Jump to page: 1 2
I’ve written about this briefly before, but today I want to dive in a little deeper. I know this post will cause some debate. That’s okay. Talking about things can never be bad. Just please, let’s try to keep it civil.
Ever since I started Single Dad Laughing more than two and a half years ago, I have been approached by all sorts of zealots and extremists for various causes. Some of them passionately encouraged me to write in support of their views, others have threatened to destroy my name and blog if I don’t jump onto their bandwagon.
The strangest of all of those, to me, are the ones that I really have nothing to do with. Like when a group of extreme breastfeeding mothers threatened to sweep the internet and ruin me to all parent groups everywhere.
When I got those messages (some of which were very recent), I laughed. I could just hear it, “boycott Single Dad Laughing because he’s a horrible human being! He refuses to write about the need to breastfeed!” And then I laughed again as I wondered if they even knew that Noah is adopted. That boy hasn’t had a breast in his mouth yet, and hopefully he won’t for another decade. Or three.
And then there’s the anti-circumcision group. They’ve made similar threats.
In fact, these two groups (who I have my suspicions are often one and the same) have approached me multiple times, sometimes nicely, sometimes horribly, and have by far been the most vocal of all the extremists. They’ve had their eye on my platform, and feel like I owe it to them to use it on their behalf.
See, I had my son circumcised. Circumcision was what I grew up with. I never thought twice about it. It’s just what you did.
And the truth is, I’d like to write about my experience circumcising Noah. It wasn’t pleasant and it made me take pause and rethink the practice in general. Without getting into too much detail, they didn’t have him completely numbed, and his screams from that day still haunt me.
But I can’t write about that. Not honestly. Because, you see, the topic is such a hot one that the anti-circumcision people might take my story and run with it and put me on their list as a notable person in “their camp.”
But I’m not in their camp. And I’m not pro-circumcision, either. I simply have a story and perspective that I wish I could share but I’ll never share because I don’t want to deal with the aftermath. I honestly haven’t done enough research to make an honest decision about it, nor do I want to until the time comes (if it ever comes) that I have to look at that choice again.
And if that day does come, I don’t even know where to look, if I’m being honest (and please don’t send me content to research, I’ll just toss it). Searching the internet for the truth about circumcision is like searching the internet for the truth about religion. There’s a lot of passionate people on both sides who are flinging a lot of half truths and a lot of mud in each other’s directions. The extremism of it all is enough to sour any new parent, I would think.
And so I will tell you all that I simply don’t give a crap about it. One way or the other.
I don’t care how much data you show that circumcision is the worst thing on earth. I’ve seen enough to know that the majority of the people who are vocal about it are mothers. They’re not the men who had their foreskins whopped off as children. Sure, there are some, and yes some of them are also vocal about it, and some of them it has affected, and some of them wish they still had every bit of their penis in place, but the vast, vast majority of circumcised men don’t give a crap, just like me. I’m thankful my parents had mine taken off.
I also don’t give a crap how much data you show me that circumcision is just fine, almost always undamaging, and how people later in life suffer emotionally and physically if they’re not cut. I just don’t care enough to be extreme myself about something so many people have been so extreme to each other about.
My entire experience with circumcision lies in two points of data for me.
1) My son’s circumcision did not go well and was traumatic.
2) A friend of mine was not circumcised as a child, and he hated that about himself so much that he had it done when he was older, which was really traumatic for him and caused lots of complications.
See why I don’t care? I can’t base anything off of two conflicting points of data, and everything else out there that I’ve seen is so extreme that I don’t want to touch any of it.
And breastfeeding isn’t any better. It seems that there is this group of moms who spend their entire waking moment swapping their kids onto their breasts with one hand and perusing the internet trying to make every mom who doesn’t breastfeed (or doesn’t breastfeed until their child weans themselves) feel like the world’s biggest failures with the other.
Breast is best! Breast is best! Breast is best!
A handful of people are chanting it so loudly that they’ve somehow made themselves appear as the majority. And I don’t care for that. Ever.
- 1 2
I think what Dan is trying to say is that it's FINE if you believe either way. It's okay. You don't have any control over other people's beliefs and choices, so why bother trying to sway them? Why waste time and energy trying to get them to change their beliefs, instead of simply trying to get along and live in harmony? THAT'S his message. He's not saying people who do or don't believe in circumcision or breastfeeding are extremists: he's saying that people who repeatedly condemn others for not believing as they do are the extremists.
@Lauren but, you see...when it comes to a human rights issue like circumcision, where parts of a baby are being amputated for no benefit, permanently altering the form and function of that child, it IS important to try to change somebody's mind. In fact, I've personally saved quite a few babies from being unnecessarily harmed by genital mutilation.
Would you say the same of somebody begging parents to reconsider cutting their daughter's genitals?
I smell misogyny. As much as you talk about not wanting to start a war, you certainly send off quite a few rockets yourself. Just as you want people to stop taking sides, you need to do so too. Take responsibility for your choices, and remember that denial, shame and blame are all part of the same game.
I should have read some of the comments before I posted. I think it's sad that some people just do not understand the gist of your message. The debate is sad - what happened to buttering toast? You were very kind when you ask us to relate to the message, not the hot button topics discussed therein. Why can't we all be courteous enough to follow your simple request? After all, we are JUST GUESTS on your page and I for one have been taught to be polite when I was a guest and follow the rules of their home. Thank you for inviting us and you are a gracious host.
@Kristi C - The problem with Dan's stance on circumcision is that he's calling people who are trying to save children from an unnecessary procedure that damages them for the rest of their lives "extremists". His own son had complications, and yet he admits he knows nothing of the subject and doesn't WANT to know. He even says if anyone offers him information, he'll toss it. That's the most arrogant form of ignorance I've ever seen. It's a horrible stance for anyone, let alone someone who thinks they're a great father.
Yes, we're all just guests here, but if I went to his house, I wouldn't chop up my son's penis just to fit in, I'd call him out on his ignorance, which is what everyone here is doing.
@RobertHoward @Kristi C Thank you for your response. I would just like to clarify that I TOO have opinions that can be expressed about these subjects. I am a mother with children of both sexes, therefore I can speak with some intelligence on both hot button subjects. I have chosen not to do so because I do not feel that was the point of the conversation. You are entitled to your opinions or beliefs on both subjects. But, as I stated, they are just YOUR OPINIONS. I do not believe it was necessary at any point to "call him out on his ignorance." You are still here as a guest and have no reason to be rude. Again, I would like to thank you for your point - and I wish you much happiness :)
@Kristi C Let's agree in something: you are gracious, and I'm sure you are a sweet person who see good thing in others. Dan? He is an ass, who just thinks in himself. I used to liked him a lot, I even invited him to come visit me in Brazil. :) But some of us need more time to see he uses a big mask, just trying to sell his blog. I don't condenm him (not a lot at least hehe), but I do expect more respect for my intelligence. And you definitely don't send the message "Why cant we all just get along" by offending people as he does. I don't think he was doing that, Kristi... Best for you, Karen.
@KarenArguedas @Kristi C - Thank you for your kind words, I do my best to try to be gracious. Although I respect your point of view (and and your right to express it), I do not share it. I happen to really like him and will continue to keep reading ;). May I ask, with all due respect, why are you still here if you feel the way you do? Just curious. Thanks again and I wish the best for you also :)
I love your "Why can't we all just get along?" way of thinking. You help to make this world a more tolerant loving place. I think it would be awesome to know you personally - AND I accept you no matter which way you butter your toast ;)
I am not an extremist, but I do not believe in the genital mutilation of boys. Our doc wanted to do it to our son without any painkillers and he was already in the NICU with other, much more serious issues and didn't want to put him through that.
I later saw a baby boy that had just been circumcised and was appalled at how his little penis looked. No way would I do that to my kid, but if you want to, go ahead.
BRAVO!
@jamifergie
For what, providing implicit support of the genital mutilation of baby boys?
If we were supposed to butt out in all cases of raising children, then I'd like to draw your attention to the following:
Why are parents arrested and thrown in jail for allowing their children to get tattoos they want?
Why do we have CPS, because, after all, if a parent decides that beating their kids until they're black and blue is the way their kids should be disciplined, it's not your right to tell them what to do with their kids.
Why, in the case of circumcision, is it still accepted as normal to do to boys and illegal and wrong to perform the same or less traumatic procedure to girls?
I understand there is a militant minority out there, but as for promoting breastfeeding and being anti-circ, there are some very good reasons for both. It seems that any opinion that is contrary to your own or outside of the neutral zone will get labled as 'extremist'. What you post is really screaming is "I can't cope with the facts I've been shown so I'm going to go on the attack". Seriously. Not. Cool.
@UnivLaurel it is NOT a less traumatic procedure that is typically done on girls. They don't remove a bit of skin - they remove a lot more and often cause nerve damage. Please, read up on the procedures used. It is truly horrifying.
Also, if you follow Dan, you will know that he does differentiate between parenting and beating.
@Kelly Rose
The most commonly performed version of female circumcision IS undeniably less traumatic than the male version. One mother documented her daughter's circumcision (done in a medical setting). Read her blog post and then tell me you think the male version is less traumatic.
http://aandes.blogspot.be/2010/04/circumcision.html
Yes, I agree that there are much more severe types of circumcision (which include a clitorectomy, the equivalent of the excision of the frenulem in boys) and even more horrible, the suturing shut of the labia, but these are not a representation of the majority. These cases were used to promote the fight against female genital cutting, but my argument is that boys should be extended the same rights as girls, and be protected from ritual genital cutting.
@Kelly Rose She isn't in jail because she lives in a country where female circumcision is considered normal and defended as religiously honourable.
Now, apply that logic to the argument for male circumcision. The intrinsic problem is actually convincing parents that they do not have the right to modify their children's genitals without the pressing medical need to do so (and in the absence of less invasive alternate therapies.
We can't go around locking up well meaning parents for something that they have been taught and (in some cases) told by physicians that it's their choice, when in fact, it should not be marketed as a 'choice' at all. It's not a choice like whether to send your kids to school or homeschool them and it's not a choice like eating vegetarian vs. omnivoric diets. In this particular case, laws are not going to change the practice. The cultural acceptance of male genital cutting has to be seen as immoral and then it will stop happening as often as it does. There will always be a few people advocating or choosing for genital cutting: so long as their choices are for themselves, I take no issue with it any more than any other body modification.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me now like you're convinced that there are very real corrolations between the nonsensical ritual or routine male genital cutting and female genital cutting. If you still have doubts, please present them.
@UnivLaurel @Kelly Rose - personally, I don't understand why she isn't in jail.
@Kelly Rose @UnivLaurel
BS. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Male circumcision is sexual abuse of an infant, just as it would be if you were to cut a baby girl's genitals.
The foreskin isn't JUST a bit of skin. It's extremely sensitive. It protects the glans.
You're just blinded by cultural bias. You think male circumcision is fine because it's practiced here and female circumcision is wrong because you're not indoctrinated into that culture. That is literally the depth of your argument. It's nonsense.
Guess what. Male circumcision IS worse than some forms of female genital cutting. Certainly not worse than type III FGM, which by the way is the most rare form of FGM. Type III has no comparison in MGM, however, sometimes boys do lose their penis, and or die.
Cutting the genitals of a child is abuse, regardless of their gender. Don't be a sexist hypocrite.
@Kelly RosePerhaps you're the one who needs to read up on it more. This is one of the most common procedures done on girls. It's outlawed in the U.S. http://aandes.blogspot.com/2010/04/circumcision.html
@RobertHoward @Kelly Rose
Wow. Male circumcision is incomparably worse than that. Of course it all needs to be banned.
Having been attacked by both pro-breast feeding groups and pro-circumcision groups I totally get where you are coming from. My choices were based on my experience and my efforts and if I want someone elses opinion, I'll ask.
Then watch Glee.
As a parent, I have strong feelings about both topics. I have gotten grief from others over the decisions that my husband and I made for our children, but we've done the best as we see things. I respect your right to do the same. If you ask me my opinion, I will give it...harsh words and all. I would expect you to do the same (which is why I never ask for an opinion on these topics, and why I never offer an opinion unasked). A little respect goes a long way - and really, It's all about respect - for yourself and for others.
@Kelly Rose"A little respect goes a long way - and really, It's all about respect - for yourself and for others."
Such as the respect you show your son by not chopping off half his penis?
Don't make assumptions. None of my children are circumcised. If they wish to have the procedure done, they can make that choice for themselves as an informed adult.
@Kelly Rose
And I will give my opinion on circumcision even if you don't ask. It's child abuse. Period. Just like female circumcision. It's fundamentally wrong to cut the genitals of a child.
Interesting how many ppl blatantly ignored your request not to debate breastfeeding and circumcision.
@alissa morroue"I know this post will cause some debate. That’s okay. Talking about things can never be bad."
It's buried there in the first paragraph, so I can understand how you could miss it.
Also, I don't think any good parent wants to harm his/her son. I think that many parents are uneducated on this topic, and the fact that most doctors continue to recommend this practice is as far as the "research" goes for the vast majority of circumcising parents. It is up to YOU to sign off on it, it is why YOU sign something that you understand there are risks with it, and it is up to YOU not to conform your son to society's "normal". Less and less boys are being circumcised so the argument of "fitting in" will no longer be, as it's getting closer to 50/50. YOU ultimately determine whether or not to put your son through a cosmetic surgery and YOU are his only voice.
@Simply Sarah
Parents who get their daughters circumcised don't want to harm them either.
@Simply Sarah @NajiWench @YeomanRoman
You are poisoning your children with grape juice. You are poisoning your children with apple juice. You should NEVER give your children any type of fruit juice. You are horrible for doing so. You are killing and traumatizing your child(ren) by doing so. You are wrong, wrong wrong.. I am a total stranger and have the right to tell you what you should and should not do or allow as a parent.
The point to that is quite simple: YOU as a parent have a choice to do what YOU feel is in the best interest of YOUR child. You do NOT allow myself or anyone else to tell you what you can and can not do to/with your child so how dare any of you sit here and tell me what to do with my child(ren)?
The problem with you and other "extremists" in this thread is quite simple: Instead of providing documented cases, or actual scientific research, you just sit here and say "you are traumatizing your children-- you are a bad parent." and "you have no mind of your own, you are just fitting into what society says to fit into." and all this crud. No actual scientific evidence that there is any actual psychological trauma, no actual scientific evidence that it affects a male's sexual activity, no actual scientific anything other than just emotional, angry, vile words stating "I know I am right and everyone else is wrong."
Well, that argument does not fly..Why not provide actual scientific studies, or documented cases-- oh wait, that means you actually may have to know what you are talking about, instead you would rather just try to use emotion rather than FACTS to back up a position which is very very shaky at best..
@Macarpen @Simply Sarah @NajiWench @YeomanRoman
Guess you think those who are against female genital cutting are extremist? No? Only those against male genital cutting?
Why should the UN be telling parents not to cut their girls?
@Macarpen @Simply Sarah @NajiWench @YeomanRoman Cutting parts of children's genitals off is not comparable with giving them fruit juice. In fact it is not comparable with any of the other things that parents do to or for their children. Lacking religious motivation or serious medical need, it is now ONLY done to a majority of babies in the USA - to very slim or residual minorities in the rest of the developed world. It is only a choice for parents because the medical profession makes it a choice for them, and they only do that because they were pushed back from doing it willy-nilly by the introduction of informed consent law in 1972. There are sill plenty of cases of parents being strongly coerced to do it.
Saying this is not a choice for parents is not extreme, any more than it is extreme to say that cutting the exactly equivalent part of a baby girl's genitals off (the clitoral prepuce or hood, not the actual clitoris, the exact equivalent of the male prepuce - surgically, with pain relief) is not a decision for parents. Nobody has ever bothered to produce any scientific evidence that that is traumatic or affects female sexuality. That is now not even legal in the US or most of the developed world. That is a much closer analogy to male circumcision than apple juice is.
@Macarpen
"Well, that argument does not fly..Why not provide actual scientific studies, or documented cases-- oh wait, that means you actually may have to know what you are talking about, instead you would rather just try to use emotion rather than FACTS to back up a position which is very very shaky at best."
I can tell you this. Circumcision is usually an emotional choice weakly supported by medical "evidence".
Most circumcising parents are intellectually lazy. They have not looked into circumcision in any real depth, just enough to confirm their biases, or they don't look it up at at all and just go along with the circumcising doctor's opinion.
If they did spend any time at it, they would know about Dr. Paul Tinari who studied how the brain is permanently altered by circumcision. Here's an introduction http://www.whale.to/a/mri_studies.html
They would know that a circumcised man has lost the most sensitive parts of his penis from the Sorrels study:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06685.x/full
http://www.restoringtally.com/foreskin/sensitivity/youtube-circumcision-penis-sensitivity-test
They would find that sexually experienced women have better sexual lives with intact men from Kristin O'Hara's study in the BJU. http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/
and they would have found her website http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com/
They would have discovered the Danish Study of Circumcision http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/06/13/ije.dyr104.abstract and this http://sciencenordic.com/male-circumcision-leads-bad-sex-life and seen comments on it that raise the issue of human rights http://forward.com/articles/161262/tolerant-denmark-debates-circumcision-ban/?p=all
They would have found that impotence, http://intactnews.org/node/138/1319461990/acquisition-erectile-dysfunction-circumcision and difficulty expressing feelings and a host of other medical concerns are related to circumcision http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm
In short, if they made an effort to be rational and methodical on their own, they would be amply rewarded. Since thy did not, they are ignorant and perfectly satisfied with their ignorance. They are usually perfect exemplars of the Dunning-Kruger effect. http://www.spring.org.uk/2012/06/the-dunning-kruger-effect-why-the-incompetent-dont-know-theyre-incompetent.php and http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolved-primate/201006/when-ignorance-begets-confidence-the-classic-dunning-kruger-effect
So logic and rational thought don't work when that is happening. Ignorance begets confidence.
@Macarpen @Simply Sarah @NajiWench @YeomanRoman Here is but one recent scientific study;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102?dopt=Abstract
Keep in mind, medical procedures such as episiotomies were routinely done on birthing women until they were "scientifically proven" to be not only unnecessary, but harmful as well. Many birth workers knew that this procedure was often unnecessary and actually harmful to women LONG before the science "proved" it. We live in a society that has normalized the genital cutting of babies...this must change. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with parental rights. It has to do with HUMAN rights...and HUMAN rights are being violated by amputating a part of a human being's body without their informed consent. Really, if you think about it, it is insane....craziness. This is coming from a women who actually considered circumcising her son until I became informed, and I know many parents who regret doing it and wished someone would have questioned them before it was too late. I hold absolutely no judgement...I am simply trying to spread information so as to prevent future tragedies and future regret.
@Macarpen @tarab76 @Simply Sarah @NajiWench @YeomanRoman
How many studies should we do on cutting the genitals of girls against their will to see if there is any benefit or harm?
You're just sexist..
@Macarpen@tarab76@Simply Sarah@NajiWench@YeomanRomanThe Belgian study was a convenience sample - they handed out survey forms to men in the street - and relies on self-reporting. The small number of circumcised men just follows the small number of circumcised men in Belgium. The Frisch study in Denmark has the same problem, but a much larger, more randomly selected sample. The result is presented graphically here: http://http://www.circumstitions.com/Sexuality.html#denmark with a link back to the original study. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=21672947
A striking aspect is the desperate attempt of circumcision advocate Brian Morris to prevent publication. Who are the real extremists?
@Macarpen
You don't seem to realize that there is no "NICE" way to say, "Circumcision is sexual assault and theft and a human rights violation. -Even when a parent does it to their own children."
You do realize that circumcision of females was made illegal in America in 1996, over the objection of parents claiming it was their "right"?
Logically and ethically, MGM should be in the same boat as FGM.
In fact countries that continue FGM point to MGM as our "cultural practice", that logically allows them to continue FGM.
The fact that some parents insist there is a logical difference is absurd. There is simply no logical and legitimate way to make such a claim for non-therapeutic, circumcision of children.
Lets's have an educated discussion on the following shall we:
'Circumcision (along with rape) can ultimately be seen as the sexual domination of one human being, over another human being."
@tarab76 @Macarpen @Simply Sarah @NajiWench @YeomanRoman Thank you, tarab76-- I appreciate the citing of sources, and although this IS a non-biased study, I do call into question their methodology. It starts with "The analysis sample consisted of 1059 uncircumcised and 310 circumcised men." A more accurate study would consist of a closer sample range. The second thing is, even reading the whole study, with corresponding data, it did not indicate nor take into account other factors that could affect the sensitivity (food, type of clothing being worn, etc.) So although it is an impressive study, from a non-biased source, it still could be seen as potentially flawed. BUT even with that said, I will take that into consideration and appreciate the source citing. It allows for a more accurate, educated discussion/argument, rather than people just name calling and acting as uneducated fools.
@Macarpen @Simply Sarah @NajiWench @YeomanRoman There have been facts posted. I have not personally called anyone a bad parent, nor have I said you have no mind of your own. If you get that from my statement, then your emotions have clouded your rationality.
http://www.circumcisionharm.org/ - there is a full gallery of men who were harmed by routine infant circumcision
http://www.mendocomplain.com/ - there is an entire blog full of men telling their stories of how harmed their circumcisions have left them
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/ - there's a web site FULL of medical doctors who will not perform circumcisions and fight to end the practice
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3731671 - a study that shows that a dorsal penile nerve block doesn't do enough to prevent the pain, and that the adrenal response could not be duplicated in intact boys via venipuncture or blood sampling. That means that, even if there is a dorsal penile nerve block, the infant still feels enough trauma that their adrenal system responds significantly, much moreso than routine heel pricks and blood taking.
And so on.
@Macarpen @NajiWench @Simply Sarah @YeomanRoman
Do you need studies to prove it's wrong to cut a girl's genitals?
@Macarpen I have actually been studying this for YEARS. If my oldest child (now 16) had been a boy, she would have been circumcised. I was in Texas and even though her father is intact, that's just what was done. Even my second child would probably have been cut, had she been a boy. By the time I was pregnant with my third child (now 10) I had begun to do research and was firmly on the fence. From the time she was born and I had my son (now 5), I did enough research to come to the conclusion that not only was I not going to let this happen to my child, I was going to fight with everything I have to protect other children.
Yes, I quoted circumcision harm and men do complain to illustrate the harm that happens from each person's individual perspective. Of course they are biased, but that doesn't change the fact that those men are telling their real stories, showing images of their real bodies that have been permanently harmed. That was the point, to counteract all the "I've never met a man who hated his circumcision" or "it's just a little flap of skin" comments. And the doctors opposing circumcision is to show that there are a LOT of medical professionals who oppose it and fight to end it. Again, never meant to be a non biased source.
As far as the HIV/AIDS infection and transmission rates, what people fail to understand is that those studies are based on flawed tactics. For one, the men in those African studies weren't just circumcised, they were also given information on safe sex practices and access to condoms. That alone will decrease the amount of HIV/AIDS transmission.
If you want to look at it objectively, the USA has one of the highest circumcision rates in the industrialized world. We also have one of the highest HIV/AIDS transmission and infection rates. If circumcision was such an effective prophylactic, then how is that possible? In comparison, a country like Denmark has a markedly lower incidence of HIV/AIDS transmission and almost NO routine infant circumcision.
Another issue with the HIV/AIDS transmission and infection issue is that the scientific community has erroneously believed Langerhans cells to be at fault for infection. The opposite is actually true. The cells attract the HIV virus, however that's as far as it goes, showing that the Langerhans cells are more of a HIV infection block than entry point.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2064110/
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/vanhowe4/ - This is a biased source, to be sure. However, the study cited is real. So are the numbers of circumcision rates compared to HIV/AIDS infection rates.
In regard to the rates of penile cancer, penile cancer itself is so incredibly rare, a man has a much higher risk of damage from the circumcision procedure than he EVER has to be diagnosed with penile cancer. Even the American Cancer Society does not encourage routine infant circumcision as a cancer preventive.
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/penilecancer/detailedguide/penile-cancer-prevention
"Most experts agree that circumcision should not be recommended solely as a way to prevent penile cancer."
And, in regards to what is lost during circumcision...the human male penis is meant to be an internal structure until achieving sexual arousal. The prepuce contains between 22,000 and over 75,000 nerve endings, including the only fine touch nerve receptors in the penis. The difference between these is the difference between caressing the back of your hand and the palm of your hand (where the fine touch nerves are located). It also provides a gentle gliding action that provides added friction and stimulation during intercourse, as well as added lubrication. This makes sexual intercourse less painful and demanding on the vaginal tissues, causing less pain, tearing, and risk of infection. The frenular band acts as a kind of draw string to cover the glans of the penis when at rest. It also provides the man with added control over erection and ejaculation.
When a child is born, his prepuce is attached to the glans of the penis with the same tissue that connects your fingernail to its bed. In the circumcision process, this is scraped and torn away, causing injury. Then a dorsal slit is made in the foreskin, where whatever device being used is inserted and then the remaining prepuce is cut, crushed or otherwise removed. The result is an exposed glans that has fresh wound from the scraping of the synechiae to separate the prepuce and then the additional wound of the removed prepuce. These will scar, and in most men the scar tissue will heal and grow along with the rest of the penile skin. However, there are many cases where the scar tissue has decreased sensitivity, or increased sensitivity, chronic pain, it doesn't stretch the way natural skin stretches causing painful and tight erections, or complete erectile dysfunction. Also, in an infant, there is no way to tell how large the penis will grow or how much skin removed is too much. Many men experience hair growing up the shaft of their penis where the scrotal skin is pulled up to compensate for the missing penile tissue. They also experience painfully bent erections because of a lack of skin tissue to compensate for the erection.
http://www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html
Yes, another biased site, however it illustrates the different issues that can arise from the neonatal circumcision. Most of these can be avoided if the patient is allowed to reach maturity before the procedure is performed, and that also removes the ethical question of whether it is morally acceptable to amputate healthy flesh from a non-consenting individual.
@NajiWench @Macarpen @Simply Sarah @YeomanRoman One source is one I would consider "legitimate/non-biased" and worthy of looking further into. So thank you, NajiWench, for producing sources. It IS appreciated and I commend you on that.
With that said. The first one is from "circumcisionharm.org"-- obviously a biased source, who would read the data to support their claims, rather than reading it non-objectively Same with "mendocomplain" who again are a biased source. I could find plenty from "MenDoNotComplain" to refute your source, and mine would be just as biased as that one. Same with "doctorsopposingcircumcision"-- they obviously would not post anything that goes against their position. So the last source (National Center for Biotechnology Information) is a legitimate source, which is unbiased and one worthy of noting and finding more info on. I will take a look at their actual statistical data and see for myself the validity of this study.
There are numerous reasons for circumcision (including numerous high profile studies which showed that circumcised males had lower rates of contracting HIV, lower rates of cancer of the penis, and lower incidents of cervical cancer in the female partners of circumcised males) but the consensus has always been that there are pros and cons to each side.
Once again, I DO appreciate you citing sources. It means that you are more than just talk-- you actually have begun to research the subject to have an informed opinion on the matter.
@Simply Sarah Exactly. No parent in their right mind goes to the doctor and says "Ok, I have this newborn baby and I want to know how I can permanently alter his sexuality and risk his life and then make other people feel badly because their parents didn't do it for them?"
No, parents follow the doctor's suggestion, most often. Then, once it's done, no parent wants to think that what they allowed to happen risked their child's life and harmed him forever with no benefit, and they'll fight tooth and nail to keep from thinking that, because that means admitting a horrific mistake. Very few parents want to face that reality, and I understand. Men don't want to think that their "perfectly fine" penis is actually diminished, and by leaving their sons intact, they are facing the idea that what was done to them didn't have to be done, that they were lied to by the people they trusted with their and their child's life, and by the people who brought them into the world, saying that this was necessary and harmless when the exact opposite is true.
I understand the urge to ignore the facts and live in their little bubble where everything's fine. But, no change will ever happen if we all did that. More babies will die, more men will suffer, and the horrors will continue.
Thank you, Sarah and all the other "crazy extremists" who fight so hard to help parents understand that this doesn't have to happen.
@NajiWench @Simply Sarah Yes, it's like covering your ears an yelling when someone is trying to tell you that you just started a fire. Doesn't put the fire out, and it just makes you look stupid.
@NajiWench
@Simply Sarah A heartfelt thanks to you both. Advancing human rights is not an easy thing, and women play an especially important role in this case. Men are circumcision's victims and its strongest advocates. We need your support, your kindness and your advocacy to end it. Men are generally defensive, stubborn and thoughtless when it comes to circumcision, understandably so. It is the women who will make the difference in this effort.
Thanks to you both, for all you do and have done.
If us "extremists" were to act like circumcision is no big deal, as if it's as easy as getting fingernails clipped, then it wouldn't change any minds now, would it? The fact remains that it is harmful to baby boys, 117 of them do die every year from it, and it is unnecessary. Most other countries already realize this, and it's sad that the US isn't. The only way to bring this practice to a stop is to have more awareness. I certainly wasn't aware of it until I was pregnant with my first. 20,000 nerve endings and the painful healing process IS a big deal. These aren't kittens we're talking about declawing here, it's the genital cutting of baby boys. PLEASE look at some Youtube videos on what is actually done during a circumcision! It has changed many minds and could change others' as well.
I'm not debating circumcision or breast feeding...I am going to say this...the extremists have turned off parents to nursing and keeping their sons intact only because they are absolutely disrespectful and judgemental when they are disagreed with. It's annoying. Instead of trying to push your beliefs down everyones throats, try to understand, listen, and hear what they're saying and how they feel and then gently educate. Not bash them for feeling or thinking a certain way. I had my son circumcised. Do I regret it? No. I do feel guilty for the pain he felt. But it is what I felt was best at the time. And I understand 'do better when you know better', but I can't stand talking to an 'intactivist' for more than a few seconds. All of you are pushy, belittleing, rude, hateful, judgemental and just down right mean.
@hannahp I agree. It's annoying in the same way that it's annoying when a person says that speaking to someone online about breastfeeding or circumcision can "turn off parents to nursing and keeping their sons intact". As though you're going to "get them back" for disrespecting you by feeding your child a corn syrup and animal milk substitute, and putting them through a painful and dangerous elective genital surgery at 2 days old.
That'll show 'em! *headdesk*
@hannahp
I can hear what your criticism is here, and you have a point. Yet....
Most parents who have circumcised are intellectually lazy, did not do any real research. Otherwise they would actually be informed on the whole subject: human rights, impotence, skin bridges, death rates, herpes and HIV infections, STD rates in the USA and abroad, viagra usage around the world, the 1-2 billion dollars that circumcision nets/year in the USA, and that foreskins are made into face cream.
They don't know the qualitative facts, nor the quantitative numbers. They don't want to. What should one do then? Shrug and say, human rights only applies to girls?
@hannahp Bravo! This EXACTLY fits my sentiments.