You are here: Home » News & Current Events, Real Life, Real Talk » Should Your Son Be Circumcised? (Parental Right or Abuse)

Should Your Son Be Circumcised? (Parental Right or Abuse)

Posted by NWSO • August 30, 2010 • Printer-friendly

I came across an interesting article the other day that said, “more and more American parents are choosing not to circumcise their sons.” Truthfully, I never gave much thought to whether I’d snip my son’s foreskin or not. Right or wrong, it’s kind of just something you’re expected to do—or so I thought.

According to The New Times there’s been a steep decline in the practice among American parents in recent years.

“Word has gotten out that it’s not necessary,” said Georganne Chapin, executive director of Intact America, a nonprofit organization based in Tarrytown, NY. “It’s harmful and it’s painful.”

I’m all for keeping sharp objects away from the family jewels, but I, like many others, was raised with the belief that getting circumcised is more “hygienic.” I’m snipped at the tip and have no idea what a penis looks like in its “natural” state, but from what I know about foreskin it requires more “maintenance” in terms of general cleaning and condom use. But, like I said, I only have hands-on experience with my own sheared tool and have no idea what a guy with all his original parts intact is working with—let alone looks like.

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) has yet to conduct their own research on the current rates of circumcisions, but they have been following the number of complications post-procedure. In fact, circumcision slip-ups (ouch!) may play a role in the decision by some parents to opt out of the procedure. Continued criticism of female circumcisions may also play a part.

Ms. Chapin later asked: “How can you think it’s okay to cut little boys, when you are horrified by the idea of cutting little girls?”

No matter which way you slice it (bad pun), everyone will look at this issue differently. Some studies have shown that circumcisions reduces a man’s risk of contracting HIV from a positive woman, but those same studies show no drastic change in the risk for men who engage in homosexual acts or women.

Some will point to the above as a reason to continue circumcising little boys, while others will argue that those reports are false and circumcision is basically a culturally-accepted unnecessary surgery (or mutilation depending on how you look at it) that a lot of us don’t ever question. But when you really think about it; if all men are born with foreskin; who’s to say that this natural appendage should be cut off? There must be a reason for it, right?

Have you ever thought about not circumcising your child? Why or why not? Is it just something you thought you had to do? Do you think circumcising is an outdated practice? Is it fair to compare female circumcision to male circumcision or are they two completely different practices in your eyes? Ladies, have you ever been with a man that was uncircumcised? Was there a difference sexually? What about orally? Or, are you completely turned off by the idea of a man that’s not circumcised? After reading this has your opinion on circumcisions changed?

Speak your piece…

BONUS: NWSO PRESS
Last Friday I had the pleasure of being a guest on The Kenny Burns Show on The Bee Hive FM. I called in to discuss my post a few weeks back on Why Being a Good Catch Isn’t Always Enough (Do You Have Red Flags?). You can watch/listen below, I come on at around the 47 minute mark.

Tagged as: Circumcise, doctor, female circumcision, surgery, unircumcise

da ThRONe

As a circumcised male I really dont know how you could get by with extra skin down there. Most people I know is circumcised(or atleast I think they are). If I have a son he will be circumcised. I'm sure I will do some research when/if the time comes ,but being snipped has served me well. So I see no reason not to do the same to any of my future sons.
just sayin

all i can say is that my ex was - to the best of my recollection - the first uncircumcised gentleman of my experience. now he was also a rather well-hung man, so i am sure that helped, but i would have to say that all that extra material moving around and added sensation was a bonus to me, regardless. my understanding is also that due to less constant friction on the sensitive skin, it makes that same area way more sensitive when it is exposed and touched. keep that sword in its sheath most of the time, then it is sharp when it comes out! on top of that, the "sheath" makes for better slide and action if you want to start playing around unexpectedly without any (natural or manmade) lube. all that being said, i think sometimes added extremities of sensitivities may not ALWAYS be a bonus. I think i'd be needing a larger survey size to say if the pros (and cons) applied globally. But beyond the extra attention to post-coital (and general) hygiene (which most ladies have faced as fact for all their lives, no matter) I don't see why anyone would need to mess with what nature provided. Who knows? Perhaps more foreskin would mean more satisfied women out there, and more satisfied women in the world could be a seriously good thing for the world.
http://thecandyshoppe.wordpress.com Ronnie6676

When I found out I was going to have a son, I began to read up on all things boy. I am anal and a perpetual nerd. So of course the topic of circumcision came up and I decided that before I could make a decision I needed to study up on the pros/cons of having the procedure performed or not performed on my baby.

In the end I decided to go with the procedure after learning about the anesthesia involved as well as the possible side effects. For me I felt it was the best decision.

However I believe like many other things that this is an individual issue that each parent must make for themselves and their child. I really am quite tired of everyone trying to put blanket rules out for what's "best" for kids. How do you know what's best for my kid when you've never met him??

As always, just my opinion.
http://www.RestoringForeskin.org Restoring Tally

I was circumcised at birth and I do not like it. I dislike it so much that I am restoring my foreskin. I am amazed at how much better sex is with a foreskin, even a restored one. My wife really likes my new foreskin, too. As I restore, I realize even more that my parents robbed me of something by letting me be circumcised.

It is my sex organ, not my parents. I am the one who uses my penis, not my parents. My parents had no right to let them cut off part of my sex organ shortly after I was born.
My body, my choice.
sunshyne84

I'll let his daddy decide, but it doesn't really matter. Its more visually appealing circumcised, but maybe that's because its the norm and we have accustomed ourselves to believing that's the way it should look.
Sarah

The penis looks alot better with a foreskin. The person who has the penis should decide what he wants to do with his body. My son is not circumcised and has never had any problems. My experience is that it is way harder to clean a female body than a foreskin. Learn the real facts about the foreskin and you will never to chose that for your child and if you are a circumcised male you will learn what you have been missing.
http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/ David

Not your body part, not your decision. Simple principle that applies to every other elective surgery ever devised. Simple decision is to let the boy have his equipment to cut off or keep as is when he's old enough to make other decisions having to do with sex. There is no excuse to make exceptions when it comes to child abuse just because "it’s kind of just something you’re expected to do."
Rastaman

I hope I am alive when breast implants become a cultural tradition. After all for many women it makes their clothes fit better. The only difference between it and another elective cosmetic procedure circumcision is the that the patients actually consent.

Does it make a difference to most of us that prior to World War 11, the majority of American males were uncircumcised, one estimate of infant circumcision rates in the United States holds that 32% of newborn American boys were being circumcised in 1933; the prevalence of circumcision among US-born males was 91% for males born in the 1970s and 84% for those born in the 1980s. A 1987 study found that the most prominent reasons US parents choose circumcision were "concerns about the attitudes of peers and their sons' self concept in the future," rather than medical concerns.

Only about a third of the world male population is circumcised and almost 70 percent of them are Muslim.

So, I am putting away that cash right now for my future daughter to get that breast implant because I definitely don't want her to develop any self esteem issues because of being different from her peers. After all being a possible member of that "itty bitty titty" committee could really damage her socially.
WrldChngngMama

I, too, thought that circumcision was just what was done, but when I became pregnant, I started researching. The idea that a functioning body part that all men are born with SHOULD be removed is completely absurd. We used to think that the tonsils served no purpose (it's part of the immune system) and the same with the appendix (it is a storehouse for good bacteria). Can we live without those things? Yes, but they are part of our bodies for a very specific reason that no other organ can serve - same with the foreskin. I would never think to remove my daughter's breast buds because they MIGHT get infected or she MIGHT get cancer one day - that would be insane!

My son is intact. I'm glad that, as a Christian, I realized that the Bible does NOT in fact endorse circumcision as so many of my brothers and sisters believe, but that in several areas of the New Testament we are told that cirucumcision is NOT necessary. I'm freed from any faith based obligation, there is no medical reason to do it, and there is every moral and ethical reason NOT to do it.

No medical organization in the world recommends routine circumcision - so why does it persist? Cultural norms, and that's a terrible reason to do anything.
paulette_bajan_gal

Just a note on the tonsils...mine were detrimental to my health.Had to have them removed.Made me very sick as a child.They became so swollen I had a hard time swallowing.Nothing worked to stop them from ballooning every time I became sick.I'm sure they served their purpose but mine was defective somehow.

But yeah...the foreskin on the penis really doesn't hurt anybody.I know very few men that are not circumcised.I would assume it's easier to get it done as a newborn since they aren't able to touch it.Can't imagine getting it done for a grown man...ouch.
Kathleen Platt

To hold someone down and cut their genitals is abuse, and a human rights violation. My son is intact, its his penis. He has a right to enjoy it as nature intended. People who allow their child to be circumcised are not considering the functions and purpose of the foreskin, or their childs right to bodily integrity.
Integrity

Circumcisers are child rapists, most just don't realize it. My mother's OB/GYN inflicted circumcision on me, and I'm beyond PISSED about it. How does anyone except ME have the right to cut off important parts of MY penis? If you get the urge to cut up your baby, cut yourself instead.
Shannon

Well, I never wanted my son to be circumcised but my husband overrode my preferences and had it done anyway. I was so furious with him and we argued about it so much. We nearly broke up over that fight. I had no choice but to accept it and I know if I ever have another son I will not have him circumcised. There is no medical benefit to it and sex is far more pleasurable for uncircumcised men than their circumcised counterparts and I know this because of the studies conducted as well as from both circumcised and uncircumcised men. People don't realize that several thousand nerve endings are being removed during the procedure and that takes away from pleasure.

Not to mention the medical mistakes that arise from this. There was a case I studied back in school about these twins and they were circumcised, but one was damaged beyond repair and so his parents decided to raise him as a girl and named him Brenda. He took hormones and when he was older, learned the truth and went back to his natural sex and took on the name of David. But everything proved to be too much for him and he ended up committing suicide in 2004. There are many cases like this and now that people are learning there is no medically necessary reason to circumcise, they are opting to pass on it. I know several uncircumcised men and they seem to be fine; they married and had children and lived life with no problems, so there must be something to it, I guess. To each his own.
Elle

I don't mess with uncircumsized. Where I am from, only Jews & Muslims are circumsized. So I've seen both and must say I disagree with whomever said that uncircumsized penises (?) look better. Besides my mom used to always say that women in countries where the majority of men is circumsized suffer from cervial cancer is far lesser amounts. Coincidence? I think not. Based on the massive amounts of dudes who can't keep their homes clean or don't wash their hands after using the bathroom I wouldn't be surprised to see some filth hidden neatly under that extra skin. Additionally, not many parents teach their boys to take proper care because they themselves don't know what's required. Many young boys & teenagers then need to be circumsized for medical reasons because their foreskin doesn't pull back properly and therefor causes major pain. Ask anyone who suffered from Fimosis (not sure if that's the proper translation). At that age, it's much more traumatizing than when they are babies I presume.

Besides, a less sensistive penise makes for extended fun in the bedroom as opposed to one which explodes to the slightest touch. Another con IMHO.

People should do what they feel is best for them and their kids. Personally, I am pro circumsizion and should I have a son he's gonna have to live without that extra skin. If the girls of these young generations mandatorily have to get vaccinated against the virus which causes cervical cancer even at the risk of dying or ending up in a coma because of the vaccination, they boys should be able to do their part by "sacrificing" skin that's not essential to their survival.
dbaby11

i had never come across anyone that had not been circumsised until i rant into my ex. now this is something i had never enocuntered so i never really thought about it.at the point we became intimate i immediately noticed because he was bald(turn on) and to be honest it bugged the hell out of me. it was alot of "extra work" when it came to certain aspects of foreplay. and not all the time was i up for it. i guess in the end it didnt really matter because we kept at it until our relationship eventually ran its course and he moved away but i have made a mental note to myself, although it wasnt a turn off (like an pu**Y to a man) if it doesnt look tasty then im not sampling
Spinster

In most countries on this planet, uncircumcised is the way to go. I didn't know that until a couple years ago, upon talking to overseas friends of mine. The United States and the Phillippines are two of a handful of countries who practice circumcision on a regular basis (regardless of religion).

For health/hygiene reasons, pro-circumcision is the way to go for me. I won't knock anyone who doesn't agree with it though (as long as those views aren't shoved in my face).
http://ml66uk.livejournal.com/ Mark Lyndon

I'm very happy to be intact. If our son wants to be circumcised when he's 18 (16 if he knows what he's doing), I'll pay for it and help him find a good surgeon. Until then, he stays intact. His body - his decision. If he wants to be circumcised later, it's easy to fix - safer, less painful, and better cosmetic results. If we'd had him circumcised, and he wanted to be intact, it's a problem.

It's absolutely right to compare male circumcision with female circumcision (aka FGM or FGC). Many forms of female circumcision do less damage than male circumcision, and they're practised for the exact same reasons.

Everyone should have the right to decide for themselves whether or not they want parts of their genitals cut off. It's *their* body.

All the medical society quotes can be found at their own websites by searching for "male circumcision":

Canadian Paediatric Society
"Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed."
"Circumcision is a 'non-therapeutic' procedure, which means it is not medically necessary."
"After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions."

Royal Australasian College of Physicians
"After extensive review of the literature, the Paediatrics & Child Health Division of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians has concluded that there is no medical reason for routine newborn male circumcision."
(almost all the men responsible for this statement will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%. "Routine" circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in Australia in all states except one.)

British Medical Association
"to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate."

The Royal Dutch Medical Association
"The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children's rights to autonomy and physical integrity. Contrary to popular belief, circumcision can cause complications - bleeding, infection, urethral stricture and panic attacks are particularly common. KNMG is therefore urging a strong policy of deterrence. KNMG is calling upon doctors to actively and insistently inform parents who are considering the procedure of the absence of medical benefits and the danger of complications."

National Health Service (UK)
"Many people have strong views about whether circumcision should be carried out or not. It is not routinely performed in the UK because there is no clear clinical evidence to suggest it has any medical benefit."

Canadian Children's Rights Council
"It is the position of the Canadian Children's Rights Council that 'circumcision' of male or female children is genital mutilation of children."

drops in male circumcision:
USA: from 90% to 57% (33% according to this latest study from the CDC)
Canada: from 48% to 17%
UK: from 35% to about 5% (about 1% among non-Muslims)
Australia: 90% to 12.6% ("routine" circumcision has recently been *banned* in public hospitals in all states except one, so the rate will now be a lot lower)
New Zealand: 95% to below 3% (mostly Samoans and Tongans)
South America and Europe: never above 5%
StoryofaWoman

lol This is an interesting topic. I have had both circumcised and uncircumcised men and haven't noticed any differences. I haven't paid attention to which one has better sex (there are so many variables lol). I have found that men that were not from the US tend to be uncircumcised. I think that whether a man is with or without foreskin, hygiene is still important (I don't know about anyone else but I am more concerned about the tip than the shaft lol). I am not sure whether it the procedure is unnecessary, but I think that we need to focus on raising awareness about sexual health in general, for both circumcised and uncircumcised men alike.
http://www.makeupbytrecie.com Ms.Trecie

I think this will turn into an ongoing debate. My son is circumsized as is his father. I have no qualms about the decision that I made in regards to MY child. The perks of being a parent is that you get to make decisions about your family without the input of the outside persuasion. Just as you all have your beliefs in regards to YOUR family, I have mine. My sons will all be circumsized.
Mz. Ashley

I have never had a sexual partner that was not circumsized. I have seen UNcircumsized before, and that is just not attractive to me....but that is my opinon. My grandpaw was recently diagnosed with prostate cancer, and at 72 years old, the doctors made him get a circumsion! OUCH! I know that hurt! I would much rather get my son circumsized, because i wouldnt want him to have to go through what my grandpaw went through.
bogart4017

As an uncirmusized male 1)that the penis is supersensitive is false.2)That the uncircumsized penis produces its own lube is true. 3)Women who have been with both types will tell you they can't tell the difference. Thats because besides looks their is no difference. And yes we have to "keep it clean" but who doesnt?
Tea

2 of my exes were uncircumcised and I must say the sex felt better than with an circumcised penis because there's extra skin moving around that you can feel (more sensational!). Plus uncircumcised penises have more nerve endings = more sexual pleasure for the man too!
R.e.D

This can be a never ending debate, but you cannot seriously think that male and female circumcision is the same thing or that they are done for the exact same reasons. I wish I could sit here and write about this from the embryological standpoint ( the development is similar) and then take this to the practices occuring today. They call it 'female mutilation' for a reason. I just don't have the time to expound on this point. It would really take an entire post.
Toya

I have a 3 year old son and when he was born my parents bought the issue up about getting him circumsised and I didnt have much knowledge on it so i said ok. When I told his father he was against is because he wasnt circumsised. Im use to him and there is not difference sexually. He has never had a problem with infections or anything and it worked out fine. I began doing some research and I got freaked out that my son maybe one of those boys who dont like to shower so I wasnt going to chance it. I decided to get it done anyway, and his father was ok with that. I didnt like the process and I felt awful after doing so. It was so horrible they wouldnt even let me in the room to witness it so I was all over the place. Ive never heard of a female circumsion so I cant say if its fair or not. Most people dont know anything about not being circumsised so when the issue is bought up like now we all seema bit confused. For generations people have been doing this and it seems to be normal until someone decidedto questions whether it was necessary. If you are you use to doing something a certain way then those habits get passed down to your kids and so on. Thats exactly what happened with circumsision. Im not against but if you are educated enough about the process and decide not to do so just have a talk with your son and explain to him to take care of himself.
http://intactamerica.org Chad J. Rivera

Circumcision causes a lot of harm, whether guys want to admit it or not. Decrease in sensitivity, impotence (Erectile Dysfunction), scarring -- and that's not even the worst. 200 babies die per year due to circumcision. Some babies have had their penises accidently ampuatated via circumcision. All this, for what? Cleaning an intact penis takes about 30 seconds in the shower. As for babies and children, only clean what is seen, do not retract. Wash and dry. I am glad to see that the majority of parents in America are making the right decision to leave their boys intact and healthy. Cutting cannot be justified for girls OR boys. Myths and religion can no longer be used as an excuse for genital mutilation.
da ThRONe

People stop acting like it's child abuse. There is nothing wrong making this decision. Thats like me saying if you dont breast feed you dont care about your child.
da ThRONe

How can you tell people what is and what isnt the right decision. Thats for each family to decide on their own.

There's risk with almost everything in life. Will you never let your child leave the house for fear of what could happen? Prevent him from going to school because he can contract a virus?
iranturave

I wrote a piece on the same, from a more sexual perspective, looking at the idea that possible taking away the foreskin is taking away the most sensitive parts of the male genital. the difference in sleeping with a man with or without seems to me to make no difference if he is wearing a condom. but after talking with ppl there generally has been no over all big desire for with or without. the over all feel i got from women from countries that don't cut is they love the ease of manipulating an uncut guy, because the skin acts as a sleeve, (yes the ones we pay $$ for)
i have no real opinion. i know it increases health risk to be uncut, and countries with high risk of AIDS and HIV are looking to begin cutting to help prevent the spread....
my blog is iranturave.wordpress.com it may have the same info, though i may have done a better or worse job explaining it (*shrugs*)
Someone also sent me material and video of the difference in sex with a cut guy and an uncut guy, but just like informercials when your trying to sell me on something your not always being the most factual. so i'm not sure how truthful their depictions were.
(wanna be like you when i grow up ;o)
candace

Thank you. I was about to make the same comment. Comparging the two just does not make sense.
http://theevolutionofem.blogspot.com/ menluvmysmile

I am of the opinion that I would prefer to have my son (if I had one) to be circumcised. From the standpoint of maintenance it seems to be much easier. My brother wasn't and he forever had issues with keeping his penis free and clean of infections. To add to that I have never been with a man who wasn't circumcised. I see nothing wrong with being pro-choice.
http://www.anikaame.blogspot.com Anika Ame

not quite the same, as breastfeeding (or not breastfeeding) does not require part of your body to be cut off in a painful procedure. it is abuse if it is not medically necessarry, and it causes pain. watch a video of a baby being circumcised, and tell me it's not abuse!
http://www.icgi.org Dan Bollinger

Very strange coments to the CDC announcement. Apparently, its not a "never ending debate." American parents have chose. The consensus says circumcision is OUT!

So strange that many have said “circumcision is the norm.” The point of this blog is that INTACT has become the norm, just like is used to be from when man first walked upright to about 100 years ago.

Circumcision was a fad that is now unfashionable. Good riddance.
KittyKat

YO, LISTEN!!! Lol
This needs to continue happening for real. I'm all for it, i'll apply it if i have a son, also. The "natural" state has given me some of the worst experiences EVER, even though that might sound a little selfish. But UUUUGH it's not a nice feeling people! Lmao
hellifiknow

I have dealt with uncircumcised and I say YUCK. Note to parents of sons: Should you want him to have the pleasure of blow jobs in the future circumsize him. That's my opinion and that's what I think. Others are free to object, but if I gotta give the penis love, I'd prefer it the way I like. Just keeping it real for the people. LOL
Kuriosity

I am an uncircumcised male who at a young age became sexually active. Since then, the idea of my being natural was always in my subconscious due to what was spoken from the mouths of young women. What I'm getting at is that although I've always been hygienic, it was always in the back of my mind to get it done once I got a little older because it was so much more "preferable". It was not till a couple of years ago that I encountered the very first woman who said she preferred me natural because she found circumcision cruel and brutal to babies. I was in total shock! Fast forward a couple of years, and now it seems there is a widespread and growing rejection of the practice. Granted I cannot hold anyone accountable, but previous point of view and opinions made me feel "dirty" simply because I am the way I was born. I feel relieved that many are about choice as opposed to a default standard of it being a must.
http://intactamerica.org Chad J. Rivera

Leaving your childrens genitals ALONE is the right decision. You *cannot* cut a girls genitals and you shouldn't cut a boys genitals. His body, His choice. I was cut as a baby and have suffered because of it.... and I'm very angry with my parents because of that decision. Sure there's a lot of risk in life. But circumcision is NEEDLESS amputation and mutilation of a normal, healthy, functioning body part.
http://intactamerica.org Chad J. Rivera

Hey. If you strapped down your 16 year old son and cut off part of his penis - what would that be called? That's right - sexual assault. So why is it different when you do that to your 16 day old son? Without painkillers. (Painkillers are not used on newborns.) There is NO justification for genital mutilation! Why don't you leave his penis alone, and let him decide if he wants to cut part of it off.
http://www.circumstitions.com Hugh7

"Pro-choice"? You're taking away HIS choice.
http://intactamerica.org Chad J. Rivera

Most men throughout the World (Europe, Eurasia, Asia, North America, Central and South America, etc) do NOT circumcise - and do just fine! Cleaning is so simple. It takes about 30 seconds in the shower. Why don't you give your son the choice. Let HIM decide if he wants to cut off the most sensitive part of his body!
http://ml66uk.livejournal.com/ Mark Lyndon

The only people that see a fundamental difference between male and female circumcision are the people that practise one but not the other. Countries that cut both don't see a big difference, and neither do the countries that cut neither.

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 anesthesia. Conversely, male circumcision is often performed as a tribal practice. 91 males died of circumcision in just one province of South Africa last year.

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 and 2010). "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. Why don't boys get the same protection?

Don't get me wrong. I'm totally against female circumcision, and I probably spend a lot more time and money trying to stop it than most people. If people are serious about stopping female circumcision though, they also have to be against male circumcision. Even if you see a fundamental difference, the people that cut girls don't (and they get furious if you call it "mutilation"). There are intelligent, educated, articulate women who will passionately defend it, and as well as using the exact same reasons that are used to defend male circumcision in the US (health, hygiene, looks, religion), they will also point to male circumcision itself (as well as labiaplasty and breast operations), as evidence of western hypocrisy regarding female circumcision. The sooner boys are protected from genital mutilation in the west, the sooner those peoples that practice FGM will interpret western objections as something more than cultural imperialism.
http://www.circumstitions.com Hugh7

For those who have never seen an intact man, see first http://www.circumstitions.com/Art1.html to get you used to the idea (probably NSFW), then progress to the real thing at http://www.circumstitions.com/Gallery.html (NSFW).

@DaThrone: It's not "extra", it's standard equipment. The vast majority of men with it (most men in the world) wouldn't have it any other way. Circumcision is usual only in the Muslim world, the US (and now maybe not so usual), South Korea, the Philippines, tribal Africa, Israel, eastern Polynesia, some of Melanesia and Australian aboriginals.

@Ronnie6676: "I really am quite tired of everyone trying to put blanket rules out for what’s “best” for kids. How do you know what’s best for my kid when you’ve never met him??" You'd only just met him yourself when you decided to cut part off him. How do you know how that will work out for him when he grows up and wants to use it?

@All those women with an opinion about what they prefer - How would you like it if adult men told you how they think (your) baby girls' genitals should be cut for their greater pleasure?

Of course surgical circumcision in the US is nothing like tribal female cutting in Africa, but when you compare apples with apples, surgical with surgical, tribal with tribal, the differences diminish. 91 boys have died from tribal circumcision in one province of South Africa last year alone. Female genital cutting was covered by Blue Cross Blue Shield till 1977. It is as human rights issues that male and female genital cutting can and should be compared. The AAP flirted with allowing a token female cut ("less extensive than male genital cutting") a few months ago and was howled down, so how can it condone more extensive male cutting now?
R.e.D

Mr. Lyndon,

This point is better stated than your prior. Just as you have read books on the subject, so have I. And while certainly there are places that only cut the prepuce, we know that most times this is not the case. In most instances, they remove either the entire clitoris or the clitoris as well as the labia minora or even narrow the vaginal orifice!! Can you imagine the pain of your first sexual experience?? You cannot, Mr. Lyndon, b/c you are a man. And circumcised or not, you would not feel pain even remotely close to this.

This is the mutilation I am referring to. And of course, there must be 'intelligent, articulate' people-women, no less- that support this madness and absolutely abhor the term 'mutilation'. There will always be people like this.

While I am not for or against circumcision in males, at least the inaccurate science of medicine attempts to elucidate the benefits of male circumcision (reduction in rates of HIV in heterosexual men, decreased UTIs, hygiene issue). Whether this can be scientifically proven or is complete fallacy is debatable. However, what is unequivocal is the fact that there is absolutely no benefit to FGM. In fact, there is only harm (recurrent UTIs/ bladder infections, infertility, painful intercourse, decreased libido, death from hemorrhaging etc). But you know this already, which was why I took issue with your blanket statement of male and female circumcision being the same thing.

Kudos on your work against FGM! Now after reading what you had to say about male 'mutilation' I will definitely consider that aspect of the practice of male circumcision. Good points!
Rastaman

Some of these responses crack me up. Women claiming that men won't get laid or head because they are uncut, LOL!!
Where is this even happening?
I am a natural brotha and I have never been told no because I am natural. So the idea that there are men hearing that sht and women telling them such sht, I find hilarious. If you have a preference for cut men, that is ok but I can tell you there are women of all races and creeds, the majority of the women in the world don't know circumcised, its a minority state people.

Then these myths about uncut men and infections. Based on the research, the hygiene issue is inconsequential. Its all about adults bathing their children correctly and teaching their sons to clean themselves. I am not surprised this hygiene thing is such a big bugaboo. There are so many men and women out here who still don't know how to wash their ass correctly or do it frequently enough. I know a couple of gynecologist and the things they recall about their patients would make most men want to gargle and bath with some lysol after sex with women.

Point is nasty is nasty, circumcised, uncircumcised, male or female!!
QuoteMan

The criticisms level against parents who opt to circumcise their sons is ridiculous. Throwing names like child abuse, rapist etc. around, is when standing up for something ends and stupidity begins.

I’m all for leaving it up to the kids to decide on certain issues in life when they get older, but his health and well being will always be in my hands till he comes of age. Time and again, as parents, we’ve made life changing decisions for our little ones based on our beliefs, values and principles, and circumcision is no exception. I’m a happy, healthy circumcised man and enjoying the best life has to offer and want the same for my lil man. I’m not knocking any uncircumcised man or its advocates, to each his/her own. Just don’t knock me neither, what you call “abuse” or “rape”, I call loving and caring parenting.

To those who liken male circumcision to that of a female, is just as insane as those who practice it.
R.e.D

Imperfect science, not inaccurate..
R.e.D

Again, Quoteman, well stated!
http://thecandyshoppe.wordpress.com Ronnie6676

The next time you give birth to a child then you can sit down and talk to me about what you think is and is not best for that child.

But until then I will continue to make decisions for my own child.

Also if you took the time toread what I wrote, you will see it was an academically informed decision not based on ease, appearance, or some future partners pleasure.

Female genital mutilation is a practice that is performed to perpetuate the male ego and has nothing to do with why I chose circumcision for my child.
Rachel

Perhaps we should hold you down and remove the flesh of your genitals that aren't essential to your survival. Your double standards make you a hypocrit and I find your reasoning wanting.
Rachel

I feel bad for any child who's mother would give rights to one gender and not the other. Please... don't breed.
Cyn

There is nothing 'loving' or 'caring' about sexually mutilating a male infant. The penis belongs to HIM, not the parents. It's not your right to cut him up like that.
http://www.circumstitions.com Hugh7

Cutting part off a child's genitals is not just "a decision for that child" but a lifelong alteration (reduction) of another autonomous human being's most intimate part. Your "academically informed decision" left out the person most involved. (All you mentioned was "the anesthesia involved as well as the possible side effects" - nothing about postoperative pain, risks, inevitable harm, or his human rights. And that's only circumcision. Did you learn anything at all about the structure and function of the foreskin before deciding to have it cut off?)

Children are not property; we hold them in trust, and have an obligation to give their bodies back to them on adulthood in as near as possible to their original condition.

The reasons the people who cut girls give for doing it (http://www.circumctitions/FGC-stitions.com) are remarkably similar to those for cutting boys. In Indonesia and Malaysia they also consider "the anesthesia involved as well as the possible side effects". Compare this loving Malaysian mother’s blog – http://aandes.blogspot.com/2010/04/circumcision.html – with this American mother’s – http://cindiebass.blogspot.com/2010/05/circumcision.html . If anything the little girl seems to have got off more lightly than the little boy.
Warren

It disturbs me that the extreme suffering of a child is okay because of the "he won't remember" attitude. If I give you a date rape drug and then someone rapes you won't remember a thing. So should this type of rape still be a crime? I hope everyone answers the question the same way. Women have babies and many get episiotomies. Does that hurt? Any man who gets a tatoo experiences pain. So men who choose circumcision for themselves can "man up" and endure the pain that goes with unnatural behavior. Those thousands of men out there who are hurt and angry about what was done to them as babies wouldn't have given a damn if the majority of men around them were different.
Warren

Elle, I think you need to take a photo of your own genitalia and ask does this look good? You need to check out some plastic surgeon's site whose selling labia reducation. To some making the labia symmetrical looks better. As a male I can say that breasts are beautiful, but not all do I find attractive. Whether or not my future wife's breasts are the attractive kind or not I don't care. There are more important things. I can't say that I can use the word beautiful for female genitalia. It isn't, but I love looking at it. I find it fascinating looking, especially non-symmetrical. I can understand you not liking the looks of an intact penis. I've seen photos of both intact and cut and sometimes the intact looks better and sometimes it doesn't.
Having part of a baby's body cut off to protect someone else from cervical cancer is wrong unless that person makes the choice himself. Furthermore, women in the U.S.A. who have been with only circumcicsed males still get cervical cancer. How do you explain that? A lot of studies on cervical cancer and penile cancer have discovered correlations with smoking, but we never hear about that.
Another thing is your comment about "explodes to the slightest touch." Certainly if the woman is in control orally or manually and the man doesn't communicate his orgasm is under her control. If a man is in missionary position he can slow down, reduce force or pause momentarily to hold off ejaculating. The intact male is like a five speed transmission whereas the circumcised man is like a one speed. Sure the cut man can slow down, but he won't feel a whole lot. The intact males feels at all speeds and force levels.
I'm not sure if there's a correlation between having a messy bedroom and washing with soap and water. There are many men who wash their hands after going to the bathroom. A study determined that more men in New Orleans washed their hands than women. Yes, the overall study did put women ahead of men, but norms are averages and averages lead to the "one size fits all" mentality that you have.
I do think you have issues with men. You must feel insecure in some way that you need to "cut men down to size" to feel some psychological advantage.
As far as foreskin infections are concerned, some of these are because of using harsh soaps. Mild soaps are needed for foreskin hygiene. If you douche you will kill off the good bacteria and get an infection in your private parts.
You talk about "filth hidden under that extra skin". Did you know that scar tissue has microscopic sinuses that hide viruses too? I didn't think so.
This retort is not for you since I can't change your mind. I just didn't want anyone thinking you were a thinking woman when you're not.
Spinster

Some of these comments are rude. Calling people names, questioning their parenting skills, all because of circumcision, is uncalled for. One can be passionate without being rude & disrespectful.

Excuse me for being a hall monitor. :-/
http://ml66uk.livejournal.com/ Mark Lyndon

The wisecrack reply to your first comment would be that the next time you have a penis, you can talk about what's best for someone else's penis. Alternatively, check out Mothers Against Circumcision.

If it was an informed decision, were you aware of what the Canadian Paediatric Society, Royal Australasian College of Physicians, British Medical Association, and the Royal Dutch Medical Association say in the official position statements on male circumcision? In some of these countries, most of the male doctors responsible will be circumcised themselves, yet are against male circumcision.

The people that practise female genital cutting get furious if you call it "mutilation", and would strongly argue against your suggestion that it's performed to "perpetuate the male ego". They typically cite the exact same reasons (health, hygiene, looks) to defend it, as well as comparing it to male circumcision to justify it.
Kisha

I have a son and i chose not to circumcise my son. I am happy i did not. I think he’s perfect just the way god made him. I dont get the point men with foreskin or no foreskin can get a std. it's all about how clean of a person u are and what u do to protect yourself. my family was like u should have circumcised your son and telling me it's not too late. He's my son and i know what's best for him. why put a baby through all that pain and to top it off if the cut in to the wrong nerve your son could be messed up for life just because you thought foreskin was wrong.
Tejan

It wasn't so traumatic for me. I don't remember a thing from when they cut mine. And it still works just fine too.
http://ml66uk.livejournal.com/ Mark Lyndon

Male and female circ definitely aren't the same thing, but I think it's wrong to reject any comparison. There are some *very* severe forms of female genital cutting, and there's no doubt in my mind that they are very much worse than the usual form of male circumcision, particularly when female cutting is performed by some old woman with a razor blade and no medical training. Some of the African tribal circumcisions are pretty awful too though - 91 deaths just last year in one province from male circumcision. There are also penile amputations every year. Bizarrely, one of this year's amputees has already said that despite what happened to him, he would still want his sons to be circumcised. It didn't seem to have occurred to him that he wouldn't be having any children. Maybe he thought it would grow back??

Many of the countries with the highest rates of FGC have *relatively* minor forms though. Check out how it's done in Egypt, Malaysia or Brunei, for example. I would far rather subject one of my daughters to that that have my son circumcised. I used to date a "circumcised" Egyptian woman, and I could not detect any difference. It's only a few months ago since the AAP said this:

"However, the ritual nick suggested by some pediatricians is not physically harmful and is *much less extensive than routine newborn male genital cutting*. There is reason to believe that offering such a compromise may build trust between hospitals and immigrant communities, save some girls from undergoing disfiguring and lifethreatening procedures in their native countries, and play a role in the eventual eradication of FGC."

That statement was retracted about six weeks later, but they make the comparison with male circumcision. I actually think a lot of the criticism they received was unjustified, the same as when a Dutch doctor made a similar proposal three years ago. Some of the girls the proposed policy could have saved, will instead end being shipped back to their parents' native country, and will return with large parts of their genitals missing.

People that practise FGC do also try to justify it medically btw, just as some western doctors try to justify male circumcision. FGC seems to protect against HIV for instance:
http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138
"[female] circumcision remained highly significant while adjusted for region, household wealth, age, lifetime partners, union status, and recent ulcer. "

I can't help thinking that if female cutting had caught on in the USA, there would be lots of researchers trying to justify it, and I'm sure they could come up with something. There'd almost certainly be a reduction in the rate of vulval cancer for instance (which is more common than penile cancer).

Interesting some of the UK activists who are primarily focussed on FGC are very against the promotion of male circumcision in Africa, as they feel it makes it harder to stop female cutting. Male circumcision also seems to raise the rate of male-to-female transmission, and may result in risk compensation (ie more partners, and less condom use).
Tea

Circumcised penises need to be kept clean too! They all around causing bacterial infections (and whatever else) in women.

If you are the type of guy that likes to be clean, I really can't see it being that much more effort. I'm saying this because 2 of my exes were uncircumcised and trust me, they were cleaner than some uncircumcised guys I know.

Anyway, just like you wash the circumcised penis shaft and head, the only extra thing about an uncircumcised is to pull back the skin so that you can access and wash the head. It's not like it's a ton of skin of something.
Tea

"Point is nasty is nasty, circumcised, uncircumcised, male or female!!"

Thank you! People are acting like if a man is uncircumsised then he automatically don't have a clean penis. gtfoh. If you clean you self then youre clean, if you don't then you arent---Circumcised penises included!
novanova

Oh just do it and stop being so damn "extra". Its not a big deal, they really don't feel anything and if they do, they won't remember it. Its completely ridiculous to compare male to female circumcision. Female circumcision is done to destroy a woman's abilty to be feel pleasure. Male circumcisision is mainly cosmetic. Women hear thec C-word and immediately invision some ashy-assed witch doctor slicing and dicing a little girl in a grass hut, thats not what happens with little boys in america. Its more cruel to not do it and wait untill the kid grows up and have to go through the surgical procedure where he can actually remember what happened.

Not to mention, a lot of little boys are not to good in the hygeine department and anything you can do to make it easier, i say do it.
Tea

Male circumcision is cosmetic, so go for it? That makes it right or acceptable or necessary?

Also, are you implying that babies left uncircumcised would have to get circumcised once they grow up? Do you know several grown uncircumcised men that want/need to get circumcised?
Gemini

I agree with Novanava totally! The skin must go! It's a breeding ground for bacteria. I had my son done and my son made sure his baby was done also. I know 2 men that are not circumcised, and they wished their parents would have had it taken care of when he was young.
http://ml66uk.livejournal.com/ Mark Lyndon

Oh please. Don't women have a "breeding ground" for bacteria? Theirs is a lot harder to clean too, but we don't cut parts off baby girls.

I know lots of men that are intact and glad to be so, but no-one who wishes they were circumcised. If they want to be, they can go ahead and do it. It's not a difficult operation.
da ThRONe

Breast reductions are cosmetic surgeries but it helps improve the life of the people who have the operation done. If you could do something small and early in your child life that they will never remember and because of their age they have they have less chance of effecting them long term why wouldnt you?
http://ml66uk.livejournal.com/ Mark Lyndon

Cutting parts off the genitals of children genitals IS a big deal, and the issue is not the pain or whether they remember it. We could cut parts off baby girls without it hurting much, and without them remembering, but it wouldn't make it right. I happen to believe it's completely ridiculous to suggest that cutting parts off girls' genitals is fundamentally different from cutting parts off boys' genitals. (see the extended discussion earlier).

Female circumcision does not destroy a woman's ability to feel pleasure. Just talk to circumcised women, or check out this paper:
Pleasure and Org@sm in Women with Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C). 1: J Sex Med. 2007 Nov;4(6):1666-78. Group of 137 women, affected by different types of female circumcision. – 86% have org@sms – 69.23% always have org@sms – 91.23% of the younger women have org@sms – 14 out of 15 infibulated report org@sms – Infibulated women showed the same desire, arousal, & satisfaction – No differences observed between circumcised and not regarding pain

Non-religious (and arguably religious) male circumcision started to restrict male pleasure btw. 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 check out this link:
http://www.noharmm.org/docswords.htm

Heck, they even passed laws against "self-pollution" as it was called.

You suggest that lots of males will need to have it done anyway, and that's simply not true. You'd need to circumcise over 100 babies to prevent one medically necessary circumcision later on. About 100 of those circumcised babies would need a "revision" anyway (practically a second circumcision). Circumcision later on is safer, less painful, and gives better results anyway.

Hygiene? It's way harder for females to keep clean down there, but we don't cut parts off baby girls to make it easier.
da ThRONe

OK and I dont know a man who is circumcised that wishes he wasnt so whats your point? Plenty of people have this sugery done as both young adults and grown adults. It's just more convenient to be circumcised.

If there was a surgery for my new-born daughter that I thought would make her life better day-to-day I would have it done and had little risk I would do it in a heartbeat.
http://ml66uk.livejournal.com/ Mark Lyndon

Most men seem to be happy with what they've got, whether circumcised or not. Very few males that grow up intact ever get circumcised, either by choice or for medical reasons. The rate is about 1% in the UK.

There seem to be a lot more circumcised men who wish they weren't, than intact men that wish they were. Intact men can still get circumcised though if they want to. It's a much smaller operation that most others. Circumcised men can not become intact. They can "restore" the foreskin, but they won't get the nerve endings and sensitivity back.

"More convenient"!? It's hardly an inconvenience having my genitals configured the same way I was born with. I spend way more time keeping other parts of my body clean.

The foreskin isn't just there to protect the glans (the acorn part). Circumcision removes the most sensitive parts of the penis. Even on a circumcised man, the glans isn't normally the most sensitive part - it's usually the scar line, or the frenulum if that was left intact.

Theoretically, baby girls could have an operation to eliminate their risk of breast cancer (which affects about 12% of women, and kills about 3%). Would you really go ahead though (if it were legal), or would you let your daughters choose for themselves? This isn't an academic question. Girls with either the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes have a 60-85% chance of developing breast cancer, but it is considered unethical to operate on them until they're old enough to give informed consent.
Randall

R.e.D.,
I disagree with you. Clitoridectomy and male infant circumcision destroy the two most sensitive parts of the female and male bodies.
Both have an abundance of Meissner's Corpuscle (light touch receptors). The foreskin has up to 40,000 nerve endings. That's many times more than the head of the penis. Whether these two are structurally the same is insignificant. Also scientist have been wrong before. I think if the urethra is in the center of the penis then the female urethra is in the center of the similar structure. Do you know that the clitoris has legs that run down on either side of the urinary meatus?

I think your being disturbed by the comparison shows that you want to minimize and justify what your counrty and your "old school" feminists friends did to their sons. There is no urgency and no consent therefore circumcision is sexual assault!
Randall

Circumcision is about power and control over another person's body. It must be intoxicating for you to do something to another person that can't be done to you legally. People who are secure enough with themselves are very willing to let their son grow up and make his own decision. You made a horrible mistake that you can't undo. You are like the medical profession which is involved in face saving.
Randall

Circumcising to prevent adult diseases is not looking after your child's health. You made a mistake because you didn't feel violated yourself. Most males aren't allowed to have feelings or self respect when it comes to their bodies. I may be insane but so was my ancestral cousin who was in Abraham Lincoln's cabinet. The circumcised male is a "prisoner of ritual" and a piece of chattel.
Randall

Spinster,
I don't like your attitude. "All because of circumcision" shows how minimally you view cutting off part another human being's body without his consent and without anesthesia. Bad people need the abuse so that they can wake up. What the hell are you, English? You English have a long history of cruelty so put a gag in your mouth.
mcmagicx

I must agree that people on this site are very articulate,something i hardly see while reading the usual comments on black planet.Kind of makes me a proud member.
QuoteMan

I reject the silly notion that if someone does not share your opinion on an issue, you can’t respect his/hers. My stance on this issue will not change and I’m pretty sure neither would yours. So, I beg you to respect my decision as I do yours. You don’t have to circumcise your son, I get that, and I respect that; mine, I will. I’m of the opinion that you raise your kids based on your beliefs, values, principles and perception of life.

For anyone to deem a procedure, which is legal and done within the constructs of the law, child abuse or rape is beyond stupid. Today, in America, there’re kids who are being exploited in human trafficking by the thousands; coerced into child labor and prostitution. So, if you wanna be a champion for kids that’s the target you should channel your energy; not kids who are being raised in a happy home by their loving and caring parent(s).(@Cyn, yes I said it loving and caring) If not, then stop with all that nonsense and worry about your kids, if you’ve any.

Don’t call my decision to circumcise my son a mistake, just because you take exception to it. Smdh
Spinster

Miss me with your unmitigated bullshit.
luv2makeusquirt

im not and it's funny, if i have to pee and it's takin too long, i jus tickle da fore skin and bam i'm peeing without havin to turn on da water... plus ladies say it's like a torpedo, in and out...
http://thecandyshoppe.wordpress.com Ronnie6676

Actually I didn't deem it necessary to go into all the specifics involved in my research. But, please be assured just as you can site your sources so can I. But again it was a decision that I made for me and my child which anyone and everyone can spout off about but in the end has no bearing on what I do and will continue to choose for my son.
http://thecandyshoppe.wordpress.com Ronnie6676

I love the way people read whatever they want into comments and then choose to bash...please save it for somebody who cares about your opinon.
http://thecandyshoppe.wordpress.com Ronnie6676

Actually you totally missed the point of my wisecrack remark...which was that he could make decisions about his OWN child. Penis or vagina, I really don't care, I don't have to follow anyone's advice. I am a free thinking intelligent individual and I can do my own thinking.

Yes, I have read several of the studies as well as those which are pro circumcision. But I'm not here to debate the science. It all boils down to one point, people are allowed to choose for themselves and their families what is best.

As for your last spill it doesn't even require rebuttal as to me it is and will remain two different issues.
http://thecandyshoppe.wordpress.com Ronnie6676

A true mother finds no joy or pleasure in hurting their child...and I am a true mother to my core. It is what God intended for me and I perform my assignment to His glory and critique. All others can miss me with their judgements and name calling.
Preach the Comedian

I see we have some super sensative folks on the site...like really...u resort to absurd comparisons to get your point across. I got the cut and so will my son or sons... WHY do you ask ...
I've nothing positive about being uncircumised from anyone. Literally nothing at all. Reasearch is fine and dandy but I rather go with a live person with this info. People kill me... a study could come out tomorrow saying that wiping your ass can cause can cancerous boils on your booty..and some people will walk around with swamp ass just because....
WHAT YOU EAT DONT MAKE ME SH!T
http://ml66uk.livejournal.com/ Mark Lyndon

It's hardly absurd to compare cutting off parts of girls with cutting off parts of boys. The people who cut girls do it all the time.

What's positive about being uncircumcised is that sex is way more fun. You're probably more than happy with your sex life anyway, but the most sensitive parts of your penis were removed when you were circumcised. That might not bother you now, but maybe in ten or twenty years you could use a little extra sensitivity. There are also rare cases of serious complications from circumcision, up to and including death.

How about letting your son or sons decide for themselves? Ain't no rush.
journeytowifey

my last was uncircumcised, and he was the first i've ever seen of one, i was intrigued by it at first, his simple response: i take care of it

he was haitian, not sure of that had any thing to with it
Kuriosity

I've now come to the conclusion that this "serious" debate (which surely began elsewhere, long ago) is the result of perhaps too much emphasis (and even borderline fascination with) on the penis. Hygien is hygien. I dunno..........
http://www.circumstitions.com Hugh7

"I dont know a man who is circumcised that wishes he wasnt"
Here are some to go on with: http//www.circumstitions.com/Resent.html
And tens, maybe hundreds of thousands more dislike it so much they're taking the time and trouble to restore a semblance of their foreskins. But why should anybody have to, when the only reason they had them stolen was "being snipped has served me well" (Here are some men who being "snipped" has not served so well: http://www.circumstitions.com/Botched.html You get no guarantee your sons won't get one of those.)
http://www.circumstitions.com Hugh7

Because cost/benefit analyses show the costs outweigh the benefits. Because the risks are not negligible, up to and including death. Because breast reduction surgery is quite major and only done to those women who feel they need it and want it, not to babies.
http://www.circumstitions.com Hugh7

What if HE takes exception to it? THEN will you admit it was a mistake?
http://www.circumstitions.com Hugh7

Circumcision IS an exception. There is no other normal, healthy, natural, functional (erogeous), non-renewable part of a baby's body it's even legal to cut off at parental request. Why the anomaly? The most nearly corresponding part of a baby girl's body gets special legal protection. Why the double standard? Of course, it would be a felony to circumcise a non-consenting man, and almost every baby boy grows into a man who didn't consent to being circumcised.

In the rest of the developed world, circumcision isn't offered and there are no epidemics of any of the diseases circumcision is supposed to be so good for. The rest of the English-speaking world tried the experiment, found it did no good, and has virtually given it up (with the result that if a man is circumcised, he's probably old).

It is as a human rights issue that the male and female operations can be compared. Compare apples with apples, surgical with surgical, tribal with tribal and the differences fade. In one province of South Africa alone, more than 90 boys died of tribal circumcision last year, and others lost their entire penis.
http://www.circumstitions.com Hugh7

= Don't bother me with facts, my mind is made up.
Cyn

Circumcision can - and has - killed many babies. That alone is reason enough to bar it from being done to infants/children - especially given the fact that it's an *elective* (i.e. UNNECESSARY) and *cosmetic* procedure.

It makes zero sense why this brutality inflicted upon baby boys is largely ignored, when the same people who turn a blind eye to this issue would scream in outrage over a 'ritual nick' that's done to a baby girl.

Bottom line: keep the cutting instruments away from all babies and children. Let them decide something like this for themselves. After all, it's THEIR genitalia.
http://www.circumstitions.com Hugh7

One of the lucky ones.
http://www.circumstitions.com Hugh7

Circumcision came before the debate, as "the result of perhaps too much emphasis (and even borderline fascination with) on the penis." Nothing would suit the Intactivist movement better than if genital cutting had never been invented, and we could sort out some of the other problems facing the world. We're the ones who just want babies' and children's genitals to be left alone, and some day, everyone will pay that much LESS attention to the penis.

Hygiene is ... soap and water, not cutting healthy parts off.
Cyn

"It all boils down to one point, people are allowed to choose for themselves and their families what is best."

But you're not choosing to have your OWN genitals mutilated. You're inflicting *your* choice to cut someone *else's* body. This is something that should never be considered as a 'right' for anyone to have - not even parents.
Cyn

"Its not a big deal, they really don’t feel anything"

You obviously haven't seen an infant screaming in agony while his genitals are being brutalized, or you would have never made such an ignorant comment.

"and if they do, they won’t remember it."

So if a woman is drugged and sexually assaulted, does that make it 'okay' since she won't remember the assault?

Just because a victim *might* not remember a mutilation (and there is some compelling evidence that infants who have been circumcised do remember the trauma to a certain extent) doesn't make it okay.

"Its completely ridiculous to compare male to female circumcision."

It is absolutely NOT ridiculous to compare the two. BOTH are forms of genital mutilation.

"Female circumcision is done to destroy a woman’s abilty to be feel pleasure."

Male circumcision got started here in an effort to stop boys from masturbating. An attempt to control sexual pleasure. Same stupid thing.

"Male circumcisision is mainly cosmetic."

Yes it is. Which is all the more reason why it's an insane practice. Would you give a baby girl a boob job? Do you see how irrational that would be?
Cyn

"Its not a big deal, they really don’t feel anything"

You obviously haven't seen an infant screaming in agony while his genitals are being brutalized, or you would have never made such a comment.

"and if they do, they won’t remember it."

So if a woman is drugged and sexually assaulted, does that make it 'okay' since she won't remember the assault?

Just because a victim *might* not remember a mutilation (and there is some compelling evidence that infants who have been circumcised do remember the trauma to a certain extent) doesn't make it okay.

"Its completely ridiculous to compare male to female circumcision."

It is absolutely NOT ridiculous to compare the two. BOTH are forms of genital mutilation.

"Female circumcision is done to destroy a woman’s abilty to be feel pleasure."

Male circumcision got started here in an effort to stop boys from masturbating. An attempt to control sexual pleasure. Same stupid thing.

"Male circumcisision is mainly cosmetic."

Yes it is. Which is all the more reason why it's an insane practice. Would you give a baby girl a boob job? Do you see how irrational that would be?
Cyn

"I agree with Novanava totally! The skin must go! It’s a breeding ground for bacteria."

So is a woman's genital skin.
Cyn

"OK and I dont know a man who is circumcised that wishes he wasnt"

Then you definitely don't know enough people. There are countless men who wish they'd been left whole and not stripped of something that belonged to them. And cut men who are supposedly 'happy' they were brutalized, don't fully realize what has been taken from them.
Preachthecomedian

This topic has been dead for awhile... Nobody is changing anyones mind..either do it or don't...u raise your kids YOUR way and I'll raise mine how I see fit
which by the way includes the circumcision
good night
Cyn

"I got the cut and so will my son or sons…"

Yes, it's an unfortunate fact that many men who were victimized in this manner will in turn inflict the same mutilation upon their sons. They refuse to comprehend what they're doing to their children. Willful ignorance is a sad thing.
Cyn

Circumcision is a method of genital mutilation - not a way of 'raising kids'.
Kuriosity

I was totally unaware of the "Inactivity" movement prior to your mentioning it. The only reason I even visited this forum is based on personal experience and to get a glimpse of what many women may think of the subject. It is a bit of a relief to see that many views (as far as dating, not having children) are based primarily on hygiene, not a default stereotype that it is automatically unhealthy or "dirty". For the women who do assume that position, here's a question: how would you appreciate someone assuming that your insides were automatically "filthy" because it is not exposed for through cutting? Granted it is hardly the same, and doing so would lead to many a complication due to the delicate nature of the female genitalia...... my point is we are born with particular things for a reason. If it is for religious purposes, then you have the right to observe your religious practice. My only objection is to the ideology and ASSumptions. Thank you to everyone for sharing your thoughts.
Cyn

"If it is for religious purposes, then you have the right to observe your religious practice."

I used to believe that but don't any longer. I mean, let's be honest here: how far in the name of religion should parents be allowed to go with their children? If a parent thinks that ripping off the fingernails of a child or cutting off their eyelids is a requirement of their religious practice, is that still okay? Of course it isn't. And neither should genital cutting. Parents have been prosecuted for not seeking medical help for a sick/dying child on account of their religious beliefs. But circumcision is ultimately no different. When it comes to inflicting unnecessary physical harm on a non-consenting individual, there should be no compromises for culture - or religion.
Anthony

What a fatuous question. As if you have to know a child's personality to tell that giving him cianide won't be good for him. There are some things that are just plain wrong, and cutting off healthy normal functional GENITAL tissue from a baby is one of them! We realise this instantly when considering little girls and yet our little boys are not afforded the same protection. This is OUTRAGEOUS.
You might be a nerd but you are not a very intelligent one. If you had done some real research you would have found that RIC is not even an issue of consideration in most other developed countries! It's absurd - oh I'm going to have a boy! Now, the only question is should I cut part of his genitals off or not? Ridiculous.
This is an obvious anti-sexual procedure that had its secular debut in the USA during the 19th Century for precisely that reason. I'm sorry to say that you didn't do your research.
Anthony

The foreskin of the penis doesn't hurt most people, in fact quite the opposite is true! It is after all a sexual organ and the most highly enervated part of the penis.
As to whether it is "easier" to get it done as a newborn or as an adult, easier for whom? It is certainly not easier for the newborn. At least a grown man, if should ever want to have such a thing done to his own body, can give informed consent to the procedure. He can also have general anaesthetic and post-op pain meds. Additionally he can even choose the doctor and the type and method of circumcision. None of these options are available to an infant.
Anthony

You should be ashamed of yourself for that rather long and unlettered comment. Because your mother once alluded to cervical cancer being less in some circumcised countries that means it must be true? And that this is a valid reason for RIC? You obviously don't know what you're talking about.
And then to go on to say that men are too stupid and dirty to maintain a healthy penis, well that is just downright sexist and wrong. The majority of the world's men are intact and get by just fine. Most men do actually care about keeping clean, particularly if they think it will help them get laid!
If men were really as dirty and stupid as you suggest, then we should probably be pulling out their teeth for the sake of hygeine too.
Foreskin is not "extra skin" any more than your female prepuce (clitoral hood) is extra skin. It is standard anatomical equipment.
Phimosis is a rare condition that is readily treated in less invasive ways than circumcision which, like all amputations, should be considered only as a last resort.
Your presumption that infant circumcision is less traumatic than adult circumcision is wrong. I would argue in the opposite. And either way it's irrelevant.
Foreskin does not mean premature ejaculation. The sensitivity of an intact penis is normal and the brain is naturally able to handle it. There is an entire range of varied sensations lost as a result of circumcision. It can even be argued that premature ejaculation can be a side-effect of circumcision. This has to do with a loss of nerves and thus a loss of control.
And another sexist comment to end with. Your clitoris isn't "essential to your survival" either. How about you consider having it excised? Your daughter can choose to get vaccinated or not when she is an adult. That is not a decision for you to be making re HPV vaccination. So your analogy is totally off.
If you have misgivings about mandatory vaccinations then oppose them and fight for your rights. Teach your children (male and female) about safe sex practices and the use of condoms. But don't make your own male child pay because of your own misandry.
Anthony

There is nothing healthy about amputating healthy functional natural tissue. I myself am intact and have never had a problem with penile health or hygeine. And I don't think I'm alone in that.
Anthony

Comparing the two most definitely does make sense. The USA began both male and female circumcision in the 19th Century to curb masturbation and negatively impact sexuality. There are different types of FGM and MGM, and many common forms of FGM are not as severe as the most common forms of male circumcision; less tissue is removed and less nerve-endings are excised.
Both male and female circumcision are primarily done to unconsenting minors for the sake of fitting in. Both are human rights violations and should be considered as forms of child abuse.
Anthony

In "uncircumcising" cultures it was often circumcised men who felt different and were teased. It's a funny world we live in where difference can easily become division.
Thankfully in most countries being intact is the norm. I am intact and personally I would not want to be circumcised.
Anthony

And if you read my reply to you above you will see that your decision was not academically informed at all. You may not think that FGM has anything to do with why you chose "circumcision" (MGM) for your son, but believe you me there are many men and women in countries that practice FGM who say that it is "cleaner", more "hygenic". And if you had done your research properly you would know that male circumcision began in the USA in the 19th Century for anti-sexual reasons - to reduce pleasure. The doctors of the time were all intact (and very repressed) and knew exactly what they were doing.
Anthony

As long as you're prepared for the possibility of him one day saying to you, "Mom, I wish you hadn't had me circumcised."
Anthony

"I am a free thinking intelligent individual and I can do my own thinking." First of all that's a tautology, which thusly makes it possibly contradictory. In any case, as a socalled free-thinking intelligent individual I'm sure you must be open to learning new things and admitting when you have made a mistake.
You don't want to debate the science... ok. (Why not? Surely this is an important subject) You say it all boils down to this: "people are allowed to choose for themselves and their families what is best". But they're not! You can't just decide to circumcise your daughter! That's illegal. You can't even prick her clitoris with a pin!
You don't see the double-standard here? You don't see the issue people have with removing healthy functional natural erogenous tissue from the genitals of unconsenting minors?
For someone who doesn't even have a penis you are surely certain that you have done no wrong. Pity that you will never know for sure.
Anthony

Pity it's not God's penis. If you were really interested in glorifying God then you would accept his creation of a new-born boy child as perfect and complete and in no way requiring of genital surgery (just as you would do for a girl child). Actions speak louder than words and by your actions have you dared to improve God's creation and thus critique Him! I guess God didn't do such a good job after all.

I'm sure no one here doubts that you did what you thought was right at the time. But we are challenging you to consider that, in spite of good intentions, your reasoning may have been flawed.
Anthony

Right... because you totally know what it's like to be intact. The comparisons between FGM and MGM have been stated on this thread already and are available for anyone to read. They are both anti-sexual practices and usually perpetrated on children by 'cut' adults.
I'm sorry to hear that you are one such person who has continued the cycle. Perhaps it would serve you to consider the functions and sensations of the foreskin, which every boy has a right to, just as every girl has a right to complete genitalia.
The health and well-being argument is totally ridiculous to the majority of intact people (male or female). As if, somehow, cutting off part of your penis is going to make you healthier? Amputating healthy functional natural erogenous protective tissue from the genitals is going to improve your well-being? Well, as they say, if you'll believe that then you'll believe anything.
Foreskin is not a birth-defect (in males or females). It's there for a reason, and the main functions are sexual, which is no real suprise considering that it is an integral and valuable part of the penis. And hey if you want to cut off your own foreskin or have it cut off by someone else then go for it! It's just when you decide to do this to baby or a child that there is a problem.
The internet is full of comments and videos from men who regret or resent being circumcised. I hope your son doesn't grow up to become one of them.
Anthony

I don't respect your opinion of RIC but I do respect your right to hold it, just as I accept the right of parents who circumcise their daughters to have their own opinions. It doesn't make it right or good, though.
As far as children's rights violations go, I think genital mutilation is right up there. As an intact male I speak from direct personal experience when I say that the foreskin is a valuable and beneficial part of the penis.
The reason that evils such as child trafficking, child labour, and child prostitution exist is that we treat children like property. We do the same with animals. So long as we consider other beings as things to be owned and possessed they will be exploited and abused. Surely this is plain.
And this is exactly the mentality that is demonstrated in the defense of RIC as a "parental choice". He's MY son, My child, and so I will raise him MY way. You can raise YOUR son YOUR way but stay out of MY business. This is a very commercial, materialistic, crude, parochial, and egotistical perspective on children.
But children are not property. They are souls with their own minds and bodies. They are individual entities and future adults. As Kahlil Gibran wrote in The Prophet, "Your children are not your children. They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself. They come through you but not from you, And though they are with you yet they belong not to you... You may strive to be like them,
but seek not to make them like you. For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday."
I'm sure no one here doubts that you are a loving and caring parent, but even loving and caring parents make mistakes. We are all fallible despite our best intentions. Circumcision is an insidious meme and it can be very difficult to break the vicious circle it can create. But we must break it. Sanity and humanity demand it.
Anthony

"Its not a big deal, they really don’t feel anything and if they do, they won’t remember it." Charming. Spoken by one in the know, obviously.
"Male circumcisision is mainly cosmetic." And what other cosmetic surgery do we allow to be done to newborn infants? To surgically alter your baby's penis because you think it "looks better" is a very perverse and disturbing thing to do. I mean, do you plan on having sex with him or is it just that you want a bit of titilation during bath-time? Hey, you brought it up!
First of all, babies do remember it. Some men recall their circumcision in regression. Second of all, even if a person doesn't consciously recall it later in life doesn't mean that he hasn't been affected by it. And thirdly, just because someone doesn't remember something doesn't make it okay. In any case the male has to live with the results of it for the rest of his life, whether he wants to or not.
As to doing it in later life (i.e. adulthood), this is hardly ever necessary. There is very little reason to ever require a circumcision at any age. However, if a man decides he wants one for whatever reason then he should be free to make that decision. In such a case he has the option of general anaesthetic and post-op pain medication. He can also choose his doctor, the method of circumcision and the type of circumcision. And sure there will be some pain but if he wants it that badly then I'm sure he'll be prepared to put up with it, just like adults who have other forms of cosmetic surgeries such as nose-jobs.
Little boys don't need to clean under their foreskin. It is not until adolescence that most boys start retracting. And when that happens it is very easy to maintain. Most boys in the world are intact and have absolutely no problem in the hygeine department. If a boy does have such a problem the solution is quite simple: teach him.
The idea that boys are dirty and therefore can't wash properly and so should have part of their genitals cut off at birth is just bizarre, not to mention sexist.
Anthony

Because it's not your body and they might not agree with your idea of beauty.
Anthony

And I know of thousands of men who resent or regret being circumcised.

As Cyn said, there is just as much (if not more) bacteria in the female genitals. But that's okay! Bacteria are our friends and the bacteria inside foreskin is beneficial bacteria. Our body is covered by and filled with bacteria (especially in our gut). We could not survive without them! In fact it has been said that there are more bacterial cells in our bodies than human cells!
Most males in the world are intact and get by just fine. The majority of the world's men throughout human history have been intact and got by just fine too. Foreskin is natural functional valuable erogenous protective genital tissue and if its healthy (which most foreskins are) then nothing needs to be done to it. Absolutely nothing.
Anthony

Mark has a point too - if you know two men who are not circumcised that wish to be circumcised then the solution seems pretty obvious!
Anthony

Yeah, much more convenient not having to wash your dick. Oh wait, cut guys also wash their dicks. Oh, but the two seconds it takes to slip the foreskin back can be a real time waster! Sacrificing a full sex life for the sake of two seconds in the shower... sounds to me ridiculous to me (or should I say ridickulous?)
Anthony

It's not extra skin. Foreskin is standard anatomy. There is no dotted line saying 'cut here'.
Socalled circumcision is more than a snip. It involves ripping and tearing, clamping and crushing, cutting and slicing.
How has circumcision served you well? You have never experienced having foreskin so you can't say circumcision has made sex better or hygeine easier or health stronger.
CK

As a mother, I have to say I had my son circumcised and watched it. I don't know how many of you here who have "read all about it" have actually seen this procedure done, but many of your "facts" were inaccurate to my son's experience. While he didn't receive painkillers pharmaceutically, they did apply a local analgesic, and he cried less during the circumcision than he did when they were giving him his baby shots. Additionally, as a former nurse I have seen first hand many of the infections, rashes, etc. that uncircumcised men have to deal with frequently. There are few, if any, long-lasting issues associated with male circumcision (especially in comparison with female circumcision). Combine all this with the religious orientation that I bring my children up in, the choice for circumcision was clear to me.

I do not for a second believe that it has caused or will cause my son any harm or problems in future. And as for all of those who say it's his body and should be his choice - parents make choices about the physical health, well-being, and appearance of their children all the time. My decision was based primarily on health considerations. Is removing a small piece of skin really all that different from injecting your child's body with live viruses? Nobody is saying we abuse our children by vaccinating them with live vaccines and intentionally making their bodies sick.
Cyn

"I do not for a second believe that it has caused or will cause my son any harm or problems in future. And as for all of those who say it’s his body and should be his choice – parents make choices about the physical health, well-being, and appearance of their children all the time."

The moment his healthy, normal, natural foreskin was ripped away from his body, it caused him harm. And after keratinization set in, that will cause issues in the future. Unfortunately, many cut men are unaware that circumcision is the cause of some of their problems (decreased sensitivity, pleasure) later in life.

And the foreskin isn't a physical health or well-being issue, any more than a healthy arm or leg or nose would be. You wouldn't remove any of THOSE without immediate medical cause - the same standard applies to his foreskin. It's not YOUR penis. It's not YOUR choice to make. It's not just a small piece of skin - would you feel that way if your own labia or clitoral hood was forcibly removed from you without your consent?

The vaccine comparison is not a valid one either:
http://www.noharmm.org/vaccin.htm

Having posted THAT about vaccines, I will clarify that it doesn't mean I fully support immunizing. Vaccinating children has gotten wildly out of hand over the last few years - and the supposed health benefits of many vaccines children receive are outweighed by the risks.
Cyn

Many informed men are quite angry about what was taken. Here's one such example (warning, language):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztvXW7wtY64

Other victims of cutting who are not happy:
http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_unhappy.html
Cyn

Some videos of circumcision (aka male genital mutilation) in America:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDuDhkiDdns
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXVFFI76ff0

Circumcision trauma:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAGNnqyNidY
The above video explains why many parents erroneously believe their child 'slept through' the procedure or that it didn't hurt him all that much.
Anthony

What are you talking about? You go to the doctor precisely because you think he knows what is good for you. It is not for each family to decide whether they want to circumcise their girls so why the double standard?

"There's risk with almost everything in life." Okay so keep him intact and run the risk that he might one day get an infection or have a foreskin problem, and deal with it as it arises. Circumcision, however, subjects a child to UNNECESSARY RISK. If there are so many risks in life then why add to it, especially concerning your baby's penis? There is no valid reason to. It would seem that you are the one so worried that your child might one day contract a virus that you are willing to cut part of his penis off.
Anthony

There is nothing wrong according to you. But many people have different opinions. And in a day and age when female circumcision is banned in the USA-it is illegal to even prick your daughter's clitoris with a pin- then be prepared to face the judgement of many of your peers who will call you out for hypocrisy and worse.
Anthony

I suppose you will be campaigning to legalise female circumcision in the USA then-after all you don't want your daughter to have to go through the trouble of "maintenance". I am intact and I have never had an infection and neither has anyone I know.

You have never been with an intact man so you don't even know what you are taking from your son. Being pro-choice means giving the OWNER of the body the choice! It's not your penis, it's his! Parents don't have the choice to circumcise their daughters and they shouldn't have the option to mutilate their sons' genitals either.
Anthony

I know what you mean: I hate girls who aren't circumcised.
Anthony

Most of the world is intact and in most places females have no problem giving oral sex to intact men. It is only in the USA that many females have a weird an unhealthy revulsion for intact penises. Note that intact labia and clitorises don't prevent most men from orally pleasuring their women. Why the double standard?

And because intact is becoming more and more the norm in the USA (as less and less boys are circumcised each year) it is forseeable that future girls and women will have no problem with the natural penis which will in time be standard (as it is in most places already).

You claim that your comment is "keeping it real" but circumcision is exactly the opposite of keeping it real.
CutAndRuinedForLife

I was circumcised at birth. It ruined my life. I grew up thinking I was normal. I had wet dreams. I learned to masturbate. No one else could make me reach orgasm when I masturbated with my male friends as a teenager. I could make them do it, but only I could get ME to go off. Later with girls, I was always a failure. I blamed myself, and thought I must be gay. My family has disowned me as being gay. I tried to tell them I have never been able to have sex with ANYONE but they won't listen. Circumcision at birth is a crime. I survived my circumcision but my sex life didn't.