The Case for Circumcision

Wow. This is a balanced and objective argument for mutilating a baby boy’s body without his consent. Not.

Comment by Jono — April 1, 2011 @ 12:30 am

Thank you for visiting and for taking the time to read my article. Since infants do not have the faculties to make their own decisions, parents must often do what they feel is best for them. Parents regularly decide to vaccinate their children, circumcise them, give them antibiotics or over-the-counter medication without their consent. Once you have children, if you don’t have them already, you can decide for yourself what procedures are in their best interest. I will post additional articles about infant male circumcision in the future with more details about the procedure, statistics regarding complications, etc. I hope you’ll come back and visit at that time.

Comment by Samantha Gluck — April 1, 2011 @ 8:02 am

As a circumcised male, i have infinitely more knowledge on the subject then you. First hand knowledge that is.

Lets start with the basics shall we.

First, UTI’s are twice as prevalent in females and are easily treated with antibiotics.

Second, partial amputation of the infants penis for partial protection from STD’s as an adult relies on the ASSUMPTION that the current infant will engage in high risk sexual contact as an adult.

Third, the number you tout (60% reduction) uses statistics to bend the truth. The trials (that were halted prematurely due to ethics issues) showed that out of 1,000 intact and 1,000 circumcised – 22 men out of the thousand circumcised had contracted HIV while 35 out of the thousand uncircumcised had contracted HIV. Hardly a big difference considering the circumcised group was told to refrain from sex until healed as well as educated on the safe use of condoms, the intact group was not.
So as you see 60% doesn’t mean much and is more or less a way to use numbers to skew the public perception for those like you who don’t do research.

LAST BUT NOT LEAST is the unpopular fact that the foreskin is not just a flap of skin, it houses over a dozen different tissue types including a unique temperature sensitive muscle found no where else on the body. The average amputated foreskin is estimated to contain between 20 and 30 THOUSAND nerve endings, for comparison purposes that average human clitoris contains between 10 and 12 THOUSAND nerve endings.

For a complete list of the tissue types and functions amputated from healthy non-consenting infants for ZERO MEDICAL BENEFITS.
http://www.norm.org/lost.html

LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT of happiness to all those who OPPOSE genital mutilation – REGARDLESS OF SEX.

Comment by Equal — April 1, 2011 @ 8:50 am

Circumcision is a weird thing a cutting off of erogenous tissue. The long term harm is huge with nerve damage and harm to the sensory system. A whole range of sensation and sexual and protective function are lost. The lips and fingertips have similar touch sense. To take this away from another person without their consent is heinous.

Most doctors realize the severe harm involved with cutting off thousands of nerves, blood vessels, protective covering and pleasure zones. It leaves an open wound and harms sexual function of the grown man. No national medical group recommends cutting off parts of a baby boys penis.

What shocks me is the ignorance of the US medical community. For years they have been advising that natural penis boys have their foreskin pushed back to clean. It is now known that this has caused most of the infections. As any mom of an intact boy knows infant boys are EASIER to care for when they are natural (intact). The foreskin does not retract until late childhood or even puberty, so you do nothing special, just wipe the outside of his penis clean and leave it alone. Furthermore, to prevent painful and bleeding erections later in life, doctors are now commonly leaving more skin behind- in a cut boy this means you may have to push the left over skin back at every diaper change and clean beneath it to prevent it from adhering or infecting. The very thing that mother’s think they avoid by circumcising!

There is no data that shows HIV, HPV or any STD change or any real benefit to cutting off parts of a baby boys penis in the US, EU JP…. Even in Africa (with water issues) about the same number of cut men and natural penis men have HIV. Real world studies how that a man with a natural penis is at no higher risk of HIV and HPV. Stop spreading misinformation and MYTH. Stop cutting off penis parts of baby boys.

Comment by JackieNO — April 1, 2011 @ 9:18 am

IS it safe? Well you did not do your research on that point. No medical organization tracks complication rates or severity, so it’s hard to find a good estimate of either. Much data looks at immediate issues so things like meatal stenosis (that affects about 20 -30% of circumcised boys) is not considered. When making medical decisions on behalf of their children, parents deserve and need complete information about any procedure and its hazards.

Digging deep reveals surprising facts. Complications range in severity from the “mild:” excessive bleeding, infection (including antibiotic resistant Staphylococcus), to the severe: surgically caused genital deformity, accidental amputation, and even death. And complication rates are higher in children circumcised shortly after birth than in older children (and presumably adults also), possibly because surgery on such a small child is more intricate. About 7% of boys circumcised need some follow up corrective care. There have been many recent cases of MRSA infection. The other risks (besides loss of sexual function, ED, PE and loss of PLEASURE) include curved or misshapen erection, painful erection, botches of all sorts (many requiring redo) and death. Boys DIE each year in the US from this sick practice.

Dr. David Gibbons is one such pediatric urologist serving the Washington, DC area. He has seen so many bad results from circumcision in his practice that he wishes the procedure would fall out of favor. Here is a post of his reproduced in entirety to preserve completeness of his point of view.

Neonatal circmcision [sic] is totally unnecessary, and there is no current role for preventative or prophylactic neonatal circumcision.

Unfortunately, 70-80% of neonatal circumcisions are performed by obstetricians, who can neither manage their complications (2-5% incidence) nor obtain proper informed consent (defined as outlining risks and benefits of a procedure, as well as alternatives-including nothing) for neonatal circumcision. Currently, the American College of OB-GYN (ACOG) have no paramenters [sic] for training (learning and performing neonatal circumcision, managing complications) of residents, who then go out and continue this practice.

In my practice, as a pediatric urologist, I manage the complications of neonatal circumcision. For example, in a two year period, I was referred >275 newborns and toddlers with complications of neonatal circumcision. None of these were ‘revisions’ because of appearance, which I do not do. 45% required corrective surgery (minor as well as major, especially for amputative injury), whereupon some could be treated locally without surgery.

Comment by JackieNO — April 1, 2011 @ 9:38 am

I was circumcised, so I know quite a bit about its damaging effects. Circumcision does cause many men severe psychological problems. It has caused me feelings of being raped, sadness, depression, betrayal, and deprivation. I am constantly reminded and it causes me pain and sadness everyday that i was mutilated and my body was scarred. I first learned of circumcision when i was 12. I feel like i have been stabbed in the heart and am depressed that people would do such an inhumane and asinine thing to children.

Circumcision does reduce a mans pleasure sensitivity, there is no way it cannot, if you cut off skin from the penis you are destroy nerve endings. Studies have been done that show that the foreskin is one of the most pleasure sensitive areas. Circumcision removes some of the most pleasure sensitive areas of the penis. As a result circumcision may reduce pleasure sensitivity sexual function by 50 to 80 percent. Circumcision removes half of the skin from the penis and it is the most pleasure sensitive skin.

Parents do not have a right to do whatever they want to their children. Parents do not have a right to do anything to their children. They cannot cut off their childrens arms, cut off their ears. when these body parts are medically normal, etc. A parent could not remove their childrens nipples because “its cleaner” or if they claimed it was their religion. If some parent was found to be cutting off a childs nipples due to some religious rite, its likely they would be arrested for child abuse. The more people who commit an atrocity does not make it right, Routine nipple removal due to religious beliefs would not be more acceptable no matter how many people did it. Nor would it be acceptable to do out of fear of nipple diseases they do not have. Do we amputate girls breasts to prevent breast cancer? Parents only have a responsibility to protect and care for children, this does not include destroying medically normal parts of their childs body, and it also does not mean that parents can do anything to their child that they feel is “caring”. Destructions of medically normal body parts is one thing parents cannot do, the fact is it violates a persons rights to do that since it permenantly destroys a part of their body, that occurs regardless as to what parents think about it. The permenant body mutilation aspect is what makes it a particularly serious crime. There being a current, unusual, and present medical disease is one test that must be satisfied before amptutations can be conducted. This precludes and invalidates routine circumcision, the normal state of the body is not a disease. What parents cannot do to children can be defined by law as it has been with bans on female circumcision, includes types of female circumcision far less damaging than male circumcision, such as it is illegal to even pierce a girls genitals.

An infant cannot give consent, this does not mean parents have power over their children to do whatever they want. Whether or not to cut off a medically normal part of a childs body is not a valid question to be asking because it is not a parents right to do this in the first place. Every person has a basic right to a whole body, this is a human right. The only person who can make a decision regarding amputation of a medically normal body part is the person who lives in that body. Since infants cannot make these decisions, to force such medically unnecessary amputations would violate that persons right to make their own decision later. Such unnecessary amputations must not be done to infants, that person has a right to make such decisions for themselves when they are old enough to do so. This stems from basic human rights to self determination over ones own body. If we allowed amputation of body parts out of fear of some disease a child does not have, you could justify cutting off any body part. It is spurious and an unethically valid argument that violates the victims right to physical integrity.

Routine Infant Circumcision is a medically unnecessary surgery. It destroys healthy and normal parts of a childs body which have nothing wrong with them. The fact is circumcision of children is unethical and violates medical ethics, since to amputate a part of a childs body there must be a current, present, unusual medical condition that requires such amputation. If we allowed body parts from unconsenting children to be removed we could find reasons to remove any part of their body, you could find that there is a possibility of disease could afflict any part of the body. We cannot use these fears if some disease a child does not have to destroy medically normal parts of the body. Would you circumcise your girls or cut off their breasts to prevent breast cancer, if it prevented disease: What if female circumcision was said in studies to prevent diseases, it was done in hospital settings and did not remove more skin or cause more damage than male circumcision? Should we begin mass circumcising girls too? There is a double standard between circumcision of girls and boys. Basically all children have a right to be protected from genital cuting. Circumcision is wrong because it is cutting of a childs genitals, if its wrong to cut a girls genitals, its wrong to cut a boys. Currently its illegal to even pierce a girls genitals but its legal to remove 50% of a boys penis skin. This is a shocking and sexist double standard which discriminates and violates against makes rights to a whole body.

Male circumcision is genital mutilation, it disfigured and makes unwhole the male genitals which have nothing wrong with them, it destroys medically normal body parts. It is time to give men equal rights to genital integrity that they deserve as women now enjoy.

Comment by david — April 1, 2011 @ 10:40 am

Snip snip $$$ $$$ Thats the truth. of whats going on here. Why not consider neonatal tonsils and adenoids removal as well? And I guess we might as well pull out the spleen, and have prophylactic appendectomy before we send the little ones home. I was taught as a child that the above mentioned body parts were ancient/obsolete and would only cause trouble in time. All unnecessary parts according to experts. The Immune system not yet understood at the time. Lets cast aside tradition and eliminate circumcision for the sake of the baby boys and girls too. Say NO to MC & FC

Comment by Robert — April 1, 2011 @ 10:56 am

What physician has called infants a “window of opportunity”? An infant with no knowledge of what is being done will be frightened. This column is insane. I did not circumcise my son and he is now 8 and has had no problem at all. I am proud he is intact. He can make up his own mind about whether to circumcise as an adult. Keep Samantha away from a computer!!

Comment by Joe R — April 1, 2011 @ 11:09 am

This is an incredibly biased article. The foreskin is not a birth defect! Circumcision is a treatment in search of a disease. Any disease or disorder the culture of that time is concerned about, circumcision has been proposed as its cure. Whether that concern is masturbation, sexually transmitted disease, cancer or currently HIV, circumcision is promoted as being the treatment or preventative. Let’s call it what it is, it is genital reduction surgery. For fewer and fewer newborn American males, circumcision is no longer routine. Now that the rate of genital reduction surgery has fallen to under 39%, fewer parents believe these lies. My own sons, two of whom are now adults, live happily with their body the way God and now Gomco made them.

Comment by Camellia — April 1, 2011 @ 11:16 am

These anti-circ comments are rubbish! I had to endure a foreskin for nearly forty years because my parents were not sensible to have me circumcised at birth. I had it done at the age of 40 and it was the best decision I ever took. I only think men repeat men and not women who do not have a penis who had had a foreskin and then been circumcised are qualified to comment.
Everything is 100 per cent plus better, all aspects of sex, cleanliness, appearance etc etc I could go on for ever
Neville living in England 1/4/2011

Comment by Neville — April 1, 2011 @ 1:06 pm

I would disagree with @Neville about who has a right to comment here, as the argument is not about the differences between being circumcised and not being, but rather the health effects of being circumcised. With that being said, this article is very biased towards circumcision. The fact of the matter is there are negative effects of circumscription, and there are positives. For me personally, I am uncircumcised, and I love everything about it. I think it’s more of a personal preference. So when you go online and say “oh, this is better because this is how i feel.”..it’s not really accurate in the sense of personal preference , or health related effects.

Comment by Papules — April 1, 2011 @ 3:24 pm

There is no valid case to be made for the mutilation of healthy genitalia against the will of the person who owns the penis. I wonder how the woman who wrote this article would feel if someone was advocating for females to be held down against their will while their genitals were flayed. I doubt she’d take kindly to such an argument in favor of female cutting.

Comment by Cyn — April 1, 2011 @ 4:00 pm

There is a HUGE difference between an infant circumcision where the penis is not well developed and the foreskin is fused to the glans, and an adult circumcision. The infant circumcision removes much more total surface area of the penis including the inner and outer foreskin. The adult penis retains the inner foreskin in an adult circumcision plus the adult has the benefit of anesthetic and ALSO the desire to have their foreskin removed, unlike the child. Another difference is that it takes about 10 years of externalization before keratinization takes place. So a man of forty who is fifty is only beginning to have keratinization take place where as a man of 20 who has been without a foreskin his whole life has a hard, dried, wrinkled, desensitized glans.

Comment by Nicole — April 1, 2011 @ 6:19 pm

Unsurprisingly, the mistakes in this article begin in the first sentence. The foreskin does not cover the tip of the penis, it IS the tip of the penis. Definining the foreskin off the penis is the first step in making circumcision acceptable.

You have no guarantee of getting “a qualified and experienced healthcare professional” since “the simple surgery” is often fobbed off to unsupervised interns for practice. “Risks associated with properly executed circumcisions are miniscule ’ 0.2 % to 0.6%.” So are risks associated with properly executed motorbike loop-the-loops. “Properly executed”? Aye, there’s the rub. In fact, the complications of circumcision are greatly underestimated because the doctor may never see the baby again, the mother thinks he has been made “maintenance free” and a tiny botch may work devastation on his sex life, but not till decades later – and even then he may not realise that it wasn’t meant to be like that.

“The majority of pediatricians agree that circumcision provides your baby with a lifetime of health benefits.” Oh really? Then why doesn’t the AAP or any national medical body on earth recommend it? And why does the Royal Dutch Medical Assocaition say “There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene. Partly in the light of the complications which can arise during or after circumcision, circumcision is not justifiable except on medical/therapeutic grounds.” And why does it suggest banning it?

Large percentage reductions in diseases are misleading when the diseases are rare – even when you haven’t cherrypicked the studies you rely on. Other studies challenge all your medical claims.

“Why newborns?” Hurry, this offer won’t last! Only a few left at this price! Get yours now! It’s the same old scam. Just WHAT complications can beset an adult circumcision but not an infant one?

Unsurprisingly you don’t mention the many functions of the foreskin (including the erogenous ones), ethics or human rights. I refer you to http://www.circumstitions.com/write.html Your article has a Circumcision Objectivity Coefficient (COC) of 6.

And your followup? Circumcision is not a decision that parents have to make at all. In most of the developed world, it isn’t offered. The rest of the English-speaking world tried it, found it did no good, and gave it up. In Britain and the Commonwealth it’s now hard to find a doctor willing to do it.

Comment by Hugh7 — April 1, 2011 @ 10:40 pm

Since circumcision is medically unnecessary, parents should not be allowed to subject their sons to it. The decision to should be postponed until the child reaches adulthood and can decide for himself. No routine parenting decision is as permanent, irreversible, and as totally unnecessary as male infant circumcision. I think that parents who circumcise their children actually DON’T have their sons’ best interest in mind, they have THEIR interests in mind. Having their son’s interests in mind would mean leaving their son intact and respecting his right to make his own decision. This article does not mention anything about the damage that every “normal” circumcision causes – including scarring, discoloration, losses in length and girth, and tens of thousands of erogenous nerve endings. I don’t buy the case for circumcision. At all.

Comment by Locke — April 1, 2011 @ 11:14 pm

I’m glad to see a well researched article on this subject. Note that nearly every commenter here is well aware that the Centers for Disease Control and the American Academy of Pediatrics plan to issue new policies this year that are more encouraging of circumcision as a way to prevent needless suffering and death later in life.

Comment by Anon — April 2, 2011 @ 1:18 am

I was circumcised at the age of 22 because of constant infections, cleaning didn’t help one bit. I was pleasantly surprised that all types of sex wereenhanced by my circumcision. My experience suggests that it is a beneficial thing for men. No ualms about having my sons circumcised. These men who go on and on over the internet about “mutilation” and “decrease” in sexual pleasure are just plain wrong. They are more interested in foreskin fetishes than genuinely about human rights.

Comment by Peter Wright — April 2, 2011 @ 3:06 am

The median age at which American boys lose their virginity is 16.9 years – which means half of them are taking the risks associated with sex and sexually transmitted disease even younger than that. But the age at which the boy would NOT need his parents’ consent to undergo a circumcision is 18 – so even if a boy had the maturity to recognize the risk of getting and giving cancer-causing HPV, the ability to plan a circumcision to reduce his chances and the time off school to get the operation before having sex … he’d still need his parents’ consent (and probably their cash, because circumcision past infancy is far more expensive). Parents do the right thing for their children every day. This is one.

Comment by anon — April 2, 2011 @ 4:53 am

Like Neville, i had to endure a foreskin for 59 years. Circumcision is the best thing that happened to me. My life and sexual health is 100 percent better now that I am circumcised.
Most of the arguments against circumcision come from those who have never been circumcised, or circumcised at birth or dont have a penis. They use terms such as mutilation and any other argument to dissuade parents from circumcising their sons. I had my son circumcised at birth and he has never had any issues with Utis, phimosis or balanitis. I had to endure those problems for 59 years. Sex is much better for a circumcised male. No more itching or smelly foreskin or irritations. Circumcision is an improvement on what has been given to us men. I am a member of a group of over 2500 men who were circumcised as adults and over 99.9 percent have only one regret, and that is that they were not circumcised younger or at birth. Circumcision is hardly mutilation as has been intimated by the foreskin brigade;rather, it improves the function of the penis. Circumcision is the gift that keeps on giving.

Comment by Pat Nybili — April 2, 2011 @ 7:34 am

To address some of the misinformed comments above:

Jackie wrote: “A whole range of sensation and sexual and protective function are lost.” — in fact, the largest study to date, in which more than 1,300 healthy adult volunteers were circumcised, reported that 64% of men found that they had increased sensitivity after circumcision. See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18761593

“There is no data that shows HIV, HPV or any STD change or any real benefit to cutting off parts of a baby boys penis in the US, EU JP…” — actually, even the most cursory research would have shown that such data exists. See, for example, the section entitled “HIV Infection and Male Circumcision in the United States” in http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

“Much data looks at immediate issues so things like meatal stenosis (that affects about 20 -30% of circumcised boys) is not considered.” — your figures are grossly overinflated; almost all studies find rates of less than 10%, usually much less. The largest study of meatal stricture (ie., stenosis) to date is that of Cathcart et al., who found seven cases in 75,868 circumcisions (0.009%). See: http://www.cirp.org/library/procedure/cathcart1/

“And complication rates are higher in children circumcised shortly after birth than in older children (and presumably adults also), possibly because surgery on such a small child is more intricate.” — Quite the opposite, actually. Complication rates are about 1.5% in neonates and about 6% in older children. See: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2490/10/2

“About 7% of boys circumcised need some follow up corrective care.” — nonsense.

“The other risks (besides loss of sexual function, ED, PE and loss of PLEASURE)” — on balance, the evidence does not support your claim that circumcision causes any of these.

Comment by Jake — April 2, 2011 @ 8:03 am

My husband was circumcised at birth and is delighted he was,Our son was done by Plastibell at five days old.He is also happy we took this decision for him. Having to be done4 owing to Phimosis,balanitis or a UTi when older can be very traumatic for a boy.my opinion is it is best done at birth.

Comment by Suzanne Tozer — April 2, 2011 @ 8:21 am

@Jake: Thank you for your well-written, authoritative comment and for taking the time to read this piece on this important subject. Samantha

Comment by Samantha Gluck — April 2, 2011 @ 8:25 am

@Suzanne Tozer: I appreciate your taking the time to comment on this topic and I’m delighted that your husband and son are happy with the choice their parents made for them.

Comment by Samantha Gluck — April 2, 2011 @ 8:26 am

@Peter Wright: Thank you for visiting and for your first hand description of why you think circumcision is a valid choice some adult men make and many parents make for their infant boys.

Comment by Samantha Gluck — April 2, 2011 @ 8:28 am

@Hugh7: I second Jake’s response and have copied it below:

Jackie wrote: “A whole range of sensation and sexual and protective function are lost.” — in fact, the largest study to date, in which more than 1,300 healthy adult volunteers were circumcised, reported that 64% of men found that they had increased sensitivity after circumcision. See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18761593

“There is no data that shows HIV, HPV or any STD change or any real benefit to cutting off parts of a baby boys penis in the US, EU JP…” — actually, even the most cursory research would have shown that such data exists. See, for example, the section entitled “HIV Infection and Male Circumcision in the United States” in http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

“Much data looks at immediate issues so things like meatal stenosis (that affects about 20 -30% of circumcised boys) is not considered.” — your figures are grossly overinflated; almost all studies find rates of less than 10%, usually much less. The largest study of meatal stricture (ie., stenosis) to date is that of Cathcart et al., who found seven cases in 75,868 circumcisions (0.009%). See: http://www.cirp.org/library/procedure/cathcart1/

“And complication rates are higher in children circumcised shortly after birth than in older children (and presumably adults also), possibly because surgery on such a small child is more intricate.” — Quite the opposite, actually. Complication rates are about 1.5% in neonates and about 6% in older children. See: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2490/10/2

“About 7% of boys circumcised need some follow up corrective care.” — nonsense.

“The other risks (besides loss of sexual function, ED, PE and loss of PLEASURE)” — on balance, the evidence does not support your claim that circumcision causes any of these.

Comment by Samantha Gluck — April 2, 2011 @ 8:30 am

Samantha, I would like you to address the points i made in my comment – number 3.

Comment by Equal — April 2, 2011 @ 10:21 am

Sounds like circ-city-bad-news to me. And with the rate 24% lower in 3 years and dropping the majority of young American parents are seeing the light circ is harmful, a mark of injury for life. It was the way of marking slaves from Bronze Age on, now the sensory and mechanical deprivation locks men and their women from complete satisfactory sexuality affecting them at every bodily and psychological level. It probably causes many long term adverse physical and emotional disabilities including ED and prostate cancer. It should never have been and cease to be a human practice.

Comment by FarReach — April 2, 2011 @ 11:18 am

Samantha, thanks very much for your kind words.

Comment by Jake — April 2, 2011 @ 11:48 am

Well as a male who was circumcised at birth I will say this – would’nt have it any other way !!!!!!! If I had had children and someone told me I could’nt have a son or son’s circumcised I’d tell them that I would have my son circumcised for what I believe has got to be one of the most healthy and cosmetically benifically procedures going. No Son or Son’s of mine would be left with a foreskin !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Comment by jim — April 2, 2011 @ 2:33 pm

What is the recommendation of the American Academy of Pediatrics?

Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.

Penile problems may develop in both circumcised and uncircumcised males. The true frequency of these problems is unknown.

What is the recommendation of the American Medical Association?

Virtually all current policy statements from specialty societies and medical organizations do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision, and support the provision of accurate and unbiased information to parents to inform their choice.”

Comment by Denis — April 2, 2011 @ 2:35 pm

In response to Jake’s claims, numerous studies which use more reliable methods have shown no effect of RIC on HIV rates, and in fact, some showed that circumcised men have a much higher rate of HIV.Europe where RIC is rare, has a HIV rate of half of the USA, where RIC is very common.

Many studies Jake mentions regarding penile sensitivity are considered flawed and utilise bad methods which are subject to subjective bias. Many of his studies used men who self selected themselves for circumcision. The best methods include quantifying the number of nerve endings on the foreskin, and objective methods of measuring the sensitivity of the foreskin to touch sensations to identify is the foreskin can indeed sense contact and touch, which avoid subjective bias. Both of these have been done by The BJU published Taylor and Sorrells studies. They found circumcision does greatly reduce the number of nerve endings and reduce the surface area of touch sensiitive,innervated penis skin. The loss of pleasure sensitivity due to circumcision may be as much as 80%

European countries hold the second longest life expectancy in the world, while Japan holds the longest life expectancy. These countries have virtually no routine infant circumcision. The intact state of the penis is normal and healthy, and all evidence shows that men who have intact penises live longest . Many factors influence life expectancy, the data shows that circumcision is not necessary to live a long and healthy life, and that having an intact penis is normal and healthy. The intact penis is one of the most disease free parts of the body.

Secondly, the intact penis is a healthy and medically normal body part. The fact is, it is one of the most disease resistant parts of the body. Women have 50 times more UTIs than men do. Whats next, to mass circumcise little girls? Apparently they need it much more than boys do. Conditions affecting the penis are in fact very rare. It is unethical to destroy healthy parts of a childs body out of irrational fears of some disease the child does not have and probably won’t get. If we allowed that, we could find reason to cut off any part of a childs body. Under good sound principles of medicine, there must be a present, current and unusual medical abnormality present as the first condition for amputation to be considered from an unconsenting persons body.

Cutting off healthy parts of a childs body because of some irrational fear of some disease they do not have is absurd and outrageous. Especially when HIV can be prevented with condoms with far more effectiveness. Many of the most reliable studies show circumcision has no effect on HIV, even the ones that do, show circumcision does not actually prevent HIV at all, that there is still a good chance of infection, and that condoms are much more reliable.

To promote circumcision out of these fears is like promoiting breast amputation to prevent breast cancer. There are slippery slope arguments. Ends do not justify means in ethics. You cannot justify genital mutilation by using invalid and unethical arguments. If female circumcision was found to reduce HIV, it would still be a crime to do, and the same standard applies to boys who cannot give consent. Cutting off a healthy body part of a child is not and will never be a valid reason to prevent diseases.

It is also extremely unusual that while the penis is one of the most disease free body parts and there are many other body parts which have higher probablilities of disease, that the penis is the only part of the body where parts of it are surgically removed from children, and that the penis at the same time is the most pleasure sensitive body part. The true reasons for circumcision are likely to suppress male’s sexual pleasure and to alter males sexuality.

Cutting off childrens sexual organs when they are medically normal is insane, perverted, incredibly cruel, sexual asault, rape and genital mutilation of children. It does not matter if you do it to a girl or a boy. Cutting childrens genitals routinely is wrong and is a serious crime.

The fact is as well, circumcision is a risky procedure. According to a 1970 study, approximately 0.15% of children who are circumcised withe gomco clamp recieve an infection. 0.76% circumcised with the plastibell recieve an infection. Around 1 million boys in the US are circumcised each year, leading to a possible infection rate of 1500 to 7600 boys with infected circumcision wounds each year. Over 50 years this could be over 100,000 boys infected due to circumcisions. Documentation exists of children’s lower adbomenal skin and their entire surface of their skin being destroyed by infections of the circumcision wound. The circumcision wound is an open wound that is exposed to urine and feces and provides the perfect portal of entry to life threatening infections. Infant circumcised boys are subjected to a greatly increased chance of life threatening infections of their wounds.

The total complication rate for circumcision is 100% since all circumcision destroys sexual function. To deny this is to deny that the sun sets in the west. The generation of sexual pleasure is due to nerve endings. Nerve endings are located in the skin. When you cut off skin, you cut off nerve endings and reduce the number of available nerve endings. The only way circumcision could not reduce sexual pleasure was not to remove nerve endings, and thus not to remove any skin at all.

The rate of complications other than loss of normal and healthy skin and sexual function is 20% to 30%. 20% of circumcised boys receive meteal stenosis, which is a painful condition of the narrowing of the meatus which can cause blockage of urine flow and difficulty urinating, and painful urination for the boy. In the US, it is estimated by recent studies that over 100 boys die each year due to routine circumcision. Circumcision increases a boys exposure to deadly flesh eating bacterial infections and other life threatening infections.

Comment by david — April 2, 2011 @ 3:37 pm

When I learned as a child I was circumcised as an infant I felt angry and betrayed because a part of my body was cut off without my consent when there was nothing wrong with it.

“in fact, the largest study to date, in which more than 1,300 healthy adult volunteers were circumcised, reported that 64% of men found that they had increased sensitivity after circumcision.”

Why? Does cutting off a finger, make the remaining fingers grow more nerves? I doubt it, but even if it did, it would be no reason for cutting fingers off newborns infants if there was nothing wrong with their hands.

But the key here is: “volunteers.” They wanted to be circumcised.

Everyone has their own reasons for wanting or not wanting something. I remember reading about a man who had all his external genitalia removed; he wanted it that way, and was happy with the results; and since that is what he wanted, I felt no moral outrage: to each their own.

Comment by kf — April 2, 2011 @ 3:55 pm

Samantha, you characterised the risks of circumcision as ‘miniscule’ with the statistic of 0.2 % to 0.6% (although you did not define what those risks are). Those odds do not seem that low to me. Given that approximately 1 million males are born each year then we are talking thousands of babies suffering complications due to circumcision each year. How many deaths does that cover?

Your article is full of what Wikipedia would classify as ‘weasel words’. For instance, “The majority of pediatricians agree”. Care to back that up? On the next sentence you talk about “countless research studies”. Really? Countless? Can you list just ten?

You also only talk about male circumcision. Perhaps you would care to extol the benefits of female circumcision.

Comment by Will McGugan — April 2, 2011 @ 6:21 pm

What is the recommendation of the American Academy of Pediatrics?

“Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. Penile problems may develop in both circumcised and uncircumcised males. The true frequency of these problems is unknown.”

What is the recommendation of the American Medical Association?

“Virtually all current policy statements from specialty societies and medical organizations do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision, and support the provision of accurate and unbiased information to parents to inform their choice.”

Comment by Fallacious Blog — April 2, 2011 @ 6:53 pm

To all those that do not support circumcision, then don’t do it to your kids. Quit injecting your opinions onto a topic no one asked you to.

To those who do support circumcision, quit responding to the the obviously trolling Reddit driven ultra-liberal-inject-our-opinion-on-everything hive mind and just ignore them. The more you argue with them, the more the trolls will keep coming. Just keep your opinions and go about your day. Support each others positive reinforcement and ignore the trolls.

Lawyered.

Comment by Aon's brp — April 2, 2011 @ 8:12 pm

Samantha, why do you support infant genital mutilation and make obviously erronious claims in your article? When you fail to fact-check your sources, or even provide them, you do a great disservice to the people whose arguments you are trying to defend. I will leave you to hopefully do further research before posting another article on this topic. I suggest you start with the opinion of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association’s opinion on male genital mutilation.

Comment by John Thomas — April 2, 2011 @ 8:14 pm

Let’s start removing ears. I’m 100% serious. Ears might help a little bit with hearing (just as foreskin adds a little pleasure), but babies with their ears removed will learn how to hear mostly just as well, and we’ll be removing a lot of useless tissue that could get infected if there is acne or could possibly be a location of skin cancer. PLEASE think of your baby’s health and have their ears removed in the first week or two. Waiting until they are old enough to make ear-removal choices on their own may potentially be too late! Do it now, it’s the best way.

Comment by Mason — April 2, 2011 @ 8:35 pm

The AAP also states that the benefits and harms of infant male circumcision are about equal. No medical organization in the world says infant male circumcision does more good than harm. If circumcising baby boys really does more good than harm, then why doesn’t any medical organization in the world know that?

Comment by Pete — April 2, 2011 @ 8:44 pm

This is a very well written article. Of course, you will always get a response from men when you are talking about their best friend.
I had my son circumcised shortly after his birth and there were no problems. I personally do not apologize or feel like I have to defend my actions when it comes to making a parental decision. I discussed it with the health professionals before I had the procedure done to my son and had his best interest at heart.
It is a fact that most men do not even take the time to wipe after they urinate, and I for one think that is a nasty habit. This can cause more damage to their penis, because of the bacteria that can cause infections. Some of these infections can cause problems for their sexual partners later on in life as well.
What I am seeing in a lot of the post here is “ego” rather than facing the fact that what was done was done. It sounds like some of you are angry over something YOU did not have control over in making the decision in the first place.
I say get over it, move on, and appreciate the fact that someone cared enough to make the decision and had your best interest at heart.
I suggest that if a man has a problem with the decision that their parents made, then maybe they should discuss it with the parents.
I would love to be a fly on the wall, and be able to hear that discussion.

Comment by Lisa Cruz — April 2, 2011 @ 8:49 pm

Well, aren’t Jake and Samantha just the mutual appreciation society!

The Krieger/Bailey study of 1,300 Kenyan volunteers for circumcision (selection bias right there – men who enjoy their foreskins just wouldn’t sign up) found “For the circumcision and control groups, respectively, rates of any reported sexual dysfunction decreased from 23.6% and 25.9% at baseline to 6.2% and 5.8% at month 24.” so the Hawthorne effect – just being in a study affects the outcome – was clearly as great as or greater than any effect of circumcision.

It found “Compared to before they were circumcised, 64.0% of circumcised men reported their penis was “much more sensitive,”…” Circumcised men never stop telling us that they they couldn’t bear to be any more sensitive than they are, so who says having your sensitivity artifically increased is a good thing?

“… and 54.5% rated their ease of reaching orgasm as “much more” at month 24.” One man’s “ease of reaching orgasm” is another man’s premature ejaculation.

And what did the men who were not circumcised report? With all that Hawthorne effect, maybe their sensitivity and ease of reaching orgasm went up too.

But since neither Jake nor Samantha has answered any of the points I made – notably the ethical and human rights violation of cutting normal healthy non-renewing parts off non-consenting people, and the US’s isolation in the developed world in doing this non-religiously to neonates – I refer you back to my original response.

Comment by Hugh7 — April 2, 2011 @ 8:55 pm

Hmm… last I checked, no respectable medical organization on earth recommended this.

Do you recommend any other form of unnecessary surgery during the newborn period?

Comment by Pat — April 2, 2011 @ 9:07 pm

Ms. Gluck:

I’m 29 years old, and was mutilated–oh sorry, let’s use the politically correct phrase–circumcised shortly after birth. It has severely affected both my body and psychological well being. I have no sympathy for my parents who allowed it to be done, the doctor who performed the barbaric act, or my community that did not protect me from this form of physical and sexual abuse. But I do have plenty of anger for them, with enough extra for people like you.

How dare you spread your filthy propaganda trying to persuade people to have HEALTHY, FUNCTIONAL tissue amputated from those who cannot consent. You probably have no idea what the functions–yes plural, there are multiple–of the foreskin are and yet you have the audacity to write that disgusting, baseless pro-circ drivel. People like you are shameful and if you ever have a circumcised son don’t be shocked if you find out some day that he resents you for it once he learns all that was lost.

Below are some resources on the functions of the foreskin, the damage–both physical and psychological–caused by forcibly cutting it off, and the horrific complications that result from routine infant circumcision. Hopefully you will take an opportunity to educate yourself on this issue before writing more ignorant articles.

http://www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html
http://newborns.stanford.edu/CircComplications.html
http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/goldman1/
http://www.wholebabyrevolution.com/The-Lost-List.html

The bottom line: It is WRONG to amputate healthy tissue from those who cannot consent. All people should have a right to genital integrity.

Comment by Jonathon — April 2, 2011 @ 9:14 pm

I have never, ever, ever, EVER witnessed something as cold, horrific, and insane as an infant circumcision. Why would anyone even begin to support something like this? Swallow your pride and enter reality. The trauma of this should enrage all of us in any way associated with it.

Comment by Watcher — April 2, 2011 @ 9:47 pm

When the equivalent of a male circumcision is performed on a female against her wishes we call that female genital mutilation or female genital cutting even though its possible there might be some potential benefits. There are victims of FGM such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Nawal El Saadawi, and Patricia Robinett who have all made it very clear that circumcision is mutilation like FGM is mutilation. So Samantha how can promote circumcision when it is being called mutilation by victims of FGM?

Comment by Nathan — April 2, 2011 @ 11:54 pm

Stop mutilating babies. Its not ok. Circumcision is not medically required in the vast majority of cases. It is a cosmetic surgery performed for traditional reasons. It is genital mutilation and it is permanent. Stop mutilating babies.

Comment by BladeMcCool — April 3, 2011 @ 12:09 am

The CDC factsheet on HIV that was linked to in a previous post is the worst propaganda I’ve ever read in my life, that is not the official stance of the CDC, and it’s disgraceful that the CDC leaves something that horrible on their website. That factsheet says in addition to the controlled randomized studies in Africa, many observational studies also showed circumcised males had lower AIDS rates. The factsheet though doesn’t mention that many observational studies also showed that uncircumcised males had lower AIDS rates than circumcised males. In fact, in at least 7 African countries circumcised males have higher AIDS rates than uncircumcised males. Also the factsheet has a study on it that shows the life time costs of circumcising are lower than not circumcising. But The main Pediatric organization in Canada, the CPS, has a study on their website showing that the life time costs of circumcising are higher than not circumcising. The cherry-picking of evidences on that CDC HIV factsheet are about as bad as you can get.

Comment by Pete — April 3, 2011 @ 12:48 am

I believe that it was Gandhi who said something like, First they laugh at you, then they fight you, finally they give up and admit that you are correct.

We have seen and heard all of the jokes on TV about circumcision (the laughing part-stage 1). In this and other articles, and on so-called medical shows on TV, we are witnessing the “fighting you” part (stage 2). Soon we will see the admission that circumcision of infants is totally unnecessary (stage 3). In fact, the rapidly dropping infant circumcision rate is a very good indication that stage 3 is already well understood by many new parents. It is just a matter of time until those who are advocating RIC give up under the weight of public opposition to the practice.

Comment by Dr. Ron — April 3, 2011 @ 12:52 am

@ Samantha–you indicated that you plan to write additional articles which will include more details about the actual circumcision surgery. Might I suggest that you view a couple of the videos of an actual circumcision that can be found online. And please, turn up the volume as you view them. When I did so, I found myself wondering how a doctor could proceed with the surgery in spite of the blood curdling screams of the infant restrained on the table before him; especially when the doctor knows full well that the surgery has no immediate medical necessity for the health and well-being of the patient, and, in fact, carries some small risk of complications that would not be a consideration if the infant were left intact.

Anyway, I await your next article and hope that you take my challenge seriously.

Comment by Dr. Ron — April 3, 2011 @ 1:11 am

@Lisa Cruz: Of course you will always get a response from men who are not happy about what was done to them when you are talking about cutting a significant part OFF their best friend.

“…there were no problems” – that you know of. Yet.

“I had his best intentions at heart” And the road that is paved with good intentions leads where?

Urine is sterile as it comes out, and the difference in the amount of urine retained is miniscule – much less than the amount that may be retained by a girls’ genitals, yet we throw up our hands in horror at the idea of cuttting ANYTHING off them. (In fact it’s illegal.)

What makes men angry is that what was done did not have to be done – to THEIR genitals. Ego? Self-defence. And now defence of other helpless babies in the same position. Altruism, if anything.

Comment by Hugh7 — April 3, 2011 @ 1:27 am

“…I had the procedure done to my son and had his best interest at heart.”

Parents almost always do.

“…It sounds like some of you are angry over something YOU did not have control over in making the decision in the first place.”

Was any part of your genitalia cut off against you’re will as an infant or a child? If it was, are you (would you be…) upset that YOU did not have control over that decision?

Comment by kf — April 3, 2011 @ 2:21 am

The foreskin is not a birth defect, congenital deformity or genetic anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft palate. The foreskin is normal, healthy tissue found in all males at birth. 70% of the world’s men are not circumcised, and they carry on with their lives just fine. It should be telling that our country, with it’s high circumcision rate (80% according to Edward Schoen) is also a country with some of the highest rates of STDs and sexual disfunction problems. (Did you know that internationally, Viagra’s sales are highest in the US? In Israel, it’s the most bought off-brand drug. Well gee I wonder why…) Why is it that America, with its high circumcision rate, also has higher STD rates when compared to Europe, where the majority of men aren’t circumcised? Shouldn’t STDs be rampant THERE?

Bottom Line:
Unless there is a medical or clinical reason for surgery, doctors have absolutely no business performing it on healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less stoking a parent’s sense of entitlement. It is an American shame that doctors can get away with convincing parents that they’re entitled to “choose” non-theraputic, elective cosmetic surgery on their natural, healthy children. If the same laws and medical criteria that apply to any surgery were applied to circumcision, the circumcision of healthy, non-consenting children is already illegal, and our country is failing to recognize it as such, looking the other way in the name of “religion, culture” and “parental choice.” These “reasons” don’t apply to any other surgery; circumcision is the lone exception.

Comment by Joseph4GI — April 3, 2011 @ 2:45 am

WOW…LOL…..1:30am and they still talking about their penis

Comment by Lisa Cruz — April 3, 2011 @ 3:13 am

“It is a fact that most men do not even take the time to wipe after they urinate, and I for one think that is a nasty habit.”
This “fact” is actually your straw-man opinion. Tell us about women after they urinate. What do you think of women who have a nasty urine smell in their vagina?

“This can cause more damage to their penis, because of the bacteria that can cause infections. Some of these infections can cause problems for their sexual partners later on in life as well.”
You DO know that because of the way a woman is made, a woman is 10x as likely to get UTIs than men, right? I mean, what do you say about women? Did you know that in women, UTIs clear up with antibiotics? UTIs are not as common in men as they are in women, but antibiotics help in this department as well. It makes absolutely no sense to circumcise baby boys to prevent a condition that is more likely to happen in girls, and where there are already easy ways to deal with the situation, should it happen at all.

“What I am seeing in a lot of the post here is “ego” rather than facing the fact that what was done was done. It sounds like some of you are angry over something YOU did not have control over in making the decision in the first place.”
“Ego” is avoiding a situation because confronting it hurts your self-esteem. The ones with “ego” are the ones who refuse to acknowledge that they did wrong and apologize.

“I say get over it, move on, and appreciate the fact that someone cared enough to make the decision and had your best interest at heart.”
I say, men have the right to be angry at the fact that their organs were mutilated due to misinformation like what is on this post.

“I suggest that if a man has a problem with the decision that their parents made, then maybe they should discuss it with the parents.
I would love to be a fly on the wall, and be able to hear that discussion.”

I suggest that men NOT be angry at their parents because they made a “decision” based on lies their eager knife-happy doctor told them.

Here is a question to consider; many women in Africa, Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore have part of their genitals removed. The parents of these women also had “their best intentions” at heart. I mean, you tell me. Only parents who decide to circumcise their girls are “monsters,” but those who circumcise their boys are not? No. All parents love their children, and they ALL have the best intentions of their children at heart. But the road to hell is paved with good intent. I can’t blame parents who made this “choice,” because most parents were feed lies about it. If parents knew better, they would not circumcised their girls, and they would not circumcise their boys.

It’s too bad that people are taking the liberty to keep repeating old and debunked lies. And I think I know why that is; most people would rather try and justify themselves rather than to consider that they might be wrong. Now THAT, is what I call, an “ego” problem.

Comment by Joseph4GI — April 3, 2011 @ 3:34 am

0.2% – 0.6% is not a miniscule risk. If half the men in the US are circumcised, this is over 50, 000, 000 mutilated men. The lower figure represents 100, 000 complications. Additionally, this figure is way under.
Regardless of all this, performing this mutilation on a non-consenting baby is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Comment by Michael Steane — April 3, 2011 @ 3:42 am

This is my last post on this thread. Many people seem to think that if there some sort of “scientific” excuse for something, that it is perfectly justified. Nowadays, to justify anything, people have these ready-made “studies” to shove in your face as “proof” that what they’re doing is OK. But how far does this go? How far do people actually care about “studies?” Do people even care to look behind who conducted the “studies” to see who wrote them? How they were written? How their conclusions were reached? Or do they just care about the headline? “Studies” are beginning to sound like newspapers; people just read the headline, and that’s enough. If people cared to look, they’d find that a bulk of the latest “studies” are merely pseudo-science with an agenda. We scream “mutilation” when it comes to people in Africa cutting women, but did you know that cutting off parts of women’s genitals happens in our country? It’s true. Google “labiaplasty,” and you’ll find that there are doctors who are more than willing to help women with their “problems.” And they have plenty of “studies” that tell you that their practice is legit. “Studies show” that labiaplasties are actually prefered, they “enhance” sexual satisfaction for both partners, and women feel better about themselves. So how far would you take a “study” seriously? If “studies showed” that genital surgery could “reduce” your daughter’s risk of getting STDs, without affecting her libido and orgasmic response, and actually making her more “attractive” in bed, would you do it? What if “studies” showed that there are better ways to reduce STDs in boys? (They actually already do…) What if a doctor told you to your face, “We have this actual vaccine now that prevents STDs. Now we don’t have to circumcise your son!” Would you jump for joy, or look for a different doctor? Your answer to this question would speak volumes. It tells you how much you actually care for “study” and “medical benefits.” Do you seriously have the best interests of your children at heart, or merely your own? Would a “study” that circumcised 1000 women and then followed them around to see how many got AIDS be acceptable in your eyes? And yet, without batting an eye, Americans just accept this same “study” in men. “There aren’t medical benefits in FGM,” some might say. But yet, how many are actually looking? Finding better, more effective medicine, replacing the old with the new and better; THAT is “scientific advancement.” Seeking to preserve a centuries old tradition is backwards stagnation. Like “studying” to make a better guillotine… or 3.5 floppy disk… or 8-track tape… Circumcision “scientists”; when are they going to move on? Peace…

Comment by Joseph4GI — April 3, 2011 @ 3:47 am

To respond to David:

“In response to Jake’s claims, numerous studies which use more reliable methods have shown no effect of RIC on HIV rates, and in fact, some showed that circumcised men have a much higher rate of HIV.” — “more reliable” than what? It’s certainly true that a small number of observational studies have found no effect or even greater risk in circumcised males, but these are in the minority (a meta-analysis in 2000 found that 21 of 27 studies found a protective effect: Weiss HA, Quigley MA, Hayes RJ. Male circumcision and risk of HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AIDS. 2000 Oct 20; 14 (15): 2361–70).

“Europe where RIC is rare, has a HIV rate of half of the USA, where RIC is very common.” — such a comparison obviously cannot isolate the effect of circumcision; the well-documented differences in levels of sex education and condom usage act as confounding factors here.

“The best methods include quantifying the number of nerve endings on the foreskin, and objective methods of measuring the sensitivity of the foreskin to touch sensations to identify is the foreskin can indeed sense contact and touch, which avoid subjective bias. [...]” — measuring the ability to detect artificial stimulation is not the same as the ability to detect sexual sensation, of course, which is an obvious problem with such an approach.

“European countries hold the second longest life expectancy in the world, while Japan holds the longest life expectancy. These countries have virtually no routine infant circumcision. The intact state of the penis is normal and healthy, and all evidence shows that men who have intact penises live longest” — that is simply wrong, I’m sorry to say. No such evidence exists.

“Secondly, the intact penis is a healthy and medically normal body part. The fact is, it is one of the most disease resistant parts of the body. Women have 50 times more UTIs than men do.” — correction, 3.8 times (53,067 per 100,000 in women and 13,689 per 100,000 in men; see p625, ch13, http://kidney.niddk.nih.gov/statistics/uda/)

“Whats next, to mass circumcise little girls? Apparently they need it much more than boys do.” — there’s no indication that it would do any good. The only study in the literature indicates that FGC is associated with greater risk of UTI.

“The total complication rate for circumcision is 100% since all circumcision destroys sexual function. To deny this is to deny that the sun sets in the west.” — if that were so, then one would reasonably expect to see high levels of sexual dissatisfaction in circumcised vs uncircumcised men, and particularly in adult circumcision patients. But in fact, quite the reverse is true: satisfaction levels are generally very high.

“The generation of sexual pleasure is due to nerve endings. Nerve endings are located in the skin. When you cut off skin, you cut off nerve endings and reduce the number of available nerve endings. The only way circumcision could not reduce sexual pleasure was not to remove nerve endings, and thus not to remove any skin at all.” — the problem with this simplistic argument is the hidden assumption that nerve endings generate pleasure all by themselves. They don’t. Sensation is the product of nerve endings and stimulation, so it is important to consider the mechanics of the penis and how nerve endings might be stimulated. As a result of circumcision the glans penis is exposed to more and more direct stimulation, and as a result sensation is increased. So the question is, what is the net effect? That’s why we need to turn to studies of adult circumcision patients, and they don’t support your hypothesis that circumcision causes a reduction in pleasure.

“The rate of complications other than loss of normal and healthy skin and sexual function is 20% to 30%. 20% of circumcised boys receive meteal stenosis, which is a painful condition of the narrowing of the meatus which can cause blockage of urine flow and difficulty urinating, and painful urination for the boy.” — I’ve already addressed this claim above.

“In the US, it is estimated by recent studies that over 100 boys die each year due to routine circumcision.” — and this.

Comment by Jake — April 3, 2011 @ 4:52 am

A very biased article. This story seems to be based upon the books of Edgar Schoen, arch pro circumcision lobbyist and poet. I believe he is the one who came up with the idea of a “window of opportunity.” He has been writing polemics and even poems for years to denigrate the foreskin and to push circumcision. He admits he was circumcised religiously on the 8th day, so he is hardly unbiased. Is Jake the Jake Waskett who chose to be circumcised as an adult, who has made hundreds or revisions to the Wikipedia entry on circumcision, and who constantly attacks any article favorable to the intact state? As to the organization of 2,550 men who were circed as adults, is this circlist? The fact is that there is little non-biased research to show that circumcision is good for any medical purpose. And virtually all of those pushing circumcision are, if male, circumcised themselves, or, if female, have a circumcised male partner or have circumcised their own sons, so there is little objective pro circumcision discussion in the medical literature or elsewhere.

Comment by Dave — April 3, 2011 @ 10:31 am

The main medical organizations in Great Britain and the Netherlands state that there is no clear evidence that infant male circumcision has any medical benefits at all. In Canada the main medical organizations recommend that baby boys not be circumcised. In Austrailia the main medical organizations state that the health benefits of infant male circumcision are marginal and do not make up for the risks, and that infant male circumcision is not supported medically. The American Academy of Pediatrics states that the benefits and harms of infant male circumcision are about equal. No medical organization in the world says that infant male circumcision does more good than harm. I think people should trust what medical organizations say about infant male circumcision more than what Samantha Gluck and individuals say about it.

Comment by Pete — April 3, 2011 @ 12:51 pm

Actually, Pete, that’s a misrepresentation. The British Medical Association do not, contrary to your claim, deny the existence of benefits. “There is a spectrum of views within the BMA’s membership about whether non-therapeutic male circumcision is a beneficial, neutral or harmful procedure or whether it is superfluous, and whether it should ever be done on a child who is not capable of deciding for himself. The medical harms or benefits have not been unequivocally proven but there are clear risks of harm if the procedure is done inexpertly. The Association has no policy on these issues.” http://www.bma.org.uk/ethics/consent_and_capacity/malecircumcision2006.jsp

Contrary to your claim, the Canadian Pediatric Society do not recommend against circumcision (though they do not support it as a routine practice; that is, one performed on all newborn boys). http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/fn/fn96-01.htm

Again contrary to your claim, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians do not state that the risks are greater than the benefits; instead they (like the CPS and AAP) state that the benefits do not warrant a policy of circumcision of all newborn boys, adding “However it is reasonable for parents to weigh the benefits and risks of circumcision and to make the decision whether or not to circumcise their sons.” http://www.racp.edu.au/index.cfm?objectid=65118B16-F145-8B74-236C86100E4E3E8E

Again contrary to your claim, the American Academy of Pediatrics do not state that the benefits and harms are equal; in fact they don’t make a comparative statement on the subject. They do, however, agree with the CPS and RACP that parents are well-placed to make this decision for their sons.

Comment by Jake — April 3, 2011 @ 1:16 pm

Most of the people who believe in benifits from infant circumcision also believe that the Heavenly Godfather created man first and woman from his rib.

Comment by freddyeddy — April 3, 2011 @ 1:27 pm

The physicians that took care of my sons when they were born is who I listened to. All my boys are doing fine. My husband is doing fine. My five brothers are doing fine. They were all circumcised.
I think you all are just mad because people disagree with your organization, If you feel that strongly about your “save the penis organization” then have a million man march and change things instead of trying to go out of your way to belittle someone like you are trying to do.
Samantha Gluck did not circumcise you, and she is not the one you need to be mad at. You want someone to blame…blame your parents or the doctor who did it.
That is why it sounds so stupid the more you post and repost and repost about it. You just want to harass someone because you are not happy about your penis and can’t stop thinking about it.
Grow up!……Go see a therapist.

Comment by Becky Spiller — April 3, 2011 @ 1:54 pm

This is also my last post on the matter. You all have a great day. :)

Comment by Becky Spiller — April 3, 2011 @ 2:03 pm

How bout we cook up some stats for female genital mutilation? If you remove the clitoris, sex will be less pleasurable, removing some incentive for young women to engage in risky sexual behaviors, thereby reducing the risk of STD’s and unwanted pregnancies.

If you think that removing part of a man’s penis is anything but barbaric, then I will do my best to push my above mentioned point in all circles I can find who will listen. The internet is a big place, it’s generally a good idea to not advocate for infant genital mutilation unless you seek ideological repercussions.

hows that sound to you miss gluck?

Comment by anon — April 3, 2011 @ 6:07 pm

@Becky: This is not about who to blame, it is about persuading people that cutting off any healthy, non-renewing functional part of a child’s genitals is a violation of his human rights, just as – I’m sure you agree – it is a violation of her human rights.

Nor is it about us, but baby boys who are going to grow up to be men with their own opinion about how much of their own genitals they want to keep.

Dr Ron: Gandhi left out Stage 4, when they rewrite history and claim they were against [circumcision] all along.

Comment by Hugh7 — April 3, 2011 @ 6:10 pm

It is degrading. An assertion of dominance by a woman (“mother”) over a man (son) which is most definitely lead by a vindictive hatred of the male sex.

Comment by lorena bobbit is admired by some — April 3, 2011 @ 6:17 pm

@Becky Spiller TYSM for visiting and commenting about your views on this topic.

Comment by Samantha Gluck — April 3, 2011 @ 6:26 pm

Jake,

I didn’t misrepresent anything in my last post. Everything I said was very close to exact quotes from medical organizations. I guess your interpretation of what medical organizations say is a lot different than mine.

Comment by Pete — April 3, 2011 @ 6:34 pm

I agree with Becky Speller : I am circumcised , I’m seeing a therapist and it helps me a lot. Those who are pushing circumcision should also do the same : go see a therapist because if you really think the first thing a baby boy needs after birth is genital surgery, there’s s obviously something wrong with you.

The author of this topic only reads what she wants to read. If there so many negative comments about circumcision, maybe it’s time to rethink this procedure and recognize that a decent number of men aren’t happy with their parent’s decision.

Not to mention; circumcised men aren’t dong so fine, they are just in denial. They just don’t knowwhat they are missing. It requires a lot of courage to face the truth. Despite the author isn’t the person who circumcised me, she is encouraging a barbaric procedure with little, if any, medical benefit. The rest of the world is just doing fine without circumcision. THey don’t have the so called problems circumcision is supposed to cure. The benefits of circumcision don’t manifest into the real world.

Comment by Peter — April 3, 2011 @ 7:28 pm

“Europe where RIC is rare, has a HIV rate of half of the USA, where RIC is very common.”Jake Responds: “— such a comparison obviously cannot isolate the effect of circumcision; the well-documented differences in levels of sex education and condom usage act as confounding factors here. —” ACTUALLY, Jake, you know what’s funny? That you and other circumcision advocates are taking studies from Africa and using them to advocate for circumcision everywhere else. Here’s what’s even more funny; here you are arguing that the reason that HIV rates are higher in circumcising America, than in non-circumcising Europe, is the lack of sex education. And yet, if I’m to believe circumcision advocates, this, that sex education and condoms aren’t working, is precisely the reason that mass circumcision should be spread across Africa. Heh heh… lulz…

Jake: “measuring the ability to detect artificial stimulation is not the same as the ability to detect sexual sensation, of course, which is an obvious problem with such an approach.” — But of course, “sexual sensation” wasn’t being tested here. Circumcision reduces sensitivity, and this proves it.

“European countries hold the second longest life expectancy in the world, while Japan holds the longest life expectancy. These countries have virtually no routine infant circumcision. The intact state of the penis is normal and healthy, and all evidence shows that men who have intact penises live longest” — Jake: “that is simply wrong, I’m sorry to say. No such evidence exists.” — Or, rather, you’d rather it didn’t. Reality is better evidence than isolated so-called “studies” written by pro-circ advocates…

“Whats next, to mass circumcise little girls? Apparently they need it much more than boys do.” —Jake “there’s no indication that it would do any good. The only study in the literature indicates that FGC is associated with greater risk of UTI.” There are at least two studies that I know of that show that FGC “reduces the risk of HIV significantly.” But I must admit they’re rather flimsy. It must be noted that “researchers” aren’t “studying” FGC with as much zeal as MGC. Perhaps it’s because the “researchers” are only interested in justifying male circumcision for themselves, where they have an axe to grind because they were circumcised and are from cultures where circumcision is a norm, if not a requirement?

Jake: “the problem with this simplistic argument is the hidden assumption that nerve endings generate pleasure all by themselves. They don’t. Sensation is the product of nerve endings and stimulation, so it is important to consider the mechanics of the penis and how nerve endings might be stimulated. As a result of circumcision the glans penis is exposed to more and more direct stimulation, and as a result sensation is increased. So the question is, what is the net effect? That’s why we need to turn to studies of adult circumcision patients, and they don’t support your hypothesis that circumcision causes a reduction in pleasure.” — You mean, you put on blinders that only show studies that show what you want. Actually, it’s quite proven that after circumcision the head of the penis and surrounding mucosal tissue keratinizes, forming thick layers, DENSENSITIZING the penis. You are circumventing the issue; circumcision removes thousands of nerve endings. You cannot feel with the nerve endings that have been severed, pretty much the same way you can’t feel with a finger that has been cut off. You’re trying to argue the same thing as above, ignoring the damage because “you still experiense ‘sexual sensation.’” The studies that you show, Jake, will never show that circumcision decreases sensation and pleasure, because you are a circumcision advocate, and also, a known circumfetishist who got circumcised because seeing a cicrumcised penis turned you on at age 5. This isn’t personal attack, you are on record, sir.

Jake: “I’ve already addressed this claim above.” — Actually, no you haven’t. Nor will you. Not going to continue with someone who deliberately ignores what is devastating to their case…

“In the US, it is estimated by recent studies that over 100 boys die each year due to routine circumcision.” — Jake: “and this.” No, again, you simply circumvent the studies you don’t like. 117 boys die a year due to circumcision, but this is just an estimate. A conservative one because circumcisions are often covered up by doctors who don’t want to get busted for screwing up a non-medical procedure, and hospitals aren’t obliged to share the information on circumcision detahs and complications.

Comment by Zeekolicious99 — April 3, 2011 @ 7:42 pm

If we wanted to mess up boys’ heads, what better way to do it than to flood their baby brains with pain chemicals (e.g., cortisol) by clamping their genitals and slicing part of them off?

If we wanted to teach boys that their wishes don’t matter, what better way to do it than to cut a healthy, normal, pleasurable part of their body off when they are too young to protect themselves?

If we wanted to shame a boy, what better way than to disfigure him for life?

If we wanted to teach boys they are second-class citizens, what better way than by making female circumcision a felony but insisting that male circumcision “doesn’t matter”?

If we wanted to teach boys that their pain can easily be ignored, what better way than to joke about taking a knife to their most precious private parts?

If we wanted to enrage a boy, what better way than to cut off his “man-hood,” then dismiss his complaints with “It was for your own good”?

If we wanted to teach boys they are “born defective,” what better way than to “fix” them right after they are born, like cutting off puppy dog tails?

If we wanted to give boys a reason for suicide, what better way than to make sure the only way they can be whole again is through premature reincarnation?

If we wanted to teach boys they are unworthy of love, what better way than to make sure they can never make love with a complete sexual nervous system, with all its moving parts?

If we wanted to foster an endless cycle of boy-child abuse, what better way than to make it so that for fathers to feel okay, they must make sure their sons lack like them?

If we wanted to devalue boys, what better way than to denigrate their wholeness by calling them dirty or funny-looking, then telling these lies to partial boys so they can tease the whole ones?

If we wanted to teach boys that hurting others is okay, what better way than to needlessly wound them, then tell them that cutting healthy, normal males is not an issue of right or wrong?

If we wanted to frustrate a boy, what better way than to take away his “funskin,” while his friends use theirs for privacy, protection and pleasuring — as will their lovers later in life?

If we wanted to constantly remind boys that we can do whatever we want to them, what better way than to make sure every time they pee they see and touch a circum-scar?

What better way to teach boys that their bodies are not sacred than to torture and mutilate their sex organs?

“WHAT’S DONE TO CHILDREN THEY WILL DO TO SOCIETY.”

Comment by Brian — April 3, 2011 @ 7:52 pm

@BeckySpiller
Part of the problem with male circumcision is that people put on the same exact blinders that they do in Africa when it comes to female circumcision. Yes, the procedures might be “different,” some more severe than others, but the reasoning is exactly the same. “My mother was fine, my grandmother was fine, my sisters were fine, my daughter will be fine too.” And you know what? In many countries where they practice FGM, actually, the women actually DO turn out to be just fine. We often hear about the FGM cases in AFrica, but that’s because those are the worst. If you go to Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia, they practice something aclled “sunnat,” where not much is removed. Actually, it’s done to baby girls, they don’t even remember it, the women grow up, and they want this to happen to their daughters. You should become aware of your own sexism… what if these women came to America and started feeling like they were mutilated, and started speaking out about FGM? Should they “get over it and see a therapist?” Because it happened “such a long time ago, and you don’t even remember it?” Or would that be “different?” “Go see a therapist” misses the point. It misses the fact that because this is not medically indicated surgery in infants, it is f’ed up in every way imaginable. Charging money for surgery that somebody does not need is called charlatanism. Stoking a parent’s sense of entitlement takes it to a whole different level of professional abuse. And ultimately, it’s the abuse of a defenseless child. It’s funny this article talks about a “window of opportunity.” Could it possibly refer to the fact that the child is defenseless, and when he is older he might not want to get circumcised? It’s abuse on every level imaginable. This is not to blame parents, but it is to blame our American medical system for ignoring the ethics of cutting off parts of the genitals of healthy, non-consenting children. Men should get help, but while we’re at it, we need to change our medical system. ANd people spewing lies and on-sided arguments with only studies that support their view is not helping. Lots of cherry picking going on in this article. “All the evidence shows benefits.” Well “all the evidence” is only the “evidence” that you are choosing to show. There is tons of studies that contradict the “evidence,” but those are being suppressed by American media and medical trade unions like the CDC and AAP. If people are so interested in “medical benefit” and “scientific advancement,” why don’t they look into methods to prevent disease that don’t require cutting off part of your child? There are better ways to prevent disease other than circumcision. There ARE alternatives. IS there a reason Ms. Gluck isn’t mentioning any of those?
We must look at our own cultural bias. Parents aren’t really that interested in “medical benefits,” and they don’t care about “studies.” Parents defend circumcision because their culture already does it. They are already circumcised themselves, they are married to circumcised husbands, and/or have children who have been circumcised. When faced with the possibility that one could be wrong, the path of least resistance is to believe in the “benefits.” ANY benefits, ANY studies will do. But if you flip the tables around, it’s the exact same thing with FGM. Go to Africa, Indonesia, Singapore etc., and ask the parents why they go ahead and remove their daughters’ clitoral hoods. They’ll tell you the same exact thing. “It’s cleaner, it prevents disease…” and the last but most important one, “it’s part of our culture.” This is supposed to be America where we’re supposed to be more “civilized.” If we’re going to be willing to point fingers at other cultures for doing what they do, we need to have the courage of doing that with our own. QUESTION circumcision. ARE there better ways to prevent disease? Are you INTERESTED in them? Or are you interested in finding more alibis for continuing what you do? Because science is supposed to look for better, newer ways, not cling to older ways. Think about it.

Comment by Zeekolicious99 — April 3, 2011 @ 7:58 pm

One last thing; this must be said about jake. This is not to throw baseless insults at him or anything, this is merely to expose the conflict of interest that he will never tell you about. Jake is famous in the online circumcision argument all over. His full name is Jake Waskett, and he is notorious for taking over every article having to do with circumcision in WikiPedia and lurking on comments pages on circumcision articles, and in parenting forums trying to convince mothers to circumcise their children. He tries to come off as “objective” and only interested in “study,” but actually his support for circumcision is based in other interests. He is a known circumfetishist (someone who gets sexual gratification from circumcised penis, or the act of circumcision itself), and he is on record saying that he wanted to be circumcised since age 5, when he first layed eyes on a circumcised penis. It would be ad-hominem (personal attack) if what I had to say was not based in reality at all, but these are true facts that you can verify. Google “Jake Waskett” and “circleaks” and you will find out that he’s interested in just a bit more than your children’s healths. This is not “personal attack,” this is just me saying, Jake Waskett does NOT have an “objective” point of view, and this is why. Those who are serious about the debate, and serious about learning about circumcision, be aware that Jake’s bias will not allow him to share with you evidence that contradicts circumcision. When he says “evidence shows,” it really means “the evidence that I and other pro-circs choose to show you shows…” So take Jake’s “advice” with a grain of salt. He’s not showing you the full picture.

Comment by Zeekolicious99 — April 3, 2011 @ 8:09 pm

I am a nurse and worked in family practice for many years. I cannot even begin to give numbers of teenage boys who came in to the office for circumcisions. My estimate would be around fifty in the six years I worked there. It was always the same story, the parents (usually mother would bring her son in) because he was getting humiliated in the locker room at school. My heart went out to these young boys, it is so much more traumatic and painful to get this procedure done at sixteen, then it is at birth and I can speak from experience, I have assisted with both. I now work in surgery and I have seventy to eighty year old men come in all the time to get circumcision, usually associated with infection and pain. I don’t know the statistics and I can’t speak of the psychological impact of those who had it done at birth. I can say that men, young or old, are very eager to get the procedure done and almost everyone states, “I wish my parents would have done this circumcision when I was born”.

Comment by Cheryl — April 3, 2011 @ 8:26 pm

To night at 10:00 eastern on The Learning Channel they are going to feature foreskin restoration. I wonder if that show will be very good. Some circumcised males restore their foreskin by stretching it for usually many years. A restored foreskin isn’t nearly as good as a natural foreskin because the most pleasurable parts were cut off, but to some males a restored foreskin is a lot better than no foreskin. That goes to show though how much some males disagree with their parents’ decision to have them circumcised, because they go through all the trouble and time to restore it.

Comment by Pete — April 3, 2011 @ 9:17 pm

Cheryl,

The infant male circumcision rate in the U.S. has fallen to about 32.5% according to a CDC official who spoke about that at an AIDS conference in Europe. Anyways, baby boys who aren’t circumcised now will have plenty of company when they grow up, and likely will be in the majority depending on what part of the country they live in.

I’ve heard estimates that only about 1% of males not circumcised as a baby decide to get it done when they grow up.

If an uncircumcised male has problems or infections almost always that is because of mal care. In Finland, Denmark, and Sweden where they know how to properly care for the foreskin only about 1 in 18,000 males ever needs to be circumcised later in life for medical reasons.

The U.S. is the only country in the world where it is common for baby boys to be circumcised for non-religious reasons. If most males preferred to be circumcised then circumcising baby boys would be common in other countries.

Comment by Pete — April 3, 2011 @ 9:43 pm

There are some other really bad rationale in this commentary about why it should be done… some men might develop problems when they’re older and they might need surgery (or, more than likely, surgery was prescribed to them by knife-happy doctors). When surgery is necessary, it’s unavoidable, and it must happen. But why must it happen to EVERYONE? Some people go in for heart surgery. Othres get their appendixes removed. Others, their gall bladders. In diabetics, a lot of the time they have to have their toes removed because they got hammertoe, and the bad circulation was causing them trouble. So like, does it then make sense to give EVERYONE these surgeries to “avoid problems?” Men that need circumcision are actually so rare. Actually, 1 in 6 men get prostate cancer. So should we remove the prostate in all children “to avoid problems later on?” Some women get ovarian cysts. Men get testicular cancer. Where does the list end of things you have to cut off of the body to “avoid problems?” And when do we start talking about cures and solutions to problems that don’t require surgery? Really, really bad medical argument.

Comment by Zeekolicious99 — April 3, 2011 @ 9:50 pm

A question of curiousity… in Europe, where boys aren’t circumcised, it’s the circumcised boys who get made fun of… I wonder what circumcision advocates say should happen in that case… would they recommend foreskin restoration? Or would they then say “oh, they should just learn to accept themselves as they are?” I think the double-standard would be obvious then.

Comment by Zeekolicious99 — April 3, 2011 @ 10:11 pm

MORE bad arguments…
@Cheryl
What an absolutely bad reason to circumcise healthy children. ANd you participated in them all! I mean where does it stop?

“I am a nurse and worked in family practice for many years. I cannot even begin to give numbers of teenage boys who came in to the office for circumcisions.”

This isn’t saying much. Nurses participated in the circumcision of women and girls in this country up through the 70s. Actually, did you know that FGM wasn’t banned in this country until like 1996? It’s true. So watch how you appeal to authority, because a human rights violation is a human rights violation no matter who performs it. Nurses perform “sunnat” on baby girls in Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia. What do you say to THAT?

“My estimate would be around fifty in the six years I worked there. It was always the same story, the parents (usually mother would bring her son in) because he was getting humiliated in the locker room at school. My heart went out to these young boys, it is so much more traumatic and painful to get this procedure done at sixteen, then it is at birth and I can speak from experience, I have assisted with both.”

Does your heart go out to the women and girls in Africa who willingly undergo FGM to conform? Because they were getting humiliated? Did you know that in some cultures, if you are not circumcised, you’re not considered a woman, and unfit to marry? Yes, it’s probably more traumatic and painful to get this procedure done at 16 than at birth. So do you advocate “sunnat” for girls as babies? Because you know, it’s “less traumatic.” I’m sure the women in countries where they circumcise girls can tell you about the difference in trauma too. Doesn’t change a thing. I think it’s a shame that you actually think conformity is a good reason to circumcise a completely healthy person.

What other surgery or procedure would you advocate for conformity? Would you advocate for operations on the eyes? You know, because having Asian eyes makes you the odd-one out? How about lyposuctions for fat children? Maybe your son has a huge nose, or they call your daughter “dumbo” for having large floppy ears? Where does the list stop? I’m sorry to say it, but you’re a shame to American nurses. Advocating conformity to the extent of surgery like that. The foreskin isn’t a mistake, or a birth defect or a genetic anomally that has to be corrected. Having a foreskin is what is normal and natural. Just like having labia and a clitoral hood. This line of thinking, of operating on boys to make them fit the norm, instead of encouraging them to accept themselves as who they are, is simply disgusting. What’s next, advocating bleaching black children’s skin because they get called the “n” word a lot? Yeah. Conformity. Horrible, HORRIBLE reason to legitimize elective surgery in children.

“I now work in surgery and I have seventy to eighty year old men come in all the time to get circumcision, usually associated with infection and pain. I don’t know the statistics and I can’t speak of the psychological impact of those who had it done at birth. I can say that men, young or old, are very eager to get the procedure done and almost everyone states, “I wish my parents would have done this circumcision when I was born”.”

Do you meet any diabetics that wish they would have had their toes removed at birth? How about people that get appendixes removed? Or their gall bladder? What would you think of anybody who told you “I wish this was done to me as a child” for any other surgery? Because it was just so “traumatic?” Would you agree with them? Or is this only an opinion you hold just for circumcision alone?

Here’s a little something new for you you could learn as a nurse. Surgeries? They’re all traumatic. But you know what, most surgeries have medical reasoning behind them. You don’t just GIVE someone open-heart surgery. You don’t just take out someone’s gall bladder or ovaries. Therer is usually a problem that must be addressed. Circumcision is the only surgery where this logic is flipped. Where surgery comes first, THEN rationale. American nurses have so much learning to do.

Go to other countries where circumcision is not the norm. The “problems” that are so blown out of proportion in the US decrease exponentially. This is because in other countries they’re not so knife happy looking for reasons to mutilate people’s genitals. This country’s curriculum on male human anatomy is in dire need of an overhaul. Profiting from surgery that isn’t needed is called charlatanism. When a doctor performs non-medical surgery for money on a non-consenting individual, it’s called medical fraud. One of these days it’s going to bite American medicine in the rear.

Circumcision rates in the US are dropping, and fast. Medicaid is not covering it in like 16 states… or was that 17? I think there was another state that just stopped covering it… I think this is the reason that circumcision advocacy continues… it’s just American doctors’ egos that don’t want to be hurt. But the longer you hide your head in the sand, the harder and crueler the awakening is going to be. Boys that were born in the year when the ban on FGM was instituted are going to be turning 18 rather soon. It’s when all the law suits are going to begin, and when doctors are going to realize they should have come clean sooner… instead they’re continuing the century-long quest to find some sort of “medical benefit” for circumcision… better be ready doctors… boys are going to sue for equal rights, and it’s not going to be pretty…

Comment by Zeekolicious99 — April 3, 2011 @ 10:12 pm

Alright alright, this will be my last post on this commentary, I promise. But I forgot to finish a point I was making about surgery being “traumatic” in older age. This is my point: The logic that “circumcision should be performed in boys because it’s more traumatic when he’s older” dictates that all surgeries a man would ever get should be performed in infancy to avoid the “trauma” of surgery. The reality of the matter is that you simply don’t know what surgeries a person will need, and it doesn’t make sense to perform it in a child “to avoid trauma,” trauma that may actually never manifest itself. Any part of the body can become problematic and may need surgery or full removal. It simply doesn’t make sense to remove them all “as a child so that s/he won’t have to endure the trauma as an older person.” You’ll never know if you get testicular cancer and have one or both testicles removed. You’ll never know if you get breast cancer and need a mastectomy. You’ll never know if you fall on a rusty nail, get gangrene and will need to have your hand removed. You just don’t know. So how does it ever make sense to remove normal, healthy parts off a healthy, non-consenting child to prevent “problems” that might not even happen? There are tons more procedures that are way more common than circumcision. As I’ve said, 1 in 6 men will get prostate cancer. Surgical procedures on a cancerous prostate, a cancer afflicted breast etc. is more common, and more called for than circumcision. People are more likely to experience the trauma of having to use a catheter to urinate, or losing a breast forever marring one’s appearance. So then using the “it’s traumatic as an adult” it makes more sense that these body parts be all removed to “avoid the trauma” as an adult. These are more common, and more serious than conditions requiring circumcision. When you step back and look at the bigger picture, the “it’s traumatic as an adult” argument simply doesn’t make sense. An adult may never need circumcision for all we know. To drive the point home, let me remind readers that 70% or so of the world’s men aren’t circumcised. All of the “problems” that are blown out of proportion in the US are actually quite rare, and few men actually ever have to get circumcised out of medical necessity. This is simply an emotional argument used to conjure up fear in parents. Remember; ALL surgeries are traumatic in adults.

Comment by Zeekolicious99 — April 3, 2011 @ 10:37 pm

SCIENCE has shown the HIV virus is absorbed into the inner lining of the foreskin within ONE HOUR of making contact
Oncogenic palpilloma viruses, yes the ones that cause cervical cancer in women are NOT retained on the circumcised penis
NO SEMGMA with the circumcised penis

These are scientific FACTS and not subjective opinion

THE SCIENCE IS IN AND IS NOT GOING TO GO AWAY !!

IT WILL KEEP ON COMING AND THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING THE ANTICIRCS CAN DO ABOUT IT

Comment by John — April 4, 2011 @ 12:30 am

What I find interesting is how after circumcision advocates berate those of us against circumcision as using “emotional arguments,” they defend circumcision because it’s “religious tradition,” or because “he’ll be made fun of in the lockerroom.” A very good point was made earlier; Cheryl, what do you think of boys growing up circumcised in a country where most boys aren’t? It sounds like you think that being made fun of and helping boys conform is a good reason to circumcise anxious teens. But what about when a teenager was circumcised as an infant, because of religious tradition, or because a doctor “recommended” it, and he lives in a country where having a foreskin is the norm and he hates being made fun of in the lockerroom for being different? Would you recommend the boy look into restoration? I think the answer to this would be interesting, but I can almost guess what it is. For boys with a foreskin, your “heart goes out to them” and you gladly assist in circumcising them to fit the norm. But for circumcised boys in say, Europe, or Japan, they should get counceling and accept themselves and not be angry at their parents for having circumcised them, right? What if there were some sort of surgery that gave a child a foreskin? Would you support it? It would really be interesting what the “lockerroom” people have to say about that. I’d wager it’s simply another self-serving alibi that allows you to live with your culture, and what you do for a living. In the words of Upton Sinclair: “It’s hard to get a man to understand something, when your livelihood depends on your not understanding.” Let’s hope the boys you helped circumcise don’t grow up to resent their mangled organs and to seek retribution from those who facilitated their abuse as a defenseless children.

Comment by Tetsu117 — April 4, 2011 @ 12:48 am

Samantha, please read these and then deny what you want, for what ever reason you want. Then you will be informed on both sides.

http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com/
http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/goldman1/

Comment by freddyeddy — April 4, 2011 @ 7:57 am

The CDC does not have any data on the referenced web site that says cut men % wise have less HIV. Studies in the US including the NAVY study and others show cut guys and natural penis guys with same HIV % wise. Even in Africa with its water problems circumcision does not help HIV. IN Kenya they just did a study of a group and circumcision status was not associated with HIV or HSV-2 seroprevalence or current genital ulceration. The US sponsored DHS Comparative Reports No. 22 showed that in Africa there appears no clear pattern of association between male circumcision and HIV prevalence. In 8 of 18 countries with data, HIV prevalence is lower among circumcised men, while in the remaining 10 countries HIV prevalence is higher among circumcised men. In the real world, cutting parts of a baby bouys penis does not provide protection from anything.

As to function and sensation, the function is clear and well known through history — as is the sensory aspect. Samantha, no one argues that the nerves are not there? That would be wacky. What is your point that you don’t get? Can you fess up to not having a clue about cutting penis parts off?

I am sick of people posting that sexual pleasure before and after prepuce amputation is subjective blah blah blah. The issue is very clear. The parts cut off have stretch and touch sensors. One touches or is touched at these parts, one stretches or one is stretched at these parts and the result is pleasure. Remove the parts, the result is removal of pleasure from ones life for good. What is subjective?

Comment by JackieNO — April 4, 2011 @ 3:22 pm

To determine if circumcision might influence a man’s risk of acquiring HPV infection…

During the study, the researchers identified 536 different HPV infections, with no difference in risk between the circumcised and uncircumcised men.

Comment by JackieNo — April 4, 2011 @ 3:48 pm

Uncircumcised here and Ive never had any problems at all in 50 years give males the choice . Never teased about it living in the USA . Type in penal adisions and you will see lots of problem with infant circumcision Ive seen one infant that it was a wounder he could even urinate . It made my blood boil and it wasn’t even my penis

Comment by Gary — April 4, 2011 @ 4:28 pm

To respond to JackieNO:

“The CDC does not have any data on the referenced web site that says cut men % wise have less HIV.” — incorrect, Jackie. They cite two studies that found such a result. Here is what they say: “In one crosssectional survey of MSM, lack of circumcision was associated with a 2-fold increase in the odds of prevalent HIV infection [24]. In another, prospective study of MSM, lack of circumcision was also associated with a 2-fold increase in risk for HIV seroconversion” http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

“IN Kenya they just did a study of a group and circumcision status was not associated with HIV or HSV-2 seroprevalence or current genital ulceration. The US sponsored DHS Comparative Reports No. 22 showed that in Africa there appears no clear pattern of association between male circumcision and HIV prevalence. In 8 of 18 countries with data, HIV prevalence is lower among circumcised men, while in the remaining 10 countries HIV prevalence is higher among circumcised men.” — the problem with cherry-picking studies is that you haven’t really proved anything except for your own ability to pick cherries. Observational studies are inherently prone to confounding, so it shouldn’t be surprising that some get the wrong answer. The fact remains that the overwhelming majority of observational studies (21 of 27 in a 2000 meta-analysis) and all of the higher-quality randomised controlled trials have found that circumcision is protective against HIV.

“I am sick of people posting that sexual pleasure before and after prepuce amputation is subjective blah blah blah. The issue is very clear. The parts cut off have stretch and touch sensors. One touches or is touched at these parts, one stretches or one is stretched at these parts and the result is pleasure. Remove the parts, the result is removal of pleasure from ones life for good. What is subjective?” — I’ve addressed this above: “the problem with this simplistic argument is the hidden assumption that nerve endings generate pleasure all by themselves. They don’t. Sensation is the product of nerve endings and stimulation, so it is important to consider the mechanics of the penis and how nerve endings might be stimulated. As a result of circumcision the glans penis is exposed to more and more direct stimulation, and as a result sensation is increased. So the question is, what is the net effect? That’s why we need to turn to studies of adult circumcision patients, and they don’t support your hypothesis that circumcision causes a reduction in pleasure.”

Comment by Jake — April 4, 2011 @ 5:12 pm

why do you fear the pro-foreskin posts?

Comment by Stop RIC — April 4, 2011 @ 7:36 pm

genital mutilation is a violation of fundamental human rights

Comment by Stop RIC — April 4, 2011 @ 7:37 pm

a foreskin is not a birth defect

Comment by Stop RIC — April 4, 2011 @ 7:38 pm

deleting the pro-foreskin posts doesn’t make the truth that men have been harmed go away.

Comment by Stop RIC — April 4, 2011 @ 7:39 pm

ask David Reimer what he thinks of circumcision.
Oh,thats right you can’t….he’s dead.
Look him up with google or the search engine of your choice.
It’s truth,fact,the man is dead and a family destroyed thanks to RIC.

Comment by Stop RIC — April 4, 2011 @ 7:41 pm

On December 21,1994, The Clinton administration started the anti FGM law. 18 years later people affected by this law will begin to sue those responcible for braking the law and performing FGM and MGM against their rights. On December 21,2012, everything changes! Just Kidding. But It could happen…

Comment by freddyeddy — April 4, 2011 @ 8:08 pm

“SCIENCE has shown the HIV virus is absorbed into the inner lining of the foreskin within ONE HOUR of making contact” — Then there should be no trouble for you to show us the “science” where this happens. That HIV is “absorbed” by the foreskin is a hypothesis that has yet to be proven. All of the circumcision “studies” in Africa that supposedly “prove” that circumcision prevents HIV are based on unproven, or completely debunked hypothesis. Show us exactly how HIV is “absorbed” by the foreskin, and “blocked out” by the circumcised penis, thanks.
“Oncogenic palpilloma viruses, yes the ones that cause cervical cancer in women are NOT retained on the circumcised penis” — Again, the science?
“NO SEMGMA with the circumcised penis” — Actually, false. A certain percentage of men still get smegma. Can you tell us about the smegma in uncircumcised vulvas?

“These are scientific FACTS and not subjective opinion”
— Yes. And we’re still waiting for the “science” that says circumcision actually reduces HIV transmission, and not merely rigged “studies” conducted by long-time pro-circ advocates.

“THE SCIENCE IS IN AND IS NOT GOING TO GO AWAY !!” — The “science,” not to mention the realities, are actually stacked against circumcision. Circumcision doesn’t do jack sh!t to prevent anything. If it did, it would be evident right here in our own country. I’d like for “science” to address why circumcision “prevents” HIV in Africa, but not the US.

“IT WILL KEEP ON COMING AND THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING THE ANTICIRCS CAN DO ABOUT IT” — Actually, we’d like for the science to keep on coming. Unfortunately it’s filtered through a small pro-circ minority who have managed to hi-jack the WHO and CDC. They’ve become the foxes that guard the henhouse, the tail that wags the dog. Pro-circ “scientists” and “doctors” are not telling us the truth and giving us all the science. There is plenty of science that shows that circumcision is worthless, it’s just that pro-circs in high places have made it so it’s not presented. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Comment by anon — April 4, 2011 @ 9:07 pm

If you look hard enough, you’ll find that there is plenty of scientific evidence that shows that circumcision is worthless, and actually a dangerous distraction. Reports from all over Africa are already saying that the circumcised men feel confident in not wearing condoms because they feel their circumcision alone protects them. There is PLENTY of science, and plenty of relaties that show that promoting circumcision to prevent HIV will have been a huge mistake. It’s just that pro-circumcision advocates will always find “confounding factors” in evidence to the contrary. Beware of who is presenting the evidence… or withholding it. Circumcision does NOT prevent HIV. Only proper sex education and condoms do. If circumcision prevented HIV, rates would be lower in the US than in countries in Europe where circumcision is rare. The opposite is actually true. Let’s have the “science” address THAT.

Comment by anon — April 4, 2011 @ 9:18 pm

Oh! And I see Jake is already making the rounds. And I see that others have already pointed him out. As they always say, one good turn deserves another; people should beware Jake Waskett. He’s anything but “objective” and interested in science and health; his interest lies in his sexual obsession with circumcision. He spends most of his time controlling every article having to do with circumcision on WikiPedia, and arguing on blogs, news commentaries and parent forums using selective “science.” He is NOT an objective source and his “advice” should be taken with caution. You can read more about him if you google “Jake Waskett” and “circleaks”. He is a sad, strange little man…

Comment by anon — April 4, 2011 @ 9:28 pm

It has to be asked, what does HIV prevention actually have to do with circumcising infant newborns? The supposed studies in Africa were carried out on adults making their own decisions. What is the reason this is being pushed on babies who are not having sex yet and so aren’t even at risk? What man in the right mind would choose circumcision if he had the option of using condoms which are, even according to the studies, more effective? (60% vs over 90%?) The men in Africa made a choice for themselves. What is the reason these studies are being used to take the choice away from babies who will one day grow up to be men who make their own choices? What if the men didn’t want to be circumcised? “Oh well?” What if there was “research” that showed female circumcision reduced the risk of HIV? And it was solid as a rock? What if a group of scientists told you they could make it so that your daughter’s chances for getting HIV are reduced, without reducing her sexual pleasure, by just cutting the labia and other “unnecessary” parts off? Doctors in the UK and the USA already perform labiaplasties and “unroofing.” (On consenting ladies of course.) And it looks like the women enjoy sex, perhaps even more so after the operation! So if a study showed you that you could reduce your daughter’s chances for getting STDs AND she’ll still enjoy sex, would you consider this for your baby girl? Yes? No? I think that what applies to girls should apply to boys. I have my doubts about the studies in Africa, but even if they were true, it should be up to an adult man to decide what he wants. I think it’s sick that studies carried out on adult consenting men are being used to rationalize the circumcision of healthy, sexually inactive children. This is clear science for abuse. Would science make the abuse of baby girls OK? Maybe this is the “window of opportunity” this article talks about? The fact that children are unable to fend for themselves? Babies do not have sex. They are not at risk for STDs, and when they grow up, they can decide what they want, just like the African men. Furthermore, there are better ways to prevent other diseases besides circumcision. Is there a reason this article talks about circumcision as if it were the only option? I think that would have made this article actually fair and balanced. You know, not all parents will want to circumcise. Some parents will want to instead find ways to prevent disease without surgery. Some numbers say that the circumcision rate is down to 33%, but I’m skeptical of that number. I’d say it’s more along the 47-50% spectrum. But even so, at least half the parents in this country are choosing to opt out of circumcision. Posting only pro-circ information is marginalizing half the parents in this country. I think the time has come that our media actually published fair and balanced articles that cater to BOTH kinds of parents, not just those who will circumcise. The times, they are a-changin’. What is the media, American medical system doing to provide information for parents who want alternatives to circumcision? Let’s see if we could get our dear researchers to look in to that.

Comment by anon — April 4, 2011 @ 9:58 pm

On smegma and cancer, I’ve actually read somewhere that some scientists actually believe that smegma is the carcinogen that causes cervical cancer. It is scientific fact that women also produce smegma, and much more so than uncircumcised men. So then, if what these men are saying is true, women give themselves cervical cancer. It must be true, because they had some sort of scientific paper that said so.

Comment by Tetsu117 — April 4, 2011 @ 10:59 pm

” Observational studies are inherently prone to confounding, so it shouldn’t be surprising that some get the wrong answer.”

Fact is that the in the real world cutting penis arts off a baby does not reduce HIV. Really a comparison between EU and US is all that is required. In the real world penis part amputation does not lower HIV.

Comment by JackieNO — April 4, 2011 @ 11:28 pm

“Fact is that the in the real world cutting penis arts off a baby does not reduce HIV.” — I’m afraid you’re wrong about that, Jackie.

“Really a comparison between EU and US is all that is required.” — as I’ve already pointed out, such a comparison is scientifically invalid because it doesn’t isolate the effect of circumcision.

Comment by Jake — April 5, 2011 @ 4:29 am

To respond to Tetsu117:

“On smegma and cancer, I’ve actually read somewhere that some scientists actually believe that smegma is the carcinogen that causes cervical cancer.” — it’s certainly possible, and all three human studies to investigate have found an association between smegma and penile cancer.

“It is scientific fact that women also produce smegma, and much more so than uncircumcised men. So then, if what these men are saying is true, women give themselves cervical cancer.” — the mistake you’re making here is to assume that male and female smegma are identical, but in fact they are not. Male smegma contains prostatic secretions and sperm cells, for example.

Comment by Jake — April 5, 2011 @ 4:35 am

Samanha, I was delighted to read first your article and then your CV. As a microbiologist you are well qualified to write a positive piece in favour of circumcision. I’m sorry you have had so much hysterical claptrap posted by intactivists in response.

As a male happily circumcised since childhood I feel I speak for the majority of men who were cut without consent in saying let’s thank providence, parents and the pediatrician who did it, for making such a sensible decision early in our lives. All the men I’ve ever encountered and asked (quite a few over the years) seem to share my opinion that circumcision is a good idea and have no regrets. In contrast I’ve spoken with a few who endured foreskin problems and dearly wished they’d had them removed in infancy. Some have taken the painful later-in-life decision and cursed their parents’ choice. Others, (my FIL was one) have gone to their graves with a phimotic foreskin which blighted their and their unfortunate partners’ lives – all because they were too shy/embarassed/frightened to seek help.

Circumcised moaners (I’ve never encountered one!) must be in a minority and have sadly fallen for the lies,myths and untruths of intactvist propaganda. Unfortunately they make a noise out of all proportion to their numbers.

It is always good when women like yourself become advocates. All the women in my life (admittedly not a huge, but a loving number), have been approving when they discovered my circumcised status. Women’s views are objective, men’s are subjective. As someone put it nicely; ‘Women are after all the end-users, and their views should be valued.’

Thank you again for ours Samantha!

Comment by Antonio — April 5, 2011 @ 12:24 pm

Thank you, Antonio:

I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts and experience and reading my article.

Comment by Samantha Gluck — April 5, 2011 @ 5:36 pm

I know it is morally wrong, and illogical, but I’m sorry, I can’t date/have sexual relations with an uncircumcised man. My brain likes what it likes, and emotionally, it seems to me that for some reason I am really attracted to a circumcised penis, and very unattracted to men with foreskin. Whether it’s conditioned by US society or not, it is what it is…. For that reason I will be having my sons circumcised when I have them, because I know I am not the only girl who feels this way- in fact- most girls I know do. Great article Samantha.

Comment by mandi — April 5, 2011 @ 8:42 pm

Forced genital cutting (aka circumcision) of infants and children is medial fraud. Slicing healthy erogenous tissue from someone who cannot consent using bogus “health” claims is a violation of the Hippocratic Oath.

Only a quack doctor advocates for this kind of child abuse. Research human anatomy and normal sexual function and protect your child from every grinning idiot advocating to sexually wound your child’s body.

Comment by James Loewen — April 6, 2011 @ 1:07 am

I cannot believe that Americans are still being fed this tripe about circumcision.
Plus the fact there are people ignorant enough to believe it.
It wasn’t that long ago that girls were circumcised for the exactly same reasons, you have moved away from this… why not boys?
Don’t you know that the circumcisers of America have formed a collective group to invade articles like this and feed their lies into the discussion.
There would be no circumcision in America if it was against the law to charge for it and that as it is major surgery that in the few occasions that it is needed(malformed penis at birth)……that this surgery only be done by surgeons.
Their are only two reason why doctors circumcise:
1. Money
2. sexual fetish
Any mother wishing to have her child circumcised should undergo voluntary circumcision herself to show that there is nothing to it.
One noticeable thing that is promoted by circumcisers is the cleanliness thing, (a childs penis is self cleaning and only needs to be washed externally…same as with girls) …they push the idea that the mother must force back the childs foreskin to wash, while they know that it causes bleeding, tearing and scarring. This form of abuse causes so many problems that they child has to be circumcised later in life because of the damage.
Is it hard to comprehend “Leave it alone and only wash externally”

Comment by keepthemintact — April 6, 2011 @ 5:58 am

I would like to come to this subject from the perspective of SCIENCE.

There are two crucial tests for scientific credibility:

1. Any conclusion or hypothesis must be based on data or a study that is without any KNOWN flaws.

2. Any hypothesis must ALWAYS and to the same degree fulfill its prediction in the real world.

Here is the challenge– can anyone provide a single benefit for circumcision that satisfies these crucial requirements?

Comment by Robert Samson — April 6, 2011 @ 9:28 am

“Circumcised moaners (I’ve never encountered one!) must be in a minority and have sadly fallen for the lies,myths and untruths of intactvist propaganda.”

This survey indicated there are 52 million men in the US that are dissatisfied with their circumcision.

A Preliminary Poll of Men Circumcised in Infancy or Childhood–T. Hammond, BJU International (83, Suppl. 1), p. 85-92, January, 1999

circumcised intact
Satisfied 38% 78%
Dissatisfied 20% 3%
Ambivalent 41% 17%

And this was BEFORE we had proof of the damage done by circumcision.

Comment by Robert Samson — April 6, 2011 @ 9:31 am

“‘Women are after all the end-users, and their views should be valued.’

Agreed, and with women who experienced both circumcised and normal sex overwhelmingly (87%) preferred normal sex:

BJU INTERNATIONAL, Volume 83, Supplement 1, Pages 79-84,January 1, 1999.
The effect of male circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner
K. O’HARA and J. O’HARA

Comment by Robert Samson — April 6, 2011 @ 9:34 am

“As a result of circumcision the glans penis is exposed to more and more direct stimulation, and as a result sensation is increased.:

Jake, all nerves have the same output level once sufficient stimulation is applied, so exactly how is this speculation supposed to work?

When one is missing the majority of nerves, their output is missing, so again, where are the compensating sensations coming from–thin air?

If you are going to provide a speculation, then you need to provide evidence to support it. WHERE is your evidence?

Comment by Robert Samson — April 6, 2011 @ 9:42 am

Ms Gluck writes: “Circumcision involves the surgical removal of the prepuce.”

Better check your dictionary, Ms. Gluck.

Surgery is the treatment of diseases, injuries, or deformities. As such, genital mutilation is not surgery.

Additionally, there’s no such thing as “… a properly executed circumcision.” Genital mutilation is genital mutilation. Those who slice into the genitals of helpless infants for fun or profit are guilty of sexual child abuse.

Comment by Rood Andersson — April 6, 2011 @ 7:41 pm

Ms. Gluck wrote: “Risks associated with properly executed circumcisions are miniscule(sic) ’ 0.2 % to 0.6%.”

Minuscule, perhaps, Ms. Gluck, unless you are one of the thousands to suffer? Multiply 0.2% and 0.6% times the estimated one million male infants forced to suffer genital mutilation every year in the USA (alone), and how many suffering infants does that make? What about the tens of thousands of genital mutilations, which, according to your lights, are not “properly executed”. Don’t they count?

Comment by Rood Andersson — April 6, 2011 @ 7:57 pm

Nelson Mandela said his circumcision was blinding white pain of electrical fir that burned throughout all his veins.
90% of infant male circumcisions are done without any anesthetics to healthy (and on some unhealthy) babies. This is just plain old torture worse than the cigarette burning foreskin used by the Viet Con. Really creepy that it is done because the parents like the look of their boy’s penis better.

Comment by Frank McGinness — April 6, 2011 @ 9:03 pm

How is death for a complication? Over 100 baby boys die each year in the USA alone from circumcision! I am glad that other commenters have posted the truth about UTIs and STDs.
As a man whom somebody forcibly mutilated just after birth, I can tell you that I am at zero risk for STDs by my behaviour choices! I would much rather be WHOLE the way that God had made me so that I could experience loving sex the way that He had designed it to be. Circumcision leaves the penis almost entirely numb to pleasure, yet irritatingly exposed to friction and pain.
Parents and doctors have every duty to protect their children from harms like circumcision!

Comment by Gregor — April 6, 2011 @ 9:15 pm

“I know it is morally wrong, and illogical, but I’m sorry, I can’t date/have sexual relations with an uncircumcised man… I will be having my sons circumcised…”
Mandi, it is one thing to have a fetish with a consenting adult, but it is pretty sick to force your sex fetish onto children, especially permanently.

Comment by Gregor — April 6, 2011 @ 9:20 pm

To respond to a few of the above inaccuracies:

“Minuscule, perhaps, Ms. Gluck, unless you are one of the thousands to suffer? Multiply 0.2% and 0.6% times the estimated one million male infants forced to suffer genital mutilation every year in the USA (alone), and how many suffering infants does that make?” — In fairness, most complications are minor and trivial to treat, so the vast majority of these cases the patient would never know that they had occurred.

“90% of infant male circumcisions are done without any anesthetics to healthy (and on some unhealthy) babies.” — this is incorrect. Even back in 1998, Stang and Snellman found that 45% of physicians surveyed used anaesthesia (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9606247); however the number is increasing and in the most recent study it was found that use of anaesthesia was taught in 97% of cases (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16843252).

“How is death for a complication? Over 100 baby boys die each year in the USA alone from circumcision!” — incorrect, as explained above above.

Comment by Jake — April 7, 2011 @ 10:39 am

So, because the victim survives, this is YOUR definition of minor? What gives YOU the authority to create this self-serving definition? Since this is a completely unnecessary procedure, how can you morally justify ANY complication?

As for deaths, how can you justify even ONE death?

Funny that there are conflicting studies, but YOU believe YOURS are automatically valid and others are automatically invalid..just how is this supposed to work?

Gluck quotes that ridiculous risk rate of 0.2 to 0.6% from that idiotic “study” by Christakis who admits that this number is worthless–and which completely ignores more valid evidence that shows much higher risk rates:

1. iatrogenic Phimosis 2.9%

2. Adhesions 71%

3. Meatal ulcers 31%

3. Meatal stenosis 8%

4. infection up to 10%

5. Bleeding <35%

BTW, when can we expect you to provide evidence to support your speculation about this "direct stimulation" apologia? Or do you plan on just ignoring those posts you cannot or choose not to address?

Comment by Robert Samson — April 7, 2011 @ 3:06 pm

Hey, Jake would you like some NEWER data?

A recent retrospective study was performed at a top hospital in Chicago.
Publlshed October 11, 2004, by Peggy Peck, this study is titled “Analgesia Underused for Management of Circumcision Pain”.

In this study, a researcher went back through 5 years (1999-2004) of hospital records and checked whether anesthetic use had been recorded.

Out of 108 circumcisions, only 8 were marked for anesthetic.

The researcher couldn’t believe it, so they checked the pharmacy charts to see whether anesthetic had been ordered.

They found that anesthetic had been ordered from the pharmacy, for only 35%-40% of circumcisions.

An excerpt from the study:

Of 191 male infants identified in the review of 400 charts, “56% underwent circumcision,” …..
…..
All circumcisions were performed by obstetricians. “Dorsal penile block was used in seven infants and subcutaneous ring block was used in one infant,”…

….Another telling finding, he said, was that the medical charts indicated no discussion of circumcision pain management with parents.

Comment by Robert Samson — April 7, 2011 @ 3:18 pm

““How is death for a complication? Over 100 baby boys die each year in the USA alone from circumcision!” — incorrect, as explained above above.”

Good, now do you plan on providing data on deaths INDIRECTLY from unnecessary circumcisions?

Lying on autopsy reports attributing them to other SUBSEQUENT causes is like saying “he who touched it last, broke it”.

This is a cop out to say the least.

Would you like some DOCUMENTED cases–have quite a few for you, if interested.

Comment by Robert Samson — April 7, 2011 @ 3:23 pm

Anyone up to the challenge?

“Here is the challenge– can anyone provide a single benefit for circumcision that satisfies these crucial requirements?”

Comment by Robert Samson — April 6, 2011 @ 9:28 am

Comment by Robert Samson — April 7, 2011 @ 3:26 pm

If an adult person is held down against their will and genitally cut this is considered, by law, an aggravated sexual assault. When this same action is done to an infant or child it passes by without the law stepping in because of a tradition of cutting children in this manner. Education about circumcision and its harms, and the benefits of being intact are readily becoming public knowledge, this is reflected in the rapid rise in baby boys (60+ %) who are being left intact in the USA.

The doctors who are still promoting genital cutting of children, as you see here, are being willfully ignorant of normal sexual function, normal genital anatomy and the human rights of their unwilling patients. These doctors make a great deal of money slicing erogenous tissue form baby boy’s penises, and also selling that tissue to pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies.

Parents who hand their perfectly formed newborns over to such charlatans need to be better informed.

One enthusiastic supporter here is a known cir-cum-fetishist who eroticizes circumcision to such a degree that he encourages parents to do the same to their children.

One day soon this will be looked upon as the abuses to children within the Catholic Church are now viewed.

I appreciate that this dreadful article has been posted. It is evidence that another doctor is guilty of ignoring the Hippocratic Oath and proceeding to violate children’s genitals under the guise of medicine. Eventually he law will not look kindly at this, public awareness is already reflecting what’s to come.

Comment by James Loewen — April 7, 2011 @ 3:27 pm

When it is reasonable to remove female genital parts, male circumcision will be reasonable. Ethical? No. Why? Since when has taking something which does not belong to you been ethical? 50% of the skin of a penis? That, indeed, is robbery. Any alleged benefits can be accrued by washing, the same as women do, and by wearing a condom. The solution is not amputation of a healthy body part which belongs to someone else. All these people who say, “I had it done to my sons, and they are fine” make me ill. For each one of them, there is someone in silence, with a hidden penis, scrotum hair on their penis, meatal stenosis, a pitted glans, a painful erection, and a host of other preventable problems.
There is no medical justification. Let him make the decision when he’s old enough, just exactly like all of his other body parts. Why is circumcision the exception to all logic, ethics, and behavior. You have two kidneys at birth. Try taking someone’s baby’s kidney, and they throw you in jail, and rightfully so, Why is it OK to rob a man of half the skin of his penis, in the name of studies which are accepted by no accredited, peer-reviewed medical society? Sick stuff.
Just put down the knife, and no one will get hurt.

Comment by Tom Tobin — April 7, 2011 @ 10:18 pm

Let’s examine Jake’s claims closely:

“Even back in 1998, Stang and Snellman found that 45% of physicians surveyed used anaesthesia ; however the number is increasing (where is the evidence for this?) and in the most recent study it was found that use of anaesthesia was taught in 97% of cases

TAUGHT, but where is the evidence they actually USED it?

Jake is trying to show something exists with obfuscation.

Comment by Robert Samson — April 8, 2011 @ 9:27 am

The moral and ethical bankruptcy of circumcision becomes obvious when the fundamental and crucial questions are asked:

Since circumcision has not been proven to be necessary, how does one morally and ethically justify it?

How is ANY unnecessary complication, ANY unnecessary pain, ANY unnecessary risks, ANY unnecessary harm and/or damage,or ANY unnecessary deaths from an unnecessary procedure ethically and morally justified?

Comment by Robert Samson — April 8, 2011 @ 9:38 am

Samantha Gluck said: ^^ in fact, the largest study to date, in which more than 1,300 healthy adult volunteers were circumcised, reported that 64% of men found that they had increased sensitivity after circumcision. See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18761593 ^^

Here’s what the actual study says: ^^ rates of any reported sexual dysfunction decreased from 23.6% and 25.9% at baseline to 6.2% and 5.8% at conclusion, in circumcised men and controls, respectively ^^

Do you NOT SEE how worthless this study is? The control group improved more (despite no intervention) than the cut men? Whatever the cause of their improvement, it WAS NOT circumcision.

This is a PERFECT example of ignorance, and cherry picking seemingly “scientific” numbers to tell a bold lie.

Foreskin feels REALLY good.

But no matter what I think or what you think or what any adult thinks about breast augmentation, pierced tongues, lip-stretching plates, or foreskin amputation; nobody has a moral right to force cosmetic surgery on a healthy normal infant. Even if the next 1000 adults you talk to have nipple rings and love them, you can’t justify nipple rings for a baby.

Comment by Ron Low — May 8, 2011 @ 1:40 am

It still astounds me that any rational person can even believe that removing the majority of the penile nerves CAN possible INCREASE sensation. We have logic, and it dictates lost nerves = lost sensation.

Some people mistake mental issues and baggage issues with reality.

BRITISH JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, Volume 77, Pages 291-295,February 1996.
The prepuce: Specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision
by J.R. Taylor, A.P. Lockwood and A.J. Taylor

Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis Morris L. Sorrells, James L. Snyder, Mark D. Reiss 2 0 07 BJU INTERNATIONAL 2007

Comment by Robert Samson — May 14, 2011 @ 9:14 am

Samantha Gluck, your article stated “The majority of pediatricians agree that circumcision provides your baby with a lifetime of health benefits”

You did not include the American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement on routine infant circumcision in which they do NOT recommend circumcision. There is not a single US, Canadian, Australian, Japanese, European medical association that recommends routine circumcision.

Comment by Ian — June 27, 2011 @ 9:11 pm

“Adult male circumcision: effects on sexual function and sexual satisfaction in Kisumu, Kenya”

A problem with comparing recently-circumcised with neonatally-circumcised men is that recent patients have not had an additional two decades for the glans to harden. This hardening is clearly seen in pictures.

Comment by Ian — June 29, 2011 @ 9:03 pm

Great article. To those who call it mutilation I disagree. The penis isn’t the easiest thing on the eye to begin with but I definitely think that circumcised looks better. Besides you guys can’t work out whether it is mutilation or cosmetic surgery. Make up your mind!

Even if it were otherwise I suspect mutilation is meant as a rhetorical device just like the use of amputation. I note that some medical definitions of amputation don’t even fit the removal of a flap of skin (eg. removing an organ enclosed in skin).

To those who quote Sorrell’s study I note that it was commissioned by an anti-circumcision organisation and a peer review found the results didn’t match the conclusions. In this regard, the only reason there is such a flap over the foreskin is that the anti-circumcision groups are lucky to have a very unrepresentative amount of money. The founder of one group is so wealthy that he donated $1million in 2008 alone. That enables a rather unique perspective to get ubiquitously broadcasted and promoted.

Getting back to the pleasure issue… the latest research has found that circumcision improves sexual pleasure for men. Getting that flap of skin out of the way does wonders apparently.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/surgical-vaccine-helping-stop-hiv/story-e6frg6so-1226098865549

Pete,

Lets be frank any medical organization that believes that there is no clear evidence of a medical benefit from circumcision is not adequately on top of the science. Fortunately a number of medical organizations do recognize that the benefits are possible.

“No medical organization in the world says that infant male circumcision does more good than harm. I think people should trust what medical organizations say about infant male circumcision more than what Samantha Gluck and individuals say about it.”

That all depends on whether or not they get it right and how much confidence can be had in your cherry picked albeit influential collection. The second most recent policy of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (and current until recently) was prepared by a working party of 5. While discussing circumcision of circumcision of newborn male infants they advised:

“The true incidence of major complications after newborn circumcision is unknown but is reported to be from between 0.2% and 0.6% to 2%-10%”

The reference for the first range they cited claimed a complication rate in that range and stated that most such complications were minor (not major). I note that this was based on large series studies. One took 10 years. The second reference was a comment in a paper. Its references were to 3 other papers. One was similarly just an estimate citing other papers. Another had a sample size of only 140 and did not specifically deal with newborn circumcision (mean age 4.3). The third is a 1953 paper I have not accessed but I know someone who worked as a nurse in those days and observed a very intoxicated doctor performing the procedure (with mishap). Things have changed a lot since then. The paper the RACP cited for the second range was also an estimate of general complications not major ones. There is no need to assume dishonesty as they might have sourced the information on one of the many unreliable anti-circumcision websites. But can we assume that the information from medical organizations must be trustworthy?

It is noteworthy that their only attempt to do a cost-benefit analysis of circumcision used a risk estimate of 2% in spite of the above problem. It considered Urinary Tract Infections. Based on their figures for the incidence it argued that taking a taking a “2% (20 per 1,000) for major complications from circumcision” meant that “for every 1,000 infants circumcised, about eight fewer will develop a UTI but 20 will develop a significant complication.”

The current policy from (I have heard) an 8 member working party chaired by a paediatric gastro-intestinal specialist holds that the foreskin is the “primary sensory part of the penis”. As discussed above that is nonsense. Again can we just take it for granted that medical organization policies are trustworthy. I say no.

If you want opinion from someone with a knowledge of the cutting edge research there is a website from a medical research scientist with 280 published papers on the topic but you won’t like it. http://www.circinfo.net

There is a tiny risk for vaccination and circumcision but both maximise a child’s chances of enjoying the best attainable health and are very ethical. Some parents may elect not to do it (typically due to misinformation) and that is their choice but preventative medicine is not only ethical but adviseable.

Comment by Michael — August 12, 2011 @ 2:43 am

Correction:

Apart from the obvious typographical error I should have noted that I disagree that:

“”“No medical organization in the world says that infant male circumcision does more good than harm. I think people should trust what medical organizations say about infant male circumcision more than what Samantha Gluck and individuals say about it.”

The WHO for example obviously thinks otherwise or they wouldn’t promote infant circumcision in Africa.

As regards your cherry picked albeit influential collection that all depends on whether or not they get it right and how much confidence we can have in their policies.

Comment by Michael — August 12, 2011 @ 2:51 am