Circumcision has been on the wane for years, but a growing community of men are out to reverse the snip decision their parents made years ago. Meet the foreskin restoration movement.
Tally has been tugging on his penis for two years. His hand movements are methodical and prescribed. He forms the OK symbol with the index fingers and thumbs on both hands and pulls down on the shaft, stretching it between his spreading hands. After five minutes of tugging, Tally does what any man in a public restroom does: tucks in his shirt, steps out of the stall, washes his hands, and returns to the desk. Tally has what he’s after: his foreskin is slacker. He’s happier because of that. And his co-workers are none the wiser.
Tally is short for Tallywacker, a British nickname for penis. It is also the nom de Internet of a 55-year-old, heterosexual, happily 
married attorney in Tennessee who is at the vanguard of the foreskin restoration movement. With evangelical zest, he shares his story, and a sequential series of photographs of his penis, to thousands of private members and hundreds of daily visitors to his websites, RestoringForeskin.org and RestoringTally.com.
“Foreskin restoration has changed my life, like I never imagined was possible,” he says. “At 55, I’m enjoying sex like I’m in my 20s. Having my foreskin has made me feel more confident and comfortable in my skin and body.”
♦◊♦
Circumcision has been practiced for millennia, across continents and cultures. Anthropologists disagree about its origins; some think it goes back 15,000 years to a single culture, some think it originated independently at different times, in different places, for different reasons. We know that Australian aborigines, Native Americans, and ancient Egyptians practiced it, dating back at least 6,000 years.
Over time, circumcision took on religious significance in Judaism, Islam, and even Christianity. Jews consider it a commandment from God; Muslims believe it to be one of five acts that “befit the natural state of man.” And then there is the Holy Foreskin (or prepuce) of Jesus, cut off in a cave on his eighth day of life, and supposedly handed down through the centuries by popes, kings, and even Charlemagne himself. It was thought to have magical properties—and if the accounts are to be believed it would have had to, given that during the Middle Ages, there were as many as 18 Holy Prepuces scattered across Europe.
|
John Harvey Kellogg prescribed circumcision (along with, it should be noted, Corn Flakes) to prevent masturbation.
|
By the mid-19th century, circumcision was medicalized. It was proposed as treatment for a range of conditions, from the mutually counterintuitive—priapism and impotence, paralysis and epilepsy—to some that are still cited today: prevention of sexually transmitted diseases and foreskin-related problems like phimosis and balanitis.
By the turn of the 20th century, it was widely advocated by doctors, including John Harvey Kellogg, who prescribed circumcision (along with, it should be noted, Corn Flakes) to prevent masturbation.
In the 1930s, by some accounts, the neonatal circumcision rate was around 32 percent. That figure rose over the ensuing decades, peaking in the ’70s, when 80 to 90 percent of American boys were circumcised as infants.
♦◊♦
Tally came to foreskin restoration through the back door. Two years ago, while researching surgery he was about to have for bacterial prostatitis, he stumbled on an abundance of anecdotal information online from men in their 40s and 50s who had lost penile sensitivity or the ability to ejaculate. Tally recognized himself in their stories and confided in the urologist who would perform the prostate surgery.
“I talked to him about the trouble to get erections and taking me longer to complete having sex. And of course his response was he gave me a free sample of Viagra. Viagra helps the erection problem. You’ll stand at attention. But it doesn’t make the sex act pleasurable,” Tally says. “Sex wasn’t fun anymore. There were times when she’d say, ‘Aren’t you done yet?’”
But Tally says while most men think that diminished penile sensitivity is just a normal part of aging, he also found an abundance of narratives by men who restored their foreskins and reported that those problems went away. The idea that Tally’s circumcision might have harmed his penis began to firm up.
♦◊♦
The effects of circumcision on penile sensitivity is the subject of debate, but NORM, the National Organization for Restoring Men in San Francisco, reports that more than 20,000 nerve endings are amputated through circumcision.
For a little over two decades, NORM has been Penis Central for “intactivists,” circumcision opponents and men wishing to restore their foreskin.
NORM co-founder R. Wayne Griffiths, 77, whose outreach efforts have spawned two dozen groups in seven countries across five continents, says he has provided information to at least 10,000 men—and there is no letup in sight.
Griffiths was among those who revived interest in foreskin restoration in the U.S., but uncircumcision is hardly a new phenomenon. The first historical references appear in the Old Testament (I Maccabees 1: 14–15): “Whereupon they built a place of exercise at Jerusalem according to the customs of the heathen. And made themselves uncircumcised, and forsook the holy covenant, and joined themselves to the heathen, and were sold to do mischief.”
Pondus Judaeus
To avoid persecution during the reign of Antiochus (175–163 B.C.), circumcised Jews stretched their remaining foreskins with a specially designed weight, the Pondus Judaeus. A Roman medical text written during the reign of Tiberius (A.D. 14–37), De Medicina, contains the first-known reference to surgical restoration. And although few written accounts exist, surgical foreskin restoration, understandably, made a comeback among European Jews during the 1930s and ’40s.
The latest restoration revival isn’t limited to American enthusiasts. “I recently got emails from men in Saudi Arabia, Israel, the Baltic countries, and Russia,” Griffiths says. “I’m always amazed at where these men come from, whether it’s Kokomo, Indiana, the Philippines, Japan, or China. It keeps happening.”
And the number one reason why? Better sex. “Men have lost tens of thousands of nerve endings that have been amputated,” he says. “No one has feelings anymore.”
♦◊♦
That argument is lost on Dr. Joel Piser. He has been a urologist in private practice in Berkeley, California, for 24 years. And for the past 20 years, he has been a mohel, circumcising newborns as part of the Jewish ritual Berit Milah.
|
Tally maintains that there’s newfound magic in his johnson—no matter what science says.
|
Piser says he hasn’t seen a surgical foreskin restoration in Berkeley in 23 years. And while he’s seen a few men who have manually restored, he says, medically speaking, the gain is, as the saying goes, all in the big head.
“The few I’ve seen, it covers part of the glans. It could pass for an uncircumcised penis. Do I think they’re gaining anything other than cosmetic? No, I do not. I don’t see how it’s anatomically possible to rejuvenate nerves by just stretching the penile shaft skin over the glans. That’s not physiologically plausible. If the nerves in the penile skin could be rejuvenated by stretching, we’d be transplanting foreskin into spinal cords,” Dr. Piser says.
Tally maintains that there’s newfound magic in his johnson—no matter what science says.
“The difference I feel is not about the number of nerve endings I have. It is about stimulating what I have in a different way. The gliding action rolls the inner foreskin over the corona, both of which are highly innervated normally. The sensation from the gliding action is very pleasurable and new to me.”
♦◊♦
Circumcision is a lucrative industry, earning the medical community hundreds of millions of dollars annually for the 1.3 million circs done each year. But an equally ambitious, if not as lucrative, industry has sprouted up for men willing to stretch their foreskin. Manual tugging can involve tape, extension devices such as cones, weights, elastics, and just palm-to-penis pull action.
Tally tried two different devices but didn’t have enough foreskin to work with. “In order to wear the device you have to have enough slack skin for it to fit. I had a very tight circ so I had very little slack skin.” So he began manual tugging and made excellent progress. The routine conveniently coincided with frequent bathroom visits following his prostate surgery.
“I’ve noticed major differences in masturbation within about four months. Increase in sensitivity around the six- to eight-month mark just in general and in sex. At about the one-year point, I hit a milestone, full flaccid coverage,” Tally says. “I had enough of a restored foreskin so when I’m hanging natural, I am covered. If someone saw me now, they’d say I wasn’t circumcised.”
That’s music to the ears of the roughly 2,800 active participants at RestoringForeskin.org. Tally spends two hours a day moderating comments and answering questions online.
And who, exactly, is asking? Tally says the demographics are divided evenly between gay and straight, under 30 and over 40. One member is in his 80s, but it’s the younger set, Tally reports, that’s particularly interested in foreskin restoration.
“They’re brought up on the Internet, learning, ‘Hey, they cut off part of my sex organ and I want it back.’” That, in a sentence, has become the clarion call of the foreskin restoration movement: you’re missing out—it’s so much better au naturel.
♦◊♦
At least that’s the message Matt got at the tender age of 15 when he stumbled on information online about FR.
“I had never heard of it,” Matt said. “I didn’t have much self-esteem in the first place, but it scared me—it said if you are circumcised, when you have sex with a woman she won’t feel pleasure, only pain. I didn’t want my wife not to be happy with me sexually when I eventually got married. So I found ways to grow it back.”
Matt, a 26-year-old New Yorker active in the online FR community, asked that his real name not be used. His attempts to restore his foreskin lasted 11 frustrating years before he opted to be re-circumcised.
“The devices didn’t work well or they would hurt too much so I had to take them off,” Matt said. “I never liked the way it looked. The grown-back version is always so much thicker and not very natural-looking—like a swollen version of a foreskin.”
The smell of smegma (the cheese-like secretion found under an unwashed foreskin), the feel of his new, loose skin—just about everything about his lengthening foreskin—turned Matt off of the process. But at the same time—adding to his confusion—he found just as many men online citing better sex as a result of adult circumcision.
Matt eventually went to a urologist, who re-circumcised him almost a year ago. But he was disappointed, he says, that the doctor “didn’t take more off”—so in July he had the procedure done again, by a different urologist, 11 years after he first began growing it back.
|
For Matt, the worst thing about his restoration adventure was the influence the people on the Internet had on him.
|
This is precisely the type of story that makes some medical professionals roll their eyes in frustration or disgust. While most restoring websites focus on facts, just as many traffic in personal anecdotes and hysterical grievances.
For Matt, the worst thing about his restoration adventure was the influence the people on the Internet had on him. When he told the story of his two re-circumcisions online, others in the community accused him of lying. “They said how evil circumcision is. Some said they hated their parents because they let it be done to them,” he says, emphasizing that restorers are often swept up in the rhetoric. “One guy said he wanted to pee on his doctor’s grave.”
“Circumcision inflames a lot of people because they need a focus,” says Dr. Piser. “I want them to look at things objectively and try to eliminate the emotional component, which is hard to do when it comes to the phallus.”
♦◊♦
In the medical community, there is mild debate about circumcision’s benefits.
It is virtually impossible to get penile cancer when circumcised. It is similarly rare to see balanitis (inflammation of any residual foreskin) and it eliminates the possibility of phimosis, a condition in which the foreskin cannot retract from the glans. Snipped newborns are 10 times less likely to get a urinary tract infection.
To be fair, these conditions are rare in uncircumcised men as well. And for over a decade, neither the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) nor the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have advocated routine neonatal circumcision.
And there’s evidence that the anti-circ groundswell is having an effect. In August, the CDC confirmed that between 2006 and 2009, the U.S. infant circumcision rate declined from about 50 to 33 percent—its lowest rate since the 1930s.
While the AAP and the CDC aren’t taking sides, the World Health Organization (WHO) considers circumcision part of a comprehensive HIV prevention program. They cite compelling evidence that it reduces the risk of HIV transmission in heterosexual sex by up to 60 percent.
Research released just last week indicates that circumcision also helps reduce the spread of human papillomavirus (HPV), which can lead to cervical cancer in women (HPV is the most prevalent sexually transmitted disease in the U.S.).
Both the CDC and the AAP are reevaluating their positions on circumcision in light of new data. Results from the AAP’s circumcision task force are likely to be released this year.
Not surprisingly, the new findings haven’t silenced critics of the procedure—among them, mothers, Jews, doctors, and the restoring community. For intactivists, the rhetoric has shifted from a risk-benefit analysis to an anti-mutilation, human-rights argument.
♦◊♦
“It’s quite the task to change your body—to accept that you had a procedure done that harms you.”
Randy Tymkin was only 32 when he realized that the sensitivity in his penis was going away, “quicker than I could have hoped for.” This was 15 years ago, when the Internet wasn’t the fount of FR information it is today. Still, the idea that he could restore some sensitivity intrigued him.
Living in Winnepeg, Manitoba, meant Randy went to tanning salons during the long winter. He suspected the UV rays were one reason he felt desensitized. Wearing jock straps and jeans without underwear were also culprits. “I thought of how rough our hands can be when we masturbate,” he says. “Running callous skin up and down on the naked glans. So I started thinking about this.”
Randy’s thinking turned into tinkering. He got out a sewing machine and created a little silk hood that fit over the tip of his penis, acting as a foreskin substitute. He trademarked it the ManHood, and found that wearing his creation increased the sensitivity in his penis—so much, he says, “I could not not wear it.”
Randy, who works as a juvenile jail guard, began advertising his product in two magazines. Within days, his mailbox was stuffed with 27 orders. Today, he fills up to four orders a day and has sold upward of 20,000 ManHoods without further advertising.
Encouraged by the renewed sensitivity he’d acquired, Randy used tape and weights to stretch about three-fourths of an inch of skin over a period of a few months, but he gave up: “If you have plans for sex, going swimming, or playing sports, you can’t because the device is cumbersome.”
Randy settled for wearing his own silk creation, filling orders, and answering emails from men who are circumcised as well as those who are restoring. But his interest in, or perhaps outrage at, routine infant circumcision, has not abated.
“I wish I hadn’t been circumcised. I don’t blame anybody except doctors. I wouldn’t trust their answers. I don’t think they’re educated.” he says. “When I was circumcised, everyone was. The guy in the shower who wasn’t would be rare. We looked at him like he was different. And he should have looked at us like we were different because we were the ones who changed.”
♦◊♦
If the San Diego–based advocacy group MGMbill.org has its way, locker rooms of the future will be a very different place. The group, founded in 2003, is dedicated to preventing the circumcision of newborns. (MGM is the acronym for male genital mutilation.)
Last week, the group’s regional directors contacted some 2800 legislators in search of a sponsor for its bill, which would extend the 1996 prohibition on female genital cutting to males. The bill would make it illegal—punishable by up to 14 years in prison—for anyone to circumcise or assist in the removal of male genitalia (except when deemed medically necessary for the health of a child) of anyone under 18 years old.
It’s a bill Dr. Piser calls “nonsense.”
“Even if you’re against circumcision,” he says, “why would you make it so that someone else couldn’t do it if they wanted?”
Intactivists, who prefer the term “male genital mutilation,” believe the removal of the foreskin is a straightforward human rights issue: we don’t allow parents to choose neglect or abuse, and thus we shouldn’t allow parents to choose circumcision.
But the comparison of male to female circumcision isn’t so straightforward. Female genital mutilation involves the total removal of the external female genitalia for non-medical reasons.
♦◊♦
The twain may never meet on the medical benefits or religious significance of male circumcision, or on the physiological truth to the joys of foreskin restoration. But it’s the leap to equate male circumcision with female genital mutilation that irks Hugo Schwyzer.
“I have no qualms about foreskin restoration. But let’s not equate circumcision with a man being robbed of his essence. And I don’t want him elevating what was a fundamentally minor surgical procedure to the status of mutilation. I find that offensive as a feminist in particular. And as man who’s been on both sides of it, I find it ridiculous.”
Mr. Schwyzer is no stranger to the heated debate around infant male circumcision and its correlation—or not—to female genital mutilation. Four years ago, Schwyzer, a writer and college professor living in Los Angeles, wrote a magazine article about the circumcision he had as an adult. He was, in his own words, “hammered by the anti-circumcision” people who perpetuated “the false equivalence between male circumcision and female genital mutilation.”
“All of that leads me to be very clear that there is no comparison. It’s used as a serious argument. It cheapens and diminishes the discussion about circumcision. And invalidates what are some reasons we should rethink infant circumcision.”
Schwyzer, now 43, is married and the father of a daughter, 2. His decision to undergo a circumcision when he was 37 was fueled by a hard-earned combination of medical and psychological imperatives. Schwyzer was an alcohol, drug, and sex addict who managed to earn a Ph.D. while burning through three marriages. “I was very much your classic addict, so my penis went a lot of places,” he says. Those “places” inflicted a series of sex-related injuries that involved repeated tearing of the frenulum, the triangle of skin where the foreskin attaches to the underside of the penis. Life in the fast lane over 18 years took its toll on Schwyzer, who calls himself “a walking cliché.” He ended up in a hospital emergency room on death’s door.
Schwyzer underwent circumcision just before he married his current wife. “I did it for two reasons: to deal with frenular tearing and scarring, and to symbolize this commitment to enduring monogamy.”
“And not only is the pain gone, but the pleasure has not been reduced. The pleasure is as strong as it ever was.”
|
“I’ve met men who were circumcised as infants who have an amazingly deep sense they were robbed of something. Dude, get over yourself!”
|
He further explains: “The penis I had had, uncircumcised, had been with a lot of people. With the circumcised penis, I would only be sexual with my wife. It wasn’t born-again virginity. It was a way of saying, ‘Look, I am different.’”
The majority of public reaction to Schwyzer’s story was intertwined with the growing narrative that circumcision is abuse by another name.
“If a guy wants to do foreskin restoration, knock yourself out,” Schwyzer says. “But for the men who feel they lost something—the foreskin wasn’t all that. I had great experiences with it. Foreskin can be integrated into sex play. There’s no question there are nerve endings there,” Schwyzer continued. “But I’ve met men who were circumcised as infants who have an amazingly deep sense they were robbed of something. Dude, get over yourself!”
Schwyzer concedes that opponents of circumcision have valid concerns when they argue that it’s painful, unethical, and full of possible post-procedure complications from scarring, ulceration, and hemorrhage.
“But this idea that circumcision was this horrific violation comparable to sex abuse, and that you were deprived of something extraordinarily valuable? Having had a lot of sex both ways, I can say no. I find it ridiculous.”
“Let’s step back and take a deep breath,” Dr. Piser says. “This is a valid, valuable medical procedure. Whether you want to do it to help protect your child from urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and HIV transmission, or whether you want to do it electively as an adult. That’s personal. But there is a huge psychological component to all of this.”
♦◊♦
And that’s one thing all sides of the argument can probably agree on: that for a little piece of skin, whether retracted or restored, the foreskin carries a lot of emotional baggage for a growing number of men.
But who is to question whether restoration, and its sequelae of an allegedly super-improved sex life, is all in the big head rather than the little? After all, pleasure—as Shakespeare might have said of his willy—is in the prepuce of the restorer.
“Emotionally, I am different from restoring,” Tally says. “I’m freed up to experience life. I don’t have the vocabulary. I have no explanation for it. It’s just something I’ve observed.”
♦◊♦
If you haven’t had your foreskin fix yet, check out “Why I Let My Son Get Snipped.”
About Laura Novak
Vocalyze
What a fantastic piece, Laura. Definitely something I’ve never had to think about — particularly the idea of male circumcision being similar to female genital mutilation. I think it’s great that questions are being raised about this.
Congrats on such a well researched, interesting piece.
“The few I’ve seen, it covers part of the glans. It could pass for an uncircumcised penis. Do I think they’re gaining anything other than cosmetic? No, I do not. I don’t see how it’s anatomically possible to rejuvenate nerves by just stretching the penile shaft skin over the glans. That’s not physiologically plausible. If the nerves in the penile skin could be rejuvenated by stretching, we’d be transplanting foreskin into spinal cords,” Dr. Piser says.
Dr. Piser’s comments regarding the inability of a man to rejuvenate the nerves lost to circumcision makes it very clear that the decision to perform a surgery that permanently and irreversibly removes a sensitive part of the penis should be left to the owner of the penis, the one who has to live with the consequences of the surgery. Most decisions that parents make on behalf of their children are not permanent and irreversible body modifications The decision to circumcise, by its very nature, cannot legitimately be made by anyone other than the person suffering the cut.
I like many others was circed shortly after birth. It was a choice that was made for me by my parents. I never had any say in the matter which is certainly not right since I will never be able to get back exactly what was removed which was likely done with NO anesthetic while my arms and legs were strapped into a circ board. Even our pets that have to undergo surgery are treated more humanely than that!
BENIFITS CLAIMED
The main benefits that pro-circ people claim is that it is cleaner and lessens the chances of getting HIV. How many babies and young children are going to be having sex?? I haven’t read were anyone has said it stops HIV spreading from man-woman intercourse 100% of the time. People in countries where routine circ is not performed do not have a high rate of foreskin related issues. According to several sources it is not that uncommon for the foreskin to remain attached or partially attached to the glans until late teens. If the foreskin is too tight there are other ways to cure that by simply stretching the skin with or without a steroid cream without having to cut anything. Water with a mild soap is all that is needed to keep the foreskin clean.
WHAT IS LOST:
Believe it or not the glans is meant to be an internal organ only to be exposed for intercourse. Circ makes it an external organ and with the passage of time causes a layer of keratin to form which lessens its sensitivity. Most circs remove the majority of inner skin/mucosa which is much more sensitive and moist than the outer skin adding to the loss of sensitivity of the glans because of the keratin buildup. Many circ devices remove all or most of the frenulum and damage the nerves that lie on the ventral side near the glans.
Many times the doctor performing the circ on an infant removes too much skin which results in either scrotal tissue being pulled up onto the shaft of the penis and/or an erection that is tight and painful because of the lack of skin. Lack of skin can also cause erections to be curved/bent when one side of the penis has more skin than the other. The doctor has to GUESS how much skin will be needed when the penis grows throughout puberty.
SHOULD BE HIS CHOICE
Whether someone believes all the benefits that circ provides are worth what is lost, it should be the boy’s choice when he reaches 18, not his parents or doctor’s. It is HIS penis!! He can decide if he wants to be cut or not and if cut how much skin he wants removed. He will also be treated like a person undergoing a medical procedure with either general or local anesthetics not bound to a circ board along with pain medication that can be taken while the wound heals.
FORESKIN RESTORATION
I discovered foreskin restoration in late Jul 2010 and got my 1st device and started restoring 8-1-10. I used a device for almost 2 months until I found out about Reverse Taping Method on Tally’s RestoringForeskin.org site which was devised by Steph/Nakeemon2 from his research on Tissue Expansion that is done by doctors using implanted saline filled balloons. Reverse Taping/RT works by placing a foam ring around the penis and then flipping the skin over the ring and taping it. The ring does not have to be removed for urination and can also be worn while working out. This method has been extremely effective for me in growing both inner and outer skin. I now have full flaccid coverage after only 5 months of restoring! My inner skin and glans have never been as sensitive as they are now. I do not regret my decision to restore for 1 sec! I highly recommend restoring to any cut male. Restoration no longer requires tugging straps or t-taping and with a method like Reverse Taping the male can decide how much inner skin/mucosa vs outer skin he wants in his final resulting foreskin. There are over 10 videos available on Reverse Taping. Please check out http://www.RestoringForeskin.org for more info.
In my culture (Eastern Europe) there is no tradition of male circumcision. And there is absolutely no evidence that this causes anybody any harm medically. I was shocked and deeply saddened when I moved to North America to discover that this horrible practice is inflicted on poor newborn children on a regular basis.
“I don’t see how it’s anatomically possible to rejuvenate nerves by just stretching the penile shaft skin over the glans. That’s not physiologically plausible.”
Nobody says it is. Nor is foreskin restoration just “stretching”. Skin expansion by stimulated growth is a well-established surgical technique used to cover amputation stumps or gaps left by conjoined-twin separation.
“Tally maintains that there’s newfound magic in his johnson—no matter what science says.”
Professional circumcisor Joel Piser is not “science”. (On the contrary.)
Tally’s argument makes a lot of sense. Also, having a covered glans causes it to de-keratinise (soften) and become sensitive in a better way.
You want to know why circ’ing is still done in the US?
2000-3000 bucks a pop. Thats why.
I mean, jeez, why not take out their appendixes and tonsil while you’re at it?
Don’t you mean 200 to 300? Most hospitals probably don’t even make this much money off of it – if they charged too much, they wouldn’t be able to get naive parents to buy into it.
This number is rather blown out of proportion.
Circumcisions are more like 200 to 300 dollars a head. (No pun intended)
But you must tremember that 1.3 million boys or so, are circumcised every year.
At a dollar each, that’s 1.3 million dollars.
Now multiply that by the 200/300 dollar figure.
And multiply that by the fact that the foreskins are sold to pharmaceuticals, and that the pharmaceuticals themselves create more products from it, such as synthetic skin used for skin grafts, and for consumer products, like Oprah Winfrey’s SkinMedica.
Synthetic skin created from infant babies foreskins can cost as much as 500 dollars a square inch.
Do the babies see any of this revenue accrued from their harvested foreskins as men?
No. They don’t.
Yeah sorry, my source did say 200-300, but I read it wrong. I don’t think that invalidates my point though.
MGM-bill is a great initiative that is long overdue in this society. I posted about it on my blog and will keep spreading the word. The more people support this enlightened initiative, the better!
First of all, the bill is San Francisco based, not San Diego based. Second of all, second of all, MGM and FGM are very comaparable, more often than not. Thirdly, Mr. Sex Addict’s situation is very rare, provided there was legitimate reason to get circ’d as opposed to performers wanting to make money off him. If anyone wants to read my research on MGM, my email address is qualifiedandinnovative@gmail.com.
Hi Nicole,
MGMbill.org is based in San Diego. They are putting together a ballot initiative in San Fran, but they are most certainly based in San Diego. From the MGMbill.org website, under “About”:
MGMbill.org is a private non-profit organization based in San Diego, California, seeking to pass a law that will end the practice of male genital mutilation (circumcision) in the United States of America.
here’s the link: http://www.mgmbill.org/aboutus.htm
While I do not agree with circumcising young male babies….
Trying to make it equivalent to FGM is the WRONG.
FGM ‘s equivalent would = Cutting the whole penis off.
Would you be okay with people surgically removing their daughter’s clitoral hood?
That would be an exact equivalent (although it would still remove less skin).
This article TRIES to be balanced, but it fails in a few respects.
Here are a few things that jump out at me:
The importance of circumcision is correctly shown for Jewish and Muslim culture, and why it is somewhat important in Christianity. Is there a reason why nobody thought it was important to mention the fact that the whole reason there is a divide between Judaism and Christianity is the fact that Christians aren’t supposed to circumcise? That in Galatians, Paul preaches that Christians aren’t saved by following laws, but through the grace of Christ? That if someone is going to circumcise himself according to the law, he is a debtor to the whole law? (Galatians 5) I’m sure Jesus’ “holy foreskin” is important to Christians, but so is the fact that baptism was supposed to replace circumcision for gentiles.
I think it’s a good thing that the article goes in depth about the history of the restoration of the foreskin, but is there a reason that the authors felt they must counter-balance that with the opinion of a Jewish MOHEL???
Joel Pisner is Jewish, and a mohel at that, where circumcision is central to his cultural, ethnic, and religious identity. Could The Good Men Project not have found anybody more biased on the subject??? Why would he have ANYTHING good to say about anatomically correct genitaly, let alone restorers? How would HE know that “it’s all in the head,” if he’s seen only a few men who have restored? Is he a psychologist to be able to make this call? It sounds like the man is defensive of his trade.
Pisner also seems to attack a few straw men:
“I don’t see how it’s anatomically possible to rejuvenate nerves by just stretching the penile shaft skin over the glans. That’s not physiologically plausible. If the nerves in the penile skin could be rejuvenated by stretching, we’d be transplanting foreskin into spinal cords,” Dr. Piser says.”
But nobody is arguing that it is possible to rejuvenate nerves by stretching the penile shaft skin over the glans. And nobody is arguing that the foreskin should be transplanted into spinal cords. The way sensitivity is recovered is through the sloughing off of the keratin that the glans and surrounding mucosa develops as a result of being permanently exposed to the air, and to the abrasion of clothing. The nerves in the glans and surrounding mucosa aren’t “rejuvenated” per se, but they are exposed by the process of dekeritinization
Incidentally, the nerves in the foreskin are different than the nerves in the spinal cords.
And incidentally, foreskins harvested from children are used in stem-cell research, so it may actually be possible to transplant foreskin into people’s spinal cords.
It just goes to show you how much American doctors actually know about the topic of the foreskin, and/or how much they are willing to learn, especially routine circumcisers, and especially ritual circumcisers.
“It’s difficult to get a man to understand something, when his livelihood depends on his not understanding it.” ~Upton Sinclair
The following statement is grossly omissive:
“Circumcision is a lucrative industry, earning the medical community hundreds of millions of dollars annually for the 1.3 million circs done each year.”
Why isn’t it mentioned that foreskins are also sold to pharmaceutical companies by hospitals? That foreskins are further developed into synthetic skin which costs close to $500 per square inch? Or developed into consumer products like Oprah Winfrey’s SkinMedica? Furthermore, doesn’t the article talk about the supportive industries that surround circumcision? IE, the sales of circumstraint boards? The sales of circumcision devices, such as Gomco, Plastibell, and Mogen? (Which, incidentally, Mogen went out of business because they lost a $11 million law suit.)
Make no mistake; there is MONEY in infant circumcision.
I did find it was probably a necessary balance to include someone who was not satisfied with restoration. People need to know that, just as not all men end up being happy with their circumcision, not all men are satisfied with restoration.
Not all circumcisions are created equal, and just with circumcisions, not all restorations will result favorably. Just as with circumcision, one will never know until they try. It works for some, it doesn’t for others.
“The grown-back version is always so much thicker and not very natural-looking—like a swollen version of a foreskin.”
This is a very important insight; restoration works for some, but not for others. Not all results are favorable. Which underscores the fact that restoration is not an antidote for circumcision. If a boy is circumcised as a child, there is no guarantee that he will be able to restore a foreskin as an adult. It is absolutely criminal that man have to work hard to get back something that should have been his from birth, and that even so, something that may or may not resemble a natural foreskin.
Is there a reason why the author felt the need to speak pergoratively of smegma in the anatomically correct male? It would have been nice if the author also pointed out that smegma is actually also found in the female vulva, and in much copious ammounts. It would be nice if someone had highlighted the double-standard of men having pristine, smegma-like organs, but smegma being excusable in women, where they take care of their problem with a shower.
Secretion? I’m afraid the author needs to educate him/herself. There is no smegma gland that secretes smegma; smegma is the accumulation of dead skin-cells, urine etc., and like all other filth that develops in the body, it is simply a fact of life. It would be nice if authors started talking about the principles of hygiene, which command that when something gets dirty, we make it clean by washing it, not cutting it off.
The other thing that I wish the authors would have pointed out was that Matt, unlike children, did what he did to his penis out his own free volition; he had the freedom of choice. Intactivists would be equally as outraged if boys were born without foreskins, and doctors were sewing them on at birth.
I also feel that the author didn’t explore the dubious “potential benefits” of circumcision further:
“It is virtually impossible to get penile cancer when circumcised. It is similarly rare to see balanitis (inflammation of any residual foreskin) and it eliminates the possibility of phimosis, a condition in which the foreskin cannot retract from the glans. Snipped newborns are 10 times less likely to get a urinary tract infection.”
It is actually not impossible to get penile cancer when circumcised; it has been documented that the pleas of circumcised men who develop penile cancer are often ignored by doctors who find it hard to believe they even have penile cancer because they’re circumcised.
Is there a reason why the author doesn’t talk about the conventional treatment of balinitis which does NOT require circumcision?
Is there a reason the author doesn’t talk about how even when a man DOES get phimosis, circumcision is not always the first option?
Where is the author getting the figure that newborns are 10x less likely to get UTI? If I’m correct s/he is getting them from a study conducted by one Thomas Wiswell, who basically conducted his research on premature babies. This is important because UTIs are more common in premature babies to begin with, and this is agravated by the fact that premature babies have to be catheterized, iatrogenically introducing pathogens that cause UTI.
It must be noted that as high as UTIs are played up to be, UTIs are still 4x more common in girls than in boys. UTI is easily treated with antibiotics in girls, as in boys.
It makes absolutely on sense to be circumcising a healthy, non-consenting child to prevent a disease which is already quite rare, and which is already easily treatable.
“While the AAP and the CDC aren’t taking sides, the World Health Organization (WHO) considers circumcision part of a comprehensive HIV prevention program. They cite compelling evidence that it reduces the risk of HIV transmission in heterosexual sex by up to 60 percent.”
Which is relevant in babies who have ZERO SEX and are therefore at ZERO RISK for sexually transmitted HIV, right?
Isn’t anybody going to talk about the fact that HIV rates are HIGHER here in the US, where the majority of the male population is circumcised, and it is LOWER in various countries in Europe, where the majority of the male population sports anatomically correct genitalia?
If circumcision prevented HIV, wouldn’t HIV rates be LOWER in America, and RAMPANT in those countries where circumcision is not prevalent?
“Research released just last week indicates that circumcision also helps reduce the spread of human papillomavirus (HPV), which can lead to cervical cancer in women (HPV is the most prevalent sexually transmitted disease in the U.S.).”
But of course, if the author bothered to look, she would find that there is actually nothing “new” about this research.
Two years ago, Johns Hopkins analyzed the exact same Ugandan trials, arrived at the exact same “conclusions,” that circumcision “reduces the risk of HPV and herpes.”
Here we are, two years later, the basically do the same thing, arrive at the same conclusions, and display the same desparation: “circumcision rates are too low! States need to pay for it, and the AAP needs to recommend it!”
I guess it didn’t work the first time?
This is basically a re-hash, and the author wants to help plug this as “new research???”
Incidentally, let’s look at some of these magical numbers; male circumcision is supposed to “reduce” the risk of HPV by 35%, and of herpes by 28%. But are these numbers really all that significant? Men would STILL be at risk for HPV by 65%, and for herpes at 72%. HPV you can actually get rid of, but once you get herpes, you get it FOR LIFE. WHY does Johns Hopkins think it’s rational thinking to promote an alternative to the more effective STD prevention method that has been tried and true; condoms???
Says Dr. Pisner regarding the MGMBill: “[N]onsense… Even if you’re against circumcision,” he says, “why would you make it so that someone else couldn’t do it if they wanted?”
Biff! Bam! Another straw man demolished!
Does Pisner pay attention to ANYTHING?
Intactivists aren’t trying to make it so that someone else couldn’t do it if they wanted; they want to make it so that only necessary circumcisions are performed on minors, and, as much as possible, circumcision is a choice made by ADULT men on themselves.
The author, intentionally, or inadverdently, purports long-standing myths:
“[T]he comparison of male to female circumcision isn’t so straightforward. Female genital mutilation involves the total removal of the external female genitalia for non-medical reasons.”
Not always. The author describes only ONE KIND of female genital mutilation. Not all female genital mutilation involves the total removal of the external female genitalia.
And she further begs the question; what are the medical reasons for performing circumcisions in healthy, non-conseting individuals?
“The twain may never meet on the medical benefits or religious significance of male circumcision, or on the physiological truth to the joys of foreskin restoration. But it’s the leap to equate male circumcision with female genital mutilation that irks Hugo Schwyzer.”
Before we talk about Hugo, may we first know why “the twain may never meet?”
For better or for worse, female circumcision has religious significance in quite a few countries. In Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore, for example, circumcision is performed in baby girls in a procedure known as “Sunnat.”
This statement is rather bigotted; what it is saying is that the religious significance is enough to ratify male infant circumcision, but not enough to ratify female infant circumcision. Now, let’s see what Hugo has to say about it:
“I have no qualms about foreskin restoration. But let’s not equate circumcision with a man being robbed of his essence. And I don’t want him elevating what was a fundamentally minor surgical procedure to the status of mutilation. I find that offensive as a feminist in particular. And as man who’s been on both sides of it, I find it ridiculous.”
This is rather insulting to the many men who feel that circumcision has indeed robbed them of their essense.
Fundamentally minor, surgical procedure?
Precisely what is the matter with a healthy newborn baby boy that he requires surgery?
Without medical or clinical indication, isn’t mutilation precisely what the circumcision of healthy minors is?
I find it offensive, the double-standard that while taking a knife to a girl or woman’s genitals and cutting part of it off is “mutilation,” but taking a knife and cutting part of the organs of a boy or man off is called “minor surgical procedure.”
Just who are you to decide how men should feel about their bodies?
That’s right. You’re a feminist. You place primacy on the importance of women’s rigths, not that of males.
Women come first, men are 2nd class citizens.
Now we’re starting to get a picture of who this Hugo character is.
“Four years ago, Schwyzer, a writer and college professor living in Los Angeles, wrote a magazine article about the circumcision he had as an adult. He was, in his own words, ‘hammered by the anti-circumcision’ people who perpetuated ‘the false equivalence between male circumcision and female genital mutilation.’”
So this man decides to go for circumcision as an adult. Interesting.
“All of that leads me to be very clear that there is no comparison. It’s used as a serious argument. It cheapens and diminishes the discussion about circumcision. And invalidates what are some reasons we should rethink infant circumcision.”
How so, Hugo, how so?
Who is trying to compare male and female circumcision? The argument is that taking a healthy, non-consenting individual and cutting his genitals, in whole or in part, violates the same principle, no matter what sex.
How is talking about the genital mutilation of one sex diminish the discussion about the genital mutilation of the other?
What reasons that we should rethink infant circumcision are invalidated?
“[Schwyzer's] decision to undergo a circumcision when he was 37 was fueled by a hard-earned combination of medical and psychological imperatives. Schwyzer was an alcohol, drug, and sex addict who managed to earn a Ph.D. while burning through three marriages. ‘I was very much your classic addict, so my penis went a lot of places,’ he says. Those ‘places’ inflicted a series of sex-related injuries that involved repeated tearing of the frenulum, the triangle of skin where the foreskin attaches to the underside of the penis. Life in the fast lane over 18 years took its toll on Schwyzer, who calls himself ‘a walking cliché.’ He ended up in a hospital emergency room on death’s door.”
Interesting story… is there a reason why he decided undergo a full circumcision when his problems involved only a tight banjo string? I’m not sure I understand this; he was in an emergency room because of a torn frenulum?
“Schwyzer underwent circumcision just before he married his current wife. ‘I did it for two reasons: to deal with frenular tearing and scarring, and to symbolize this commitment to enduring monogamy.’”
I’m not sure how any of this makes any sense. Circumcising yourself symbolises commitment to monogamy because…
I mean, I know plenty of guys who have stuck with their wives for years, and they didn’t need to get circumcised…
“And not only is the pain gone, but the pleasure has not been reduced. The pleasure is as strong as it ever was.”
How would we be able to measure this? I’d like to talk to him in a few years and see if he still feels the same…
“I’ve met men who were circumcised as infants who have an amazingly deep sense they were robbed of something. Dude, get over yourself!
He further explains: “The penis I had had, uncircumcised, had been with a lot of people. With the circumcised penis, I would only be sexual with my wife. It wasn’t born-again virginity. It was a way of saying, ‘Look, I am different.’””
WHAT???
First off, who the hell are you to tell others to “get over themselves?” What would you think of someone who had the nerve to tell a woman who feels violated because of her mutilation to “get over herself?”
Oh, that’s right. I must remember that Hugo is a feminist and as a sexist jerk, he can disregard men’s feelings about their own bodies.
And second, you had to be circumcised to be faithful with your wife??? Hello, logic? Were are you???
“If a guy wants to do foreskin restoration, knock yourself out,” Schwyzer says. ‘But for the men who feel they lost something—the foreskin wasn’t all that. I had great experiences with it. Foreskin can be integrated into sex play. There’s no question there are nerve endings there,’ Schwyzer continued. ‘But I’ve met men who were circumcised as infants who have an amazingly deep sense they were robbed of something. Dude, get over yourself!’”
Excuse me, YOU had the choice to mutilate yourself. You liked it, that’s fine. But who the hell are you to be telling others that they should be happy because YOU are?
What about the men circumcised as adults who fully regret it?
Author, why didn’t you include a story an a man who regretted being circumcised as an adult to balance this asshole’s rant out???
YOU had a choice. The men who are angry didn’t. That’s the whole POINT.
Geez.
“But this idea that circumcision was this horrific violation comparable to sex abuse, and that you were deprived of something extraordinarily valuable? Having had a lot of sex both ways, I can say no. I find it ridiculous.”
YOU WERE NOT DEPRIVED OF THIS CHOICE, HUGO.
You CONSENTED.
The difference between sex and rape is CHOICE.
I’m sure tattoos are a wonderful thing.
I’m not so sure that Jews that were tattooed in internment camps appreciate it though.
This Hugo asshole misses the whole point.
“‘Let’s step back and take a deep breath,’ Dr. Pis[n]er says. ‘This is a valid, valuable medical procedure. Whether you want to do it to help protect your child from urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and HIV transmission, or whether you want to do it electively as an adult. That’s personal. But there is a huge psychological component to all of this.’”
But wait, we’re talking about two or three completely different “persons” here. The person to whom the penis belongs to, and his parents.
Nevermind the fact that UTIs are quite rare and easily dealt with, nevermind that a child is NOT at risk for penile cancer or HIV transmission.
wiki:
This article is about smegma, a secretion of mammalian genitals.
Since when was wiki a reliable source?
So tell me then. Where is smegma extreted from?
Are there such things as “smegma glands?” “Smegma ducts?”
Yes? No?
The answer is that smegma is like accumulation of dead cells and OTHER secretions anywhere. Ever clean behind your ears? Dirt from underneath your fingernails?
It consists of mostly dead cells, but is universally defined as a secretion.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/smegma
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/ate/menshealth/205363.html
http://www.medicalfaq.net/what_is_smegma_/ta-112252
And women get smegma, as much as or more than men. Smegma is about as toxic as earwax.
While I applaud everything you’ve written here, Joseph, you’re wasting your breath with Hugo. He doesn’t care about anything affecting men unless it also affects women, and then he only cares about the women.
Also, he won’t listen to anything you say, because you’re not a woman.
When a doctor performs the wrong procedure on the wrong patient, that doctor can be held liable for malpractice.
When a doctor knowingly profits from performing medically unnessecary procedures on a healthy, unwitting patient, that doctor can be held liable for medical fraud if the patient were to become aware of that doctor’s actions.
But here is the bottom line:
Without any medical or clinical indication whatsoever, how can doctors be performring surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals? Let alone be giving parents any kind of a “choice?”
Isn’t it professional abuse to be confronting the parents of a healthy child with a bogus dilemma, and having them make a non-existent “choice?”
The foreskin is not a birth defect. Nor is it a congenital deformity or a genetic anomaly like a cleft or a 6th finger.
The foreskin is normal, healthy tissue found in all boys at birth.
Circumcision is the deliberate destruction of normal, healthy tissue. It is a deliberate wound and it puts a child at risk for infection, partial or full ablation, and even death.
Unless there is medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of minors is by definition infant genital mutilation.
It is abuse in more ways than one:
It professional abuse of the doctor to be presenting parents with the bogus dilemma of the “big decision.”
And, it is ultimately the abuse of the child himself, who is unable to give consent.
Doctors who perform infant circumcision in healthy, non-consenting newborns are in the business of mutilating baby boys.
They profit at the expense of the child.
Doctors who perform infant circumcisions on healthy, non-consenting individuals are guilty of charlatanism, child abuse, and medical fraud.
Circumcising doctors are guilty of all these things, and the day draws near when they shall be held accountable for their actions.
The day of justice for men draweth near, fellas’…
Lo it is in San Francisco, knocking at our door.
If not San Francisco, then somewhere else.
But the day is coming when the floodgates will burst open.
Given that the risks of UTIs, Penile Cancer and transmission of HIV, HPV are not applicable to the early years of a child’s life, given the lack of sexual activity (except in the case of UTIs which is a ridiculous claim to make, I wouldn’t chop off my nose if it reduced the risk of getting sinusitis) it’s shameful that a Doctor would encourage the non-consensual, surgical alteration of a child’s physiology (often times that of a newborn even!). This is further compounded by the fact that all of these benefits can be gained later in life when one has reached the age of consent and reason and can decide for themselves if they want to submit themselves to this kind of irreversible process. (When I say irreversible I’m referring to the fact that the nerve endings are irreplaceable, which is distinct from the variable sensitivity of the glans)
By arch-circumcision Thomas Wiswell’s own figures, more than 440 circumcisions would be wasted to prevent one urinary tract infection. The figures for other ailments are as high or higher. Circumcisionists love to shroud-wave about penile cancer, but it would take well over 1000 circumcisions to prevent one case.
Alisha you say you can’t believe that any man has experienced the kind of pain and fear that African girls are put through when being cut. This is rather ignorant and in its kneejerk sexism also rather offensive.
This story outlines just how male circumcision is done in many communities around the world – just the same circumstances – children aged between 5-10 years old are held down by up to six adults. Many end up in hospital as a result, and deaths do occur too. [In South Africa last year 91 boys and young men died of circumcision wounds, with others surviving but losing their penis to gangrene - even in clinical conditions in the US over 100 boys pa are estimated to die from circ.]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1670590.stm
If you want to know what male circumcision looks like in most places in the world try looking at these pictures. I hope you will feel ashamed that knowing nothing about the male experience of circumcision still you sought to trivialise it. Consider for a moment how these boys feel about the mother who handed them over to receive this kind of treatment, and didn’t protect them. The world will be a safer place for everyone when we stop brutalising kids.
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/76625506/AFP
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/74949650/Getty-Images-News
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/74970532/AFP
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/74971113/AFP
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/77236129/AFP
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/88961157/AFP
Thanks for this LG – reminds me that I made the right decision by not having my son circumcised (and that the opinions of men who are against it should be respected).
To those that claim FGM and MGM are not comparable, a side by side comparison:
FGC MGM
Cutting? YES YES
Of the genitals? YES YES
Of babies? YES YES
Of children? YES YES
Without consent? YES YES
At parents’ behest? YES YES
Removing erogenous tissue? YES YES
Supposedly beneficial? YES YES
Justified by aesthetics? YES YES
Justified by supposed health benefits? YES YES
Justified by religion? YES YES
Justified by sexual effects? YES YES
Justified by custom? YES YES
Justified by conformity? YES YES
Effects minimized by its supporters? YES YES
Performed by its adult victims? YES YES
Extremely painful? YES YES
Can cause harm? YES YES
Very severe damage? USUALLY SOMETIMES
Can cause death? YES YES
Legal in Western countries? NO YES
The bottom line – strapping a human being down and cutting their genitals is a violation of human rights. It is most appalling when the victim of genital cutting violence is a newborn and has no ability to fight back or say NO. Would you want that done to you?
20,000 nerves, fine touch receptors, 6 layers of specialized skin cells, 15 square inches of erogenous skin – don’t try to tell me this important sex organ has no purpose. That just doesn’t happen in evolution, sorry to burst your pro-circ bubble. Wake up and stop cutting baby penises, that’s sick.
Nicely put. I’ll have to save that checklist.
Check out foregen everyone – they’re raising money through donations to launch a clinical trial in foreskin regeneration that will regenerate everything lost to circumcision at foregen.org through regenerative medicine
I WANT MY FORESKIN!
I WANT MY FORESKIN
I like my circumcised dick. I like the way it LOOKS and the way it FEELS. I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with having been cut as a baby. Since I never had the experience of bacon hangin off my dick, I have no cause for regret, or longing. Its absurd what I read these neurotic obsessives say about their lost wang skin. Absurd. Its clear to me they suffer from some mental derangement they have chosen to attach to their dicks and blame their lack of appeal (due to laziness in sex and ignorance about how to earn the interest of a partner by being stimulating) to anyone unlucky enough to share their bed and their dick.
Get a clue and GROW UP.
“I never had the experience of bacon hangin off my dick” Who has? The one-eyed film-maker Errol Morris talks in much the same disparaging way about three-dimensional vision.
“Tally has been tugging on his penis for two years” has to be the greatest opening line in the history of American journalism.
Thank you! I thought it was clever too!
That Dr. Piser visibly knows nothing about intact, functioning penises. The foreskin keeps the urinary meatus sterile and the glans moist and protected from germs, contaminants, irritants, etc. MGM victims are not only deprived from 80% of their penis’ nerve endings, their glans becomes keratinized and loses most of its own sensitivity. The glans is an internal organ, it is not supposed to be constantly exposed to everything. Besides, Piser completely ignores the deep trauma infant circumcision, with its excruciating, coma-inducing pain, causes. And those are not even the reasons not to circumcise; circumcision is simply immoral, whether the child still “looks intact” or not. Not your body, not your right, not your choice.
FGM is the same as MGM. Done for the same religious/traditional bullshit, have the same destructive physical and psychological results, both are an infraction of sentient beings’ rights, etc. Since girls are protected from genital mutilation, it is constitutional for boys to have the same right.
Anyway, great article. It’s honestly awesome to finally read a post related to circumcision that isn’t “in between the lines” pro-circ (and those never back up their “arguments”~).
Like Mr. Schwyzer, I was cut later in life (I was almost 18), and by then I’d already been sexually active for a few years. The operation was done at the insistence of the family doctor, whom my parents and I trusted. Unlike Schwyzer, though, I can say unequivocally that sex felt much better when I had my foreskin. That’s why I have been restoring since July 2010. Restoration may not give me back the nerve endings that were removed surgically … but it is quickly returning my glans to its normal state — moist, dekeratinized (like the inside of one’s lips), and protected from friction against my clothing. And a lot of the feeling that I’ve been missing is absolutely returning. I can even masturbate these days — or *be* masturbated — without using lube.
Why, oh why, would we base what we do in the U.S., on problems some men might suffer in second- and third-world countries? Cleanliness is important … and it could hardly be any easier to achieve for a foreskin owner. Are parents so g–damned lazy these days, that they can’t teach their boys to run some water over and around their penises?
I don’t hear about penile cancer rates being outrageously high in mostly-uncut Europe, by the way. And y’know, if baby girls’ breasts were routinely removed shortly after they were born, there’d be a whole lot less breast cancer as adults.
In developed countries, there is usually no truly compelling reason to perform this surgery on an infant. If God really wanted the foreskin gone, He could eliminate it with a snap of His giant fingers. Let the boys decide for themselves, when they’re old enough, whether they want to have it done.
I agree with you, but the fact that the human mind can conceive of genital cutting and act it out on babies is probably, not definitely, proof that there is no God. It is definitely a superstitious extension of religion. Believe me, I hope there is a God and that the ones who have vehemently done this to children are shown the ere of their ways. So why refer to God as “His giant fingers?” Wouldn’t “he” have already used those same fingers to snap this travesty out of existence in some way? But I appreciate your thoughts on this.
Male genital mutilation, euphemistically called “circumcision”, is a violation of human rights and denies males their self determination as adults. The human mind has decided to justify this abhorrent behaviour as acceptable and normal. If it were being introduced as something new today, it would be considered as ridiculous as removing fingertips to prevent hangnails and the dirt that lodges under them. One only has to refer to the Aesop’s fable “The Fox Without a Tail” to see the truth. Some men must continue justifying this atrocity to make the atrocity correct in their minds. This is a really sad lesson in psychological denial and self justification, which has and will continue to sexually maim and kill uncounted and unrecognised victims, and this must stop!