Anyone who has ever had a child knows that as soon as the baby is born, you’re faced with a whole lot of decisions. Breastfeeding or bottle feeding? To swaddle or not to swaddle? Bassinet or crib? If you have a boy, you’ll be faced with another decision right off the bat — whether or not to circumcise him.
Some parents choose to circumcise their baby boys for religious reasons. Others do it because it is a cultural norm. Some cite medical and hygiene reasons. Whatever reasons for or against circumcision you have in mind, it is worth it to be informed about both sides of the coin before you get to the hospital on delivery day.
Circumcision in America is common
In the United States, circumcisions are pretty common, although not as common as in days of yore. In 2006, about 56 percent of American parents reportedly circumcised their newborn boys. In 2009, the number was down to 32.5 percent. The U.S. is also one of the only countries in the world that circumcises infants for reasons other than religion.
Dr. Marvin Wang of Massachusetts General Hospital, said, “The U.S. is one of only a handful of countries where circumcision is common. In the majority of the world, it’s generally almost never done, except for religious reasons.”
So, should you go ahead with the procedure for your baby? Before you make your choice, keep in mind the pros and cons:
Pros include UTI and phimosis prevention
In a 2015 paper titled “Neonatal Circumcision: Risks and Benefits,” Dr. Laurence S. Baskin, a professor of pediatrics and chief of pediatric urology at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote:
“Circumcision has been associated with a number of medical benefits, including lower rates of urinary tract infection (UTI), penile cancer, penile inflammation, penile dermatoses and sexually transmitted infections… A lower rate of UTI is the major benefit during infancy.”
Additionally, if a newborn baby boy is not circumcised, there is about a three percent chance that he will need a circumcision procedure at some point in his life if he develops an infection or phimosis. Phimosis is a condition characterized by the foreskin not retracting as it should. A circumcision procedure can be more complicated in older children. Three percent is a small percentage, but it is a risk.
Do males need circumcision?
From the above list of benefits, one might gather that circumcising a baby is highly advantageous. However, experts have determined that it is not a procedure needed for a child’s well-being. The authors of a 1999 policy statement published in the journal Pediatrics wrote:
“Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision. However, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child’s current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child… If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided.”
Researchers disagree on the pros of circumcision
In 2013, the journal Pediatrics published an article which called to question the opinion of the American Academy of Pediatrics. It stated that the medical benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks. The authors of the paper were medical professionals from outside of the United States. They cited cultural bias as one reason for this AAP’s conclusion. The authors wrote:
“… only one of the arguments put forward by the American Academy of Pediatrics has some theoretical relevance in relation to infant male circumcision; namely, the possible protection against urinary tract infections in infant boys, which can easily be treated with antibiotics without tissue loss. The other claimed health benefits, including protection against HIV/AIDS, genital herpes, genital warts and penile cancer, are questionable, weak and likely to have little public health relevance in a Western context, and they do not represent compelling reasons for surgery before boys are old enough to decide for themselves.”
Cons include infection, scarring and complications
As with any surgery, there are also risks to the circumcision procedure. In Dr. Baskin’s 2015 paper, “Neonatal Circumcision: Risks and Benefits” (also cited earlier in this article), a variety of risks are outlined. Just a few include:
- Bleeding
- Infection
- Complications to the urethra
- Adhesions
- Scarring
- Inadequate skin removal
- Injury (along with the risk of possible penis amputation)
- Complications with anesthesia
In recent years, several organizations, including Doctors Opposing Circumcision (DOC), have claimed that circumcision is not only risky but also a violation of human rights. It has been compared by these groups to female genital mutilation, recognized in the Western world as an inhumane practice.
According to Dr. George Denniston, the president of DOC:
“Medical ethics state that parents only have the right to make medical decisions that are in a child’s best interest. All mammals have a foreskin and that’s the way nature intended it. Circumcision shouldn’t be done to children because they can’t give informed consent. They have the right to an intact body.”
Talk to your doctor about circumcision
If you do decide to circumcise your baby, make sure that the physician uses anesthesia. In past years, anesthesia was not used for these procedures and that is horrifying. Talk to your doctor about what type of anesthesia will be used and what the risks may be. Make sure to have a detailed discussion about the risks of the circumcision itself and how safe the procedure is for your child’s individual health.
If you decide not to circumcise your son, all you have to do to greatly reduce his risk of infection is to keep his penis clean. Of course, this should be done with circumcised babies, as well. Bathe him regularly and call the doctor if signs of redness or irritation do occur. Also, be careful not to pull the foreskin back — this can lead to irritation or damage.
– Tanya Mead
Circumcision is traumatic. This means there are long-term psychological effects. A survey showed that circumcised me have more difficulty expressing feelings. Women already know about this male trait. Circumcised men lose about one-third of the erogenous skin on the penis. They are more likely to have erectile dysfunction. See circumcision dot org for more information.
Overall, this article is more fair than most of the biased “ew cut it off!” things you see in much U.S. media. But including phimosis in the “3% need for circumcision later” is a bit silly. There are simple ways to treat phimosis (particularly light stretching, often supplemented with a steroid cream) that do not involve amputating healthy tissue.
Circumcision is surgery and there are always risks. Infant circumcision is always questionable, because the owner of the foreskin cannot give his own consent to the surgery.
This ethical question cannot be resolved by these proposals but some common sense rules could reduce the risks of this surgery.
1 Unqualified people should be banned from circumcising anyone!
2 Qualified but incompetent circumcisers should be banned from circumcising anyone else!
3 Dangerous traditional practices such as metzitzah b’peh (oral suction of the circumcision wound) should be discouraged by public education and other suitable measures.
4 Before anyone is circumcised, an independent doctor must certify in writing that the person is free of any bleeding disorders and any other contra-indications and is strong enough to withstand the surgery.
5 If a child is to be circumcised, both the mother and the father must give informed and written consent to the surgery. No child should be circumcised against the objection of a parent.
6 If a man or an older child is forcibly circumcised against his will, this should be treated as a sexual assault, and the perpetrator prosecuted accordingly.
These rules won’t interfere with most circumcisions, but they would, if implemented, give some protection to those who are circumcised.
It also doesn’t mention the high rate of meatal stenosis which is primarily associated with circumcision with 8-10% often requiring correction with painful surgery to open the meatus.
Wow. Your propoganda is getting worse with each post you make, Ronald. This post really is a pile of Post-truth, self-righteous nonsense: not only are you ignoring all the evidence opposing your beliefs but now you claim marginal, agenda driven claims as fact AND claim complete lies as fact!
No reputable erectile dysfunction body in the world even suggests circumcision is a contributing factor.
(Circumcised men have more difficulty expressing their feelings, indeed!)
Your posts are becoming a joke, Ron. Good for entertainment value but very poor on a factual level.
Carry on.
A rather biased piece, but not out of the ball park EXCEPT the claim that the US circumcision rate was 32.5% in 2009. That is a fabrication spread by Intactivists. CDC hospital discharge figures actually show a RISE in the circumcision rate over the last three recorded years and never a rate below 54%.
All of which is entirely irrelevant since the minor medical benefits from circumcision are a side issue and rarely the primary reason parents choose circumcision in the US.
Since the motivation is not primarily medical the question is, “Does circumcision cause significant harm?”, NOT, “Does circumcision provide significant medical benefit.”
A Danish study has found that circumcised men are three times more likely to have sexual dysfunction: Int J Epidemiol (2011) 40 (5): 1367-1381
What erectile dysfunction ‘bodies’ are you referring to? Name a few.
Circumcision should be a personal choice when the person is old enough to decide for themselves.
Morten Frisch? The same Frisch who did a study claiming circumcision causes Autism? That Autism study which has been dismissed by every Autism body in the World? And who has also produced a study claiming circumcision causes ED which has also been dismissed by every reputable medical body in the world? The anti-circumcision campaigner Frisch?
THAT is your evidence? LOL. You fanatics really are clutching at straws, aren’t you!
I’m sorry you can’t think of any reputable medical bodies you could go to to find out about ED (although that does explain a lot!)
What about the NHS website for starters? In fact, why not just type ED into Google and see if you can find ANY medical site (as opposed to exclusively Intactivist propaganda site) which claims circumcision causes ED?
Picture this: a small, naked child, restrained by adults or strapped into a device, spread-eagled, perhaps already screaming, an adult approaching the genitals with a scalpel. If you have to ask whether that child is male or female in order to agree that this is a violation of human rights, there is something wrong with you.
Circumcision is not a parenting choice made for your child. It is a personal choice taken from the man he will become.
While this article correctly identifies a choice offered to parents in the U.S., where circumcision/foreskin amputation is “customary” for non-religious reasons, it is a false choice. One must consider what would lead a physician, committed to the well-being of the patient, not the “wishes” of the parents, and sworn to the Hippocratic Oath to “First, Do No Harm”, would take a knife to healthy, highly erogenous genital tissue. In what other circumstance, what other body part, would such an act be tolerated?
However, even though this article attempts “balance”, it fails to note that UTI’s are 10 times rarer in boys than in girls, while they mention it is treated with antibiotics, not surgery, in those cases. It would require 100 circumcisions to prevent 1 case of UTI in an intact boy.
The article also shorts the list of risks, leaving out one parents are rarely if ever advised of: death! This usually occurs from hemorrhage. They also fail to mention the post-traumatic stress verified in research, the disruption of breastfeeding and bonding, and the unacceptable rate of re-surgies to modify complications of the circumcision, among others.
A choice? His Body/His Choice! For parents, no choice necessary – the mother just spent 9 months fashioning one of the most intricate, highly sensitive (like fingertips), protective, sexually functional body parts – cut it off at birth?! Take the WHOLE baby home!
… and it’s a rare man that wants his penis chopped!
“not only are you ignoring all the evidence opposing your beliefs ” – that describes your position, my friend!
Circumcision for boys or for girls is a relic of the bronze age. Surprisingly hygienically speaking , yes , the less surface area…… But come on folks this is 2017
The wise speak only of what they know, Gríma son of Gálmód. A witless
worm have you become. Therefore be silent, and keep your forked tongue
behind your teeth. I have not passed through fire and death to bandy
crooked words with a serving-man till the lightning falls.
If the motivation was not medical, doctors should not be doing it in the first place. But, in truth, false medical science is often the motivation or at least part of it.
On what planet would that be, Stormwatch? Here on planet Earth Doctors perform many different types of cosmetic surgery, including on children.
And “in truth” surveys tend to show patents list hygiene, tradition and appearance as primary motivations, with medical advantages as a bonus.
Is this what passes as words of wisdom on your home planet, Stormwatch? Quotes from fantasy novels?
I presume this comment was directed at me rather than Jhon? In which case I certainly haven’t ignored evidence which opposes my beliefs… I base my beliefs on the evidence, I DON’T seek evidence to support my beliefs.
That is a difference you Foreskin Fanatics don’t understand.
Bwahahahahahahahaargh (chortles)
“If you do decide to circumcise your baby, make sure that the physician uses anesthesia.”
There is nothing, not even a law that makes any form of anesthesia a requirement of MGM, euphemistically known as circumcision. In fact it takes time to administer and more time to absorb while adding about $10-12 to the mutilator’s costs. Studies have shown that 75% of OBGYNs do not use any anesthetic whatsoever.
The only way to be somewhat certain is to insist on being in the (usually soundproofed) circumcision chamber when this brutal amputation takes place. Keep in mind that there is no anesthetic that can remove this excruciating pain entirely. Not to mention the infant’s pain of recovery without being able to change bodily positions to get more comfortable, nor to escape the stinging ammonia pain caused by contact with his own urine, nor the pain of any infections caused by his own excrement in contact with his raw wound.
What an abominable way to welcome our newborns into the world!
If the ethical questions cannot be resolved, then there must be a moratorium placed on this horrendous human rights violation for both sexes. Technique can be no substitute, nor a justification, for the routine violation of the right of every human being to his or her bodily integrity and autonomy.
I will not argue against your beliefs. However, millions of Jews and more than a billion Muslims believe that circumcision is mandated by their deity, and many secular people believe that circumcision is a good thing, or at least that its benefits outweigh the risks.
This doesn’t mean that nothing can be done. If the Chinese can stop foot binding, the Hindus stop burning their widows on their husbands’ funeral pyres and Christians can refrain from slaughtering witches, then something can be done about circumcision.
Dangerous traditional circumcision practices can be challenged and modified or stopped. The forced circumcision of adults and older boys could be branded as sexual assault. Unqualified people could be banned from circumcising anyone and incompetent circumcisers can be banned from performing any more circumcisions. Finally, we can accept that a child should not be circumcised if one of his parents objects.
From your point of view, that is far from perfect. However, I hope you will see that they are steps in the right direction.
While what you say is true, it’s perhaps a little distorted. This study https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/circumcision_2013/Circumcision_2013.htm#x2013;2010 covers the years 1979 to 2010
This expressed the study more accurately: “Across the 32-year period from 1979 through 2010, the national rate of newborn circumcision declined 10% overall, from 64.5% to 58.3% (Table and Figure 1). During this time, the overall percentage of newborns circumcised during their birth hospitalization was highest in 1981 at 64.9%, and lowest in 2007 at 55.4%.”
It also contains the following caveat: “Note that these estimates do not include circumcisions performed outside the hospital setting (e.g., ritual circumcisions) or those performed at any age following discharge from the birth hospitalization. Thus, these rates cannot be used as prevalence estimates for all male circumcisions in the United States.”
?? I think you missed a briefing.
Rob Waddell you have a lot of anger issues. Get help!
Each word written about this issue is superfluous…..if the Creator commanded to do so [for the Jewish people at least] then calling this barbaric [ Is Circumcision BARBARIC?] is at least a sign of uttermost atheism and at the same time stupidity, a lack of understanding anything of this world.
Discussing the pros or contra’s [?] for none Jews is a legitimate issue.
Think before you publish, not putting a blemish on your lofty ideals to treat with natural means which I try as well as a physician in Jerusalem.
I chose to leave my son intact & let him decide when he is old enough.
Many of his friend have the same option and I know of a few who opted to have the procedure done when in their late teens. I should be THEIR choice!
EXACTLY!
What was and is a Judeo religious ceremony has become the normal in those born after WWII. Yes, there are pros and cons. It was perform on baby boomers like myself in the 1950. I would personally not have made the choice. Having the natural skin there does help with irritation and sensitivity later in life. My father was born in 1910 and they did not do the procedure then as the norm. He had no problems and fathered 10 children. My step son was born in Colombia and they do not perform the procedure on new born.. He is now 10 years old and has not had any problems.Some parents are afraid that other boys may make fun of there sons in gym showers. My personal choice as a parent would be leave it to nature and let the child decide his choice and preference as he grows. Performing unnecessary surgery on children is barberic.
Omg, I wish I’d never gotten my son circumcised. I was not sure at the time.
1973, but I knew that most babies were circumcised and I wanted my baby to look like everyone else’s baby. And then there’s the gym locker thing. I knew he was going to hurt. I cried with him. I’m so sorry now.
Im going to be 60 and had none of those problems but Im also from a different generation I had 3 girls so I didn’t have to decide. Also don’t judge a book by its cover Im Catholic my grandfather couldn’t spell
I don’t see any mention of the loss or nerves (removal of a part of the male sensory system) and the loss of sexual pleasure and sexual function for life. Mot human males are natural and the rest of the world thinks the U.S. is way CRAY for cutting off penis parts. Most of the civilized industrialized world has men that have all of their penis and that includes doctors that have all of their NATURAL penis. Almost no doctor with all of his natural penis recommends the amputation of protective and erogenous tissue (it is not extra in any way).
It is a simpleton/primitive view that having a partial penis is more hygienic. That is just not the case. It is actually not cleaner to have a cut up penis. It has now also been observed that natural boys have about the same bacteria as natural girls and that cut boys have different (invasive) bacteria (such as Staph A).A changed microbiome is bad.
What parent would want to cut nerves from the brain and change the sensory system of their newborn? Isn’t that what is involved with cutting genital parts of boys. Those fine touch and stretch sensing nerve endings provide pleasure for the male. How is it that there is no mention of this? How could the removal of erogenous tissue from a baby and the man he will become be considered a parental decision. It is a HUMAN rights violation if parents do this.
Somehow many American’s don’t know or refuse to acknowledge that circumcision is the removal the MOST innervated penis parts – the only mobile erogenous tissue – LOWERS sexual pleasure. The loss of the only male mobile erogenous tissue is obviously a negative. Disconnecting part of the sensory system cannot be good. The loss of so many nerve endings is certainly BAD.
The parts feel awesome and a partial penis cannot experience natural sex. The International Journal of Men’s Health published results of a study that showed circumcised men are 4.5 times more likely to experience erectile dysfunction due to loss of sensitivity. In a further study, The British Journal of Urology International reports that circumcised men can experience up to a 75 percent reduction in sensitivity compared to men who are not circumcised. Cut men take almost all of the VIAGRA that is produced.
Besides ED drugs, consider some products that highlight the problems cut men face
“In less than 30 days of wearing ManHood, you will start to feel the wonderful benefits:”
“Centric Research Institute today launched CIRCUMserum™, the first personal care product formulated specifically for use by circumcised men. ”
There are studies that show the most sensitive parts (most innervated) are cut off and the cut man is left with the scar as the most sensitive part. But go beyond testing and lets just go to the obvious that has been known for centuries, the penis parts cutting removes a source of pleasure for LIFE. Test this by pulling back your foreskin and running the back of a fingernail over your glans and then over your inner foreskin. The inner foreskin has the main pleasure nerves. If you cut off these parts you will lose that sensation.
Anyone that seriously thinks circumcision does not negatively change sexual pleasure is misinformed or in denial.
You think you are sane. If you are cut, you don’t know what you are missing out on, and never will. Circumcision interferes with sexual function. Imagine that! Yep, it does.
Well OK, but almost no men decide to cut off parts of THEIR penis. That should be the guide — most men don’t want a partial penis so most babies don’t want a partial penis == NOT a parents decision.
Isn’t meatal stenosis — caused by penis parts cutting — more of a problem than phimosis. Also, real phimosis is less common thatn stated.
As a member of the Jewish community, I had my son circumcised by a mohel (a person trained to perform ritual circumcision) who also happened to be an MD, at home on the eighth day after his birth.
It wasn’t easy to watch him be cut, but it was not the “horror show” someone here described with the baby strapped to a board, held down, immobilized, etc.
I held him until it was time and then his father held him cradled in his arms while the mohel snipped, dressed the cut, etc. It took about a minute. As is customary, the baby was given a cloth soaked with a bit of wine to suck on before and after the procedure.
There were no complications and as far as sexual issues, my husband who was also circumcised never had any complaints, nor did I.
One issue that may be worth noting – since most non-Jewish Americans who have their baby circumcised let the hospital do it before going home, it is typically done very early – too early!
There is a reason Jews wait until the eighth day, when the baby has already had a little time to adjust to life outside the womb, and is better able to heal.
If you’re a non-Jew contemplating circumcision for other reasons, you might want to investigate having it done a week after birth, instead of immediately at the hospital.
It’s hard to imagine that Nature made a mistake by sheathing the glans of males (whether you’re talking about humans, animals or insects)–and that, in any case, doctors know better than Nature…BTW, one un-discussed consequence of US doctors arbitrarily severing the ligament that retracts the foreskin over the head of the penis is the gradual diminution and eventual loss of sensation of the penis which, in turn, drives men to recover what’s been lost by resorting to dangerous drugs, injections and hormone disrupting testosterone boosters which make a bad problem considerably worse…
Perhaps the rest of the world actually knows what it’s doing by allowing Nature to have its way…
End,
Clifford
Santa Monica
It’s not the penis getting chopped, and if it’s done neonatally, it’s just part of the pain of getting born.
There’s lots of things an infant can’t effectively communicate, or are ignored by adults (“Me parent, you baby”) even if he gets his message across that get him KILLED.
And if I could go back in time and tell my doctor to give me a hysterectomy at birth, I would. Of course, he’d ignore me.
Most of the world is intact. Informed adults can decide for themselves.
Foreskin feels REALLY good. Circumcision alters sex dramatically.
The fact that you have apparently survived your own forced genital mutilation as well as the complete violation of your Human Rights does not constitute a license for you or anyone else to perpetrate the same procedure on any unconsenting minor.
Wendy, coming from a woman, that sounds like the male obstetrician who said there is no feeling in the cervix. I know three adult males who are devastated about their infant circumcision.
Hardly. Circumcision IS disgusting. Women want something a bit longer and what do future grandmothers suggest to their daughters and sons?
Think extension ladder.
I rarely disagree with God about anything – well this is the time.
Amen
I am uncircumcised! It would have been my choice to be circumcised as a baby, and almost did last year even at age 66. The reason? All my life I have had problems with rashes on the head and foreskin of my penis! If I don’t clean myself first thing in the morning, and go outside to work in the yard or other things, I will be broken out all over the head and foreskin before the day is over. I use creams and neospirin at least twice a week to keep it under control. The rash burns and stings really bad. I pull the foreskin off of the head every time I urinate, clean with either toilet paper or baby wipe, and still get it. It is not an STD!
I DID have both my sons ciruumcised as a baby for that reason, and I don’t regret it, and neither do they! I didn’t want them going through that torment all their lives. Yes, I could have made the choice to be circumcised when I was older, but my GP and my urologist discouraged it even after examiming my infected penis. They always said it was just “heat rash.” So, I don’t think any man wants to go through that every week. My sons are grown, married, and have children of their own now, and they chose to have their sons circumcised as well. Not all men have experienced the rashes, but I have talked to several who have.
To each his own regarding whether to or not. I wish I had been!
I say it is up to the individual. If dad is happy without then go without if that is your decision. I do know of an instance where the man had to have the circumcision when he got married as he had problems and it was medically necessary.
No the 3% need for circumcision later is not silly. I know someone who’s son was not circumcised when he was born and he had to get it done when he was nine
“Had to” because of phimosis? Because my point is that phimosis does not require circumcision.
I hate to bear bad news for your friend’s nine-year-old, but there are much simpler and less damaging treatments, and abnormal phimosis CANNOT be diagnosed in a nine-year-old, anyway, since it is a natural condition in childhood.
Circumcision should be a felony and anyone who does it on babies needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for a felony!
It is Infant mutilation, barbaric, uncivilized, harmful physically and mentally. If the Great Geometrician meant boys should be circumcised, they would be born as such. Prejudice, ignorance and 1/2 knowledge usually prevail amongst the ignorant.!
And yet most circumcised men go on to circumcise their sons, INCLUDING men circumcised as adults (which rather destroys the intactivist “colour-blind” argument!)
No sane man would circumcise his son if he resented his own circumcision or felt uncircumcised was better.
Sadly for you and your intactivist argument, men circumcised as adults ALSO tend to circumcise their sons. And they know exactly how little they are “missing out on”!
Good point. If Ronald is circumcised he is either lying about the consequences or, by his own reasoning, suffering long term psychological trauma, incapable of expressing his feelings and impotent to boot.
Picture this: a screaming child held down by his parent and a nurse while healthy teeth are pulled from his mouth, before braces are fitted which will cause him ongoing pain for several years… for purely cosmetic reasons.
I do hope you are campaigning against braces as well as circumcision… or is it just the genitals of other people’s children you are interested in?
Excuse me. YOU are interested in children’s private parts and cutting away healthy tissue. WE are just interested in human rights and leaving the poor babies to choose for themselves when they are of age!
Teeth? By the time anything you describe takes place, children are usually at an age where they can consent or at least understand what is happening and why. Not comparable, sorry.
Firstly, I don’t make any effort to push my beliefs on other families – I neither promote nor oppose circumcision… and unless you can demonstrate that circumcision causes significant harm (and you can’t) neither do you have a right to push YOUR beliefs on other parents through exagerations and emotional blackmail.
Secondly… anyone who believes a ten year old child has any real ability to defy his parent’s wishes is simply deluded. Muslim boys are not dragged kicking and screaming to their circumcision!
And finally, the removal of teeth and the fitting of braces for purely cosmetic reasons is an excellent analogy: minor health benefits but largely social / cultural. The very fact that you do not see this analogy demonstrates your fixation with the genitals of other people’s children rather than a general concern for their well-being.
Glad your husband has no problems but not all circumcisions are the same. Some cuts are more aggressive than others and can remove very sensitive inner foreskin and frenulum. I personally struggle to orgasm during sex because I have very little sensitive tissue remaining on my penis.
I hope for your sake that your son’s circumcision was not extremely debilitating. There is no such thing as a harmless circumcision. Some cuts are less debilitating than others.
Intact men enjoy blowjobs more because they have erogenous tissues that cut men are missing.
Multiple girlfriends have been unable to get me off with a blowjob because I have very little erogenous tissue left. I’d rather enjoy a rare blowjob than be apathetic about having plenty of them.
How exactly, is my comment a “little distorted”? I would say, in fact, quoting a 10% decline over 32 years is a distorted claim since the rate varies year on year and that 10% claim is from a peak year to a trough year.
They could equally truthfully have stated that the circumcision rate was unchanged in the 22 years from 1988 to 2010… perhaps a more valid conclusion since those are the last 22 recorded years… and the rate increased in each of the last three years.
There is nothing distorted about my claim.
Hi Bilbo,
* The study itself said there was a 10% drop overall from 1979 to 2010. Referring to just the last three years of the study without noting this finding does distort the findings of the study, even though what you said was true.
* If they had the figures from 1979 to 2010, commenting just on the last 22 years would distort the overall finding of a drop over the 32 year period.
* The overall rate did fluctuate. It was highest in 1981, at 64.9% and lowest in 2007 at 55.4%. However, different regions had different patterns.
* In the western states, the rate was highest in 1979, at 63.9% while the rate was lowest in 2003 at 31.4%. (It was 40.2% in 2010.)
* In the Northeast, the circumcision rates were 66.2% in 1979 and 66.3% in 2010, virtually unchanged. The rate was highest in 1983 (69.2%) and lowest in 2007 (60.7%).
In the South, the rate was higher in 2010 than in 1979 while in the midwest it was lower.
See the PDF, “Estimated number of male newborn infants discharged from short-stay hospitals, and percentage circumcised during birth hospitalization, by geographic region: United States, 1979-2010” at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/circumcision_2013/Circumcision_2013.htm#x2013;2010
Of course these figures can be sliced and diced in all sorts of ways, but they do show a slight decline. However, since these estimates do not include circumcisions performed outside the birthing hospital setting they can’t be used to estimate prevalence estimates for all male circumcisions in the United States.
I didn’t get the complete story from her. “Tell me all the details about what is wrong with your son’s penis” isn’t something I tend to ask people
Then that story is hardly grounds for you to be so assertive about it. Maybe your friend’s son’s reason wasn’t silly, but the “3%” need quoted in the article *directly* references phimosis, and since phimosis is treatable in other simple ways, the number is indeed silly.
Oh thank you! I was on the fence about cutting my daughters labia off but if she thinks it’s just part of the pain of childbirth that makes it OK.
I have asked you multiple times for a source on this claim that “most circumcised men go on to circumcise their sons, INCLUDING men circumcised as adults”
I doubt you’ll provide it this time but I’d be thrilled if you did.
Not that it would matter even if you DID have a source. Whether circumcision feels better or worse is a personal preference. Circumcising children is a total crapshoot. No one knows what their personal preference might have been.
Multiple times, eh? News to me. My response to those multiple requests would have been, “Really? You need that?”
It isn’t rocket science: nearly 60% of American boys are circumcised. Who are circumcising their sons? Is it communities that don’t have a tradition of circumcising, like Latin Americans, trying it out en-mass on their sons for the first time while circumcised men are refusing to circumcise their sons? No. It is the same communities that already circumcise.
With the exception, of course, that earlier immigrants to America last century adopted the practice to make up the current circumcising communities. And they went on to circumcise their sons… so clearly THEY didn’t feel they had lost anything significant.
Anything else you want to know? The color of the sky, perhaps?
I’m sorry for your problem but I’ve never heard of any other circumsized man who had that issue. Not that I’ve personally discussed it with many.
I’m wondering more and more if the real problem is circumsizing too early, like right after birth instead of 8 days later.
Maybe it’s harder for doctors to do it correctly right after birth.
With many newborns and their moms being discharged from hospitals just 1-2 days after birth now, I assume they’re doing it in that time frame.
If so, that could be a reason for increased problems for circumsized men these days.
Every time I get a caller mentioning the word circumcision, all I want to do is say to them “Don’t do it!”
I remember the first time I saw what an adult man’s penis looked like when circumcised and I thought to myself “What the F*ck is wrong with his penis?!” Personally I believe in leaving the parts we have in tact as we were made, unless it’s damaged or our life is at risk.
Multiple times on other discussion threads yes.
I know that men circumcised as babies tend to circumcise. That doesn’t really say much about anything though. Those men don’t have personal experience with foreskin and are choosing to cut in spite of near complete ignorance of the body part they are removing.
What I am more interested in is your claim that men cut as adults then go on to cut their kids. You claim (again without source) that immigrants took up the practice as adults and cut their kids. Please provide a source that men cut as adults are more likely to cut their own children.
I think you’re grasping at straws. There is little difference between removing erogenous tissue at 2 days or8 days.
Not all cuts are the same. They vary by method and personal style. Some cuts are aggressive and remove nearly all of the sensitive inner foreskin (primary male erogenous zone). Others are less aggressive and leave more inner foreskin and more slack.
What is so problematic with simply letting men decide the fate of their own genitals AFTER they’ve had an opportunity to experience them and understand exactly what at stake?
The person whose body it is gets to make the choice, same as in genital mutilation.
Good riddance! They’re a pain in the anatomy! (Though if you’ve been “on the fence” for a while, she’s probably past the “pain of birthing” stage already).
Never said there was no pain. But babies bounce back from surgery faster than adults. Look at tonsilectomies–minor surgery for kids, risky for adults.
ROTF!!!
” what would lead a physician, committed to the well-being of the
patient, not the “wishes” of the parents, and sworn to the Hippocratic
Oath to “First, Do No Harm”, would take a knife to healthy, highly
erogenous genital tissue”?
You’re asking about Hippocratic Oath in a country where the flu vaccine is being MANDATED, despite adverse effects, marginal effectiveness (at best), and proof that people who are vaccinated for three consecutive years are actually MORE prone to the virus?
Big Pharma is guiding your doctor’s hands, not Hippocrates.
If medical motivation is necessary, then the entire cosmetic surgery industry is invalid.
Given that we’re breeding like rabbits and drowning the world in our trash, lowered sexual pleasure would rank as a good thing in my book. “Increased sexual pleasure” is the absolute WEAKEST argument for keeping it. Who knows how many rapists we’ve prevented by making procreation less rewarding? (Heck, maybe that’s why some religions started doing it!)
I’m not sure what you disagree with God about. God made the foreskin therefore it is good. Circumcision was strictly a religious procedure meant to set the Jewish people apart for God. We could get into a theological debate on this issue but suffice it to say that if your religions calls for it fine, if not don’t bother. I didn’t circumcise any of my children because I didn’t think it was a necessary procedure.
If that were true, then only God could mutilate your genitals.
In your case, it has made you insane.
Stay calm, be less dyslexic…
>>I’m not sure what you disagree with God about.
Yeah you do.
>>God made the foreskin therefore it is good.
Think extension ladder. Then think of how pis­sed off your boys will eventually be with you for making his ere­ction shorter and worse giving him 1/2 the sensitivity because eventually the skin of the frenulum will be twice as thick over time!!!
The ONLY pro to circumcision is that because the pe­nis at erec­tion is now about 2 inches greater a woman’s cervix has the tendency towards cervical cancer.
>>Circumcision was strictly a religious procedure meant to set the Jewish people apart for God.
…and the Persians and the Christians and almost any American fer crissake.
>>We could get into a theological debate on this issue but suffice it to say that if your religions calls for it fine, if not don’t bother.
“…For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised…”
–Holy Bible confirming what medical science knows that on the 8th day a male infant is at his height in physical resistance.
>>I didn’t circumcise any of my children because I didn’t think it was a necessary procedure.
Amen…however I’ll bet a dollar to a Homer Simpson doughnut hole that your boys’ grandmothers wanted it done.
…and scatological.
Tsk, tsk.
Your victimizers, the ones who stole the foreskin from His/your body, are the ones who are going to hell. God does not abide nor forgive such thieves.
There, there, Robbie…sure, and you have every right to feel that way.
It only seems that way because your thinking is ass backwards.
Sure Robbie, would you like your diagnosis downgraded?
Oh no this is a hypothetical daughter. I’m sure she wont miss part of her normal anatomy. Thanks again for the justification I needed to do surgery on my future daughters genitals.
Circumcision is known to cause psychological trauma. 50% of circumcised infants meet criteria for PTSD. Compared that to 20% of Vietnam War Vets.
http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle6/
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201501/circumcision-s-psychological-damage
(yawn, YAWN)
I now call upon your God to prove its existence by striking you dead.
Behold, ladies and gentlemen: misandry in its purest form.
Let’s see, completely unrelated topics.
If you look at my other posts, you’ll see I’m an equal-opportunity cutter.
I’m also an ace and a ZPGer.
But misandrist? No.
Cosmetic surgery is voluntary. You get a rhinoplasty or breast implant because you choose to. What if your dad could just say: “my daughter would look better with big boobs, do it doc.” Well, that’s the mindset of anyone who condones circumcision.
Ace? Ah, I see, you truly are sexually dysfunctional.
Have you tried doing nothing? All that washing and lotion could actually be irritating the skin and causing problems. Maybe try a few weeks of letting your body take care of itself and see what happens.
Whats an ace?
Psychological harm from circumcision is well documented. This article lists some of the harms and sources.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201501/circumcision-s-psychological-damage
As a circumcised male I hate how sexually my penis look, as all mammals only exposes the gland under an intense sexual excitement, when nude I feel like a loaded gun outside its holster. I also have a scar right there, I believe I have lost around 80% of sensibility, I can list so many negative things both in functionality and aesthetics.
By the way, my son is Natural, Original, Intact, Uncut!
I neither circumcise mine, as we are no sons of a lesser archaic and revenging god that demand such a sacrifice and bearing permanent body stigma.
I had been married to a man who was not circumcised and having sex was extremely painful for him. He said it felt like the skin was being pulled off. I asked why he had not been circumcised and he said he didn’t know why he never had been, nor had his many brothers ever had it done. I asked him if he ever talked to his brothers about it and yes, he said they had discussed it before and all had problems with pain and none really enjoyed sex too much because it hurt them. I asked him to contact a doctor and talk to him about having the surgery, how they do it and what the results would be if he had it and make a decision. He did and a couple weeks later, he went in to have it done with anesthesia. He was uncomfortable for a few days but once he healed, he was excited to “try it out”. I think he was about 32 at the time. After he realized that he could enjoy sex more now, he called his brothers and told them about it. Within the next year, all his brothers had it done! I’m sure their wives thanked me for that. It’s more about hygiene and less risk of infections, cancer of the penile area, and just better for having sex.
I don’t think you really mean chopped but the skin is gently cut from around the head, not chopped. That sounds horrifying and painful. It’s done under anesthesia in the doctors office and healing time is about 7-10 days.
It is not disgusting! And, no, most women don’t have their men do this to get something longer (you don’t know what you’re talking about) they just want to enjoy sex without causing pain to the partner.
Wolfen, I don’t know who told you that the penis is shortened because of a foreskin but they are wrong, wrong, wrong!! The only thing about a circumcision is SKIN that is being removed because it gets in the way for some men and it pulls so hard it causes pain for the man. Boys and men DO NOT get pissed off for making the erection shorter! Who in the hell told you that? And, NO, you do not have 1/2 of the sensitivity taken away because of just removing the skin. If anything, you have MORE sensitivity because the skin in not covering the head any longer. You need to get some sex education, dude. You are wrong on several points. Your next point doesn’t make any sense at all. Who cares is it was strictly a religious procedure meant to set the Jewish people apart for God? Persians and Christians and Americans don’t even enter into the equation, for heavens sake!!! This is a hygiene procedure, that’s all.
well now, you’re getting ridiculous!! Anyone who cuts a daughters labia off is insane and IT’S NOT THE SAME THING. ONE IS DONE FOR HYGIENE ON THE MAN, THE OTHER IS DONE TO MUTULATE THE FEMALE.
I didn’t realize there were that many men who didn’t know anatomy and think that cutting floppy SKIN off their boy’s penis was the same as cutting off parts of their penis itself. Well, you can’t fix stupid so many of you men on here need to read up on anatomy and take a sex education class or something. Hell, most of you think you’ll wall around with half a penis if you cut a little skin off. geeezzzeesss!!!!! what stupidity!
Listen lady I know more about di­cks than you do. YOU ARE WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!
I AM RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT!!! Don’t EVER disagree with me again lady. Ever.
Women want it longer…uncircumcision is the way lady.
You’re a grandmother. Aren’t you? Whyizzit that grandmothers are so into mutilation?
Hygiene? We’ll believe you when you have your clitoral prepuce removed. Yup. Put a baby with an open wound on his penis in a diaper to experience the agonizing ammonia sting of his own urine and the infectious bath of his own excrement. You are a vendor of wolf tickets.
Babies are persons who, when their rights and bodies are respected, aren’t forced to bounce back from anything. Our daughters are protected from genital cutting by Federal Law. isn’t it time we extended the same protection to our sons?
I have no idea where you get your opinions. 1) Circumcision has absolutely no effect on penis length. 2) As far as sensitivity is concerned the head of a non circumcised penis is covered normally which prevents it from becoming desensitized. When it is erect the skin pulls back from the head so you have a much more sensitive interaction. 3) Christianity does not require circumcision. Just read the New Testament where the Apostle Paul argues against religious legalists who wanted to require circumcision of non Jews who became Christians. He said that Baptism replaced circumcision for the Christian. 4) I would win the bet. My father wasn’t circumcised and my parents didn’t think it necessary to circumcise me or my brothers.
Asexual, a person who feels no sexual desire. That’s what people used to call “frigid” back in the day.
If the creator commanded… well, he didn’t. Circumcision was not in the original version of the Torah. It was shoehorned in by the priests around 500BC.
Behold the double standard. No, they are essentially the SAME thing.
Have you ever heard of zinc oxide or many other thick salves that doesn’t allow urine to permeate so as to sting the penis? Besides, if you are changing the baby as often as he pees, it won’t sting him with the salve on. Even if you didn’t change him often enough, it only takes a couple of days before the sutures close up and it doesn’t sting anyway. You are making this way more than it should be. And, yes hygiene. I don’t need my clitoral removed because I am female however, males need the foreskin removed because they are male. Don’t you know that?
I’m disagreeing with you all over the place dude. hahahahahahahahahaha ever.
Oh stop. babies need to be protected from infections just like you as a adult do. That’s your job.
No they are not. maybe in your little mind, they are which tells me you need educating fast.
I have no idea. I didn’t know grandmothers are into mutilation. how many do you know? removing foreskin in NOT<NOT<NOT mutilation.
Seriously, if you really think circumcision is making the penis longer, you need a major hit of education. Not only does it NOT make it longer circumcision MAY make it feel longer simply because the skin isn’t dragging it inward or down. But you wouldn’t know about that would you? Most women don’t care if it’s longer or not, they just want to FEEL it more so around than length. So if you can’t produce, get a penile addition that should help you and your attitude.
Circumcision DOES NOT cut the nerve and doesn’t get rid of the feeling for life. If you know of someone like that, then they had a bad surgery and/or a bad doctor. For me, my husband loved the idea of no more pain and we both enjoyed it much more after surgery. To each his own though. If you don’t want one, don’t get one.
You are truly the ignorant one, spouting this garbage to try to scare someone into not doing it. It is NOT infant mutilation, it is NOT barbaric or uncivilized, it doesn’t not harm physically or mentally. You were that way before the surgery.
wolfen244, you really need to just stop talking. You are revealing your ignorance to everyone on here who reads this. Please stop.
Since I am educated, I’d rather speculate on the root of your error. Is it a lack of empathy for men? Or is it some tribal instinct — what we do is good, what they do is bad?
“Gently cut”? Wow, are you literally insane? How do you do that, you move the scalpel really slowly?
And most circumcised women go on to circumcise their daughters, just as well…
How polite.
It IS infant mutilation, it IS barbaric, it IS uncivilized, it DOES harm.
Are you saying skin is not a part of your body? How about we skin your whole body, then?
The Hindus didn’t simply stop sati, the British colonial government stamped it out by killing anyone who was an accomplice to it.
That’s an oversimplification of quite a complex history. See the Wikipedia article on sati. However, the important part is that it has been banned by the present Indian government.
This just goes to show that customs, including religious customs, can and do change.
I invite you to read the following articles, because you seem to have some misconceptions about female cutting practice
http://commonhealth.legacy.wbur.org/2012/11/defense-female-circumcision
http://www.unfpa.org/resources/female-genital-mutilation-fgm-frequently-asked-questions#why
Notable in the first link is that most females that have been cut view it as an enhancement, not a mutilation, similar to (most) circumcised males.
Notable in the second is that hygeine is an common reason justifying female cutting practices, which is similar to American justifications for male cutting.
Male circumcision was introduced to America as a means of controlling male sexuality. That justification has given way to more nebulous hygiene, aesthetic, social, and medical justifications in present day.
I do not support male or female cutting, but if you take an honest look at the reasons why these practices take root and propagate, you will find many parallels.
Females do have foreskin, research.
It is the same mutilation, You are promoting males mutilation!
Yes it does cut nerves, removes natural protection and moisture, reduces the penetration processes (look for anti tank ballistics how are resembled)
I would never allow my baby to suffer such a barbaric procedure and for him to be mutilated. He became to this word Perfect, Natural, Original INTACT!
I was circumstanced and I always have lots of trouble to get an orgasm, I felt almost nothing while oral sex. The only way to “finish” to to manually masturbate for a big while.
If God didn’t like it why it created it? I am not the son of a lesser archaic and revenging God.
In babies, the foreskin is completely fused to the head of the penis. You cannot and should not retract it to clean it, as this would cause the child pain, and is akin to trying to clean the inside of a baby girl’s vagina. The infant foreskin is perfectly designed to protect the head of the penis and keep feces out. Get the picture?
All you have to do is wipe the outside of the intact penis like a finger. It is harder to keep circumcised baby’s penis clean because you have to carefully clean around the wound, making sure no feces gets into the wound, and apply your foolish salve. Do you plan on cramming the salve into the baby’s meatus and urethra to protect the urinary tract from fecal invasion? This could cause havoc with the lining of the urethra. Normally the hygienic and healthy foreskin would provide this protection with no effort or thought on your part.
What you don’t know is that infants are NOT sutured as part of the mutilation process. Who gave you that erroneous information?
The US is the ONLY first world country that is still routinely forcing this primitive, barbaric, religious and cultural penis reduction surgery on its newborns. And that includes all of Europe, the UK, Australia and New Zealand.
About 75% of all the men on the planet are intact and happily so, having been taught by loving mothers how to properly clean their genitalia just the same as they were taught to brush their teeth, wash behind their ears, to clean their navels and wipe and wash their anuses.
YOU: “I don’t need my clitoral (sic) removed because I am female however, males need the foreskin removed because they are male. Don’t you know that?”
ME: What I do know is that you have a huge sexist chip on your shoulder. And that your ignorance makes our teeth hurt.
Best way to do that is not to open a surgical wound on the genitals of infant boys or girls. Then, as they mature, teach them both proper genital hygiene just the same as we teach them to brush their teeth, wash behind their ears and clean their anuses.
No need for any excruciatingly painful and ghastly surgeries.
Why shouldn’t the law protect boys as well as girls?
“If you don’t want one, don’t get one.”
Tell that to all those newborns out there, 1,200,000 of them annually, who are FORCED to have one. They’ll be so glad to hear your words.
Your ignorance is beyond belief.
It is mutilation because it removes healthy tissue and leaves a scar.
Over 75% of the world’s male infants are not subjected to this unnecessary pain. This pain is not part of getting born (except in the US). It is inflicted gratuitously afterwards by ignorant parents and greedy, unethical doctors. Especially OBGYN$.
Those cultures that cut girls use the very same excuses as do cultures that cut boys. All cultures that cut girls also cut boys. You need to take your cultural blinders off.
I was right. You ARE a grandmother. So why the big push to mutilate your grandsons?
They forcibly peel the foreskin away from the head of the penis. It normally doesn’t fully retract until years later. It IS horrifying and painful. Have a look on youtube. There is a whole industry of tools such as special boards they strap the infants to.
It is not floppy skin, it needs to be forcibly peeled away from the penis, kind of like pulling off your fingernails. The foreskin of a grown man is about the size of a 3 by 5 card, and has more nerves than a woman’s clitoris.
Circumcision does reduce the minuscule chance of penile cancer, and the very low chance of an easily treated urinary tract infection. You could have any number of body parts removed to prevent potential problems. They don’t even routinely take out the appendix anymore. As far as HIV, the data is from places in Africa that don’t have ready access to running water.
Religion does not override the human right of informed consent. Parents have the right and obligation to make decisions about medical problems. Not problems that are hypothetical and with little scientific basis.
Every year more than 100 baby boys DIE from complications of circumcision.
Doctors in the U.S. make millions of dollars on circumcision. When Canadian health insurance stopped covering them, the numbers went down dramatically with no ill effects.
Now that I’m typing this out I just realized you’re statements are so outrageous you must be a troll just doing this for fun. Get a hobby.
You’re obviously an idiot who knows nothing so stop emailing me. It does not need to be forcibly peeled away but if you want to think that be my guest. Do what you want, have one, don’t have one. I don’t care. I don’t know how to argue with ignorant people who say ignorant things so just stop emailing me.
No one is emailing you. You have “Receive an email when someone replies to your comments” checked in your account preferences.
Also, I’m a mom, not a man.
Are you serious? Cutting off penis parts cuts off thousands of nerve endings. And wtf is the nerve? The most innervated penis parts are amputated along with tissue and blood vessels. Almost no men choose to cut those pleasure parts off. If you pushed or coerced some dude to cut off parts of his penis, you are not so nice. It is more or less certain that he either did not have a real problem (except for you) or his problem could have been easily addressed without cutting off parts of his penis.
Wow show off some stupid. Of course removing the most innervated penis partS (more than one penis part is amputated) is cutting off at least one part of the penis. And of course we know the pa rats are not just skin. Anyone that has the parts can test the vast sensory input. How is it that you are mentioning anatomy and yet say spew silly backwater stuff?
You are in numb dick denial — you are trying to justify what was done. You are trying to say that you did no harm – your consent, your advice…. Well I know that you did harm. Western Civilization has always known you did harm.
And almost no men with all of their penis choose to remove parts and get a partial penis. Also, men defend their penis (and sometimes their stupid decisions). The circumcision sickness is deep and multigenerational.
So you are ok with losing parts of your sensory system? How about cutting off those meat curtains and such until the nerve endings lost equals the nerve loss of male circumcision. That would be a huge loss of tissue for you (that happens to be pleasure sensory tissue). You are ok with that on YOUR body?
How about you need some HYGEINE, cut off those meat flaps. You don’t need all of your vulva.