Opposition to female circumcision has become something of an article of faith for international development organizations. While there are still great and unresolved debates among policymakers and intellectuals about the importance of promoting democracy, bestowing foreign aid and mandating international standards of criminal law, everyone seems to agree that female circumcision is abhorrent and needs to be stopped.
The consensus, for once, is right: female circumcision reduces – if not eliminates – sexual pleasure, provides no apparent health benefits, and violates individual autonomy. At its core, female circumcision is a degrading and brutally unfair practice.
All of this is true of male circumcision – the removal of penis foreskin – as well. Yet, as the New York Times recently reported, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), an arm of the United States federal government, is now considering a plan to ‘promote [the] routine circumcision’ of infant boys in the US with the aim of reducing the spread of HIV (1). This proposal is as degrading as it is illiberal.
The scientific evidence that the CDC is relying on in considering the new recommendation is laughably weak. Consider, first, the people who were the object of the study: the population group surveyed was from sub-Saharan Africa, where sexual mores and cultural conditions are utterly different from those of the US.
The study found that adult circumcision led to a modest reduction in the transmission of HIV. However, the cited research found a reduction only in the incidence of HIV transmission as a result of sex between men and women. This is an extremely rare form of transmission in the US. Most damningly, even advocates of circumcision as a means of HIV reduction concede that circumcised men still need to use condoms to protect themselves. But this simply raises the question: why remove the foreskin in the first place, then? At best, therefore, the health benefits of circumcision are marginal.
Moreover, another recent study determined that circumcision does absolutely nothing to reduce the spread of HIV amongst men who have sex with other men – the group most likely to come into contact with the virus, at least in the US (2). Self-evidently, circumcision will do nothing to combat the spread of the disease among intravenous drug users, another group beset with HIV problems. And despite the claims of medical fearmongers regarding the supposed AIDS ‘epidemic’ in the US, fewer than 500,000 Americans are living with the disease in a country of over 300million people (3). To recommend universal circumcision is a wild overreaction to this problem.
While science gives us little reason to pursue this policy, it does tell us something important about circumcision: it greatly reduces sexual pleasure. To take just one academically determined example of what is quite self-evidently true, Gregory Boyle of the University of Australia has observed that the ‘inner layer of the foreskin comprises thousands of erogenous nerve endings’. He further determined that circumcised men enjoy ‘significantly less penile sensation as compared with genitally intact men’ (4). This makes plain sense: after all, the foreskin is an erogenous zone, and removal of said zone is bound have a deleterious result on sensation. To deny men a life of sexual pleasure because of highly dubious claims of ‘health benefits’ is ethically unjustifiable. To add insult to (ahem) injury, other studies have concluded that not only does circumcision deny males pleasure, it actually causes them pain as well (5).
More troubling, the plan to mandate circumcision betrays an insidious disregard for individual autonomy. Indeed, even if circumcision could be shown significantly to reduce the spread of HIV, the practice of circumcising infants would remain an affront to human dignity. It denies men autonomy over their own bodies. No right-thinking person would ever endorse the involuntary circumcision of adult males – indeed, even the most vehement supporters of the practice shy away from this. Why should the case of an infant male be any different? The detriments to his life he is likely to receive as a result of the procedure will only affect him when he is an adult.
Is there really any ethical difference between circumcising a baby against his will and circumcising an adult against his will? What kind of ethical framework is it that allows parents the right to deny their children future sexual pleasure?
Lamentably, many American elites have ridiculed and maligned opponents of compulsory cutting. Substituting mockery for argumentation, Hanna Rosin, writing in the influential Atlantic Monthly, referred dismissively to the circumcision ‘controversy’ (note the use of scare quotes) and accused opponents of being ‘hysterical’ (6). Emily Bazelon, a senior editor at the highly respected web magazine, Slate, characterized critics as ‘crazy’ and ‘on the rabid side’ (7). It is difficult to imagine two liberal women being quite so glib about opponents of female circumcision.
Of course, the impulse to regulate personal behavior in the name of health and safety has been ascendant in Western society for some time now. But that impulse, as we have seen time and again, can go too far. If we were really to pursue such an outlook to its logical conclusion, we would demand a ban on homosexual sex, since this would result in a far larger reduction in HIV transmission than circumcision. This, most people would agree, would be ridiculous, but if any regulation is permissible in the name of health and safety, then why not simply mandate this?
The safety impulse is the same one that has brought us public smoking bans, seatbelt laws, and fees on shoppers’ use of plastic bags. And now, left unchecked, that safety impulse is set to hit American men where it really hurts.
(5) American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision (March 1, 1999) Circumcision Policy Statement, Pediatrics 103 (3): 686–693. doi:10.1542/peds.103.3.686. ISSN 0031-4005 PMID 10049981
If you or someone you know is willing to donate even a little breastmilk for this local baby in SE Michigan - she needs your immediate help. I got this letter today from doula, Courtenay.
Hello friends and family!
I am writing (perhaps again for some of you) to ask you whether you or somebody you know (friends, family, clients) might have frozen breast milk you are willing to donate, or whether you (or they) would be willing to pump even just one time a day to donate to a very sick baby in our community. Her name is Jayden and I will give you some of her story:
Jayden was born cocaine and alcohol addicted, with congenital syphilis, at 31 weeks gestation. She had no skin on the palms of her hands or feet and had to have skin grafts. She was the fourth child to be taken from her mother, and was taken at birth and brought directly to the NICU. The birth mother's parental rights were terminated within 12 weeks, which is very fast in Michigan. They could find no formula that Jayden could tolerate well, but settled on the one that she had the "least severe reaction to."
When she was about eight weeks old, she was assigned a foster parent, who came to do kangaroo care with her for eight days before she took her home, as Jayden was completely blind and profoundly deaf, and would need to be accustomed to "mom's" smell and touch before they sent her home. When she went home, she was the most critical discharge they have ever had from that NICU, which routinely sees the sickest of babies. Basically, with tears in their eyes, the nurses sent Jayden home to die. Jayden was insulin dependent (with critically unstable blood sugars, typically either below 60 or above 400), on oxygen 24 hours a day, and set off her apnea monitor 6-10 times a day. In order to set off a monitor, she would have to not breathe for many seconds at a time. She had gained and lost the same three ounces since birth, and was no more than four and a half pounds. Her foster mother asked over and over again of anybody who had authority why this baby couldn't be on breastmilk, shouldn't this baby be on breast milk, what did she have to do to get this baby on breastmilk?
Over and over, she was basically told that this was a medicaid baby and that the state wouldn't PAY for banked milk (which costs between 1-2 dollars an ounce, and has been pasteurized) for a MEDICAID baby. Finally, one day, when Jayden was literally actively dying, an infectious disease doctor looked at her foster mom (who is a friend of mine because of foster work and doula work) and said, "I won't tell you NOT to give her breastmilk. We know that it would give her the best chance!" So, we got her some frozen breastmilk.
With her first bottle of human milk, Jayden's blood sugar regulated. She is typically somewhere around 120 now. Within the first three weeks, she regained her sight and hearing. Her new pediatrician says that when somebody is actively dying their brain will shut off all non-essential functions--and hearing and sight are non-essential functions. The first week on breastmilk she started to only set off her apnea monitor during the night's deepest sleep...and only then typically once a night. Within three weeks, they took it off of her completely, because she just didn't set it off any more. The first week she gained and KEPT ON four ounces. The next week three. The next week SEVEN. Now, she has gained nearly four pounds (eight weeks later). We now have full cooperation with her new pediatrician and the state to give her human milk, no questions asked.
We have tried her on formula again, and on "extra calories" breastmilk boosters several times, to see what would happen should we run out of breastmilk. The baby immediately goes into cirsis again. Formula is NOT okay. She is showing strong allergies to cow's milk proteins, soy proteins, and corn and corn derivitives, which pretty much eliminates every form of artificial milk we have available. This baby was literally dying (the new pediatrician looked at her stats on intake and stood up and hugged foster mom saying, "If you hadn't started this baby on human milk a week ago, she would be dead today--you are a Hero!"), and now has a chance at life.
My friend's freezer is nearly empty of the frozen milk we were able to collect and the baby drinks significantly more fresh milk than we are able to get pumped weekly by the several donors we have been blessed to find to pump one pumping a day for her. The foster mom is now looking into "milk share" which is an online community of pumpers who donate for the cost of supplies. However, if we can get donated milk from our immediate community, this would make life a lot simpler! We have pickups in Madison Heights on Monday/Tuesdays, in Troy on Wednesdays, and would be willing to have another pickup on Fridays in another part of town (perhaps more north?).
Please, if you or somebody you know who is breastfeeding would be willing to continue to save a baby's life, she, her foster mother, and all the people who have come to love Jayden would be eternally grateful!
Again, we are looking for any freezer stashes that might need to be culled, and also for freshly pumped milk...even one pumping a day is gold to us right now!
Thanks so much for reading, considering,and passing this on to as many people as you can. With interest or questions, please contact me at grabowski4@comcast.net
Let's get our babies out of buckets and up 'Close Enough to Kiss.'
Babywearing does SO much good for our little ones (and us as parents as well!) Slinging Your Baby:
* Increases neurological development and brain activity * Increases calm alertness * Increases oxygen flow * Increases the flow of oxytocin and other 'feel good/love' hormones (for BOTH Dad/Mom and baby) * Improves sleep at night and naptimes * Improves and regulates cardiovascular health * Improves and regulates respiratory health * Improves breastfeeding (and Mom's milk supply when she babywears) * Improves gross and fine motor development, strength and ability * Regulates body temperature especially in small babies (when baby has a fever, babywearing skin-to-skin with Mom/Dad will lower his temp; if baby is too cold, skin-to-skin will raise baby's temp) * Decreases fussiness, colic and gastrointestinal problems * Decreases cortisol and other stress hormones (for BOTH Mom/Dad and baby!) * Decreases blood pressure and hypertension (for BOTH Mom/Dad and baby!) * Develops healthy, secure attachment (for BOTH Mom/Dad and baby) * Decreases physiological development issues (such as Plagiocephaly, Tortocollis, and 'flat head' that we see so often in what the AAP calls 'Bucket Babies' - those left in carseats/strollers)
Learn more about Babywearing from these great sources:
American Academy of Pediatrics on "Bucket Babies" and SIDS What are "Bucket Babies"? You've seen babies carried around in car seats at knee-height...being lugged around everywhere they go...these babes rarely leave their carseat/stroller 'bucket'. Life for them is lived at a lower level (literally). They are not up at eye-level with mom and dad and the rest of the world. They are not talked with the same as slingin' babies. They are not at kissing/hugging/holding level. They are not heart-to-heart with mom. They do not have easy access to her warmth and her milk. These are babies that have been sadly termed "Bucket Babies" and they face many additional risk factors for health problems - SIDS being one. Let's bring them up to where they belong.
If you have photos of a great man in your life wearing your baby, and you'd be willing to share for a REAL MEN WEAR BABIESphoto collage that will appear here, please consider sending to Born2BWorn@gmail.com. Include any information if you would like listed with the picture (name/location/baby's age/type of sling/wrap) or you can send anonymously without any info as well.
The purpose of this collection is to demonstrate that fathers DO frequently wear their little ones as well as mothers, and to encourage other dads to give it a try.
Babywearing has been shown to significantly impact attachment, bonding, and trust between fathers and their children - a social bond that lasts into the teenage years and beyond. Father babywearing as also been shown to decrease stress hormones and lower blood pressure and hypertension in both men and their babies.
This is not a *big* shocking surprise to anyone who knows about the immunological and protective functions and purposes of the prepuce (foreskin) or the hard, cold facts that when you circumcise men, you increase rates of all STDs (including HIV). Countries where 99% of men are intact have the lowest rates of HIV. The United States, with the highest number of circumcised adult men, has the highest rate of HIV among developed nations. Condoms prevent the spread of HIV, not circumcision. This is not rocket science... But apparently we have to wait for the 'experts' cutting foreskins in Africa to tell us this.
Recent findings show an increase in HIV infection in regions where most males are circumcised.
As thousands of young men in Nyanza Province troop to health centres to be circumcised in hopes of fending off HIV, new studies show it might be too early to claim victory. Although circumcision has been touted as one of the ways to prevent HIV infection, recent findings show an increase in HIV infection in regions where most males are circumcised.
According to findings of the Kenya Aids Indicator Survey (Kais) released last week, North Eastern and Coast provinces, where 97 per cent of males are circumcised, registered an increase in HIV prevalence.
Within a span of five years, HIV prevalence in North Eastern and Coast provinces increased from 0 to 1.0 per cent and from 5.8 per cent to 8.3 per cent respectively. In the same period, HIV prevalence in Nyanza Province, where about 48 per cent of males are circumcised, stood at 15 per cent, the highest in the country.
These are sobering statistics for young men who have rushed to get circumcised in he belief that doing so would provide complete protection from HIV infection. The new findings of growing HIV prevalence among circumcised males indicates the practice cannot completely protect an individual from HIV infection unless it is combined with other practices including using condoms, being faithful to one partner, or abstaining from sex.
Health officials acknowledge that getting people to look at circumcision in the larger context of other factors and strategies can be challenging. “The figures from these two provinces are sending a warning that circumcision alone is not the magic bullet to controlling the disease. Other methods have to be used in combination,” said Dr Ibrahim Mohammed, Head of National Aids and STD Control Programmes in the Ministry of Medical Services.
The increase in prevalence in communities that circumcise indicates there are other factors that contribute to the spread of the disease among males in addition to being uncircumcised. Multiple sexual partners, low condom use and alcohol and drug abuse are some of the factors.
“Unless we address all the reasons predisposing people to HIV infection, we might not make much headway,” said Judy Adero, who has lived with the virus for nine years. But scientists still believe circumcision will result in the lowering of HIV prevalence in provinces such as Nyanza.
Dr David DeCock, director of the Kenya office of the US Centers for Disease Control, said there is no doubt that circumcision prevents HIV infection. The Kais study shows HIV prevalence among circumcised men aged between 20 and 64 years was approximately three to seven times lower than among uncircumcised men in the same age range.
The study further shows that the rate of HIV prevalence among circumcised men was 3.9 per cent compared to 13.2 per cent among the uncircumcised men. Buoyed by these significant differences, the government and other organisations have opened 200 circumcision centres.
More than 30,000 men have been circumcised since the call first went out; the target of 100,000 circumcised men is expected to be reached by year’s end.
Meanwhile, female activists have criticised the way the whole operation is being carried out, arguing that it is making women more vulnerable as men engage in sex with multiple partners secure in the knowledge that they are safe.
The decision to adopt circumcision as one method in the HIV prevention strategy has been informed by research findings of three main studies done in South Africa, Uganda and Kenya which showed circumcision to reduce the risk of HIV infection by up to 60 per cent.
This was followed by World Health Organisation and UNAids issuing strong recommendations for increased male circumcision rates in countries where the HIV prevalence is high. Two years ago, Kim Dickson, coordinator of the joint WHO/UNAids working group that came up with the recommendations told the journal New Scientists: “We reviewed all the evidence, and the evidence is compelling.”
In the South Africa study, circumcision was found to reduce HIV infection rates by more than 60 per cent in a group of 3,000 HIV-negative men. Of the 1,546 men who were circumcised, 20 became infected with HIV while 49 of the 1,582 uncircumcised men became infected.
The findings made the South African scientists undertake large-scale male circumcision as a possible strategy for preventing two million HIV infections and 300,000 deaths in their country over the next 10 years. In December 2006, the Data Safety Monitoring Board that was overseeing the Kenyan and Ugandan male circumcision trials announced the operation was a safe and effective way to reduce HIV infection among men.
*If you have a story to share, please let us know. If you are a parent who circumcised your first son, wish to keep future sons intact, and would like to talk with other parents who have done the same, please drop me a note. I will connect you with others you can talk to who have walked down that same road and kept all future babies whole at birth.
The typical hospital circumcision is done out of view of the mother in a separate room. However, a few are observed by parents, and many Jewish ritual circumcisions are done in the homes of the parents and observed by family and friends. Although some parents may report that this is a positive experience, this is not always the case. Women are more likely than men to report distress from hearing an infant crying.(1) Regarding circumcision, the father is more likely to deny his son’s pain because it could remind him of his own circumcision feelings. Therefore, witnessing the circumcision and the infant’s response can have a particularly shocking effect on the mother. Only recently have some parents been willing to describe their agonizingly painful experiences at their son’s circumcision. Though further research is needed to tell us how common these responses are, the fact that they exist at all is reason for concern and reflection.
Some mothers have written about their experiences with circumcision during the previous year. “It was as close to hell as I ever want to get!” one wrote. Another related this memory:
My tiny son and I sobbed our hearts out. . . . After everything I’d worked for, carrying and nurturing Joseph in the womb, having him at home against no small odds, keeping him by my side constantly since birth, nursing him whenever he needed closeness and nourishment—the circumcision was a horrible violation of all I felt we shared. I cried for days afterward.(2)
Melissa Morrison was having a difficult time seven months after she had watched the (nonritual) circumcision of her son:
I’m finding myself obsessing more and more about it. It’s absolutely horrible. I didn’t know how horrific it was going to be. It was the most gruesome thing I have ever seen in my life. I told the doctor as soon as he was done, if I had a gun I would have killed him. I swear I would be in jail today if I did have a gun.(3)
Two other mothers have reported to the Circumcision Resource Center that watching their son’s circumcision was “the worst day of my life.” Another mother noted that she still felt pain recalling the experience about a year later. She wrote to her son:
I have never heard such screams. . . . Will I ever know what scars this brings to your soul? . . . What is that new look I see in your eyes? I can see pain, a certain sadness, and a loss of trust.(4)
Other mothers clearly remember their son’s circumcision after many years. Miriam Pollack reported fifteen years after the event, “The screams of my baby remain embedded in my bones and haunt my mind.” She added later, “His cry sounded like he was being butchered. I lost my milk.”(5)
Nancy Wainer Cohen recalled her feelings connected with the circumcision of her son, who is now twenty-two:
I heard him cry during the time they were circumcising him. The thing that is most disturbing to me is that I can still hear his cry. . . . It was an assault on him, and on some level it was an assault on me. . . . I will go to my grave hearing that horrible wail, and feeling somewhat responsible, feeling that it was my lack of awareness, my lack of consciousness. I did the best I could, and it wasn’t good enough.(6)
Elizabeth Pickard-Ginsburg vividly remembered her son’s circumcision and its effect on her:
Jesse was shrieking and I had tears streaming down my face. . . . He was screaming and there was no doubt in his scream that he wanted mother, or a mothering figure to come and protect him from this pain!! . . . Jesse screamed so loud that all of a sudden there was no sound! I’ve never heard anything like it!! He was screaming and it went up and then there was no sound and his mouth was just open and his face was full of pain!! I remember something happened inside me . . . the intensity of it was like blowing a fuse! It was too much. We knew something was over. I don’t feel that it ever really healed. . . . I don’t think I can recover from it. It’s a scar. I’ve put a lot of energy into trying to recover. I did some crying and we did some therapy. There’s still a lot of feeling that’s blocked off. It was too intense. . . . We had this beautiful baby boy and seven beautiful days and this beautiful rhythm starting, and it was like something had been shattered!! . . . When he was first born there was a tie with my young one, my newborn. And when the circumcision happened, in order to allow it I had cut off the bond. I had to cut off my natural instincts, and in doing so I cut off a lot of feelings towards Jesse. I cut it off to repress the pain and to repress the natural instinct to stop the circumcision.(7) (italics added)
After several years, Pickard-Ginsburg says she can still feel “an element of detachment” toward her son. Her account is particularly revealing. That she “cut off” feelings toward her son by observing his circumcision suggests that her son may have responded similarly toward her by experiencing his circumcision. Furthermore, because she was willing to feel and communicate the intensity of her pain, we have a clue to why more mothers who observe their son’s circumcision do not report such pain. Denial and repression may keep this extreme pain out of their awareness.
Observing their son’s circumcision has left some parents with a deep feeling of regret. The following quotes are typical:
I am so sorry I was so ignorant about circumcision. Had I witnessed a circumcision first, I never would have consented to having my son circumcised.(8)
Always in the back of my mind I’ve thought, “I wish he hadn’t been cut.” I have apologized to him numerous times.(9)
If I had ever known, I wouldn’t have done this in a million years.(10)
I felt as if I might pass out at the sight of my son lying there, unable to move or defend himself. His screams tore at my heart as his foreskin was heartlessly torn from his penis. Too late to turn back, I knew that this was a terrible mistake and that it was something that no one, especially newborn babies, should ever have to endure. A wave of shock coursed through me—my body feeling nauseatingly sick with guilt and shame. All I could think of was holding and consoling my child, but his pain felt inconsolable—his body rigid with fear and anger—his eyes filled with tears of betrayal.(11)
Some mothers who did not witness the circumcision have since regretted allowing it:
The nurse came to take the baby for the circumcision. I have relived that moment over and over. If I could turn back the hands of time, that would be the one moment I would go back to and say, “I don’t think it’s a good idea. I need another day to think about it” and just hold on to him because I wasn’t sure. I think if I had held on to him it might have turned out differently. I just shouldn’t have let him go when I was so ambivalent. After they took him I went into the shower, and I cried.(12)
When they brought him back to me, I could see that he had been crying and had a glassy, wild look in his eyes. I think it was terror. I didn’t know what had been done to him, but I could tell whatever it was, it hurt. I’ll never forget that look. They probably shattered every bit of trust he had. I’m very angry about it. I would never have done that to my own son. No mother would take a knife to her child. When I looked at his penis, I was again instantly sorry that I had allowed it to be done.(13)
NOTES
(1) Frodi, A. & Lamb, M., “Sex Differences in Responsiveness to Infants: A Developmental Study of Psychophysical and Behavioral Responses,” Child Development 49 (1978): 1182-8.
(2) O'Mara, P., ed., Circumcision: The Rest of the Story (Santa Fe, NM: Mothering, 1993), 75-6.
(3) Telephone conversation with CRC office, 1995.
(4) Friederich, L., letter in O'Mara, Circumcision: The Rest of the Story, 79.
(5) Pollack, M., “Jewish Feminist Perspective,” paper presented at the Third International Symposium on Circumcision, College Park, MD, May 1994.
(6) Interviewed at CRC office, 1994.
(7) Romberg, Circumcision: The Painful Dilemma, 78-84.
(8) Sexty, L., letter in O'Mara, Circumcision: The Rest of the Story, 84.
(9) Cohen, N., interviewed at CRC office, 1994.
(10) Northrup, C., telephone conversation with CRC office, 1994.
(11) Raisbeck, B., “Circumcision: A Wound Which Lasts a Lifetime,” Healing Currents, 1993, 21.
(12) Dion, J., telephone conversation with CRC office, 1995.
(13) Miller, C., telephone conversation with CRC office, 1995.
A pregnant woman and her baby belly is simply one of the most beautiful forms on earth!
In their empowering, inspirational, often healing birth book, Birthing From Within, Pam England, CNM, MA, and Rob Horowitz, PhD write:
One kind of learning comes from books. But the learning necessary for you to participate completely in your birth must come from you. In making birth art or journaling, just bringing an image to light can be surprisingly revealing (and sometimes healing). Listening to it speak to you can tell you even more. Dreams, reverie and art all carry messages from the unconscious…
An active, gentle exploration process not only brings overlooked resources and strengths to conscious awareness, but identifies obstacles and inhibitions that might prevent you from using them.
Birth art doesn't have to be pretty, colorful or carefully planned. It is as raw, honest and spontaneous as birth itself.
It is important to notice how you approach making art, because it is a metaphor for how you approach doing things in your life, especially things you are unfamiliar with, such as birthing. Do you say, "I don't know how to do this!" and hesitate, or give up altogether (leaving it up to 'the professionals')? Do you find yourself comparing yourself and competing with others? Or can you be curious and say, "Let's see what I can do!"?
Your art, like your labor, doesn't have to be perfect. Just give it your best effort.
One expressive form of pregnancy and birth art is belly painting. What a fun celebration of the life growing within!
If you have a painted (or henna) baby belly photo you'd like to share here, we'd love to see them! I do not know who all the women of these photos are - so if one is your photo, please drop me a note and let me know so I can credit you.
This year it is more important that you protect your children and loved ones from the flu vaccines than influenza itself. Here are the reasons:
1. This flu is simply another flu. It is not unusually deadly. In fact, the H1N1 swine flu in circulation is less deadly than many other influenza outbreaks. The first 1000 confirmed swine flu cases in Japan and China produced zero deaths. The Centers for Disease Control alleges 36,000 Americans succumb to the flu each year, but so far, since March through August of 2009 (6 months), the swine flu has been attributed to ~500–600 deaths in the US. The swine flu of 2009 has already swept through the Southern Hemisphere’s flu season without alarm. Only exaggerated reports have been issued by the World Health Organization regarding hospitalizations required during the flu season in South American countries. Getting exposed to influenza and developing natural antibodies confers resistance for future flu outbreaks. Artificially boosting antibodies by exposure to flu viruses in vaccines is more problematic than natural exposure. Americans have been exposed to the H1N1 swine flu throughout the summer of 2009 with far fewer deaths and hospitalizations than commonly attributed to the seasonal flu.
2. Health authorities tacitly admit prior flu vaccination programs were of worthless value. This is the first time both season and pandemic flu vaccines will be administered. Both seasonal flu and swine flu vaccines will require two inoculations. This is because single inoculations have failed to produce sufficient antibodies. Very young children and older frail adults, the high-risk groups in the population, may not produce sufficient antibodies in response to the flu vaccine. This is an admission that prior flu vaccines were virtually useless. The same people who brought you the ineffective vaccines in past years are bringing you this year’s new vaccines. Can you trust them this time?
3. In addition to failure to produce sufficient antibodies, this swine flu vaccine is brought to you by the same people who haven’t been able to adequately produce a seasonal flu vaccine that matches the flu strain in circulation. In recent years flu vaccination has been totally worthless because the strains of the flu in circulation did not match the strain of the virus in the vaccines. Authorities claim the prevalent flu strain in circulation in mid-September ’09 is the H1N1 swine flu, which appears to be milder than past seasonal influenza in circulation. If this data is correct, why receive the season flu shot this year?
4. The vaccines will be produced by no less than four different manufacturers, possibly with different additives (called adjuvants) and manufacturing methods. The two flu inoculations may be derived from a multi-dose vial and in a crisis, and in short supply, it will be diluted to provide more doses and then adjuvants must be added to trigger a stronger immune response. Adjuvants are added to vaccines to boost production of antibodies but may trigger autoimmune reactions. Some adjuvants are mercury (thimerosal), aluminum and squalene. Would you permit your children to be injected with lead? Lead is very harmful to the brain. Then why would you sign a consent form for your kids to be injected with mercury, which is even more brain-toxic than lead? Injecting mercury may fry the brains of American kids.
5. This is the first year mock vaccines have been used to gain FDA approval. Mock vaccines are made to gain approval of the manufacturing method and then the prevalent virus strain in circulation is added just days before it is actually placed into use. Don’t subject your children to experimental vaccines. Yes, these vaccines have been tested on healthy kids and adults, but they are not the same vaccines your children will be given. Those children with asthma, allergies, type I diabetes, etc. are at greater risk for side effects. Children below the age of 2 years do not have a sufficient blood–brain barrier developed and are subject to chronic brain infections that emanate into symptoms that are called autism. Toddlers should not be subjected to injected viruses.
6. Over-vaccination is a common practice now in America. American children are subjected to 29 vaccines by the age of two. This means a little bit of disease is being injected into young children continually during their most formative years! Veterinarians have backed off of repeat vaccination in dogs because of observed side effects.
7. Health officials want to vaccinate women during pregnancy, subjecting the fetal brain to an intentional biological assault. A recent study showed exposure flu viruses among women during pregnancy provoke a similar gene expression pattern in the fetus as that seen in autistic children. This is a tacit admission that vaccines, which inject a little bit of influenza into humans, causes autism.
8. Modern medicine has no explanation for autism, despite its continued rise in prevalence. Yet autism is not reported among Amish children who go unvaccinated. Beware the falsehoods of modern medicine.
9. School kids are likely to receive nasally-administered vaccines (Flu-Mist) that require no needle injection. But this form of live vaccine produces viral shedding which will surely be transmitted to family members. What a way to start an epidemic!
10. This triple reassortment virus appears to be man made. The H1N1 swine flu virus of 2009 coincidentally appeared in Mexico on the same week that President Nicolas Sarkozy of France visited Mexican president Felipe Calderon, to announce that France intends to build a multi-million dollar vaccine plant in Mexico. An article written by Ron Maloney of the Seguin, Texas Gazette-Enterprise newspaper announces a "rehearsal for a pandemic disaster" scheduled for May 2, 2009. The article says: "Guadalupe County emergency management and their counterparts around the country are preparing for just such a scenario…" This means county health authorities across the U.S. had been preparing a rehearsal for mass vaccinations prior to the announced outbreak in Mexico. Virologists admit this part swine flu/part avian flu/part human flu virus must have taken time to develop. But it somehow wasn’t detected by hundreds of flu monitoring stations across the globe. On April 24, 2009 Dr. John Carlo, Dallas County Medical Director, alludes that the H1N1 strain of the Swine flu as possibly being engineered in a laboratory. He says: "This strain of swine influenza that’s been cultured in a laboratory is something that’s not been seen anywhere actually in the United States and the world, so this is actually a new strain of influenza that’s been identified." (Globe & Mail, Canada)
11. Recall the swine flu scare of 1976. In a politically charged atmosphere where Gerald Ford was seeking election to the Presidency, the swine flu suddenly appeared at a military base. Vaccine was produced and millions of Americans were vaccinated. But the vaccine was worse than the disease, causing hundreds of cases of Guillain Barre syndrome and a few deaths. In a replay of the past, the White House is directly involved in promoting the H1N1 2009 swine flu vaccine. The federal government will use federal funds to pay off schools to administer vaccines, promote vaccination via highway billboards and TV advertisements, and conduct military-style mass inoculations in such rapid fashion that if side effects occur, it will be too late. The masses will have been vaccinated already. Over $9 billion has been allotted by the federal government to develop and deliver an unproven and experimental flu vaccine. Don’t be a guinea pig for the government.
12. Researchers are warning that over-use of the flu vaccine and anti-flu drugs like Tamiflu and Relenza can apply genetic pressure on flu viruses and then they are more likely to mutate into a more deadly strain. US health authorities want 70% of the public to be vaccinated against the flu this ’09 season, which is more than double the vaccination percentage of any prior flu season. This would certainly apply greater genetic pressure for the flu to mutate into a more virulent strain.
13. Most seasonal influenza A (H1N1) virus strains tested from the United States and other countries are now resistant to Tamiflu (oseltamivir). Tamiflu has become a nearly worthless drug against seasonal flu. According to data provided by the Centers for Disease Control, among 1148 seasonal flu samples tested, 1143 (99.6%) were resistant to Tamiflu!
14. As the flu season progresses the federal government may coerce or mandate Americans to undergo vaccination. France has already ordered enough vaccine to inoculate their entire population and has announced that vaccination will be mandatory. The US appears to be waiting to announce mandatory vaccination at a later date when it can scare the public into consenting to the vaccine. The federal government is reported to be hiring people to visit homes of unvaccinated children. This sounds like the Biblical account of Pharaoh attempting to eradicate all the young Israelite baby boys. Must we hide our babies now?
15. Public health authorities have cried wolf every flu season to get the public to line up for flu shots. Health authorities repeatedly publish the bogus 36,000 annual flu-related deaths figure to scare the public into getting flu shots. But that figure is based on the combined deaths from pneumonia in the elderly and the flu. Maybe just 5000–6000 or so flu-related deaths occur annually, mostly among individuals with compromised immune systems, the hospitalized, individuals with autoimmune disease or other health problems. As stated above, the swine flu in full force has only resulted in ~500–600 deaths in the first six months in circulation and it is far more dreaded by public health authorities than the seasonal flu. The Centers for Disease Control issues a purchase order for flu vaccines and then serves as the public relations agency to get the public to pay for the vaccines. Out of a population of 325 million Americans, only 100 million doses of flu vaccine have been administered each year and no epidemic has erupted among the unvaccinated.
16. The news media is irresponsible in stirring up unfounded fear over this coming flu season. Just exactly how ethical is it for newspapers to publish reports that a person has died of the swine flu when supposedly thousands die of the flu annually? In the past the news media hasn’t chosen to publicize each and every flu-related death, but this time it has chosen to frighten the public. Why? Examine the chart below. The chart shows that the late flu season of 2009 peaked in week 23 (early June) and has dissipated considerably.
While every childhood flu-related death should be considered tragic, and the number of flu-related pediatric deaths in 2009 is greater than prior flu seasons as a percentage, in real numbers it is not a significant increase. See chart below:
According to data provided by the Centers for Disease Control, for week 34 ending August 29, 2009, there were 236 hospitalizations and 37 deaths related to the flu. That would represent just 5 hospitalizations and less than one death per State, which is "below the epidemic threshold."
17. Public health officials are irresponsible in their omission of any ways to strengthen immunity against the flu. No options outside of problematic vaccines and anti-flu drugs are offered, despite the fact there is strong evidence that vitamins C and D activate the immune system and the trace mineral selenium prevents the worst form of the disease where the lungs fill up with fluid and literally drown a flu-infected person. The only plausible explanation as to why the flu season typically peaks in winter months is a deficiency of sunlight-produced vitamin D. Protect your family. Arm your immune system with vitamins and trace minerals.
18. Will we ever learn if the flu vaccine this year is deadly in itself? In 1993 the federal government hid a deadly flu vaccine that killed thousands of nursing home patients. It was the first year that flu shots were paid for by Medicare. The vaccine-related mortality was so large that this set back the life expectancy of Americans for the first time since the 1918 Spanish flu! Mortality reports take a year or two to tabulate and the federal government may choose not to reveal the true mortality rate and whether it was related to the flu or the vaccines. You say this couldn’t happen? It did in 1993!
I don't typically get into vax news, preferring instead to stick to research and make informed choices on a vax-by-vax basis and letting others do the same. And I am not a big fan of 'scare tactics' in the media (on either side of the issue). But my husband is currently overseas on a submarine with the Navy for several months and there are MANY sailors becoming ill from a variety of mandated H1N1 vaccinations. So this much I know is true. There have also been confirmed deaths (at least one officer that I know of). We should NOT be mandating a vaccine that has NOT been adequately tested. And it certainly should not be given to children. I do not wish to have my husband or my children used as guinea pigs for this particular trial, and I am sure there are many other parents out there who feel the same way.
Doctor will NOT give H1N1 vaccination to his children:
The prepuce is primary, erogenous tissue necessary for normal sexual function. The complex interaction between the protopathic sensitivity of the corpuscular receptor-deficient glans penis and the corpuscular receptor-rich ridged band of the male prepuce is required for normal copulatory behavior. – Dr. Christopher Cold, M.D. and Dr. John Taylor, M.D.
I have found that most fully informed parents do not wish to amputate the prepuce organ from their newborn son for several reasons -- one being the excruciating pain it causes a baby at a time when baby's sensitivity is heightened and he is new to the world. Recently, some parents have been told that the Plastibell style circumcisions do not hurt. This is far from the truth. Cutting occurs in exactly the same manner - it is just a plastic bell clamp that is used to crush the glans (head) and sever the prepuce by string and knife rather than a metal clamp (more commonly used) and knife. Witness a Plastibell circumcision here.
That being said -- even if circumcision was entirely PAIN FREE -- to amputate the prepuce would still be removing a healthy, vital, fully functioning organ from a non-consenting person. We forever change the sexuality of this future adult man and his partner. All human beings - male and female - have the basic human right of genital integrity. They have a right to ALL their functioning, healthy body parts. A man (even as a newborn) has a right to his whole, intact penis, to do with as he pleases.
In the documentary, CUT: Slicing Through the Myths of Circumcision, it is noted that a man's sexual life without the prepuce may still be great -- but it is as though his sexuality is an orchestra missing the entire strings section. The music just isn't the same. It cannot be. The #1 organ necessary for full functioning was taken from him. Men (and women) ought to have their full 'orchestra' intact.
As I was studying this topic in graduate school, I was continuously floored with the amount of information and research we HAVE that is not shared openly with the general public. In addition, it is not being taught in medical school -- even to those who will be working in obstetrics, gynecology, or pediatrics. I reviewed top used medical anatomy textbooks and found the prepuce organ to be missing from most of them. It is also rarely examined (or present) on cadavers.
When parents are asked "do you want your son circumcised" they answer 'yes' or 'no' without ever being FULLY INFORMED of what that question entails. Their doctor may not even be fully informed on the topic. (Side note: If you work on a labor and delivery floor and are the one posing this question to parents, you might consider rephrasing the question to accurately represent these new, perfect, little babies: "Do you wish to keep your son intact?" and make sure parents at your hospital have access to FULL and ACCURATE information before making their decision).
It is crucial that we spread this wealth of knowledge around. Rarely is there a body organ that comes fully formed and functioning at birth on ALL mammals (male and female alike) that is not important and useful throughout life. Even the appendix has important functions that we were once in the dark on. The prepuce, however, is an organ we DO know a lot about -- we just have to start TALKING about it!
The following is an excerpt from the outstanding book, What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Circumcision written by Dr. Fleiss and Dr. Hodges (2 'experts' in the field of human sexuality who have studied the topic for the past 30+ years). Dr. Fleiss is also a practicing pediatrician in Los Angeles and Dr. Hodges conducts research and teaches at Yale University.
After Fleiss & Hodges work, is a video clip in which Marilyn Milos (founder of the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers) discusses some of the ins-and-outs of the functions of the foreskin. Her commentary adds to the reading by Fleiss and Hodges in a manner that is easy to understand.
--
The foreskin has a great number of important protective, sensory, and sexual functions.
The Foreskin in Babyhood
Babies are born perfect. Every part of your baby’s body is there for a purpose. Every part of your baby’s body helps him grow, develop, learn, and experience our wondrous world. The foreskin is one of these special body parts. In fact, the foreskin is an important body part throughout the entire life of the male.
The foreskin adds more to the penis than just increased sexual functioning and pleasure. It keeps your baby’s penis safe, warm, clean, and moist. It allows the baby’s glans (head) to complete its development normally. The glans is meant to be an internal organ, covered and protected from the outside world.
No attempt should be made to retract the foreskin before the penis has fully developed. Premature retraction causes the glans to become dry, hard, and scarred. The foreskin protects the glans from injury simply by covering it. The first person to retract the foreskin and expose the glans should be the child himself, and only when the child is ready to do so. It is best that parents avoid concerning themselves with this natural process. All by themselves, little boys will make the discovery that their foreskin can be retracted.
Just as the eyelid protects the eye, the foreskin protects the glans, keeping its surface soft, moist, warm and sensitive. It also maintains optimal warmth, pH balance, and cleanliness. The glans itself contains no sebaceous glands – glands that produce the moisturizing oil that our skin needs to stay healthy.(2) The foreskin produces the moisturizer that keeps the surface of the glans glistening, smooth, soft, and a deep healthy red or purple color.
The foreskin will protect the entire penis when accidents happen, such as contusions, abrasions, lacerations, and burns. The foreskin is the first layer – a double layer – of defense from injury to the rest of the penis.
Self-Cleansing Function
The intact penis is naturally clean. The common view of the penis or the foreskin as ‘dirty’ is unscientific and irrational.
The penis, however, does provide an entry point into the body, and it is exposed to foreign microbes every day, especially during sexual intercourse. The immunological functions of the foreskin and the self-cleansing functions of the penis protect the body from harm.
Every time a genitally intact male urinates, the urine stream flushes out the urethra and foreskin of foreign microbes that may have strayed inside. In healthy individuals, urine is sterile and has a disinfectant quality. Researchers have demonstrated that the swirling action of urine as it rushes through the foreskin flushes it out effortlessly and naturally.(3) This function is especially efficient when the foreskin is long and the preputial orifice is narrow.
Though urine passes through the foreskin every day, the inner foreskin is remarkably free of urea – a by-product of liver metabolism that is secreted in the urine. Studies demonstrate that washings from the foreskin are rich in fructose, acid phosphatase, and mucin, but never urea. It appears that the secretions of seminal vesicles, prostate, and urethral mucous glands, collectively or individually, keep the foreskin clear and clean as well. (4) These self-cleansing functions of the penis are analogous to the self-cleansing functions of the eye, which similarly maintains its cleanliness through fluid washings (tears) and mucus secretion. Therefore, you never need to worry about the foreskin being ‘unclean.’
Self-Protecting Functions
The urinary meatus (the opening of the glans through which urine and semen flow), is an entry point into the body. From infancy to adulthood, the foreskin ensures optimal protection of the glans and urinary meatus from contaminants of all kinds. During childhood, the foreskin is also usually firmly attached to the glans to prevent contaminants from invading the urethra. The neck of the foreskin places the vulnerable urinary meatus at a distance from the external environment and defends it against invading contaminants. The fusion of the foreskin and glans and the nonexpandability of the preputial orifice in the child’s penis are therefore necessary for the health of the child. Even after the foreskin separates from the glans and becomes retractable, it continues throughout life to cover the glans and meatus in order to protect these delicate structures from dirty, contamination, abrasion, or bacterial invasion.
Immunological Protection
The mucous membranes that line all body orifaces are the body’s first line of immunological defense. Glands in the foreskin produce antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as lysozyme. (5) Lysozyme is also found in tears and mother’s milk. Specialized epithelial Langerhans cells, an immune system component, aboud in the foreskin’s outer surface. (6) Plasma cells in the foreskin’s mucosal lining secrete immunoglobulin’s, antibodies that defend against infection. (7)
Rigoursouly controlled studies have also demonstrated that the foreskin plays a protective role in shielding the rest of the penis and thus the rest of the body from the contagion of common sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) encountered during sexual acitivyt. (8)
In infancy, antibacterial substances, such as the complex sugars (glyconutrients) in breastmilk, the oligosaccharides, are passed from mother to child during breastfeeding and are secreted in the baby’s urine. (9) The penis retains these substances in the foreskin. Universy studies have shown that these substances protect against urinary tract infections (UTIs), as well as from infections of other parts of the body. (10) Babies excrete in their urine 300-500 mililgrams of oligosaccharides every day. These compounds prevent virulent strains of Escherichia coli (e.Coli) from adhering to the mucosal lining of the entire urinary tract, including the foreskin and glans.
Researchers conducting immunological experiments with the foreskins of bulls have found that plasma cells in the mucosal lining of the foreskin secrete immunoglobulin. (11) The researchers hypothesize that this provides immunity from bacteria and other germs. This is likely to work the same in other mammals, including humans.
Apocrine glands are important glands found in the skin. They are found in the foreskin and elsewhere on the body. (12) They secrete the important lysosomal enzymes cathepsin B, lysozyme, chymotrypsin, and neutrophil elastase. (13) All of these enzymes help protect the body from many kinds of bacteria. These enzymes are also found in tears and other bodily fluids. Human apocrine glands also produce cytokine, a nonantibody protein that generates an immune response on contact with specific antigens. (14) All these substances have immunological functions and protect the penis from viral and bacterial pathogens. This natural protective function has been destroyed in circumcised males.
Antibacterial Function
To help fight harmful bacteria, the foreskin supports a rich flora of beneficial bacteria. Friendly bacteria exist in a symbiotic relationship with the body and are found on all body surfaces and through the gastrointestinal, genitourinary tract (the urinary system that runs from the kidneys, through the bladder, and out the penis), and the mouth. Friendly bacteria also thrive in the eyes. Without the presence of friendly bacteria, the human body would be vulnerable to attack from pathogenic bacteria.
The good bacteria that live in the inside of the foreskin are similar to the bacteria found in the mouth, nose, the female genitals, and the skin in general. It must be stressed that this good bacteria is both harmless and highly beneficial. Without these friendly bacteria, the urethra would become an easy entry point for germs and harmful stains of bacteria, which could cause disease.
Coverage During Erection
During erection, the penile shaft becomes thicker and longer. In some males, the penis can extend to twice its flaccid length. Sometimes, it can become even longer. The double-layered foreskin provides exactly the right amount of skin necessary to accommodate the expanded organ and to allow the penile skin to glide freely, smoothly, and pleasurably over the shaft and glans.
It is important to consider the fact that every penis is unique. By looking at an infant’s penis, it is impossible to predict how big his penis will become when he is an adult. Heredity does play a role in determining the ultimate shape, size, and configuration of the penis, but it is still difficult to predict the adult size and shape of an infant’s penis even if one looks at the penises of his father, brothers, and other male relatives.
What we can say with certainty is that your baby’s penis will develop and mature according to his own unique genetic coding. Thus, the amount of foreskin he is born with is exactly the amount he will need for his penis to develop properly and experience comfortable, pleasurable erections throughout life. As a result, the idea that any amount of penile skin can be cut off without affecting the later function of the penis is false. In nature there is no surplus, only economy. Everything provided is required.
In the natural penis, as the shaft elongates during erection, the lips of the foreskin slowly expand. The glans begins slowly to protrude through the widening opening. Since the foreskin is soft, elastic, and pliable, it can easily and comfortably stretch to allow the passage of the glans. The stretching process elicits pleasurable sensations as the foreskin gently unrolls (everts) over the glans and shaft. Eventually, in most males, the glans can be fully exposed.
Some males, well endowed with a generous foreskin, have the glans fully covered even when the penis is fully erect. Most, however, if they choose, can manually roll the foreskin all the way back to expose the glans.
During full erection, the sensitive inner sleeve of the foreskin is turned inside out, exposing it. In this position it receives and transmits pleasurable sensations. The natural penis is a marvelously engineered organ for receiving and giving natural pleasure.
Needless to say, circumcision destroys all these functions and imposes a diminished, scarred, immobile, dowel-like penis that has permanently lost the ability to experience normal levels of sexual sensations. A circumcised male, or his partner, for that matter, can never know the intimacy of the normal penis and the ability of the foreskin to open and glide up and down the shaft. An entire dimension of sexuality has been lost to both the male and his sexual partner.
Erogenous Sensitivity
The foreskin is more sensitive than the fingertips, the glans (head) of the penis, or the lips of the mouth. It contains a richer variety and greater concentration of specialized nerve receptors than any other part of the body. (15) These specialized nerve endings can discern motion, subtle changes in temperature, and fine gradations of texture. (16) This function enables genitally intact males to experience a superior dimension of sexual pleasure, compared to males who were circumcised. Intact males can be more tender, gentle, relaxed, and loving during sex because the slightest and subtlest gesture or motion evokes deeply satisfying sensations. Circumcised males have to work harder just to feel sensations. This is an unhealthy situation for both the male and his partner.
Self-Stimulating Sexual Functions
The intact penis has moving parts. The foreskin’s double-layered sheath enables the penile shaft skin to glide back and forth over the penile shaft. The foreskin can usually be slipped all the way, or almost all the way, back to the base of the penis, and also slipped forward beyond the glans. This wide range of motion stimulates the orgasmic triggers in the foreskin, frenulum, and glans.
This is the natural way that the penis is erotically stimulated. The movement of the foreskin over the glans and the pressure of the glans pressing against the foreskin is pleasurable. Sadly, males circumcised at birth can never imagine the pleasure of this natural sensation.
In the natural penis, the foreskin is the most important source of erotogenic, orgasm-inducing sensations. As we learned in the previous chapter, the foreskin contains a highly organized erotogenic sensory nerve-receptor system. It transmits special sexual sensations to the central nervous system and brain. The glans also has erotogenic sensory nerve receptors along its rim (the corona glandis), but far fewer than the foreskin. The massaging action of the foreskin against the glans produces sexual stimulation in both organs – something else that the circumcised male will never experience.
Some genitally intact males can even stimulate themselves to orgasm without touching their penis. They simply clench the groin muscles that help fill the penis with blood. Each voluntary contraction of the muscles forces more blood into the erectile tissues. This causes the shaft and glans to engorge even further and pushes the glans through the lips of the foreskin. Each dilation of the lips of the foreskin stimulates the specialized nerve receptors in the foreskin. In addition, the tension exerted on the foreskin stimulates the nerve receptors in the glans. The resulting sensation can lead to orgasm. A circumcised male would never be able to accomplish this natural feat.
fully functioning, intact prepuce organ & penis
The Foreskin Enhances Forepleasure
Forepleasure is the pleasurable stimulation of the genitals with or without the intention of eliciting orgasm. Forepleasure takes place during foreplay. Forepleasure of the penis stimulates the brain to release beneficial and health-giving hormones into the bloodstream. These hormones improve overall bodily health, improve the emotional state, and can even reduce pain in any part of the body. Forepleasure, as the name implies, feels great.
Orgasm and ejaculations are usually the smallest part of sexual activity. They take only a few seconds and generally signal the end of sex interest. The period devoted to forepleasure is the greatest component of sexual activity and can continue as long as there is interest to do so. The intact penis is masterfully designed to give and receive forepleasure. Its many surfaces, structures, and moving parts lend themselves to pleasurable exploration. Unrolling the foreskin and exposing the glans is an intimate discovery that provides fascination and delight, since different parts of the penis respond to different kinds of pleasurable attentions. The exploration and discovery of these differences provide a lifetime of intimate enjoyment and satisfaction.
Sexual Functions of the Foreskin During Intercourse
One of the foreskin’s functions is to facilitate smooth, gentle, and slow movement between the two partners during intercourse. The foreskin enables the penis to slip in and out of the vagina nonabrasively inside its own slick sheath of self-lubricating, movable skin. The female is thus stimulated by moving pressure rather than by friction only, as when the males’ foreskin is missing.
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 – a moment of supreme intimacy and beauty.
You may have heard circumcision promoters allege that the foreskin is ‘dangerously thin and delicate; and that it ‘rips and tears easily during intercourse.’ This is unscientific nonsense and has no basis in anatomical fact. I am sorry to say that it is a deception calculated to provide false reassurance to anxious circumcised males and to frighten parents into letting their children be circumcised. The simple truth is that the foreskin is perfectly designed to function effortlessly and pleasurably during sexual activity. Its double-layered integument is strong, flexible, and resilient. The foreskin is a durable and vigorous organ that enhances and facilitates sexual intercourse. If it didn’t, it would have atrophied years ago.
Self-Lubricating Function
Analogous to the eyelid, the foreskin protect sna dpresevers the sensitivity of the glans by maintaining optimal levels of moisure, warmth, pH balance, and cleanliness. The glans is an internal organ. The glans itself contains no sebaceous glands and relies on the foreskin for production and distrubion of sebum to maintain proper epithelial lubrication. Lubrication is naturally secreted by Cowper’s glands in the urethra. This clear fluid begins to flow out of the meatus as the male becomes sexually aroused.
During intercourse, this natural lubricant assists the male in inserting the penis in to the vagina. Because the fluid is sheltered under the foreskin of the erect penis it is less likely to dry up. Instead, it keeps the penis well lubricated and prevents the vagina from drying out.
In the circumcised penis, the Cowper’s gland fluid quickly evaporates. When the circumcised male inserts his dry penis into the vagina, it soon uses up all the female’s natural lubricants, causing friction and pain for both partners. This can lead to small tears and painful bleeding in the organs of both partners. It comes as no surprise that in the United States today, where a large majority of sexually active adult males have been circumcised, painful vaginal dryness is the biggest complaint women have about sex. This is also the reason that there is such a large industry in the United States that manufactures artificial sexual lubricants. I doubt there has been a study to determine the longer-term effects of using these chemicals on such delicate organs.
Genitally intact males are free of the need for lubricants of any kind either for manual stimulation of the penis, or for vaginal intercourse.
Many circumcised males must also resort to using these artificially factory-made lubricants to masturbate. Other circumcised males research orgasm by friction of their hand over their externalized glans. They have been deprived of the gliding movement of the foreskin to stimulate themselves naturally. The penis is a different organ without a foreskin, and a sexual function is altered when the foreskin has been amputated.
Many circumcised men will think they are normal because they are able to function sexually to their satisfaction, never realizing that their sexual functioning as an adult was changed forever by a medically unnecessary and extremely painful procedure done to them as an infant.
In my practice, I have examined little boys how have had so much foreskin removed that there is hardly any loose skin on their penis. The skin on their flaccid nonerect penis is taut. I wonder what will happen to a boy with such a radical circumcision when he gets an erection: Will he be able to have as much pleasure from his penis as he would have had if the circumciser had amputated less of his prepuce organ? This most unfortunate situation is all too common in the United States.
Production, Retention, and Dispersal of Pheromones
The sense of smell is one of the oldest, most precise, and most important senses in humans. Smells convey vital information to the brain. Pheromones are hormonal chemical messengers secreted by an individual and perceived by another individual of the same species. They create sexual arousal and attraction in the person perceiving the pheromone. These glands are found in the armpits, breasts, and in the genital area. The penis itself is a specific site for these glands. Pheromones are secreted by the apocrine glands in the foreskin. These glands are present at birth, but during puberty they develop in the presence of testosterone.
Although pheromones themselves are odorless, they are released by the foreskin into the air where they are perceived by the vomeronasal organ, a small tubular structure in the mucosa of the nasal septum. This organ is a component of the accessory olfactory system. The olfactory area of the cerebral cortex is closely associated with the limbic system, the part of the brain that organizes emotional responses, mood, memory, and sexual arousal. Although most complex smells and their emotional associations are learned, the identification of pheromones is hardwired into the brain. The automatic sexual arousal elicited by the perception of pheromones is as certain as the automatic pleasure reflex elicited by a caress.
The perception of any scent associated with pheromones varies from individual to individual and depends largely on bacteria. The bacteria itself may be needed to chemically interact with the pheromones to make them active. (17) Diet, bathing habits, and general health also impact the quality of these scents. The predominant odor associated with male pheromones is musk. Nearly all human cultures esteem the rich, earthy, musky, pheromone-rich scent produced by the glands in the foreskin. Perfume makers obtain musk from the foreskin glands of the musk deer. The nonhuman pheromones contained in this muck are unable to elicit sexual arousal in humans, but the fragrance of the musk itself may, bay association, elicit a pleasant response in humans that evokes a sympathetic erotic arousal. (18) This is, at least, the effect that the perfume industry hopes to create.
Posts
More troubling, the plan to mandate circumcision betrays an insidious disregard for individual autonomy. Indeed, even if circumcision could be shown significantly to reduce the spread of HIV, the practice of circumcising infants would remain an affront to human dignity. It denies men autonomy over their own bodies. No right-thinking person would ever endorse the involuntary circumcision of adult males – indeed, even the most vehement supporters of the practice shy away from this. Why should the case of an infant male be any different? The detriments to his life he is likely to receive as a result of the procedure will only affect him when he is an adult.
