Very good point! And then there is teeth...........

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/history/mengele/index_1.html

Great article on a deeply visceral and seldom-talked-about issue. Male sexuality is one of the most dynamic and powerful forces underlying - and to a large extent catalyzing - human society itself. To explore the issue of mass circumcision as a means of "policing" male sexuality is ground-breaking.

I suspect the actual number of men who would take advantage of foreskin "reconstruction" procedures would be quite negligible, so listing this as a covered health service can hardly be seen as a notable drain to the system. There are some cases where it is clearly called for - i.e. where overzealous use of the scalpel has resulted in painfully tightened skin during erection, sometimes resulting in skin breakage. Problematic sexual development can have profoundly warping effects on a boy's personal development and self-conception. It is also tragic that so many men are deprived by the medical establishment of the ability to enjoy the full sensation of their natural anatomy, and totally without their consent.

I've never been swayed by the cleanliness argument when deployed in favour of circumcision - Any deligent parent (father or mother) can take the time to show a boy how to clean properly. I'm also skeptical of calls by the medical establishment to institute mass circumcisions in Africa due to vague statistical correlation between HIV seroconversion and uncut males. Some organizations will say anything to get an increase to their funding.

While I believe circumcision should be de-listed as covered medical services (thereby obliging parents to actually stop and think about the issue before making the cut), I stop short of supporting an outright ban, largely due to the integrality of male circumcision to some religious traditions (Namely Judaism and Islam).

I was very impressed, btw, when Princess Diana stood up to both the palace hierarchy and the custom of the British medical establishment when she refused to allow her sons to be circumcised, as all previous royal boys had been. It sent a positive message. I wish more mothers and fathers asserted that kind of good sense.

WOW. Now I see why the international medical establishment wants the UN to subsidize the wholesale circumcision of the entire African sub-Saharan subcontinent...Money.

Darcy.McGee suggested that we should get to vote on whether public dollars should be going for "non-essential" medical procedures. I agree and think we should apply that principle to the 105,000 abortions we do ever year in this country. These women are not sick, pregnancy is not a disease, and I don't think we should have to pay for a procedure that is almost always a personal preference decision, not a health one. It is essentially elective surgery mostly for economic reasons.The Canada Health Act says that all funded procedures must be "medically necessary". Abortion, in almost all cases, does not meet that criteria (and neither does circumcision).

I don't have a problem with this being done on the public dime, since the man's non-consensual, punitive, botched circumcision was a source of pain and infection for most of his life.

I think circumcision is like a tattoo: a fetish for someone to choose (or not!) as an adult. I think circumcising children is child abuse. It amazes me how many people are opposed to female circumcision, but don't see how male circumcision is genital mutiliation, too.

I also do not believe that religion or culture is justification for this cruel and barbaric practice. Let people choose as adults.

From the article:

Let's be very clear about this: most doctors did NOT believe that there were psychological and medical benefits. Most doctors believed there were financial benefits (to themselves).

Absolutely!

That pretty-much sums up the issue. Thank you!

Congratulations to Dr. Paul Tinari and Amanda Euriger of the Tyee for this insightful article. Until now men who were damaged by infant and childhood circumcision have mostly been ridiculed into silence. Circumcision casualties are usually swept under the rug and haven't factored into the questionable statistics used to promote this form of sexual abuse.

When the majority of a society are missing a part of their anatomy, the absence is normalized. Growing up among a majority of circumcised peers those children left genitally intact have too often been ridiculed into seeking circumcision as adults. Now however with more children growing up with their genitals intact it is the circumcised who will truly understand what they are missing.

On a genitally intact man the skin of his penis is the most mobile skin on his body. This mobility is for a reason, and it doesn't take a great deal of thought to understand that this mobility provide a great deal of pleasure, both for the man and his partner. Mobile penis skin ensures a gliding mechanism and facilitates smoother masturbation and intercourse. The foreskin is a sheath of specifically innervated erogenous tissue which interacts with the glans in a highly erotic manner.

While the majority of men may not seek foreskin restoration surgery to correct a surgically imposed deficit, some will choose non surgical methods of expanding penile shaft skin to form a faux-skin. Speaking from personal experience of many diligent years of non-surgical restoration I too can attest to the benefits of mobile penile skin, in contrast to the formerly tight and often painful erections caused by the so-called doctor who circumcised me.

Presently there are very few doctors still circumcising here in the Vancouver area, but there is one so-called doctor who capitalizes on the fact that most others won't. His advertising campaign promoting circumcision reflects a degree of deception which should be challenged by the BC College of Physicians and Surgeons. The Canadian Pediatric Society has repeatedly called infant circumcision unnecessary. Physicians are prohibited by law from performing unnecessary surgery on children. Therefore those few who still perform circumcisions are operating with highly questionable legality and lack of medical ethics.

As a society we are so overly cautious about "respecting cultural differences" that we're generally unable to see slicing off part of a baby's penis as sexual abuse. We are perfectly capable of condemning other culturally condoned sexually repressive actions, no one allows widows to be burned in our streets. It's time to stop the political correctness and view the amputation of healthy erogenous tissue from non-consenting minors for what it is, sexual abuse and medical fraud.

James Loewen

Good god, give our

Good god, give our collective heads a shake. This is one more incident of" sins of the father" coming back to haunt us.

What about the folks waiting in line for so called elective surgury. Hips knees, cortisone treatments for continual pain, the list goes on. For example, since the BC governent delisted eye examinatians by a real live doctor, its use a machine or pay extra. As an older peson it is simply stupid not to see a ophamologist and of course the extra cost is 30 bucks out of our pocket. For a younger person, no machine is going to detect degenerative eye diseases. But what the heck they need to save the money for some clown who needs a forskin replacement. It was done without his consent in some residential school.

Refered to a physio, chiroprator, or Massage, pay for it . Get your foreskin snipped as a child. well now that's a completely different story with an upside. The wait list would be probrably quite short. Wouldn't that be called a similar deal as Botox, liposuction or penile enhancement. This has little to do with male secuality and more to do with me first. [EDITED FOR OFFENSIVE CONTENT.]

What a deceptive article. My son had a circumsision 6 months ago in victoria.
We paid $120 out of pocket for the procedure. Our health insurance didn't cover it and we were fine with paying for it ourselves. The picture of the circumsion board is very misleading.
My son was held during the entire 5 minutes, not strapped down, how silly.
Other moms I know acually nursed there baby's during the entire time. My baby did not cry except when his clothes were taken off. My husband was circumsised and trust me has no problems what so ever in the bedroom :)
I personally know of a few toddlers and young men who have had multiple infections with there "intact" penises and I personally am happy with our family's decision.

Mommy:

How was the article deceptive?

Firstly, this article comdemns circumcision that is not medically necessary -- sometimes it is, but that's another story. Secondly, good hygiene can help most boys when it comes to infections.

You say you know uncut males who have had infections, but have not shown how this is because they are not circumcised. But since you want to play the anecdotal evidence game, I know personally several people who suffered medical consequences from botched circumcisions. I think the risk of surgery tends to outweigh the risk of not having surgery!

I think you circumcised your son out of aesthetic reasons (a fetish and wanting to look like Daddy), so now you want to suggest that non-voluntary genital surgery on infants is okay. Until this practice is illegal it is "your call", but I think it is a terrible thing to do to your son.

Let kids choose as grownups.

Interesting thread..

I believe there's a lot of hype surrounding the infection issue and find it hard to believe someone knows many people who have had 'multiple infections'. I'm uncut and haven't had one in my life. That being said, I did have a toe infection last month so maybe I should snip them off...

If a woman has a yeast infection should we clip of her labia?

Parents who get their babies snipped for non-religious reasons are just buying into the fear mongering or they are doing it for aesthetic reasons, which is basically the equivalent of getting plastic surgery for your newborn.

Steve P:

'Nuff said. Why subject a baby to unnecessary surgical risk, not to mention using precious medical resources to torment a wee child?

Nothing anyone says is going to make a parent admit they did something bad to their baby. Possibly deep down they might feel like they made a mistake by having him circumcised but it is done and the reproductions regarding admitting they made a mistake are just to big, so I don't think any parent will ever admit a mistake after the fact. I am uncut and never had a problem I went through the natural separation of foreskin from the head of the penis as a child which also has its place in the development of a male child too. For a parent to make the decision to cut into their baby is child abuse as far as I am concerned. Do it to your little girl and see how far you get today. Horrible thought huh? So why is it not a horrible thought when applied to a little boy. As I said no parent is going to admit a mistake so it sends the argument back and forth. No parent that tries to justify circumcision to me can succeed. Maybe we can start a trend that ear lobes on male children are bad and parents can start to believe that too. Nah! that is too visible and not associated with something "unclean and BAD" like the genitals especially male genitals. It is way simpler to just go with the flow and do as everyone else does so you fit into society. All boys should be circumcised, wear blue, do sports, or do whatever male stereotype is applicable to their upbringing and on an on and if they don't then there is something wrong with them. All mothers of circumcised children should be circumcised too. Does that sound right? Of course not. That is mutilation and abuse and grounds for being sued. But it is ok to do it to a little male baby though. So they didn't cry. Does that make it ok? Who are you to think that because you cut some skin off your baby and they did not cry that it is ok. Do it again cut something else off if you are so comfortable with it.
It just does not make any sense.

Simple Solution: You snip, you pay.

I think it was justified to have the surgery payed by the medical system. It is the medical system that is causing this problem and making millions possibly billions off the foreskins they take so the money has been already made to correct any foreskin that any male wants to have back. Where is all the money the hospitals made of the sale of foreskins how about we make the hospitals put all that money back into our medicare system. I hear it is billions.

A hundred grand per foreskin! Is it just me or doesn't it seem like theft for a doctor to sell a chunk of tissue for big bucks without even mentioning it to the family. I had no idea these kinds of bucks were being made off of this.

Interesting piece, medically necessary circumcision is a rarity while the appeal to tradition remains the primary driving force. There is no doubt that the surgery should be covered in this situation, opinions to the contrary completely disregard the facts of the case. This isn't some guy who circumcised himself: he was the victim of non-consensual surgery with the tacit approval of government.

Anecdotal evidence warning.

I come from a large family, none of the 5 boys is circumcised. Not one "infection" amongst us over a combined period of 300 years of uncircumcised living. That is an unusual stat to know, but our Dad experienced the pain of a catheter inspired infection in his penis while having a knee replaced 2 years ago and the subject came up.

Dad is in his 80's, and when the infection was extant I took him to his urologist. The swelling was such that the foreskin had been forced back and he looked circumcised. Dad is still 100% there mentally, and when the doctor was examining him asked "are you sure you weren't circumcised" I could hear the response in the waiting room:

"I have been looking at it for 80 years and I am can assure you that my penis is not circumcised."

Real evidence warning.

In 1993 the British Journal of Surgery published "Complications of Circumcision" with the following synopsis:

http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/williams-kapila/

cont'd below

Since 1993 the number of procedures performed in the UK has dropped to <12,000 per year, approximately 4% of infants. There is a link on the first paper to a later paper from 2000 that examines the trends in infant circumcision, including legitimate medical procedures, until the late 90's. I was struck by the fact that the cost of a cicumcision in England is given as 500 pounds, but they do relate reducing the number of circumcisions to a savings for the NHS.

These are typical of posts from a range of folks regarding the spending of taxpayers money that pop up in many threads. Other examples have included "I don't want to pay for bombs," "I don't want to pay for welfare" and "I don't want to pay for prisoners, give them the cheaper death penalty." Perhaps we could institute a system that permitted binding referenda for all spending matters, unless %50 of the population vote YES the program gets cut. Naturally the rational thought processes that would decide such matters wouldn't be blinded by any form of anger or ignorance. Some are nodding happily, believing that we could disband the military or stop abortions for folks who can't afford a private clinic, ignoring the fact that nobody truly knows how the bulk of the population will respond to voting on expenditures. Public opinion is malleable, subject to emotional blackmail "without funding we will have to kill all these kittens at CFB Comox: do you want that?" and scare tactics "without funding people will die!" and the entire exercise would be chaos. Imagine a vote on the death penalty! The day after Bernardo or Olson was on TV the vote would be in favour, but throw a Milgaard at them and that vote is reversed.

We have medicare for better or for worse, and we have wait lists and blah blah blah. If we begin to de-list services for individuals based upon behaviour like smoking can there legitimately be an end to that process? There is usually some level of responsibility that we have regardless of what illness we have on injury we incurred. Got a cold? Did you wash your hands before you touched anything after you got off the elevator? What about car accident victims? Would the woman who ran the light while talking on her cell phone be denied care unless she could pay? How about her child? The guy driving the other car was speeding, so perhaps he doesn't deserve coverage either. How about STDs? Use a condom or abstain, and if you get the clap save up for treatment. What about sports and activity injuries? I have had a few knee operations dating back to the 80's, if I had just remained relatively sedentary that cash would still be in the coffers.

I don't think anyone would argue that we should provide medically necessary care in all these cases. I think the point the post was trying to make was that pregnancy is not medically necessary to terminate because in most cases its not an illness or an injury.

With this issue, the bottom line is that it is a rights violation to perform unnecessary surgery on someone who cannot give their consent to perform the procedure.

I would like to see the procedure completely outlawed on children. If it is a religious issue (e.g. Judaism), I still believe you need to give a person the right to say yes or no to the procedure.

Hey Steve P
How was the article deceptive? Well I guess the picture of the board with restraints was for one. I agree that would be a very intimidating mechinism to strap an infant too. Funny I have never even heard of anyone strapping there baby's down to have them circumsised. I have a lot of friends who have had there sons done and everyone that I personally know have gotten to hold or nurse there baby. I guess to me the photo was deceptive right off the bat.
Also, I acually didn't get my son done as a fetish so he would match my hubby. I could have gone either way on weather to have my little guy done or not. My husband on the other hand was adiment that he wanted our son done, No not so they could "mathch" but because he had very happy that he had been done as a baby and he wanted the best for his son. My husband of course doens't remember the procedure, but knows that he has more than enough nerves left in that area that were not affected. Also BOTH OF HIS COUSINS never were done and BOTH had to been done as teens as they had reoccuring problems with keeping there foreskin clean.
I'm not saying that it is the "right" thing for every family. But it was the right thing for us.

I like my foreskin.

For a hundred grand, though...

y'think I could sell it on e-bay?

Also to the parents out there who say "leave it up to the kids to deciede when there older"
Some things are simply better when they are done sooner than later.
Dental work (cosmetic ie/braces), teaching propper nutrition, teaching manners, sun protection, dicipline...
As parents it is up to US to train, teach and provent certain things from being stubbling blocks down the road for our children. Yes it is easier to let the kids chose mac and cheese over chiken and veggies, or go without sunscreen because it feels "icky" or to keep the braces off because they may be uncomfy for the child. Or to leave the forskin intact because it may "hurt" the child. Nonesense!
Down the road when they are grown, and they are reaping the benifits of what may have seen unkind at the time, they will Thank you.

mommyinlove,

Your last post relies on the type of logic leap that makes Marion Jones look like she's playing hopscotch.

Comparing sun protection to invasive surgery without consent is intellectually flimsy, at best.

I think the following question has been asked in general on this post, but I will ask you specifically:

How would you feel if, as an infant, your parents decided that to prevent future infections, et cetera, they had your labia and/or clitoris surgically removed/altered? As an adult, you wouldn't be aware of any sexual difference, having not had any experience with fully intact equipment. This is the exact argument you make for male circumcision.

In general, the hygiene issue has time and time again been disproven by medical studies such as those mentioned in this article. I don't dispute that there are exceptions to this, as in the case of your husband's cousins. A recurring problem was identified (repeated infections), as was a solution (circumcision).

That bein said, performing circumcisions as "routine preventative maintenance" is both irresponsible and ignorant of the facts at hand.

Mommyinlove, there's only seventeen things wrong with your argument, but I'll just mention the most obvious:

There's no good reason for doing it to infants, unless it's to correct a congenital medical problem.

All the research concludes this. How come you keep ignoring it?

Just kidding, I already know. Brian says: "Nothing anyone says is ever going to make a parent admit they did something wrong to their baby."

Yathink?

The term 'genital mutilation' might be a bit harsh. It's obviously something that a male can live without. I just think it's a shame that all these parents buy into these overhyped medical myths and start lopping off foreskins in the name of 'doing what's right for junior'. It's even sadder when they use these myths as justification for an aesthetic decision.

My question is that when you get a foreskin reattached twenty years later, where does it come from?

Green's (both) Truman, There

Green's (both)
Truman, There is acually a few thing I regret during my years being a parent. I wish I never let my first "cry it out" so I could "train" her to sleep.
I wish I didn't give up nursing my baby's so I could get them on a bottle so I could go out without her going hungry. I know many parent (myself included) who later wish they could do something over, so Brian I think you are wrong on with the above qoute.
Circumsion however I believe to be fine for baby's. Yes I have read some information to say that it won't prevent infections, on the other hand I have read information saying that it may indeed provent certain infections.
These days anyone can find a site to "prove" there point. Each parent deciedes things for there family and will live with the outcome, good or bad.
I will stand by mine.
From what I have read and heard about female circumsion is that women who have had this done cannot have an orgasim, the same can not be said for men. So to me that is the big difference. Gotta run, nap time is over!

Hi, mominlove. Will you please let us have the source of your information that circumcision "may indeed prevent certain infections." If you can provide a link that would be great, but I'd appreciate very much just to know the name of the study, book, article or research you are referring too. Thanks a lot.

It just blows me away how people can just skim over and justify cutting part of a child off. Like I said have the same procedure done to yourself or your little girl. Why is it that when it is done to a baby boy it is acceptable but not to a baby girl. The issue is we are desensitized by or culture to the idea that we are cutting part of a babes body off. I keep saying do it to female babies because it is the only example I have that might make people thing that is disgusting and if it does sound disgusting to mutilate a baby girl then just switch the gender and try to feel the same way about baby boys. Why are parts of baby boys so disposable in this situation. How can anyone justify cutting part of a babes body off ??? Go cut part of your own body off. I don't think anyone wants to, so why would you want to do this to your child. Sanctioned mutilation really seems to desensitize people from that fact they are cutting part of a child's body off. Unbelievable!

One link, Hope this works. I am not
%100 how to post a link

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/346/15/1105

This struck a cord with me - my parents expressed the same regret. Benjamin Spock advocated that kind of approach in early childhood, which he much later repudiated. This kind of approach, intended to cultivate early childhood independence and emotional stability, was advocated by the medical establishment from the '50s through to the '80s.

Let's face it, there has been so many trends and conflicting information in the past 60 years since parenting fell under the sway of self-help quacks, social theorists, psychologists and ideological wackos. What was ideal parenting 20 years ago could land you in court today.

So I have no doubt you're a committed parent, Mommyinlove, so don't take the relatively recent "discovery" of this issue as a potentially problematic one as an indictment against your parenting. The practice is still normative in most jurisdictions. We just have to be open to knew information about it, and new perspectives.

Thanks for sharing your experiences & observations. They were informative and a pleasure to read.

Stopping the nursing of a baby or letting a baby cry to break a habit are things that every parent goes though. Some things are tough but I think circumcising a baby boy since it is hard to correct is quite different. You did not have to cut part of your babies body off to stop nursing so that he or she would start the next step in feeding which is solid food that is just normal. You also did not have to cut part of your babies body off to stop him or her from crying it is just something parents go though. Circumcision is not the same as stopping breast feeding. My point is once the circumcision is done "most" parents that have done it will justify it because they do not want to feel wrong or feel some guilt. So they end up supporting the mutilation of babies in this way. It is amazing how people can be convinced that doing this is ok.

mominlove, you're doing fine at posting links. That, as I'm sure you know, was the New England Journal of Medicine you linked to. Are you a researcher yourself, or a doctor? Do you have a subscription? I couldn't get past the abstract. How do you interpret it? And what does the complete text of the study say?

dolphin:

At the rate at which we are overruning this earth, I think propagation might well be considered a disease...........just ask Mr. Smith in The Matrix.

Had to comment so I asked my wife what I should say:
"I have mine, it's fine!"
(I do exactly what she tells me)

There was an old joke where I grew up:
"What's is "Fumunda"?"
Ans: "Fumuda the foreskin!"

Old jokes are sometimes not really good jokes.

In fact I remember "fumunda" worried me a bit and things got red and puffy as the foreskin peeled away from the head. I assume this is normal because there is no sign of infection after maybe 50 years.

At that point I do not think I was masturbating but certainly took it seriously once the red puffy went away.

Wow! Intact foreskins titilate! News to me.
Thanks Mom for refusing to "go Normal"
uncut

I would part with it. Bidders?

Dolphin- if birth control were covered (or even partly subsidized) in our so-called advanced society, there would probably be a hell of a lot less than 105,000 abortions annually. But I guess our tax dollars are going toward things like the above, and I heard a while back, Viagra for veterans? O-K.

I was circumsised as an infant and have zero recollection of it. And have had no problems down there whatsoever (if I do say so myself). Genital mutilation? Maybe, but -- and I may be biased -- a circumsized penis looks better. Down with the ant-eater look.

Babies go through a lot and aren't emotionally scarred. Should we stop vaccinating them because they might not get a disease? Why don't we just wait until they get the disease and then treat it instead of holding them down and giving them needles? You can get a scar on your upper arm that lasts a lifetime! Why should we remove wisdom teeth before they cause problem? God gave them to us for a reason! Benign tumours are benign, people! Wake up! Don't fix it until it becomes malignant!

I can understand the doctor's case because he had a botched surgery that needed to be corrected. But getting up in arms over the general practice that is safe probably 99.9 percent of the time seems a little much. I'm just curious: Most of the posters who are so adamently against it seem to be ant-eaters (sorry, uncircumcised). How many circumcised men out there really think it is such an awful act?

If an uncircumsised penis gives one more pleasure sexually, then I'm glad I was snipped because otherwise I'd never leave the house. In other words, it's pretty damn good anyway.

While some feel that circumcision is a form of child abuse it is minor compared to the child abuse of abortion. We are the only country in the western world with no legal protection for unborn children, and even though 20 week old fetuses have survived premature delivery, it is quite legal to kill those who are at the same stage of gestation simply because they are "unwanted". As for Rick W's comment about "overpopulation", there is hardly a country in the Western world that is even close to the replacement level of 2.2 children per woman. In Russia and Italy it's down below 1.3. The news is filled with stories of labour shortages and worries about the next generation not being numerous enough to support the pension system. Believe me, we are going to pay big time for our abortion policy.

How do you know?

And besides, dumbass -- If you don't want to look like an "anteater", there is an easier solution than surgery -- pull back the skin.

grw - Luckily most cut men feel much as you do - i.e. they don't feel violated, damaged or robbed as a result of non-consensual genital surgery in childhood. Nor do they lament the loss of sensation that a whole male (with intact anatomy) experiences during sexual pleasure, for the simple reason that they can't miss what they've never known.

However, as one who is obliged to participate in a social environment in which the subject of conversation is usually apportioned thusly: 40% dicks, 40% asses, and 20% drugs, I can vouch for the fact that there are many cut men out there who wish they were otherwise...and very few uncut men out there who would willingly part with this particular part of their anatomy.

I was just going by the comments on the board. They said they were uncut.

I'd just turned 18 when I had my little boy back in the 60s. My husband was 21 and, as it happens, uncut. There was nothing 'wrong' with my husband, but we wanted to do the best for our child and my husband felt 'abnormal' because he wasn't circumcised.

We had no one else to advise us but the medical profession. Predictably, they advised circumcision and so we gave our assent.

My son never had a problem as a result of the procedure, but to this day I feel deep sadness and regret for not having known better. I wish we'd not allowed the doctor to touch our baby son.

Yeah, but how does your son feel about it?

Stupid comments about natural genitalia ("anteater") continue the pressure for this unnecessary surgery today.

Yes, it was stupid. I just heard it recently and thought it was funny. That's all. But still, because there's nothing *wrong* with the surgery, what's the big deal. The vast majority of people who've had it as infants are absolutely fine with it and even choose to have it for their kids. And they pay for it, so it doesn't come out of your precious tax dollars.

The point was made above that those who have been snipped, and who are satisfied with their sex lives in spite of it, can't know what it feels like. But that's a two-way street. The unsnipped don't know what it feels like, either, to be snipped from a young age. If you're snipped as an adult, no kidding there might be some problems with feeling down there. And if, like the doctor in the article, you're re-attached, how can you get feeling back. Aren't there nerves that would be damaged in such an operation?

There's nothing wrong with the surgery when you choose to undergo it as an adult. Get yourself a Prince Albert for all I care.

But it is wrong to submit infants to this process.

And it is really rude, to say the least, to make demeaning comments about those who choose not to get genital plastic surgery.

I think there is a basic ethical point to be made about not making unnecessary surgical changes to the natural anatomy of infants for frivolous or misguided or simply aesthetic reasons. As I said, I've spoken to many cut men who wished they were otherwise. It's just not a justifiable "default" practice, and now that a profit-motive has been brought to light, the issue deserves to be re-examined in light of new information and perspectives. I mean, if people can discuss outlawing ear-cropping and tail-docking on dogs, then we ought to at least be able to discuss infant penis-chopping in human baby boys.

It is encouraging, however, that any discussion of the topic is no longer immediately shouted down by feminists keen to pre-empt any analogy between male cicumcision and female genital mutilation. So in this sense, the debate has moved in a more evolved, civilized and ecumenical direction.

nightbloom:

Nice analogy. Your comment: very true!

But who in their right mind is going to do it as an adult? It's way more painful, I understand from those who have had to get one for medical reasons. Babies are poked, prodded, and banged up and are resilient enough not to be bothered by it very quickly. All us old guys know that we're not so quick to heal as we were when we were young.

And it's wrong to submit them to immunizations and needless needles (interesting the words are differentiated by only one 's')? And let's not take their tonsils out -- God gave us tonsils for a reason. And wisdom teeth. And our appendix. If we were born that way, that's the way we should be... Ridiculous.

Wah! (ant-eater)

Cool article and talkbacks.

It never occured to me for a second to snip my kid. I was snipped...it sure didn't cure my masturbation or insanity! Or infections -- when I was 6 they traumatized me for life with this catheter thingie...

To the mom above who regrets ferberizing and snipping, well, it's not all your fault. There are lots of people espousing views, some of them in your own family no doubt, that makes it hard to trust your own instincts, which are (presumably) not to want your infant ever to cry or be cut or suffer.

People who say "let them cry" plant the seed of the cruelty that is our disease as humans.

If it is crazy to do as an adult, I can't see how it is suddenly okay to do to a child.

Your e.g.'s of removing tonsils are off-mark, too. Doctors no longer advocate the routine, "just in case" removal of tonsils, wisdom teeth and appendices before there is a specific medical reason for it. And besides, this debate has not been about circumcision for specific medical purposes. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Your analogy of immunization doesn't fit, either -- vaccination stimulates an immune response through an injection, it is not an (effectively) irreversible genital surgery for aesthetic purposes.

You're a real virtual tough-guy -- you are awfully brave when you don't need to look someone in the eye & experience consequences for antagonizing strangers.

I have a three and a half year old son. His dad is cut and so is his dad's whole family. All the previous men in my life where cut and I always thought- before the birth of my som- that I would do the same to my son, it was pleasing to look at that way and I figured it was the norm. Things changed though after my sons birth. His dad and that side of the family where pushing for the surgery and even offered to pay for it. But when push came to shove I didn't see the point. Its seemed a crazy thing to do to a small child, especially MY small child. There was nothing wrong with his penis. It worked just fine and looked fine to me. I refused to do it and don't regret it. We are clean enough people, he baths everyday and is yet to experience any problems. Friends with cut boys all wish they had not done the big snip. It's not my body and it is not like putting on sun screen or brushing teeth. MOMMY you can't compare mutilation to common sense. By the same token condemming people who didn't know any better is pointless. Hopefully we learn to respect our childrens bodies and teach them the same thing. Leave his little foreskin alone and if it proves problematic at a later stage then do what NEEDS to be done. It's like me cutting off my breasts so that I don't get cancer- I'll cross that bridge IF I ever get there. Condoms are preventitive NOT SURGERY!

Name calling, like calling someone an 'anteater' is partially what perpetuates something like circumcision. If uncircumcised penises were the norm, like it is in some parts of the world, then no one would think twice about it and find reason to senselessly mock it.

This forum is obviously anti-circumcision, so grw probably feels threatened, and thus the need to resort to schoolyard name calling.

Let it go.

Narece - Well said, and good on you!

I been known to think WITH my cut penis, but I don't often think ABOUT it very much. Tempest in a pisspot if you ask me w/r/t circumcision. Parents make decisions about their childrens' medical procedures all the time. Of course, being snipped it's hard for me to envision myself as 'mutilated'. Maybe just different from some, but like a lot of others (if Wreck Beach is any indicator).

As to who pays for it... this man -- and others apparently, were clearly done a cruel disservice in an institutional setting and is entitled to seek damages (payment for the operation) IMO.

If you're that bent out of shape about being cut, go get the operation and sue your parents.

Let it go.

Fair enough.

In penance, I have written out "I will not post when angry" 1,000 times ... =^)

I just read an article by the prostate cancer society survivors. They were questioning why a simple blood test to check for early detection of cancer is not listed as a test unless a doctor figures the person is a high risk, ( around 30 bucks,) yet mammograms are routine. They wern't arguing against the breast cancer risk, they were wondering why they are excluded form a blood test. Wonder what the survivers would have to say when they hear about forskin replacement operations costing almost 20 thousands being paid for by the tax payers. Should be a interesting discusion. I don't suppose there is a massive call for foreskin repairs. Mind you maybe the guy is a long time Liberal/ socred supporter

Foreskins are used to replace eyelids?

Wouldn't this make the patient cockeyed? (On the other hand, perhaps they would be blessed with foresight...)

Incidentally, in my family we have always referred to ourselves as tuques, not anteaters. More Canadian that way.

[OFFENSIVE COMMENT REMOVED.

[OFFENSIVE COMMENT REMOVED. -MODERATOR.]

I donated my foreskin to the E. L. R. S. B. Or better known as the Eye Lid Restoration Skin Bank. What these good folks have achieved with these fore skins is nothing short of being miraculous, for those persons who were born without eye lids, they can have these no longer used fore skins attached as new eye lids, in addition, they all achieve excellent fore sight, but the odd person does develops complications, they may become cock eyed, and upon arousal some eye lids can stiffen considerably, other than that, you can’t beat them.

Anyone who won’t pay for their own foreskin restoration must be a SKIN FLINT

yes I know all about the

yes I know all about the E.L.R.S.B. They asked me to donate but hell...I could get big bucks..y`know down in the states...got biiig bucks my friend big bucks ..bought a pretty trendy condo in the new upscale "Passing Wind Estates"..a new little gated development in Whistler..for people who want the real mountain experience..who are able to fully appreciate the true natural experience.. know what i`m sayin`?
Ski season bud...you know who won`t have a banana stuffed down the front of his Hugo Boss spandex..
Skin flint...you bet buddy..got a limo of Babes from World class Big Town Van arriving any minute..gotta run.. the condos gonna be rockin`.

This is all rather hilarious.

I am not circumcized and am happy with it. However, I think that people who are should not feel bad, nor should the parents who made that decision in the 60's, 70's, or later.

I think that the medical profession is correct in generally moving away from the practice. Over time, it will be largely phased out.

But I do not think that those against it should be so aggressive in their comments about 'mutilation' etc. This is going to make kids or men who are circumcised feel the same shame and alienation that uncircumcized kids felt in times past.

Dolphin,
If you're going to come on here switching subjects with your anti-abortion agenda at least elaborate on this: "We are going to pay bigtime for our abortion policy". How so? With 6+ billion people bursting this planet at its seams (and please peruse article on plastics), we humans need to face one fact we don't seem to be able to deal with: We just ARE NOT that special!!!

So begs the question, once having been caught chocking the chicken, they then lobed of the foreskin,
now having tasted the forbidden fruit and enjoying it very much , what form of punishment would one receive upon getting caught again for pulling ones wire, a noxious evening with Sister Ifeeleeyou

I apologize if anyone took offense to my 'ant-eater' barbs. Just having some fun with a ridiculous image. I don't think I'm a tough guy picking fights with strangers -- I've even used the 'ant-eater' gag when teasing unsnipped friends to offset their righteous indignation over the 'mutilation' comments. (If something is the norm, or at least popular, and most people don't think it looks hideous, can it really be considered 'mutilation' except in the strictest pejorative definition?)

For the record, I always thought I'd have my son snipped, no questions. And I eventually did, but not without some soul-searching. It wasn't nearly as matter-of-fact as I thought. If my wife had said she wasn't so sure anymore or had second thoughts, I would have conceded in a second. That being said, it's not like he exhibited any signs of pain after we left the office.

I've also heard, from a community nurse (in all contexts, not just circumcision) that it's not the absence of physical pain or trauma that helps a child, it's the absence of the nurture and care after the child has gone through through the pain or trauma. If you're there as a parent to comfort and soothe your child after something like that, it actually helps the child along more than if they went their whole lives protected.

Does that make any sense?

GRW, It makes sense to me!

Reading these posts it's easy to understand why circumcision has persisted. Although the conversations over a back fence or in a bar add to our understanding of how ignorance perpetuates all manner of culturally sanctioned abuse, the anecdotal "evidence" presented above adds little new to the discussion.

Michel Odent, one of the most respected obstetricians in the world today, has spoken and written a great deal about the strongest urge of any mammal, that of a mother to protect her young. In patriarchal (war loving) societies, past and present cultural anthropologists have documented over one hundred rituals which take place just after a child is born. Some of these rituals smoking the infant over a fire, insisting the infant have wine placed on its tongue before its allowed to breast feed, expelling and disposing of colostrum before nursing, circumcision, early baptism, etc etc etc. All of these rituals have one dynamic in common, taking the baby away from the mother, ostensibly to perform a bit of improvement to the child. This goes totally against the strongest urges a woman feels or ever will feel, the urge to nurture and protect her precious infant. Of course if the person wielding a scalpel has convinced the mother of the "benefits" of cutting into the child, she gives the child up for the dubious improvement thinking she is acting in the best interests of the child. But when all of these rituals are examined they are in fact just superstitions acted out upon an innocent mother and child. When one of the posters somewhat jokingly suggested the mother be circumcised for offering a child up for circumcision, that is in fact what is happening. The mother's concern and love and urge to protect her infant is squelched and perverted into allowing damage to be done, both to the child's as yet undeveloped genitals and to the precious bonding taking place with her infant. Of course a mother who has given her child up for the heavy handed and dubious procedure as having its genitals made surgically smaller is not going to be easily convinced afterward that she was deceived.

Childbirth educators inform us that the first developmental task of an infant is to establish trust. This is done from the first moments of the infant's consciousness and helps to set the emotional grounding for all that follows. Suggesting that babies are unfeeling creatures able to withstand poking, pinching, cutting, prodding and ignoring harks back to brutal Victorian standards of child rearing which ignores all we know today about early childhood development.

Male and female genitals stem from the same bud in a developing fetus. With a hormonal trigger from the mother the developing fetus' sex begins to differentiate. The genital bud becomes either glans penis or glans clitoris. Both male and female humans have equivalent structures in their genitals once developed. Both have a prepuce or foreskin to protect the glans and interact with it in an erotic manner. In an adult male the foreskin is equivalent to the foreskin and part of the labia minora of the adult female. When a child is born all of this is still developing, in male infants the foreskin is not yet entirely differentiated from the glans and takes time to fully do so. Some compare infant circumcision with cutting into and forcing a rosebud open. As one poster mentioned when the child's genitals are left intact the discovery of the glans (at whatever age it takes place) is an important developmental stage of the child.

For those here who are singing the praises of their circumcised genitals they should know that in its sordid history circumcision was used by the ancient Egyptians to mark slaves. Many tribal people feel that cutting the clitoris from a little girl is making her more feminine by removing what they perceive to be her maleness, and that cutting away the foreskin of a little boy is removing his femaleness. For those wishing to improve their knowledge of this subject beyond hearsay there have been a number of scholarly volumes published in recent years. The mounting body of evidence against circumcision is growing rapidly and will not stop.

If we care to look at our recent past we see how passionately people defended the indefensible practice of slavery, even using "scientific" or religious excuses to defend it. So too with genital reduction surgery on children.

What is interesting about Paul Tinari's story and other circumcision related news stories of recent times is how often they mirror the greater truths about this issue. In Dr. Tinari's case his circumcision was punishment for masturbation, as were countless circumcisions imposed after the legendary quackery of John Harvey Kellog gained public favor. Currently in Winnipeg is a news story of a so-called doctor Matthew Howard Lazar who "mistakenly" circumcised a baby whose parents had not consented to the surgery. When Lazar realized his mistake he did not reveal that the surgery had already been performed but went to the parents and talked them into signing the consent forms. He then went out of the room, circumcised another baby (perhaps so the parents could associate the screams with their child) and then presented the parents with their previously circumcised infant. Lazar had his hand slapped by the courts, he was forced to pay the cost of the investigation into his wrongdoing, $4,676.30. He will not get off so lightly though. What Lazar and other quacks who are still cutting genitals without consent have not yet realized is that now such criminal behavior will never be forgotten. Websites devoted to ending genital cutting of infants and children will forever carry the misdeeds of these so-called doctors. Their words and actions will forever haunt them.

Those who use statistics to promote circumcision of children never, and I repeat NEVER take into account all the damage that circumcision has done. Countless children have bled to death, lost part of all of the rest of their penis, been sexually reassigned, had so much skin removed that erection and intercourse become painful, been left with skin bridges and tags of skin etc, etc, etc.

For those who feel they have made the right decision for their child but didn't do any research except ask their husband because he he has a penis it will be next to impossible to view the superabundance of truthful information now available to everyone who can Google "circumcision."

I know it's difficult to accept that one's genitals were surgically reduced without consent. Easier to just call someone anteater dick and feel superior, but who is laughing? Like other forms of sexual abuse and prejudice this one will die a natural death when the truth becomes not only accepted, but common knowledge.

Thanks for the thoughtful posts, James3D. I appreciate your exploration of the anthropological roots of the practice.

Although I don't draw a direct connection between patriarchy and a "war loving" culture (matriarchal social frameworks like the Mohawks also have a male-identified sub-cult), the point is nevertheless well taken. Some tribal societies even enact elaborate "kidnapping" rituals which take boys from the feminine enclosure and "initiate" them into the male-hunter social hierarchy. It's facinating that we may actually have preserved a remnant of this kind of male initiation without retaining any of the positive benefits (our society is virtually bereft of true initiatory opportunities linking boys to the society of men...which I think is part of the problem we're now experiencing with youth gangs, refracted identity, drugs, and a generally "lost-and-searching" generation of boys with a confused sense of place, role and self).

Male circucision is also an outgrowth of the unquestioned assumption of male expendability in human society...which arguably is a group social meme structured around keeping women and children at the centre of the familial attention-giving mechanism. (I have long argued that this is the true source of "homophobia" and the visceral dislike of men who seem to be appropriating the feminine role at the centre of the nurturance apparatus - they are transgressing the feminine hearth, the rightful place of mother and child, which their masculine vitality was meant nourish not usurp).

James3D, if you are going to condemn individuals for not including statistics, your own response is equally shoddy. Please supply links and numbers on the dangers of this proceedure. "Countless" sounds like hyperbole. Maybe you've got other, unspoken reasons?

For those who talk of educating people to be clean as a substitute, I wish to ask "Does no one remember all our attempts at education, and just how successful they were?" Sure, some will be educated. Others, and maybe even most... won't be. Think SUVs. Think recycling. Think picking up litter. Think vaccinations. the list is endless.

It's nice that some people can bath every day, but I suggest that the global population will, if it has not already, at some point reach a point where there is simply not enough clean water available to permit that. Certainly, in many parts of the world that is already the case. In many others, there simply isn't the infrastructure of indoor plumbing that we in Canada pretty much take for granted. I grew up on a farm in Canada, I'm under 60, and it was only at age nine that we finally got up the scratch to build a modern bathroom. Before that it was an outdoor privy and water heated on the wood stove and poured into a large tub which was moved into the kitchen on bath night....

Concerning the prospect of preventing AIDS, the wonderful thing about statistics is that, when properly used, they override emotion and annecdotal information. The success is in the percentages, not in total or zero prevention. If total success were the only acceptable basis for a medical proceedure being adopted, there are precious few that would be used. Every proceedure involves risk. We can only weigh competing risks and try to make a rational decision.

I was familiar with the NEJM article and the problem with Black Africa. I understand that many tribes there aren't waiting for an international effort; they bring their children to tribes that do circumcise, because they could see with their own eyes the difference in survival, but I don't recall where I saw the article.

another interesting article:

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020298

and this quote is particularily telling:

"Male circumcision provides a degree of protection against acquiring HIV infection, equivalent to what a vaccine of high efficacy would have achieved"

Of course, there are those who will remain adamantly opposed, but then there are those against birth control and the right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy....

R. Smiley

I didn't condemn anyone for not including statistics. Personally I don't think statistics should be a major factor in how to welcome and nurture a baby. I referred to "countless" deaths and disfigurements from circumcision because in fact they have not and cannot been counted. I'll provide a link below if anyone is interested to review some of the recent deaths from circumcision. There have been three in Canada since 2004. Two infants and thirty-eight year old David Reimer.

Slicing off part of someone else's genitals at birth is a cruel way to enforce hygiene. To suggest that a child cannot be taught to clean the most accessible and pleasurable part of the body, or must be spared from needlessly touching there is harkening back to a 1950's hygiene film mentality of sex and genitals being dirty.

One of the prevailing myths on the origins of circumcision concerns desert dwelling nomads who had to cut off their foreskins to prevent a buildup of sand. If that were true one must be forgiven for wondering if the women got sand in their genitals, or if anyone got sand in their eyes. Realistically we need enough water to hydrate the body, which when exiting the body as urine (which is sterile) could be used in a pinch to rinse the genitals. If there is an upcoming worldwide water shortage I don't think circumcision is going to save us.

Normally we use surgery to correct an ailment, usually after we have exhausted less invasive forms of treatment. Interesting to note that circumcision has a curious backward history of being a surgery looking for an ailment. In the Victorian era it was touted as a preventative and cure-all for an unlikely list of more than 30 unrelated ailments. Epilepsy, alcoholism, bedwetting, etc, etc, etc; good old circumcision was almost as good as snake oil. During the last century circumcision found a new list of ailments and diseases to cure. Curiously circumcision is always touted to combat the latest medical fear. When each is disproved circumcision promoters jump on the next bandwagon. Now it's AIDS. The so-called studies referred to above have not been published in major medical journals of any renown, only on websites. Circumcision does not stop the transmission of AIDS. To imply that it does is dangerous and dishonest. Perhaps others also find the phrase, "the problem with Black Africa" condescending and racist.

Indeed there are parallels between circumcision and other issues of sexual politics and body ownership, notably access to sex education, birth control, and the rights of a woman to terminate a pregnancy. Perhaps when we fully understand the obvious, how the dynamics are controlled by those who have had their own autonomy squelched, we will be one step closer to recognizing human rights abuses disguised as medicine.

http://www.circumstitions.com/

PS: the above link may be interesting for others wishing to look more closely at the myths that perpetrate sexual mutilation of children.

Please give citations backing up your contentions. Seriously. (and having worked as a research assistant when I did my masters, I mean citations, not crap like Wikpedia or some private site used to grind axes)

(Note that the trend in Scientific literature is moving more and more to publish on the web, rather than in a journal of restricted circulation...)

More circumcision related deaths of young Africans reported in Vancouver Sun, today - Saturday July 29/06.

Jim, we aren't talking about doing it with a rusty can. We are talking about reducing the risk of cervical cancer by 50%. We are talking about a benefit equivalent to a vaccine which still hasn't been developed, and may never be. Google circumcision riots in Swaziland. Are you going to deny these Africans ...or anyone else, for that matter... the right to life?

Don't you care enough for your significant other to give Binky a makeover, or do you fall into the catagory of the victims in the newspaper article? Last I checked, not many people are going to Africa to have it done there.

Let's delve a bit more into this, Jim. Exactly what are your educational qualifications?

You don't want statistics to be a major factor. I see. You'd prefer fear, fashion, and superstition. You don't like NEJM. Maybe Cosmo or National Enquirer is more to your taste? Just how do you think all (and I mean all) the medical proceedures employed in the welcoming and rearing of infants were arrived at, if not statistics? And why stop there? Matters connected with their food, clothing (fire retardents, and so on), the works. Safety seats... formulas... so you'd prefer that none of them should be based on statistics?

Would you want to get on a plane that was built not with statistics, but rather by the seat of somebody's pants? That worked even towards the end of the age of sail with boats... and I really admire ships like the Bluenose, and someone who can make them, but you'll not catch me getting into a 767 built with a jack-knife.

So even though we may have cut down all the trees in our background, don't sweat it, they are still there....

Good book: Fooled by Randomness. by N. Taleb.

Even as we speak the evidence mounts that those who promote amputating healthy erogenous tissue from an unconsenting minor child are not themselves playing with a full deck.

Lets' get real folks. The guy as a child was circumsised by a doctor at a place where he was a ward of the federal government. I doubt that many six year old children sign consent forms. If the guy has a PHD and still feels inadequate why not quietly go get something that looks a lot like non elective surgury to me. If he was a treaty Indian DIAND would have footed the bill, so I guess he was not. So how come he ended up in a residential school anyway?

"Countless" in this case means "three" since 2004, it would appear. That's one a year, but only for those three years. How far back does the research go? And how many babies are circumcised every year? Seems like the numbers are with the snippers. Next in your research, you should find out how many unsnipped children develop problems. I know of one alone last year who needed to get it done at six months. Surely, he can't be the only one in the whole country.

thought i would put in my two cents worth.
As a woman, I have experienced both intact and circumcised members.

Of the circumcised two were botched jobs...messy. Did it mess with their pleasure? no.

Of the intact ones there were none that had ever had issues with infections, they loved the glove, the tuque, what ever you want to call it. Was it ever dirty, smelly or icky? No.

Women have to stay clean as well, haven't you ever noticed the layers of stuff we have to deal with.

It's all there for a reason though. But for some reason we have people telling us, OH it's much more hygenic to shave all the hair off, to spray it with chemicals, to make it smell nice. Ridiculous.
We become obsessed with the hygiene of it, when all we need do is just give it a good wash every so often.

My preference? A man with a good heart. The rest is candy. He didn't make the choice of what would happen to his penis, so I can't judge that. ....:-) but, if I HAD to chose... I love the glove.

We were born with it.
We are perfect as we are, each of us a gift, why are we trying to improve on this perfection...so why chop it off if you don't need to.

Astonishing to read entries by people supporting circumcision. In the fifties, my brothers were all cut. This was in Canada. My English-born husband was not. Our sons, born in the early 80s, were not circumcised but I remember walking into the nursery at St. Pauls where our oldest son was born and seeing a circumcision procedure taking place. It was horrifying to see an infant enduring this procedure. I've heard people say that there is little pain associated with it but my family doctor, who will not do the procedure, says that babies will become silent as a response to extreme trauma (not unlike victims of child abuse). As for cleanliness, simply teaching a young child to wash him or herself is not a difficult lesson. I would not have dreamed of circumcising my daughter or my sons and I don't believe that there is justification for either procedure.

My son certainly wasn't quiet during the procedure. He screamed his head off, just as he does whenever he's vaccinated or needs a blood test, when he slammed his thumb in the car door today or... well, when he's tired or hungry. He stops crying, though, soon after the incident and he realizes all is well, his parents are there to comfort him. It sounds like having your cake and eating it, too, by saying if they don't cry it's because of trauma, and if they do cry it's because of trauma. Very convenient. What about all these grown men who were circumcised as infants? If something is traumatic, it stays with you emotionally. I have no recollection of the procedure and nor does anyone I've ever asked who was snipped. So much for trauma.

I suppose one could argue that circumcisions are prophylactic. I wouldn't agree. I wonder if you -- grw -- would make the same argument for circumcising a female child? And as for not having a recollection of your own procedure, well, why on earth would you remember something that happened when you were several days old? But was it traumatic? I think it most certainly was. I didn't mean that not every child is silent through the procedure. The one I saw in St. Pauls 25 years ago was sceaming its heart out. But I've heard people justify circumcision by saying that their baby didn't make a sound. My mother defended the circumcision of her three sons this way and was horrified that I wouldn't agree with her that my own sons should endure the procedure. Anyway, I'd like to think we're a more enlightened culture than the ones we criticize for cutting the labias or clitorises off their female children. But who knows.

Being new to this site and having read all the comments posted I can only go back to the origional newspaper article that caught my attention I very much support Mr. Tinari and applaude his efforts to expose the truth surrounding this subject. The facts speek for themselves this issue (circumcision) has created alot of damaged men, some of whom do not even know, but with droping rates of circumcision mabey the next generation will be more enlightened, and sympathetic to those who are aware of what they have been deprived of.

Statistics aside for a moment I would like to point out those who support circumcision on this forum are helping to illustrate how willful ignorance is the key ingredient maintaining this form of sexual abuse.

Statistics alone will not bring an end to circumcision, nor any real understanding to those who choose to remain ignorant. Those who demand statistics overlook the obvious; proponents of circumcision accept any number of deaths as acceptable while a surgery deemed "unnecessary" by the Canadian Pediatric Society is performed for specious reasons. If a child of any age is diagnosed as needing circumcision, important questions must first be asked. What is the ailment or condition and how did it arise? Have less invasive treatments been attempted first?

Societies which impose circumcision on infants are so prone to circumcise that when a "problem" presents at a later age cutting is usually the only remedy offered. Circumcising societies often spread the harmful myth that a baby boy who is genitally intact must have his foreskin regularly retracted for cleaning. Forcibly retracting a baby's foreskin before the child is ready to do so himself is a form of genital abuse, premature retraction causes problems of inflamation and infection, which would not have happened if the child had been left to develop naturally. Cases where a child is diagnosed with phimosis (a tight muzzling of the foreskin) are highly suspicious.

One of Canada's most famous circumcision casualties is that of David Reimer. As detailed in the book, "As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised As A Girl," David and his twin brother Brian were diagnosed with phimosis at the age of eight months. The so-called doctor Jean Marie Hout of Winnipeg attempted to circumcise David first. He completely destroyed David's penis in the process. Because of the severity of the accident David twin brother Brian was spared circumcision; Brian's condition of phimosis then cleared up (as it almost always does) on it's own.

An interesting fact about David Reimer's story: when it came to light in the mid 1990's it was reported widely in the mainstream press; Time, Newsweek, the New York Times, MacLeans, etc, etc, etc. While some of these periodicals mentioned the botched circumcision several only alluded to the fact that the baby "lost his penis in an accident." Apparently circumcision of infants and children is so morally and ethically questionable, that even as damaging an accident as the one David Reimer had to endure is described vaguely and cryptically to protect those who circumcise. The question arises is, "Why does the circumciser have all the rights, and the chid none?"

When a physician performs surgery on a child the onus is on that physician to provide proof that what they are doing is really in the best interests of the child. Circumcisers are notable for the weak statistics and ever shifting excuses used to promote unnecessary surgery. In a history making statement a few years ago, one of Canada's leading medical ethicists Dr. Margaret Somerville said, circumcision of baby boys is criminal assault and doctors should stop doing it.

Parents who feel they were were pressured into signing circumcision consent forms without adequate information should write a letter of complaint to the BC College of Physicians and Surgeons. Young men who are becoming aware that their sexual function has been compromised by a circumcision they did not consent to should do the same.

More information (and statistics) available at:

courtchallenge.com

It is barbaric mutilation and if it was beneficial to the humans, Egyptians, Jews and Moslem would have been born without it. There was another reason for mass circumcision of boys in England and US during WWII. There was a serious threat of wide spread treason, starting from British king to several influential Americans, who wanted to join Hitler's Empire without any fight, many Jewish doctors were promoting circumcision of boys, to make Jews undistinguishable from Gentiles. This was a way of discovering Jews by the Germans in ocupied Poland or Hungary, to send them to Ghettos since 1940 and eventually to German concentration camps in 1942.
There are some Muslim physicians discretely advertising themselves to perform girls mutilation of clitoris, to make them enjoy sex much less and be obedient to their masters of the harem. This should be punishable in Canada by revoking licences and prison terms for the performer and the requestor of the surgery, be it mother, father or anybody else in the entourage of the poor girl. I can not think of a better reason for feminists to take a stand in this matter. We may not be able to educate Israel, Egipt or Saudi Arabia, but we should really care for the health of the nation in Canada. In Japan circumcision and even vaccinations of babies under 2 years old are strictly forbidden. They do care about a healthy citizens.
As frequent blood donor I know that any invasion of skin by piercing, tatoo or deep lacerations could disqualify me from giving blood for years. That's how dangerous that is. Some "performers" of removal of the clitoris, do it with a broken glass, without any pain killers or desinfection.

No. As Latarnik writes, it's used to make women enjoy sex much less and be obedient to their men. Men don't seem to have this problem when they're circumcised. Some will tell you that men don't enjoy it as much, either, when they're snipped, but I'm wondering how anyone knows? You're either snipped or you're not. And even if the enjoyment is less after a male is circumcised, it's not significant since most circumcised men will tell you they have normal sex lives. (And you could even go so far as to say that maybe it's a good thing, given most men's preoccupation with sex... I wonder if there's a correlation between male sex trade workers and being unsnipped?)

Childbirth educators inform us that the first developmental task of an infant is to establish trust.

Thank-you Thank-you Thank-you!!!!!
This is the REASON - listen carefully, I know this is difficult as the brainwashing continues unabated - what is the single most astounding reality that we humans have yet to come to terms with? THE LACK OF TRUST!!
We are in the mind-bending, warped and crippled condition we are in as a society and as a species, because we have no TRUST. When we stop to think about it, we don't really trust ourselves. We grow up suspecting and wondering constantly whether we are approved of or held in some form of esteem or, failing any recognition of our gift, our love, our sense of the miraculous because we are alive, we look at things in black and white. We are either "bad" or "good" or "wrong" or "right". We build this limitation around ourselves by breaking the bond of trust when in our infancy. When this happens, we can allow anything to happen: Bush, Hitler, Bernardo, etc... Breaking the bond of trust is what has directly lead to humans being completely separated from any sense of oneness, of co-creating, loving, working, playing together. There is always a "them" and "us" dichotomy happening and we can trace it back to this mutilation of our trust.
This happens in many forms, but definitely genital mutilation is right up there.
I am a cut male and I have forgiven my folks and the "establishment" that has allowed this to happen. However, just because I've managed to come this far, evolving to a point where I know that I'm not insane, as this broken bond of trust and love was taken from me at infancy, partly from having been genitally mutilated, there is only one compelling reason: do you want to be in on the breaking of your childs trust?
We kid and lie to ourselves if we think that because an infant, from our perspective, has any recollection or memory of the atrocities committed upon us in many different forms has anything to do with the current state of affairs in our world, then I suggest you look yourself in the mirror and look yourself in the eye with all the presence you can muster in that moment and tell yourself how much you love yourself. Go all the way with this little experiment. Stand there until you FEEL the love you have for yourself, stand there until you see the pain and the abuse that, not only you have experienced, but all of us. Stand there until the light comes on or goes off. Stand there from morning until night, until there is a reconnection with what is your birthright: to be exalted and loved from the inside-out. You may go through every emotion possible, but if you really love yourself, prove it.
I ask all of you to try what I have just expressed, I challenge you all to just try to see how deep your love is for your self. If you come across any self-doubt, know that it is because you were severed of your birthright to trust completely and to KNOW love from the bottom of your heart.

blessing,
Pierce

It seems your parents did the right thing since you're so full of peace, love and understanding. Maybe if you weren't cut, you'd be a selfish hooded prick!

And there are many, many ways to break trust. When the parent is there to comfort the child after any ordeal (whether it's a skinned knee, a needle or a circumcision), they enhance trust.

The foreskin is unnecessary, its a relic from evolution that was to protect our sensitive genitals from being torn off running naked through prickle bushes. Of course, I'm sure it would be nice to still run naked all day and out, but it looks like pants and underwear have become the defacto replacement for this outdated equipment. That being said Circumcision is also unnecessary, I don't think anyone has proven any long term benefits to either the cut or uncut, no empire has risen or fallen because of it, and as the age old saying goes, its not how big or covered it is, its how you use it. In a battle between a secutores and a retiarii, it was skill with the weapons rather than the weapons themselves that won.

Okay, enough about the analogy, but I think more or less this will play down to religion more than anything else. Anti-circumcision folks, at these the strongly willed, I think are fighting a battle more against convention and tradition--and I can't really buy any of the travesty, or mutilation or other arguments they give. A few were absolute dorks at the downtown burrard federal debates, packing the question lines to grandstand about this being torture or something akin to the genocide. I can't find pictures, but I'm sure a few of the names dropped in the article were probably among them.

On the flip side, the religious folks are basing their arguments for more on nonsense than any medical evidence. And while I read of the article on circumcision reducing aids, ultimately, the lack of sex education and the catholic church and pals fighting against delivering condoms in third world nations is the biggest contributor to disease growth, not forskins.

Betraying the trust developing between a tiny infant and it's parents at a critical point in infancy by sexually wounding it and then comforting the child immediately after sends a very different message to the infant (and the adult it grows into) than nurturing and protecting the infant from a needless sexual assault on it's genitals. If the brain receives an encoding of pain, in an area designed to receive pleasure, might that contribute to mixed signals about sex and violence later?

Interesting you focused on the trust issue too Pierce. Your comments about Hitler, Bush and company reminds me of the work of world renowned child psychologist Alice Miller. Miller who follows the teachings of Carl Jung, began her life's work by studying Hitler's childhood to see what if anything from his parents may have contributed to his becoming the madman we know and despise today. Miller found that Hitler's upbringing was relatively unremarkable from those of many German families of his era, children were forced to learn adherence to rules with very strict discipline. Miller speculated that children who are forced to learn rules rather than reason, develop into adults who are very good at giving and following orders, but not reasoning. She went on to study the childhoods of other political dictators, including Idi Amin, Nicolae Ceauseau, and George Bush Sr. She found severe and punishing childhoods behind these men also.

Alice Miller is the author of many stimulating and illuminating books discussing her theories and findings of child development. Her groundbreaking book, The Drama of the Gifted Child helped me see my own parents clearly for the first time. A good friend who suffered a very abusive childhood credits Miller with helping him understand what motivated the adults who abused him. Alice Miller's latest book, Though Shalt Not Be Aware contains perhaps her simplest message to date. Miller suggests abandoning the Forth Commandment, which says, "Honour thy father and thy mother." Miller contends that children whose parents raised them gently with love and respect will naturally honour and cherish their loving parents, but children who are forced to obey a commandment and attempt to honour and cherish abusive parents will be very conflicted trying to do the impossible. Miller is no fan of circumcision and is very clear in calling male and female circumcision sexual abuse.

Many people in our society, which allows the circumcision of boys, make a nasty face about female genital cutting, and then profess to know all about it. Interesting too that so often we hear these experts clarifying that oh what happens to girls in other countries isn't circumcision, it's genital mutilation. Meanwhile the women of female cutting societies balk at the term mutilation, saying it's our western culture's definition which labels their custom as mutilating. What is not always understood here in the west is that female genital mutilation has varying degrees of severity practiced on girls, ranging from a pin prick to the female prepuce, nicking the clitoris with a razor blade, all the way to total amputation of all external genitalia, and infibulation. Likewise male genital cutting has existed in many forms and with varying degrees of severity. Before the Hellenic period in ancient Greece, Jews practiced a much less radical form of circumcision than what we see today. At one time only the floppy tip of the foreskin which protruded beyond the glans was cut off, then when Jewish youths bound what was left of their shaft skin forward to cover the glans to compete in Olympic games they found they could affect a foreskin restoration. To thwart their efforts a more severe form of circumcision was adopted, cutting off all of the moveable skin, this has persisted to this day.

In some tribal communities in New Guinnea genital mutilation of boys includes cutting open the full length of the underside of the penis all the way to the urethra, splaying it open. Sometimes a testicle is also removed. From the ignorant and supportive comments for male circumcision here I imagine some of it's strongest supporters might prefer a more severe style as well.

Those who defend male genital mutilation and at the same time condemn female genital mutilation ignore the similarities, that it is a superstition acted upon someone else's body, someone who cannot and does not consent, it is touted as a preventative for disease, said to have health benefits, or confer a rise in social status. The casualties of both male and female circumcision are swept under the rug and accepted as part of doing business. For anyone interested to actually find out more about this, and I think every man and woman on this earth should care to know more about this, the definitive book is Prisoners Of Ritual, by Hanny Lightfoot-Klein. As a Jewish woman Lightfoot-Klein has no trouble equating male and female circumcision and explains how many if not most women who have been severely cut do not think of themselves as affected in any way. Many are insulted when they hear criticism from western counties about their cultural practices involving cutting girls. We mistakenly say, "It's the men cutting the little girls." Whether it is a male or female doing the cutting of the little girls (and the circumciser is often female), it is the mother and auntie and granny, all cut themselves who are insisting their offspring have the same benefits they did and dragging them to be cut. Starting to see the similarities?

No.

And well-said, dangrice.com. Except I think you're assuming all pro-snip are religious. I'm not in the least.

Here's one of my favourite circumcision stories: When I was in university, I was debating circumcision with a friend who said he was uncut and was vehemently against it. A few weeks later he was talking about it with his mom, and she told him that he was circumcized. He didn't even know it! He just assumed his penis was normal. So much for "mutilation". He (obviously) changed his tune and even had both his sons circumcized after that. Funny, says I.

Thanks james3d,
Yes, Alice Miller is hitting the nail on the head. I have only read maybe half of: "for your own good". It's a must read folks. The only reason most of you that are decidedly convinced your reasoning with regards to this mutilation is justified, is because you have been very hurt at a very young age and don't remember it. Just being in this society as we are presently experiencing it is inherently violent, authoritarian and repressive much of the time. These circumstances lead us to continue to pass on these "values" without being aware of what it actually does to the infant.
I'm sure most of you know that in a family where the parents brought the children up punishing them by beating them, these same children as adults will beat their children also. Same with any abuse. Where do you think this memory is stored? Do you still think the infant has no memory of these transgressions? It would be dangerous to assume otherwise.
Pierce

grw, i toss around religious a little too freely.. but alas, i still ask god to forgive me for not believing in him.

i'm sure your friend isn't alone in the world in disbelief, i'm sure others figure they have nothing to hide.

The Genitally groomed really don't look that different. I remember being a kid and trying to figure out what the heck people meant by a foreskin. Still can't quite figure out where mine would go.

Thanks for another thoughful post, James3D. It places the practice within a continuum of genital-cutting practices worldwide. It's strange just how universal this cultural fetish is, isn't it?

All you anti-snippers would do your cause a better service without throwing around "mutilation" so freely. I know you think it will rally the troops -- and maybe it does -- but it smacks of hyperbole and turns off probably as many as it attracts.

Just thought i would check back in to see what else has been said in 2 days seems you cant get past the semantics with some people mabey your on to something gwr "mutilation" why not send an email to isreal and tell them to call it a peace interuption then the media might not be so interested. and of course i keep hearing how cut guys are ok they can afterall have sex why complaine? we are all tickelish in the same places arnt we laugh at the same jokes and generally respond to life exactly the same now i get it!!!

Beautifully said, Dino7. But maybe come back tomorrow when you've sobered up so we can understand you better.

Every movement for social change struggles with semantics; how do we describe something which our culture has cloaked in euphemisms? Intactivists have grappled with and discussed terminology in the same manner as those struggling with other emerging human rights issues.

The word mutilation is factual, descriptive and honest to describe taking a scalpel to an infant's perfectly formed genital organ and making it imperfect by excising or altering parts. One might even say this is magnified by the fact that the recipient of such a procedure does not and cannot consent and that the procedure is permanent and virtually irreversible. In cases of genital surgery where the patient is a consenting adult perhaps the term alteration may be more appropriate.

Its revealing of how powerful the social changes are when one commenter contributes to this conversation scorn and derision, laced with helpful hints. Do you also sense confusion in some of these less than informed commenters?

Dino7 you have brought up an important dynamic here. Privileged members of the dominant culture often assume all others do laugh at the same racist, misogynist, homophobic and mutilating jokes. Yesterday the caustic and unfunny comedian Joy Behar of the television show The View suggested Mel Gibson be publicly circumcised for his recent drunken anti-Semitic remarks. Once again the association between circumcision and punishment is revealed as it is in Paul Tinari's story.

James, struggle with semantics all you want, but my dictionaries refer to "mutilate" as removing essential parts, and try to prove that is the case. No, your argument is neither factual, descriptive, or honest. Its leading, partial, and attempt to manipulate a debate. Its marketing your argument, flowering your language, and avoiding the facts by appealing to to emotion. Not that there is anything wrong with that, I do the same thing from 9-5 everyday. But in doing so, don't drown in self righteousness while sounding like the Mercedes salesperson of social change.

mu·ti·late P Pronunciation Key (mytl-t)
tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates
1.To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2.To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue.
3.To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.mutilate
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Main Entry: mu·ti·late
Pronunciation: 'myüt-&l-"At
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Forms: -lat·ed; -lat·ing
: to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of ; also : CASTRATE 1
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

mutilate
v 1: destroy or injure severely; "The madman mutilates art work" [syn: mangle, cut up] 2: alter so as to make unrecognizable; "The tourists murdered the French language" [syn: mangle, murder] 3: destroy or injure severely; "mutilated bodies" [syn: mar]

1. Deprived of, or having lost, an important part; mutilated.

Journal of Urology (Baltimore), vol 153, no 3 part I (March 1995: pp 778-779) states that the rate of accidents is from 1.5% to 15%.
Read the article "Newborn Penile Glans Amputation during Circumcision .." note that the doctor who operated had already performed the operation more than 300 times - so much for experience.

The documentary film, "It's a Boy,", includes graphic footage of a circumcision in the Midlands that went disastrously wrong. The 8-day-old baby, circumcised without anaesthetic by a rabbi who is not a doctor, is seen bloodied and screaming in agony during the operation. When it was clear things were going wrong, the rabbi demanded the crew stop filming, but they secretly recorded what followed. The boy developed an infection and ended up in intensive care being pumped with antibiotics and kept alive by oxygen and drips.
The film -- the work of Victor Schoenfeld, the Jewish father of a circumcised son -- also presents details of 2 babies who died as a result of circ and contains an interview with the mother of a third who almost bled to death. It reveals cases of permanent genital disfigurement, claiming that, at a conservative estimate one in 50 circumcisions leads to serious complications. The Observer, London, 3 Sept 1995

penises mutilated by circumcision:

http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched1sb.html

galloping gangerene:

http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched4ga.html