Mutilation Nation (original) (raw)
If you have come from another site, you have missed the warning notice that states you must be at least 18 years old to read this post. If you are under 18, please leave now. However, leave knowing that the graphic images and description used here are used for the purpose of opening a dialogue, of educating, and persuading people against circumcising babies without any dire medical need to do so. This post is not pornography, and it is not all that "fun" to read, so you are not missing anything.
Secondly, I ask you please NOT to link directly to these images. Feel free to take them, upload them to your own server, and post them that way, but I cannot afford an unlimited amount of bandwidth overage. Thank you.Thirdly, please take your time when reading this. It is lengthy and many points are made in both the post and the comments that follow. I find it aggravating when someone reads a few paragraphs, gets emotional, and then whips off an uninformed and angry response to me that has already been addressed either in the post or in the comments. I understand it is very touchy stuff. And I know it will stir up your gut. But let's remain thinking and reasonable people. I know that without fail, every single one of us cares about children and their well-being. Let that be a given.
Finally, I really don't have time or interest in duelling with hostile comments anymore. I wrote this in mid-2001. Almost five years later, I am pretty busy. I make my living writing and illustrating books, and for my own enjoyment, I write and record my own music. I need to spend most of my time either doing these things, relaxing, or hunting for my cell phone. I do appreciate the time anyone takes in reading this. But if the post makes you that angry, talk about it with your friends, or better yet, write a post about it. If you leave me an angry and combative comment, I will probably just delete it and go about my day. After all this time and all these comments, I've pretty much said all I have to say on it.
[If over 18, please continue]
A Final Preface, if you will.
Except for minor changes, this post has remained the same as when it was first written. But throughout time, and after a few (more than a few) argument-fests, I would like to address a couple things that I think would help avoid some of the "comment arguments" that inevitably arise. Over and over.
First and foremost, the theme of this post is not:
a) that if you are circumcised, you are deformed, or inferior.
b) that circumcision (or any other type of elective body modification) is, by design, Wrong.
c) that if you, as a parent, have allowed your children to be circumcised, you are a Bad Parent.The very specific thesis of this essay is that The human body is sovereign. That nobody has the right to affect our shape against our will, or due to a person's inability to give permission because of ignorance, lack of speaking ability, or other factors apart from a person's complete, informed consent; that Might does not make Right; and finally, that our natural-born right to opt out of any elective cosmetic surgery is only ceded when medical necessity requires permission be given to insure we do not suffer worse consequences. (It is also a given, in this post, that losing one's foreskin and the natural functions and protection of same is a "worse consequence" than the possibility of a Urinary Tract Infection.)
The very specific target of this post is the practice of Routine Infant Circumcision (RIC), which has (for too long) been the kneejerk, default, standard practice of removing healthy foreskins for no medical necessity shortly after a boy's birth.
I would like it noted that No national medical organization in the world recommends routine circumcision of male infants.
I submit that if one is to go against such a widely-held position by so many established and respected health professionals, one should have a very, very pressing reason. I hold that most "reasons" given to ignore this recommendation are either myths, fear/ignorance-driven prejudices, or religious ritual that have no basis in Medicine, Science, or a person's actual physical needs in this lifetime.
Next, I would like to disclose my situation, so that you don't get the wrong idea. And I hope you see, with this disclosure, that you don't need to defend yourself against me.
I am circumcised. I have had a fantastic sex life. I never had any sexual dysfunction before coming to my conclusions about R.I.C., and in fact, had a pretty damn good time. In fact, I'll have you know that when a friend first brought up the idea that circumcision might not be the best thing, I railed against him. Yes! I did. I got angry, too. This is why I understand the reaction. I had it. I went on a tirade for a day, saying, oh, this and that. I didn't like the way it looked, I was perfectly happy, thank you very much. But then I began to calm down, and did a lot of research. And amazingly, I now am in a 180º position from where I began. So please consider that before you send me angry email or comments. Anyone can change their mind, or find their ideas might need to change. The challenge comes when you calm down. Can you honestly reexamine your most bedrock beliefs? I think it can be important to do so. In many situations.
Also, I have multiple children. Before I came to my current understanding of this issue, I allowed both of my boys to be circumcised. I wish I had known better, but I did not. There is a lot in place that has kept us from seeing the truth of this issue, as is the case with many truths in life. So I forgive my mother, and I forgive myself, and I forgive anyone else who has done it, unwittingly—even if it is not my place to forgive. That is the children's right to decide. I just want you to know I am not here to judge you on this.
Finally, there is a process you can perform to regain some of the form and very important functions of the foreskin, though not all. If that is your interest, read through, and you will find links, later.
Thank you for weathering this preface. If you read anything slowly, please take your time with this part. And if you get feelings or thoughts when reading the essay, I only ask you that you read through, and take your time commenting. If you feel you have some unshakable argument for why this post is "wrong," and you won't sleep unless you tell me, then please take your time and type it out calmly. First make sure that you are actually arguing my thesis, which is stated above. I don't mean to set you up to be combative. I find most things I disagree with, I need to think over for a while, anyway. Perhaps you are the same. Ultimately, I am only trying to avoid unnecessary bickering, or anger.
And now, finally, the (somewhat controversial) post.
You will hear me talking about the common practice of male circumcision for a bit. There is a reason. And simply the fact that I would even need to bring these facts to anyone's attention puts the lie to the notion that we are an enlightened people.
We are, too many of us, ignorant of the horror of this practice of mutilation. "Mutilation?" you say, incredulously. Already, you are sure I am some fanatic, calling the very common, safe and personal issue of circumcision by such extremist terms. The problem is, though, we bandy about euphemism long enough and before you know it, we actually look at a scarred and mutilated organ and begin to think it looks normal! We begin to think that those other men with the strange skin hanging over their penis look weird! With some casual but consistent euphemism, we unconsciously propagate a paradigm that only serves to muddy the facts and consequently, to perpetuate serious harm. It only stands to reason that part of becoming aware in this case involves changing the language we use.
Thus, my aversion to the misnomer "uncircumcised." It is a sneaky word. This particular label implies a deference to the unnatural, surgicalized state. It implies that the penis is waiting to be circumcised at some point in the future. Let's be honest. Let's say "intact" or "whole" or "natural."
You may yet see what I mean, if you keep your mind open. Please try. I know it can be hard with issues like this; ones that are so tied into our self-image . But this is important, as you are many fathers and mothers-to-be, possibly.
As far as developed nations go, genital cutting is an epidemic unique to the USA. And it is atrocious that in an age where we are clever enough to invent computers, cars that can speak and diagnose themselves, microwave ovens and retina scans -- we are completely ignorant to child mutilation.
Well...that's not accurate. We are not ignorant of it. We have all the facts in hand.
We have learned enough to realize that circumcision does not deter masturbation (nor would you want it to!); it does not prevent penile cancer; it does not make a worthwhile trade for the negligible amounts of urinary tract infections it is purported to prevent; it will not make your boy popular and free from schoolyard taunting -- and it causes considerable trauma to the infant, as well as precludes the possibility of him ever having the natural functions intended him.
So it might be more accurate to say we condone child mutilation. Gender-selective child mutilation.
It is our job as intelligent, humane entities to STOP this practice immediately.
Why? This is not the stone ages! Let's just think about it.
MYTH: Infants of such an age can feel no pain/don't feel pain the same, as much, etc.
Fact: Infants can feel pain, and in fact, are extremely sensitive to pain. Fact: Severe abuse of the bond between mother-figure and infant in the first year of life has the potential to cause psychosis as well as other mental illness. I am not saying this is "severe abuse," mind you. But it is a type of trauma and a loss of trust on some level.
Thought: Exactly what effect does such violence play upon the brain and psyche of a new being? How does this echo? Do we plant the seed of violence and aggression in males to any degree? Some say we do. I don't know. To me it seems a strange thing to even have to argue. Regardless, I do know that the new life coming from the safety and security and loving hold of the womb surely must be quite disturbed at the vicious greeting. Hello new world!
Fact: Circumcision was first proposed to the American public in the Victorian era by a man named Harvey Kellogg (of cereal fame). He offered this brutal operation as a method to stop boys from masturbating, lest they go insane. The Victorian era! You are acquainted with the reasoning of the time? What might you say to a neighbor today who furthered such a theory? Think about it. (PS: Did you know we also once believed the Earth was the center of the universe? And that the brain was an organ that produces phlegm?)
Yet, by claiming that the penis is "easier to maintain" because of this cutting away of skin, we are carrying this archaic thinking forward. The self-loathing Mr. Kellogg must have assumed (or known) that pulling back the foreskin in the shower to rinse underneath would feel rather exciting. I imagine he worried that if boys began manipulating the very-sensitive and erogenous tissue of their foreskins, their very sanity was in peril. Obviously, such dangerous benefits to practicing proper hygiene could lead (or was tantamount) to that most evil of sins, MASTURBATION. This was one of the stated reasons for circumcision lasting even into the 1970s!
Better to chop all the skin off. No more cleaning necessary. Slice it right off, yes. No more pleasant erogenous feelings. No more insanity. Whew!
Makes sense, right?
Over the years, as each “reason” for circumcising has been debunked, more have been invented after the fact to keep the practice going.
1800's: Circumcision is recommended to prevent insanity and epilepsy. Some doctors began attributing diseases and medical problems solely to the presence of a foreskin.
1940's: Circumcision is recommended to stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
1950's: Circumcision is the supposed cure for cancer.
early 21st century: As opposition to the operation rises; as the overall rate of circumcisions decline, it is announced that HIV is spread easier in the moist tissues of the foreskin, as opposed to the dry, weathered texture of an exposed glans.
Chop off the foreskin. Slice off some of the baby's sexual parts. That is the circumcisionists answer now, as then. It remains the irrational cure-all for everything from insanity to cancer.
"Circumcision has been recommended throughout history as the cure for whatever incurable disease held the national spotlight at the time like in the 1980's when circumcision was going to stop the spread of AIDS." Burton, John. Culture and the Human Body. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 2001
Why is circumcision offered time and time again, after the ludicrous claims which support it are shown to be false? Why is this procedure still so prevalent in the USA? Why is such an obviously brutal and unecessary practice still rigorously defended by otherwise-intelligent people of the 21st century?
Fact: Circumcision feeds the pockets of the medical community! A hospital gets 200−200 - 200−500 a circumcision. To many doctors, a foreskin resembles a dollar sign. Many couples and mothers are coerced to sign the form. I know of women who have been badgered with the question while drugged, while sedated by the hospital! Some hospitals include the form in a bundle of others, or bury the clause in thick paragraphs that are foisted upon the mothers-to-be in an emotional time when they can't discern properly what they are signing. Some doctors will outright bully vulnerable and deferential new mothers. (And to be fair, some doctors (bless them) belong to D.O.C.
But this is not hyperbole. The practice is very ingrained in our culture. Even discussing it rationally can evoke some very heated and irrational reactions. In fact, trying to discuss it rationally with many people will definitely evoke some very angry, and often senseless, reactions. Don't take my word for it. Go try it and find out for yourself. Or maybe you are having a similar reaction right now.
Fact: There is a very terrible, efficient, and self-perpetuating cycle that traps us into this.
Let's look at it this way: A man was told a long time ago that cutting his son's foreskin off would be helpful to him. Perhaps it was suggested as a means to prevent insanity or excessive masturbation. In that time period, such a "fix" made sense. So the son was cut. The son gets older. He would like to think of himself as a hale, hearty, sexually virile man. This involves thinking of his penis and sexuality as powerful and attractive. His entire identity as a man is tied up in this particular organ. Thus, he does all he can psychologically, to avoid seeing himself in any defective way. It's really to be expected. So part of the package of being protected from your own truth in this way by self-defense mechanisms also includes thinking of the circumcision act as a good thing. Thus, the man does it to his son. And so on. And so on. Trust me: it takes a man striving to remain true to himself at all costs to see beyond his own defenses in this way. And that can be a very big job, a heroic effort, indeed.
"What was so difficult in leaving my son intact was not that my son would feel different in a locker room, but that I would feel different from him. I would then have to accept that I'm an amputee from the wars of a past generation." Goldman, Ronald. Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma. Boston: Vanguard Publications, 1997.
There is even research claiming that the trauma from the circumcision itself creates a dynamic wherein the victim feels a need to perpetuate that trauma on others. Something to think on.
Fact: As humans, we are capable of amazing amounts of denial and ignorance. The woman who has no problem in telling you where to move your car on the highway may feel completely intimidated by her doctor, who may even try to coerce her into circumcising her baby, should she be hesitant. And though she knows, in her gut, this is wrong, she may let her husband convince her of the operation with a terse "He's gonna look like me." But mama: he's your child, too. And I say it is your duty to protect him from anyone who wants to harm him.
Fact: Baby foreskins have been "donated" to different causes. Beauty products are one of them. But you cannot rightly "donate" something that was never yours to take. This is as if I were to decide one evening to remove my son's earlobe (so that he might avoid having to ever clean it) which I later "donate" to science. The people working at the lab might just say "Where on earth did you get this?" to which I would, of course, reply "I gave consent for my son's earlobe to be taken off. Damn thing was unsightly and prone to wax buildup."
Fact: If you walk into a hospital and ask to have your perfectly-functioning appendix removed, the doctors will not do it. They will inform you that they cannot remove healthy flesh. They will cite their hippocratic oath, which dictates that they "do no harm."
If this is the case, why on earth would they be removing healthy tissue at birth? And without the owner's consent? Do I have the spelling wrong? Is it "Hypocritical Oath?" Why on earth are we asking our doctors and healer to be blade-wielding agents of social customs where there is NO MEDICAL NECESSITY for their actions?
Fact: There are important reasons for the foreskin. The foreskin contains, in the adult male, about 240 feet (73.2m) of nerves and over 1,000 nerve endings. This is an erogenous zone which is completely removed. Without the coverage of the foreskin, the glans penis -- which is an internal structure -- dries out and becomes keratinized; becomes dry and thick and relatively insensitive. Takes on a function of the outer foreskin: to protect from dirt, chafing, or any other outside threat.
Fact: The foreskin is NOT "just a flap of skin." The loss of tissue a man suffers due to his circumcision as in infant equals 15 square inches!
Fact: The genitalia of the male and female begin exactly the same -- same shape, same tissue. In the womb, they differentiate into different structures that are analogous to each other. The clitoris = the glans (head). The outer labia = scrotum. The "hood" of the clitoris = the prepuce (foreskin). However, in terms of area covered and function served, it would be far more accurate to compare the American male circumcision to the removal of a woman's clitoral hood, as well as her labia. I know there are people who need to see the two as different. How else could you allow one and be against the other? But my core complaint is that a child should not have part of their sex organs surgically and permanently removed for no medical reason. And that stands whether or not you are snipping away flesh from a "penis" or from a "vulva."
Question: Let's not dance. Tell me plainly why people in this country are so outraged about Female Genital Mutilation in places like Africa, but overlook the equivalent in our own country?
Thought: Is this an insidious way to look down on other nations and practices? A subtle way of remaining superior? "Oh, let's help the poor, backward, Africans in their impoverished, barbaric land, for they do need our rallying cry and saving graces!" Hey! What about the American boys screaming in their circumstraints every day? How are we better? Why should we not get the same care? Tell me what distinguishes the two in your mind. Is it that boys deserve to be injured at birth? Or are you going to offer me the Cry of the Circumcisionists, yourself: It's Only A Flap Of Skin!
Fact: A natural male and a natural female are both at the same risk for yeast infection (as is any moist, dark place on the human body such as these). A natural male and a female both possess an odor to their genitalia, from the presence of mucosa and daily accumulation of natural fluids.
Thoughts: I wonder if part of the drive, on some level, to circumcise the male is an effort to further distinguish the male from the female. She deals with that messy stuff like yeast infections and the regular discharge of who knows what. He doesn't need to worry about any of that stuff. No smegma, nothin'. She is wet, and has an odor. He is trimmed, dried out, no more moving parts or tissues. If we stopped circumcising, we would have to deal with the idea that we are not so different, even in these most different of areas. We share something there.
Is it possible that our relationships/outlooks/comparisons/treatments might change in any way? After all, what is the very first way we determine the difference between Boy and Girl?
...Additionally, I wonder if we are attempting to, once again, separate ourselves from the rest of the animal kingdom. We often seem to need to feel superior to all other living creatures. Every glans in Mother Nature's domain is an internal organ, emerging fully only for penetration. We have seen to it that we can no longer be compared.
Fact: In Health class, I grew up seeing illustrations of a surgically-altered penis, presented as if it were normal. I moved about in my youth, and attended more than a couple schools. Yet in all of them, the default illustrations for the human penis always depicted the shape of one that had been partially amputated. No mention was ever made that this was not the natural human penis. Why?
Thoughts: Is this our school system? Is this the education we give the youth of this land? What are we teaching, then, with our very conscious omission of truth?
**Fact:**The desire to restrain small children and cut their sexual organs came before any invented necessity. The pathological compulsion remains, and the facts appear to be flexible. Anyone who studies the history of the act without a bias cannot help but come to this conclusion.
Fact: The natural penis is not ugly. No more so than the vagina. It is a beautiful mechanism, created by nature to serve amazing functions. Women who cringe at the thought of an intact penis might not feel so justified in their reaction if every man who saw their delicate folds of skin were to wrinkle his face in disgust. Do not assume that what you are used to is what is right. This is exactly the sort of ignorance and fear that perpetuates this practice. There are profound reasons for our natural form.
The glans is an internal structure, and like it's twin, the clitoris, is intended to emerge upon arousal, and not be constantly exposed to dry air, and dragging across fabric. Note the moist, red appearance of the natural glans! Note the smooth, healthy appearance. The glans is meant to be kept moist and cushioned by very fine skin, like the clitoris. It is not meant to be exposed to air and chafed for years against your cotton underwear.
And some would yet argue that "I'm circumcised and I've never suffered a loss of sensitivity?" That is simply ridiculous. Such a statement is actually ridiculous to even assert; as if we can know what you have never had! "I don't miss the nights of Ancient Rome at all!"
Even if you were to snip (or crush, or slice) no thin, nerve-laden, erogenous tissue away from the penis (and a lot is cut away), you are still drying out and toughening mucosal membrane. Never its intended function.
Think of your eye socket, maybe. Or your mouth. This is what "mucosa" is: that thin, pink, delicate, always-moist tissue in very certain places. Now think of the glans penis and inner foreskin, which was once just as moist and sensitive. The more years that the penis is kept in the air; the more years it rubs and chafes against boxers or briefs, the more dulled and insensitive it will become. This is simple and irrefutable logic! And please note the almost inevitable rate of sexual dysfunction in older, cut men. I suppose most of those fellas with erectile dysfunction, etc, will trudge off to the medical community once more for their prescription of Viagra. Which is a rather disturbing circle, when you think about it. (Please: think about it.)
(However: there is the case of the 80 year-old man who undertook the process of skin-expansion called Foreskin Restoration and returned to full sexual health from a state of impotence! True. Simply from returning the glans to its original state. But really, not hard to believe.)
Bigelow, Jim. The Joy Of Uncircumcising. Aptos, CD: Hourglass Publishing, 1995
Let's remind ourselves of what happens to the glans after removing the "useless" "flap" of skin.
After 20 years of the unnatural environment, the keratinized penis looks something like this, no? Dry. Cracked appearance of the erect glans. Pink-grayish. This is what will inevitably happen when you externalize an internal structure.
These images were actually taken from a heavily slanted pro-circumcision site!
It is not only the glans that is deprived of sensation. The web-like threads under the glans (the "frenulum") are the most sensitive tissues in a man's penis. In most cut men, this is completely scraped away. The folds of tissue that gather on the shaft are intended to provide a "gliding" action within the vagina, rather than the dryer and rougher action only possible with a surgically-reduced penis.
What, exactly, does the "Circumcision" operation amputate?
- Frenar Band, or Ridged Band
- Gliding Action
- Meissner's Corpuscles
- Frenulum
- Dartos Fascia
- Immunological System
- Lymphatic Vessels
- Estrogen Receptors
- Apocrine Glands
- Langerhans Cells
- Natural Glans Coloration
- Length and Circumference
- Blood Vessels
- Dorsal Nerves
- Circumcision performed during infancy disrupts the bonding process between child and mother. There are indications that the innate sense of trust in intimate human contact is inhibited or lost.
Remember: this is not an easy, painless, nor a harmless operation. Some circumcisionists will tell you to do it to your boy when he is a baby, as there is less pain. That he'll be "in and out." They actually try to convince you this will be a "quick" or "easy" or "simple" operation. If so, you should have no problem observing one or two circumcisions first. I certainly think any parent who goes ahead and chooses this experience for someone else should certainly be made to sit through it. You will quickly see the utter falsehood of such a ridiculous assertion. I remind you: your child will go into shock. He may vomit or pass out. You better believe it is excruciatingly painful. You are taking a new life form, used to warmth, flotation, constant physical warmth and contact -- and tying him down under a bright light while you cut off part of his penis without even proper anaesthetic. Only a very closed-minded person, or a person of very limited brain power could try to assert that this would be anything but terribly frightening and painful. [UPDATE: I have had one women tell me she watched both her boys being circumcised and that it was not unpleasant at all. I won't go into everything I think about that statement, but I will say that perhaps there are more gentle methods of amputating sexual tissue from infants that I do not know of. She insisted it was an operation of choice. I told her that I agreed, but that I felt it was not her choice to make. ]
As an adult you can choose to be fully anesthetized for the procedure. As a baby, you cannot. As a baby, you will definitely not be given a general anesthetic, and often not even a local. As a man, you know what you are doing, and can make an informed choice. As a baby, you have no choice, and will be horrified and terrified when you try to flail your arms and legs to get away from the severe pain and find you are restrained. You will go into shock. You may suffer psychological scars later wondering why you have been stripped of a natural function. Wondering why on earth your body has been altered like this. Wondering why others made such a serious decision about your sexual functionality and natural form. With the rate of circumcision falling in the US (especially on the West coast), a cut child is more likely to feel a freak in ten or twenty years, when he strips in the locker room. The others will stare and say in wonder "What happened to your penis?" And he will say "It used to be something people did to their kids before everybody learned how bad it was." This might make it tough for you to feel like a proud parent.
In studying the customs of the Ancient Egyptians for my latest book, I came across a photograph of a carving on the wall of the tomb of Ankhmahor. Ankhmahor's tomb (a mastaba), is located among the mastabas built for the Kings of the First and Second Dynasties, at Saqqara. Ankhmahor was a physician, and this carving was of a circumcision, being performed upon a grown man. The book goes on to inform us that circumcisions were probably actually performed at puberty. It does not mention what their reasoning was, and like many of the gray areas regarding the Ancient Egyptians, we can only guess. Why did they wait until puberty to perform circumcisions? Why not at birth? Could it be that this ancient race responsible for one of the seven wonders of the ancient world knew something we, as a nation "thriving" four thousand years later, do not?
Something to think on.
Very often, there are complications to circumcision. The major ones (which are, of coure, rarer) are gangrene, loss of the penis, loss of function, death of the infant. The "lesser" ones (which are not so rare) are deformities of the penis in the adult male (skin tags, skin bridges, hair on the shaft, etc), and constricted growth due to lack of "give" in the skin.
All penile-reduction surgery ("circumcision") results in the following:
1. Loss of about 80% of the penis's erogenous zones.
2. Keratinization of the glans and what may be left of the inner foreskin (that band of colored skin right above the glans).
3. Loss of the NATURAL functions of sex -- the "piston-within-a-chamber", the gliding of the foreskin over the glans while in the vagina, or in masturbation.
4. Loss of most sensation in the glans, over time.
5. much more.
Again:
Why? Why do we do this? Male Genital Mutilation (MGM) is continued today (in America) due to at least five things:
1. Ignorance
2. Inertia
3. Greed (medical profits)
4. Traditions/gods
5. Lies/Myths
Let’s apply logic where we can.
MYTH:
"The foreskin is messy. Dirty. The circumcised penis is easy to clean."
Is this logical? Would we mutilate the vulva (the correct name for the entirety of the female genitalia) using this logic? Women are full of all kinds of secretions. The vulva requires maintenance, rinsing, observation.... Let's chop away everything we can. Right? Let's get rid of all that messy tissue. Let's make it more functional and less....needlessly decorative. Perhaps just a smooth hole? And something to pee from? All mucous membrane dried and taut?
This logic is so flawed as to be immediately dismissed. If girls can be taught hygiene, why can't boys? Are we implying that men are stupid and unable to clean themselves? Or that we are above daily maintenance for ourselves or for our children? Please! Tell me what this logic is all about! I just don't get it. Maybe if you convince me, I'll go get all my teeth yanked out to avoid all those pesky cavities I seem to keep getting....
MYTH:
"Women get cervical cancer from sex with uncut men."
False. Cervical cancer is caused by a sexually-transmitted virus.
MYTH:
"Studies show that urinary tract infections are caused by the uncut tissue of a male's penis."
Yes. And other studies have challenged those findings. And anyway, if we do take it as true, then going by their very own statistics, 200 circumcisions would need to be done to prevent one of these infections.
MYTH:
"If you don't circumcise the penis, it leads to penile cancer."
The incidence and correlation of this is so insignificant, that the American Associaton of Pediatrics refuses to include it for consideration. Additionally, nothing about being circumcised prevents a person from getting penile cancer if that is their fate.
MYTH:
"STDs are more common with intact men."
Behavior is the cause for STDs. Additionally, there have been shown to be STDs more commonly occurring in circumcised males.
MYTH:
"It's important for my son to look like me."
Why? This is the type of thinking that mindlessly continues such harm to our youth. Is this any type of logic to use? Is it sound? What if you had been born with scoliosis? Maybe you have. Do you wish it for your child, too? What if you had been born blind? With one arm? With a harelip? Is this logic sound? No. It is inertia and ignorance. You would deprive your boy of sexual enjoyment, and expose him to such harm and disfigurement (pictures later) so he "looks like you?" An educated and informed thinking man could not claim this. Let the boy choose for himself what he wants to look like. There are many wonderful ways to bond in life. You don't need to chop his shape down to match yours. Go buy a soccer ball or something. And realize that what you really mean is "I want to validate this wrong that was done to me by cutting my son down to the same size."
MYTH:
"Women like it better."
This is not necessarily true. And perhaps some do. I know that some do not. Anyway, women are just as capable of being ignorant as men are. We are all a bit unnerved by what we are not used to. Aside from that preferences can derive from many things. But to say as a whole that "women like it better?" One study recently published in the British Journal of Urology found that intact men are more satisfying to their female lovers than circumcised men. And why not? The natural penis has a sleeve of skin all around it that glides between him and her; folds of sensitive erogenous skin that allow him to slow down and feel minute sensations, much as she can. It rumples up and over the erect glans. The foreskin prevents her fluids from being pulled out with every backstroke. It's really all a wonderful design if we would just leave it alone.
"The foreskin fosters intimacy between the two partners by enveloping the glans and maintaining it as an internal organ. The sexual experience is enhanced when the foreskin slips back to allow the male's internal organ, the glans, to meet the female's internal organ, the cervix--a moment of supreme intimacy and beauty." (http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/fleiss.htm)
Most importantly, this issue is not about what women like better. And it is not an argument against body modification.
This issue is about the sovereignty of the human body. About a person's right to choose for themselves what drastic irrevocable changes they want to make to themselves. I am not speaking out against all circumcision. Just the kind where a baby who does not even know how to say "please stop" is tied down by adults with sharp metal in their hands.
MYTH:
"It's the way it's been for so long, it must be right."
So any practice that survives a handful of years is proper? What about the idea that if being uncut were harmful, wouldn't we have evolved past it? Why would we still be born that way? How does that survive time? Again, circumcision was introduced to stop boys from masturbating! Just as in Africa, Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) was introduced to suppress the sexual appetite and habits of women! How do we so easily draw the distinction? Intelligent people cannot. Only those using something other than logic or reason. Perhaps something that circumvents reason...like emotion...or religion....
MYTH:
"Kids will make fun of him."
You know, this is very possibly true. But I've yet to see a kid that had enough money, enough clothes, the right name, the right penis, or the right collection of traits which allowed him or her to escape childhood taunting. And I just don't understand the notion that it is better to perform an unneccessary, painful, irreversible operation on a baby simply to fit in with the crowd. This thinking is alien to me, as I am an independent thinker. With logic like this, we'll have to start beheading kids to protect their feelings.
Personally, I feel that suffering a bit for your identity is crucial to developing character. Additionally, if a child is informed and educated and spoken to clearly by his loving family, he will be prepared for such jibes. And can plainly reply that he is not the one with part of his penis removed. Imagine that! The truth. A very simple thing to pass on.
Please understand: In no way am I trying to open up a "whose penis is better" contest. I am not arguing the merits of the natural penis vs. the surgically-altered penis. (Personally, I feel there is no contest -- I mean after all, one evolved naturally and the other was brought upon us by a man who wanted to stop boys from masturbating and insanity by causing them severe genital pain.)
But I would make it clear that what I am specifically targeting here is the practice of Routine Infant Circumcision. This is where a human who has not yet learned language and who does not understand the consequences of the act is restrained by physical force and is made to suffer an unnecessary amputation of the foreskin.
Some men read this essay and come at me with both barrels. Defensive, angry, full of denial and illogic. But there is no need to fly at me. I am not saying you are deficient. I am not saying you are not attractive . I am not saying you are not a man if you have been cut. I am saying you (and I) have been violated and then taught that you have no right to even think of it as such! YOU have been cheated and lied to and hurt. This horrible practice continues because as a man, it is nearly impossible to admit a lacking of any kind—real or imagined—in connection with our sexual prowess, and especially our penis. Thus we go along our merry way without even allowing ourselves the normal human process of reason and honest emotional introspection. And what comes next? We do it to our own sons. Because examining the idea that circumcision would be wrong means we would have to admit to ourselves that the scar we have lived with for so many years means we have been wrongfully wounded. And of course, that would mean war. Well, now you understand. This is my war. I go to the battlefield for the little boys. Not against your manhood.
I would remind you that all is not without hope. Although it is not for all, there is Foreskin Restoration, which can be used to regain some of the use and function of the foreskin without surgery. (I think we've had enough of that!) Surgical reconstruction of the foreskin has proven to cause more problems than it solves.
This are not intact penises! This is proof that Foreskin Restoration (FSR) can produce results. It is an inexpensive, non-medical, non-surgical process done at home. You can never gain all of what circumcision deprives you of, but you can re-cover the glans, you can regain the healthy, moist and sensitive state of the mucosal membranes, and you can regain the "gliding" action during sex and masturbation.
Second, I clarify: I do not want you to feel inadequate or carry a poor self-image. I have nothing to gain by doing that. If you see yourself as 100% fine, then I cannot or will not argue that. All I would ask is that come the day you either have a son or are called upon to give input on a boy's impending "circumcision," you consider the fact that he may want to make the choice for himself one day.
All I am after is for boys to be able to choose for themselves. And I believe with all of my heart that the law will one day reflect what seems to me common sense already.
Regarding your claims of sexual adequacy: I understand! Circumcised men have pleased many females sexually throughout time. And I am sure you are one of them. I am not saying you cannot please a girl with a circumcised penis! That is ridiculous! I've brought girls to fantastic heights of pleasure before I even touched them with my penis.
I group this information, personal experience, and thought for the many, many boys who may grow up one day and become men who feel like me. I write it for the men who read this before they have sons. And I write it for those who have had sons. I offer it for all who can put it to good use.
Let's come at it yet another way. A way a man can surely understand.
To the circumcised men who are reading this: You are very familiar with this part of your penis, correct?
I know you are. This is the area of skin on the penis that feels the most pleasure, right? This is the area that wants to be touched. The glans? too sensitive for casual stroking. (Why? The tissue and nerves of the glans penis are made to respond to pressure. The inner foreskin (mucosal surface) responds to a different type of touch.) After a circumcision is performed, the penis has little to none of this skin left! It started out as an entire sleeve of erogenous skin. It ends up as 1/2 to 1 1/2 inch of immobile, dried skin. And it is still the most sensitive skin on the penis! The rest is relatively insensitive shaft skin!
But that inch or so of skin is the prize, right? That is where the grip goes, that is where, if you do slow down in your penetration, you focus the movement. Now remember that that is only a fraction of what inner foreskin the penis should have, and in the natural state, it moves up and down the entire length of the penis. Can you even imagine the pleasure that has been taken away and will never be felt in this lifetime?
the foreskin is fully retracted (pulled back) here, so we see the inner foreskin, which is the ultra-sensitive side of the doubled-over skin sleeve
Religion. I have purposely stayed away from this. One person latched onto that fact in their comments (as you may read later), as if my omission somehow indicated a "weak" spot in my logic. Quite the opposite. The "weak" spot lies in religious dogma. Dogma is not rational, nor is it reasonable. How can I argue with someone who insists that an invisible entity demands pain and blood from their children? You may as well be tying up a virgin and waiting for the Dragon-god to bless the crops as far as I'm concerned. Or locked up in a psych ward. Can I really bring reason to these people? No. There is really no arguing that the human body is sovereign. It's like I have to say to people when the discussion gets too "complicated:" What are we arguing again? Whether or not it's okay to cut off part of a newborn's sexual organs for no urgent reason?
For those Jews who cling to the custom of mutilating their sons' sexual equipment because they feel this brutal act somehow contains the very core of their Judaism, I offer you this quote: Do not be afraid of divine punishment. God did not mandate circumcision. In the original version of the Torah, the book of J, circumcision is not even mentioned. Fallible men devised circumcision as a way to curb masturbation. You can read this, and much more information at Jews Against Circumcision, and here, also.
If you are one of those religious (or secular) people who prefers the arena of Reason, let me give you a couple very practical reasons why one should never circumcise a baby without a very valid medical necessity.
1. One function of the foreskin is to protect the meatal opening from getting contaminated by fecal matter. Such as in the diaper, where there is hardly any avoiding this situation. Without the protection that the foreskin provides, infections of this type can easily occur, and when they get out of control, a meatotomy can be required to surgically reopen the hole. This often leaves very obvious or disfiguring scars.
2. Why is it not a good idea to tattoo your child at age 2? Aside from the fact that marking your child in this way is illegal; aside from the moral implication of ownership involved in marking someone's else's body, what is a practical reason not to tattoo your child?
It is a bad idea because the skin will grow in the years to come, and the design will be stretched out of shape and proportion eventually. It is because we cannot predict what the skin will do in ten years or more.
Remember, a man with an eight-inch penis and a man with a four inch penis will look the same at birth. The penis does not begin to sexually mature and thus gain adult size until about 15 years of age. Additionally, consider the fact that, varying from man to man, a penis may grow a little or a lot when becoming erect. They say some men are "growers" and others are "show-ers." For example, it is more likely that a Caucasian male will be a "grower," and an African American male will be a "shower." This means that person A and person B both may end up with 7" erections, but person A may show 5.5" flaccid, while person B has only a 3" flaccid penis. So person B in this example will need more slack in his penile skin to accommodate an erection, as a more dramatic change in size will occur. What happens if he does not have it? What happens if he is cut just as tight as the "show-er" in this example? What happens to his penis as he grows older, and does not have the room to become fully erect?
Painful erections. Bleeding erections. Hair growing on the shaft. Unnatural curvature. Scrotal skin pulled up onto the shaft. Restricted growth. For how on earth can the doctor know, when he is cutting a penis that is only a tiny fraction of the size it will be one day, how the penis will develop in time? He cannot know. When this goes wrong, it seems to me a cruel and protracted form of torture.
This is a very practical reason to put off any body modification until after puberty. For that is what circumcision is. Body modification. Just like splitting the glans, forking the tongue, working out, or those huge earlobe-stretching spacers. There is no need for these practices -- no medical necessity -- just an urge to shape the body a certain way that varies from what it naturally would be.
Note this picture. This is the results of a circumcision peformed upon an adult.
See all the inner foreskin this man has left himself? This man chose to remove mostly shaft skin (outer foreskin) instead of the sensitive and erogenous inner foreskin. Smart, hunh? He knows that the inner skin is the best tissue to have left. I will not argue this man or his choice! He wants his penis this way and he paid to have an operation done in his adult life. Who am I to argue? He can choose! He can undergo an operation with reasons, and having already experienced his body as was intended by nature. He can choose whether to have his frenulum destroyed or whether to keep it intact. He can choose whether or not to keep more shaft skin or more inner skin. His penis is done growing, and will not be hampered or stunted or deformed by an alteration done before it had a chance to form. He will never cry or rage over a loss that happened when he was too tiny or weak or unintelligent to argue. He will not feel like a victim. Nor will he be one.
What are some possible side effects of performing this operation before the skin and organ have finished growing?
Skin Bridges:
A skin bridge is when the cut-away foreskin reattaches itself to the glans, in the infant's healing process. This can also happen to the intact penis, when a parent forces the foreskin away from the glans. Remember, parents: the foreskin will disengage the synechia by itself, at least by adolescence.
Skin Tags:
A skin tag is a residual of the foreskin that was incompletely cut away.
Scarring:
Remember: A circumcision operation is a drastic cutting away of tissue. Much of the look we think is the "normal" look of a penis is, in fact, the look of a past wound. Every cut penis is a scarred organ.
note the suture holes that remain.
This man's frenulum has been completely scraped away. The frenulum is a web-like group of threads that run up to the "V" of the glans. It is known as the man's "G-spot." Depending on who wields the clamp in the hospital you are in, you may have none to most of this left, if you have been circumcised.
Excess skin removed:
These men have had so much skin removed that upon erection, their scrotal sac pulls halfway or more up the shaft, and the one gentlemen's glans is forced downward by the lack of "give" in skin.
I will avoid showing you the pictures of infant gangrene. it is more than i can bear. but remember: there exist disfiguring and fatal complications of this drastic and unnecessary surgery.
The Step-By-Step Process of Widely Accepted Child-Mutilation:
taken from www.circumstitions.com
1. Before the circumcision begins, the baby's stomach is lavaged (pumped) clear, as a precaution against him vomiting over his own operation.
Few, if any, babies are given general anaesthetic prior to circumcision. In fact general anaesthetic and EMLA cream are both contraindicated for newborns. Note the position of the baby's corona, less than half way along his penis, which gives some indication of the large size of his foreskin relative to his penis.2. Local anesthetic is injected.
Dorsal Penile Nerve Block (DPNB) is given in three injections. While it numbs the dorsal surface, the frenulum is innerveted from below by the perineal nerve - so even "anaesthetised" babies often scream when their frenulum is being cut. "Discomfort" is a euphemism for pain, which is not just post-operative, but peri-operative (throughout and after the operation). While the AAP recommends local anaesthetic, it is still used in only a minority of cases. The injections wear off after the operation, and other analgesics must be given.
3. Cleaning and Preparation for removal of tissue.
All this attention to the penis tends to procure an erection. (The baby's foreskin does not retract because it is usually attached to the glans.) To immediately follow this pleasure with searing pain seems likely to set up a confusing connection in his erotic make-up.4. Foreskin is forced away. (Remember: naturally, the foreskin is attached to the glans, and will not retract until as late as adolescence NOR SHOULD IT BE FORCED.)
"Retraction" is very much a euphemism. In some boys, the foreskin may only need to be retracted, but in most, a probe must be pushed around between the foreskin and the glans, tearing the synechia away. That accounts for the raw, bloody appearance of the glans shown here and in the following pictures. If this is done wrongly it can cause a variety of damage, such as urethral fistula, a second opening to the urethra. This process may also tear the baby's frenulum, resulting in a variable loss of erogenous tissue.5. Clamp and cut.
The penis must be left in the clamp (haemostat) for a minute to ensure that crushing of the tissues and exclusion of blood is complete. It is at this point that the doctor is in danger of cutting off the baby's glans, or part of it. More recently, bone forceps have been used instead of the clamp. In freehand circumcisions, that danger is much greater; when a bell is used to cover the glans, it is less. Note that the actual cutting is not shown.6. Clamp is removed.
The sides of the wound adhere to each other. If they are not prevented, they will later adhere to the raw glans, creating skin bridges. A circumcised penis, contrary to popular opinion is not "maintenance free".7. Sleeve of skin that was cut away is pulled back.
The small cut edge of the shaft skin not apposed to mucosa will produce an unaesthetic tag when it heals.8. Bleeding must be identified and stopped.
Or large points of bleeding. Haemorrhage is one complication of circumcision, and a baby can lose a fatal proportion of his blood with terrifying rapidity. He only has a breakfast-cupful - 300ml. A baby is deemed to need a transfusion after losing 10% of that - 30ml, about a serving-spoonful.9. Further cutting away of erogenous tissue is performed.
Note first the blood on the surgeon's fingers. The amount of "excess" mucosa trimmed is at the doctor's whim. This determines whether the circumcision will be low or high. If (s)he then choses to trim more outer skin, that will determine whether it is loose or tight, though he may have no idea what the consequences of his actions to the adult will be. It is also at this point that he may decide to take more of the frenulum, with unpredictible effects on the man's sexual functioning.10. Stitches.
Note the additional blood on the surgical drapes.11. The natural anatomy of the male body is forever altered. Operation/Deprivation/Mutilation a "success."
... and the beginning of the penis's owner's life with it. The raw appearance of the glans is particularly clear here. The shaft has already begun to swell below the stitches.
Fact:
In America, it is punishable by incarceration to circumcise a cat, dog, or a female human.Bottom line:
The mass-mutilation of our nation's boys ("circumcision") is a barbaric, harmful, unnecessary practice that is done without the patient's consent. Circumcision cannot be defended on any logical grounds.
If you care about the world; if you care about the young; if you care about the humanity shown and given in our world, it is your duty to take some stand against it. Do not circumcise your baby, do not be scared into it, do not be pressured. Do not be shamed. Educate others. Aside from our blind allegiance to bloodthirsty gods (and even then, to my mind), the main problem is that we are uneducated.
Note: I would encourage any parties interested in gleaning all the facts to research on their own by clicking any of the photos on this page. There are many places to read more about this, and in much more depth.
If you are male and regret the loss of your foreskin, or simply are curious as to what alternatives there are -- and what benefits you can actually recover -- please see this site which is dedicated to Foreskin Restoration. There are also many, many more facts there, with links to sources and scientific fact.
If you are a mother-to-be and want more facts, see this site as well as any others the pictures above link to.
If you are angry about what was taken from you, act now. educate yourself. in some states you can sue the doctor who cut you up to a certain age. This is no fluke. Precedent has been established and cases have already been won. If you are a doctor who circumcises, you may want to consider this. You may also be interested in joining the doctors who were evolved enough to form this organization.
If you are a parent-to-be, please inform yourself fully. A lot of people's futures depend on it.