Wolf writes: "To cut or not to cut? That is a very personal question, which each parent must decide for him- or herself. But parents deserve real science in making up their minds, as well as transparency from professional bodies offering what is, ostensibly, purely medical advice."
Portrait, author and activist Naomi Wolf, 10/19/11. (photo: Guardian UK)
The Male Circumcision Question
30 August 12
Parents considering male circumcision have a right to expect objective medical advice, untainted by commercial interests.
att Williams, an expectant father, stirred up strong debate this week in his Guardian essay on why he won't let his newborn son be circumcised. Referring to a new edict from the American Academy of Pediatrics insisting that "the health benefits of circumcision" outweigh the negatives, Williams spoke for many parents in demurring with this conventional wisdom, expressing the many reasons for his unease.
He pointed out that this delicate decision is often mystified by conflicting advice. The studies upon which the pediatricians rely, he noted, often have to do with highly specific data: the risks in Africa of Aids transmission in uncircumcised men, for instance. And he argued, quite fairly (though he wisely does not equate them), that the pediatricians' odd invocation of parental "religious" and cultural motivations for circumcision, and their assertion that these views should be respected quite apart from medical considerations, is a position that would be resisted if invoked by those who wanted to cut off bits of newborn girls' genitals.
Williams is not alone. A growing movement of men has arisen to decry the practice of circumcision as a mutilation they feel they have undergone, which they say is barbaric, traumatic and sexually desensitizing. But is circumcision indeed emotionally traumatic to newborn boys? And is it, separately considered, physically damaging?
Thanks to research for my new book on the brain-vagina connection, I have a fair number of conversations these days with neuroscientists who study the data on this link. A significant body of literature does exist showing that trauma to the vagina or clitoris affects the female brain in ways far more substantial and lasting than the obvious post-traumatic one would expect from the physical injury alone.
So it is reasonable to wonder if the injury of male circumcision (though hardly comparable to female genital mutilation) could, as many claim, have some lasting emotional or psychological effect on men and the male brain - apart from, or in addition to, any physical harm from the incision.
Two neuroscientists I interviewed about potential harm from male circumcision came to very different conclusions: one, Professor Jim Pfaus, who is doing cutting-edge research on sexual neuroscience at Concordia University in Montreal, Quebec, notes that the data do not show any lasting harm from circumcision that is physical, and he agrees with the AAP that the medical benefits of the practice do outweigh the negatives. He makes a strong case that the movement against circumcision is not scientifically sound.
But the other neuroscientist, based in Midwestern university, who asked not to be named when he spoke to me (because his view is not medical orthodoxy) does indeed see harm in male circumcision that is less obvious than its potential medical consequences. He studies the effect of genital or sexual trauma on the body - a data set that now has many studies to support the assertion of strong mind-body connections. Sexual trauma in childhood specifically has lasting effects on the autonomic nervous system.
A neuroscientist who studies trauma regards emotions as physically embodied. This neuroscientist believes that the emotional experience of a newborn boy being cut in this intimate way by an authority figure, and a source of what should be love and protection, does imprint itself on the infant mind and create, potentially, a particular later orientation toward authority and risk.
"What kind of person does that trauma create?" I asked.
"Woody Allen," he joked. (Since he himself is Jewish, I gave him a pass.)
He said he had circumcised his own sons - out of anxiety of what another less careful hand might do - and that his second son's procedure was definitely traumatic. Apart from the baby's experience, it is painful and counterintuitive for a new mother to witness her baby being hurt, eight days after she has given birth. Many mothers, even those who sign on for male circumcision for their child for religious or cultural reasons, find the experience traumatic. They feel that the strongly-held religious conviction in the rite of circumcision - whatever the science finally concludes - definitely sends a powerful message to a lactating mother still recovering from childbirth that she cannot protect her baby boy from the most rapacious demands of patriarchal ritual.
For these reasons, advocacy organizations for "genital integrity", as they put it, for men are growing in number and in passion. These organizations are also gathering data to support their views.
Noharmm, for instance, collects testimonials from men who feel they have been harmed by circumcision. Most damningly, though, they offer a different explanation for the AAP pronouncement: commercial interest. Doctors Opposing Circumcision has published a detailed statement (pdf) rebutting the AAP's advice in damning terms. Anticipating the AAP finding in favor of male circumcision, the DOP earlier stated (pdf):
Noharmm, for instance, collects testimonials from men who feel they have been harmed by circumcision. Most damningly, though, they offer a different explanation for the AAP pronouncement: commercial interest. Doctors Opposing Circumcision has published a detailed statement (pdf) rebutting the AAP's advice in damning terms. Anticipating the AAP finding in favor of male circumcision, the DOP earlier stated (pdf):
"The AAP, despite its high-sounding academic name, actually is a trade association of pediatric doctors. Its primary duty is to advance the business and professional interests of its 60,000 members who are called "fellows". The interests of its child-patients are a distant second to their primary interest.
"There is a severe and intractable conflict of interest between the financial interests of its fellows and the best interests of the child-patient. Most of its fellows perform non-therapeutic circumcisions on children and profit thereby. These members do not want anything to interfere or disrupt their steady income stream. The AAP will not publish a statement that would harm that income stream. The AAP ensures the outcome of its circumcision statements by appointing doctors who are known to have a pro-circumcision position."
To cut or not to cut? That is very personal question, which each parent must decide for him- or herself. But parents deserve real science in making up their minds, as well as transparency from professional bodies offering what is, ostensibly, purely medical advice. Parenting comes with enough difficult challenges and hard choices already, without undisclosed conflicts of interest from a pediatricians' organization - especially when it affects such an intimate part of a newborn child's life.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 24 May 2013
|
 23 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 23 May 2013
|
 23 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 24 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
They would have us believe that Nature is completely wrong in her design and this mutilation is some sort of blessing. If the foreskin were in any way harmful in such a strategic place and function, it would be selected out quickly. But, as 'the doc' just below points out, we cannot ever know what difference losing a good half of our sexual sensory inputs makes to us. I suspect the difference is greater than zero on the pleasure scale. How much greater, being cut myself, I don't want to know. It's not too different from clitorectomy in that both arise from the same precursor neurons and, presumably connect to the same areas in the brainstem and cortex. However it's viewed, it is primitive, physically harmful (deformaties) to thousands of infants a year, and completely a crime of blatant child abuse. Stop this evil.
For me, it came down to this when my son was born (home birth, midwives, MD backup):
Why would anyone want to cut a well-formed healthy child? If a male's foreskin was unnecessary or unimportant, wouldn't evolution have eliminated it over the centuries?
Why cause your newborn son pain that is utterly unnecessary? Teach your son good hygiene and that's about it. My son is almost 28 and has never had a problem associated with being left intact.
End the mindless brutality. If your son decides he doesn't want his foreskin once he is able to make a decision like that, let him make that decision for himself.
A side note: Our Pembroke Corgi, Blaise, recently gave birth to eight beautiful pups. Traditionally, Pembroke Corgi's tails are "docked." We looked at the sweet little pups, decided docking their tails was an utterly unnecessary "fashion statement" and left the little pups intact.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Be kind. Do no harm.
And seriously, it's not a "normal event"--it's completely unnatural and arbitrary; and it occurs before the "course of life" has even started.
And how would you know whether he was traumatized or not? He was only a few days old...
Glad mom and dad decided to have the doctors give me a trim. Also glad they cut that cord.
First of all, wounds to the foreskin and wounds to the clitoris or vagina are quite different things, as Wolf herself acknowledges at the end of the 2nd graf. And the unnamed scientist's joke suggests that he believes likewise.
That's important, because another thing that's mixed up in her article is the important distinction between an epidemiological study of AIDS prevention and a neurological study of mind-body trauma.
It is entirely possible that male circumcision might be found to be BOTH traumatic AND medically effective, just like every other kind of surgery. If so, than "to cut or not to cut", may be a more complicated question than Wolf supposes — a question more like "to vaccinate or not to vaccinate".
Finally, there's a leap between a conflict of interest and a bad study. Yes, AAP does have an apparent conflict of interest, but only when its findings are proven insubstantial by independent reviews can we say that AAP is wrong. Those reviews will be forthcoming, and we'll then know more.
Sorry I didn't like Wolf's piece better. I usually do.
So you see, there was a military-indust rial complex reason for ordering circumcision for a male baby.
If a male has the procedure done when he is grown I can see it being a traumatic experience. However doing it in the first week or two after birth - I don't think so. Destroy the trust in a week old baby???
Circumcision goes back before the dawn of history. Like the prohibition against pork it probably began as a health issue. I doubt if we will ever know. I suspect that (as with pork) we have the medical knowledge today to address or avoid whatever it was that concerned people in prehistoric times.
And that's fine - they got to make a conscious educated choice, and they had anesthesia. For decades, not only were infants circumcised, but the process was done with not the least bit of any form of numbing, sedation or other pain-killing anesthesia. In some places, it still is. How is that not traumatic, painful and abusive? An educated decision for the procedure by an adult is an entirely different kettle of fish than imposing it on a child who has no say in the matter.
"That's alright for you," replied the pig, "for you, its just an offering. For me it's a total committment."
Perhaps people of the 'Good Book' could drum up interest in injecting some form of botox into the eye's of the faithful to induce colorblindness. Seeing in black and white would have the benefit of not being distracted by our rainbow world and more able to focus on important superst, uh,.. religious matters.
I am male, and I was greatly premature and so not circumcised until I was 2. I was circumcised although my father was not because my mother was a nurse and the doctor told her I should be. My first actual memories are confused and more color and sound and emotions than real memories, but are of that event. I know I was terrified and I know that it hurt horribly and I don't think I understood that those hurting me thought they were helping me.
I never forgot, and I had to actually get considerably older to forgive my mother for allowing them to hurt me. Actually thinking about it still makes me feel sick and just odd. A few years into school I saw my friend in the boys room and he was intact. I instantly knew that I should look like that (I'd never seen my father naked, we were conservative that way) and that it had been stolen from me.
As I said, I forgave my mother. I never forgave the doctor or my father. Not really. They should have known better. It should have been my decision, when I was old enough to make it - not theirs.
I still feel that way. Urinary tract infection? Really? How often are those treated in girls? HIV transmission? Not only are the studies unreliable, and unethical (allowing men to transmit HIV blindly to women??? Really???) but, condemns are far, far, far more effective.
They are looking for excuses.
Fred
fredmac
Men seem to believe they can decide what we can and cannot do with our bodies. In many areas even here, women are mutilated.
Men have the luxury in 99% of the Circumcisions to enjoy sex, orgasm. Women do not. If you ever saw a women after the Parent(male domineering on that one) those scars are there. They do not retract, they have long term psychological trauma. The women who have accepted and moved on, move on with those scars, some done in a backroom with no medication.
We obviously have to think about it as we may one day have to make that decision for our child. It is a decision no to be taken lightly.
Again, if you do not like women making decisions...don 't make them for us
I'm sorry you had the problem, but it is rare. The complications after the surgery are also unusual. maybe you have a luckless lingham?
I believe that if you do not want it for your child, don't do it You have to explain not anyone else. Otherwise it is the decision of the Parents for whatever reason. I believe the Sanitary Issue was the prevalent reason used.
If you want to believe you suffered trauma for that reason, so be it, it would have been some other reason if not circumcised. People just have to snivel about something, and lay blame on someone. Poor Parents trying to do the best for their children Ingrates that they are.
Get the Rope and let's get the Hanging done.
Perhaps if women's genitalia was seen after butchers get done, maybe if the Christians and others actually gave a crap about anyone but themselves....w e could stop all children mutilation. But again another closeter having to blame others.
(Female circumcision IS a kind of BUTCHERY.
Tried to agree with your comment but the little icons were unavailable ... )
Get your facts straight! Male circumcision doesn't affect your sex life, but female so-called circumcision is removal of the part of the female sexual anatomy that allows orgasm.
Richard: We're talking apples and oranges here. Anyone performing so-called female circumcision should be put in jail.
But most of all, I was NOT willing to have my sons hurt in that way in their first moments of life. Fortunately their mother, indulged me, or agreed. Don't know which. And that isn't important. The very idea that a "religion" requires such a thing should make the "thing" suspect in the first place.
Medicine has varying opinions, and when there are choices, mine is the one that does not hurt anyone. This would, unbearably if one were older. While in the service, a friend was converting for a woman, and had this done as a man. It was unbearable for him. So we should do this to children? For superstition? For religion?
There is NO scientific evidence either way, I've read both sides, none have proof. Given that? Don't butcher your children, it isn't very loving to do so.
I had to help do it. Not a one of my males whinced. Not a one had any trauma with me for holding them and believe me at four to eight days old they know you. Might no see you but those noses work. They also knew the Vet.
I also had the dew claws removed Ever see a dog or cat get one of them caught on something. They can lose their leg. So as a Humane Person, I did this.
However, I scorned those who had to declaw cats. It is their defense. If a cat or dog wants to destroy something, claws are just a minor tidbit compared to their teeth.
The Dog Ring People are aholes. AKC just a money maker, it has no conscience on moratorium of breeding Nope as long as it makes money, we will look the other way of animal mills.
I never thought about circumcision. I think this is a good article and perhaps too brief. I believe more information could help men, women as future parents.
I hope whatever the decision, the child is not an ingrate. I hope the male understands, it was done with their well being in mind.
It is not a double standard. Most female circumcisions woul be equivalent to chopping off the entire penis and part of the scrotum. It would be like saying trimming one's fingernail and chopping off most of one's finger are similar. The same word - circumcision - is used, but the procedures are not at all the same.
Stormy, you miss the point. Historically, the purpose of genital cutting of either sex is to remove the most sensitive, the most responsive part of the individual's sex organs, and it doesn't matter what part that is. The seat of female sexual excitement is the clitoris, and the seat of male sexual excitement is the action of the exquisitely sensitive foreskin over the corona and the nerve bundle directly beneath it (the equivalent of the female clitoris).
Either way, genital cutting was designed to control sexual behavior by making sex a little harder to enjoy in males -- and to curb masturbation -- and a LOT harder to enjoy in females. This purpose (in males at least) was stated expressly by Rabbi Moses Maimonides in the 12th century of the Common Era. See his "Guide to the Perplexed."
He urged that it be done at a very early age before parents love their sons too much, and before the IMAGINATION takes hold. Parents must not be allowed to IMAGINE what joy natural sex brings to their son (or to his sex partners ... YES!!) or be allowed to IMAGINE the pain inflicted on the newborn.
Those that spoke and showed their scars said many girls (they are diposable) did not fair as well, many bled to death no worry about orgasm there
Funny thing is I also have friends who have saw these, had to help get area ready and the child slept thru it.
My spouse has no problem, his parents did what they thought were best. None of his brothers ever had any problem. They all get to enjoy sex. Nicer yet they have no snivel at their parents.
Reason given was cleanliness vs infection.
It is up to parents today to make the decision they can live with, teach their children the cleanliness ritual. All any parent can hope for is they did the best thing for their child.
Snivelers will always come and have to bitch about something.
I believe the wanting to know how it would be otherwise..but again, they can have orgasms Women cannot
Most men (in the world) are NOT circumcised. Maybe only 20% are. And since rates of circumcision are going down in the United States, partly as a result of immigration from cultures that don't typically practice infant circumcision, but also because awareness is growing and doctors are no longer the authority figures they once were, one of these days circumcised boys will be in the MINORITY in locker rooms. And Hurray for that!
Differences in the locker room (like all differences among people) should be explained and put in context. Slavish adherence to an irrational cultural norm perpetuates it for no good reason.
If a similar procedure was recommended for female babies, no matter how "safe and medically advisable" these same women would be demanding the heads of those same pediatricians.
At least be honest and admit you enjoy the thought of clipping "that thing."
THe figures quoted about medically advisable do include african males who are un hygienic and forbidden by the pope to use condoms. If you ran the same statistics on American men or any group that had been taught the basics of hygiene, I suspect it might show a far different picture.
Tell us Naomi. would you approve of men making them decision for women on a similar issue> For example, under what circumstance you could have an abortion of what sanitary pad to use during your period. For that matter what if men demanded you isolate yourself during your menses and undergo a ritual "cleansing?" Would that be fine with you?
Women have no more need to dominate the male by removing a piece of skin than they are by asking them to help with the dishes.
I think it depends on the individual woman's anatomy and the degree to which she is mutilated. Of course all FGM is bad.
In your rush to demonstrate your supposed superiority, you didn't really read my post. I said "similar procedure," such as say, removing the labia minor.
Women have no need to dominate males or have no suppressed anger at them? You naive little boy. You know no more about women than you do about circumcision.
The need to dominate men , especially a woman's baby is not exhibited in allowing her baby to be circumcised. I understand women who do have anger toward men, but we aren't discussing that. We are discussing circumcision, as I say.
The fact that some sexual pleasure is still attainable (the human race would have died out if men hadn't been able to maintain an erection long enough to impregnate women) does not change the fact that circumcised men were robbed of the full sexual potential which is their birthright.
Moreover, to say that women should have no say on the subject of male circumcision is like saying women should have no position on whether it's appropriate to put electrodes on the male genitalia as a form of torture. Oh sorry, enhanced interrogation. Or that men should have no position on female genital cutting.
C'mon, don't we all belong to the HUMAN race?
Parents were given the best information. Probably men who had problems thought let's do it for the kid. Others said no.
Pretty simple. It is a decision...doct or gives medical theory, parents make decision
Most of you men really are enjoying blaming women. Perhaps you should come out of your closets. Men like you did demand us not to be around during our menses and you should know since you wrote so eloquently on that. We also had to cut up sheets and wash them every month. Too bad none of you had to go thru what we do, but then the Creator knew we would be better people for our abilities.
You make so many unwarranted assumptions that all you have done is reveal your own ignorance and prejudices.
BTW, there is no creator. That's another lie foisted upon people by those that wish to demean women. ALl of the things you complain about were done by religion. I have been an atheists and feminist supporter since I was 13.
It's coercive for western aid to combat HIV/AIDS in poor countries to include male circumcision as a part of the package under the mantle of "Father knows best" and "Father will pay for it."
Get a life gentlemen....if you wish to blame your various inadequacies on your poor parents who only did the right thing, well sign up for another two years of therapy....quic k!
That just means you have not been reading or paying attention much. This is a fairly broad and ongoing debate for many decades - it's sort of hard to avoid if you watch TV or listen to the radio.
Our genital area is also very affected from infections no matter how slight it may be to a man because of the enclosed/expose d area. We are so vulnerable to problems, most of us do not discuss them. We go to our doctor and get ourselves taken care of since it can affect our whole lives, and give men infections or women if we so chose that lifestyle. We have responsibilitie s and acknowledge them. Those who do not suffer and cause problems to others.
I have had to clean my male dogs genital areas so I understand uncircumcised. I also had to take care of farm animals. If a male animal gets an infection, one must take care of it. Cats are the hardest to take care of and can cause spread of disease. It is a science lesson in itself. Too bad some farmers aren't on this site.
One will NEVER, as long as Jews exist, not do something so ingrained in the cultural experience. I also am secular -- extremely secular -- and if I ever had had a male child it would be an automatic no brainer. He WOULD be circumcised. This issue is much ado about nothing much.
Mitt Romney is TOO close WAY too close to the presidency for me to care about these other unimportant things. Maybe Naomi Wolfe should stick to indicting Mitt Romney for the charlatan empty suit he is and leave this other non story to individual decision which is where it all belongs anyway!
I am too much concerned about the country's politics to worry about things I cannot change and that people probably have a pretty good idea about their beliefs. I don't think there is anything new in this article, so it's just a poke!
I circumsized my son because all the males in his family were thus, but I found it traumatic, and don't know if I could have done it again with a 2nd son. I am very divided on the issue, feeling that it is probably an uneccessary procedure, but may be preferable for a number of reasons.
Check the history of circumcision in the US. It began in the 1930s as a result of hysteria over the "evils" of masturbation fostered by books such as Von Ebing's Psychopathia Sexualis. At that time many young girls were also "circumcised" in the US to prevent or lessen the occurrence of masturbation. The practice was soon abandoned on females due to the severity of the trauma and more lasting consequences on females, but we continue doing males. This is the ONLY preventative medical procedure in western medicine. If you believe it's justifiable based on the slim chance of medical problems arising from the presence of foreskin, maybe you'd be interested in a far more practical preventative medical procedure that statistically would save many lives if utilized. How about a double radical mastectomy on our infant daughters to prevent the much more probable occurrence of breast cancer in her later life? Make sense to anyone out there? No one should welcome their beautiful son to this life by lopping off the end of his penis!
Idiots say one is cutting of the penis..my spouse, grandsons, cousins all have their tips so to speak. It may have been a myth but it was for the welfare all thought. I hate to say but circumcisions have gone on before the 1930's..get back to reading some real history.
Who gains the most from an almost totally unnecessary surgery, Pediatricians. Absolutely ridiculous.
Man/Woman - the one thing we do is to act on incomplete data. It is the only that makes our brains useful, but on the scale we affect the planet now ... it toxic and maybe deadly.
It would be interesting to see if there is a correlation between liberal/conserv ative and circumcised/not -circumsized?
The subject of circumcision came up about our grandsons whose pediatricians recommended not to circumcise. What had been rather normal for most males 40 or so years ago was apparently now not recommended.
Why?
In discussions with some GP's about this, I learned that seventy years ago, medical practice was not as specialized as it is today. So many pediatricians are not as aware of end of life problems that occur more frequently with uncircumcised males as are geriatric physicians. Mid-life male circumcisions are very much more difficult to undergo.
More recently there has much reportage about the surprisingly lower transmission rates of sexually transmitted diseases that occur with and to circumcised males (this includes HPV which apparently is particularly harmful to women and which is not easily detected).
If all this is true, I hope that for my grandsons that they will be circumcised and for my granddaughters that they will only choose to have sex with men that have been circumcised as well.
Guys who are cut: back off - you have no expertise from which to speak because you have no idea what was taken from you.
Women: back off - you certainly have no idea of what you speak. Frankly, I do wonder how you let a male dominated, profit driven industry do that to your son.
What if nipping off an ear lobe of all girl & boy babies wa the fashion .... just 'cause ...... Would you allow that because some Dr said, "Oh, it really doesn't bother or traumatize them. just ignore their screams of pain & terror."
Most parents believed they were doing the right thing.
Now Pediatricians and parents talk, information given. Parents can research. It is not yours to tell parents what to do.
from many unexpert advise and rants on here, I would not want to go by anyone's here. I have seen infection in male genitalia, I have seen what it does to them. I have had to take care of patients...too bad the nurses aren't telling you about that. Grown men scream, they ache, they are ashamed as they lay there having to have nurses do things to them to clear them of infection
Take that to the Game and discuss
they nip off lots on men and women through out history...eunuc hs ever hear of them. Women have been mutilized by parents and jealous husbands.
Most of you need to do real research then tell me I have no say. I have cleaned up after men and animal. I have heard the pain and screams. When is last time you helped at a hospital?
On the contrary, it is NOT for parents to decide to mutilate their children. Female genital mutilation is banned in the United States, yet many parents from cultures that approve the practice would doubtless like to retain that option even if they're living in the United States. The right to bodily integrity is absolute.
Only the individual who is being mutilated has the right to consent to the procedure. Let men be circumcised at the age of 25 when their cognitive functions are fully developed.
Parents can only give permission to treat actual diagnosed problems. They have slightly more rights over the child than third parties like physicians and nurses. But their rights over the child are not absolute.
As for your rant about male genital problems you've supposedly witnessed, sounds like a lot of hype to me. But even if it were true, this does not justify the mutilation of defenceless, voiceless newborns.
As a CNA I have had my share of clean ups in the aisles.I have seen men with disease, infections. I have had to pray that I didn't hurt my patients. I have heard both sides of the story. Most have accepted what was done. Parents given information, had to make decisions.
Not a one wanted their male child to have any pain I am sure.
Animals do get disease, infections and no one circumcised my animals. Clean up on the pens, animals, and lots of meds. You can look up all sorts of infections that have happened to children birthed to women whose husbands brought home some lovely disease, no different in the yard.
Males do not like women discussing or making decisions. Good, now I hope you know how we feel. Here we are, blaming women, parents and doctors. You do not know how to do anything but blame others. Boring.
I believe there is relevancy between Political Species..I see it in this election. Men (probably all gay) and their counterparts telling Women what we can or cannot do.
I have seen what not having birth control has done. I have heard the wrath towards third world countries (mostly jealousy or fear) who have followed nature, had children. They had to or be thrown out of many cultures.
Not to have male child...look to China today, even here in USA.
Go volunteer in hospitals then come talk
F
Let them discuss the pain, screams. Not all due to their circumcision or lack there of. But many having to do with infections gotten, and then given. I do not care if it was HIV, Syph, or Yeast Infection. A yeast infection can be passed on to child in the tract as can many other diseases. Children can have serious conditions, some lifelong. Circumcision is minor compared to being made sterile, perhaps impotent. There was a disease spread in Asia that ate away at genital areas.
I do not know how I would react, but my spouse is, my grandchildren are and so far so good. No disease, no attitude, no hating of their parents. Guess they are special people.
Please get those nurses to tell us about genital disease. Perhaps some can tell you what women look like who have been 'circumcised' One day maybe you will meet one of those special women and talk to them They are what I do not want to see happen here, and could with the Religious Cultism happening in the Country esp in Rethugs.
We will never know the answers, but I do have a theory that might explain the origin of circumcision: Clothing. When people were naked, it probably was an advantage to young males to have the head of the penis protected against trauma. But once people started to cover their private parts with clothes, the warm moist environment under the foreskin became a nice place for bacteria and viruses to grow, infect, and damage the penis. This would confer a reproductive advantage to men who were circumcised. Note that cultures that do circumcision at puberty generally allow young boys to run naked until puberty.
As a pediatrician, I have seen urinary tract infections in uncircumcised male infants, and local infections under the foreskin in school age boys. I have seen minor, but NO major, complications from infant circumcisions.
If male circumcision is protective of men by removing "at risk" mucosal tissue, why is there no comparable program to remove women's mucosal tissue, of which there is vastly more around the genitalia, putting women at much higher risk of infection?
Why are no other human or animal mucosa removed either therapeutically or prophylacticall y to protect against infection, like eyelids? Maybe this would prevent conjunctivitis in the statistically small number of people who are at risk.
No, male circumcision is a therapy in search of a disease.
Of course, as a pediatrician, Swimdoc never had to treat adult men whose problems no-one thought to lay at the door of their circumcisions. The internet abounds with horror stories. Don’t take his word for it, check out men’s actual experiences.
Well, nature knew what it was doing. And modern man has discovered how to use soap and water.
And modern man and woman (parents) can discover what to do with the penis of small children: leave well alone!
The elongated foreskin was DESIGNED to protect the urinary meatus from contamination during the years small children are incontinent. The foreskin separates from the glans in its own good time. Once it does, boys can be taught to retract it to urinate and to clean it. Don't we teach children to brush their teeth?
Parents should be free to make this decision for their sons. They shouldn't be pressured by insurance coverage issues. (Or, if circumcision isn't to be covered by insurance, perhaps UTIs in uncircumcised infants, phimosis, and foreskin infections shouldn't be covered either.)
An eight day old infant recognizes "an authority figure"??? This sounds a lot like the speaker's own projection.
For every young girl who is cut anywhere in the world, six boys are cut. In the United States alone, every 26 seconds some little boy is having parts of his sex organs chopped off in the most agonizing way -- purportedly to prevent some statistically improbable future problem.
In the absence of an actual diagnosis requiring immediate attention, circumcision is nothing short of child abuse. A violent assault. A violation of his human rights, of his right to bodily integrity. The infant is strapped down on a Circumstraint ™, which is the neonatal version of a waterboard. Why strapped down? Because if he could, he would escape his restraints and the terror and the pain. He screams his rejection but his screams are ignored.
And unfortunately too many men who were circumcised as infants don't know what they lost, which is why there is no general outcry. Time to get over the syllogism: I was cut, I'm OK, so cutting is OK.
I assume I'll get thumbs down for this, but I really wonder if Midwestern U. is a powerhouse in the neuroscience game. My guess is that it probably isn't.
I'm POSITIVE you can find two contrasting opinions about anything among "experts". The point is, who's opinion agrees with the overwhelming majority.
To me this is more of a light article, than I'm accustomed to from Wolf. I really prefer it when she sticks to hard politics.
in todays climate of enligthend hygene and plenty of running water, circumcisions seems like a cruel anachronism to satisfy WHAT? I'm uncut,I have been sexually active for over 60 years, I'm 75 had seven kids and never had any ILL EFFECTS
No it is not. The real injury here is inflicted on logic in the form of a non-sequitur that Wolf is using to build a straw-man (oops! I mean straw-person) argument in order to support her obvious bias against circumcision, her "personal decision" disclaimer notwithstanding .
About 2,000,000 male babies are born in USA/year ... your sample is statistically insignificant (sample does not say what economic class they were from ..)
40% born to unwed mothers, mortality is America's infant mortality rate is high for a developed nation, with 6.71 deaths for every 1,000 births (higher than in "poor" Cuba). But this is another sad topic ...
there is a divinity that shapes our ends
rough-hew them how we will
I guess that 90%+ of Republicans/Ame rican males are circumcised - and psychological sex trauma is evident in their behavior and thinking. The feeling is gone. Viagra is grossing billions. What a culture.
Great article Naomi.
I can't for the life of me imagine Pfaus saying that about the removal of a girl's clitoral hood, something which is basically the female equivalent of what is done to boys.
but psychological damage can be permanent ..
Wonder about Netanyahoo in this context.
So rather than debate the pros and cons of neonatal circumcision as a theory of disease prevention, one has to FIRST take a moral stand against it. Only then does one address the spurious claims of the pro-circumcisio n lobby.
Uncircumcised males also, in my experience, retain penile sensitivity as they age. Males who have been circumcised have penises that are continually exposed to tactile sensation. This results in desensitization (or habituation in response to repeated stimuli). In other words, older males who have been circumcised appear to need more direct stimulation to the head of the penis in order to achieve orgasm.
In uncircumcised males, however, the delicate and sensitive nerve endings in the head of the penis retain sensitivity, due to the protective covering of the foreskin.
So, if circumcision were the only issue, I would prefer to have sex with an uncircumcised male.
Does that make a difference in your perspective now?
Thank you for female view - great observation. Surgery is profitable ..
"the United States remains the last developed nation doing it to a significant percentage of newborns. (5) This was done as a result of the for-profit American health care system promoting myths about benefits of circumcision (6), such as preventing penile cancer (6a, 6b), preventing HIV (6c, 6d) despite the USA being the developed nation with the highest HIV rates and circumcision rates (6e, 5), and preventing STDs (6d, 6f). As a result, circumcision now brings in hundreds of millions of dollars to doctors and the American health system. (7)"
http://tinyurl.com/37fdz6
I have no problem seeing all forms of mutilation outlawed as a violation of human rights. Let the adult over the age of 25 decide for him or herself.
The original reason for circumcision was to avoid getting Balanitis when peeing in a sandstorm. In those days Balanitis could be fatal. Antibiotics changed that, but an economic collapse of the scale some predict could end such drugs production and make hygene much more important..
There are far too many comments from people who do not know what tthey are talking about, many could fall into the category of 'Politically Correct'.
what is the real cost of circumcision? The AAP quotes an estimated total cost of $US150-270 million for the US annually. At 1.3 million circumcisions, that's only $125 - $225 each.That can only be a small fraction of the real cost.
Facility fees: The baby is usually already in a hospital, and the facility fees ... more on: acircumstitions .com/$$$.html
"Discomfort" is the euphemism used to reassure parents.
Quote:The fact that the vast majority of circumcisions are performed by obstetricians is precisely the problem. They are not specialists of the male genital/urinary system. That makes them unqualified to tamper with the male penis at the behest of ignorant parents. And only 25% of them use any pain mitigation measures -- which are pretty ineffectual anyway, but would be an act of generosity and good faith.
Newborn infants' nerve endings are not fully developed. When I had my ears pierced at age 12, I nearly fainted from pain. When my daughter was 3 days old, her aunt just pushed the post of the earring through her lobe, and she barely whimpered. Can people just accept that their own experience does not necessarily reflect everyone else's?
Male circumcision removes 33 - 50% of the penile skin, and nearly all of the penile fine touch neuroreceptors.
Recent research:
'The effect of male circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner'. By K. O'HARA and J. O'HARA
6 out of 7 women preferred intact non-circumcised partners while about 1 out of seven preferred non-intact circumcised partners. The study explains the physiological reasons why and is quite educational.
All circumcision, male and female, is about decreasing sexual pleasure. 50% or more in men and thought up by the religiously superstitious. Medical excuses are bogus.
To quote 'Moses Maimonides' the medieval Jewish philosopher " Man should not be hard and rough, but responsive, obedient, acquiescent, and docile. "Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked. Be silent, and hearken, O Israel. If ye be willing and obedient." He states further,...
"Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible".
male circumcision was introduced into English-speakin g countries in the late 1800s as a method of treating and preventing masturbation.
Top Ten Tortures Less Painful Than Circumcision
10. Get knocked out by Mohammed Ali.
9. Pull out your fingernails.
8. Eat a pile of steaming bear phooey.
7. Skin yourself alive.
6. Fall into a vat of molten iron.
5. Get run over by a train.
4. Go through a sausage grinder.
3. Saw off your legs.
2. Poke out your eyes.
1. Go To Hell
~Dick-Scalper
"A neuroscientist who studies trauma regards emotions as physically embodied. This neuroscientist believes that the emotional experience of a newborn boy being cut in this intimate way by an authority figure, and a source of what should be love and protection, does imprint itself on the infant mind and create, potentially, a particular later orientation toward authority and risk."
In what possible way could an infant a few days old be said to be aware of "an authority figure" in such a way that that would influence that person's "later orientation toward authority and risk."
Allowing such a statement to find its way into print suggests a writer who is hopelessly out of her depth. It is unfortunate that writers like Wolf who become well respected authorities in one arena then turn around and take that respect as authorization to spout off about topics on which they should be silent.
Just because an article is written by a well-known figure does not in any way guarantee that the author has anything useful to say. I regard the appearance of this fluff piece to be a failure of the editors of this website to screen out such material. If you want to run something from Wolf, get her to write about subjects where she has strengths, not weaknesses.
end circumcision are themselves circumcised, come from a circumcising culture or are the partners of circumcised men, they have a bias against the natural body. No one ever died from leaving the foreskin intact, so if a man wants to be cut as an adult, that should be his decision and only his. When you change the form, you change the function. Research what is lost with circumcision, the more you know, the more you're against it.
1. I was once in the Urology Ward of a hospital, where the guy across from me was having a circumcision as an adult, apparently because his fiance wanted it, and it seemed to be a lot more trouble to have it done as an adult than as a baby.
2. I and most boys in my generation and my boys' generation were circumcised, I saw no problems with having it, and felt safe in having them match everyone else.
3. I read that there was some medical justification in regards to preventing infections (and it seems that the comments on this board bear that out).
4. Many women seem to require it.
I never thought about possible loss of sexual pleasure, as I never noticed that I may have had less. In fact now that I am getting old, I am more grateful that I have less desire now and can put more of my mental energies on other things than screwing.
The second, not to be outdone, told of remembering his baptism, the acrid incense and the shock of cold water on his 2 week old head!
The third guy had 'em cold. He remembered being circumcised when barely out of the birth canal. Holy shit, one replied! That must have been terribly painful! "Painful, replied the circimcisee, I couldn't walk for almost a year!!!"
Over the years I have had very fine sex with a great many men; some cut, some uncut. It's somewhat different in each case; however, I can speak with some authority to the fact that all those penises work pretty much the same, and all of them are sources of pleasure and joy to their possessors and to their partners. There's a whole lot more variation in penile features other than foreskinity (length, thickness, curvature, erectability, etc.) that have a lot more to do with its functionality than circumcision does.
You really have to work overtime and have far too much time on your hands to get seriously exercised in mature life about the effects of a minor surgical procedure conducted when you're barely out of the womb.
1) Only 23 out of 144 cultures listed in the Human Relations Area File database practice genital cutting in some form (including the US) making it a minority practice across the world.
2) Mutilation of females occurs only in cultures that also practice male circumcision.
3) For every girl who is genitally mutilated, six boys are mutilated worldwide, at various ages.
4) In the United States, every 26 seconds another infant’s penis is diminished, desensitized, denuded of its most erogenous tissue — that’s between 1.25 and 1.4 million each year.
5) Congress banned female genital mutilation (FGM) in 1997, but it has extended no explicit protection to males, so that only children who are males are subject to involuntary surgical alteration of the genitals in the US, which is a violation of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. Its failure to protect male infants also conceivably violates the 1st and 9th Amendments.
6) Non-therapeutic circumcision contravenes Articles 12, 14(1) & (3), 16, 19(1) and 24(3) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC); Article V of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and the four cardinal principles of medical ethics (autonomy of the patient, beneficence of the intervention, non-maleficence of the intervention, and justice).
7) To prevent one death from penile cancer (a disease of elderly men), 100,000 infants must be circumcised, 1,000 of whom will suffer an adverse event, and 18 die.
8) While circumcision rates in the US have fallen to about 60% as a national average, some 80% of sexually active males today were circumcised. Yet the rate of HIV and STD infection in the US is the highest in the developed world.
9) If there is any connection at all between circumcision status and HIV infection, at the current rate of infection in the US, 23,148 infants would have to be circumcised to prevent just one case of AIDS — infants who might never engage in risky sex as adults.
10) The foreskin in the adult male represents 12-15 square inches of specialized tissue, with 3 feet of blood vessels, 240 feet of nerves and up to 20,000 erotogenic nerve endings.
6) Non-therapeutic circumcision contravenes Articles 12, 14(1) & (3), 16, 19(1) and 24(3) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC); Article V of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and the four cardinal principles of medical ethics (autonomy of the patient, beneficence of the intervention, non-maleficence of the intervention, and justice).
7) To prevent one death from penile cancer (a disease of elderly men), 100,000 infants must be circumcised, 1,000 of whom will suffer an adverse event, and 18 die.
8) While circumcision rates in the US have fallen to about 60% as a national average, some 80% of sexually active males today were circumcised. Yet the rate of HIV and STD infection in the US is the highest in the developed world.
9) If there is any connection at all between circumcision status and HIV infection, at the current rate of infection in the US, 23,148 infants would have to be circumcised to prevent just one case of AIDS — infants who might never engage in risky sex as adults.
10) The foreskin in the adult male represents 12-15 square inches of specialized tissue, with 3 feet of blood vessels, 240 feet of nerves and up to 20,000 erotogenic nerve endings.
11) 70% of routine medical circumcisions in the US are performed by obstetricians, who are not specialists of the male genitalia. Only 25% of obstetricians use any form of pain relief.
12) Cortisol level in the blood (indicator of stress) rises from a baseline of 5.2 micrograms per deciliter to a mean of 14 micrograms or more in infants receiving some form of pain relief (depending on type and combination, and circumcision method), and 17 micrograms in infants receiving no pain relief at all. Pain is not eliminated by any method.
13) The serial amputation of healthy functional tissue from newborns is a multi-billion dollar a year industry, which includes fees paid by parents or insurers ranging between $100 and $400, hospital supplies, and the lucrative trade in foreskins for skin grafts and medical research, making neonates exploitable as involuntary organ donors.
14) Men circumcised as infants may sue for damages within one year of turning 18 or, after that, within one year from the time they became aware that they had been harmed.
At first, every little stone hurts and gravel is a nightmare. Then, as your feet callous, you wind up feeling almost nothing. You just run around.
This, I expect, is what happens to the glans of a penis after the foreskin has been removed by circumcision. The ability of the glans to feel sensation, especially after years of contact with underwear, is dramatically reduced.
I have not been circumcised. When my penis is in a woman's vagina, it is as if I can "see" through the glans. It goes beyond an exquisite sense of touch. It promotes a very intimate connection, as do the nerves on the interior surface of the foreskin which are exposed to contact when the penis is unsheathed.
I made certain that my son was not circumcised. Now, possibly due to recent "scientific" studies, or perhaps as a result of having many friends who are circumcised, he wishes that he had been.
I am concerned about the fate of any male children that he may have in the future.
RSS feed for comments to this post