How Do You Feel About Circumcision?

[Shakesthecoffecan]

To my knowledge, this issue has never been discussed here at Bettermost. I would like to throw it out there and see what happens, and I will come back and weigh in with my thoughts.

[CellarDweller]

dont' matter to me, cut or uncut.

[moremojo]

It depends on the context. I am opposed to circumcision being performed on the helpless and uninformed, for any reason, whether it be "hygienic" or religious. The cruel truth of the matter is that most circumcisions are medically unnecessary, and represent an attack on sexuality and pleasure (however subliminal this motive may be).

On the other hand, some circumcisions do serve to enhance an individual's life. King Louis XVI of France suffered from a condition in which his foreskin would not contract when he became erect, making erections painful and impossible to sustain. As a result, his marriage to Marie Antoinette remained unconsummated for some eight years, until his physicians removed the foreskin, enabling the King to father the royal children that the state demanded from him. This would be one (relatively rare) example where circumcision can be medically justified.

For the record, I myself am circumcized. My mother agreed to the procedure very soon after I was born because my father had been circumcized, and she didn't want there to be a physical discrepancy between father and son (a frankly stupid, if frequently invoked reason for pursuing the procedure). And circumcision does not detract from a man's attractiveness in my eyes--but I can speak from experience that homosex is a lot more fun and sensual when at least one foreskin is present!

[delalluvia]

I'm rather conflicted about it.

If the parents feel they are going to be lazy about keeping their baby sons clean and will not keep after him as a child to clean himself correctly, then perhaps circumcision is preferable as a hygiene issue.  The child's health is at stake.

Otherwise I see no reason for a boy to have one.

If it's for a religious reason, then sure it should be an option, but he should make that decision as an adult, not have it done to him as a child.

[moremojo]

well, it is not an easy decision to make!!

Why, what is so hard about it? And remember, however hard it may be for the parent to decide, it is the child who has to live with the results.

[moremojo]

Sure, I can understand all these conflicting messages and thoughts. But I can say for myself, as a male on whom it was performed, that I would have been better off being left alone. My mother watched the procedure being performed, and said that I made no sound during it, but I have read that a baby in shock can "shut down" and remain silent; at any rate, I sincerely doubt that there is no pain at all involved (in all fairness, I certainly have no memory of the event).

I guess to my mind the bottom line is that you are changing a human being's body permanently, and doing so on a helpless, uninformed infant is pretty dire. Let the person make the decision for themselves as they become cognizant of their choices (they wouldn't necessarily have to wait until adulthood for this).

[MaineWriter]

My husband and I made the decision to not have our son circumcised when he was born. Basically, as a nurse, I had seen the procedure done many times and I can tell you, it is apparent it is painful for the infant. My husband and I also believe it is unnecessary.

Recently, I had a moment to talk privately and confidentially with my son (he is 19 now) and asked him if any of the things people use as reasons had ever been issues for him, ie, cleanliness, "not looking like his father," "being made fun of in gym class," etc. He said, quite emphatically, NO.

I believe we made the right decision and from what my son said to me, he agrees.

L

[Jeff Wrangler]

Of course many gay men feel it's a plus to be uncut. ...

I went with "no opinion." 

I'm cut. I don't feel I was harmed by it.

Come to think of it, I don't know whether my father is cut, or not--and, please God, I won't be finding out! 

[CellarDweller]

I'm cut. I don't feel I was harmed by it.

same here.

[Shakesthecoffecan]

ouch!

 

well, it is not an easy decision to make!!

Yikes, I, who scored 65% on the impusliveness register and rarly think thinks thru just realized, (surprise) we have parents here who have made that decision.

So, let me ask for a ground rule here, no condemation of anyone actions. Okay? We are talking about this in GENERAL.

Thank kew.

[Shakesthecoffecan]

Okay, I'll ad my 2 cents, and I sure do miss that cent symbol.

I was circumcised at birth because the doctors told parents it was the thing to do and most of them went along with it. I have never know any different so I can say it has never had any effect on me until I started reading about it and got to wondering about the effect it has on the newborn. Have seen pictures of their reaction to it. Also the child has just gone thru a very difficult time being born and once things have finally settled down, pow.

Leslie, could you tell us if there is any kind of "anesthesia" involved?

Now, let me throw this in, and I do not have cooberating documentation, I heard this in the news a few years ago: women whose husbands are uncircumcised are apparently more likely to have cervical cancer. Still I think that with that connection known steps could be taken to reduce the HPV transmission.

So bottom line: I am against it.

[Jeff Wrangler]

not a lot of skinnydipping at your house? My hubby and son sport all over tans all summer
 

Honey, we're Lutherans. ...     

[MaineWriter]

Leslie, could you tell us if there is any kind of "anesthesia" involved?

Truman, I have not worked in the nursery in quite a few years so my first hand experience is old. My understanding is that there is more realization that infants do experience pain. Do they use anesthesia for circumcision? I suspect in some facilities, yes; others no. For any parent (or potential parent) reading this thread, I suggest you do some research and ask questions. These are very important issues.

Here is a resource that I will post for all of you. I will acknowledge that they are obviously very anti-circ but I find their information reliable and credible and I agree with their conclusions.

http://www.cirp.org/library/history/

L

[injest]

Okay, I'll ad my 2 cents, and I sure do miss that cent symbol.

I was circumcised at birth because the doctors told parents it was the thing to do and most of them went along with it. I have never know any different so I can say it has never had any effect on me until I started reading about it and got to wondering about the effect it has on the newborn. Have seen pictures of their reaction to it. Also the child has just gone thru a very difficult time being born and once things have finally settled down, pow.

Leslie, could you tell us if there is any kind of "anesthesia" involved?

Now, let me throw this in, and I do not have cooberating documentation, I heard this in the news a few years ago: women whose husbands are uncircumcised are apparently more likely to have cervical cancer. Still I think that with that connection known steps could be taken to reduce the HPV transmission.
So bottom line: I am against it.

I understand that to be true. He has to be careful to stay clean...

also some evidence say that uncircumcised men are less likely to contract VD...in particular HIV. There are organizations in Africa that are encouraging men to get circumcised because of these findings.

[delalluvia]

Honey, we're Lutherans. ...     

 

[LauraGigs]

also some evidence say that uncircumcised men are less likely to contract VD...in particular HIV. There are organizations in Africa that are encouraging men to get circumcised because of these findings.

You mean circumcised men are less likely to contract VD/HIV?

I was asking b/c you said un.

[southendmd]

Leslie, that resource you posted starts by calling it "male genital mutilation":  not exactly unbiased!

I have very limited experience, but the risk of penile cancer is significanly reduced by neonatal circumcision (and not by adult circumcision).  Penile cancer is very rare in the US, but is a significant problem in other countries such as Uganda, India and Brazil. 

I believe that local anesthesia can (and probably should) be used for newborns. 

The problem with leaving it up to the child is that the procedure, which is relatively simple for a newborn, then becomes major surgery, often requiring general anesthesia, which has its own risks.

[serious crayons]

I'm uncomfortable with this whole debate (not here on BetterMost; I mean out in the world). My sons are both circumcised. My husband is circumcised, wanted his sons to be circumcised, and considered the decision pretty automatic. I didn't argue.

I don't have strong feelings one way or another about this issue, in general. Or rather, I can see both sides. Research seems to indicate it's healthier, but not doing it is obviously more "natural" and less painful for the infant.

But what I really care about is my sons' feelings. I really don't want them to grow up thinking they've been mutilated, or that there's something wrong with them (so far, thank God, at 11 and 13, they've never mentioned it). If nobody makes a big deal about it, everything will be fine. So whenever I hear anyone loudly opposing circumcision, I just want to tell them to shut up. (Clarification: I don't mean people on this thread, who've been asked to share their opinions.)

Here's a story from Slate containing a pretty neutral examination of all the issues:

http://www.slate.com/id/2124770/

Here, from a different story in Slate, are some data about the HIV study:

Four years ago, an analysis of 38 studies by the U.S. Agency for International Development, mostly in Africa, concluded that circumcised men were less than half as likely as uncircumcised men to get HIV, apparently because of the susceptibility of foreskin. Last fall, reporting on a randomized controlled trial in South Africa, scientists found that circumcision reduced female-to-male transmission by 60 percent. "Male circumcision provides a degree of protection against acquiring HIV infection, equivalent to what a vaccine of high efficacy would have achieved," they wrote. It was, they observed, "the first experimental study demonstrating that surgery can be used to prevent an infectious disease."

BTW, I was wondering how on earth there was any way to figure out how circumcision affected sexual satisfaction. But here, again from Slate, is a story about an informal poll of men who'd been circumcised as adults. The results suggested (though with numerous caveats) that circumcision improved sex.

http://www.slate.com/id/2136062/

Excerpt:

Of the 79 men who'd experienced sex snipped and unsnipped, 43 said sex improved (55 percent) after their circumcisions, 23 said it went downhill (29 percent), and 13 said there was no change or a mix of pros and cons (16 percent). Click here to read women and gay men compare sex with snipped and unsnipped partners.

My numbers don't differ much from the latest research: Based on a sample of 84 men who'd been circumcised as adults for medical reasons, a 2005 article in Urologia Internationalis found a 61 percent satisfaction rate, with 38 percent saying that penile sensation improved after the procedure, 18 percent saying it got worse, and the rest reporting no change. "No consensus exists regarding the role of the foreskin in sexual performance and satisfaction," the article's urologist authors wrote.

Nor, I think, is a consensus likely to emerge. A couple of readers wrote in to argue that my survey and others like it inevitably tilt positive, because anyone snipped as an adult would want to think the ordeal had a purpose. Maybe so. On the other hand, as Australian doctor and circumcision researcher Robin Willcourt pointed out to me, men who decide they've suffered a loss may be all the more vocal.

I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions about bias. My own sense is that as much as nerve endings, friction, or any other physical factor, what matters for feelings about sex are the reasons a man decides to undergo circumcision, his attitude toward his penis before the procedure, and the reaction of his partners afterward. I'm not sure how much light data can shed on this personal realm.

[MaineWriter]

Leslie, that resource you posted starts by calling it "male genital mutilation":  not exactly unbiased!

I know! But in my own defense, I did say that it was an anti-circ group.

L

[louisev]

isnt penile cancer caused by HPV?  And isnt there a vaccine against that now that they are recommending in Britain to be given to men to prevent penile and anal cancer?

[Scott6373]

It's an unnecessary procedure, and therefore, anyone who cannot weigh the pros and cons of it on their own should not be forced into having it done.  I know that parents do this as a matter of course, and for what they are lead to believe are very good reasons, but to me it seems cruel.  Odd thing is...I don't prefer uncircumcised men...go figure.

[Scott6373]

And there is some discrimination too.   I know some cut guys who won't have sex with an uncut guy.
For some it is just a preference.   

Just how is this discrimination?  I've never heard of equal opportinity sexual activity, and if it did exist, I would be celibate.

[Jeff Wrangler]

I have talked to some friends about it.    Some circumcized guys expressed jealousy of uncut guys because they say being cut reduces their sensativity during sex.

This is what I commonly hear, or read, in gay male sources as the chief argument against circumcision 

And there is some discrimination too.   I know some cut guys who won't have sex with an uncut guy.
For some it is just a preference.   

Just how is this discrimination?  I've never heard of equal opportinity sexual activity, and if it did exist, I would be celibate.

I think I see your point, but when you hear, "Eeeew, he's uncut!" it sounds to me more like discrimination than just a preference.

[Scott6373]

LOL,  true, but there is a difference between "preference" and "Discrimination".

I've heard some guys say they would never date an uncut guy because they heard it was unsanitary.  Which is different than say a visual preference.

But...my preference was born from less than pleasant personal experience.  It's not like this type of activity is something you can "give another shot".  I mean...if I did that...holy crap.

[serious crayons]

It's interesting that people are pooh-poohing the importance of boys looking like their fathers, when what brought us all here in the first place is a movie based on a story about guy who, as a kid, found out he didn't look like his father and was traumatized by the discovery.

I'm just finding this interesting and coincidental, not using it as an argument one way or another about circumcision. I don't know that having matching penises would be a big deal, myself. Boys don't look like their fathers in all kinds of ways.

But Annie Proulx, having undoubtedly heard the standard justification, must have thought it made enough sense to put it in the story. Of course, she's a woman.

[Jeff Wrangler]

But...my preference was born from less than pleasant personal experience.  It's not like this type of activity is something you can "give another shot".  I mean...if I did that...holy crap.

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here, but the foreskin can be restored through plastic surgery.

[Penthesilea]

I read Katherine's links, which I found to be very good, especially the first one.

I personally am against Circumcision. But I didn't vote yet, since I find the wording of "barbaric and inhumane" too strong (guess I'll probably take this option still).
And I live in a society, were C. is pretty unusual. In Germany, Jewish and Muslim boys undergo C., and there are medical reasons for it (phimosis, but even this is in discussion) and that's it. I've seen only one circumcised man in my life.


Some arguments which were brought up:

1) C. lessens the risk of HIV infections: first, there is not much statistic material yet. For example, many people believe that C. prevents women of circumcised men from cervix cancer. This theory was proven by a study in the 1950ies - but no study ever managed to repeat the results of this study. That study has compared Jewish women to women married to uncircumcised men. Today's scientific assumption is that the lifestyle of the Jewish men and women was simply different (less sexual partners overall).
(Additional note: I've read this on German medical info pages, I don't have any English sources for it. You can either believe it, or look it up yourself, or decide to not believe it)

Even if C. lessens the risk for HIV to a good deal (most sources speak of 60%), it is not a safe method for preventing HIV infection by any means. Additional protection is needed (condoms). Therefore, mass C. could backfire by the way of less cautious behaviour. The negative effects of less cautious sexual behaviour could outdo the positive effects of mass C.
The countries mass C. is recommended for, are among the poorest with bad medical standards. Therefore the medical risks of C. would be much higher than they are in more developed countries. Thus the positive effects for general health of a society could be outdone by infections directly caused by C.

2) Health benefits apart from the relatively new HIV protection discussion: I personally agree with the American Academy of Pediatrics:
Quote from the article in Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2124770/, K's link)

According to the latest policy statement on circumcision by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the potential medical benefits of snipping aren't great enough to recommend it routinely.

3) Sons should not look different from their father: Why?
To be honest, this argument astonishes me the most. It would never have come to my mind if my husband were circumcised (again: I live in a society where C. is very unusual, so maybe the thought would have occurred to me if I were American).
Little boys do look different from their fathers anyway (and daughters from their mothers). The genitalia of children look different from the ones of adults.
And children look different from their parents in so many ways: blonde hair/dark hair; blue eyes/brown eyes; you name it. So what is the reason boys should not look different from their fathers regarding C.?


Additionally, I read that most C. on newborns in the US are still done without anesthesia (55%, according to wikipedia). I think this is cruel.

Apart from all (more or less) scientific arguments, my feeling is that the foreskin is there for a reason. I don't think half of mankind is born defective (the above mentioned article voices the same thought).
You don't mess with your child's physical inviolability unless you have to. I personally would also not get earpiercings done for a small child.


I see K's last post in the preview: the thought of Jack and OMT came also to my mind  

[Scott6373]

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here, but the foreskin can be restored through plastic surgery.

Ok...bluntly put...I've enjoyed (sort of) the company of men who were not circumcized.  I found the experience less than fullfilling, for mostly hygenic reasons.  Now I can't go out and "try them again"...unless I want an even worse rep than the one I have.

[Pipedream]

I'm very much with Chrissi here.

As far as I know, little German boys are usually only circumsized for medical reasons, i.e. as a treatment for phimosis. Nobody in my family had a circumcision, and I only know of two or three men among my friends who actually had one. Since my hometown had an U.S. Army garrison for decades, many girls (or guys) probably learned that there was such a thing as circumcision for the first time through their GI boyfriends... 

 
 

[Jeff Wrangler]

Ok...bluntly put...I've enjoyed (sort of) the company of men who were not circumcized.  I found the experience less than fullfilling, for mostly hygenic reasons.  Now I can't go out and "try them again"...unless I want an even worse rep than the one I have.

Sorry, I thought you were talking about having it "put back"! 

(I've found the experience "less than fulfilling," too.)

[Penthesilea]

It's interesting that people are pooh-poohing the importance of boys looking like their fathers, when what brought us all here in the first place is a movie based on a story about guy who, as a kid, found out he didn't look like his father and was traumatized by the discovery.

C'mon, sistah. I know that you know better than that 
Do you really think Jack would have been traumatisized, had he discovered the difference during a casual "who can pee farthest" competition between himself and his loving and caring father?

[serious crayons]

Just to throw this into the mix, there are some body parts that aren't necessary. Appendixes, for one. And I think tonsils perform some minor function, but obviously aren't crucial. Both those body parts cause more problems than they solve.

If appendixes and tonsils were easier to get to without general anesthesia, maybe newborns would have those things removed, too.

[Penthesilea]

Just to throw this into the mix, there are some body parts that aren't necessary. Appendixes, for one. And I think tonsils perform some minor function, but obviously aren't crucial. Both those body parts cause more problems than they solve.

Not true. At least not for tonsils. They do have an important role in immune defense, and today they aren't removed without a strong indication to do so.
Of course you are right that they are not crucial. But the same is true for earlobes (just the bottom part). But you wouldn't let it be cut off.

[serious crayons]

Of course you are right that they are not crucial. But the same is true for earlobes (just the bottom part). But you wouldn't let it be cut off.

Well, I did let my earlobes be mutilated --once on one side and three times on the other. That's because my culture considers that particular form of mutilation attractive. If the culture deemed earlobe removal attractive, who knows, maybe I'd have done that.

I think, health questions aside, that's a lot of what this discussion is about.

[Penthesilea]

Well, I did let my earlobes be mutilated -- three times, on one side. That's because my culture considers that particular form of mutilation attractive. If the culture deemed earlobe removal attractive, who knows, maybe I'd have done that.

He he, same here. Three earpiercings on the left side, two on the right. But I decided it myself. I would not do it with my small child. Not one single earpiercing. My oldest daughter had to beg for years to get her earlobes pierced, she was nine when I finally gave in.

My point was in reply to your comment about appendixes or tonsils possibly being removed often, if they were easier to get out. I don't think so.
Apart from C. and female mutilation (and we don't need to discuss the latter), very few cultures cut off less important body parts. In fact, the only example I can think of are African tribes which put (huge) holes in their earlobes and lower lips or stretch their necks (but even they don't cut something off).

I think, health questions aside, that's a lot of what this discussion is about.

This goes with David going back to the original question: how do you feel about C. ?(I know he made a joke, but nevertheless)
 - I don't like it. I think you should not cut off any body parts from your children if not necessary. Hell, I'm even against cutting off tails, ears or claws from dogs and cats, so why would I mess with my children's genitals?
But of course, my feelings are affected by the culture I've grown up in.


Whole different thing is a deliberate decision by an adult male. If my husband liked to get a C. - well, it's his foreskin, so he is to decide. (BTW: he cringes by the mere thought of it  )

[Penthesilea]

  But in some cases where people have large tonsils, they can cause more problems.    Increased occurances of Strep throat, etc.

Yup. My daughters tonsils were so big, they pressed on the eustachian tube, so her ears couldn't be aerated properly. Therefore she had many otitis media and her hearing was impaired by it. Her tonsils were removed.
If it is "only" increased occurances of strep thorat, doctors ususally wait to see if the child does outgrow it. But of course, in every case it has to be an individual decision.

[Shakesthecoffecan]

ROFLOL!!!!!!!!      

I guess you have to be another Lutheran to really appreciate that comment! 

I hear ya Jeff!

I think I need to look into the Lutheran Church a little closer! 

[Shakesthecoffecan]

I personally am against Circumcision. But I didn't vote yet, since I find the wording of "barbaric and inhumane" too strong (guess I'll probably take this option still).

Yeah, I acknowledge I did word that a tad strong. I'll put a little more thought into it next time.

[Shakesthecoffecan]

Regarding the passage in the short Story Brokeback Mountain, I found the aformention passage about Jack being "dick clipped" one of the lesser needed. Proulx says that Jack saw his father had material he didn't have and there was no way of making it right with him. Ths coud get off on a whole new tangent, but I never really understood why that was in there.

[serious crayons]

I don't think it's too OT, since it combines the subject of the thread with the subject of the whole website. 

Personally, I don't like this scene. But I think it's intended to symbolize Jack discovering the more important difference between him and his father, sexually.

Actually, on second thought, I'm going to shut up now, because my thoughts are veering toward comments that are probably better expressed on the Open Forum, perhaps in a TOTW.

[Jeff Wrangler]

I think I need to look into the Lutheran Church a little closer! 

Maybe not, bud. I made that remark in response to Jess more or less askin' if my daddy and I ever went skinny-dippin', like her husband and her son.

No way. We're Lutherans, and Lutherans are sort of known for being dull and strait-laced. No skinny-dippin' around our place.

[delalluvia]

It's interesting that people are pooh-poohing the importance of boys looking like their fathers, when what brought us all here in the first place is a movie based on a story about guy who, as a kid, found out he didn't look like his father and was traumatized by the discovery.

I guess some do not consider this very important.

Yes, Jack was traumatized by not looking like his father, but you know as well as I, that different looking dicks were the least of Jack's problems in that household.  It may have simply been something Jack fixated on and thus associated with other more troubling events in his childhood and later was symbolic to him (and we readers) as a difference in sexuality.

Kids traumatized by not looking like their parents?    Yeah, OK.  But hey, some people were traumatized because Coke changed its flavor.

[Jeff Wrangler]

Kids traumatized by not looking like their parents?    Yeah, OK.  But hey, some people were traumatized because Coke changed its flavor.

Please! Don't remind me!

        

[Jeff Wrangler]

It was a dark time in our country.

I still light a candle on the anniversary of the return of Classic Coke...

 

I just did my best to block the whole sordid episode from my memory. 

[Lynne]

OK - here goes dipping my toe into a race in which I have no horse (namely a penis, nor a child with one!).

I voted opposed despite the strong wording because of this ritual's link with patriarchal religion.  First, I tend to lump circumcision in with old Judeo-Christian prohibitions against eating pork and shellfish.  I've always thought that these things were thought necessary in ancient times for health reasons but that modern societies know enough about sanitation, refrigeration, cleanliness, etc... that it should be a non-issue.

Then, there's the association with female 'circumcision' which to my mind is entirely indefensible.

The only thing I know - albeit one data point doesn't make a trend - is that when an adult male has the procedure because it is medically necessary, it is extremely painful and involves a much more extensive recovery period.  Imagine having the surgery, then having erections (not like guys can control that!), stitches breaking loose, pain, more pain...A really bad 2-3 weeks to go through, believe me, and I was just there for moral support!

[Kerry]

I put male circumcision in the precise same category as female circumcision. As such, I consider both to be entirely barbaric and unnecessary IMHO. The foreskin and the clitoris are essential parts of our anatomy and they are there for a purpose. And though I cannot speak with authority about all things clitoral (I am a gay male and it would be presumptuous of me to attempt to do so), I am certainly in a position to comment on the foreskin - or lack of it. Bottom line is that the foreskin is there to cover and protect a very important and sensitive part of the male anatomy.

[serious crayons]

Yes, Jack was traumatized by not looking like his father, but you know as well as I, that different looking dicks were the least of Jack's problems in that household.  It may have simply been something Jack fixated on and thus associated with other more troubling events in his childhood and later was symbolic to him (and we readers) as a difference in sexuality.

Yup. That was my exact point when I said, "I think it's intended to symbolize Jack discovering the more important difference between him and his father, sexually."

I put male circumcision in the precise same category as female circumcision.

Well, just to put things in perspective, here is some info about female circumcision, from Wikipedia:

The procedure, when performed without any anesthetic, can lead to death through shock from immense pain or excessive bleeding. The failure to use sterile medical instruments may lead to infections.

Other serious long term health effects are also common. These include urinary and reproductive tract infections, caused by obstructed flow of urine and menstrual blood, various forms of scarring and infertility. The first time having sexual intercourse will often be extremely painful, and infibulated women will need the labia majora to be opened, to allow their husband access to the vagina. This second cut, sometimes performed by the husband with a knife, can cause other complications to arise.

... According to the WHO criteria, all types of FGC (female genital cutting) were found to pose an increased risk of death to the baby (15% for Type I, 32% for Type II, and 55% for Type III). Mothers with FGC Type III were also found to be 30% more at risk for cesarean sections and had a 70% increase in postpartum hemorrhage compared to women without FGC. Estimating from these results, and doing a rough population estimate of mothers in Africa with FGC, an additional 10 to 20 per thousand babies in Africa die during delivery as a result of the mothers having undergone genital cutting.

... Whether or not a woman who has undergone FGC can achieve an orgasm, especially those who have had their clitoris excised, is a question that tends to have more than one answer. Hanny Lightfoot-Klein traveled throughout The Sudan (where Type III is the prevalent form of FGC, ~90%) in the early 1980s asking women who had FGC this very question: "How often do you experience orgasm?" following sexual intercourse with their husband.[41] Many of the women had no idea what an orgasm was, but others interviewed (especially if the surgery excised less tissue) not only insisted that they did achieve orgasm, ranging from 90% of the time when they were young to 10% of the time once they had children, but were open to talking about their experiences. They were able to describe in great detail exactly what an orgasm meant to them. ...About one-third of women interviewed said they experience some sexual sensitivity at the area of their scar as well as internally, whilst others reported only internally or only externally. ... There were also women who did not enjoy sex at all, as it was too painful or did not leave them with any feelings.

Lumping them together in some large, vague category of bodily mutilation (along with piercings and appendectomies and plastic surgery and whatever else) is one thing. But a direct comparison between the two isn't appropriate. To do so means being either overly alarmed about male circumcision or underly alarmed about female circumcision, which IMO is less like male circumcision than it is like castration.

[ifyoucantfixit]

 
     Ok I have not made my ideas known, and have been reading with rapt attention to the responses..I personally
think it is a choice that each family should be able to make without recriminations..I dont have a great deal of
input that is different than that which has been made.  I had my children circumcised, and it had nothing to do with
their fathers being or not being circumcised.  I thought it was a hygiene thing..I have heard all the aforementioned
health reasons.  And i think I will err on the side of that...If it is an error. Personally I dont think so.  but again that is
my opinion.
      But it seems to be going over the top, to me.  Comparing clitoral removal with foreskin circumcision is ridiculous.
A male can still enjoy sex, if the foreskin is removed.  It may or may not be as good..On the other hand some say
its no different..Its impossible to say.. for sure.   However women that have been circumcised, are never able to have
a good sexual experience..at least in most cases.  An earring piercing, is not equated with either one as far as i am
concerned.  Earring holes are able to grow back, so that is not the same as having a foreskin or a clitoris removed.
If a child says they want one and it is disallowed, it flies in the face of the ones that say it should be the childs decision.
It is a very personal thing and I feel it should be left to the person who has to make that decision..This is the same
interference in other peoples business, that saying the sexual preference is someone elses business .
      I would never call it a mutilation, its a personal choice..I am not too sure about an unqualified person doing it
though..I would always be afraid of the gruesome results that have been shown in medical pictures.   my 2 cents

[serious crayons]

Janice, I agree with everything you said.

[delalluvia]

Lumping them together in some large, vague category of bodily mutilation (along with piercings and appendectomies and plastic surgery and whatever else) is one thing. But a direct comparison between the two isn't appropriate. To do so means being either overly alarmed about male circumcision or underly alarmed about female circumcision, which IMO is less like male circumcision than it is like castration.

Not to go off on a tangent, but I agree here.  In fact, female genital mutilation is worse than castration.  A castrato can still have sexual intercourse and it be pleasant.

Yes, male circumcision can be called mutilation, the foreskin is there to protect the sensitve part of the penis - the glans or head.

Female genital mutilation includes removal of the clitoral hood (like a foreskin) and the clitoris - the equivalent in a man would be the same as chopping off the glans/head of the penis, the lovely sensitive part.  THAT would be a more like comparison.

[dot-matrix]

Personally I see no reason for it unless there is a medical problem that makes it or something similar necessary.  My husband is circumcised my brother is not.   My friends son had a problem and the doctors recommended circumcision but she being a nurse knew that all that was really needed was to free the foreskin making it more mobile.  The Doctors raise questions of hygeine which my friend said was not an issue for her since she is scruplous about hygeine with her children.  So it was agreed on and done with minimum fuss and pain, now the young man in question is 18 and has no problems.   

I do know from listen to folks and reading things here that this is indeed a touch a subject.  I came across this article I thought was very well written:

Circumcision: A Touchy Debate
To cut or not to cut? This divisive issue is coming to a head
By Linda Kirkham

It can be read here: http://www.jackinworld.com/library/articles/circ.html

[MaineWriter]

For people who are interested, I came across this resource on the history of circumcision.

http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/

[delalluvia]

  Can I borrow a Kidney later if I need one?     

Heh, that's what I was thinking.  Whatever you got two of, if you had to, you could still lose one and be functional. 

[delalluvia]

It's like, you pull back the wrapping, and there's a nice surprise inside!

And if they haven't been as clean as they should be, yeah, it'll be a big surprise alright. 

[LauraGigs]

And if they haven't been as clean as they should be, yeah, it'll be a big surprise alright.

Yeah...  wouldn't going down on an uncut one be, uh, tastier?  And not in a good way?

[MaineWriter]

Yeah...  wouldn't going down on an uncut one be, uh, tastier?  And not in a good way?

Why do you say that? It implies that uncircumsized men are less hygienic, or that keeping an uncirc-ed penis clean is much more difficult. Frankly, I don't think that's true, based on my experience with my son. We taught him what to do when he was little (just like we taught him how to blow his nose and wipe his ass). When he got older, his (male) pediatrician reinforced the teaching...and conveyed to me that my son was doing what he needed to do. No big deal....

This cleanliness issue is one of the "circumcision YES!" myths, IMHO.

L

[ifyoucantfixit]

       So now the ability to draw your own conclusion is being either  stupid or uptight. I disagree with that.
I never resort to name calling when talking about these issues.  So maybe we are now reverting to name calling and
spiteful words, instead of talk and discussion.   Thats unfortunate.. If i chose to make choices on the best information
I have available at the time...then I am stupid.......??  And have issues with bodily functions, and smells..TAL. I had four
babies to take care of.  And train, never mind the grandchildren..I am personally very well aware of those things, and
I am not at all afraid of them.
       I would never say anyones choice was wrong.  I would like the same respect, and regard. I know that everyone
who has had to make this decision did not make it, without serious thought.  It is a thing of private decision and deep
caring involved.  It is everyones personal right to choose..and certainly not my right to denegrate or talk hatefully
to people that have opposing ideas.

[dot-matrix]

And if they haven't been as clean as they should be, yeah, it'll be a big surprise alright. 

You're going to know that long before you pull back any foreskin.  If his hygene is so poor it won't just be his penis that is less than springtime fresh.  So if YOU get any unpleasant surprises you must have a cold or other olfactory issue that you might want to have checked.

       So now the ability to draw your own conclusion is being either  stupid or uptight. I disagree with that.
I never resort to name calling when talking about these issues.  So maybe we are now reverting to name calling and
spiteful words, instead of talk and discussion.   Thats unfortunate.. If i chose to make choices on the best information
I have available at the time...then I am stupid.......??  And have issues with bodily functions, and smells..TAL. I had four
babies to take care of.  And train, never mind the grandchildren..I am personally very well aware of those things, and
I am not at all afraid of them.
       I would never say anyones choice was wrong.  I would like the same respect, and regard. I know that everyone
who has had to make this decision did not make it, without serious thought.  It is a thing of private decision and deep
caring involved.  It is everyones personal right to choose..and certainly not my right to denegrate or talk hatefully
to people that have opposing ideas.

I agree with Janice, everyone here is entitled to their opinions based on their own life's experiences and no one deserves to be ridiculed for them.  We have some abrupt and opinionated folks around here who often speak their mind in a blunt manner without thinking about how it sounds to others.  If we expect to be treated with respect than we must give respect as well. Especially when discussing controversial topics.

 Just my 2 cents

[Pipedream]

Okay. Having read all this, I finally voted: It depends.  

[serious crayons]

We have some abrupt and opinionated folks around here who often speak their mind in a blunt manner without thinking about how it sounds to others.  If we expect to be treated with respect than we must give respect as well.

I think you're right, Dottie, that some folks are opinionated, say things bluntly, and don't realize how their words may be read. I agree, when writing about heated controversial topics -- and let's see now, in the past few days I've been involved in discussions here of circumcision, abortion, the death penalty, and whether almost all straight people are homophobic -- it pays to be very, very careful. And people aren't always careful but, in many cases, I don't think there is an intention to offend or show disrespect.

The words that, as I understand it, are in question in this case, I did not take personally, even though they were used by someone expressing an opinion opposite my own.

That's just MY 2 cents.

[Jeff Wrangler]

Why do you say that? It implies that uncircumsized men are less hygienic, or that keeping an uncirc-ed penis clean is much more difficult. Frankly, I don't think that's true, based on my experience with my son. We taught him what to do when he was little (just like we taught him how to blow his nose and wipe his ass). When he got older, his (male) pediatrician reinforced the teaching...and conveyed to me that my son was doing what he needed to do. No big deal....

This cleanliness issue is one of the "circumcision YES!" myths, IMHO.

L

Sure enough, but I'm guessing not all parents and not all pediatricians are as diligent about this as you were. Not everyone is fortunate enough to have a nurse for a mother. 

[louisev]

yeah but it isn't like cleaning a Swiss watch!

[LauraGigs]

Why do you say that? It implies that uncircumsized men are less hygienic, or that keeping an uncirc-ed penis clean is much more difficult . . .

This cleanliness issue is one of the "circumcision YES!" myths, IMHO.

Jesus, no need to jump on my case. I was just ASKING.

[dot-matrix]

Odor aside...wouldn't it become inflammed and painful over time if all that sweat
and smegma built up under there. 

How hard can it be to push back the foreskin in the shower or tub and lather
that bad boy up...I mean come on    I suppose we could draw diagrams for
the hygenically challenged..it could be a public service, free of charge 

[David In Indy]

Oy vey!! 

This is making me sick.   

I can't believe Jess is participating in this discussion! 

[Shasta542]

smegma

 

[MaineWriter]

Jesus, no need to jump on my case. I was just ASKING.

Sorry, I didn't mean to "jump on your case." Please accept my apologies if I came on too strong.

L

[Dagi]

Where I live circumcision is not common, so there's no need for a mother to think about whether she should have her sons circumcised or not, if there are no religious reasons that is.

I once saw a circumcision, had to assist holding the poor little baby. It was done  in the hospital I was working back then, and they did it according to medical standards, but without any anesthetics or painkillers. The baby screamed and cried afterwards, and I was quite mad at the doctor and yelled at him he should stop pretending it doesn't hurt, it was so obvious the boy was in pain, and how could he not be. How is it done in countries where it's common to circumcise?

My boys are not circumcised, although for one of them it's still not possible to retract the foreskin. He hasn't had any infections (whereas the other one already had an infection!), and there's literally nothing building up underneath it. And if a guy isn't hygienic, it's tasty in a bad sense anyway, circumcised or not, isn't ?

So, I don't see any reasons to circumcise. It should be left to the parents, and they should think thouroughly about their reason if the find one.

[Dagi]

You didn't mention how young the boys were, but the one who can't retract his foreskin yet will need to eventually.     Otherwise you'll hear him scream when he gets his first erection.       When flacid, it should be possible to retract for warshing.

He´s four and a half years old, and he does quite often have erections, and still the whole glans is covered with foreskin.It´s not painful for him.

[moremojo]

Smegma has been brought up here, and, while admitting that I've had no experience with that (in a sexual context or otherwise), I have read accounts of some men finding it erotic on their partners. The late Boyd McDonald's Straight to Hell chapbooks have many references to guys getting turned on by smegma (or "cheese", as many of them fondly referred to it). So just keep in mind...different strokes for different folks.

[ifyoucantfixit]

           uuuukkkkkkkkkkkkkk

[dot-matrix]

Smegma has been brought up here, and, while admitting that I've had no experience with that (in a sexual context or otherwise), I have read accounts of some men finding it erotic on their partners. The late Boyd McDonald's Straight to Hell chapbooks have many references to guys getting turned on by smegma (or "cheese", as many of them fondly referred to it). So just keep in mind...different strokes for different folks.

Oh definitely..Napoleon use to write to Josephine when he was on his way home and tell her to stop bathing. AND Mozart was know to have a fecal fetish. His letters to his wife are ripe with reference to her "shit" and where he wants it to reside. There are more things in heaven and earth then..blah, blah, blah....etc...etc..etc...

getting back on topic sorry but I have no idea if either was circumcised

[Scott6373]

Lord...can we discuss something else...like how to tie big ribbon bows, or needlecraft for beginners   

[moremojo]

That's news to me about Napoleon and Mozart...very interesting--thanks for that information, Dot (and no, I'm not being facetious here).

Add James Joyce to the list of famous people with unusual tastes...his letters to his wife Nora have references to his enjoyment of her stained knickers, as well as his savoring of her flatulence. The Marquis de Sade's works are brimming with scenarios involving coprophagy, though I don't know if he indulged in this activity in his actual life. I suspect these kinds of tastes are more common, both in history and in present society, than most people realize...people just don't discuss them widely because of the deep-seated taboos associated with them.

(Sorry, Scott, just had to add on a bit here...)

[Lynne]

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/coprophagy

Had to break out the dictionary - thanks, Scott! 

[dot-matrix]

Ewwwwwww ......    YUK ....   

[LauraGigs]

Oh god yall . . . giggling through tears . . . in a good way!  Thanks for the laughs this morning.   

[ifyoucantfixit]

        I could have gone the rest of my life and done without knowing some of that shit.........oh dear.


         Repeat after me.....circumcision, circumcision, circumcision!!!!

[Dagi]

 

[Scott6373]

Though I don't feel a babe shoudl be put through it, I bear no ill will toward my mother for having it done to me...so...I feel fine about my circumcision.  Looks good, feels great, no worries.  Well some worries, but that's another thread.   

[Jeff Wrangler]

Though I don't feel a babe shoudl be put through it, I bear no ill will toward my mother for having it done to me...so...I feel fine about my circumcision.  Looks good, feels great, no worries.  Well some worries, but that's another thread.   

Anything over six inches ... oh, never mind. ...     

[Scott6373]

Anything over six inches ... oh, never mind. ...     

I never supported the notion that more than a mouthful was waste.

[Jeff Wrangler]

I never supported the notion that more than a mouthful was waste.

I won't say it. I won't say it. I won't say it. ...

[ifyoucantfixit]

  COME ON!   Ya know ya want to!!         

[Jeff Wrangler]

  COME ON!   Ya know ya want to!!         

You bet, but I'm not going to. 

[karen1129]

Okey Dokey................   I've certainly learned a lot in the last few days !

[Jeff Wrangler]

Okey Dokey................   I've certainly learned a lot in the last few days !

Probably a lot more than you needed to know about certain subjects! 

[dot-matrix]

My how we digress 

[moremojo]

Boy, it's a good thing I didn't bring up Roman showers!  (Actually, I don't know of any famous folks who were into this, though performance artist Annie Sprinkle has performed a variation of the act using uneaten soup).

[delalluvia]

Boy, it's a good thing I didn't bring up Roman showers!  (Actually, I don't know of any famous folks who were into this, though performance artist Annie Sprinkle has performed a variation of the act using uneaten soup).

 

[Kelda]

Well, my two cents here.

Never been with a man or seen a real life man (naked!) that was circumsized. And never had a huge problem with hygiene/taste!

And never ever heard of many issues of teaching your child how to clean properly!

It's a very US thing me thinks - and I really dont see the point of it!!

Think how much money could be saved in hospitals in the US if there was no circumsision - perhaps thats why the UK doesn't do it... too expensive on the NHS!!!

[Kerry]

I think it was Mick Jagger who once said, "The sexiest thing a woman can wear is dirt."   

I don't believe he was talking about the dirt under her fingernails. 

There's a lid for every jar. 

[Lynne]

I saw this article in the NY Times today, where parents are battling over the custodial parent's right to have his 12-year-old son circumcised; the noncustodial mother is contesting it.  I would think that if the child is already 12 years old, it could be delayed until he's an adult and make his own decision...As I think I've already said, this procedure on an adolescent or an adult is a much bigger deal than when performed on an infant.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Circumcision-Dispute.html?ex=1195102800&en=936ca5c24cb2f645&ei=5070&emc=eta1

[serious crayons]

I don't watch "Desperate Housewives," but I saw a little clip on TV yesterday from a recent or upcoming episode in which a couple was arguing at a dinner party about circumcision. The man was arguing that it's unnatural, the woman (the red-haired housewife; I don't know her name) argued that it promotes good hygiene. The writers of that show must have been reading this thread! 

[Front-Ranger]

Hey, no fair having this great poll while I was gone on vacation and then locking it! But I'll weigh in anyway. I'm no medical expert, but I read recently that circumcision removes much of the most sensitive skin and nerve endings that contribute to pleasurable feelings and leave a guy practically numb! I believe this whole hygeine issue is a smokescreen for what circumcision really is. It is the same as circumcision in baby girls: denying them lifelong sexual pleasure.

My son was just hours old when he was ripped away from my breast and taken to be circumcised and I wasn't allowed to watch or be there to comfort him. I will never get over that even though I know my son doesn't even remember it.

[serious crayons]

I read recently that circumcision removes much of the most sensitive skin and nerve endings that contribute to pleasurable feelings and leave a guy practically numb!

Though to be fair, the circumcised guys I've ... uh ... been with did not appear to be numb.

[Scott6373]

Again I say...I feel fine about my circumcision...perhaps I would have used a different stitch, but all in all, it looks fine...feels fine...

[Jeff Wrangler]

Hey, no fair having this great poll while I was gone on vacation and then locking it! But I'll weigh in anyway. I'm no medical expert, but I read recently that circumcision removes much of the most sensitive skin and nerve endings that contribute to pleasurable feelings and leave a guy practically numb! I believe this whole hygeine issue is a smokescreen for what circumcision really is. It is the same as circumcision in baby girls: denying them lifelong sexual pleasure.

Well, obviously, I have no way of comparing, but I think this "circumcision denies males sexual pleasure" business is baloney. I have my reasons for thinking this. I will not elaborate. 

[Kerry]

It is the same as circumcision in baby girls

I'm with you, Lee! 

[serious crayons]

I'm with you, Lee! 

Most cultures that practice female circumcision do it on older girls, not infants. But there are other differences.

Female circumcision definitely does generally deny girls lifelong sexual pleasure, literally and almost totally -- in fact, that is largely its purpose. It also inhibits all sorts of normal genital functioning. The procedure can cause severe bleeding, shock, death, infection. The consequences can include pain during sexual intercourse, lifelong problems with urination and menstruation, birth complications often leading fatalities. In some cases it leaves an opening the size of a straw; the husband upon marriage is given a knife to cut it open, and the opening is sewn up again if he is going to be away for a while. Female genital cutting is considered a human rights violation, is opposed by Amnesty International and other human-rights groups, is outlawed in many countries including the U.S. as well as some in which it is traditionally practiced, and in the U.S. is considered a valid basis for granting refugee status.

I don't think it's fair to compare female "cirumcision" -- better known as mutilation or female genital cutting -- with male circumcision. Males who are circumcised do not seem to feel similarly sexually deprived, nor are other functions impeded. It has no larger negative health consequences. In fact, whether one believes this is a valid basis for circumcision or not, studies do suggest some health benefits.

Lee, if you compare what was done to your son to female circumcision, I think you may be suffering more than you need to.

[Jeff Wrangler]

Thank you, Katherine.

In no way is the removal of a male's foreskin comparable to the horror of female genital mutilation.

[brokeplex]

As long as I am not the one being circumsized, that is a decision of the parents of the child in question.

[ifyoucantfixit]

       We have just had this father petition the court to have his son circumcised.  He has recently
converted to Judaeism.  The mother is not wanting it to happen.  So far the father who has
custody, has won in court.  \
        Oh by the way the young boy is 12 yrs old....I think that is barbaric.. At that age it should be
purely the choice of the young man...

[Front-Ranger]

Most cultures that practice female circumcision do it on older girls, not infants. But there are other differences.

Female circumcision definitely does generally deny girls lifelong sexual pleasure, literally and almost totally -- in fact, that is largely its purpose. It also inhibits all sorts of normal genital functioning. The procedure can cause severe bleeding, shock, death, infection. The consequences can include pain during sexual intercourse, lifelong problems with urination and menstruation, birth complications often leading fatalities. In some cases it leaves an opening the size of a straw; the husband upon marriage is given a knife to cut it open, and the opening is sewn up again if he is going to be away for a while. Female genital cutting is considered a human rights violation, is opposed by Amnesty International and other human-rights groups, is outlawed in many countries including the U.S. as well as some in which it is traditionally practiced, and in the U.S. is considered a valid basis for granting refugee status.

I don't think it's fair to compare female "cirumcision" -- better known as mutilation or female genital cutting -- with male circumcision. Males who are circumcised do not seem to feel similarly sexually deprived, nor are other functions impeded. It has no larger negative health consequences. In fact, whether one believes this is a valid basis for circumcision or not, studies do suggest some health benefits.

Lee, if you compare what was done to your son to female circumcision, I think you may be suffering more than you need to.

I had no idea how brutal female circumcision is! I thank you for that information, even though it was painful to read. Now, it seems to me that this horrible procedure is more akin to foot binding than the male equivalent. But, I still think male circumcision is a bad idea, overall.

[LauraGigs]

I had no idea how brutal female circumcision is!

You didn't know that, Lee?  Heck yeah.  It's basically the female equivalent of removal of the penis.  At least male circumcision is done in a sanitary manner by qualified professionals.  Female "circumcision" is largely performed by an older female relative with a razor blade (which may or may not be dirty or rusty).  No anesthesia. No joke.

[serious crayons]

You didn't know that, Lee?  Heck yeah.  It's basically the female equivalent of removal of the penis.  At least male circumcision is done in a sanitary manner by qualified professionals.  Female "circumcision" is largely performed by an older female relative with a razor blade (which may or may not be dirty or rusty).  No anesthesia. No joke.

Or a piece of sharp metal or shard of glass.

The custom seems designed to discourage women from being sexually active except when under the control of a husband. When you think of all the millions and millions of girls throughout history who've undergone this torture and mutilation and had their entire lives damaged ... 

From 4women.gov (sponsored by the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services):

How many women and girls in the world have been affected by FGC? In the United States?

It is estimated that 130 million girls and women have undergone FGC.Approximately 2 million are subjected to this practice each year worldwide. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), an estimated 168,000 women and girls in the United States had either undergone FGC or were at risk for FGC in 1990. Of these, 48,000 were girls younger than 18 years old.

[brokeplex]

       We have just had this father petition the court to have his son circumcised.  He has recently
converted to Judaeism.  The mother is not wanting it to happen.  So far the father who has
custody, has won in court.  \
        Oh by the way the young boy is 12 yrs old....I think that is barbaric.. At that age it should be
purely the choice of the young man...

I agree with you, 12 years old is way too late for such an operation! Males should be circumcised at birth, if at all. I would leave that decision to the parents as a reflection only of the families religious, or cultural tradition. The cleanliness arguments mostly predate indoor plumbing and ready access to soap. Showers and bathing will solve any cleanliness issues.

On female circumcision, I really don't understand why any parent would require that their female infant be circumcised. I guess there are cultural requirements for that, but it does seem more than a little excessive to do that to a infant female. Perhaps with education as to the negative consequences of female circumcision, parents will make different decisions. Until then I am open to arguments that female circumcision is cruel and should be banned.

[serious crayons]

it is not generally done to infants...it is done in the preteen years....

I am sure Katherine has the ages but the ones I have heard of have been from nine to twelve...

You're right, Jess. That site I mentioned says it's done on infants but most commonly on girls aged 4 to 12.

As for why parents do it, I think it's because they believe it's the right thing to do. Women are the main enforcers. So I guess it's an example of a cultural bias being so strong that even those who are hurt by the bias think it's right. Kind of like Ennis, I guess.

I would say they probably don't even need education on the negative health consequences, because they can see or experience them for themselves. Despite that, they think it's a good idea. Misogynism runs really deep in some cultures.

As Lee said, it's a lot like foot binding, in that people in those cultures view unmutilated female genitals as ugly and consider girls who don't have it done to be "unmarriagable."
 

[Dagi]

As Lee said, it's a lot like foot binding, in that people in those cultures view unmutilated female genitals as ugly and consider girls who don't have it done to be "unmarriagable."
 

"Unmarriageable", and worse, they are considered whores. They risk being complete outcasts.

[serious crayons]

Good point, Jess. From what I've read it's not treated as any kind of noble or sacred rite (as opposed to a bris). It seems done much more in an atmosphere of grim necessity and shame.

It's almost like some kind of particularly horrific hazing ritual. Like the mothers and grandmothers are saying to girls, I had to endure this, so you must, too.

[moremojo]

The late Senegalese filmmaker Ousmane Sembene (male, and a great and pioneering figure in Sub-Saharan African cinema) made a film (his last) dealing with the subject of female genital mutilation (within the context of a fictionalized narrative), with the express desire to contribute to its eradication. The film is called Moolaadé:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0416991/

I should note that I have not seen this film myself.