricians, even today, and only do so in case of illness.Routine genital hygiene is an unknown concept.
This is a false argument. We aren't talking of amputating the penis, only of removing the foreskin. If the breasts had a fold of skin on them the removal of which would greatly insure against breast cancer, we'd be justified in removing it.
Your Ugandan study didn't, I take it, check the incidence of contracting rather than passing on HIV? The rationale for circumcision where HIV is concerned is that the virus implants on the inside of the foreskin. Since the virus is passed on by semen, how does circumcision figure in that?
I see, by the way, that you haven't changed your page to correct the false information you have posted about German helmets. I sent you a mail about it. Maybe you did not get it.
To summarise that mail: the Kaiser's armies used the Pickelhaube from 1914-16; it wasn't a helmet, but a spike topped headgear made of hardened leather, felt, or even paper built around a metal frame. By 1916 the exigencies of trench warfare had led to its replacement by the Stalhelm - the steel helmet - which was of the identical pattern to be used later by the Reichswehr and then by the Nazis.
Circumcised men can also get caught in zippers, and the glans is acutely sensitive to pain.
Try as I might, I can't see that happening. Possibly the skin at the base of the penis can; or the roll of skin behind the corona. And the circumcised glans is highly desensitised except when engorged during arousal. take it from me.
It was a rhetorical question. Breast cancer is very rare in men, and you'd have to cut off many breasts in vain to prevent one case. Since penile cancer is even rarer, you'd have to cut off even more foreskins. And the case that circumcision prevents any penile cancers at all is shaky. Penile cancer is rarer in non-circumcising Denmark than the US. The claim was originally made without correcting for age, when circumcision was coming into fashion, so old men (who are the ones who mainly get penile cancer) happened not to be circumcised. In circumcised men, the cancer tends to be on the scar, suggesting their circumcision had something to do with it.
The Ugandan study was part of one of the three trials claiming to show circumcision protects men against HIV, but using only HIV+ men (half of whom were circumcised). If circumcised men are more likely to pass on HIV than be protected from it, circumcising to prevent HIV spread is counterproductive. HIV is passed on by blood. One possibility is that the hardened glans causes more micro-tears in the women's vaginas, but the researchers didn't consider that, and cut the study short.
An observer would want to know how these men became HIV+; was it by sex or needle use or some other way. Either way, as I said, the HIV evidence isn't conclusive and I'm not arguing HIV protection as a reason to circumcise. I am saying that social mores in the vast majority of the world's populace, the taboo against discussing any aspect whatsoever of sex (sex education is officially banned in this country, incidentally, since according to the government sex comes naturally and need not be taught) including genital hygiene, and the high level of actual problems in sexual activity, strongly argue for circumcision at early ages. I am not talking of the US or Europe but of the world's population as a whole, and the vast majority of the world's population does not reside in the US or Europe.
And you think it's better to cut part of a baby's genitals off than to talk to a boy or youth about sex? And you call that "dealing with real conditions"? Something is very wrong here.
Some circumcised men masturbate by rubbing against a towel or sheet. I don't think many intact men could do that. It would hurt too much. (It gives you some idea what circumcision takes away.)
I am not ashamed that I and The Intactivism Pages are biased in favour of leaving babies' genitals alone, so that they can grow up to enjoy all they were born with (or have some cut off if that's what they want - very few do). The same can not be said for a site such as circs.org, which claims to be balanced but only presents the anti-choice side.
"The uncircumcised are said to be more sensitive. But I wonder, if mutual pleasure is a goal, who needs that?" Put it the other way: circumcised are less sensitive. Who needs that? "Most guys, especially when young, have too much sensitivity already and need to learn to slow it down." Yes they do, but they usually succeed. It's not just "more" sensitive. The foreskin, with its ~20,000 specialised nerves is better sensitive, described as conferring "a symphony of sensation". Men circumcised in adulthood compare the difference to going colour-blind. Circumcised for some reason that didn't impact on their sensation, that is - Bill's experience is obviously not typical.
Yes, "torn banjostring" is not uncommon. It's not an indication for circumcision, though. It heals, problem solved. Even multiple occurrences are an indication for much more minor surgery.
I doubt very much that phimosis or paraphimosis are genetically common in Indians. (Someone said something similar about Koreans - but only South Koreans, it seems. Funny that.)
This study was about about how many women got HIV from HIV+ partners. How those men got infected is irrelevant.
The proposition that introducing mass reductive genital surgery on non-consenting people is an ethical, economic or effective alternative to a very simple instruction (that needn't even be called "sex education") is just not sustainable.
Most hypospadias is a birth defect, but it can also be caused by a too-vigorous removal of the frenulum (the male G-spot, if he doesn't have the rest of his foreskin. This is called iatrogenic [doctor-caused] hypospadias. You can see one here. (NSFW)
The Dear Leader's nation isn't that open about its medical statistics, I take it.
North Korea is a disgrace. As a card-carrying left winger, even I find it a disgrace. That said, it only followed enlightened self-interest in acquiring a nuclear deterrent.
Yeah. Sorry. I meant the partners, male or female. How do you pin down 1. if the partners were faithful? 2. if they got it from the infected men and not from other sources?
Those are excellent questions, which apply with equal force to all the widely-publicised studies claiming to show that circumcision protects against HIV.
Oh by the way, Hugh; I'd like to commend you for your persistence and also for your logical argument. Of course I don't agree with you at all but you at least speak from a logicval standpoint. Not like some of the respondents on an e-zine where an expanded version of this has been published, and many of whom don't even bother to read what I wrote before squealing with horror like...er...a circumcision victim.
Hello all from Canada. I am an uncut male, white, born 1974. My parents did not circumcise me because they simply thought it was NOT necessary. I don't recall being teased. I've never had any penile issues. All the women I've been with prefer my uncut status. I've belong to nudist groups and clubs all my life. I've seen many penises! From my experience, men who were born in the 50' or 1960 are about 70% circumcised. As people were born into the late 70's and into the 80's, it became less popular (more uncut penis). Today we have members who's children were born after 2005. I can tell you this... children up here in Canada are not being circumcised anymore. It is rare. We have circumcised Fathers with uncut sons. With the clubs I belong to, nude beaches and even nude yoga groups... I can tell you that the circumcision rates are dropping. People are simply not doing it anynore. My Filipino friend Vilma (Born in the Philippines, 1977) Did not circumcise her two boys. She thinks a circumcised penis looks unnatrual and mutilated. I should also say, where I live things are quite diverse. We are not all white people. Quite the mix of many cultures!!
I would also like too add that my Jewish friend Marc, did not circumcise his son. He belongs to a group called, "jews against circumcision". I'm assuming he is circumcised because he told me that, NOT... circumcising his son caused quite the family fight.
Oh yeah... April 2010, I went a nude Volleyball tournament. There were 3 guys there from India.... they were not circumcised. I've also seen lots of naked asians... they are never cut.
My Mother inlaw is a nurse.... she says Phimosis is an excuse for circumcision. Not enough is being put forward to stop the circumcision. Warm water baths and the right creme is the answer. For any age.
As far as I'm concerned. Circumcision should be left to the person... their choice. There are lots of angry circumcised men out there. I think I've talked enough. Good luck to all.
Otherwise, the thing is just a third arm or leg and should be considered such. 
