I write in reply:
Headless, my father is a semi-practicing Jew. I was circumcised as a four day old infant because he felt it was his religious duty. As a grown man now, I am harmed and in utter disgust of his decision, and am entirely unhappy with my own penis. I would prefer to make my own decisions about my most sacred, and only sexual, body part. It was forced on me, without my consent.

This practice is FORCED upon the infant by his parents, without so much as a drop of compassion for giving the child his own chance to choose a religion and follow whichever and only whichever practices he decides to. I am not Jewish; I do not wish to bear the ugly, horrible, disfiguring, life-altering, life-demeaning mark of being one either.

In addition, its a horrific practice because it no longer makes the penis a man’s own. Instead, the scar and shape and function of the penis has been decided by the person who performed the despicable act. My penis isn’t my own–it’s been forcefully stolen and crafted by a thief, and is not my own. I see it every time I look at it–the massive scar and little tissue that is left is the solemn reminder.

What words of comfort do you have for me?

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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