Showing posts with label male circumcision. Show all posts

FGM/MGM: Similar Attitudes & Misconceptions

The male (left) and female (right) clitoris/penis and prepuce are analogous and homologous organs throughout life. During the first trimester, they are also visually the same. Both are natural, normal, purposeful body organs that equally contribute to the health, functioning, and well-being of their owner.

The following chart highlights similarities in attitudes and misconceptions about MGM (male genital mutilation) in the United States and FGM (female genital mutilation) in Africa.

Comparison by Hanny Lightfoot-Klein, author of Secret Wounds

Clitoridectomy and Infibulation in Africa	Infant Male Circumcision in the United States
"She loses only a little piece of the clitoris, just the part that protrudes. The girl does not miss it. She can still feel, after all. There is hardly any pain. Women's pain thresholds are so much higher than men's."	"It's only a little piece of skin. The baby does not feel any pain because his nervous system is not developed yet."
"The parts that are cut away are disgusting and hideous to look at. It is done for the beauty of the suture."	"An intact penis is a real turn-off. It's disgusting. It looks like the penis of an animal."
"Female circumcision protects the health of a woman. Infibulation prevents the uterus from falling out [uterine prolapse]. It keeps her smelling so sweet that her husband will be pleased. If it is not done, she will stink and get worms in her vagina."	"An intact penis causes urinary infections and penile cancer. It generates smegma and smegma stinks. A circumcised penis is more hygienic and oral sex with an intact penis is disgusting to women."
"An intact vulva is unclean and only the lowest prostitute would leave her daughter intact. No man would dream of marrying an unclean woman. He would be laughed at by everyone."	"An intact penis is dirty and only the lowest class of people with no concept of hygiene leave their boys intact."
"Leaving a girl intact endangers both her husband and her baby. If the baby's head touches the uncut clitoris during birth, the baby will be born hydrocephalic [excess cranial fluid]. The milk of the mother will become poisonous. If a man's penis touches a woman's clitoris he will become impotent."	"Men have an obligation to their wives to give up their foreskin. An intact penis will cause cervical cancer in women. It spreads disease."
"A circumcised woman is sexually more pleasing to her husband. The tighter she is sewn, the more pleasure he has."	"Circumcised men make better lovers because they have more staying power than intact men."
"All the women in the world are circumcised. It is something that must be done. If there is pain, then that is part of a woman's lot in life."	"Men in the 'civilized' world are circumcised."
"Doctors do it, so it must be a good thing."	"Doctors do it, so it must be a good thing."
Sudanese grandmother: "In some countries they only cut out the clitoris, but here we do it properly. We scrape our girls clean. If it is properly done, nothing is left, other than a scar. Everything has to be cut away."	My own father, a physician, speaking of ritual circumcision inflicted upon my son: "It is a good thing that I was here to preside. He had quite a long foreskin. I made sure that we gave him a good tight circumcision."
35 year old Sudanese woman: "Yes, I have suffered from chronic pelvic infections and terrible pain for years now. You say that all if this is the result of my circumcision? But I was circumcised over 30 years ago! How can something that was done for me when I was four years old have anything to do with my health now?"	35 years old American male: "I have lost nearly all interest in sex. You might say that I'm becoming impotent. I don't seem to have much sensation in my penis anymore, and it is becoming more and more difficult for me to reach orgasm. You say that this is the result of my circumcision? That doesn't make any sense. I was circumcised 35 years ago, when I was a little boy. How can that affect me in any way now?"

McGill University Study on Male Body Image and Genital Self-Esteem

"The Male Nude" (1935) by Robert McIntosh

McGill University researchers, Laurence Dinh-Williams and Seth Davis, recently contacted David Wilton (lawyer by training, who runs the Male Circumcision and HIV Public Policy site from CA) with an open call for participants for an upcoming study. This study will assess male body image, and has a particular focus on the male genitalia. Dinh-Williams' research questions "which features of the male genital area are important for one's 'genital self-esteem' and body image, and which factors tend to influence these evaluations." A section of this study asks men if they were circumcised, if so, at what age, and whether or not they are satisfied with the results of this surgical procedure upon their body (my words, not theirs). In addition, men are invited to add any additional comments they would like researchers to be aware of.

I encourage peaceful parenting's male readers (or partners/friends/family/husbands of our female readers!) to participate in this survey portion of the study [links below]. This is an excellent opportunity to disclose your thoughts and feelings about this important subject in a 'safe' environment and in a manner that can really make a difference. Your voice, your experiences, are important. After all, our laws and medical procedures are supposed to be based on empirical evidence. McGill University is a well respected institution which consistently produces research-based data for our practical application. Take 20 minutes and join in this important study today.

Details:

MCGILL MALE BODY IMAGE STUDY

Thus far, the study of men's body image has been largely restricted to the dimensions of adiposity and muscularity. Recent research has found that features such as head hair, body hair, height and penis size may be important in one's evaluation of self, with penis size satisfaction being highly correlated to overall appearance self-esteem.

However, little is known about the specific role that 'male genital satisfaction' plays in male body image concerns, and which aspects of the genital area, beyond size, may be important for these 'genital perceptions' (satisfaction with one's genital area).

We are a team of researchers at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, investigating this issue. This study will determine which features of the genital area are important for 'genital perceptions' and male body image, and further investigate the factors that may influence one’s evaluations and perceptions (ex: sexual experience, erectile dysfunctions, premature ejaculation, STD's etc.). To do this, we need you to take this short 20 minute survey assessing your level of satisfaction regarding your body in general and various aspects of the genital area.

Your participation in this study will help health professionals better understand the factors involved in male body concerns and further on, their relation to sexuality (given the presumed central role of the genitals in a sexual context), guiding future research and treatment.

By participating, you will also be able to enter a drawing for one of three $100 prizes to spend at amazon.com!

Please note that you will asked to measure the length and girth (circumference) of your flaccid AND erect penis, and asked to estimate the angle of penile curvature and direction of your erect penis, thus it may preferable to assess these features before starting this survey. Please click on the following link in order for a description of the measurements and protocol to follow: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/penilemeasurement

This study is only for men 18 years of age and older.

Survey link: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/genitalperception

For further information, you may email us at mcgill.urology@gmail.com

Your help is greatly appreciated! We thank you for taking the time to read about our study.

History of Female Circumcision in the United States

The prepuce organ ("foreskin" or "clitoral hood") is a natural, normal, vital, protective, healing and sexual organ on all mammals. It is an analogous and homologous organ in all girls and boys, women and men. The prepuce contains more nerve endings (currently thought to be 70,000+) than any other part of the human body. There is no body part that is as sensitive and discriminatory as the prepuce organ. It produces its own antibodies, and has its own sphincters to protect the glans (head) of the clitoris/penis. The prepuce has its own gliding mechanisms, produces its own natural lubrication, and has its own mucosal tissue and ridged band. It performs functions similar to those that the eyelid does in protecting the eye, the fingernail in protecting the finger, and yet has unique sexual responsibilities that no other body part can take the place of.

The prepuce is present in both baby girls and baby boys at birth and is securely and tightly fastened to the glans of the clitoris/penis. It stays closely adhered throughout childhood and sometimes into the teenage years. The prepuce serves important health and sexual functions and purposes in both men and women as they grow into adulthood.

The amputation of the prepuce by those attempting to control men's and women's sexuality has a similar history in the United States and around the world. The loss of the prepuce has a similar impact on men and women. Surgical amputation of the prepuce has always been a 'solution' in search of a problem that does not exist. Hopefully soon the Male Genital Mutilation (MGM) of minor children and infants will reach the same legal termination as Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) in the United States.

ALL human beings, male and female alike, have the same basic human right to genital autonomy.

As late as the early 1980s in the United States, some avenues of popular media were promoting female circumcision as a good thing - cosmetic genital surgery that would enhance a woman's desirability and sexuality. Many of the same myths we hear in the beginning of the 21st century about male circumcision were commonly assumed to be true for female circumcision in the 20th century.

Two such articles appeared in Playgirl in 1973 and 1975:

Kellison, Cathrine. "Circumcision for Women." Playgirl 1.5 (October, 1973). 76, 124-125.

"$100 Surgery for a Million-Dollar Sex Life." Playgirl 2.12 (May, 1975). 52-55.

The Federal law went into effect in March, 1997, in the United States making any non-medically necessary cutting upon the genitals of a minor girl, for any reason, religious or otherwise, and to any degree, a federal crime. Read the U.S. FGM Law here.

Additional resources (books, websites, articles) at:
Should I Circumcise? The pros and cons of infant circumcision

Join in the conversation at Saving Our Sons

~~~~

Baby Dies from Circumcision in South Dakota

Yet Another baby dies from circumcision. This time, in South Dakota. This is utterly tragic and completely unnecessary. While we do not save all the headlines on this topic, at least 8-10 baby boys die every month due to genital cutting in the United States. Typically, only 1-2 per month make headline news. There are many more (most U.S. stats show 1 in 3 baby boys) where complications to one degree or another arise post-op. Hospitals and insurance companies are effective at paying off and covering up, the morbidity and mortality due to circumcision. As one (circumcised male) reader of peaceful parenting recently pointed out: 100% of babies circumcised at birth are harmed - they have had their most sensitive, vital, sexual organ amputated - for no medical reason.

We must stop this insanity.

For more information on deaths due to circumcision see:

Cirp.Org/Library/Death

Increased Dangers of Circumcision Report (pdf) at DoctorsOpposingCircumcision.org

Circumstitions.com/Complications

NoHarmm.org/complicationsUS

What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Circumcision (book)

Death From Circumcision

Cut vs. Intact Outcome Statistics

Baby Dies After Circumcision Surgery Blood Loss and Heart Failure

Books, sites, articles linked from Are You Fully Informed?

Parents sue over baby's death after circumcision

By Josh Verges

The parents of a 6-week-old boy who bled to death after a circumcision at Rosebud’s Indian Health Service Hospital last year are suing the government for wrongful death.

According to documents filed Wednesday in federal court, Eric Keefe underwent a circumcision on June 13, 2008. His mother gave him Motrin and Tylenol for pain and he suffered massive blood loss at home that night, dying at the hospital the next morning.

His parents, Forrest and Mary Keefe of Wood, say Dr. Douglas Lehmann failed to inform them of the type of pain medication they should have used.

The Keefes are seeking $2 million for personal injury and wrongful death.

Sturgis lawyer Mick Strain, who represents the plaintiffs, said he and the parents wouldn’t talk about the case until it is tried or settled. The file lists no attorney for the government.

Stop Male Genital Mutilation

by: Derek Markham
posted on the Fight For Human Rights

The most common surgical procedure in America, circumcision, is unnecessary, yet millions of newborn boys are still circumcised each year.
My oldest son was circumcised at birth, partly because we didn’t know any better, and partly because I wanted him to 'be like me' (”it’s normal, everyone does it”). I decided that I would accompany him and be with him during the process because I needed to know what it entailed, and after witnessing his birth and holding his tiny body to my chest, filled with love and awe at this miracle, I couldn’t let him be taken behind closed doors to have surgery without me.
I’m so grateful that I went with him. Not because I could do anything to comfort him or bond with him, but because my eyes were opened to the trauma inflicted on me and on him (and all other cut men) by the barbaric practice of circumcision.

It was a horrible thing to watch.

His little legs, instead of being tucked up under him as in the womb, were stretched out straight and strapped to the table. Then the doctor casually began the process by fitting the circumcision guide over the tiny newborn penis, making small talk with me while my son wailed in protest at being strapped down to a cold plastic table.

As soon as the doctor began cutting his foreskin off, my son's screams reached peak volume and all I could do was hold his hand and try to comfort him with my voice. But I didn't feel like I could stop the doctor halfway through, so he finished as my son went into shock, his tiny body limp and with a traumatized look on his face. (See this circumcision video).

I still have nightmares about that, and wonder what the psychological toll is for a newborn baby boy during and after circumcision. His most sensitive parts were removed in a traumatic surgery the day of his birth, and it must color his perception of his genitals for the rest of his life.

So why do we still routinely circumcise newborn boys?

It turns out that a number of myths prevail in the minds of those advocating circumcision, myths that are false. And those parents who don't question the myths will usually end up having their son circumcised.

Some myths behind circumcision:

Myth - Circumcision is routinely recommended and endorsed by doctors and other health professionals.  
Fact - No professional medical association in the United States or anywhere else in the world recommends routine circumcision as a medically necessary procedure. The American Medical Association calls it "non-therapeutic." At no time in its 75 years has the American Academy of Pediatrics ever recommended infant circumcision.

Myth – Circumcising newborn baby boys produces health benefits in later life. 
Fact – Despite common perception, there is NO conclusive link between circumcision and better health. In fact, performing medically unnecessary surgery on a baby boy's genitals creates immediate health risks. Circumcision-related risks include infection, hemorrhage, scarring, loss of part or all of the penis, and even death. These dangers exist in even the best clinical settings.

Myth – Male circumcision helps prevent HIV.
Fact – Only abstinence or the use of condoms can prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS. Moreover, condom usage protects women as well as men. Even if circumcision were effective for preventing disease, removing part of a baby boy's penis at birth to prevent the potential for disease in the future makes no more sense than "routinely" removing healthy gall bladders at birth to prevent the potential for gall stones in later life, or removing healthy teeth to prevent dental caries.

Right now, a move is being made by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to recommend circumcision for all newborn boys based on flawed studies that ignore the risks and ethics of circumcision.

Intact America wants to make sure that won't happen, and are gathering petition petition signatures and sending this letter to the CDC:

"As the foremost expert on public health in our country, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has a responsibility to share the truth about public health issues that can affect millions of Americans.

Newborn male circumcision is the most common surgical procedure in the U.S. - yet this painful and unnecessary surgery carries serious risks, including hemorrhage, infection, surgical mishap and death.

The role of circumcision in preventing sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and other health claims has been investigated by public health researchers and remains highly debatable. Only safe sexual practices, such as the use of condoms and abstinence, can prevent STDs, including HIV/AIDS. Circumcision cannot be responsibly recommended as a way of preventing disease."

Help today by signing the petition: Circumcision is a Painful, Costly and Unnecessary Procedure

Baby Dies From Circumcision during Jewish Brit

I will second Gloria Lemay who said of this article (originally titled Circumcision Baby Dies in Shul): "The title on this article is wrong. This was not a "circumcision baby" this was a HUMAN baby. Become an intactivist. Speak up for babies of all faiths who cannot speak up for or defend themselves from adults who do not understand what they are doing."

No matter where babies die or are forever maimed at the hand of genital mutilation - be they in a bush outback, at a shul, or in the hospital - it is always a tragedy of the utmost kind that we must, MUST speak out about and end. Today.

by Robyn Rosen

Amitai Moshe, the baby who died eight days after his brit in Golders Green Synagogue, may have clinically died at the shul itself, a London inquest heard.

Amitai was circumcised on February 1 2007 but shortly after the ceremony he began to turn blue and blood was seen around his mouth and nose.

Two medically trained guests and the mohel attempted to resuscitate him.

Hatzola, the strictly Orthodox ambulance service, and the London Ambulance Service were both called and Hatzola arrived first, taking the baby to the Royal Free Hospital. He was transferred to the University College London (UCH) where he died on February 9.

Today, the inquest heard from Amitai’s parents Ran and Yotzvat, mohel Rabbi Moshe Perry, who conducted the brit, and doctor Simon Cohen and dentist Philip Freiberger, who both witnessed the brit.

While questioning Dr Cohen, who attempted to resuscitate Amitai, Jonathan Goldberg QC, representing the Initiation Society, said: “This baby may have been clinically dead because there was no pulse and no breathing. The baby was probably dead before it got into the ambulance.”

Dr Cohen replied: “I think that is highly likely. He didn’t have circulation or respiration.”

Questioning further, coroner Andrew Walker, asked: “Is it more likely than not that he died in the synagogue?” Dr Cohen responded: “The answer has to be yes.”

The court also heard the tragic details of Amitai’s death from his parents.

His mother, Yotzvat, said that Amitai had suffered a slight cold the night before the brit, but appeared healthy on the day so she did not inform the mohel. It was only after the ceremony, when she began to breastfeed Amitai that she noticed something was wrong.

“He was uncomfortable and moving around,” she said. “He was crying and I stopped. Then he relaxed and was having milk normally. He stopped and I thought he fell asleep. Then I saw blood on my shirt. I thought it was mine but I saw blood from his nose. His color was yellow.”

Rabbi Perry said that had he known about the cold, he would have asked a GP to inspect the baby to see if the brit should go ahead.

The inquest continues.

For more information on deaths due to circumcision see:

Cirp.Org/Library/Death

Increased Dangers of Circumcision Report (pdf) at DoctorsOpposingCircumcision.org

Circumstitions.com/Complications

NoHarmm.org/complicationsUS

The book: What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Circumcision

*For more information on Judaism & Circumcision please see these links

*For more information on having a Brit Shalom in place of cutting your son, please see these links

Ask the Experts: Circumcision & Regret

Ask the Experts Answer by Marilyn Milos

Question: How do I live with the deep regret of having our son circumcised? He is almost 10-months-old now, and I am still struggling with this. Sadly, I did not find out the facts until it was too late.

Answer: Of all the questions I'm asked, this one is the most difficult for me to answer because I have three circumcised sons. I believed the doctor who told me circumcision didn't hurt, only took a minute, and would protect my babies from terrible things that would befall them if they weren't circumcised. Many years later, as a nursing student, I witnessed a circumcision, which literally changed the course of my life. Since that day in May 1979, I've done everything I can to end this outdated, harmful practice that has such a profound effect on us all.

Some say I do this work because I feel guilty, but guilt is what you feel after you knowingly do something wrong. That's not it. Mothers consent to circumcision out of the best intentions and the worst kind of ignorance. Circumcision is a cultural practice; most doctors do not provide adequate information to give an informed consent, and no one talks about it, so we don't even know enough to ask the right questions. When we find out what happened to our precious baby behind closed doors, most mothers feel deep regret and profound sorrow.

We can't take back our grievous mistake, but we can do everything in our power to protect our sons in the future. We can apologize to our sons and end the wounding in our families. When parents become informed, they will spare future sons from the pain and trauma of circumcision. Tell your story to anyone and everyone who will listen. I will be happy to send you a packet of information that you can copy and give to expectant parents to help save other babies from unnecessary surgery and their mothers from the grief we feel. This will help to transform your pain! I'll also be happy to send you guidelines for becoming a National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers center, if you'd like to become a part of the Genital Integrity movement.

Like all mothers, you did the best you could with the information you had at the time. So, be kind to yourself. You didn't know. Now you do. My sons have all forgiven me, and yours will, too.

Circumcision: Will You Make the Cut?

by Derek Markham
The 'Natural Papa'

We had our oldest son in the hospital and he was circumcised at birth, partly because we didn’t know any better, and partly because I wanted him to “be like me” (”it’s normal, everyone does it”). I decided that I would accompany him and be with him during the process because I needed to know what it entailed, and I wasn’t going to send him to a room with the doc by himself. After witnessing his birth and holding his tiny body to my chest, being filled with love and awe at this miracle, I couldn’t let him be taken behind closed doors to have surgery without me.

I’m so grateful that I went with him. Not because I could do anything to comfort him or bond with him, but because my eyes were opened to the trauma inflicted on me and on him (and all other cut men) by the barbaric practice of circumcision.

Warning: Graphic video! Watch this if you want to be totally turned off to circumcision. If you have a weak stomach or are prone to fainting, please do not watch it!

I now believe that if you want to circumcise your baby, then the mother should be required to hold her newborn while it is done. I can guarantee you that circumcision at birth would be a rarity if mothers had to pry their son’s legs apart and restrain them while someone cuts off a part of their infant’s penis. There aren’t any mothers that I know that would let pain and suffering be inflicted on their child by a stranger with a knife. For more, see Mothers Who Observed Circumcision.

How could we look at our brand new baby boy, thinking he’s so perfect, and then almost immediately send him out to have something surgically removed from his body? And not for disease or dysfunction, but because we’re stupid sheep that run with the flock…

Think about it: A newborn, just starting to breathe air and take nourishment through the mouth, has a pretty immature immune system, and we’re willing to let someone cut off a large flap of skin and leave an open wound on the genitals. In a hospital, one of the most infectious environments that humans have created, no less.

Here are some circumcision links to get you started:

Circumcision, The Hidden Trauma : How an American Cultural Practice Affects Infants and Ultimately Us All

“Circumcision, The Hidden Trauma is the first intensive exploration of the unrecognized psychological and social aspects of this increasingly controversial American cultural practice. The book has been endorsed by dozens of professionals in psychology, psychiatry, child development, pediatrics, obstetrics, childbirth education, sociology, and anthropology.

Without much knowledge, the American public generally assumes that our cultural practice of circumcision is a trivial and benign procedure. As discussed in Circumcision, The Hidden Trauma, plain facts and recent research results conflict with these beliefs and raise questions. Dr. Goldman’s application of psychological and social research coherently explains both the tenacity of the practice and the contradictory information and beliefs about it. After a review of the surprising abilities of infants and their responses to circumcision pain, the long-term psychological effects of circumcision are examined from the perspectives of both traditional and more recent, innovative psychological theories. We learn that circumcision has potential effects not only on men and sexuality, but also on mother-child relationships, male-female relationships, and societal traits and problems. The text is supported with clinical reports, interviews, surveys, and thorough documentation.

Circumcision, The Hidden Trauma identifies an overlooked source of early pain and simultaneously points us in the direction of both healing and preventing this pain. It is of particular interest to men who seek to explore their sexuality and deepen self-awareness; women who want to understand men better; parents and children’s advocates; childbirth educators and allied workers; and mental health, medical, and academic professionals. The book has wide appeal because, more generally, it is about trusting our instincts, questioning some of our cultural values and assumptions, and reflecting on who we are and who we can be as individuals and as a society.”

More links to rethinking circumcision:

I certainly can’t speak for the ritual/religious side of the circumcision issue, as I don’t have that experience in my life. If you believe that it is a covenant with the Creator, then I respect that as your faith, but I don’t think we should circumcise baby boys at all. However, I think that it would be a great test of manhood and faith to undergo circumcision as an adult or in a coming of age ritual.

For the most part, circumcisions are performed on a routine basis, with no religious or ritual significance. Maybe it’s a way to get a little more revenue, to get you to buy into the machine of big medicine, maybe it’s just monkey-see, monkey-do. I know it was for me. I didn’t even question it. Circumcision is just what you do when you have a boy baby, and everybody else is doing it… Then you have the fear factor of “what could happen if we don’t do this?” that adds to the argument for cutting, and the thought that if you didn’t do it, you’d be different, and he’d be different, and so on.

So what? Be different. Let him be different.

If enough of us are, then we’re the norm, and circumcision is the oddity.

(Just realized that I needed to clarify: I have two sons. The oldest was born in a hospital and was circumcised. He lives with his mother, and this post is about that experience. My younger son was not circumcised, was born at home, and I tell his birth story here: Unassisted Birth: A Father’s Experience.)

*ALSO BY DEREK:

CIRCUMCISION IS BARBARIC

Christianity & Circumcision Resources

Photo courtesy of MommaBaby Love

One of the most monumental decisions you will make on your son's behalf is whether he will remain intact and whole as he was created, or be circumcised after birth. There is much more in the New Testament on circumcision (and the lack of it by early followers of Jesus) than Christians often believe there to be. When making the decision for our son, my husband and I investigated this topic heavily - as both our faith and our new role as a protective mother and father are very important to us. The more we learned, the more we found out just how much is not taught on Sunday mornings upon the topic of Christian faith and circumcision. Below are resources that may be especially helpful for Christian parents when making this dramatic, impacting, and lifelong decision for their little one.

This is the statement and story of a (circumcised) Christian father with 6 sons who turned to the Bible and medical literature when questioning whether or not to repeat the cutting upon the bodies of his own boys. He found there to be no medical, social, or Christian reason to cut, and they all remain intact. It may be a good story for other Christian parents.

Dr. Fleiss and Dr. Hodges: Circumcision and Christianity (from their book, What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Circumcision)

WholeChristian.org [Gathering of resources by/for Christian families]

Biblical Circumcision Information

Circumcision and the Christian Parent

Circumcision and Christianity: A Call to Christian Action

The Truth About Circumcision Within Christianity

Circumcision in Antiquity

My Biblical Journey to Intactivism

Christians and Infant Circumcision: Where Should I Stand?

What the Bible Really Says About Circumcision

Christians: Baptism, Not Circumcision

CIRP: Answers from the Bible

Whole Christian Network [Public page]

Whole Christian Network Group [Private group - Christians only please - not a religious debate group]

CUT: Slicing Through the Myths of Circumcision (Jewish commentary on the absence of circumcision among Christians throughout human history): CUT Website

Video documenting various places in the Bible where circumcision is discussed.

Especially for Catholic Parents:

Fish Eaters (Catholicism and circumcision)

History of Circumcision (CIRP)

Circumcision: Then and Now (CIRP)

Especially for Latter Day Saints Parents:

Book of Mormon on Circumcision

Intact Mormon Network [Facebook Community Page]

Verses on the subject:

"For you created my inmost being. You knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Your works are wonderful, I know this full well." -Psalm 139:13-14

"But in fact, God has arranged the parts of the body, every one of them, just as he wants them to be." -1 Cor 12:18

"Behold, I, Paul, tell you that if you be circumcised, Christ will be of no advantage to you." -Gal 5:2

"And I testify again to every male who receives circumcision, that he is in debt to keep the whole Law. You who do so have been severed from Christ...you have fallen from grace." -Gal 5:3

"For when we place our faith in Christ Jesus, it makes no difference to God whether we are circumcised or not circumcised. What is important is faith expressing itself in love." -Gal 5:6

"But if I still proclaim circumcision...then the stumbling block of the cross has been abolished." -Gal 5:11

"I wish that those who are pushing you to do so would mutilate themselves!" -Gal 5:12

"And even those who advocate circumcision don’t really keep the whole law. They only want you to be circumcised so they can brag about it and claim you as their disciples." -Gal 6:13

"For neither circumcision nor uncircumcision matters. Rather, what matters is being a new creation." -Gal 6:15

"For there are many who rebel against right teaching; they engage in useless talk and deceive people. This is especially true of those who insist on circumcision for salvation. They must be silenced. By their wrong teaching, they have already turned whole families away from the truth. Such teachers only want your money" -Titus 1:10-11

"Watch out for those wicked men – dangerous dogs, I call them – who say you must be circumcised. Beware of the evil doers. Beware of the mutilation. For it isn’t the cutting of our bodies that makes us children of God; it is worshiping him with our spirits." -Phil 3:2-3

"But each of you should remain in the place in life that the Lord has given you. Stay as you were when God chose you. Was a man already circumcised [Old Covenant] when God chose him? Then he should not become uncircumcised. Was he uncircumcised [New Covenant] when God chose him? Then he should not be circumcised. Being circumcised means nothing. Being uncircumcised means nothing. Doing what God commands is what counts." -1 Cor. 7:17-19

"Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching, saying, 'Moses commanded you to be circumcised. If you aren't, you can't be saved.' But Paul and Barnabas didn't agree with this, argued strongly with them, and were appointed to go up to Jerusalem with other believers chosen to go with them. The apostles and elders met together to consider this question. [...] Peter got up and spoke to them, 'Brothers, you know that some time ago God chose me to take the good news to unbelievers. He wanted them to hear the good news and believe. God knows the human heart. [...] Now then, why are you trying to test God? You test him when you put a heavy load on the believers' shoulders [regarding circumcision]. Our people of long ago couldn't carry that load. We can't either." -Acts 15:1-2, 6-10

"Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives’ tales; rather, train yourself to be godly." -1 Tim 4:7

Above informational cards available at Saving Our Sons or the Whole Christian Network

Tshirt from Made By Momma's Intact Advocacy Collection

Related Georgetown University Lecture:

Resources (books, websites, and articles) on the prepuce organ (foreskin), intact care and circumcision are cataloged at: Should I Circumcise? The Pros and Cons of Infant Circumcision

Information Packs to Share

Our son, kept intact and whole as God created him,
gazes upon that same cross at 7 months old

New York Times Bloggingheads: Circumcision For All?

I was just passed a NY Times Bloggingheads video this morning in which 2 journalists discuss the recent news headlines on the CDC, African studies and circumcision.

Hanna Rosin is a journalist who occasionally appears on Comedy Central's The Daily Show and recently wrote the anti-breastfeeding article in The Atlantic entitled, "The Case Against Breastfeeding". Her writing tends to focus on religious-political issues and, in the past 5 years, has especially concentrated on her depiction of Christians in the United States and the 'religious right'.

Emily Bazelon is a journalist and editor for the online, web-only magazine, Slate, which is owned by the Washington Post and includes a number of people's blogs. She concentrates most of her writing on family & women's issues and (this information is only relevant to this particular blog topic) has two circumcised sons.

While Rosin herself is not exactly 'friendly' to the peaceful parenting crowd (after all, her bit on breastfeeding was about as anti-natural-family-living as you can get), she should have interviewed a doctor or professor who actually understands how to read (and critique) medical research, is up to date on accurate prepuce (foreskin) information, empirical men's-and-women's sexual health research, etc.

Bazelon's statements about the African studies being 'totally clear' and showing 'significant results' [that circumcising African men decreases HIV transmission to African women] are not entirely true and expose her own naivety on the subject at hand. It is obvious the knowledge she imparts on the topic comes from OTHER pop media news sources. Given the severe lack of validity and reliability of the ONE study done in Africa, if Brazelon had dug a little deeper, she would have found the methods used were called into question by virtually every onlooking health/medical organization in the Western world. (The World Health Organization must think our U.S. journalists are idiots.)

Bazelon also made the statement that the results showed 'significant health benefits for WOMEN' -- which, in fact, was just the opposite. The African HIV/Circumcision study was brought to an early end because too many women were becoming infected with HIV during the trial runs! I know Brazelon is all about women's issues (a great thing!) but this passion (along with having two circumcised sons) may be clouding her further investigation into this "study".

That being said, even IF in some bizarrely different universe from our own, cutting 1/3 the penis off all baby boys born saved ALL women from ALL sexually transmitted infections (which it certainly does not), this does not justify sacrificing the human rights and genital integrity of one sex for the benefit of the other.

Rosin brought up an interesting possibility on why the CDC would ever recommend something as atrocious as routine infant circumcision - an unnecessary, damaging surgery they have always taken a position against (as has the AAP, WHO, and every other world health and medical organization). Rosin stated that Medicaid no longer pays for circumcision in most states. The surgery only costs between $300-$700 depending on where you live (not to mention the frequent aftermath costs when common complications result from the prepuce amputation). But this fairly low cost does not prevent pro-cutting or uninformed parents from amputating their son's prepuce organ. It does, however, prevent genital mutilation from occurring among poor families -- those who cannot afford the cosmetic baby surgery that Medicaid refuses to pay for.

In addition, the CDC knows that on a society-wide basis, persons living in lower socio-economic brackets are more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviors, and end up contracting and spreading sexually transmitted infections. While the CDC reports these statistics quite matter-of-factly, it is not something they could openly come out and say: "We recommend only poor parents circumcise their sons just in case it helps to decrease the spread of HIV" - that would be as ridiculous as the hoopla currently resounding around this issue.

So, instead, the CDC could issue a blanket recommendation for infant circumcision - and in turn, Medicaid would again cover the costs of the amputation. Baby boys born to poor families (the ones 'we' are really afraid of in the first place) would be cut and sliced and good to go.

Oh, but wait -- why not just offer condoms to these poor families/neighborhoods/schools? And free comprehensive sex education? Maybe that's too easy. We better stick to circumcision. A genital surgery that, in fact, has been shown repeatedly by sexologists and human sexual health experts to increase sexually transmitted infection in the United States - not decrease it.

Whew. Almost enough to make your head hurt.

Hopefully the CDC follows suit with the RACP (Royal Australasian College of Physicians) and other developed, Western nations medical/health organizations - after all, they have the same guidelines with which they make their recommendations. To end male genital mutilation was a no-brainer in Australia. It should be here as well.

Additional Note: Rosin says her colleague, Andrew Sullivan, of The Daily Dish is "almost rabidly anti-circumcision" -- actually, Sullivan is a pretty smart, well-informed intactivist - let's use correct terminology when discussing the topic at hand.

Apologies for not being able to embed the video here for easier viewing. Watch Rosin and Bazelon discuss this topic at:

http://video.nytimes.com/video/2009/08/31/opinion/1247464324351/bloggingheads-circumcision-for-all-.html

More response to the news & pop media frenzy:

Hanna Rosin is mistaken (article).

A colleague of mine wrote an excellent piece on the African 'study', the CDC, and HIV when it was first thrown into media headlines last week.

And of course, I couldn't help but respond the day the NY Times opened their paper with the news.

The Circumcision Decision [VIDEO]

This is an excellent video with several doctors speaking on their experience and expertise with the topic at hand.

I'm a Physician, a Jew, a Father & Grandfather: My position on Circumcision

Mark D. Reiss, M.D.

DoctorsOpposingCircumcision.org

I am a 72 year old retired physician, a Jew who is an active member of a Conservative synagogue, and a grandfather.

When I was in Medical School in the 1950s, almost all newborn males were circumcised. Despite the fact that prophylactic surgery was not generally performed, we were taught that circumcision was the correct and healthy thing to do. It was thought to control masturbation, decrease cancer risk, and help curtail sexually transmitted diseases. We learned nothing of foreskin anatomy and function. Infant nervous systems were thought to be undeveloped and their pain was so trivialized that it was almost ignored. As a young physician, I participated in many circumcisions. Over the years I’ve witnessed brit milah in the homes of friends and family. I was mildly uncomfortable with the practice, but like most physicians, and like most Jews, I said and did nothing to question circumcision.

Three years ago, as I was about to become a grandfather for the first time, my interest in the subject became more focused. I learned that more and more physicians now realize that any potential benefits of circumcision are far outweighed by its risks and drawbacks. The American Academy of Pediatrics has stated that “Routine circumcision is not necessary”. Whether done by a physician in the hospital, or a mohel in a ritual brit milah, the procedure has significant complication rates of infection, hemorrhage and even death. Mortality may actually be higher than thought since some of these deaths have not been attributed to circumcision, but listed only under their secondary causes, such as hemorrhage or infection. I’ve learned of the very important role the foreskin has in the protection of the head of the penis in the infant, and in sexual functioning in adulthood. It has also been shown that the newborn feels pain even more acutely than adults do, and that many of the infants who stop crying during circumcision are actually in a state of traumatic shock. To my amazement I learned that the USA is now the only country in the world routinely circumcising babies for non-religious reasons.

With these overwhelming reasons not to circumcise, I began to look at the practice of ritual circumcision in the Jewish community and I learned that: circumcision is not an identity issue. You do not need to be circumcised to be Jewish any more than the need to observe many other Jewish laws. The bottom line is this: if your mother is Jewish, you are Jewish, period. And in the Reform tradition, patrilineal descent is also accepted. Among Jews in Europe (only 40% of newborn Jewish boys in Sweden are being circumcised), South America, and even in Israel, circumcision is not universal. Growing numbers of American Jews are now leaving their sons intact as they view circumcision as a part of Jewish law that they can no longer accept. Alternative brit b’li milah or brit shalom ceremonies (ritual naming ceremony without cutting) are being performed by some rabbis. Increasing numbers of intact boys are going to religious school, having bar mitzvahs, and taking their place as young adults in the Jewish community.

As a Jewish grandfather, I want to assure young couples about to bring a child into the world, that there are other members of the Jewish “older” generation, including other Jewish physicians, and even some rabbis, who feel as I do. If your heart and instincts tell you to leave your son intact, listen!

Brit Shalom onesies & tees available at MadeByMomma

Cutting Boys Cuts to the Core

By Hygeia Halfmoon
Author of Primal Mothering in a Modern World, among other books
Read more from Halfmoon and check out her Cozy Cradle Baby Sling at her site here.
Posted with permission 2/09

I'm here to defend men in their right to be whole, and I don't want to hear any religious doctrine that blesses such a barbaric act. We must tackle ourselves where we least want to look - into our views about religion and how we are literally shackled to the past and to the rules which continue to be played out from one generation to the next. My dear Jewish friend, Laura Kaplan Shanley, author of Unassisted Childbirth, has something important to say on this subject:

I am so offended by circumcision that it is difficult for me to even write about it. On any given day thousands of men will meet in support groups to vent their anger over having been circumcised without a choice in the matter. Over one third of the active members of the anti-circumcision movement are Jewish. On any given day at least one hundred routine infant circumcisions will result in complications, irreversible surgical trauma, penile loss or even death. I have no problem with Jews circumcising their own as long as the 'circumcisee' is a consenting adult. A week old infant is not a consenting adult. Religious freedom is not about inflicting your beliefs on others, regardless of whether or not the other is your child. Children grow up to be adults, and many, many Jewish men are angry that they were circumcised in the name of religion.

For those who say a Jewish circumcision is more humane because the child is held by loved ones and given wine to drink, Jody McLaughlin who is the editor/publisher of Compleat Mother Magazine replies,

"Are you telling me that it is more humane to be hurt in the presence of those who supposedly love and care about you? Are you saying that it is more humane if a child's first sexual experience involving another human being is associated with blood, pain, and alcohol?"

As shocking as it may be to our western minds, little girls in other societies are routinely forced into a different form of circumcision - female clitorectomies. While the western world is condoning male circumcision with the excuse of cleanliness, other cultures are cutting out the clitoris of each and every young girl, assuring death to the power of female sexual pleasure. I am eternally grateful to organizations such as NOCIRC who work to save infants and children from the pain, torture, and destruction of genital mutilation. We need to stop the horror of sexual mutilation wherever it occurs on our planet.

It seems only fitting that we should next touch on the subject of sexuality. One aspect of the anger that is addressed in support groups comprised of circumcised men is sexual sensitivity. Their non-circumcised counterparts are enjoying a level of sexual pleasure unknown to victims of the knife.

The foreskin acts as both lubricant and masseuse during intercourse, creating a highly stimulating sensation. As a mother, I can attest to this difference between circumcised and non-circumcised males because my three-year-old intact son absolutely loves pulling and stretching his foreskin, a gleeful pride in his eyes and a smile on his face. I don't see this self-nurturing behavior in the lives of toddler victims of circumcision.

Circumcision is a primal wound that changes the course of a life. This crime, together with denial of the breast and separate sleeping quarters, defines the initial sexual experience for a huge percentage of our society's population. Pornography is that party called together: the walking wounded who, addicted to eagle-spread models in magazines search out the womb where everything was once just fine; the walking wounded who, starved of the sweet warmth of a mother's breast stare dreamily at the sight of cleavage; the walking wounded who, frustrated at their inability to know intimacy have sex with strangers who will only do it for pay; the walking wounded who, angry and anxious for the hatred they feel, rape and kill women and children.

Intact vs. Circumcised ~ Penis Sensitivity Studies

Morris L. Sorrells M.D. discusses the penile sensitivity studies he and other doctors conducted that studied circumcised and intact penises. They concluded that circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.

Circumcision & AIDS ~ Norm Cohen Speaks

Norm Cohen, director of the National Organization of Circumcision Information Research Centers of Michigan, discusses the pseudo science and deception behind the push to circumcise Africa.

Letter from Georganne Chapin regarding CDC and The New York Times on Circumcision

Yesterday, The New York Times ran an article about the CDC's upcoming decision on circumcision. The story quoted me and mentioned Intact America's efforts, as well as our billboard currently making the rounds outside the CDC's conference in Atlanta.

From our booth here at the CDC conference, I can tell you that this article is making waves. And the fact is, the more attention we put on the CDC's possible recommendation of circumcision, the more uncomfortable they get.

Will you help us make sure the pressure on the CDC continues?

Write a letter to the editor of The New York Times responding to the article and publicly demanding a truthful statement about circumcision from the CDC.

The CDC is reviewing flawed new studies right now and could recommend circumcision for our baby boys as soon as this year, ignoring the risks and ethics of routine surgery on newborn infants.

We know that circumcision is unnecessary and harmful – and it's unethical to perform needless surgery on non-consenting baby boys. We need your help to make sure the CDC gets the message, not only in Atlanta, but across the country.

The longer this story stays in the media, the better it is for those of us seeking to protect baby boys. This is exactly the kind of attention that will help delay or postpone a final decision from the CDC, and you can help us keep the pressure on!

Send a message to the CDC and the public by writing a letter to the editor of The New York Times today.

Thank you for all of your support.

Georganne Chapin
Executive Director, Intact America
www.intactamerica.org

The Nuts and Bolts of HIV in the USA and Why Circumcision Won't Protect Men

Advocacy graphic and tshirts courtesy of MadeByMomma

With recent news reports of the CDC possibly becoming the first organization to advocate infant circumcision, I thought I would share the nuts and bolts of HIV in the USA. The following will demonstrate exactly why the African studies have little relevance to the USA. Please keep in mind that over 500.000 circumcised, American men have died of AIDS. AIDS is already well-established in this country where the majority of men are circumcised..

According to avert.org approximately 56,000 Americans are infected with HIV each year. Overall, about three-quarters of those infected were men, approximately 42,000.

When examined by gender, [men only] approximately 62% were infected via male-to-male sexual contact, 18% were infected via IV drug use, and about 8% were infected via either IV drug use or male-to-male sexual contact. The importance of this is that for 88% of men there is no demonstrated benefit since the African study only showed a reduction in female-to-male HIV transmission, not for male-to-male, or IV drug use which account for 88% of cases in men.

What remains is the 12% which were thought to be contracted heterosexually. 11% is considered high-risk heterosexual contact, while 1% must contain all other possible modes of transmission. According to Avert, the CDC defines high-risk sexual contact as:

The 'high-risk heterosexual contact' category comprises persons who report specific heterosexual contact with a person with, or at high risk for, HIV infection (e.g., an injecting drug user). This does not include adults and adolescents born in, or who had sex with someone born in, a country where heterosexual transmission was believed to be the main mode of HIV transmission, unless they meet the criteria stated in the previous sentence.

So of the 42,000 men infected, about 4620 (give or take (42000 * 0.11) were infected via high-risk heterosexual sex. Or about 5,040 (42000 * 0.12) if all heterosexual sex is considered.

The United States has a male population 15 - 64 of over 100,000,000. So given these percentages, in any given year a man has about a 0.005% or 1/20,000 chance of becoming HIV positive [via heterosexual sex both high and normal risk], 5,040/100000000. Over 60 years, the chances of turning up HIV positive would be 0.3% or 1/333 (0.005 * 60).

These are exceedingly low numbers for an individual (overall) however. This is for those who fall with in the high-risk heterosexual category, which according to the CDC would include those whose partner are known to be HIV+, suspected to be HIV+, or are at high-risk otherwise (an IV drug user for example). We know that most people will not fall within this category.

If instead we focus on the 1% categorized as 'other' we are only talking about 420 men, assuming their infections were all acquired sexually. If only 80% (80000000) of the population fit this category (the other 20% being high risk takers and or homosexual) then overall in any given year an American man has about a 0.000525% chance of being infected with HIV about (1/200,000). Over the course of 60 years the odds are about 0.03% (1/3333). Which is a very interesting figure (0.03%).

Not long after the circumcision and it's relationship with HIV was published, several national HIV/AIDS organizations reviewed the data, and there national situations, and within months published statements that said in essence what the WHO statement already said, while there may be some relationship between circumcision and HIV it is not a strategy that should be considered for countries where the HIV problem is focused in specific groups of low prevalence countries. The original statement from Australia can be seen here. Recently, in a response to rhetoric by Alex Wodac, published in a local paper's opinion piece, the AFAO published a second data sheet in February where they noted:

African data on circumcision is context-specific and cannot be extrapolated to the Australia epidemic.
The Australian HIV epidemic is driven primarily by male-to-male anal intercourse and social research has shown that men frequently practice both insertion and receptive anal intercourse.
Correct and consistent condom use, not circumcision, is the most effective means of reducing male-to-male transmission, female-to-male transmission, and male-to-female transmission.
An Australian-born man is estimated to have a 0.02% (0.0002) risk of HIV acquisition if he does not inject drugs or have sex with men. This very low risk means that the population health benefit of an intervention like generalized circumcision programs would be negligible.

So, if the typical American born male (who is not involved in high risk activity) has a lifetime chance of becoming HIV+ of 0.03%, an Australian born man under similar assumptions has a lifetime risk of 0.02%, and the AFAO notes that such a low risk means the population health benefit of generalized circumcision would be negligible. How this doesn't apply to Americans is beyond me.

Here are just a few of the numerous ways that Africa is different from the United States:

About 30% of women in Africa are raped at some point in their lives. Rapists don't wear condoms. Rape is seen as a sign of masculinity in these cultures and 1 in 4 South African men admit to having raped.
Most Africans believe that sex with a virgin will cure HIV and, as a result, many young girls are infected with HIV.
Many Africans engage in sexual practices that include activities such as 'dry sex' where a woman's vagina is purposefully dried out. This increases friction, which men feel is a sign that they are more well-endowed. Dry sex increases the rate of transmission of HIV because the walls of the vagina typically tear and bleed (Fleiss, P. 2002 What Your Doctor May Not Have Told You About Circumcision).
Many Africans engage in other sexual rituals. For example if a woman's husband dies, she must have sex with another man to cleanse her soul.
Africans commonly circumcise both men and women with dirty utensils and in poor hygienic conditions, which increases the spread of the disease.
A recent study shows that if Africans were given clean water the spread of HIV would drop by about 60%.