Circumcision of Boys Alters Human Behavior
There is abundant evidence that the non-therapeutic circumcision of children alters human behavior throughout life. Circumcised boys cry differently, have more trouble breastfeeding, a heightened alteration to pain at vaccination, and, after they become adults, many have a compulsion to reenact the trauma of circumcision on others. The behavioral changes of circumcision are the major reason this debate exists at Opposing Views. Such a debate does not exist in the non-English speaking nations where child circumcision is almost unknown.
Male circumcision is (1) a traumatic operation and (2) the loss of a functional body part. Persons who have lost body parts must grieve their loss of function. Failure to grieve the loss of the foreskin function results in a cohort of men who are in denial about their loss and who need to maintain their denial. Traumatized persons tend to reenact and repeat their trauma. The compulsion to repeat the trauma and the emotional need to deny the loss results in a large cohort of circumcised men who seek to perpetuate the practice of non-therapeutic circumcision. Such men become the ‘adamant fathers’ who insist on circumcising their sons despite medical evidence that the operation is injurious. Circumcised doctors tend to be biased in favor of circumcision. A baby is more likely to be circumcised if the father and/or attending physician is circumcised.
Australia currenly is experiencing a backlash against genital integrity. The Australian Paediatric Association recommended non-circumcision—genital integrity—in 1971; thereafter, the incidence of circumcision among Australia's newborn plummeted. At the present time, in regard to genital integrity status, Australia is, in effect, two nations, one of which has mostly circumcised men and the other that has mostly intact men. The dividing point is the year 1978, because the incidence of genital integrity among newborn boys rose above 50 percent in that year. The ever-increasing percentage of genitally intact younger men in the population is causing increasing anxiety and distress among some older circumcised males. There now is a peculiar phenomenon happening in Australia, where one sees middle-aged men from the circumcised generation trying to turn Australia's medical practice back to that which prevailed before 1971. This is, of course, an attempt to defend the culture-of-origin and is carried out for the emotional reasons described here, although, as Goldman reports, pseudo-scientific reasons are advanced.
The medical literature on circumcision is voluminous and contentious. Circumcised doctors create papers that overstate benefits and minimize harms and risks. When these doctors publish such claims, other doctors come forward to refute them. The result is an unending debate driven by the emotional compulsion of circumcised men. The best way to end the debate is to stop the emotional injury to men that results from medically-unnecessary non-therapeutic child circumcision. To stop behavior change, boys should not be circumcised.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Dr Brian Morris, anti circ information is not "nonsense". It's common sense that if you amputate a body part, it's going to affect how the body functions. If you completely ripped off each of your fingernails, your fingers would not function efficiently - the skin would curl up when you touched things and would eventually become dry and calloused. That is, the skin would go from hypersensitive to insensitive, which is what happens to the glans (head) of the penis after circumcision .
You are ignorant if you have not realised by now that uncircumcised penises have a shiny glans with brighter pigmentation than circumcised penises. Not only are they more attractive, but the glans isn't dry and insensitive. Circumcised penises have glans with significantly reduced sensation.
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/august142009/texas_circumcision_mh_8-14-09.php
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/august202009/nadal_follow_hn_8-20-09.php
The circumcision polemic has recently come to an extreme point in Houston (Texas). Indeed, on the next morning of an argument with her husband about circumcising their baby or not, a young and pretty mother has castrated her baby.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl /metropolitan/6567872.html
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news /local&id=6961392&rss=rss-ktrk-article-6961392
This caricature of circumcision is the most ferocious lesson that can be given to the collective circumcising madness that has been raging for decades in the United States.
Indeed, the only way to explain that desperate gesture is to understand that the young mum's troubled mind has merely mingled the whole sex and the foreskin. Psychoanalysis teaches that this is a typical form of unconscious reasoning, commonly called madness. Freud calls it "condensation"; Lacan, pointing out that it is a purely mental and linguistic process, calls it "metonymy". The metonymy at work in this case is: the whole instead of the part.
The young mum is of course irresponsible. American collective circumcising madness is responsible. The American Medical Association must immediately pronounce the abolition of circumcision.
"The ever-increasing percentage of genitally intact younger men in the population is causing increasing anxiety and distress among some older circumcised males." - on what basis do you account for this? I guess you are not circumsised -Then the bias would account for that.
I am not and never have been in distress about this issue!
I have never met other well-balanced males like myself who have a grievance over something that feels healthy. However, circumscicion on an infant has to be questioned. A little more mature perhaps.
Your pro-circumcision rubbish really does not stand up to common sense or medical studies - and why are you so bent on altering the genitalia of little boys? I fail to understand how people who just want babies left alone are viewed as having a paedophile agenda! I am a teenage female myself and it's quite clear that circumcision is not necessary on infants and shouldn't be done.
If you were really going on the medical reasons for circumcision, you wouldn't continue to make claims like "women prefer circumcised penises" (I don't, btw) - how should that be relevant to what should be done to a baby? You seem to be the sick one intent on modifying babies' genitals to suit adult preferences.
I am a 38 year old married woman, living in the USA. Our son is intact (not circumcised) because we see no point in removing normal, healthy tissue from an infant's penis. Also, we feel strongly that any cosmetic surgery (including circumcision) requires the informed consent of that person - not surrogate consent by the parents. In Morris's eyes, this makes me a pedofile!
I am an intactivist. Many of the intactivists I have met are also married women with sons. The circumcision rate in the USA these days is 55% - and dropping. Does this mean 45% of Moms these days are pedophiles?
He is trying to warn you to be very wary of the ulterior motives of some who seek to convince you to avoid this form of preventative medicine for your sons.
"He is trying to warn you to be very wary of the ulterior motives of some who seek to convince you to avoid this form of preventative medicine for your sons." So you too say that there are such ulterior motives and they are what Doctor BM says they are? Or could it be that he (and you?) is (are?) alerting us of his (and your?) own ulterior motives through projection of whatever it is that he (and you?) has (have?) on his (and your?) mind(s?)? Projection without back light is a matter of interest to mental health experts. Check with your friendly neighborhood shrink for more information. And are we all aware that when Charles Dickens wrote his largely autobiographical novel he named his protagonist, and the novel, David Copperfield? That is to say, CD became DC. Interesting adjunct to much discussion about fiction by Doctor BM, or is it Doctor MB? Of course, for whatever it's worth, both Charles Dickens and David Copperfield were not circumcised, fictitious or not, projected or not.
Mr. Bates, please take some time and study a little Forensic Psychology regarding "ulterior motives." There is a difference between a wolf and a sheep dog. You will find medicine has very little to do with the situation being discussed. Medicine is but the glitter on a Christmas tree bulb so look at the little piece of wire that holds that bulb onto the tree.
While doing so, keep in mind the basic psychological indicators shared in ritual and the serial sexual predator involve: power, control and authority through manipulation for dominance out of selfishness. You are observing the perceived bright side of a coin - turn that coin over.
Also realize that in the social condition some wolves, though not all, would not be wolves if they understand. Almost all the Health Care Providers involved with NOCIRC and Doctors Opposing Circumcison have participated in one way or another and learned the difference.
"Preventative medicine" requires that "benefits" outweigh risks and harm. "Michael Bates and Brian Morris prefer the appearance of an uncovered, keratinized glans penis" is not a medical benefit. Circumcision is cosmetic surgery not preventative medicine.
With preventative medicine, you also have to consider less invasive, reversible interventions. For example, circumcision is alleged to reduce HIV infection risk for African males by 60% (for females no risk reduction) however condoms reduce HIV infection risk for both partners by more than 90% and are reversible and have no operative risks or ethical issues.
3 cent condoms are much more effective than circumcision.
You've got some nerve (or delusion) calling a surgery not recommended by any medical association "preventative medicine." Only the most extreme fringe claim it's anything more than a cultural choice made by parents. More and more are recognizing that it's simply not ethical to cut off body parts from a child based on parental preference.
Brian, you are your own worst enemy.
"The truth is found in scientific research, not the hysterical propaganda regurgitated in the anticirc statements."
"All of the other statements by the anticircs are equally fictitious and repudiated by good research."
"It amazes me that types like this can spend their time coming up with such fiction."
This is not how any credible medical authority, or scientist for that matter, makes an argument. Notice how DOC makes a series of succinct claims and supplies the research behind them. They put together a logical argument based on facts.
Group A wants everyone to just leave little boys' genitals alone. Group B wants adults to touch and manipulate those genitals into a form they claim is more attractive and preferable. Then you, part of Group B, accuse group A of a pedophelial agenda! I've seen fancy devices which can cover a wall with a high-resolution video image, but you could probably teach them a thing or two about projection.
The truth is found in scientific research, not the hysterical propaganda regurgitated in the anticirc statements. for example, Furgusson et al. (J Paed Child Hlth 2008), in birth cohort study spanning 25 years, have debunked the anti-circ myth that circumcision interferes with breast-feeding. They also showed no effect on any psychological paramenter learning or IQ. The only difference was higher lower respiratory tract infection in the uncirced.
All of the other statements by the anticircs are equally fictitious and repudiated by good research.
It amazes me that types like this can spend their time coming up with such fiction. Be very wary of such nonsense! For some of them there are hidden agendas, including the preference by pedophiles for boys with foreskins ('uncut innosence') and the need for foreskinned males for docking - a from of mutual masturbation by men who have sex with men (some of whom are doctors). NOT that I have anything against homosexuality as such.
I do not understand how having a preference for the intact (uncircumcised) penis makes you a paedophile. I myself prefer the appearance of an intact penis, simple because there is no scar on the penis and the glans is not dry and calloused. Does this make me a paedophile? I don't believe it does. How is it relevant to mention that some male medical doctors engage in sexual activity with other men? That is their personal choice. If a homosexual sex act is consensual, I have no problem with a medical doctor being involved in it. They are people just like everyone else.
71% of people have said that boys should not be circumcised. It looks like you're outnumbered.
Morris' insistence that "anticirc" statememts reflect hysterical, unscientific propaganda is just ignorant.
The experts on this site opposing routine neonatal/infant circumcision have produced evidence from peer-reviewes meidcal journals showing no benefit to circumcision, especially in regard to STD reduction. A good example is the recent medical study from Dunedin (based on a cohort of about 500 men) led by Nigel Dickson and published in J Pediatrics March 2008. The study found no statistical difference in the level of common STDs between the circumcised and non-circumcised men, and concludes as follows: "Our findings agree with other similar recent medical studies from developed countries... it appears unlikely that circumcision has a significant protective effect against common STDs".
As far as circumcision status and the incidence of cervical cancer goes, it is worth noting that European nations are over 90% UNCIRCUMCISED, yet statistically most have the SAME cervical cancer rate as the 80% circ'ed USA & Canada (see: United Nations Human Development Report 2001). About 7-9 women per 100,000 per annum develop cervical cancer in USA, Canada, and Europe. So that's regardless of male circumcision status!
Note also that FINLAND has one of the lowest incidences of cervical cancer in the world, AND also has one of the the LOWEST rates of male circumcision (about 1%). Jews have a very low cervical cancer rate, so much is true, but medical evidence indicates that this is due to a GENETIC protection, rather than their circumcised partners, as confirmed by the fact that if Jewesses marry uncircumcised "Gentiles", their low cervical cancer rate persists.
Morris "For some of them there are hidden agendas, including the preference by pedophiles for boys with foreskins ('uncut innosence') and the need for foreskinned males for docking - a from of mutual masturbation by men who have sex with men (some of whom are doctors). NOT that I have anything against homosexuality as such."
The paedophilia accusation cuts both ways. There are certainly paedophiles who prefer circumcised boys, and circumcision fetishists (they call themselves "circumsexuals" and have websites and an annual convention) who get aroused by the idea of circumcising and being circumcised. I doubt that anybody gets aroused by the idea of leaving babies alone. As for docking, that just illustrates the fact that circumcision literally cuts off the options for everybody.
(I'm still trying to figure out what being a doctor has to do with being a man who has sex with men. It certainly has a lot to do with getting access to babies' genitals and cutting part off.)
Australians whom watched the 60 Mins program where Morris was advocating circumcision, overwhelmingly rejected his views, Australa rejects circumcision!!
Who cares what these dirty & backward, racist drunk Aussies think. Australia is like 35 year behind technology. Anything they have is from America.
They also advocate homosexuality. While walk around with foreskins, they're doomed, lol. Socialism is not too cool Australia.
50 years ago they used to be on top of things, circumcised, sober, working, not feces-eating homos. Now they're a foul people.
Australians, ha ha ha. Funny.
Morris: "Furgusson [sic] et al. (J Paed Child Hlth 2008), in birth cohort study spanning 25 years, have debunked the anti-circ myth that circumcision interferes with breast-feeding. They also showed no effect on any psychological paramenter learning or IQ."
Using the same birth-cohort, Fergusson et al. also claimed to find that circumcision prevented STDs. Correspondents pointed out that this finding was anomalous, and Fergusson publicly accepted that. Dickson et al., using another birth-cohort with a greater proportion of circumcised men, found the correlation vanished, (With one exception, the papers reported only the Fergusson "finding".)
So excuse us for not taking the Fergusson paper on breastfeeding or other effects as the final word on the matter. In the meantime, there is ample anecdotal and related clinical evidence that the trauma of circumcision makes it harder for babies to establish breastfeeding - something Fergusson's cohort study did not investigate.