A couple from the US state of Georgia was recently arrested for tattooing six of their seven children with crosses. The mother bemusedly commented:
I’m their mother. Shouldn’t I be able to decide if they get one?
No, madam, you shouldn’t. Children are not possessions; parents do not own them. They are human beings with inalienable human rights. To permanently and unnecessarily scar a child without their express and informed consent (and when they are not old enough to comprehend the consequences) is a violation of those rights.
Another case, in 2008, involved devout Christian John Freshwater, a science teacher with creationist beliefs, who used an electrical device to brand crosses on some of his pupils – and he was was rightly sacked for this outrage
Tattooing (or branding) children, is, of course, a rare occurrence. Far more prevalent is a form of child mutilation that barely raises an eyebrow: circumcision.
Circumcision: a barbaric hangover from the Bronze Age
Anyone with a sensitive cell in his or her body instinctively abhors the idea of female genital mutilation, yet male circumcision is seen as perfectly acceptable.
It is not. Circumcision is unnecessary, irreversible, and intensely painful. Yet it is often justified on aesthetic or religious grounds – or it may simply be a fashion followed unquestioningly by parents, ignorant of the fact that the practice is not only unethical, but is tantamount to criminal assault if not carried out for genuine medical reasons.
It is simply an ancient and barbaric ritual with no place in any modern society.
Circumcision happens thus (the squeamish should skip this paragraph): First the infant’s arms and legs are strapped down to prevent movement. The child’s genitals are then dabbed with an anaesthetic and lubricating solution. A pair of what can only be described as scissors are then used to cut down the length of the foreskin. A metal hood is then firmly placed over the head of the penis, keeping the foreskin outside. A sharpened metal ring is then placed around the child’s penis, and the ring closes over the foreskin, trapping it between the blade of the ring and the protective metal hood. The pressure severs the foreskin completely, completing the circumcision.
And that’s when it is done properly, under modern hygienic conditions. Now ask yourselves how many millions more circumcisions are carried around the world in a grossly unhygienic manner?
Consider that circumcision has taken place for thousands of years, and we must acknowledge millions of infants circumcised throughout history, cut with knives, sharp stones, razor blades or other instruments – without pain relief.
Jewish law has a proviso that allows parents who have had three boys die from circumcision to leave the fourth unmutilated (what charity!)
More sinister still, Jewish circumcision has a more traditional form, during which the mohel will suck the blood from the cut penis with his mouth. This practice went relatively unpublicised until baby boys in New York City became infected with herpes thanks to a practitioner who had the condition.
If my description of the procedure alone is not enough to convince you of the barbarity of circumcision, I challenge you to watch an online video of any standard circumcision of a baby boy. It is harrowing. I am not ashamed to admit that, while watching one, I had to mute the sound: the infant’s screams of pain were too much for me to endure.
HOWEVER, if a consenting adult male wishes to have his foreskin removed (or any other part of his body mutilated), then so long as he does not endanger his own life, he is welcome to do so. It is consent that is paramount.
You may have heard that there are medical advantages for circumcision – and it is true that the American Academy of Pediatrics notes a 1 percent drop in urinary tract infections among circumcised boys. Women, however, are 30 times more likely to get UTIs than men, yet no-one in their right mind would suggest the cutting of the labia and clitoral hood in order to improve hygiene and reduce the risk of infection.
Shamefully, the World Health Organisation recommends circumcisions in areas badly affected by HIV, instead of recommending educating the public regarding the use of contraceptives. The idiocy is profound: mutilate a man’s penis instead of leaving it intact and educating him. Cut him instead of teaching him. I have no doubt that the widespread influence of the Catholic Church in AIDS-hit countries has affected the WHO’s decisions about the dodgy fixes they endorse regarding the HIV. We well know the Vatican teaches that condoms don’t prevent HIV (for the Holy See, AIDS might be bad, but condoms are worse.)
And Judaism certainly has a lot to answer for, too, having provided the blueprint for this revolting practice. Without genuinely believing that God wants infants to be mutilated, there would be no religious justification to continue doing it. Those who believe in a Divine Creator who wants children mutilated should accept that such a deity must be extraordinarily racist and cruel. He is a semite-supremacist, because he favours the tribe and descendents of Israel over all other humans. And he is exceptionally cruel because, though God supposedly knows all there is to know, he could think of no better way to make a covenant with humans than through ritual mutilation.
Furthermore, they must conclude that morality is defined by the wishes of God. That is, something is good because God says it is. And if that is the case, the act of murdering one’s parents and the act of stealing a pencil are wrong for the same reason. That this God-defined morality would justify circumcision just goes to show that the oft-quoted, “If God is dead, anything is permitted” is downright wrong: God need only command you to do something and it would be a moral action – be it killing your child as a sacrifice, murdering homosexuals or mutilating your children’s genitals.
One of the greatest Torah scholars of all time, Maimonides wrote:
The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision.
Telling indeed. It also seems that Maimonides was right when he said:
The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable.
The foreskin is the male version of the clitoral hood (during embryonic growth, the hood becomes the foreskin) and as such, is packed with pleasure-sensitive areas. According to a study of sexual pleasure in adult males, it was concluded that the most sensitive areas of the penis are on the foreskin (Sorrells et al). Severing it irreversibly limits sexual pleasure.
This is precisely what Maimonides had in mind, but whilst he viewed it as a justification of circumcision (sexual lust being an excessive indulgence and all), nowadays we may cast off such Bronze Age notions.
While 30 percent of all men are circumcised worldwide, only 0.8 percent of those are Jewish. The majority, 68.8 percent, are Muslim. Justifications for the practice are predominantly cultural and scriptural: the Prophet Mohammed was circumcised and he circumcised his children, too, and that is justification enough for Islam. Since the Prophet can do no wrong, anything he does is what God wants.
These religious notions of divine covenant and sexual “purity” were born in the fearful infancy of our species, and we should now free ourselves from such primitive nonsense.
Finally, be wary of any modern justification of circumcision. The American Academy of Pediatrics stated unequivocally in 2005 that:
There is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn.
It is therefore unconscionable to inflict genital cutting on children, male or female. That male circumcision does not provoke the same instinctive disgust as female genital cutting is a profound indicator of the power of tradition and convention.
The vile influence of religious dogma is like a magnet to the moral compass. The old adage holds true: Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for a good person to do a bad thing, that takes religion.
In this case good people are mutilating their children’s genitals, utterly unaware that, without religion, this barbaric and grotesque practice would never have existed at all.
Update:
My attention has just been drawn by Intact America to the fact that, in the wake of the three recent studies in southern Africa linking circumcision to reduced HIV infection rates, both the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) and the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) have reconvened their official task forces on circumcision and are beginning a new round of deliberations. These meetings, says IA’s Eion Cahill:
Could culminate in a unilateral endorsement of circumcision by the American medical machine.
Anyone wishing to push against the tide of unnecessary infant circumcisions can sign a petition on the Intact America site, which will be delivered to the CDC later this month. Please do.
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
January 21st, 2010 at 2:17 pm
I’ve seen a clip of male circumcision once and I can’t imagine anyone having this done to a child. You’re either sick in the head and/or religious if you’re capable of this.
January 21st, 2010 at 2:51 pm
There are non-religious reasons for having a circumcision. I had an uncle that was forced to have a circumcision in his late 30s due to a medical condition. Here is a list of reason for having a circumcision as stated by the Mayo Clinic
* Easier hygiene. Circumcision makes it easy to wash the penis — although it’s simple to clean an uncircumcised penis, too.
* Decreased risk of urinary tract infections. The risk of urinary tract infections in the first year is low, but these infections may be up to 10 times as common in uncircumcised baby boys. Severe infections early in life can lead to kidney problems later on.
* Prevention of penile problems. Occasionally, the foreskin on an uncircumcised penis may be difficult or impossible to retract (phimosis). This can also lead to inflammation of the head of the penis.
* Decreased risk of penile cancer. Although cancer of the penis is rare, it’s less common in circumcised men.
* Decreased risk of sexually transmitted diseases. Safe sexual practices remain essential, but circumcised men may have a slightly lower risk of certain sexually transmitted diseases — including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.
January 21st, 2010 at 3:07 pm
In the absence of a medical necessity, parents who permit their children to be circumcised should be charged with assault.
It’s sufficiently outrageous that children should be subjected to the mental sculpting of their parents religious prejudices without enhancing such brainwashing with physical butchery.
Informed consent is something children are incapable of.
January 21st, 2010 at 3:20 pm
While I agree that it’s a tradition handed down by a barbaric and outdated superstition, to claim that there are no significant health benefits associated with circumcision is to ignore recent studies on the subject. Science Based Medicine posted this just recently, which seems to indicate some very significant decreases in the risk of contracting an STD for circumcised males, as well as no reported difference in sexual pleasure in adults who were circumcised after becoming sexually active.
Again, I agree that it’s a traditionally barbaric procedure, and the lack of consent from the child makes it even more questionable…but it does appear that there are benefits to having it done. I wouldn’t write circumcision off as easily as this article does.
January 21st, 2010 at 3:26 pm
A good if very squirm-making post. I suspect you’ve set some kind of Freethinker record for number of readers’ legs crossed.
Circumcision is a good example of how you need religion to make otherwise good people do bad things – especially to kids. It’s also an example of how religious tradition has to be founded on irrational and sometimes harmful customs; if it was just commonsense ‘don’t throw your garbage down the well, you idiots’ advice, it couldn’t be a commandment from God, could it?
January 21st, 2010 at 4:21 pm
But surely, we are supposedly made in God’s image. I don’t recall hearing that we were made in God’s image apart from that extra bit – which must therefore be cut off so that we really do look like God.
January 21st, 2010 at 4:46 pm
A few or so yrs ago a mate o mine was living in a shared house. One night b4 we went out his somali house mate asked to borrow a porn video. Me mate said ok and the somali said “great ill just go get my hand lotion”. I asked him why he would need lotion to watch porn then the penny dropped. I asked if he was cut and he said yes. I replied ‘jesus! I would NEVER LET ANYONE CUT OFF MY FORESKIN!’. It cost me a broken nose 3 broken ribs and a sound kicking to learn that koranimals chop off 4skin!
January 21st, 2010 at 4:59 pm
Ha ha lotion! The American porn industry needs so much lotion! The foreskin is there for many simple and practical reasons –
During intercourse it retains lubricant.
As a protective extra layer of skin, it keeps the glans sensitive.
If you are nervous you can pinch it for reassurance.
And for amusement you can nip the end shut and make a wee balloon with it.
Have it removed and a whole world of opportunity is lost.
January 21st, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Oh I almost forget – you can guarantee anyone defending it – has had it done – and doesn’t know what they’re missing LOL!
Medical reasons are rare – religion/ ignorance / cultural are the main reasons by FAR!
January 21st, 2010 at 5:04 pm
THANK YOU.
I’m so sick and tired of people being opposed to any and all form of female circumcision, or what, female genital mutilation, but are sharping up the knives when there’s a foreskin nearby.
The problem with many of the studies that show how evil and disease laden a foreskin is, is that most of the studies focus on NON-INDUSTRALIZED COUNTRIES. I’d bet overall health was worse as well, but hey, let’s ignore that part of things.
And the whole ‘Well, it COULD cause a problem’ argument is bullshit. So could every other body part, but I don’t see anyone advocating lopping off anything else.
The easier to clean argument is bull as well, because if we just gave all babies a port so they could poop in a bag, that would be cleaner as well.
Sure, let’s just remove all tonsils from babies, because they COULD be a problem. Let’s remove all spleens, appendixes, earlobes, etc, because there COULD be a problem with them, and really, if you never had one, you wouldn’t know the difference.
(BTW.. I’m uncut, and my wife wouldn’t have it any other way, nor would I)
January 21st, 2010 at 5:37 pm
@Randy
There are numerous references online regarding the myths that surround male circumcision. Here’s an example: The “foreskin causes cancer” myth with copious cross references. There’s more here. The myths are not as bad as “menstruation is caused by the curse of Eve”, but close.
If this post has “set some kind of Freethinker record for number of readers’ legs crossed (@valdemar)”, imagine the reaction to the horrors of female genital mutilation!
January 21st, 2010 at 5:39 pm
circumsition is a disgusting and immoral thing to do (unless it’s for medical reasons, and even then it’s regrettable). i’m so glad my parents had good sense in that department. i suspect randy may be circumsised (no offence meant).
January 21st, 2010 at 5:44 pm
What is this fascination people have to circumcise boys? I don’t understand why people want to remove a part of the male sex organ from babies. Anyone who really examines the studies will realize that any benefit to circumcision is either very small and insignificant or non-existent.
I really wish my parents had not decided to have a part of my sex organ removed. I would have preferred to keep all my bits. After all, I am the one who has to live with it and use it.
I was circumcised at birth and have since restored my foreskin. So, I know what it is like to be both cut and have a foreskin. Having a foreskin, even a restored one, is much better.
January 21st, 2010 at 5:52 pm
At discussion forums I frequent circumcision discussions trigger more bile than almost anything else, apart from abortion and gun control. There are lots of Americans on those boards.
It is remarkable how those who have been circumcised – even the most secular, and generally reasonable people – seem to take the idea that it has damaged their capacity for sexual pleasure as a personal insult.
But it MUST be bad for sexual pleasure – all those nerve endings either gone or keratinised.
I think it an abomination.
January 21st, 2010 at 6:00 pm
In the United States, male circumcision is far more common than in Europe, where, among the non-Jewish / Muslim / lunatic community, it is never performed except in cases like phimosis.
Now, hospitals in the U.S. charge $300 a snip to the families or to the medical insurance companies. Nice little earner. No wonder they are so keen on promoting its ‘benefits’.
And as shargraves said, the ones defending it are nearly always the ones with their very own ‘yid lid’.
January 21st, 2010 at 6:06 pm
It’s to show the kid who is boss, from the get go…
January 21st, 2010 at 6:32 pm
Circumcision is merely a sick, repulsive, insane, indefensible perversion. Clitoridectomy, in contrast, differs from other rapes only in the sense that most rapes do not destroy the victim’s ability to enjoy a normal life FOREVER.
January 21st, 2010 at 8:06 pm
I’m cringing even more as I had to have the chop at the age of 41 a few months ago.
I miss my foreskin…and I agree doing it to a child without it’s consent for any other reason that medical necessity is abhorrent and child abuse.
January 21st, 2010 at 9:13 pm
While I agree the practice of male circumcision for no medical reason should definitely be considered child abuse, and my husband and I have no plans to do it to any sons we might have, I have to object to the comparisons to female circumcision. They are in no way equivalent, since circumcised men can still get pleasure from sex and achieve orgasm. Female circumcision not only make orgasm almost impossible, it makes sex painful every single time. There are very good reasons why people react differently to the two procedures. The motivations behind them are also totally different. Many parents circumcise their sons with no intention of doing harm or prevent sexual pleasure. NOONE circumcises a female child with any intention other than preserving her “purity” by making sex a totally horrible experience for the rest of her life.
Just to clarify, this is not a defense of male circumcision, I just don’t think the two cases (male and female) are comparable point for point.
January 21st, 2010 at 9:28 pm
Circumcision is really barbaric.
Parents should watch a video of infant circumcision before putting their children under the knife.
January 21st, 2010 at 9:58 pm
Every one of the advantages that Randy lists would also be true if a child’s (or a man’s) penis was cut off.
January 21st, 2010 at 10:35 pm
For a cut by cut account of the horror of female genital mutilation, read Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Infidel. I have quoted an extract in my post here.
January 21st, 2010 at 11:21 pm
Chem…
Depends on what we’re talking about. Not all types of FGM, which is used interchangeably with Female Circumcision involves the removal of the clitoris, or the actual mutilation of the genitals. I don’t think anyone would equate the damage done to a clitoral removal to the removal of the foreskin. But the amount of consent(none), the root reasons(cultural or religious), and intent (deaden sexual feelings) are the same.
January 22nd, 2010 at 12:02 am
I have worked in Urology now for 2 years. I often see older men with foreskin problems that circumcised patients don’t have — paraphimosis, phimosis (with urinary retention) and infections. As I get older I am glad I was circumcised.
I also circumcised my son and he has no memory and is glad I did it. I also cut his umbilical cord. More painful memories for my son are when I sewed his scalp closed and dug painful splinters out of his foot.
I thinking opting to do circumcision when older is good, but it takes more out of your life to do it then.
I know this comment will be unpopular on this site, but freethinkers should also be comfortable free speaking.
Those who describe how terribly painful circumcision is on a new born probably have not real medical experience. IMHO
January 22nd, 2010 at 1:56 am
Sabio,
No,No,No
You took a decision on behalf of another. A minor.
Not someone indoctrinated into a vein of poison.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
January 22nd, 2010 at 9:36 am
Re Sabio Lantz’s post above, I can tell him that as an older man I sometimes have arthritic problems in my left foot that people who have had the left foot amputated would not have.
However, I remain glad that my foot was not amputated as a child – even if had been done before I was of an age to remember it.
Lopping off functional parts of a body remains a very bad idea.
January 22nd, 2010 at 12:14 pm
It is a form of mutilation. Many people seem to choose mutilation these days so why not allow boys or men to decide themselves if they want their bits hacked at…It’s irrelevant nowdays
January 22nd, 2010 at 12:36 pm
I work as an NICU RN, the current philosphy is not to circumsise, unless requested and many Drs do not do it. It is seen as cosmetic and not medically necessary, and almost all insurances won’t pay for it, that being said, many mother’s still ask for it. It’s not generally done in Europe and many other nations, but here in America it is still a common practice. A throw back to the Puritans, where touching onself is considered dirty.
January 22nd, 2010 at 7:50 pm
While I do agree to a certain extent that it is cruel to do it to an infant. I have seen both my father and a friend have to be cut when they were 50 to 60. Watching the pain that they went through before and after made the decision easy for me. They both told me that they wish they had been cut when they were babies. I had my son cut when he was born better now than having to go through all that pain at a later date. Of course the decision was made from what I have seen in my life.
January 23rd, 2010 at 6:05 am
From the original post:
Thank you for that, Peter. I had to make that point on a similar thread on another blog a while ago, and I said something like this:
***
Tony E to Sabio:
Only partly wrong, I think, at least in the general sense of making a decision on behalf of another.
Part of a parent’s responsibility is to do just that for their children, to navigate the dilemma that there are times when one must make a decision for one’s child that is both (a) the right thing to do and (b) an undeniable infringement of their inalienable rights. For their future health we have them vaccinated, without their consent. For their safety we limit their freedoms, often against their very vocal dissent. In those cases we’re riding roughshod over their sovereignty, but we do it because it’s part of our duty.
As parents we (one hopes) do these things for good, sound reasons, but we should never forget that we are, in fact, choosing the lesser of two evils. Yes, it’s for the child’s own good, but yes, it’s also infringing on their rights. The flip side to that is that a parent should never infringe on a child’s rights except where there is a compelling reason to do so, and circumcision does not appear to qualify as “compelling” in any way.
January 23rd, 2010 at 9:43 am
UN HIV Circumcision Study: A Fraud? – The Atheist Experience #603
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AfPajxmfbE
Don’t listen to these pro-male circumcision “studies”: they are complete and utter bullsh!t. Every 20 years or so they come out with a new set of studies; these are debunked and then a new set of studies is rolled out to replace the old studies and the cycle is repeated.
If there really was a compelling medical case for circumcision, one study would be enough. The constant recycling of these studies over the past century, is indicative of a false motive and a need to propagandize the public for an unnecessary medical procedure.
These studies always make the fallacious “correlation equals causation” argument, and usually cooks the books, to boot, by carefully pre-selecting their case studies. If there was a real medical case to be made, these dishonest methods would not be necessary.
Then also we see the usual “anecdotal arguments” upthread, the “oh, I knew someone who had to have it cut off as an adult, blah blah blah”. Great, one person in a thousand or in a hundred thousand, or one in a million – what about all of the billions of men who weren’t circumcised and who never had any medical problems with their foreskin as an adult?
You think they all should have been cut, as children, without their consent, JUST IN CASE they might have ended up as the 0.01% or 0.00001% of adult males who had a problem with their foreskin as an adult? Are you people insane?
January 23rd, 2010 at 7:23 pm
CIrcumcision of non-consenting, normal, healthy people is not “tantamount to criminal assault”. It IS criminal assault. It is the same crime against humanity that the court at Nuremberg sent properly licensed German physicians to jail shortly after World War II for committing during the war against Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and others. Jail the mutilators. All of them. If they can’t stop themselves from cutting up other people’s sex organs, put them in the same cells with Nazi doctors and let them cut EACH OTHER up.
First Love
You must have been insane,
you bloody madman,
to steal my brand-new body
from my clueless mother’s bed,
and lay me on your cold, hard table,
whole.
You must have been insane
to rope my baby body down
and rip my virgin foreskin off,
to rape my battered, butchered glans,
me screaming bloody murder
at your sickness-driven hands.
You must have been insane
to rub my little penis with your bloody Betadine,
then come at my erection
with your knife,
to try and make me sick as you
for life!
You must have been insane
to cut my body’s best,
to chop my ridged band sex nerves off
and throw them in the trash
and leave me here to die but part a man:
To kill my body’s deepest love, was that your diabolic plan?
Rape?! RAPE??!!! RAPE?!! It’s not just rape!!
I’d far prefer rape! It’s torture! Mayhem! MUTILATION!
There IS no word for what you did to me!
Inflict on me the ancient curse of Muslim and of Jew?
And what, pray Hell, think you I’d do
to you?
God damn your putrid madness, you dead man!
God send down my mad vomit straight to Hell!
May devil Satan make a feast upon it,
and sicken from our bloody, rotten gore,
and die in holy Hell
forevermore!
Some lovers, we, you mad M.D.,
bound for all eternity!
You bloody butcher madman! Penis parasite!
Still lost upon your lonely way?
Pathogenic whore! Some trick!
Still cutting boy fillet?
Atavistic cannibal eats dick!
Still sucking child parfait?
Psychopathic fraud! Still sick?
You’re still insane
today?
January 23rd, 2010 at 9:48 pm
The name of this crime against humanity (and nature) is human vivisection.
April 12th, 2010 at 7:02 pm
Circumcision is a barbaric tradition with deep roots in religious dogmas, like infant babtism. How can an infant know which god to believe, or not to believe in? They dont even know when to shit themselfes or not. These cult addicts think they are doing their gods will when they inflict that pain upon infants. Another proof that religion is poison to the human mind. We dont need that crap anymore, we never needed it in the first place anyway. Thanks to religion, our scientific progress was halted in the dark ages, when these idiots went around burning witches and heretics. Only thing stopping the religious sheeps from killing us all(we will all burn in hell anyway so whats the rush?) is that society wont allow them to, but go to any primitive village or whatnot and see what the old farts running the place do to the people, all in the name of religion. Bah…
April 12th, 2010 at 11:22 pm
I’m pretty glad I was circumcised when I was little. I like how my penis looks and seriously doubt that girls would want to perform oral sex on me or find my penis attractive had it been uncircumcised. Call me a fundy bastard, but 3 seconds of immense pain when I was a baby that I can’t even remember vs. not ever getting oral sex… ever… I think I’d prefer the scissors and i’m glad I and my son are circumcised.
April 13th, 2010 at 1:42 am
Anyone that, for any reason, defends this barbaric practice is just as criminal as those doing it.
BTW Jon, you idiot, I was not circumcised an I have had oral sex performed upon my many times by every woman with whom I have been intimate. But then, I was taught hygiene as a child; too bad you were not and instead were taught sick, deviant beliefs.
April 24th, 2010 at 6:04 am
its sad. obviously its not necessary to snip the bit. we are born perfect, we are born pure. the faiths which practice circumcision are satanic. satan has you when you agree to mutilate your child and satan enjoys making creation ugly. i will fight to prevent the cutting of any child brought into this world because of me.
a warrior does not take orders
a warrior is not a marine
a warrior diffuses war brought to them
a warrior protects life
April 26th, 2010 at 3:46 am
I was circumcised as a baby and I pretty sure I got over it shortly after the procedure and never think about it unless the subject comes up. My mom wasn’t even religious. She just did it for aesthetic purposes. Many women have told be they prefer a circumcised penis but I’m sure there are women that prefer uncircumcised as well. I think I briefly watched a snippet of Sex and the City or one of those girly shows where all of those girls preferred circumcised men as well. So I really don’t have any complaints. I will never know the pleasure of having the foreskin, but as the old saying goes, “Ignorance is bliss”.
May 13th, 2010 at 12:57 am
As I may not be an expert in the penis, i do have a circumcised penis and I can not say that i am in any way scared or ashamed of this. Unlike getting branded with a cross, circumcision has many social and health benefits. Just as many as getting preventative vaccinations as a child (which also causes pain and discomfort). I believe whoever takes this as a case of assault is an individual who is just looking for a fight and has been called anteater his whole life. If we went around saying all the painful things we did to children was assault, we would never have any medical practices with children. Just hope they make it to the age of 18 so they can consent to everything they want. I don’t consent to spiritual mutilation of a child, but in some cultures, that is accepted, depending on the beliefs.
In summary, this is another fight that won’t be won because you can never deny an individual of their traditions just because you do not agree.
May 13th, 2010 at 11:11 pm
I’ve been with guys who have been circumcised and uncircumcised…there are differences between the two…although mostly negligible if you consider it.
1. I’ve never noticed any diminished capacity for pleasure from circumcised men. Of course these men were circumcised from birth…so I guess the old adage that you can’t miss what you never had applies there.
2. I find circumcised to be more aesthetically pleasing. I don’t know why…I just do, as do many women. Of course, that doesn’t apply to everyone, however; I’d be willing to say that the majority of women do. I can say that I was never repelled by any of my uncircumcised partners, in fact; hand jobs were much easier on them.
3. If I had one real complaint against uncircumcised men it would be condoms and how damn long it takes to put one on. Trying to keep the foreskin up while rolling the condom down…sigh…it’s a two way battle practically. With circumcised men it’s easy to put a condom on. With my uncircumcised partners I had to wait…usually about 10 minutes for them to put on a condom. So, I guess my advice would be for uncircumcised men to practice (a lot) with putting them on.
If I ever have a son I don’t plan on circumcising him. It’s his penis, I say that he gets to decide what to do with it.
May 14th, 2010 at 3:48 pm
I personally feel circumcision is necessary. It has been scientifically proven that it can prevent a lot of infection around those areas. Mother’s womb is place for growth which is unmonitored. And there are some ablations that need to be done like, embryonic cord.
In this case, we do it because we can perceive it as necessary. Excess skin on the penal area is equally necessary, but people tend to ignore it.
But from a health perspective this is mandatory. People act only under duress, hence a federal ordinance here is welcomed.
May 21st, 2010 at 6:51 pm
I have to ask a question here, do pro-choice folks think that circumcision is wrong? If so, do you think it’s contradicting to think that it’s okay to make the choice if your child lives but not your choice on what to do with his genitalia?
May 22nd, 2010 at 8:37 am
So I just read the article and all the comments and I’ve gotta say I didn’t know any of this, and it’s nice to have my eyes opened. I am no expert on penises, being a female, nor am I the go-to gal for religion, being an atheist, but I always just assumed it was for health reasons that parents did this. Actually, I’m sure that that is the reason most do it. So all the animosity here, while I understand that it is quite obviously a personal issue with men, I think shouldn’t be placed squarely on the parents. We need some sort of widespread education about this, because parents really think they need to have it done for the sake of their son’s health. After reading this, and the links some people provided in their comments, I can definitely say that if I do ever have a son I won’t be getting him circumcised. But there are a couple of things I wanted to comment on-
“It is remarkable how those who have been circumcised – even the most secular, and generally reasonable people – seem to take the idea that it has damaged their capacity for sexual pleasure as a personal insult.”
How would that NOT upset a circumcised man, to hear that he can’t enjoy the same pleasure that an uncircumcised man could? That’s like telling a person with no legs how great it is to walk, and how much they’re missing. It’s not like they chose to have it done to them, and having it thrown in their face that they can’t have the same sexual enjoyment that they should have naturally WOULD feel like an insult, I’d think. At the very least it must be painful to hear.
“Rape?! RAPE??!!! RAPE?!! It’s not just rape!!
I’d far prefer rape! It’s torture! Mayhem! MUTILATION!”
Okay so this might just be some silly poetry but this is HIGHLY insulting. Comparing a medical procedure that parents have done on their children for [terribly misguided] health reasons is not the same as raping someone. I have met many men who were circumcised. I have met many women who were raped. But I’ve never met a man who was afraid to be touched by people, to go outside by himself, to be alone with strange people- in fear that they would circumcise him. I’ve never, EVER met a man who had nightmares about his circumcision, or who could burst into tears at the thought of his circumcision. I’ve never met a man who refused to have any sort of sexual contact because he was afraid that anyone he was with…would circumcise him.
Rape is entirely different. I agree circumcision is an idiotic and terrible thing to do to a child. But there is no conceivable way that you can act like those two things are one in the same. They are not. If you believe so, you have clearly. Never been raped.
“If so, do you think it’s contradicting to think that it’s okay to make the choice if your child lives but not your choice on what to do with his genitalia?”
No. Beliefs about abortion have nothing to do with anything once the child is born.
May 23rd, 2010 at 2:00 pm
I’m not really on either side of this, but I do have a question. I’ve heard that uncircumcised guys have a lot of trouble with keeping it, erm, clean, and I was just wondering if there was any truth to that? Is it harder to clean?
May 31st, 2010 at 8:28 pm
Tess – No.
Anonymiss – Pleased to hear it. A good comment, too.
June 1st, 2010 at 5:47 am
Anonymiss, He doesn’t compare rape to genital mutilation to minimize rape. He does it to show how they are both unforgivable acts of destruction and hate.
Genital Mutilation on your own child is more subconscious hate. If the father pushes it because he himself was mutilated he wishes to deny his child the possibility of realizing that the foreskin is amazing.
The mother who wishes to mutilate her child for aesthetic purposes is to impose her disgusting sadistic sexual preference on her own child is clearly some sort of freak with no conscience whatsoever.
Rape is psychologically destructive. Genital Mutilation is Physically destructive. A personal opinion that rape is worse than genital mutilation isn’t really disprovable. Niether is vice versa.
I know a man who was mutilated as an infant and raped as a child, He says he despises the doctor who mutilated him more than the person who raped him because at least with rape he doesn’t have a constant physical reminder of what has happened to him.
The fact that people have to compare Genital Mutilation to rape to try and get people to understand how terrible it is should be shameful to us. And yet we still don’t get it. (At least us Americans don’t)
July 20th, 2010 at 11:22 am
it is a gross violation of the child’s free will.
by committing the act, the perpetrator and those that condone it are also committing blasphemy (by their own standards) as they are defacing/vandalising god’s creation.
…but then, i dont have to explain what hypocrites they are on here do i?
it is motivated by only negative emotions: fear, control, sadism etc
August 29th, 2010 at 3:48 pm
This story of the children and the tattoos shows us that there are limitations to parental prerogative, whatever those intentions were, be them religious or social. But let’s get away from that for a bit.
It always amazes me how people who supposedly circumcise out of faith have to dole out all the supposed “medical benefits” of circumcision, when, benefit or detriment, circumcision is this non-negotiable “covenant.”
Is religion simply not enough anymore?
I think herein lies the reason to why there are so many “studies” surrounding male infant circumcision; “potential medical/health benefits” are the difference between medical surgery and genital mutilation.
You’ll notice that while there is a long litany of “studies” that circumcision “might/may/could/perhaps” “reduce the risk” for this or that disease, there’s not an overwhelming amount of “research” surrounding female circumcision. There aren’t very many “potential benefits” to female circumcision, bet then again, no one seems too eager to “study” and “investigate” it.
Is there a reason for all these “studies?”
You bet there is;
Without all that scientific “research” for “benefits,” male circumcision stands as naked as female circumcision, and people who wish to preserve circumcision are simply not going to let that happen.
Look who’s behind all this “research” and you’ll start seeing the same usual suspects, some of who come from countries where circumcision is, or was prevalent. Some men happen to be Jewish, and apparently this isn’t a conflict of interest (Fink, Halperin, Schoen etc.).
If circumcision is such an important aspect of your religion/tradition, what does any of it have to do with health and medicine?
Would that science showed that circumcision is medically worthless, if not detrimental to a child, would it somehow really, honestly cause you to abandon circumcision?
Something at the back of my mind screams “no!!!”.
So then, it’s really surprising, amazing, mind-boggling to hear people who do things out of “faith” try to justify their actions with the polar opposite of it which is scientific research.
By definition, faith is belief in that which cannot be scientifically explained. If it needs to be proven to a doubting Thomas, that’s not faith, it’s doubt.
To those of you who call on “medical” or “health” benefits to justify your actions against your children, would you be supportive of research that seeks to find an alternative to circumcision?
Usually, research tries to find alternatives to surgery. Don’t doctors usually try to find a solution to cancer before it means a mastectomy? A prostatectomy? Don’t they run tests first to make sure that surgery is absolutely inevitable?
Researchers usually say “we have found the cause of x, and we’ve devised this pill, treatement etc., and now you don’t have to get this operation! Isn’t this great news?”
If a doctor told you this, would you be jumping for joy saying “yes! my son won’t have to be circumcised!”? Or would you take your child to a doctor that will circumcise your child for you and tell you the soothing words of all the “medical benefits” circumcision might have to justify what you want to do to your son? Pay attention to your answer. This will define whether you really are concerned for your child’s well-being, or merely your own.
It is peculiar that instead of searching for an alternative to surgery, “researchers” are busy trying to legitimize it, if not necessitate it.
Imagine, if you will, “studies” that try to find “medical benefits” to blood letting. Trephination. Breast ironing. Neck stretching. Female circumcision. Would you not think that those studies are completely turned on their heads?
You’ll notice that there is no “female circumcision” task force. No “taskforce on trephination.” No “taskforce on neck stretching” at the AAP. That’s because the absence of virtue in mulling these things would be immediately obvious.
The time has come for us to call out circumcision for the quackery that it is; doctors and “researchers” need to be looking for ways to displace circumcision, not ways to see it continue. “Studies” that seek to necessitate surgery in the healthy defy all logic and reason.
Let Jews argue amongst themselves regarding bris; a doctor’s duty is to medicine, not to blood rituals. They need to be searching for ways to prevent needless surgery in children, not necessitate it. Charging to perform medically unnecessary procedures is medical fraud. In helpless, non-consenting infants, it is, irrefuteably, child rape.
August 29th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
If a man had sex with a girl in a coma, and she woke up and she couldn’t remember, is it still rape?
Likewise, when you take someone and forcefully circumcise him, does age matter? When you take a child and mutilate his organs, does it really make it better that the child can’t remember it, as opposed to taking a full grown man and forcefully tying him down to have his foreskin cut off?
Really?
Some people claim that circumcising a woman is so much “worse” than male circumcision, because it is done in the bush, with dirty utensils, by untrained amateurs, with no pain killers, at an age when she remembers.
Would that circumcision was performed in newborn baby girls, with sterile utensils in the most pristine conditions, by a trained doctor, with pain killers, would that make female circumcision “better?”
Why does this only work for male circumcision?
Regarding cleanliness, Tess, people claim that the circumcised penis is “cleaner.” But cleaning an anatomically correct penis is really not that much harder to clean than an anatomically correct vulva. In fact, a woman may have a harder time than an intact man to clean her organs, as smegma accumulates in more copious amounts in a woman.
The answer is clear; soap and water.
Usually, hygiene commands that when something gets dirty, we clean it, not cut it off.
We have the means to keep a penis clean without having to cut a part of it off. Why pray, are doctors obsessed with mutilation?
August 30th, 2010 at 7:48 am
Randy (above) tries to “reason” with (us) why parents should redesign the healthy, functional male anatomy:
Randy: Easier hygiene. Circumcision makes it easy to wash the penis — although it’s simple to clean an uncircumcised penis, too.
>>>The vagina is also a haven for bacteria and other build-up. Why is a bar of soap sufficient for girls but not boys? Oh, you say boys aren’t as bright? I see….
Randy: Decreased risk of urinary tract infections. The risk of urinary tract infections in the first year is low, but these infections may be up to 10 times as common in uncircumcised baby boys. Severe infections early in life can lead to kidney problems later on.
>>>girls suffer from UTI’s a hell of a lot more than boys. By 5 years old, about 8% of girls and about 1-2% of boys have had at least one. We do we give girls antibiotics instead of cutting off part of their genitals? Oh, you say that’s too drastic to do to a girl?
Randy: Prevention of penile problems. Occasionally, the foreskin on an uncircumcised penis may be difficult or impossible to retract (phimosis). This can also lead to inflammation of the head of the penis.
>>>Let’s talk vaginal problems for a moment. FREQUENTLY, women get yeast infections. Talk about inflammation! According to your reasoning that is a good reason to cut off parts of someone else’s genitals. Oh, you say that’s too drastic to do to a girl? Phimosis is a scam. It is a medical condition that is easily rectifiable with minor medical intervention. Oh, you say that minor medical intervention (meds) for a yeast infection is one thing, but minor medial intervention (meds) for “phimosis” is something different altogether??? What?
Randy: Decreased risk of penile cancer. Although cancer of the penis is rare, it’s less common in circumcised men.
>>>More women will die from breast cancer than any other type of cancer out there.
Does that mean that we should all start nipping the breast buds on baby girls in order to prevent future disease? Oh, you say, certainly not?! I think scare mongering is more common in circumcised men than intact men.
Randy: Decreased risk of sexually transmitted diseases. Safe sexual practices remain essential, but circumcised men may have a slightly lower risk of certain sexually transmitted diseases — including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.
>>>The USA has the highest rate of HIV in the developed world. For decades we have been circumcising children. How do you explain why our rates are still so high?
You also preach that penile reduction reduces STD’s and HIV, as if it were scripture. It’s not. It’s more scare mongering & that topic is also hotly debated in medical circles.
August 30th, 2010 at 7:51 am
Randy (above) tries to “reason” with (us) why parents should redesign the healthy, functional male anatomy:
Randy: Easier hygiene. Circumcision makes it easy to wash the penis — although it’s simple to clean an uncircumcised penis, too.
>>>The vagina is also a haven for bacteria and other build-up. Why is a bar of soap sufficient for girls but not boys? Oh, you say boys aren’t as bright? I see….
Randy: Decreased risk of urinary tract infections. The risk of urinary tract infections in the first year is low, but these infections may be up to 10 times as common in uncircumcised baby boys. Severe infections early in life can lead to kidney problems later on.
>>>girls suffer from UTI’s a hell of a lot more than boys. By 5 years old, about 8% of girls and about 1-2% of boys have had at least one. Why do we give girls antibiotics instead of cutting off part of their genitals? Oh, you say that’s too drastic to do to a girl?
Randy: Prevention of penile problems. Occasionally, the foreskin on an uncircumcised penis may be difficult or impossible to retract (phimosis). This can also lead to inflammation of the head of the penis.
>>>Let’s talk vaginal problems for a moment. FREQUENTLY, women get yeast infections. Talk about inflammation! According to your reasoning that is a good reason to cut off parts of someone else’s genitals. Oh, you say that’s too drastic to do to a girl? Phimosis is a scam. It is a medical condition that is easily rectifiable with minor medical intervention. Oh, you say that minor medical intervention (meds) for a yeast infection is one thing, but minor medial intervention (meds) for “phimosis” is something different altogether??? What?
Randy: Decreased risk of penile cancer. Although cancer of the penis is rare, it’s less common in circumcised men.
>>>More women will die from breast cancer than any other type of cancer out there.
Does that mean that we should all start nipping the breast buds on baby girls in order to prevent future disease? Oh, you say, certainly not?! I think scare mongering is more common in circumcised men than intact men.
Randy: Decreased risk of sexually transmitted diseases. Safe sexual practices remain essential, but circumcised men may have a slightly lower risk of certain sexually transmitted diseases — including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.
>>>The USA has the highest rate of HIV in the developed world. For decades we have been circumcising children. How do you explain why our rates are still so high?
You also preach that penile reduction reduces STD’s and HIV, as if it were scripture. It’s not. It’s more scare mongering & that topic is also hotly debated in medical circles.
August 30th, 2010 at 11:22 am
Fantastic article.
Very glad this is getting more coverage and heartened by how many people agree, and extremely grateful to those giving their own stories, especially regarding adult necessary operations and how missed the bodypart is; therefore why ever do it to a child! Exactly.
The amount of circumfetishists (yes they exist) that go on about how all the adults that get ‘cut’ absolutely love it… it’s depressing. They neglect to speak to these people more than a year after it’s been done or if they do they just ignore that part.
The only problem I have is the point about it being done ‘properly’ – there is no proper way to do something like this. You mean if it’s done in a hygienic setting with customised tools. =/= ‘proper’.
I’ve written some stuff on the subject at http://noodlemaz.wordpress.com/tag/MGM