America: Land of the Mutilated Penis

---

JJ PETRUS August 6, 2016 4:10 am (Pacific time)

I HAVE HAD TO DEAL ALL MY LIFE ABOUT BEING CUT. I NOW SO MUCH HATE MY PENIS FOR NOT BEING WHOLE. I WANT TO GET A PENECTOMY DONE.

---

gary harryman May 6, 2016 3:17 pm (Pacific time)

Most American men who are victims of forced genital mutilation also suffer from Defensive Denial Syndrome. I takes a big man to break the chain of generational child abuse, and most American men just don't have what that takes so they become willing enablers for the criminal medical profiteers. Once a person gets educated and realizes what they are looking at when they see a sexually mutilated penis - the discoloration, the huge irregular scar, the puny thinness, the foreshortening, the total lack of mobility, the pinched meatus, the gray callusing of the glans, etc. and know that it also is bereft of most of it's natural fine-touch innervation, cannot seal in natural vaginal lubricants, etc......, one begins to appreciate the beauty and functionality of the natural model that was synergistically engineered by millions of years of trial and error to work perfectly with the opposite sex. A penis without a foreskin is not a mouth-watering thing of beauty like a natural penis is -- especially a Natural penis with a generous acroposthion. Google up The Lost List and get educated out of blind ignorance.

---

Travis April 11, 2013 11:58 pm (Pacific time)

Uh, well. I'm cut, and I've never had any sexual frustration because of it. And definitely NEVER had any "agonizing, lasting physical pain" because of it. Ever. And no one I know who is circumcised has, either, save for one old high-school friend. You all are going way off the deep end here.

I chose to leave my son uncut because it felt right to me. If he wants to go through with it when he's older and can make the choice himself, that's fine. But I did that solely because it should be his choice, not because it's some horrible, torturous, terrible thing. You guys sound as bad as the religious nuts you're claiming to be against.

Editor: Fine Travis, you think chopping the end of a penis off is great, glad you got that off your chest.  You have no idea however how sad it is for you to trivialize such a terrible, needless custom.

---

cosmopolite December 22, 2011 2:24 pm (Pacific time)

People, simply read what women who've been with both kinds of men have written about the relative merits of cut and uncut. Since the internet began around 15 years ago, I have read many posts by sexually sophisticated American women saying that intact makes for better foreplay and intercourse. Some women write that intact grossed them out. But very few say that it was a sexual disaster.

Editor: What pleasure a mutilated penis brings a woman is an important, however secondary matter.  

---

Richard February 5, 2011 2:43 pm (Pacific time)

I hate my mother for mutilating my penis. She tries to talk to me and I refuse as she had my genitals mutilated. She is no mother to me, sexually mutilating my penis when I was a baby, and you call yourself a mother, you are no mother to me.

---

Mike December 28, 2010 6:08 pm (Pacific time)

I'm from a Jewish family and I hate the fact that I was circumcised. I Found out what I was missing when I was 27 and realized that I have a lack of sensation in the remains of my mutilated penis. Penile mutilation is a serious abomination and is a symptom of the severe sexual repression which is a sever problem in American and Jewish culture. The discussion about whether to use anesthesia on baby boys getting circumcised should not exist because circumcision should not exist. It should be just as illegal as female genital mutilation. Everyone in my family thinks I'm crazy for thinking something is wrong with me. I actually talked over the phone, when I was 27, to the mohel, or ritual circumciser, who my parents paid to come to their home and cut off over half the skin on my penis because this is what the virus of Judaism makes parents do to their son. My mother was neither happy nor unhappy to do this to me. She was in another room of the house when when I was screaming in agony. She just felt she was doing her duty as a Jewish mother. I currently go around all day with a condom on, a piece of foam around it, and briefs underwear to try to re-sensitize my glans.

---

Frank O'Hara October 6, 2010 8:17 am (Pacific time)

Rick55 Wrote:  "I am going to reveal what we're all thinking here (or at least most of us). Circumcision has NO effect on a man OR a boy's level or frequency of masturbation... What a wives-tale that is. Whats most scary is the thing about Viagra being a product most needed by circumcised males... what evidence do we have on that? Elaborate if possible. That's a scary thought for someone like me in their early 20's."

Several studies going back to the 19 teens have measured maturbation frequency among circumcised and uncircumcised males.  The last was in 1998.  All found the same results = Circumcised males masturbate 40% more than uncircumcised males.  The conclusion of these studies is that male circumcision dramatically alters the male sexual function and masturbation is a subconscious attempt to replace the missing sensations.

If you investigate where Viagra sells best and where it is most often counterfieted, you will find a definite connection to circumcising cultures.  American men (80% circumcised) consume 54% of the world's production of Viagra type products, Maylasian men (Muslim and circumcised) have the highest worldwide consumption per capita of Viagra type products and Israel, (Jewish and circumcised) is the world's leading counterfieter if Viagra.  While these statistics may not absolutely prove anything, they are extremely indicative that male circumcision has a deleterious effect on it's victims.

if you are the typical circumcised American male, research has shown that your circumcision will shorten you expected sexual life and you will need your supply of Viagra (or substitute) for many years to live out your expected sexually functioning life. I have calculated that this supply will cost you approximately $64,800.00.  I suggest you start saving now to be able to purchase it or you might run short and have to give up on your wife or lover.

Just think what $64,800.00 could buy!  That luxury car you've been dreaming about or a nicer home for you and your wife to spend your retirement in!  Was the money your parents spent on your circumcision worth it?  Did it save you that much in lower health care costs?  I doubt it!



Frank

---

September 2, 2010 11:30 pm (Pacific time)

Dr. Donald M. Stine February 28, 2010 says: "This is not science but propaganda. The anticirc people have a psychiatric illness called foreskin fetish. They also lie and distort the truth."

Editor: Really, well what is the 'truth"?  Is it maintaining the status quo?  I assume that is what you mean as you attempt to excuse the idea of mutilating the penises of little boys.  You probably like to perpetuate the wives tale that this 'doesn't hurt' the child... well it hurts for life.  It is a scar across all of society and it is ridiculous.  

---

Anonymous September 2, 2010 11:29 pm (Pacific time)

Dr. Donald M. Stine February 28, 2010 says: "This is not science but propaganda. The anticirc people have a psychiatric illness called foreskin fetish. They also lie and distort the truth." The good old "crazy card". That's what folks play when they have a bad hand. lol. Sounds like the 'good' doctor is a bit grumpy that cutting rates are down to an all time low of 33%. There goes the convertible! There there.

---

Dr. Donald M. Stine February 28, 2010 11:11 pm (Pacific time)

This is not science but propaganda. The anticirc people have a psychiatric illness called foreskin fetish. They also lie and distort the truth.

EDITOR: Thanks Dr. Stine, we were wondering if the cause to not mutilate baby boys would be looked at as a crazy idea. Now we know.

---

Peppino P February 23, 2010 6:07 am (Pacific time)

Interesting post, would like to say something important about penis health. The penis is one of the most sensitive areas of the male body....and yet, ironically, the penis is also the recipient of some very abusive treatment, more so than any other organ of the body. Penis skin, over time, is expected to undergo many hours of touching, rubbing, penetrating and, quite often, aggressive behavior. The penis is frequently yanked, grabbed, squeezed and pumped. And, despite all this aggressive behavior, this sensitive organ can withstand any number of acts of which few are gentle. Experiencing all this activity you would think that the penis and penile well-being should not be ignored. Well, at least that is what you would expect. However, with most men, this is not the case. And for men who ignore the health of their penis, beware, because if penile health is abandoned then, with time, you can expect loss of penis sensitivity or penile blood vessel damage, erectile issues, dry, cracking, irritated penis skin to name just a few of the potential male organ health problems. Over the long term expect health issues in which your penis may not provide the performance to which you have become accustomed and of which you will no longer be proud. Most of us sensible guys give the other parts of our bodies lots of attention through exercise, vitamin pills, minerals, nutritional liquids and diets to keep our bodies healthy in order to provide peak performance, physically and mentally. So you have to ask yourself, why do so many men ignore the health of the most sensitive and pleasurable part of their body? There is no logical answer, however, now is the time for intelligent men of action to step up and be responsible for their penis health care and do so before the inevitable penis health issues appear. There are products available that have penis-select vitamins, minerals and nutrients that are ingredients necessary for proper penis health care. For information on penis health and penis health products visit, http://www.man1health.com And, please, act now, your penis health is much too important to ignore any longer.

---

Skeptic January 13, 2010 5:20 pm (Pacific time)

It is important to remember that there are no vestigial organs or body parts. Each and every part of the body serves a specific, important purpose. If the foreskin failed to serve a purpose, it would have disappeared millions of years ago. Scientists have concluded, that over the last 65 million years, the foreskin has offered reproductive advantages. It must also be remembered that sexual selection has refined the external genitalia of every creature, including man. The human foreskin is the product of millions of years of evolutionary refinement, and, as such, the human foreskin represents the epitome of design perfection.” Did you know that in other primates the glans is far more sensitive then the foreskin, but in humans it’s reversed? A man’s foreskin has 20000 nerve receptors(more then the clitoris) and is more sexually pleasurable(to the woman as well). You don’t need much to bring an uncircumcised man to orgasm. And that’s a good thing.

---

Destiny January 13, 2010 11:12 am (Pacific time)

1/12/2010 Circumcision health benefit virtually nil, study finds André Picard, Public Health Reporter - From Tuesday's Globe and Mail, Published on Tuesday, Jan. 12, 2010 While it is the most common surgical procedure in the world, there is virtually no demonstrable health benefit derived from circumcision of either newborns or adults, a new study concludes. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/circumcision-health-benefit-virtually-nil-study-finds/article1427972/ The sole exception seems to be using circumcision to reduce the risk of transmission of HIV-AIDS in adult males in sub-Saharan Africa, though it is unlikely that benefit carries over to other parts of the world where rates of HIV-AIDS are much lower. The research, published in Tuesday’s edition of the Annals of Family Medicine, shows that, despite claims, there is little evidence that circumcision can prevent sexually transmitted infections, urinary tract infections and penile cancer. There are also risks to the surgery that, while rare, range from sexual dissatisfaction through to penile loss. “Patients who request circumcision in the belief that it bestows clinical benefits must be made aware of the lack of consensus and robust evidence, as well as the potential medical and psychosocial harms of the procedure,” said Guy Maddern, of the department of surgery at The Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Adelaide, Australia, and lead author of the study. In newborns, he said, the surgery is “inappropriate” because it offers no therapeutic benefit. About one-third of males worldwide undergo circumcision, the surgical removal of the prepuce (or foreskin). The procedure is done principally for religious, cultural and social reasons. Religious male circumcision is practised under both Jewish and Islamic law, and it is an integral part of some aboriginal and African cultural practices. The main social reasons the practice has continued is a widespread desire that boys resemble their fathers, and a belief that boys who undergo circumcision have fewer health problems. The new study, a systematic review (a compilation and analysis of previously published research), looked only at the latter point. Dr. Maddern and his research team found no evidence that uncircumcised men have higher rates of penile cancer. In fact, they noted penile cancer is extremely rare and seemingly unrelated to the presence of a prepuce. The belief that urinary tract infections are more common in uncircumcised males is not backed up by research. Dr. Maddern noted the fewer than 2 per cent of boys suffer urinary tract infections which “makes it unlikely that preventive circumcision of normal boys would outweigh the adverse events associated with the procedure.” Finally, there was no evidence at all that there are fewer sexually-transmitted infections among circumcised males. The exception was a study in sub-Saharan Africa that showed doing the surgery on adult males reduced their risk of contracting HIV-AIDS. (However, rates of HIV-AIDS were not reduced in their female partners.) Rather, Dr. Maddern said, the prepuce seems to act as a barrier against contamination and, by helping maintain a moist environment, enhance sexual pleasure. According to the study, the only medical justification for circumcision is to treat boys or men with penile abnormalities. http://dvgstar.blogspot.com/2010/01/circumcision-health-benefit-virtually.html

---

David January 10, 2010 8:20 pm (Pacific time)

“The first principle of Medicine is DO NO HARM. Circumcision is at the very least a harm, and probably bad... and bad for sex!” Think about this: As far as we know, the foreskin is not a birth defect. It is how the male body is suppose to be. If you are religious, don't you think that asking for circumcision is the same as saying God made a mistake and you have to correct it. And if you are like me a rationalist (read, atheist, but for some reason, the word atheist tends to upset people), can you really rationalize that decision? Please, if you are having a baby boy, take the whole baby home! He will thank you for that!

Editor: David... I appreciate your comment but this is not a blog and we keep the lingo clean, OK?  I took care of it and I think this is a good comment, but please follow the rules, thanks.

---

Adriana... January 9, 2010 6:43 pm (Pacific time)

“For tens of thousands of years, Billions of men kept their foreskin without a problem. And now, in the last 60 years, it suddenly poses a risk?”

---

LC January 6, 2010 5:35 pm (Pacific time)

Some seem to be frightened about the prospect of cleaning a baby's penis. Cleaning a baby's penis is easy. Just wash the outside, and do not forcibly retract the foreskin. As the foreskin becomes naturally retractable during childhood, rinsing under it will suffice. Boys can be taught to do this themselves before they enter school. Cleaning a circumcised adult penis is slightly easier than cleaning an intact one. And cleaning an intact one is easier than cleaning female genitalia. This is a poor argument for painful surgery.
.......................

"Isn't it insulting to the average male's intelligence to
think that surgery is preferable because he can't be entrusted
with washing his genitals when somehow he manages to brush his
teeth, clean his ears and blow his nose?"
Louanne Cole, Ph.D. Sexologist
San Francisco Examiner, pB-7, August 11, 1993.
..........................
"If a 30 year old male began to bathe himself at the age of
five, and, if he spend 20 seconds a day retracting and
rinsing under his foreskin, he will have invested 50 hours
of his life in penile hygiene...This whole exercise has made
me, as a circumcised male closer to age 60 than 30, wonder
just what I've accomplished with my 'gift' of nearly 100 hours
of spared time. Upon reflection, I'd like to think that I've
invested those hours in the writing of this book!"
James Bigelow, Ph.D, author of The Joy of
Uncircumcising! ISBN 0-9630482-1-X

---

Sam January 6, 2010 10:52 am (Pacific time)

"...(From) the very beginning of life, a child's sexuality is an integral part of its being. In my opinion, any crippling interference with childrens' normal bodily functions is a form of emotional as well as physical abuse." Mary Calderone, MD, MPH, Fetal Erection and its Message to Us, SEICUS Report ........................... "All that takes place in the first days of life on the emotional level shapes the pattern of all future reactions. How could a being aggressed in this way(circumcised), while totally helpless, develop into a relaxed, trusting person?" Dr. Frederick Leboyer, author, Birth Without Violence

---

Sam January 6, 2010 10:35 am (Pacific time)

"...no one is aware of the deep implications and life-lasting effect (of circumcision). The torture is experienced in a state of total helplessness which makes it even more frightening and unbearable." Dr. Frederick Leboyer, author, Birth Without Violence

---

Jeff Kaye~ January 2, 2010 6:26 pm (Pacific time)

Wow, you really had me going there, R. Shocking, but effective. I remember when I first read about the incredibly barbaric practice of female "circumcision" in Africa. The sole purpose for that is to "prevent promiscuity" in girls or unfaithfulness in wives. It does neither. What it does is cause excruciating pain for baby girls, just as it does for baby boys anywhere this mutilation is inflicted on the newborn. I remember, while growing up, feeling embarrassed and out of place in the locker rooms at school changing, or in the shower after a workout or game, because I looked different "down there". It seemed (to me) that everybody was circumcised but me. Hopefully that swings more toward the other extreme, wherein circumcision is the exception, and then only when for some reason "indicated" as medically necessary.

---

R December 31, 2009 10:41 am (Pacific time)

Would you circumcise your daughter? http://womanuncensored.blogspot.com/ I was talking with a guy friend of mine who'd recently had his first child: a perfect baby girl. He chatted happily about the joys of being a new parent, and then mentioned an upcoming appointment. "Oh, just a usual checkup?" I asked casually. "No, its time for her snip-snip" he replied, equally casually. I was confused. "You know, her circumcision of course", my friend clarified. Oh, right... that. I asked how he and his wife had come to the decision to have the procedure done on their daughter. Now it was my friend's turn to look confused. "Well, everyone does it, don't they?". "Far from it, actually." I replied. "But I'm interested in your reasons, so go on". And he did. He talked about how he wanted his daughter's genitals to look like his wife's, so she wouldn't be confused later in life. At this point, I wondered if he also intended to get his daughter a nose job, boob job, etc. He mentioned not wanting her to be teased in the locker room someday. I stopped him. "Wait, was she born with a deformity?". He said of course not, but that an un-cut vagina was just funny looking. Then he went on about how dirty they are, and being cut makes them cleaner. He said little girls don't know how to wash themselves anyway, and it would be gross. He said her husband would be glad for it someday as well. I stopped him there too. Would her husband also be glad that his wife felt less pleasure? My friend was confused about that. In his mind, removing parts of his daughter's genitals didn't mean she'd experience less pleasure. Right, how silly of me to think that. I had a million more things to say and ask, but I tried to stay civil. This conversation was clearly becoming strained and painful for both of us, but he felt the need to defend his decision further. My friend then told me about how so many women get yeast infections, UTI's, and such, and that the circumcision might prevent that, and maybe even lessen her risks of some STD's too. I'd seen these supposed studies, and also the ones that debunked them. I guess he'd missed those, and also missed the fact that not a single medical association in the world promotes this "procedure". It was obvious he was doing something he thought was good for his child. I just looked at him, baffled. He then stammered on about how he was the parent and he had every right to make this decision for his child. Everyone else in his family had done it, and they were "fine" and "happy" with it. My mind was reeling with questions and anger. Did he really believe that all baby girls were born defective? Should they have to undergo cosmetic surgery to have "prettier" and "cleaner" genitals? Was it really that hard for a child or any person to spend a few seconds washing down there? Certainly washing one's hair takes more time, but we all seem to manage that. How could he look at his perfect little girl and think that something on her was so disgusting and ugly that it had to be cut off? How could he think that it was "normal" and that "everyone does it"? How could he put her through the risks of a surgery for such stupid reasons? He even thinks that removing her parts would prevent infections and diseases. Following that logic, we should remove ALL teeth because they *might* get cavities, breasts because they *might* get cancer, and well... EVERY other part of the body because they may become infected or diseased some day. What odd reasoning. Certainly there are better ways to prevent and deal with such things. We do it for every other part of the body, why not the genitals? And why would he assume he has the right to make such a decision for his child? Her genitals were posing no immediate risk to her, so didn't she have a right to her own healthy body parts? Isn't it HER body? Aren't we supposedly all about "rights" and "choices" in America? Where were his daughter's rights and choices? He was going to walk right into that doctors office and pay to have his child's most sensitive parts mutilated. I felt sick to my stomach and just left him with a half-hearted excuse about needing to get home. You may be sitting there, SHOCKED at how something like this could happen in America. You may think this isn't even true. The truth is, the healthy genitals of non-consenting minors are cut apart every single day, and many people don't even think twice about it. Many people defend the decision to do so with every fiber of their being. Many people even have it done to their child without really even knowing WHY. They don't even think twice about it. I've encountered numerous people who feel just like "my friend" in this story, and use the very same reasons that he did. The one thing I lied about is the child's gender. When this story is told about a baby girl, most people would be HORRIFIED and would want to see the parents imprisoned for mutilating their child. However, when we talk about a baby boy, suddenly it is a parent's "choice", and supposedly a valid and legal one at that. WHY? Why do we protect our baby girls like mother bears, but throw our sons under the knife every day? Because his penis is ugly? Because it is dirty? Because it is different from his father's? Because it *might* become infected someday? Because his wife will be glad? Because its what everyone else does? Because its "no big deal and it doesnt hurt anyway"? Because its "just a useless piece of skin anyway"? Wrong. Just like every part of the female genitalia has purpose, function, and sensation, so does the male foreskin. And hello... there are these lovely things called soap and water readily available to us. We are WASHABLE people! You wouldn't dare let a doctor or any other person suggest that your daughter's genitals were ugly, gross, and unneccesary. Why do we allow such nonsense with our sons? Many of us don't. Most of the world, in fact, and now about half of Americans. Those who DO have circumcisions performed on their sons, operate under the assumption that it is just the normal thing to do. It is not. It was, for a very short time, considered "normal" in a few parts of the world. It was promoted heavily during the times that masturbation was seen as dirty and even dangerous to the body and mind. It was believed that circumcision would stop boys from masturbating. Some doctors even recommended it for American girls for a time. Then later, as people realized that circumcision did not stop masturbation, they tried coming up with other "reasons" to mutilate our boys. Myths sprung up like weeds. Its time for the insanity to stop. Its time for the sexism to end. In a time where we've fought for the rights of minorities, children, and women, we've left one portion of our population out. We've trampled on the human rights of our baby boys, and we've done it holding our heads high and justifying ourselves. Wake up people. It is nearly 2010. We should be smarter than this. If you read my story above and were horrified for the little girl, but sit there and justify the same thing being done to boys, congratulations, you are a raging sexist. If this story has made you think, even just a little, thank you. Thank you from me, from the men who resent being circumcised as babies, from the parents who regret having it done to their child, and from the babies of this world who won't have to endure such a travesty because of increasing awareness. Please check out the links below regarding this issue. There are countless more, but I trust that if you're interested enough, you'll find them. http://www.nocirc.org/ http://www.http://womanuncensored.blogspot.com/doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/ http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/ http://drmomma.blogspot.com/

---

Robert December 31, 2009 10:35 am (Pacific time)

For Josh A.. Laumann's study showed that circumcised man masturbate more often and have more varied sex acts--to try to compensate for all of the missing sensations. Viagra: "Viagra remains one of the world's most recognized pharmaceutical brands and maintains a strong leadership position in the erectile dysfunction (ED) category with a 71-percent worldwide market share among phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors. In the U.S., which represents 53 percent of the worldwide ED market, Viagra generated strong fourth-quarter revenues of $248 million, representing a 14-percent increase over the third quarter." The U.S. has 53% of the worlds men who have erectile dysfunction. Now does it have 53% of the world's men? NOPE. Circumcision proponents sure have a lot to answer for. http://www.pfizer.com/are/investors_releases/2005pr/mn_2005_0119.cfm Rates of Viagra usage is highest in circumcised countries--info available upon request. You should not dismiss something as myths unless you have evidence to refute them.

---

Michael December 31, 2009 9:34 am (Pacific time)

MRI Studies: The Brain Permanently Altered From Infant Circumcision by Dr. Paul D. Tinari Ph.D. Two of my physics professors at Queen’s University (Dr. Stewart and Dr. McKee) were the original developers of Positron Emission Tomography (PET) for medical applications. They and a number of other Queen’s physicists also worked on improving the accuracy of fMRI for observing metabolic activity within the human body. As a graduate student working in the Dept. of Epidemiology, I was approached by a group of nurses who were attempting to organize a protest against male infant circumcision in Kinston General Hospital. They said that their observations indicated that babies undergoing the procedure were subjected to significant and inhumane levels of pain that subsequently adversely affected their behaviours. They said that they needed some scientific support for their position. It was my idea to use fMRI and/or PET scanning to directly observe the effects of circumcision on the infant brain. The operator of the MRI machine in the hospital was a friend of mine and he agreed to allow us to use the machine for research after normal operational hours. We also found a nurse who was under intense pressure by her husband to have her newborn son circumcised and she was willing to have her son to be the subject of the study. Her goal was to provide scientific information that would eventually be used to ban male infant circumcision. Since no permission of the ethics committee was required to perform any routine male infant circumcision, we did not feel it was necessary to seek any permission to carry out this study. We tightly strapped an infant to a traditional plastic “circumrestraint” using Velcro restraints. We also completely immobilized the infant’s head using standard surgical tape. The entire apparatus was then introduced into the MRI chamber. Since no metal objects could be used because of the high magnetic fields, the doctor who performed the surgery used a plastic bell (“Plastibell”) with a sterilized obsidian bade to cut the foreskin. No anaesthetic was used. The baby was kept in the machine for several minutes to generate baseline data of the normal metabolic activity in the brain. This was used to compare to the data gathered during and after the surgery. Analysis of the MRI data indicated that the surgery subjected the infant to significant trauma. The greatest changes occurred in the limbic system concentrating in the amygdala and in the frontal and temporal lobes. A neurologist who saw the results to postulated that the data indicated that circumcision affected most intensely the portions of the victim’s brain associated with reasoning, perception and emotions. Follow up tests on the infant one day, one week and one month after the surgery indicated that the child’s brain never returned to its baseline configuration. In other words, the evidence generated by this research indicated that the brain of the circumcised infant was permanently changed by the surgery. Our problems began when we attempted to publish our findings in the open medical literature. All of the participants in the research including myself were called before the hospital discipline committee and were severely reprimanded. We were told that while male circumcision was legal under all circumstances in Canada, any attempt to study the adverse effects of circumcision was strictly prohibited by the ethical regulations. Not only could we not publish the results of our research, but we also had to destroy all of our results. If we refused to comply, we were all threatened with immediate dismissal and legal action. I would encourage anyone with access to fMRI and /or PET scanning machines to repeat our research as described above, confirm our results, and then publish the results in the open literature. Dr. Paul D. Tinari, Ph.D. Director, Pacific Institute for Advanced Study More on Circumcision and Neurological/Brain Impact Studies: Circumcision Pain Studies End Early Due to Infant Trauma Infant Pain Impacts Adult Sensitivity and Perception

---

Osotan; December 31, 2009 2:56 am (Pacific time)

the more I read the more dysfuncional I feel. No wonder I had so many wives.,I was misinformed.,sliced and diced, now older and wiser, but depressed to the point of self medication., I cringe when I look at it!

---

SH December 30, 2009 9:16 pm (Pacific time)

Circumcision:
Should it be Illegal for Under 18’s?

“All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident.”

Arthur Schoepenhauer.

Following my recent article, ‘Circumcision, AIDS and Human Rights‘ questioning the legitimacy of circumcision, I posted this question on an official White House discussion board;

‘Is it time to make circumcision illegal for under 18’s?

My aim was to help facilitate discussion and debate regarding this subject.

I asked….

What about the rights of newborn babies and children?

Don’t they need protection?

As a Manager at United States Department of Defense put it;

“the arguments flew from irrational, to emotional, to religious, to parental rights!”

Part of my opening arguments were as follows:

Human rights as listed by the U.N.

* Article 3: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.
* Article 5(1): “Everyone has the right to liberty and security of the person”.
* Article 8: “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life” except for the “protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”.
* Article 9(1): “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”.
* Article 9(2): “Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”.(III)

And the relationship within these rights and the pain endured by the infant.


Because according to a comprehensive study, newborn responses to pain are ’similar to, but greater than, those observed in adult subjects.’

Some infants do not cry because they go into traumatic shock from the overwhelming pain of the surgery. No experimental anesthetic has been found to be safe and effective in preventing circumcision pain in infants.

The procedure for circumcision in America involves the baby being strapped spread-eagle to a plastic board, with his arms and legs immobilized by Velcro straps. A nurse scrubs his genitals with an antiseptic solution and places a surgical drape – with a hole in it to expose his penis – across his body.

The doctor grasps the tip of the foreskin with one hemostat and inserts another hemostat between the foreskin and the glans. In 96% of newborns, these two structures are attached to one another by a continuous layer of epithelium, which protects the sensitive glans from urine and feces in infancy and childhood.

The foreskin is then torn from the glans. The hemostat is used to crush an area of the foreskin lengthwise, which prevents bleeding when the doctor cuts through the tissue to enlarge the foreskin opening. This allows insertion of the circumcision instrument. The foreskin is crushed against this device and amputated.

Currently, some doctors use a dorsal penile nerve block to numb the penis during infant circumcision. While not always effective, this anesthesia may afford some pain relief during the surgery, although it offers no pain relief during the recovery period (which can last up to 14 days) when the baby urinates and defecates into the raw wound.

Does this enforced practice, inflicted without approval from the subject, constitute infringement of human (child ) rights and a call for an age of consent?

Editor: SH, I had to cut this off strictly over length, no pun intended.  I have your entire contribution saved, are you the author or related to the author?  If so, I would strongly consider publishing it in it's entirety as an article.  If it is something you came across, then I would be happy to add the link.  Please write to me at tim@salem-news.com

Tim King 

---

DS December 30, 2009 8:38 pm (Pacific time)

Male Genital Mutilation News: A bill to ban infant circumcision will have a hearing in Massachusetts soon. The bill is S-1777, and people can submit written testimony to Michael.Avitzur@state.ma.us and Gene.Oflaherty@state.ma.us. There will be a public hearing on all miscellaneous bills, including this one to ban infant circumcision, sometime in January 2010. The text of the bill is here. Men have a right to grow to adulthood without having their bodies permanently altered without their consent. If they wish to do it to themselves as adults, fine. __________________ "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." ~Margaret Mead

---

Dean December 30, 2009 8:24 pm (Pacific time)

Who Is The Better Lover: Circumcised Or Intact Men? Here's a brand new study on circumcision that got my attention right away. The subject is the effect of male circumcision on women's sexual enjoyment. This article comes to us from the BJU International,a British urological publication. This is the first study to look at what women said in comparing sexual experiences with sexual partners who were circumcised versus intact sexual partners. Researchers recruited women through magazine ads and an anti-circumcision publication and sent the women respondents 40 written survey questions. The 139 women respondents were overwhelming in favor of sex with intact partners. With circumcised partners, women were less likely to have a vaginal orgasm or multiple orgasms and were more likely to experience sexual discomfort, the report says. "During prolonged intercourse with their circumcised partners, women were less likely to really get into it and more likely to want to get it over with," the authors, Drs. K. O?Hara and J. O?Hara, report. The authors continue, "respondents overwhelmingly concurred that the mechanics of coitus were different for the two groups...73 percent [of the women] reported that circumcised men tended to thrust harder and deeper, using elongated strokes, while unaltered men thrust more gently, to have shorter thrusts and tended to be in contact with the mons pubis and the clitoris more." Remember these are statistics and they are not true for every individual. "While some of the respondents commented that they thought the differences were in the men, not the type of penis, the consistency with which women felt more intimate with their unaltered partners is striking," the authors state. "Why the presence of a foreskin enhances intimacy needs further exploration." Many societies have seen genital mutilation as a way to try to control sexuality. Female genital mutilation in Africa is still used to decrease women's desire today, while in the 1800s society thought circumcision in men would curb men's desire to masturbate. Back in the 12th century, Moses Maimonides, a rabbi, said circumcision could control men's desires for sex. He also said women were less likely to leave an intact man once they had had sex with him, which is consistent with what these 20th century researchers found. The study's authors conclude that "the anatomically complete penis offers a more rewarding experience during coitus," and that, "...the negative effect of circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female needs to be part of any discussions providing informed consent before circumcision." The point that I am trying to make is that circumcision is painful, unnecessary, and, now, we can see from this evidence, less likely to promote a good sex life and a long and happy marriage. Why don't we stop this practice? This article can be accessed directly at: /drdean/408/8812.html http://www.healthcentral.com/PrinterFriendly_hc/drdean/408/8812.html

---

Sheila December 30, 2009 8:15 pm (Pacific time)

The following article appeared in the UK Newspaper 'The telegraph' Friday, December 04, 2009 Infant and child circumcision could violate Human Rights Act (UK) The Telegraph reports that a lecturer in ethics at Glasgow University has published a paper in the journal Clinical Ethics, arguing that it is unethical to circumcise boys for no medical reason. Dr. David Shaw writes that a doctor who performs infant male circumcision without therapeutic indication may commit negligence and be in breach of the Human Rights Act (UK) because a child cannot consent and child circumcision is not in the best interests of boys. Essentially Dr. Shaw argues that circumcision, if it is to be carried out by medical staff, must be indicated. Absence of indication As such, it is subject to the same ethical considerations as any other medical procedure. Moreover, religious grounds do not apply because the infant patient is not in a position to hold religious views consent. Dr. Shaw writes a long paper to methodically take apart the absurd notion, concocted to dance around a practice deeply embedded in society, that parents are the proxy patient when it comes to infant circumcision. He argues rather that the general consensus that circumcision is never medically indicated for infants and rarely for children makes its application negligent where it is the parents making the request for cultural or religious reasons. This echoes Intact America's simple slogan during the AAP NCE 2009 conference: "The baby, not the parent, is your patient." You can download a pdf version of Dr. Shaw's paper here. Dr. Shaw may be contacted at the following address. Dental School Faculty of Medicine and Centre for Applied Ethics and Legal Philosophy University of Glasgow 378 Sauchiehall Street Glasgow G2 3JZ UK E-mail: d.shaw@dental.gla.ac.uk

---

Tom Tobin December 29, 2009 9:32 pm (Pacific time)

Regardless of what American medical societies say, or don't say, circumcision is an act of incredible violence. I witnessed one accidentally, and that boy's screams were enough to make the hair on the back of my neck stand up. Even with anesthesia, there is no reason to remove or permanently damage the two most responsive parts of a male, the inner foreskin and frenulum. Circumcision benefits a boy as much as it benefits a girl. This money chasing, and legal maneuvering has got to stop. Cutting a part off of someone else's body without an immediate need is ethically wrong. Brave article, Tim King. It took a lot of courage to write, and to edit.

---

Oregon Reader December 29, 2009 9:18 pm (Pacific time)

Believe it! Viafin-Atlas are the world leaders in the manufacture of artificial foreskin for circumcised men. After extensive research and development, Viafin-Atlas proudly offer the SenSlip - the world's first ever artificial retractable foreskin for circumcised men. http://www.viafin-atlas.com/index.php

---

Chriss December 29, 2009 8:39 am (Pacific time)

Actually,being intact male is the best and being circumcised is the worst.

---

Jack December 29, 2009 8:21 am (Pacific time)

Thanks for this great article. There is a need for America to wake up and stop doing this. Unfortunately, the main risk of circumcision is fully ignored. There is 100% chance that circumcision will damage the male genitals as to function and pleasure. Not mentioning this fact is tantamount to spreading misinformation. This surgery takes away main male pleasure zones including the mechanism to gain and maintain an erection. The foreskin is not just skin and does not just protect the glans (head). Circumcision is now known to ablate the most sensitive parts of the male genitals. This surgery takes away the main male pleasure zones with about 20000 fine touch and stretch nerve endings amputated. The foreskin has several parts including the ridged band that is great for ones pleasure (that is why nutters like Kellogg wanted to chop em off, to curtail masturbation), Masturbation is important for a mans physical and mental health. The ridged band directly contacts the vagina for very great pleasure all around. The dynamics of sex and the actual mechanism of the penis are drastically changed by circumcision. The foreskin can normally be slipped all the way, or almost all the way, back to the base of the penis, and also slipped forward beyond the glans. This wide range of motion is the mechanism by which the penis and the orgasmic triggers in the foreskin, frenulum, and glans are stimulated. The only touch organ possessing as rich erogenous innervation as the foreskin is the clitoris. Circumcision deprives man of 2/3ds of the main erogenous zone constituted of the foreskin and the glans. BTW, the other risks (besides loss of sexual function, ED, PE and loss of PLEASURE) include curved or misshapen erection, painful erection, botches of all sorts (many requiring redo) and death. Boys dies each year in the US from this sick practice.

---

Brett December 29, 2009 5:37 am (Pacific time)

Glad to see so many rational people here. I won't repeat the same things that have already been said other than that this ridiculous joke of a "medical procedure" needs to come to an end.

---

Mike December 28, 2009 10:56 pm (Pacific time)

Beingcutsucks, I approve of ten years prison for statements like that.

---

Steve M December 28, 2009 10:14 pm (Pacific time)

Great article. Circumcising baby boys is a heinous sexual crime committed on minors in my opinion. It certainly should be illegal. Circumcised males are missing about FIFTEEN squaure inches of penile skin and around TWENTY THOUSAND erogenous nerve endings. No way is it justifiable to do that much sexual damage to non-consenting human beings when it's not medically necessary.

---

Eric December 28, 2009 9:59 pm (Pacific time)

In most of the rest of the world, they don’t mutilate male babies by the barbaric process of male genital mutilation called circumcision. Worldwide more than 80% of males are not circumcised, and are left intact, to enjoy having the benefits of being unmutilated–with complete sexual sensitivity and function. The mutilation rate in the US has fallen to about 50% and continues to decline as more people are educated to what the rest of the world knew all along; a whole, natural and normal penis with a foreskin feels and functions better than a partial, mutilated penis, scarred by circumcision. Circumcision is the worst hoax ever perpetrated on the male sex. A foreskin is not a birth defect; it is a birthright.

---

Bart December 28, 2009 9:57 pm (Pacific time)

I can't imagine living and not having my foreskin.

---

beingcutsucks December 28, 2009 7:38 am (Pacific time)

it is important to stop this absurd practice, yes, but we also have to consider those who have been pushing it all these years, contrary to common sense, science, and the rest of the world who doesnt do it.(34% is a lie to make the circumfetishests at circlist feel better about themselves it is realy closer to 10) there needs to be PROSECUTION the scumbags who have been doing this need to not be let to just wriggle away when it is finally criminalized! would we let ANYONE get away with cutting the WHOLE penis off? OF COURSE NOT! it is as hypocritical as partial birth abortion! if even the babys toe is still in the birth canal it is not a human but if it comes out it is! you can remove the foreskin but not the glans, see the similarity? THERE NEEDS TO BE PRISON SENTENCES HANDED OUT TO MUTILATORS IM IN FAVOR OF TEN YEARS PER ''CIRCUMCISION'' STOP THE MADNESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

---

notmelbrooks December 28, 2009 11:02 am (Pacific time)

Really ? 1/3rd is chopped off. Are you sure ? Have you actually measured it ? Is the end of the penis really missing ?

---

Josh A. December 28, 2009 8:53 am (Pacific time)

I am going to reveal what we're all thinking here (or at least most of us). Circumcision has NO effect on a man OR a boy's level or frequency of masturbation... What a wives-tale that is. Whats most scary is the thing about Viagra being a product most needed by circumcised males... what evidence do we have on that? Elaborate if possible. That's a scary thought for someone like me in their early 20's. There sure are a lot of penis myths out there... Is it still that taboo that we can't question this practice and increase our knowledge on a 'whole society' level? Good article. Scary picture haha.

---

Rick55 December 28, 2009 4:41 am (Pacific time)

I second Tally's comment... My parents really had no right to go removing a part of me. It's not their decision to make unless absolutely necessary to my well being which it wasn't as I was born perfectly healthy I have been told. Was I going to be having sex and catching STD's at that age? Nope. Do natural girls get UTI's and bacterial infestations FAR, FAR more often than boys and yet we don't cut them? Yes. Are condoms more effective at preventing STD's? Yes again. Does circumcision desensitize some men enough to the point where they may be reluctant to use condoms? Yes. Is it a sexist double standard when one sex is protected from genital cutting but the other is not? Yes. Does it infringe upon the boys human rights? Yes! There is no point. The surgery presents it's own ample problems and has it's own complications that can be an iatrogenic artifact (term used to describe medicine induced adverse effects or complications) and mirror (or worse, losing the glans) any natural troubles you may have from being left uncut. Where is there a "benefit that outweighs the risk" again? I'm not seeing one. Explain to me how the US manages to have the most STD's AND highest ratios of cut men out of all the developed nations today as well... How does that work if it helps to reduce infection? Reality there simply isn't holding up to the studies. Further, aren't people aware that you can correct phimosis non-invasively with steroidal creams or stretching the opening gently over time? This fixes the problem while preserving the foreskin. The only one missing the point here is you, Daniel... Personally, I think it's amazingly stupid that people never questioned it back then. I don't know about you but I'm ashamed of my ancestors gullibility. Removing a mobile part of the penis doesn't detract from the ways it can be masturbated or lessen it's ability to perceive pleasures? I'm supposed to believe this? Especially when common sense seems to dictate otherwise with every other mammal having something like a foreskin on their anatomy and they don't get these CONSTANT problems with theirs that our species like to believe in? Yeah, okay. There is a fine line that can be crossed when people go nuts with suppressing their instincts or gut feelings to the extent that it can become pathological. Circumcision is an example of this. When I first heard of circumcision, almost IMMEDIATELY it sounded like a very weird thing to be doing to me. Although I did my research, I was willing to look both ways but the arguments in favor wound up sounding really trivial and non-important... Just 'cause dads cut? No. And you get STD's from sex with infected people. Not the foreskin. Cut or not if you're doing it with somebody infected, well... Self explanatory. Please just stop doing this... I grew up my entire life believing I wasn't altered, but that notion was broken when I learned of this phenomenon and left me feeling back stabbed. I'm not alone in feeling this way either. Many other men also want to restore their foreskins.

---

Mike December 28, 2009 2:04 am (Pacific time)

Embarrassing.

---

Chriss December 27, 2009 10:58 pm (Pacific time)

While America is the land of mutilated penis,Indonesia is the archipelago of mutilated penis.However,as Indonesian,I prefer intact penis rather than mutilated penis.But,I will talk with religious views mostly. Circumcision which was a Jewish culture was for Jews only according to the Jewish law (Nehemiah 8:1 And all the people gathered themselves together as one man into the street that was before the water gate; and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the LAW OF MOSES, which the LORD HAD COMMANDED TO ISRAEL.) But,this Jewish laws including circumcision were ended in the time of John Baptist according to the Christian Holy Bible (Luke 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.) So,there is no more reason for Christians to circumcise their self or children.And also,circumcision is a big sin for Christians. St.Paul warned us that there would be heretics who misguided people by circumcision with so many ways for their profits (Titus 1:10-11 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.) No more circumcision for America!

---

George December 27, 2009 5:50 pm (Pacific time)

"Custom will reconcile people to any atrocity." George Bernard Shaw

---

Sheila December 27, 2009 5:30 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel Johnson December 27, 2009 4:42 pm (Pacific time) We need some perspective here. Circumcision began to be universally practised back, I think, in the 1940s. For Sheila to suggest that doctors are "unethical" and for Restoring Tally to wish his parents hadn't made that choice for him are missing the point. That was a different time and virtually no one questioned the practise. To argue differently today is revisionist. .......................... Daniel, It's not too late for you to wakeup to reality. Since at least the time of Hippocrates or earlier, it's been unethical for a physician to do anything to a patient that is not required. Circumcision has never been required - in fact no medical organization in the world recommends it. Daniel, I suggest it's you that's the revisionist.

---

Cutman December 27, 2009 5:09 pm (Pacific time)

I have 3 boys, 2 girls, 1 dog and 2 cats. All of them are circumcised. I intend to buy a parrot next week. Does anyone know if I can circumcise it ?

---

Osotan; December 27, 2009 5:01 pm (Pacific time)

I been violated!,mutilated!.,castigated!,and it all goes back to israel and their somewhat unusual rights of passage.,hell.,I been shortened!,diminished!.,dis-enfranchised by a kosher mindset!, what's a baptist-buddhist doing with a circumcized,traumatized.,agonised member? The ignanomy of it all is staggering. I'm thinking of sueing the bastards! Picture a man in a medical gown, rubber gloves and a scalpel looking down at a newborn, innocent male child, saying "hi there!,I'm a doctor and I'm going to slice off part of your dick.,trust me, it won't hurt at all and it's for your own good!". I'm mad as hell, can't take it anymore! Gimme back my skin! "Mama, don't let yo' babies grow up to be doctors.,make'm be welder's or cowboys and such"

---

Daniel Johnson December 27, 2009 4:42 pm (Pacific time)

We need some perspective here. Circumcision began to be universally practised back, I think, in the 1940s. For Sheila to suggest that doctors are "unethical" and for Restoring Tally to wish his parents hadn't made that choice for him are missing the point. That was a different time and virtually no one questioned the practise. To argue differently today is revisionist.

---

Michael December 27, 2009 4:29 pm (Pacific time)

Agreed! Infant circumcision is nothing short of barbaric. -restoring 20 year old

---

Greg H December 27, 2009 3:47 pm (Pacific time)

Good article - people also should know the specifics of what is lost: approximately 20,000 highly specialized sensory receptors, smooth muscle tissue, sebaceous glands for sexual lubrication, among other things. All people have an inherent right to bodily integrity. Circumcision of children, male or female, is a human rights violation.

---

Sheila December 27, 2009 11:12 am (Pacific time)

I have five boys and they are all natural(intact foreskin). Parent have no right to remove tissue that's normal - and doctors who go along with this practice are unethical.

---

Brad December 27, 2009 10:48 am (Pacific time)

Tim, I couldn't agree more with you. To remove perfectly healthy tissue for no reason is mutilation. Maimonides made the following observation about seven hundred years ago. Maimonides, Moses The Guide of the Perplexed Translated by Shlomo Pines The University of Chicago Press, 1963 (Many scholars consider this to be the most authoritative translation to date.) Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, 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. It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally. This gave the possibility to everyone to raise an objection and to say: How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member? In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally. The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision. As one European doctor put it - America has had an obsession with circumcision.

---

Guggie Daly December 27, 2009 10:09 am (Pacific time)

Don't forget that foreskins are sold for a profit by hospitals and doctors. They are sold to skin grafting and cosmetic companies, who then develop products that bring millions of dollars of profit to the companies. Baby boys are being mutilated, they are being HARVESTED so that companies can profit from their body parts.

---

Restoring Tally December 27, 2009 9:32 am (Pacific time)

I was circumcised at birth and wish my parents had not made my choice for me. I would have chosen to remain intact. I am restoring my foreskin and I know the difference between circumcised and having a foreskin. I much prefer having a foreskin, even a restored one. Male infant circumcision needs to stop.

---

Jeff K - December 27, 2009 9:05 am (Pacific time)

I wholeheartedly second the motion to discontinue this barbaric practice which has very little purpose other than padding medical practioners' pockets that "little extra". Baby boys have had the entire glans (head) of their penis sheared off by sloppy circumcisionists. The wound itself can result in infection. Baby boys scream in utter agony when this is performed, and hospital staff say "that's normal". No, it is NOT! God and/or evolution has provided the male of our species with a protective sheath over the glans of the penis. This protective sheath has the added benefit of enhancing sensory perception in the penis, thus making sex more pleasurable. The foreskin is like having a pair of warm lips covering the end of the penis - now, who doesn't want that? Religious groups who misinterpret ancient writings to deprive pre-pubescent and adolescent boys of what little pleasure there is to be had at that age: masturbation. Please, parents, stop mutilating your little boys, whatever the reasoning behind the institution of this unnecessary and brutal procedure into our culture.

[Return to Top]

---

©2025 Salem-News.com. All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Salem-News.com.