- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Should Boys be Circumcised?
- infant health |
- infant care |
- parenting |
- society |
- new moms
Parents face so many difficult decisions when it comes to having a child: decisions about nursing, sleep patterns, discipline, teaching methods and, in the case of boys, whether or not to circumcise. In addition to being the most common surgery for males in the U.S., circumcision has been practiced in various cultures for centuries. Yet when it comes to the health and best interest of your newborn, is circumcision the way to go?
Featured Image:






















Comments
Medical Problems?
No notable medical problems other than an occasional irritation where my foreskin folded back on itself being behind the glans.
I was having an increase in the number of roll forward of the foreskin incidences and wanted to reduce those, which the circ did.
But you have hit on something important in that someone who undergoes a doctor suggested circumcision is more likely to experience negative results. Some guys I encountered as a youth tended to be defensive about their status and brag about having a foreskin. I am now seeing a lot of the same on anti-circ boards. The circed guys just generally don't talk about it- they just enjoy sex!
One of the things that makes many intact males so possessive of their foreskins is that it provides an an ideal and efficient means of masturbation. I note that on a "skinned back" message board a few guys mentioned that after succeeding with attaining permanent retraction there was a tendency to reduced use of pulling the foreskin back and forth over the glans to attain orgasm. I had a similar experience and definitely prefer direct contact. Everyone has a strong sensitivity at and behind the corona, all the way around.
I would say that the directness of contact with a circ reduces the insulating capabilities of a layer of skin. This is enough to compensate for "nerve endings" removed.
A lot of the sensitivity the intact brag of is of no real benefit, actually can be detrimental. Besides if sensitivity did not wane with your thoughts you'd never get any work done.
Hal 84
If That Makes You Happy Then Do It (PART 2)
There's too many idiot Doctors out there. I don't know if you'll change your mind and decide to have your sons circumcised, that is if you decide to have kids or have sons. But if you do, make sure you arrange ahead of time, only a highly skilled circumciser who is very experienced and know these things. The infants cry over many things. Circumcision isn't the most painful experience either, being born is far more painful, so is the deep injections of vaccination shot straight up the baby's foot. Birth is a very pain process for all sexes. Even pulling the inner part of the umbilical cord and clamping it, produces a painful response, but they all don't last too long. Foreskin is just another thing peeled and clamped, then snipped off. It should not cause this much rage among people, if they see the big picture. If you got circumcised as an adult like I did, always make sure you carefully pick the right Doctor/Urologist, and you make sure you talk about the different skin layers, on which is removed and which is NOT! Avoid any injections in the penis either, go for a General Anastetic setup. A lot of places are local anastetic, and you feel no pain, and it's done in 20 minutes. But injections into the penis can cause some intermittent pain later on, not always. On infants and adults a general anastetic is better. But that is too unsafe for the infant. On infants cutting the foreskin off isn't the most painful part, it is the RETRACTING OF THE FORESKIN which is the most painful. But the opposite is true for adults, the skin is already loose to retract, but it is more developed and vascular, so without anastetic it would hurt more to cut the skin off without anastetic, but your are anestatized, so it's not painful. Next is, sometimes people get used to the feeling they had with the skin there, but that all goes away within a few months, provided you let it heal nicely without any sex for three to four weeks. After a while it feels and looks like the skin was never even there, and sex is way better, since you're bigger and solid penetration, the women report they can feel you better too, and get all of it everywhere inside of them. I don't believe there is "psychological trauma" from circumcision. If that is true, then being born, being vaccinated, being handled with all the other birthing procedures would "traumatize" the child too. That isn't so. I think our culture is selfish though, people aren't as united in the community. So people run into relationship problems, later drugs, alcohol, sometimes people watch circumcision and think that's caused their problems, when it's their community relations and other psychological issues, and community, dating and relationship issues which are the root of their disturbances. But if you finish up restoring your foreskin, that's fine, and there will be more sensitivity, but you're back to square one again when it comes to sex and penetration: the skin's in the way and more confusion comes about. If you give it time, or even partially restore, you might find the BEST LOT! Even though there's some physical change, most of foreskin restoration is psychologically gratifying more than physically. But whatever makes you happy and satisfied and you feel this is something you must do, then do it, and that is the solution for you indeed. But there's a lot of men who have a great happiness being circumcised and are not idiots and know all about circumcision, but they love having a huge, throbbing exposed head banging up their women, lol. So this is all about psychological discretion by the owner, it varies person to person. But some people feel like you, many others do not. So it is inconclusive that circumcision is bad. Compared to foreskin problems, circumcision is better.
Sexual improvements from restoring not just pyschological
When I first started restoring I didn't think I would have any changes until I dekeratinized. But before I dekeratinized the glans became many times more sensitive and the inner foreskin remnant became much more sensitive, my pleasure and satisfaction greatly increased, and I had feelings and an intensity that I had never felt before. Those changes could not have been pyschological because I wasn't expecting any changes until I dekeratinized. A restored foreskin is not nearly as good as a natural foreskin mostly because a restored foreskin is missing thousands of high pleasure giving nerve endings. But for myself and for many males, a restored foreskin is many times better than no foreskin.
Improvements?
It has been shown that any adult male whose foreskin mobile will have about the same degree of keratinization whether circumcised or not.
In fact it is necessary and desirable for the glans to loose its infancy "wimpiness" for sexual activity to be maximized.
As far as "all those nerve endings" if you check into it they are of the type in your fingertips which are numerous to provide identity of where you are being touched. They tend to provide short messages.
Other parts of the penis (other than the foreskin) provide much of the ongoing pleasuring and the triggering of the orgasm.
In general these are better exposed to contact in someone that is circed or has a short foreskin.
Well It That Makes You Happy Then Do It (PART 1)
Your problem is pyschological. If they did your circumcision incorrectly and took off shaft skin with it. Then you should grow about 1/2" to 3/4" more of shaft skin, by skin expansion. If you use medical tape and pull the shaft skin forward, pushing the head inward, and tape it like that, you will allow the constant and moderate tension on the shaft skin you have to actually grow. It will be permanent, it isn't simply "stretching". The skin is the body's largest organ, and any type of skin, if you put constant and moderate tension in it, the skin cells turn from circular to eliptical, and spaces between skin cells develop. These spaces become filled up with new skin cells over time, and your shaft skin WILL loosen up. Not from "stretching" but from actually new skin cell growth. This is also how many guys have restored their foreskins, but committ to this skin expansion for over two years, they skin expand all the shaft skin over the head. It is a timely process and millions of men have done it. But most incorrect circumcisions have removed a lot of shaft skin, and the discomfort is in the lower forward side of the penis, not on the head. If you start skin expanding your shaft skin no more than 3/4" more skin grown, your discomfort will go away, your penis will have a perfectly exposed head, perfectly circumcised, but still moist and with more blood flow on the surface. Then you won't have a "botched" circumcision no more. Your sex life will improve. But full coverage of the head, that is too much, you'll run into the skin being too redundant for the thrust strokes during sex. Your problem more than likely is that some idiot Doctor, yanked all your skin through the clamp, over-doing the amount of skin through the ring, without thinking about the 1/2" more skin which is pulled into the clamp as they tighten it. Then you end up scalped with as much as 80% of the shaft skin removed with the foreskin, and the penis sticks out straight. But even guys like that over time, the skin on the shaft has grown and loosened up for a perfect streamlined shaft. I think you haven't even skin expanded your shaft skin for a few months constantly. The skin grows and loosens faster than you think too. This is the same process that is used when burn victims get ballon implants under their skin to skin expand "stretch" the skin ends towards each other. Over some time the skin grows and fills in all the missing skin, they remove the ballon implant which provides the tension on the skin. I bet you if you do this, the moistness and surface sensitivity on your member will increase enormously, since more skin is on the shaft. With it, more bloodflow too. But the actual foreskin removal to correctly expose the head, but not mess with the shaft skin, like a lot of botched circumcisions do, is the best lot. Give it time, you might want to expand some more of your shaft skin, you'll be amazed how you can correct your problem without surgery. Always remember, skin WILL grow back PERMANENTLY if you put constant and moderate tension on it. Some men have kept going and restored their foreskin completely with overhang like it was before being circumcised, with their head trapped in it. If you want to do that, go ahead, but you'll have the same skin redundancies you had with a foreskin, during sex. It's not worth restoring foreskin. But it is worth restoring shaft skin, if a lot of yours is missing from an incorrect circumcision! Try it, give it time, you don't need to put to much tension on it either. Moderate and constant tension on any skin, WILL cause it to grow! Now I don't know if you had damage to the head, if not, then your problem lies all with the skin and can be resolved over time. I said before here, there should be a law which restricts just any Doctor from doing circumcisions. Circumision should ONLY be performed by a Doctor who is an EXPERT at circumcision, understands all the different types of skin. Which types are to be kept, which types to be removed. You aren't supposed to just pull all the skin throught the clamp and tighten it. A real circumciser is supposed to know how much to pull through the clamp and that when it is tightened about an extra 1/2" will get pulled through. So it isn't much skin that should be pulled through it, then when the clamp is tightened, it pulls another 1/2" and it comes out perfectly.
Let's see how YOU like...
...having your penis cut into without anesthesia (trust me, I'd love to do that to doctors who routinely perform and advocate for the procedure just to show them how bad it hurts). Chances are, you would not. There is no such thing as a competent circumciser...they all cause needless pain to an infant. Look at the glans, it's not epithelial tissue. Rather, it is mucous membrane, and as such designed to be internal.
Studies show infants feel pain much more acutely than adults. Cortisol levels, blood pressure, and other stress hormones read off the charts during the procedure. If the procedure lasted much longer it is likely the baby would die of oxygen starvation due to prolonged crying (some babies turn blue during the procedure).
70% of active restorers (such as myself) resent their parents for having the procedure done. I can't stand to even look at my parents it makes me so mad and so sick that they put me through that. After I'm done with the suit I intend to completely cease communication with them and change my surname as to reflect I'm no longer related to them.
Also studies have shown that the procedure has a profound psychological trauma associated with it. Circumcised boys often show a disruption in maternal bonding, proper nursing, and have greater pain and anxiety response to vaccinations than do their uncircumcised or female counterparts. The reason circumcision was started in the USA was to prevent masturbation, only after that did the "medical rationale" for the procedure come into play after they realized that didn't prevent masturbation. It has a firm psychological hold on those who were sexually assaulted by the procedure.
Psychological Issues Not Physical Ones.
But your problem is psychological not physical. Because it's not a tooth or a nose job, but improvements on the penis, and you are upset. If you knew nothing about circumcision, you'd be going at it nice on some woman now. The mind has a huge effect on sexuality also. There's a lot of correctly circumcised guys who are having a great sex life, but find out about circumcision from watching You Tube, lol, and now have erection problems, lol. Just forget about it, what you got now is what a lot of uncut guys want, so the extra skin doesn't get in the way or bunch up while inside of the vagina. It's all psychological with you. Some things lay people probably should not see, or they might take it the wrong way. But on the infant, the foreskin is stuck to the head, it cannot be retracted normally. A lot of times this causes feces and urine to get into the tip and also urine retention within the foreskin ballooned at the end. A lot of uncut guys as babies with parents who don't want it done, go through more pain than anything circumcision causes, from parents having to retract the skin to get the feces out of the tip. Those are the same guys who grow up and get more into masturbation than being able to perform during sex. You're not missing anything, you traded a foreskin for a circumcision, there is no loss, when the normal function of the penis is brought out by circumcision. The most painful part of circumcision is only with the infant, and it is when the skin has to be peeled away from the head, since it is stuck to it on the infant. That I agree is very painful when having to retract infant foreskin. But once it is freed, and the skin is clamped, the actual cutting off the foreskin is not painful, just minor discomfort. The head acclimatizes within a few days, and it heals. Then everything is fine. There's people doing just fine till they watch You Tube and start thinking they've been "violated" this is the psychological problems some men get. Trust me, you're not missing anything with your foreskin gone. Those "studies" are so one-sided and biased, that if you research who is doing them, you'll find out they're not real unbiased researchers. They're paid front people by certain Lobbies. If you had a long foreskin, redundant, infected, and pain from it tearing, you losing your erection, the skin getting torn, and also giving and getting yeast infections between you and your woman, you might hate your parents for not having you circumcised. But now you're hating your parents for circumcising you. You're not missing anything, you have the best lot being circumcised as a baby. The excuses which were invented to support circumcision throughout the ages, was so lay people would get a simple answer. Lay people are lay people because they don't want to learn anything. If the experts told the whole story they would say that: 'circumcision performed to normalize the penis into it's correct functional state for sexual function, penetration into the vagina, elimination of HPV, Smegma, Urine Retention, Tyson's Cells, Tyson's Cells, STDs' and Blood Borne Pathogens and Micro-Trauma from the skin teaing and letting vaginal microbes into the bloodstream'. You don't get all those maladies when you're circumcised. That is why 130 million males are circumcised in America alone. That is also why they would just state simple answers to lay people and say it is to "prevent masturbation" or later, hygiene, or later this or that. If they just told the public the important reasons for circumcision, then maybe people wouldn't get confused so easily about circumcision. Don't believe those "studies". You turned out ok, right? Until maybe you started watching Circumcision on You Tube, lol. If you had your foreskin now you'd want it removed when you start to work on the ladies, trust me on that. I am not ignorant about that, I had my foreskin until I was 18, and I had to get rid of it in order to get into the vagina well, and not have a cut up, torn foreskin, with infections and bleeding everytime, as well as spreading infections and sickness. Circumcision is like a transformation into a "tool", it is way better. I was the opposite of you, I hated my parents for not circumcising me as a baby. But it's ok, they wanted to get me circumcised, but someone said "it's not necessary" so I had to put up with all I did as teenager. I hope this helps you what I am saying. Provided your circumcision was done right, you have the best lot being circumcised as a baby.
I was ok until...
...my friend Andrea brought the issue to my attention. I, like you, was in favor of circumcision until she showed me otherwise, and even showed me that there are physicians now that absolutely refuse to do the procedure (see doctorsopposingcircumcision.org). You think my problems are psychological...and I had the best by having those erogenous nerve endings removed...but let me tell you...by using non-surgical methods I'm reversing my circumcision and me and my wife-to-be can't be any happier. We're having the best sex we've ever had. Her take is that sex is much easier with the foreskin due to natural lubrication and the fact I don't thrust as hard (and I don't have to due to my increased sensitivity).
Oh well...one thing did good did come out of it though...annuity payments from the settlement with my doctor for the next 20 years...hey...I'm a teacher, I don't ,make that much anyway!
I'm Glad You've Resolved Your Problem, Some Comments For You
I am happy for you that you have resolved this issue in the unique manner which is best suitable for you. However I am not a stranger to witnessing the procedure, and being an Engineer I've also had considerable analysis and study of live circumcisions on infants as well as my own personal experience. Between having the extra useless sleeve vs. being a robust, well-pronounced normal feeling tool, I am in totaly support of the latter. Medical Doctors do not all unanimously agree on the same things either. There are the basics in medical concepts and principle for which they all do, since that is what makes them qualified as Doctors. But Doctors are also divided on circumcision. Some vehemently in support of routine circumcision for all males as mandatory, while others are just as vehementy against circumcision period. But most Doctors are neutral about Circumcision and will do whatever the parents want. Also, like you said, everyone is different. Some guys prefer to restore their foreskin by non-surgical skin expansion, by moderate and constant tension on the shaft skin and remaining inner foreward foreward over the course of 15 moths to 36 months, or how much skin they desire. Other guys are perfectly happy and feel blessed they were circumcised as infants. Other guys absolutely hate having foreskin and undergo full and tight adult circumcision. Like you were saying, everyone is different. What you are doing is right for you. But officially being circumcised as a baby is NOT responsible for the problems the Anti-Circumcision Lobby speaks of, only psychological problems are. Physically circumcision changes no overall properties of the penis and if anything improves its functions during sex, hygiene, and disease prevention. But psychologically for you, restoring your foreskin will make you and your partner very happy, so it surely is for you. I am glad you have resolved your problem. During the sex act, having moveable shaft skin is enough to eliminate chafing to the woman's vagina. I totally agree far too many circumcisions have been done so tight there is no moveable shaft skin. This is a major problem for men and their partners. But loosening up and growing some shaft skin by skin expansion if you were cut too tight is a good idea. But when inside the vagina, having all that foreskin really lowers your exposure to her vaginal wall while it lowers your stimulation to her as well. It is like the head is masturbating within the skin and the head gives or receives no stimulation. On top of that it becomes very filthy when you pull it out and you will have to wash it after the sex act is over. Or you WILL get an infection. When I had my skin, I always had to wash after the sex act was over. A few times I did not and I woke up with a very painful, imflamed, red and sore foreskin. Because uncircumcised males all get micro-trauma to the inner and outer foreskin during sex, then whatever bacterias and possible viruses within the vaginal fluids infect those micro-tears on the foreskin inner and outer surfaces. Also the existing HPV, smegma, stale urine, semen and trace amounts of blood also infect into those micro-tears. It isn't pleasent when you wake up and you can bearly walk beacuse your foreskin is so infected and raw. All if these problems are eliminated with a nice oomplete circumcision. Now when you get a couple inches or more of new restored foreskin you might not have those problems because it is a different and more tougher skin than the original foreskin. But you might have problems in staying hard inside the vagina and also giving and receiving stimulation from her vaginal wall and your head. But that also depends how much foreskin coverage you work on getting. If you go too much, you might have it where your can't get hard enough in her vagina and your member isn't solid and tough enough to penetrate her, as well as the head sliding through the new skin not stimulating her vaginal wall and not receiving stimulation from her vaginal wall to your head, since it is trapped in the skin. These are possible problems that might occur with what you are doing. But if you restored just the right amount you might get exactly what you and your partner would like. Anyways, take care, talk to you later. Bye.
The Overall Benefits of Circumcision is What Counts
Yes, the embryo always starts out female, but when male chromosomes happen to kick in, the female structures modify into male structures. The foreskin really is meant for the woman and her clitoris, that is normal and healthy. But when that modifies into the penis, then it becomes a problem. Not only that the Histology of the cells in the male foreskin is such that it becomes a tissue which secretes Human Papillion Virus and doesn't truly protect the head, but obstructs the head. Also Tyson's Cell which secrete under the male foreskin attract the HIV cellular molecule. But you do not see this with the clitoral hood or any external female genitalia component. Male foreskin is contrary to the normal function of the penis, which is not a clitoris anymore as it was during the first trimester. The penis prior to birth develops with the tubular foreskin structure. After birth, removing it is scientifcally proven to normalize the penis, into it's true and healthy function. Male foreskin is redundant, obstructive and infectuous secreting both HPV and Tyson's Cells. The clitoral hood is designed to be part of the clitoris, is not redundant, protective and secretes no viral toxins. So you can't compare the two. The oldest religions on earth, as well as the most modern of scientific findings both state circumcision of all males should be routine. Because people use too much emotion instead of living in reality, we are having "arguments" about circumcision. The overall benefits for the male, his partners and society overall, for sexual function, hygiene and diseasse prevention is enormous from a simple procedure as circumcision. Regarding the pain, a majority of infant circumcision pain stems from retracting the foreskin, not so much the clamping and cutting. Since it is such a thin tissue, once clamped the pain is brief and the foreskin turns numb. Cutting it is nearly painless. Overall the benefits of circumcision and normalization of the penis are enormous, not just to the man, but to his partners and all of society overall. This is why circumcision should just be required by law as are the vaccinations during the birth processes. If you get emotional on what I am saying, then you've missed the initiative and are not objective. Since circumcision is beneficial for males you can't argue against its validity. If you're concerned about pain, there's several other painful or possibly painful procedures newborns undergo, such as the birth process itself, vaccination shots through the foot, even the interior clamping of the umbilical cord produces acute pain, clamping the foreskin has acute pain too, but it's brief. Babies cry very loud over many things, but it isn't lasting. The permanent benefits of being liberated from an infectuous redundant appendage preventing normal penile fuction is why circumcision of all males should be law. Then those people who fail to understand the importance of routine circumcision of all males and its positive impact overall for society, just won't have an opportunity to contradict the truth.
Jewish Circumcision Did NOT Remove The Foreskin
Though we use the same word to refer to it, Jewish ritual circumcision was just a tiny snip off of the overhanging foreskin, not complete removal.
Redundant? So that's why the frenulum is the male's "G-spot?" That's why the foreskin has over 20,000 erogenous Meissner's Corpuscles, sensitive to light touch, and removing them desensitizes the male sex organ?
I recently settled out-of-court with my circumciser, going through attorneys for the rights of a child, for performing an unnecessary procedure, and intend to file suit against my parents as well, again with ARC, to compensate for the permanent damage that was done to me shortly after birth.
P.S. vaccinations don't work either. They cause autism, and are completely ineffective at preventing or curing disease. Pretty much all of modern medicine is a hoax for that matter.
The benefits of having foreskin outweigh the risks!
There are so many benefits to being intact. Some of which I will be able to get back, others I will have lost forever. But I will say this...in comparison to when I was a CI-2 on the foreskin coverage index (I'm now a CI-4 using tugging methods), sex is so much more pleasurable. The gliding action feels REALLY good to both me and my partner. I'm also more sensitive, meaning I don't have to thrust as hard to get the same amount of stimulation (actually...I get more stimulation with softer strokes now than I did with really hard strokes in my completely cut state).
The "diseases" that circumcision supposedly prevents are easily treatable anyway. UTI (which circ only offers about a 1% protection and this is only during the first year of life) can be treated with antibiotics and are normally caused by doctors/parents trying to forcibly retract the foreskin. Phimosis cannot be diagnosed in childhood, as in some males full retractability isn't attained until the early 20s. Then, if phimosis is a problem, steroid creams and gentle stretching are generally all that's needed. In extreme cases a dorsal slit may be required, but that's rare. Intact men have a greater chance at developing breast cancer (7%) than penile cancer (0.167%).
It is unethical to do this without the child's consent
The pro-circ arguements of even well-meaning doctors are moot. Circumcision is being done on infants who do not have a say in the matter. A male child should have the right to reach an age where he can weigh the pros and cons for himself and then decide whether or not to permanently remove a part of his body.
If there is an immediate medical concern, then a parent chooses medical procedures on behalf of the child, but at birth circumcision is nothing more than cosmetic surgery. This does not pass any ethics test. This violates the child's fundamental rights as a human being.
It is horrific that we as a civilized society continue to insist on cutting our babies without any thought to wether our young son would want that foreskin. A "pre-emptive strike" against unguaranteed future diseases by total removal of a body part without consent should bring terror to the minds of thinking parents.
Be Smart: Evaluate and Defer
You should evaluate an issue based on potential disaster and potential benefits, then defer the decision to the person best equipped to make it. Also, starting with a lack of action lends itself to best efficiency.
So are there potential disasters if you do not circumcise your male child? Some say there are risks of infection, discomfort and rare trauma. OK, how prevalent are these negative occurrences? Not very common. OK.
What about potential benefits for not circumcising? Sure, there are many that are discussed. How common or compelling are the benefits? Well it doesn't matter because we're only looking for actionable evidence.
Lastly, who would be best equipped to make the decision about circumcision for your male child? It should be very obvious: your male child himself, at a later age. By not circumcising him when he is unable to evaluate the issue for himself, you give him the power of choice over his own body and the freedom to make his own evaluation.
This, to me, is the most prudent course of action given the parties involved.
Why?
Why do you think you have the right to amputate part of my body when it poses absolutely NO risk for me to keep it the way I was intended to be?
Billions of men live their lives intact and do not experience any of the so called "complications" that people hungry to circumcise little boys claim they will suffer if they are allowed to remain whole - the way we are designed to be!
This is MY body. Cutting off a healthy and necessary part of MY body without MY informed consent constitutes assault. It's My penis, My foreskin - it should be MY decision!
Ethics in America
Where do rights come from? Slavery was practiced in the US long after it was abondoned in Europe. Today those trials are past and slavery is gone, women have the right to vote, child labor is illegal as is child abuse, even by well meaning parents. Interesting that Shoen and Morris compare surgery with vaccines given the raging debate about vaccine safety. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are INALIENABLE rights. These truths to be self evident, that these rights, including body integrity, come from outside us, e.g. our creator, but they are not bestowed upon us by society or government. Many doctors supported keeping the status quo during previous debates too. If Human Rights come from outside then it is wrong to cut off part of someone elses body unless they say it is OK or there is the presence of disease. Otherwise it become possible to justify slavery, female circumcision, the holocaust, etc. on what is legal, traditional or some authority's say-so.
Hanabi
I was told that RIC was NOT medically necessary....
when I was pregnant with my firstborn son, my OB/Gyn told me routine infant circumcision was NOT medically necessary - so I did not have this painful procedure done on my newborn. I have since had another male child and although they are now 17 & 9 yrs old, neither have had any complications, infections, or other issues related to having their foreskins intact! However, I have several friends that did opt for the surgery that have resulted in less than expected complications, multilations and numerous additional surgeries for their sons. How sad, I know that they thought they were doing something that was needed or required, but the medical 'professionals' misled ALL these families and have altered ALL their lives and that of future partners.
definition of amputation
V L, This is what I am used to as a definition of amputation. http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=12537
"Definition of Amputation: Removal of part or all of a body part enclosed by skin...Obviously the foreskin is the skin rather than enclosed by skin. Having googled the issue I concede there is a variety of definitions that don’t include this requirement. At the following site was a definition like one of yours: http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?query=amputate
"amputate 1. To prune or lop off, as branches or tendrils. 2. To cut off (a limb or projecting part (of the body)." Fortunately this one also defined parts of the body thus removing ambiguity.
http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?parts
"parts of human body: The head, neck, trunk, and limbs." It was enlightening as the issue wasn’t as clear a concept as I believed. An essential part of the definition being the enclosed in skin is not essential if googling is anything to go by.
Degloving the foreskin.
The male prepuce is a sophisticated sensory organ enclosed by skin. Need proof? Want to see whats inside the enclosed skin? Go ahead, check it out for yourself:
http://psotblog.typepad.com/psotblog/2008/05/confidential-pe.html
research.cirp.org
In addition to muscle, the foreskin contains a newly-discovered sense organ, the ridged band, that is full of nerve tissue and specialized nerve endings (Meissner's Corpuscles), and richly supplied with blood vessels. It contains important immunological cells. Who knows what else?
So even using the definition that Bates supplies, cutting off foreskins is still amputation.
Amputating healthy, functional body parts from anyone, in the absence of any medical necessity, without their fully informed adult consent, violates their human rights. Nazi doctors got convicted of crimes against humanity at Nurenburg for doing this.
Adults cutting off children's skin and muscle and nerve tissue and specialized nerve endings and blood supply and immunological cells, with all of which the prepuce is so richly endowed, is a criminal act under current law. It violates children's human rights to bodily integrity and security of person (security of the body). We must stop this madness.
NotJustSkin.org
Bates claims that the foreskin is just skin: "It is just a flap of skin" Michael Bates August 13, 2008 6:16PM. "Obviously the foreskin is the skin rather than enclosed by skin." Michael Bates August 18, 2008 4:48PM.
Bates' claim is false. The skin of the foreskin encloses other important tissues, too, not just skin. Circumcising amputates not just skin, but also muscle. There is muscle in that foreskin, dartos muscle. It acts like a sphincter muscle, keeping the foreskin closed over the glans, protecting the meatus (the opening for urine flow) by helping to keep foreign matter and contaminants out. The muscle fibers in the foreskin contract especially in cold weather, keeping the glans warm, just as the dartos muscle fibers in the scrotum contract in the cold, helping to keep the testicles warm, and relax in heat, allowing for more heat loss and thereby cooling the testicles. (more)
(To be continued)
NotJustSkin.org
Mr. Bates, are you claiming that cutting off skin isn't amputation?
If so, could you cut off ALL of a person's skin, the entire organ, and it not be an amputation?
But there is a problem. The skin is not a single layer. It has two main layers, the outer epidermis, and the inner dermis. So the dermis is enclosed by the epidermis. Does this mean that if you cut off only epidermis you haven't amputated but if you cut some dermis off you have amputated?
But wait. Another problem. The epidermis has five layers!
If we cut only the first layer off, we haven't amputated but if we dig into the second layer we have?
I think this definition has serious problems, but let's accept it for the moment. (To be continued)
Historical And Hygenic Reasons
Boys should be circumcised. The history of circumcision dates back to Abraham. Why should this be. From the hygenic point of view, removing the penile foreskin is hygenic. Due to heat and sweating, a layer of "deposits" who knows what is formed under the foreskin and they may contain germs and bacteria. The removal of the foreskin makes the penis accessible for cleaning and maintainance of penis health. Maintainin a healthy penis is paramount to guiding against series if sexually transmitted diseases and male sexual dysfunction.
not in the original history of the jewish people...
1) religion -- read 'the book of j' -- the original history of the jewish people. in it, there is no mention of circumcision. the 'covenant' was added many centuries later by oppressive, controlling priests. think about it! -- parents were required to allow a priest to touch, stimulate to erection, cut the healthy genitals and suck the blood of their perfect newborn child. circumcision is an anachronistic, oppressive, tribal blood ritual -- an initiation.
2) hygiene -- the outer foreskin protects its own inner mucosal tissue and the inner mucosal tissue of vaginal from foreign matter. outer foreskin and shaft never touch the inner vagina. immunological contributions of foreskin have been documented elsewhere in this discussion.
3) deposits? the same discharge occurs in ears, under nails, in the naval, etc. what to do? rinse with water. disease, germs, odor -- have little to do with foreskin and everything to do with cleanliness and mature choices.
Abraham was intact
I repeat the fact that Jewish ritual circumcision in the past did not remove the foreskin. It clipped a tiny bit off of the tip, the foreskin itself was left intact.
As far as your "deposits," these are easily washed away by pulling the foreskin back (once the foreskin becomes retractable) and rinsing with pure water. That easy.
Actually, the leading cause of erectile dysfunction is the lack of a foreskin.
Abraham was intact . . . until
Well, yes he was, but . . . doesn't it say he circumcised himself when he was 90 or 99 or so? Now that's a pretty good formula for when and by whom a male should be circumcised! Seems someone was trying to make circumcision universal among a people who weren't universally practicing it. Also note that, when Abraham and his tribes moved into that neighborhood from points north, there were fertility cults there practicing circumcision as a proclaimed means of assuring a man's potency. Now remember, authors of Chapter 17, trying to improve on authors of Chapter 15, came up with a man so old becoming the father of many simply by cutting off a little tiny part of his foreskin. Get it?
Doctors should be practicing medicine not rituals.
My first son was born in the hospital. I told the hospital staff I didn't think circumcision was a good idea but didn't have a clear reason as to why. Instead of informing me that this procedure isn't necessary, they drugged me after the birth and sided with the father who wanted it done for misguided reasons: thought it was the Christian thing to do (ITS NOT!) http://www.udonet.com/circumcision/christian.html , and the cultural daddy/son penis match. Circ'd son suffered numerous health problems: concealed penis, extreme pain from lack of skin to accommodate growth, adhesions, and Meatal Stenosis. My other children were born at home. My intact sons have never had any problems with their normal intact genitals. Had I had the information I do now - even weighing against Brian's and Schoen's ANTI-INTACT nonsense, I would've had the backbone necessary to protect him. Better yet, given birth to him at home. I'll never again trust any hospital that practice rituals and NOT medicine!
leave the boys alone
The owner of the penis should be the only one to make such a huge life altering decision. Our son is intact just a Mother Nature intended him to be. If he feels differently, he may have himself "cut" when he's grown. His body, his choice.
Dr. Spock says it best
"Leave his poor little penis alone."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZB4Oq4WXETI&feature=related
Continued from above...
....therefore making it a less traumatic procedure. Not to mention, good anesthesia and complete pain relief can be assured in the adult whereas it cannot in the infant.
It's best not to mess with God. I don't question God's ability in his, what was initially, perfect creation. The Bible says that creation was very good, thus foreskin must be very good. There is no such thing as a "superfluous body part." Every part of the body has a function, including tonsils and the appendix. These parts were not given their due respect until their functions were discovered, and of course there are those doctors who still object the fact that they have any real function. The male prepuce is the same way, slowly gaining the respect it deserves.
superfluous
Bagpiper,
God had Abraham lop his foreskin to signify his agreement. Do you think God would require that of something that wasn't at that time in history superfluous? Before clothing it probably served a purpose.
It was valuable
God apparently knew the foreskin had value. If you believe the story in Genesis 17 then you should realize that God required circumcision as a covenant. It was the price Abraham agreed to pay for all the land of Canaan. It was apparently God's form of currency at the time, which means it had to have value. Wouldn't have been much of a sacrifice if Abraham didn't need it anyway, right?
That's not God talking
God never told anybody to mutilate the sex organs of anyone else. That's not God talking. God is better than that. That's somebody taking God's name in vain. If you were Satan, where would you most want your commandments to appear? I think you would want them to appear to come from God's mouth: Genesis 17. The tale about circumcision was inserted into Genesis by corrupt priests about 550 BC. The earlier versions of Genesis, back to about 900 or 950BC, do not contain the fabrication about God telling Abraham to circumcise. Think the Bible can't contain lies? Read Jeremiah 8:8 - "How can you say that we are Holy, and the law of the Lord is with us, when in fact the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie?" The Bible says the Bible lies, I believe it, and, for me anyway, that settles it.
Read my reply above...
The word "circumcision" in the Bible does not mean removal of the foreskin. Rather, it was a bloodletting ceremony. It barely even clipped the end of the foreskin. It was changed later because sometimes the cut healed in such a way the scar was no longer visible.
http://www.stopcirc.com/christian.html for more information.
A biologist who doesn't understand natural selection/evolution?!?!?
"Dr." Morris should realize that natural selection and evolution would eventually lead to men not having foreskins if it was so disadvantageous to have one. There is a mutation that causes a male penis to form without a foreskin, and said development is considered a "birth defect." So we want to force a birth defect on our baby boys by cutting it off. Nice one.
I'd just love to see how these circumcisers would react if strapped to a board and had their genitals cut without anesthesia...they wouldn't like it! As much as they might say it, local anesthesia is far from the standard of care for routine circumcision. About three-quarters are still performed without it. And even so, local anesthesia does not provide complete pain relief.
Circumcision is actually less painful for an adult. This is because during the infant stage the foreskin and the glans are fused shut. It has to be forcibly separated in the infant. In the adult, it's just a cut/clamp as the foreskin is separated.......
amputation and other misconceptions
TLC Tugger, Perhaps it would be unethical to amputate body parts but it isn’t amputation. Only the foreskin is removed.
Joe, If the STD rate is so high then isn’t that a good reason to do things which reduce the risk?
“It also is very telling that most pro-circ people are men to begin with. This is evidence of the psychological hold it seems to have on those who have been violated.”
No Bagpiper. Having a penis means (subject to unusual psychological vulnerability) immunity to myths used to scare people about the consequences of circumcision.
“.. 85% of men worldwide are not circumcised” Isn’t it 60%?
Naumadd,
“ without diligent and reasonable research and reflection beforehand”
But doing so is what leads to circumcision.(?)
Definitions of "Amputate" (continued)
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary
Am"pu*tate\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Amputated; p. pr. & vb. n. Amputating.] [L. amputatus, p. p. of amputare: amb- + putare to prune, putus clean, akin to E. pure. See Putative.]
1. To prune or lop off, as branches or tendrils.
2. (Surg.) To cut off (a limb or projecting part of the body). --Wiseman.
----------------------------
A foreskin is a "projecting part of the body". Cutting off foreskins (or any other living body part) is amputating them.
Definitions of "Amputate" (continued)
American Heritage Dictionary
am·pu·tate
tr.v. am·pu·tat·ed, am·pu·tat·ing, am·pu·tates
To cut off (a projecting body part), especially by surgery.
[Latin amputāre, amputāt-, to cut around : am-, ambi-, around; see ambi- + putāre, to cut; see pau-2 in Indo-European roots.]
--------------------------
Cutting off foreskins is amputating them.
Look it up!
Here Bates, I'll do it for you:
-----------------------------------------
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
am·pu·tate
–verb (used with object), -tat·ed, -tat·ing.
1. to cut off (all or part of a limb or digit of the body), as by surgery.
2. to prune, lop off, or remove: ...
History has shown time and time again
that personal autonomy is NEVER an easy thing to win. People have always had to fight for their personal freedoms. From now until the end of time, there will be people like Dr. Schoen who will do whatever is in their personal power to stand in the way of "liberty and justice for all".
Radical circumcision on non-consenting minors is a gross-human-rights injustice and until this fact is recognized, it will sadly continue.
HIS body HIS choice!
It is just a flap of skin
Van Lewis thank you for the reply.
“Amputating major sense organs is not minor.” I struggle with the idea it is a major sense organ but in any case no amputation is involved. You mention that in your first post and it is very important to your second post. Have you looked up amputation and find it fits the definition as well?
"That "flap of skin"....” I don’t recall the ranking but I do recall that they were found to be present and the function of the meissner’s corpuscles was speculated to be erogenous by some British gentleman. What do you speculate the function to be?
“If you cut off ...would it damage her? “ Yes the eyes would dry out. The penis clearly isn’t an eye and gets by perfectly well without a foreskin.
”… If you cut out a baby's eyes, would her vision be impaired?”
Yes. What do you perceive the function of the foreskin to be? You obviously don’t subscribe to the undergrowth idea.
“ Cut.."
Very lateral..
Bodily functions and human rights
Bates asks: "... what do you perceive the function of the foreskin to be?" Remember, we're talking about other people's privates here. I do not have to demonstrate important functions of the foreskin (but I can) before adults can be stopped from amputating them from children. Even if the foreskin had NO functions (but it does), it is still protected. People can't chop up your body just because THEY think it has no function. Foreskins have several medically documented, important functions, primarily protective, sensory and sexual. Bates tries to claim these unimportant or non-existent in order to support adults wanting to violate children's human rights by mutilating and amputating their perfectly normal, healthy, living sex organs. Genital amputators/mutilators must be stopped from harming babies and putting children's lives at risk through medically unnecessary, harmful amputations of their normal, healthy, living body parts including major sense organs. This is a no-brainer, folks.
Getting by? Or optimally, maximally functional, as provided by nature?
"... the penis isn't an eye and gets by perfectly well without a foreskin." And a person can "get by" "perfectly well" without a hand. Does that entitle adults to cut perfectly healthy hands off of babies to prevent them from getting potential medical problems in the hand? NO! Medically unnecessary amputations of living, healthy human body parts violate human rights. It doesn't MATTER whether the adults proposing such medically unjustified and unnecessary amputations have high or low opinions of the body parts proposed for amputation. Those body parts, ALL of them, are protected private parts belonging to the person whose body grew them, and are not fair game for every adult who happens by with a low opinion of the body part at issue. My low opinion of your body parts does not entitle me to amputate them. Lucky for you. Babies have equal legal, constitutional, and human rights to equal protection of the law. Period.
Bates asserts obvious falsehoods AGAIN
Bates inexplicably asserts of circumcision, "No amputation is involved" and asks me, "Have you looked up amputation and find it fits the definition as well? " (as mutilation, previously discussed, does). I have and it does. Have you, Mr. Bates?
Bates asks me to speculate as to what the function of the Meissner's corpuscles in the blood- and nerve-dense sense organ in the foreskin might be. The issue is not what I think they might be doing there (but I'll tell you: initiating normal, vital nerve impulses to the spinal cord and/or brain, like any other highly specialized sense organ at any other nerve ending, whether in the retina of the eyes, in the ears, nose, tongue, skin, etc). The fundamental issue is whether adults can mutilate healthy babies and children by amputating normal, healthy, living sense organs and other body parts from their bodies without violating the human rights of those children. They cannot.
Smackdown
Doctors Opposing Circumcision (i.e. actual medical doctors) sure have crushed the myths and outdated falsehoods from the other side.
I can hardly wait for Biologist Morris (about as relevant an area of expertise as Astronomy) to object "but but but I like the look of a permanently exposed glans SO much better!" and Schoen to object in the form of a poem.
DOC really nails it when they observe that circumcision promotion and re-enactment is a behavioral side-effect of circumcision. Intact men rarely engage in this practice. It's a cycle of abuse.
Involuntary Mutilation ...
Circumcision of any male before he is able to give voluntary consent is nothing short of culturally-sanctioned involuntary mutilation of a child unable to defend itself. It's a barbaric practice without ironclad reason.
Surely, a baby's mouth and hands are the principal pathways to many childhood illnesses. I don't suppose there's anyone advocating removing hands and sealing mouths in the interest of disease prevention. Ironic that creams, ointments, regular washing, immunizations, etc. are advocated for the rest of the body but, when it comes to possible problems involving the penis, the standard cure or treatment is to slice it to a more culturally-approved shape.
Being a victim of such involuntary mutilation, I would have opted out given the choice. Unfortunately, that choice was not permitted me despite my innate rights from the moment of birth. To force such barbarity on a child without diligent and reasonable research and reflection beforehand by parents is unforgiveable.
The procedure is advocated for by those who were victim to it
I've never once met an uncircumcised doctor (yes, I know of a few) who ever recommended circumcision. To me this is very telling. The only doctors that seem to recommend circumcision are the ones that have fallen victim to it, or female doctors with a strong bias against foreskin.
It also is very telling that most pro-circ people are men to begin with. This is evidence of the psychological hold it seems to have on those who have been violated. Women, and particularly mothers, tend to be more against it, statistically speaking. The majority of the anti-circ group is made up of mothers who regret having their sons circumcised. As for the men, they see it as quite normal, when in reality about 85% of men worldwide are not circumcised.
Dr. Schoen has been proven a total quack, was removed from the board of the AAP, among other things. That should tell you that he's an incompetent physician right there.
Neither the AAP nor the AMA recommends routine circumcision.
US has highest rates of all STDs
As noted in this recent article from MSNBC, STD Nation, according to the CDC, the U.S. has the highest STD rates of any country in the industrialized world. http://tinyurl.com/5sgrwq
To put it in perspective, Advocates for Youth published this data sheet on adolescent sexual health in the US (where circumcision is common) vs Europe (where circumcision is rare) http://tinyurl.com/5fwu3 Clearly, circumcision has not done much to help us here in the US.
It's just so easy
There is no emergency, and therefore it is unethical to amputate body parts from someone who can't give consent.
Foreskin feels REALLY good.
HIS body, HIS decision.
The mind of a Circumfetishist
“Appearance” is on your solicitation list, Mr. Morris. Circumfetishist are fixated on the appearance of a reduced penis so I'm not surprised you continue to tout this as a “benefit”. While you're entitled to your sexual preferences, you should never force your prejudices onto an infant.
“'What then is sexier about a circumcised penis? Quite likely it is that the glans is exposed in both the erect and unerect state, and therefore the unerect state still suggests the erect .” Recognize your own words, Mr. Morris? It takes a SICK mind to want to see that on a newborn! I don't see what the big deal is about a scar and a denuded dried out glans: regarding the adult circumcised male of course.
http://circumstitions.com/comparison.html
For the record, I mean no disrespect to those who are angry that they were robbed of their freedom to choose whether or not to modify their own healthy sex organs.