What's your opinion? Should babies be routinely circumcised? Are you circumcised? Or have you been with both cut and uncut men, and what's your preference?

Have at it.

-- Anonymous, April 10, 2000

Answers

I am no expert, but will say if it is to be done, it should be done before the child becomes aware. I had a friend who was circumcised at age 19, after listening to his dirge and torture of the damned on awakening with a morning hard on trying to burst the stitches, that I would have my boys circumcised as soon as possible after birth.

I am circumcised and fully feel that if it was possible to have more pleasure with an uncircumcised penis I would have expired from the event. So what is the big hoo haw ? Are we going after this like the other threads ?

If you are circumcised, you are ! If you can read this and are uncut you will probably will stay that way.

-- Anonymous, April 10, 2000

I'm planning on avoiding it should I have any boy children. My partner agrees (and he is circumcised). Just seems like an unnecessary, traumatic experience, with very little in it's favour, as long as you able to teach your kids some basic hygiene habits. My brother never had any trouble.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

Well, now that I think about it, having a foreskin would just be an inconvenience.

What if I had a big flap of skin coming up over my regular head that I had to pull out of the way everytime I wanted to wash my face?

Nope, don't need it. Thank you very much.

Why all those fractions of a second that I would save over a lifetime should add up to quite a bit.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

The "big hoo haw," as Denver doug puts it, is that performing painful, unecessary surgery on a defenseless infant, surgery that almost nobody who is given a choice chooses for himself, is a violation of basic human rights.

Nobody should have the right to forcibly remove healthy, functional, sexual body parts from another individual.

There is just no good reason for it.

The experts have weighed the pros and cons and have reached a general consensis: there is no compelling medical reason to perform circumcision. "tmp2" 1330 lines, 44490 characters

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

(Oops, that "tmp2" etc was a cut-and-paste error. And make that "general consensUs")

Well, Cory, that's the beauty of it: if you are uncircumcised and decide that having a foreskin is an inconvenience, you can make an informed decision to have a circumcision. It's never too late. When circumcised as an infant, your ability to choose is taken away from you.

Foreskins are fun!

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

While it's true that there is no compelling medical reason to circumcise babies, there are cultural and cosmetic reasons for doing so. Circumcision seems traumatic, as it is performed without anesthetic and involves modification of body parts many of us are quite protective of, but it's extremely minor surgery which carries an infinitesimal risk of harm to the child.

As for the issue of decreased sexual sensation, hey, I'm all for it! Less stimulation for him means longevity, right?

But seriously, I think that such a claim would be pretty hard to prove, and the circumcised guys I've known certainly seem to be able to achieve a pretty high level of satisfaction.

As for aesthetics, I have to admit to preferring penises of the circumcised variety, although it's not really that important to me one way or another. It's not rational or anything, it's just another of those arbitrary preferences we all have when it comes to choosing a partner.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

Well Dave, for some reason I don't have a consent issue. And I don't have a trauma issue.

And well, besides, a penis looks better in top hat and tails when it's circumcised.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

Actually Jen, the claim of reduced sensitivity is easy to prove. See Men Circumsized as Adults. I loved this quote:

After the circumcision there was a major change. It was like night and day. I lost most sensation. I would give anything to get the feeling back. I would give my house.

As for cultural reasons, that's the same reason given by people wanting female circumcisions. Not a good reason.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

Cory: The American Society of Pediatrics, in its Circumcision Policy Statement, acknowledges that the foreskin contains "a concentration of specialized sensory cells" and reports that "penile sensation and sexual satisfaction are decreased for circumcised males."

If the loss does not bother you, that's probably for the best, as nothing can be done for you at this point.

I would hope that today's parents make the right choice.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

My issue is that someone, even though they were my parents, decided to cut off a part of my body that THEY HAD NO RIGHT TO. That is MY body and, when old enough, it should have been left up to ME to decide.

I chalk that up to ignorance and society during those times; but it is still wrong to do to someone.

Sometimes I wonder what sensation I am missing and that sucks.

My opinion at The Road Trip

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

Also, I've seen a lot of dicks in my lifetime and about 20% or so are noticeably hacked in a bad way. I've seen massive scarring, half done procedures, little scar pockets that collect lint and smegma or skin that is stretched so tight when erect that it hurts.

On the upside, the skin that is taken from circumcision is used for skin grafts on burn patients. At least that is what I learned going through childbirth class with a friend.

My opinion at The Road Trip

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

I had no idea how common circumcision was in the States. I reme,ber being surprised at an episode of sex & the city when one of the girls freaked about the un-circumcised penis she was dating - because it was ugly.

I've never seen a circumcised penis. Ever. I always thought it was a religous thing.

As for which I prefer? I always imagined they'd look much the same erect. As for my experience with un-cut some are cute some are not. I don't think it's something I've ever even thought about - though that could be because it's practically not an issue over here. Anyway what do you do? Ask someone which he is before you go out with him?

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

Whoa, is there a circumcision support group? However, I'd be ashamed to be seen in the same building as people meeting with real problems.

Someone can lecture me now for my obtuseness.

And Dave -- more power to you. Must of taken several years to stop prematurely ejaculating from all that sensitivity.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

Dave writes: ""Actually Jen, the claim of reduced sensitivity is easy to prove. See Men Circumsized as Adults.""

Yeah check some of the sources on that article. (a phone call, and a letter to the editor)

At least the article I referenced earlier,

http://www.personal.usyd.edu.au/~bmorris/circumcision.shtml

"looks" professionally sourced.

(Perhaps that's one of those fringe anti circ groups it mentions.)

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

Get this. I was talking with a couple of Brits, male. I mentioned that in fact, nearly all American males are circumsized and they thought I was MAKING IT UP. They wouldn't beleive me. I had to go and get another american male over there (we were at a party) to convince them that this was true. I swear they probably made him pull down his pants. No, I'm kidding.

Their proof that I was shitting them? They said: "It can't be true. If it were true British comedians would be all over it, they'd never let the Americans have a moment's rest!"

BTW. I've slept with cut, I've slept with uncut. The first time I saw an uncut, I finally understood naked Italian statues. I honestly think there's no difference, *as long as the man understands hygene*.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

And while I'm posting, can I just mention a pet theory? This is going to land me in a peck of trouble, I'm sure, so just send the lynch mobs the the address below, but:

Do you think circumsision is responsible for how hung-up american men are about sex? The whole macho-manhood thing? The whole, protect my privates thing? The whole, I'll violate yours but mine are inviolable thing?

It's just that European and Asian men seem just so more relaxed about sex.

Whew - if that doesn't get me lynched, I don't know what will.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

We've got our first child, a boy, due in August. After much discussion and research, we won't be circumcising him, even though I was routinely circumcised myself (not religious; just a sign of being born in 1959 in America). The AAP currently says (http://www.aap.org/family/circ.htm) that the medical benefits of circumcision are not sufficient for them to recommend it as a routine practice. And anyone who's ever seen one done knows that it's a pretty lousy way to come into the world. Personally, I class routine circumcision with foot-binding as an adult-inflicted torment with peculiar social roots.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

Dave, the "proof" you cite with respect to the diminished sensitivity of circumcised men does not hold any water scientifically. The page you link to merely contains anecdotes from men who have been circumcised during their sexually active years--it is NOT a scientific poll of circumcised men. These men's perceptions may have been colored by psychological factors--especially since in several of these cases (maybe even all of them), the men quoted were reluctant to have the procedure done.

In addition, just because you remove a functional piece of tissue from someone doesn't mean that that functionality is diminished--especially in children, who have extremely plastic sensory systems.

As of now, there is no empirical scientific method for objectively measuring sexual satisfaction in humans (there are a few indices, such as blood flow and chemical changes in the brain, but these are highly variable among people). And as far as I know, nobody has even attempted to measure differences between circumcised and uncircumcised men. It's not widely considered to be an important medical issue.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

Here is my feeling: as long as there are men out there who feel as strongly as Dave and Michael do about the issue, I would not have my son circumcised. I'd leave it up to him as an adult or teenager, since I don't see any particularly good reasons to do it.

Jeremy and I talked about this once, and I think his concern was that other boys might make fun of an uncircumcised kid, since it's so damn common in the U.S. But I think that's changing; more parents are choosing not to circumcise. So while it might have been intensely embarrassing in a locker room to be an uncircumcised boy if you were born in the 60's or 70's, it's probably a whole different thing for boys born in the 90's.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

OK, I just want to contribute one thing here. First of all, let me make it clear that, while this is actually not a huge issue for me, I am basically opposed to routine circumcision. If I ever have a baby boy, I will probably not allow him to be circumcised. I just don't see the point.

However, you can't liken male circumcision to "female circumcision." I use the quotes for a reason: male circumcision involves snipping off a tiny PART of the penis. Afterward, the man is still sexually functional, able to have orgasms and enjoy sex (whether he enjoys sex as MUCH is debatable.. the point is, he can still get his jollies). However, in "female circumcision", the clitoris is REMOVED, yes REMOVED, thus preventing the woman from ever having an orgasm again. I really cannot look at these two things as the same issue, and I wish people would stop comparing them.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

When our son was born 12 years ago, the main issue with us was safety. A friend of ours was an ER nurse, and she said that in most hospitals circumcisions weren't being done by surgeons, and that we should specify that we only wanted this done by a surgeon. Our hospital wasn't willing to commit to getting an actual surgeon at the table (yay, kaiser!), so we passed.

For my own experience, I'm circumcised, and I've never had to complain about lack of sensation. Like some stand-up comedian once said (about using condoms), anything that keeps me going for another 20 seconds...

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

I found this difficult to believe when I first heard about it, but there are ways to "re-create" a foreskin. Evidently, there are groups of men who feel so strongly about having been "mutilated," they, um, stretch the skin on their penises to simulate the look of being uncut.

Evidently, tape is involved. Sometimes small weights. I don't know the details (I don't *want* to know the details, thank you).

I swear I'm not making this up. I don't have any links at my fingertips, but I once found a bunch of them by searching on "foreskin reconstruction" in Yahoo.

A friend of mine did a paper on this topic once, which is how I found out about it. My reaction was to laugh hysterically, but I guess this a a big, big deal with some men and they're willing to do anything to get back what they believe was taken from them.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

I think Jen has a point mentioning children's "extremely plastic sensory systems." While I still believe routine circumcision is a mistake, none of the cut men I've had sex with had any complaints about sensation. They do not miss what they've never had. Or perhaps when a boy is circumcised soon after birth, the body compensates somehow.

I don't think that "like father, like son," is a reasonable argument, but I can understand how one uncircumcised boy in a classroom (or school bathroom) full of circumcised ones might have to endure teasing. I don't recall my old boyfriend ever mentioning such an experience, though. I have two ideas leading to opposite conclusions here: that kids will tease kids about *anything* that's different, or that kids will not tease kids about *penises* because even little boys have already developed a strong sense of privacy and protection about their genitals.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

I'd guess that those foreskin reconstruction types have some control issues...

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

In a German? movie called "Europa, Europa" ? (or so I remember; imdb doesn't list it), at the outset of WW2, a German Jewish youth tries to hide as one of a troupe of German Christians. He must disguise his penis, and there are scenes of his trying to pull skin down and fasten it in some way over the head and otherwise invent a foreskin for himself. It's not pleasant. I imagine that many Jewish men tried to "pass" in this manner, enduring who knows what kind of pain and self-mutilation for a not-very-effective disguise.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

Since someone mentioned the Jewish issue, I'll mention that if my husband and I have kids, and one of them is a boy, he'll be circumcised. While I'm not Jewish, my husband is, and it's important to both him and his family.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the idea, though I probably would do nothing without being jarred by a religious preference. I've read a little bit suggesting it decreases the risk of penile cancer (I think), which is pretty small anyway, but a tiny benefit nonetheless. And boys in the United States are still mostly circumcised (I think the last statistic I read was 70%?), so there's a slight advantage in the locker room, not that kids won't make up any excuse to taunt each other.

As far as anecdotes go, through our required interfaith counseling I've met a number of men circumcised in their twenties thanks to their conversion. All of them said that it was no biggie (and "no change in sensation"). One of our friends, in particular, gave us a detailed blow by blow description of the circumcision itself at seder last year that left me cringing. I'm a wimp. Though, in my defense, I'm pretty sure that discussions centering around medical procedures, even if they are only tales of minor surgery, aren't considered polite dinner conversation.

Dorie Apollonio

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

Being very prone to UTIs and infections in general, if I was ever with an uncircumcised man, he would have to have near perfect hygiene (my gyno told me so). My husband is circumcised and I think he has a beautiful body. He borders on average to good personal hygiene, although I do sometimes have to remind him to brush his teeth before bed. So maybe I am lucky and glad that he was circumcised.

I have listened to many parents tell stories of the poor hygiene of their teen sons. We were lucky if my brother took a shower once a day. I know many a morning my mom rushed him back in the house after learning he had not brushed his teeth. And it was not that my parents were not advocators of good hygiene. On the total other end, they had to limit my showers to thirty minutes (timed).

I do hate to hear some men sound so traumatized and bitter towards their parents. Parents were only doing what they thought was best for their child. Studies at the time (although now thought to be flawed) told parents they were protecting their sons from painful urinary tract infections.

I agree with Jan. There is no way, no way to compare male circumcision with female circumcision.

What would I do? I don't know. If I knew I was pregnant, I would do tons of reading and research and then decide. My feeling now, is that I would lean toward circumcision.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

1. I don't believe that baby boys should be circumcised "just because." I do, however, respect strong religious families that circumcise their children for religious reasons.

2. I think Andrea's idea that American men are uptight about sex because of circumcision is interesting, but it ignores the fact that Americans in general, men AND women, are really fucked up about our bodies and our natural functions. And sex.

It was great to see women discussing their periods on here, but I've known tons of women who can't talk about it, or think it's really gross, etc. I've known plenty of people both men AND women who can't reveal their body around other folks because they are convinced they are hideous. Our entire culture is really screwed up about our bodies, not just men and sex.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

Speaking as a circumcised person:

If my penis were any more sensitive I'd never leave the house.

- Harold - wonderland 2 - http://home.midsouth.rr.com/wonderland2/ -

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

There are many types of female circumcision. From the American Academy of Pediatrics Policy Statement on Female Genital Mutilation:

Type I FGM, often termed clitorectomy, involves excision of the skin surrounding the clitoris with or without excision of part or all of the clitoris (Fig 2). When this procedure is performed in infants and young girls, a portion of or all of the clitoris and surrounding tissues may be removed. If only the clitoral prepuce is removed, the physical manifestation of Type I FGM may be subtle, necessitating a careful examination of the clitoris and adjacent structures for recognition.

Given that you can't even tell if it's been done I guess we wouldn't have any problem with parents deciding this should be done to their daughter for religion reasons, would we? I mean, we have to respect people's religions, right?

I mean, their body probably compensates and they'll never miss it, so what the heck, let's perform surgery. Not.

The prepuce, by the way, is what is removed from males during a circumcision.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

Woops, I should have said, the prepuce is part of what is removed. In fact, 50% of the skin is removed from the penis during a circumcision. That's amazing.

Cory: To your untrained and uninformed eye that page you cited may "look" professionally sourced. I can tell you it is a sham. For example, that page goes through some gymastics to assert that the rate of penis cancer is not 1 in 1,000,000 as widely recognized, but 1 in 400. What a crock. First of all circumcision has not been shown to reduce the risk of penis cancer. There are countries where circumcision is not performed that have the same rate of penis cancer as the U.S, 1 in 1,000,000. When an article starts making up wild claims like a 1 in 400 rate of penis cancer, I generally dismiss it as garbage. Even in the countries with the highest rate of penis cancer in the world the rate is still in the order of 10 in 1,000,000.

It is very hard to find unbiased information regarding circumcision on the web. I researched this topic extensively before the birth of my son. If there were substantial benefits in circumcision I would want my son to get them. The conclusion I came to was the the medical risks associated with circumcision pretty much offset any potential medical benefits. This is the conclusion of medical professionals the world over.

As for hygene, why is it that people seem to think women can wash themselves but not men? Women's genitals produce smegma every bit as much as a man's. Based on my limited experience I'd say much more so...

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

My English parents refused to have me done in 1968. Most of the reactions from other boys during school my days was more curiosity. After answering questions about it there was usually not much more said about it. I was teased for being really skinny when I was young and don't remember anything about my foreskin being a topic of ridicule.

I have never had any complaints with partners. Most have been more curious but never has anyone had a problem. Both of my sons don't have it done and the minimum problem was in getting them to keep it clean when they were in the "learning to wash myself" phase of their lives. In general I think it's pointless to have done.

Americans seem to get all excited about the topic and I usually end up, when the topic comes up at a party or something like that, being the token one with the extra skin. I have never actually brought up the subject myself but it seems to come up a lot.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

I'm circumcised, and I've attended a dozen or so circumcisions. (The guest of honor gets embarrassed in public in front of neighbors and relatives who he won't see for another ten years, and then everyone has a nice big feast. It's sort of a warm-up for the bar mitzvah. :-) In my experience, if the baby isn't crying before his diaper is taken off, he stops crying a few seconds after the diaper is put back on.

Because of this observation, I have a hard time taking it seriously when people describe circumcision as a horrible mutilation that infringes on a boy's fundamental human rights and warps him for life.

If you don't have any religious or cultural motivation to circumcise your son, I would neither encourage nor discourage it. However, if you do want to circumcise him and you live in the Boston area, I can recommend a good mohel.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

Dave says: ""Cory: To your untrained and uninformed eye that page you cited may "look" professionally sourced. I can tell you it is a sham.""

Thanks Dave. However considering the info you cited for Jennifer, you must have cataracts by comparison.

Fortunately, I don't go as far as saying anything I find on the net is factual, which is why I worded that carefully.

Believe what you will. Or not. I just presented what I could find.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

Dave, how can you tell if the page Cory referenced was properly sourced or not unless you actually read _all_ of those papers?

I'm sure that you have read a great deal of medical literature stating that the risks of circumcision outweigh the medical benefits. However, this doesn't mean that there also aren't good papers which indicate the opposite. There are MANY topics on which respected scientists disagree, and this is one of them.

I do think it's safe to say that both the medical risks (i.e. complications and decreased sensitivity) and medical benefits (i.e. reduced risk of penile cancer and venereal disease) are practically negligible. It's really more of an aesthetic or religious decision.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

I didn't have my kids circumcised. There was no reason to do it.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

Okay, here are some sources.

The AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS site is at:

http://www.pediatrics.org/ (check it yourself)

I typed in the word "prepuce" and searched all their available online articles from Jan 1997, to present. (check it yourself)

I found a about 9 articles, mostly hovering around circumcision issues.

I found the policy statement that Dave refers to: (read it yourself here or go verify) (because it's a pay site, you will only be able to bring up the abstracts, but that was enough in this case, I think)

(this URL may take you to that actual page, but I'm not sure if it will work so I cut and paste it the brief statement) http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/abstract/103/3/686? maxtoshow=&HITS=20&hits=20&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=prepuce&searchid=QID _NOT_SET&FIRSTINDEX=&fdate=1/1/1997

PEDIATRICS Vol. 103 No. 3 March 1999, pp. 686-693

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS: Circumcision Policy Statement

Task Force on Circumcision

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. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided. -------

Furthermore, here you will find the American Academy of Family Physicians patient info, on the topic. (check the base URl to verify) http://www.aafp.org/patientinfo/circumci.html

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

To my surprise, my wife talked me out of circumcising our son, even though the penile cancer stats say circumcision slightly reduces the risk, and even though I was circumcised as a matter of course when I was born in 1966. I only gave in at the last minute. There was just something unpalatable about cutting into that tiny, helpless little baby. Totally a gut reaction that I have second-guessed again and again. Isn't it funny that it matters so much?

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

BTW, here's the abstract on penile cancer from the same site -- form whatever conclusions you wish.

PEDIATRICS Vol. 105 No. 3 March 2000, p. e36

ELECTRONIC ARTICLE: The Highly Protective Effect of Newborn Circumcision Against Invasive Penile Cancer

Received Jul 16, 1999; accepted Oct 29, 1999.

Edgar J. Schoen*, Michael Oehrli, CTR; Christopher J. Colby, and Geoffrey Machin' From the Departments of * Genetics, Pediatrics, and ' Pathology, Kaiser Permanente Medical Center; and Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program, Oakland, California.

Objective. We determined the relation between newborn circumcision and both invasive penile cancer (IPC) and carcinoma in situ (CIS) among adult male members of a large health maintenance organization.

Subjects and Methods. Circumcision status was ascertained by a combination of pathology reports, medical record review, and questionnaires for 213 adult male members of a large prepaid health plan who were diagnosed with IPC or CIS.

Results. Of 89 men with IPC whose circumcision status was known, 2 (2.3%) had been circumcised as newborns, and 87 were not circumcised. Of 118 men with CIS whose circumcision status was known, 16 (15.7%) had been circumcised as newborns.

Conclusions. Our results confirm the highly protective effect of newborn circumcision against IPC and the less protective effect against CIS. Key words: circumcision, newborn, penile neoplasms, retrospective studies.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

The penis cancer argument is just plain silly.

Are we going to circumcise 100,000 men just so one 70 year old guy doesn't get penis cancer? (About 1/4 of penis cancers cause death.) And that assumes there is a link, which has not been proven.

The AAP gives the incidence of complications in circumcision as 1 in 200 to 1 in 500.

From the AAP policy statement:

Cancer of the penis is a rare disease; the annual age-adjusted incidence of penile cancer is 0.9 to 1.0 per 100 000 males in the United States. In countries where the overwhelming majority of men are uncircumcised, the rate of penile cancer varies from 0.82 per 100 000 in Denmark to 2.9 to 6.8 per 100 000 in Brazil and 2.0 to 10.5 per 100 000 in India.

(It looks like I was out by a factor of 10 when I previously quoted figures for penis cancer. Sorry, damn memory.)

I should also point out I detect a subtle pro-circumcision bias in their policy statement. For example, the very first sentence, which you have quoted above, is misleading to the layperson. This is hardly surprising, given the circumcision-happy country this policy statement came from.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

Jen: I don't see how the issue of whether or not that page was properly sourced is relevant, other than to illustrate, which I have done, how pages which appear to be properly sourced can contain misinformation.

I'm rather surprised to learn that you feel it would have been perfectly okay for your parents to have had ritual cutting and alteration of your genitalia performed, for no other reason than religion or aesthetics, as long as it could not be proven sexual function was diminished.

It is just plain wrong.

Foreskins are fun! I would sure miss mine.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

I say snip it! But I'm a woman and clearly have a one-sided point of view. Dated both - still say - snip it.

Here's a tiddy to chew on. I have a British coworker who's married to an American and have an 11 year old son. Their son who is circumcised was born in the UK and was circumcised because his father feared that his son would be teased when they returned to live in the USA.

Children are mean and I have to say even if my personally feelings of cleanliness were not an issue I would share my coworker's husband's fear and ultimate choice.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

Beth, the thing I remember about adult male circumcision is my brother-in-law at age 19 having a circumcision. They got him through the surgical procedure alright, but no one gave him the means to avoid the torture of the morning hard on - - - - he had trouble until he was clear healed.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

I didn't have it done to me til 12-- done for medical reasons. I do recall sitting in a bathtub watching blood clots float off my penis-- now *there* is something you need to see at puberty...And, yes, I recall the stitches...not one of my better memories... I can only recall the foreskin as being an annoying inconvenience as a child... It was done to my brother and to his son at birth-- it seems to be a convenient thing for hygiene, and for avoiding the condition I had (and so did Louis XVI, actually)-- where the foreskin draws tight and shuts itself up. I can only say that I've never felt deprived of any physical pleasure... Though in the past year or two I've heard enough girls-- including a few exes of mine --go on and on about how exotic British or European guys uncircumsized, that I've become somewat envious and jealous... I have told a few girls with whom I've flirted (but who haven't had occasion to see anything yet)that I was uncircumsized and hence exotic...

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

if i had to make such a decision regarding a young male's genitals (an unlikely possibility), i wouldn't circumcise. there doesn't seem to be a really compelling reason for it. and personally i think it's kind of silly to justify permanently modifying someone else's body with arguments based on "it will help the kid bond with his dad better" or "kids MIGHT make fun of him in the locker room." i mean, kids will make fun of ANYTHING. my last name is long and difficult and an easy target for juvenile insults, but my parents didn't CHANGE it to try to protect me. and as for the bonding-with-dad thing...sheesh, no one's physically identical to their parents. i find it hard to believe that a flap of skin would cause that much emotional distress.

as far as personal preference, i think uncut penises are cute, but it makes no significant difference to me either way.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

Before our son was born in February my husband and I weren't really sure about the whole issue. After he was born, we just couldn't see any reason to put him through it. My husband is circumcised but we're not worried about our son having to look exactly like daddy. My parents didn't have my brother circumcised and he never got teased, he was happy to hear that we didn't circumcise our son. I don't really understand why you would get teased since it would require another boy to admit he was looking at another guy's dick. I personally never had a preference as far as men I dated.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

There is more than one type of female infibulation (or female genital mutilation, as it's sometimes called in the popular press). FGM of the second type that Dave describes is not the kind that I have qualms about. In many parts of Africa, infibulation involves the removal of the clitoral hood and clitoris, the removal of the labia minora, and the stitching together of the labia majora, leaving only a small opening for urine and menses. On her wedding night, the woman's vulva is reopened by her husband with a sharp instrument. The infibulation is performed with a sharp piece of glass on uncovered ground, upon adolescent girls who are fully conscious. In short, it's a far cry from removing the foreskin from a newborn baby. As such I have serious objections to referring to the tradition as "female circumcision".

There is a Somalian model who was interviewed by Iman for _Vogue_ magazine a couple of years ago about her infibulation; I'll see if I can find the article online. Reading it made me sympathize with the way men cringe when a pitcher gets smacked in the crotch with a line drive. (Although I still can't understand why crass comedies aimed at men invariably feature at least one testicle-whacking sight gag.)

Interestingly, there was a big debate in Seattle some time ago when African women began bringing their daughters to Harborview Medical Center when the girls came of age. Although the mothers were aware enough of western culture and medicine to be queasy of having their daughters infibulated in the traditional, unsanitary manner, they also felt that the girls would "undesirable for marriage" unless some variant of the operation was carried out. Harborview physicians obliged by standardizing a procedure where a small cut was made -- under local anesthetic -- in the flesh of the clitoral hood that would scar, while not severing the clitoris. Local feminist groups were totally outraged that Harborview apparently condoned such mutilation, but to me it seemed that this was a good balance between preserving tradition and allowing the girls to remain intact. It was probably the only instance where I found myself in agreement with those who countered "If you condone circumcision, you can't object to this."

Otherwise I find that the degree of difference between circumcision and infibulation is far too great to bridge a comparison; it's like saying, "If you think it's all right to spank a toddler, you have no right to object to my beating my teenager unconscious with a lead pipe," or "Since you have a glass of wine a couple of times a week, I refuse to acknowledge that there is anything wrong with me polishing off a fifth of vodka every night and then driving along twisty mountain roads." Degree really is everything sometimes.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

I live in Ireland, and I dont know *any* guys that are circumcised. I never realised that guys in the US are routinely circumcised, I assumed it was only done for religious beliefs, mainly Jewish. In that respect I cannot really say which is better, but I do feel a little that if its there its there for a reason and so it should stay. Does that make sense? Anyway, Id sure love to meet a circumcised guy to see what the difference is, do you all think there is a big difference? Interesting thread.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

On the women's smegma versus men's comment a while up: Ok, so I don't know anything about uncircumsized dicks so I won't comment on that, but all substances from the female genitalia seem to er, come out on their own. I do not know if the same can be said for any crud trapped under the foreskin.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

Lohr, you brought up the subject I was going to talk about. I know of one very good reason for circumcision. As a nurses aid, I learned that as men get older, the foreskin tends to lose it's elasticicity. In many cases, the skin draws up and around the head of the penis. I don't know how many charts I've read that contained the warning to not withdraw the foreskin while cleaning the patient. If withdrawn, the foreskin would then trap the bloodflow in the head of the penis, and it would become necessary to preform surgery to restore the regular blood flow. Failure to catch the aformentioned problemcould lead to gangrene of the penis and eventual removal of the dead tissue. Taking this into consideration, and adding in general hygene, I had both my boys circumsised. I do, however, respect each individual's choice, and my own experience is that both types are equally fun!

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

Wow. Nothing like going offline for 36 hours and coming back to find that one little question started a whole new thread.

At the risk of sounding like a whiner, though, so far no one's answered my question (from back at the menstruation site that I inadvertently hijacked to this subject) about why babies don't require stitches after circumcision, and now that Lohr and Denver Doug have mentioned adult circumcision that *did* require stitches, I'm even more befuddled. Could someone please help me out on this one? Does anyone know?

Re foreskin reconstruction, I've heard about this, too, a while ago. I may not remember correctly anymore, but I remember something about it being prevalent in certain parts of the gay community. So for at least some gay men who decide to go this route, there might be additional issues of aesthetics and/or partners' preference involved. But that's not to say that only gay guys are doing this, and the whole foreskin reconstruction movement does seem to be strongly focused on issues of human rights, reclaiming something that was taken away before the individual was old enough to choose, etc.

Lisa, you're right, the movie was "Europa, Europa," and it's a German film. Those were harrowing scenes....

To all the bewildered non-Americans, the incredible prevalence of circumcision in this country is relatively recent. I don't know the exact statistics, but I think that it was uncommon except for religious reasons until the 1950s, maybe the 1940s. I would bet, too, that the fact that the rate of home births dropped drastically around the same time is not unrelated. Certainly it must have been a lot easier to institute circumcision as a standard operation if deliveries commonly took place in hospitals rather than homes.

I'm not sure why UTIs would be a good enough reason medically to routinely perform circumcision. Women are more prone to them than men, anyway, and no one's recommending routine lengthening of the clitoris to solve that problem.

And wouldn't that be something--lengthening the clitoris instead of cutting it off?

Speaking of which--yes, there are many degrees of FGM. I'm not keen on any of them, but complete infilburation is of course the worst. And it should *not* be compared to male circumcision. I realize occasionally male circumcision is botched, very badly, enough that in some cases the entire organ is lost. But infilburation and other types of severe FGM, as a matter of course, make sex not only not enjoyable but excrutiatingly painful for women. And try to imagine menstruating through a hole about the size of a pencil, or (shudder) having to have the vulva cut open in order to give birth. Male circumcision does not regularly result in infertility or chronic pain. It does not usually cripple men for life from massive scarring on the thighs. It does not cause repeated massive infections that are eventually fatal. Significant numbers of young men do not bleed to death each year from routine circumcisions.

I don't know why adult men would choose to be circumcised beyond religion or medical reasons, but it could be that some do. The infuriatingly frustrating thing about FGM is that many girls choose to undergo the procedure. Never underestimate the power of a culture to sway, to coerce, to basically force a decision--espeically when the person making the decision is young and doesn't have full information about just what the long-term impact will be, or even exactly what the procedure will entail.

I apologize for the long post, but I've been away, and there was so much to comment on....

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

Ann Marie: There's a hilarious 20-minute film, made in England about eight years ago, called _Dick_ that you might want to see if you can find at your local video outlet. It features photographs of a thousand dicks in fairly rapid succession. The audio track is women talking about their experiences with various penises, what they think it would feel like to have one, what they prefer insofar as length and width, etc. Very good "Girl's Night In" fare (well, I guess you might call those hen parties.) You get to see lots of circumsized members therein, as well as a few pierced ones, and quite memorably, one with a tattoo that reads "Hi!"

Actually I recommend this movie to everyone. Guys who think that their dick is small or oddly-shaped will be reassured by the astounding variety covered, and, well, women get to see lots of penises, which are fun to look at anyway. I wish the same filmmaking team would also produce one about breasts that showed women of all ages and, um, endowment, surgically altered and otherwise, droopy and firm. Lots of women I know think that their breasts are abnormal because they don't look like the breasts that are considered worthy of baring in the mass media (C/D cup, nearly globular, high- and close-set).

One of these days, I really will post something to a forum that does not concern itself with genitalia. I keep promising myself that. Maybe I'll go t

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2000

I can't believe I misspelled infibulation here and circumcised back over on the tampon thread (yes, purposeful pun). I'm going to claim that being so frank about these topics has me all flustered and embarrassed and typing clumsily...

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2000

Brenda, (concerning stitches question)

If you've seen a newborn baby's penis, you know despite even the larger ones, not much skin is involved in the first place. Usually not much more than a centimeter square when cut off. (that's an estimate, there may be a more exact figure someone can quote)

I'm not sure if the procedure has changed much in the last 5 years but usually a device called a Gomco is used. It has a bell shaped device that fits over the head of the penis and under the foreskin. Then the rest of the gomco contains the bell, and it has a screw that tightens the device, clamping the foreskin. This cuts off the blood flow (creating hemostasis). This is the same idea as a tourniquet or applying pressure to a bleeding wound.

The foreskin is then removed (usually with a scalpel blade). The gomco may be left on for a bit longer.

The resulting circumcised area may bleed in some instances, but usually there is only a little oozing. Anything more and the doc will often use a little stick that chemically causes the wound to stop bleeding. Then usually a Vaseline gauze is wrapped around the penis, and the parents are informed of what to watch for, or if any care is needed.

This method may vary, depending on current theory/ policy, whatever. I left out some parts of the procedure, but that's mostly it as far as why no stitches.

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2000

hmm, now looking at a nearby ruler, make that more like a half- centimeter.

(and as the joke goes, he told me this much was 8 inches -- )

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2000

The major difference between female and male circumcision is:

1. Male circumcision is usually done for MEDICAL REASONS (misguided or no, you decided) and also for religious reasons (don't really know the reasons here, enlighten me)

2. Female circumcision(that I've read about in Africa) is all about CONTROL: First, it's to "ensure" that the husband is gettin' what he paid for, a woman who's never had sex with another man. They actally sew the vagina closed. (Thinking about this makes me ill) Second, it prevent the woman having pleasurable control of her body, and severely traumatizes her (how's being held down by all your closest female relatives and cut with the intent to maim in the most sensitive spot with out any sort of euthanasia strike you?) thus ensuring that she remains inside the social control of the tribe.

Now, there are some tribes where I've heard of (and I can't substantiate this as I read it along time ago) that also circumsize the men, and they go so far as to actually flay not the entire penis but also the inner thighs area, and this when the boy has entered puberty. This as some sort of rite-of-passage ceremony. And still the emphasis is different. This torture is supposed to make them "more of a man", more in control of themselves. Part of the warrior ethic. It is not designed to make the man feel even more subjugated and in-his-place.

Considering how abuse practices get passed down (beaten child becomes wife/child beater), you have to wonder why actually all those doctors through america's modern medical history think that removing skin from a penis will have medical benifit.

You have to wonder about those women holding down the poor nine year old girl.

Still, my thesis is: in its basic idea, male circumcision is about helping the male, and in its basic idea, female circumcision is about oppressing the female.

Support? Refutation?

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2000

Following on from Kim's comment about African women seeking the procedure in America as their daughters come of age, I vaguely remember recent coverage of Harley Street doctors being accused of offering this to their Middle Eastern clients. The uproar has been huge.

I don't think I've ever slept with an uncircumcised man, but I wouldn't have my sons snipped. What's the point?

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2000

"On the upside, the skin that is taken from circumcision is used for skin grafts on burn patients."

Have you also read of the baby boy born with no eyelids? Upon his circumcision, a plastic surgeon fashioned some eyelids out of his foreskin..

The parents sued said Plastic Surgeon, and the Hospital that allowed this proceedure for millions....

The baby was *cock eyed*.

heh. Sorry, I had to.

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2000

Amazing that people can be so adamant about a little foreskin. It's kind of like the whole religion debate: no one side is right or wrong, so why put out all this energy?

My husband is not the type of person who has strong opinions about anything. However, when we found out we're having a baby, he informed me that if we're having a boy, he WILL be circumcised. End of discussion. It shocked me to hear him have such conviction about anything, much less about his son's penis (which, thank god, is actually a daughter and so we don't have to discuss this any further). He does have Jewish religious roots, but his reasoning is much more common: it's wrong not to.

And after doing the logical thing and reading the arguments on both sides, pros and cons, i've just decided to let him be in charge of the penile-chopping area. If I tried to tell him otherwise, to me it would be like him telling me why I should or shouldn't have an abortion, or something similar. I think a dad knows best when it comes to his son's genitals.

--stasi

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2000

I'm against it - there's no reason for it, and it seems incredibly barbaric. I was engaged to a Jewish man and he thought that if we had a male child, he wouldn't want to have it done, family be damned. (we ended up not marrying or spawning.)

Since I was born in 1955 in the US, every man I was ever involved with was cut, till I had a Brit boyfriend when I was 30. After being horrified at the very idea, I found I preferred the uncut. He was amazed that it was so prevalant in the US - said that in the UK, the national health won't pay for it and everybody thinks it's horrible anyway.

I believe when a man converts to Judaism he has to get circumcized if he's converting to Orthodox, but if it's Reform they just do a little token cut. During the ceremony, the mohel gives the baby a little sip of wine just before he cuts. There's a joke about how that's why there are no Jewish alcoholics - you take a sip of wine and they cut your dick off.

There's a guy in Berkeley who drives around in a car with big signs saying "MOHEL=MENGELE" and so forth. Some people feel strongly...

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2000

lol okay Kim I'll see if i can find it lol.

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2000

My husband is circumcised; my 14 year old son is not. I left the decision to my spouse because I don't know what its like to deal with male/peer stuff about penises, but personally I didn't want my little baby cut...the idea made my skin crawl. Jim felt it wasn't necessary, and I think it was the right choice. As far as hygiene, I think boys like washing their penises...it was the ears and armpits I worried about! I've talked with my son about not being circumcised, we read some literature about it, and he is comfortable about it. I've asked him if its ever been a locker room issue, and he said no, and seemed surprised I'd asked.

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2000

Im assuming that nature put the foreskin there for a reason... who am I to think I know better? I havent been with an uncircumsized man, but Ive always thought it would be nice to test the theory that the foreskin aids enjoyment for women (partly because the protected penis is an inner organ like a womans vagina, and therefore supposedly more fragile than a circumcised penis, so that sex only feels good if theres a sufficient amount of lubrication, as with the vagina -- balancing the experience of intercourse between man and woman.)

The medical reasons to circumcise, as others have pointed out, are negligible. So why was it ever done in the first place? It was, like it is still for women in some parts of the world, about control. It was considered (because even then it was acknowledged that it decreases sensation) a way to curb masturbation which, no kidding, was actually thought to be a medically and psychologically harmful act earlier this century.

Im not concerned that my sons will be teased for having foreskins: my pediatrician informed me that in her practice it is currently about 60% uncut and 40% cut. The numbers of uncut are steadily growing, and its likely that in a few generations circumcision will again only be a religious thing.

Finally, anyone considering having the surgery done on their son should ask to see it done first on another baby. For an unnecessary procedure that in itself carries risks (in my experience, damaged penises are not all that uncommon), thats an awful lot of trauma to put an infant through.

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2000

ALERT! ALERT! ALERT! ALERT! ALERT!

Sorry about the red alerts, but this is important.

I have just uncovered amazing new information regarding the United States' high incidence of cicumcision. Apparently it is no coincidence that America spends more money on its military than any other country and also has the highest rate of circumcision. It has long been known that the U.S. military has sought to develop the "super soldier." This is a step in that direction. In the battlefields, jungles, and deserts shower facilities are often non-existant. Soldiers have no choice but to go without a shower for weeks at a time. While having a forskin is not a problem under normal conditions, urinary tract and other infections can occur under these extreme conditions, reducing the effectiveness of the military's fighting machines.

"All other things being equal, a circumcised army is going to beat an uncircumcised army every time," one of the military's top brass, who refused to be identified, stated.

In order to ensure a plentiful supply of circumcised soldiers the U.S. military has engaged in a massive misinformation campaign, the scope of which has not been seen since respected scientists argued that smoking did not cause cancer.

This dastardly plot must not be allowed to succeed. Please, do not have your son surgically altered for the sole benefit of the U.S. military. Just say no.

(I cannot divulge how I cam across this information, since it is highly classified. I also cannot give my name, for obvious reasons. Please pass the word.)

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2000

Caution - - - - groggy guru at play !

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2000

Thank goodness we have the self-appointed forum police to help ensure our safety.

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2000

Dave - - - - - i assumed that your entry with the backward addy was in fun.

My entry was also in fun.

You gonna leave the kitchen in a hissy fit ?

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2000

I'm circumcised. I don't have any horrible memories of it, though hearing my mother tell stories about how the doctor gave me two teaspoons of brandy instead of any anethetic make me squirm. If I were to have a son, I wouldn't have it done. There's no reason to do so. I've had sex with men who were circumcised, and with men who weren't. I've never noticed that uncircumcised men were more or less sensitive than their cut counterparts.

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2000

I've seen _Dick_. My lord, there's a lot of skanky-looking penises in that flick. Perhaps it's the black-and-white photography?

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2000

I don't think sensitivity in itself is that big an issue. Obviously circumcised guys have no trouble getting off. However...

The most sensitive area of the penis is the back edge of the glans. This (should) remain intact and untouched after a circumcision, so the most important part does remain intact.

It is a simple matter for an uncircumcised man to reach down during intercourse, put his hand around the base of his penis, and pull the skin tight. In this way he can experience sex exactly as the circumcised man experiences it, with no movement of the foreskin.

I can tell you it feels quite different. I'm not going to say better, or worse, just different.

As I've said before, I feel foreskins are fun. They allow for more variation during intercourse and masturbation. During intercourse, for example, you can vary the amount the foreskin "interferes" with the intercourse, and thereby vary the amount of stimulation. During masturbation one can involve the foreskin, or not, as one chooses. Is not variety said to be the spice of life?

(Aside: I've heard they sell "foreskin replacements" that circumcised guys can wear to prevent contact with their pants, which is said to reduce sensitivity.)

(Doug: the "self-appointed forum police" comment was a play on the way you have repeatedly described me as a self-appointed expert.)

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2000

Well Dave, aren't you ? Your pursuing the penis party to ridiculous lengths (another play on words) is make me roll on the floor laughing my ass off. My apologies old man, I do not want to hurt you, but it would be nice to be able to follow a forum finding what other people think, not just the penis professional.

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2000

>> Male circumcision is usually done for MEDICAL REASONS (misguided or no, you decided) and also for religious reasons (don't really know the reasons here, enlighten me)<<

The religious reasons for circumcision in Judaism are as follows (and this is really abbreviated): Part of the covenant the Jews made with G-d concerns circumcision. I'll assume most people have heard the story of Abraham and Isaac on the mountain and the request to sacrifice Isaac. Well, Isaac doesn't get sacrificed. However, G-d promises to bless Abraham and make him prosperous in return for Abraham's (and all of Abraham's descendants) loyalty to G-d. This covenant is entered into and sealed by the act of circumcision.

In Jewish tradition, a woman can't perform the circumcision, altho I suspect that in the Reform and Reconstructionist movements, this happens. Just so it's understood, circumcision is considered more important than any of the other commandments.

And that, folks, is your cross cultural lesson for today.

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2000

Cory, thanks for the answer. That does make sense; small incisions don't necessarily need stitches in order to heal. What flummoxed me is that the incision would (I assume) be circular, all the way around the penis, leaving two separate areas of skin. I was so shook up by that image that I didn't think about the area involved being so small.

I've been reading a lot about the ancient Egyptians recently, and one thing I've learned is that they practiced male circumcision well before the rise of Judaism. However, it doesn't appear that the scholars agree on what the Egyptians' reasons for circumcision were or even whether it had religious overtones. I'm also not sure if they were the first to practice it, or if it may have occurred among certain cultures in prehistoric times.

-- Anonymous, April 13, 2000

My husband and I have talked about circumcision. He is strongly against it. I have to say for me, I prefer the look of a "cut" penis, but overall I have to say it doesn't matter to me. My husband was born without a penis, so if it's very important to him that any potentional son we might have not be circumcised, that's fine by me. I did tell him it was job to teach good cleaning habits.

And speaking of that -- why does it come up with this for men and not for women? First I would say it does. There are no commercials selling men a "second deodorant." As far as the world thinks -- women's parts smell and should spray chemicals on ourselves to keep us from offending. And I would also point out that it's been a standard comedian bit about guys and their not-so-clean underwear.Stephanie Hodge has a huge section of her act about men not being able to wipe their own asses. I realize that's a generalization -- but I am thowing it in as why some of the hygiene argument comes in. However I am no expert.

-- Anonymous, April 13, 2000

Here's a story about a boy that died in 1998 due to an operation to correct a circumcision that wasn't healing properly. (This is not a joke!)

Coroner: Anethesia Killed Baby.

What I find particularly disturbing about this story is that they are refusing to classify this as a death due to cicumcision, even though the boy never would have wound up dead if it wasn't for the circumcision. How many other kids have died as a result of their circumcisions and had it classified as something else? There were 3 deaths attributed to circumcision from 1954 to 1989 - I can't find any data for 1990 and on. How many more were mis-reported? This represents a 1 in 17,000,000 mortality rate, by the way. Those odds are comparable to the odds of winning a lottery. Would you buy a lottery ticket where if you win your infant child dies? Who could risk their infant child's life for such a useless operation?

-- Anonymous, April 13, 2000

Dave says: ""Would you buy a lottery ticket where if you win your infant child dies? Who could risk their infant child's life for such a useless operation?""

I would bet a doughnut, you've toted your kid along to the store to pick up a can of coffee, or some other truly insignificant task. If so, you've probably subjected him/her to the more probable odds of severe injury or death due to car accident. Such events have zero medical benefits, and much greater risk.

Even if you personally haven't (and I'm sure your a wonderful parent) the point is, people do buy lottery tickets for their kids every day where the odds are even greater in their disfavor, and they don't blink an eye about it. (until something happens of course)

So, does this favor circumcison? No, but it puts it in the right perspective if that's the wager we're talking about.

-- Anonymous, April 13, 2000

I find all opinions on this issue to be very interesting.

However.......I believe three times is enough for Dave to say "foreskins are fun".

-- Anonymous, April 13, 2000

Cory: I will fully admit that death rate thing is a sucker's argument. Judging by the number of people who buy lottery tickets, though...

mis: Foreskins are fabulous.

-- Anonymous, April 13, 2000

Could we all have a moment of silence for Merideth and her husband, please? I wept for the man who had no foreskin, until I met the man who was born without a...

-- Anonymous, April 13, 2000

If I had nothing to work with, I'd be against it too.

-- Anonymous, April 13, 2000

So why aren't you, then? Heh.

there must be fifty ways to lose your penis,
fifty ways to lose your penis

just clip off the glans, man,
an errant cut, Chuck
no joy for this boy,
just listen to me
infection and gangrene,
don't need to discuss much
succumb to anaesthetic,
and you'll never even pee

-- Anonymous, April 13, 2000

well, I'm not you, of course

-- Anonymous, April 13, 2000

This song is not a rebel song
This song is Foreskin, Bloody Foreskin!

I can't believe Dave Van today
He can't close his eyes and make glans go away
How long?
How long must I mourn my schlong?
How long?
How long...
Is tonight?
Dave can have my foreskin tonight

Bloody foreskins under children's feet
Foreskins strewn across the deadend streets
Watch Dave Van heed the battle call
Sun-lit head put his back up against the wall

Foreskin, Bloody Foreskin
Foreskin, Bloody Foreskin

And today a million foreskins wave goodbye
We eat and drink while new glans everywhere say "hi!"
Foreskin, Bloody Foreskin
Foreskin, Bloody Foreskin

How long?
How long must Dave Van mourn my schlong?
How long...
Is tonight?

Dave Van waves his sleeve at us tonight

And Jesus was a Jew
The Son of God and foreskin cut in two

-- Anonymous, April 14, 2000

Okay, that wins. That was the most unnecessary post ever on this forum. Dave and Mike, I would appreciate it very much if you would refrain from posting for the next day and a half, because you are giving me a headache. You can come back on Saturday when my brief has been filed and I'm slightly less likely to come to your respective homes and kill you if you continue to annoy me.

-- Anonymous, April 14, 2000

>Could we all have a moment of silence for Merideth and her husband, >please? I wept for the man who had no foreskin, until I met the man >who was born without a...

So I am trying to decide if I should chuckle or wince at this.

I am surprised no one has brought up David Reimer -- his story has gotten media attention and was the subject of an episode of Chicago Hope. He and his twin brother went in for circumcision and David's penis was burned off. They decided to raise him as a girl. Dave, supports your lotto argument.

-- Anonymous, April 14, 2000

That story was discussed here a while back, I think -- I linked to it in the weblog, anyway. That was a couple of months ago, though.

-- Anonymous, April 14, 2000

I've told this story, but it was about two years ago in the journal, so I'll do it again.

My brother was my parents' first child, born in 1951. The doctor and Pop went on and on about how perfect he looked at the hospital, but in the hospital bed Mom kept on looking at David...and looking...

Finally she said,

"Don't you see something WRONG?"

"Wrong? No! Where!"

Now, you'd have to know my Mom. She's like Edith Bunker if Edith Bunker's IQ was raised fifty points. She blushes easily, and I never heard her tell even a risque joke until I was in college. I've never heard her use either the F or S words. I sometimes wonder if my FATHER ever heard her use them. Anyway, she blushed and said,

"You know...down there."

"The legs? The feet?"

"No, no!" Finally she shrugged and pointed, "Down THERE!"

The doctor and Pop looked at David, then looked at each other, and then Pop smiled and said,

"Patsy....you've never seen an uncircumcised male, have you?"

Then he and the doctor laughed, and she blushed some more.

"Oh, is THAT all it is...?"

Whatchacall a more innocent generation...we still make jokes about David's "birth defect".

---Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, April 14, 2000

I couldn't possibly read all of the forum posts, so I can only tell my story. I was pregnant with my son when the AAP came out with their opinion that they no longer recommended routine circumcision, which made the decision so difficult for me. I'm Jewish, but not really practicing, and my husband is Protestant (and circumcised), so to have my son circumcised would not be for religious reasons but just for cultural or societal reasons.

We finally decided to have it done and I remember when they took him in the hospital to have it done I cried because he looked so innocent and sweet and had no idea what was about to happen.

He came back about 5 minutes later all swaddled up and looking none the worse for wear. They told me about the procedure...it's fast and with anesthesia. It healed in about a week and a half.

It was a hard decision to make and I can understand why people would choose not to...almost 11 months later though I'm glad we had it done.

-- Anonymous, April 16, 2000

I hope this isn't off subject, but if any of you object to circumcision because it is unnessasary surgery and removes healthy tissue, shouldn't you be equally opposed to abortion, especially when performed on girls under 18? Same principle involved.

-- Anonymous, June 04, 2001

Gee, that's one I haven't heard before.

-- Anonymous, June 04, 2001

Feeling somewhat that I may offer a slightly more educated opinion (note, just opinion) here is my post. It is absolute nonsense to say that there is no reason for circumcision.

Circumcision prevents infection. Don't tell me that "proper cleaning" will prevent this. The bacteria that cause UTI can multiply over 200 times in under 12 hours. How often are you bathing your infant?

Circumcision prevents balanitis. Balanitis is an infection of the glans of the penis, and while possibly occuring in circumcised males, is much, much more prevalent in uncircumcised males. This type of infection can lead to tissue erosion/destruction. I.E. lose a little now, or lose a lot later.

Circumcision prevents phimosis. Phimosis, which can be caused by numerous reasons such as infection or injury, is a tightening of the foreskin in uncircumcised males. This illness can be very painful, and can result in lack or complete absence of circulation.

Pediatricians & Obstetricians are very unlikely to push the subject of circumcision. In their mind, it's another procedure which may increase complications statistically. If the parents opt to wait, the medical need for circumcision later, becomes a Urologist's problem.

Why base such an important decision off a website or a Pediatrician? Mind you that there is a specialist who can paint a fuller picture. Contact a Urologist. Better yet, find a fellowship trained, Pediatric Urologist, who can best describe to you the reasons both for and against such a proceedure, and possible complications down the road.

-- Anonymous, June 04, 2001

I was circumcised at my birth and i think there are good reasons to do itroutinely by the babies.

-- Anonymous, June 12, 2001

They don't perform circumcisions at birth. They wait until the baby has fully recovered from the trauma of birth before subjecting him to the trauma of circumcision.

-- Anonymous, June 12, 2001

For me routinely baby circumcision is total unessesary. My parents let me circumcise when I was a baby, but now I marriaged a german ,and she was supriesed about this, because there its unkown. So we decided to let our son intact and I think it was a good decision.

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2001

Point proven: Circumcision prevents stupidity.

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2001

I can speak firsthand on the circ thing. I was 31 before I HAD to get circumcised. You see, up until age 29 I was fine - no problems with being uncirced. Hygiene wasn't a problem, no girlfriend ever complained. At 29, I developed paraphimosis, a condition where the foreskin would swell and tear - especially after sex. And it bled A LOT. This came on because my wife had constant yeast infections and we found out I was reinfecting her, over and over..... This went on for 2 years. My wife was VERY tolerant with me. I didn't want to get cut because of most of the nonsensical reasons posted on this site. But finally I had enough! I hated that I came to FEAR sex with my beautiful wife! It hurt SO much! So I did it and I'm fine now. NO COMPLICATIONS AT ALL!~~ I'm EXTREMELY glad that I did, and my wife thinks I look great too! ;) And I finally feel REALLY clean, all the time.

My advice, Moms and Dads do it for your son. He MAY never need it done when he's an adult, but it just might spare him a lot of pain if he does. Believe me, I was that boy. Please make the right decision.

Max

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2001

I am going out with a non-jewish girl, she is aware of the tradition within my religion and understands if we were to ever have a little boy then it would proberly be circumcised. I was the first jewish boy she had ever slept with and could not believe how much cleaner it was.

-- Anonymous, July 13, 2001

I was recently reading an article claiming research has shown that child abuse can cause physcial changes in the brain which may lead to aggression later in life.

I wonder if there have ever been studies done to determine if there is any correlation between the ritual abuse of newborn males (ie., circumcision) and their level of propensity towards violence later in life. This study would tend to suggest that there would be.

-- Anonymous, July 13, 2001

Damn!! Snaked. My planned message (insert one up):

Welcome. Have you met Dave?

-- Anonymous, July 13, 2001

Dave you should poll all the males that ever wanted to do you harm, and see how many are circumcised.

-- Anonymous, July 13, 2001

Dave: of COURSE. That's why the Middle Ages have example after example of Jewish violence, and Gentile history (until the last hundred years, where circumcision has become fashionable in a few benighted places like the United State of America) has been known for its peacefulness and nonagresiveness.

Riiiiight.

In other words: it's a remarkably silly theory, Dave, not at all backed up by history.

Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, July 13, 2001

Well, I'm embarrassed to admit this, but I somehow assumed something the article didn't say at all. It didn't say the abuse and resulting brain changes led to increased aggression. Oops! The article was about Boderline Personality Disorder (BPD) and this is what is had to say:

Some studies even suggest that certain kinds of trauma or early abuse may actually cause structural changes in a central part of the brain involved in emotional memories, the hippocampus. Thus, we are just beginning to understand the biologic sequelae of early events of abuse.

This is corroborated by this article, which describes the importance of the hippocampus in learning, among other things, and also states:

The hippocampus appears to shrink in people who have been exposed to severe trauma; like sexual abuse cases or combat victims.

This, of course, causes my little pea brain to posit a new proposition. Could circumcision, which certainly qualifies as an early instance of abuse (these babies feel much pain, both during the procedure, and during the urine soaked healing process), cause a measurable loss of brain function?

In other words, does circumcision make the victim dumber?

These studies seem to suggest it might.

-- Anonymous, July 13, 2001

Hi I did not know how to get on here to do a post myself

and wanted to know

is it unusual for a 61 year old man to be circumsized

I herd that usually the doctors would try other methods

before doing this .. this person apparently has pimosa or parapimosa

any input would be appreciated

and would this in fact affect performance ... afterwards

the doc says 2 weeks healing is that a true account.

just interested - dont believe all this I dont.

thanks marlin hope i did this the right way so it gets posted

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2001