L-E-A-V-E M-Y P-E-N-I-S A-L-O-N-E!
The male foreskin is a highly innervated erogenous organ that is dense with specialized mucosa and over 20,000 high sensory nerve endings. It acts as a natural buffer and lubricant during sex. Researchers using fine-touch medical instruments shows it is the most sensitive part of the penis. That might explain why a recent study in Denmark found circumcised men have a much higher rate of sexual problems than intact men. Research also found circumcised men are five times more likely to suffer from premature ejaculation than intact men.
Male genital mutilation (MGM), or “circumcision,” is gynecologically equivalent to removing a girl’s clitoral foreskin, the most common form of female genital mutilation (FGM). All forms of FGM are illegal in the U.S. despite similar purported health benefits as MGM and despite certain cultures that support it. Even a small ceremonial incision on a girl’s genitals is illegal. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a known opponent of FGM, explains how MGM can be even worse than FGM.
Most men throughout the world are not circumcised. Europeans, Latin Americans, Asian/Pacific Islanders, Africans, and American Indians, generally do not mutilate their boys, with some exceptions. Boys in those cultures learn to wash with soap and water just as girls do, which is all that is needed.
National medical associations throughout the world either oppose or don’t recommend MGM. Most notably, a recent report by the Dutch Medical Association, representing 46,000 physicians and medical students and backed by seven other medical associations, explains that the male foreskin is an important erotogenic structure for which no medical benefit justifies its routine removal, that it is comparable to certain forms of FGM, and that it violates children’s rights to bodily integrity.
Likewise, the Swedish Paediatric Society has called infant male circumcision an assault on boys.
The British and Australian medical associations both recently denounced any medical justification for routine infant male circumcision.
Even the Children’s Rights International Network lists male circumcision as a human rights violation.
In this moving video of a baby boy being mutilated, psychologists explain that MGM is not only extremely painful to an infant but also how it can cause lifetime trauma. www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAGNnqyNidY www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle6/
Non-religious circumcision has been traced to the prevention of masturbation in both sexes. In the United States and in England, circumcision was initially popularized to prevent boys from masturbating. Eventually, the English stopped doing it. The U.S., however, has continuously tried to find medical justifications for it. Circumcision has historically been a cure looking for a disease, constantly being claimed to prevent one disease after another and repeatedly disproved afterwards. For more, see www.circumstitions.com/
In Manila they recently used a soccer stadium to genitally mutilate 1,500 boys without anesthesia to make the Guinness Book of World Records for the most circumcisions performed on boys nine and older! Fortunately, the Guinness Book of World Records wanted nothing to do with this horrendously bloody event.
Recently, three clinical trials in Africa found that MGM reduces the chances of HIV in Africa, and as a result the World Health Organization recommended circumcising adult men in sub Saharan African to prevent HIV. But the research has been highly controverted. See http://allafrica.com/stories/201203210706.html
The South African Medical Journal has vehemently challenged the faulty studies that claim circumcision reduces HIV. The South African Medical Association expressed “serious concern that not enough scientifically-based evidence was available to confirm that circumcisions prevented HIV contraction and that the public at large was influenced by incorrect and misrepresented information,” and also stated infant MGM is unethical and illegal.
“Controversy is rife over the findings that male circumcision can reduce female-to-male HIV transmission by up to 60 percent. New research has cast doubt on the supposed efficacy of the procedure with an article in the December Australian Journal of Law and Medicine citing numerous flaws in the Kenya, South Africa and Uganda studies.” Doctors in Uganda and elsewhere have challenged the findings as well.
Numerous observational studies in Africa contradict the findings of the clinical trials. For example, this recent study, Male Circumcision in the General Population of Kisumu, Kenya: Beliefs about Protection, Risk Behaviors, HIV, and STIs, found no association between circumcision and high rates of HIV.
A 2007 study by Gregory J. Boyle and George Hillalso found no association.
According to a report by USAID, “There appears no clear pattern of association between male circumcision and HIV prevalence—in 8 of 18 countries with data, HIV prevalence is lower among circumcised men, while in the remaining 10 countries it is higher.”
Reports in Zimbabwe, Uganda and elsewhere show circumcision is increasing HIV rates because the men think it makes them immune.
Renowned Dr. Dean Edell called the African/HIV conclusions “silly” and warned, “it will backfire.” explaining the gender double standard and how condoms and education are the solution, etc. www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlsUg0sdAtE
The President of Uganda has rejected circumcision as an HIV preventative and declared the research to be misleading.
And according to a military study, MGM does not affect HIV rates in American men.
Even if MGM did reduce the chances of HIV, it would not justify the mutilation of a baby boy’s penis without his consent. It would not be justified to remove a testicle from a baby boy just to reduce his chances of testicular tumors and cancer by 50 percent.
It’s his body, and his choice.
For more on MGM, visit:
- 1. The Whole Network www.thewholenetwork.org
- 2. Circumcision Resource Center www.circumcision.org
- 3. Attorneys for the Rights of the Child www.arclaw.org
- 4. Beyond the Bris www.beyondthebris.com/
Long-term adverse outcomes from neonatal circumcision reported in a survey of 1,008 men: an overview of health and human rights implications (International Journal of Human Rights, 2017)
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13642987.2016.1260007
A Preliminary Poll of Men Circumcised in Infancy or Childhood (BJU International, 1999)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1085.x/pdf
Global Survey of Circumcision Harm (includes photo gallery)
http://www.CircumcisionHarm.org
Whose Body, Whose Rights? (video documentary)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JsieythZvU&t=2534s
Foreskin Restoration
http://www.ForeskinRestoration.info
Tim,
Thank you. Very useful and informative information which should be readily available to everyone.
For another helpful resource in the fight to end routine infant circumcision, please visit yourwholebaby.org. It is perfect to send to expecting parents who need to read factual, pro-foreskin information that leads them to understand the harms of circumcision and the benefits of staying intact. There are state discussion groups and facebook pages for anyone looking to share, learn, or become an activist.
I am a Male Sex Researcher/Therapist and I was also a Public Health Nurse Practioner for 10 years & I ONLY worked with men/adolescents from all orientations/expressions. I adore ALL MEN 🙂 I saw first hand the COMPLETE DAMAGES done by circs gone wrong. Don’t Dr’s know to stay away from Cocks??? Our Cocks define us in so many beautiful ways. I lived in France for 3 years & NO ONE gets cut there, its illegal. To Cut or Not Cut is NOT a parents RIGHT!!! Its ABUSE!! parents/health professionals must understand that these issues are to be FREELY CHOSEN by the boy, if he so choses. Circumcising a Cock DOESN’T STOP ANY STI, to suggest otherwise is stupid. ALL of my cut patients told me they want their hoodies back. To cut or not to cut is INAPPROPRIATE for anyone but the male child to decide. This a Human Right/Reproductive Right/UN Declaration of Human Rights FORBIDS cutting! I 100% agree!!! I luv a guy with a Foreskin, there BEAUTIFUL
im a 21 year old male who has been circumsized and honestly i feel like todays society is all about meddleing into other peoples lives and makeing everyone identical to each other, i mean sure rights should be equal but we should also accept that people have beliefs whether you’re jewish, christian/catholic, muslim, buddhist, sikh, hindu, atheist, etc. we should all seriously just mind what is in your life and just focus on what is yours and not what other people (men, women or even in the LGBT community) do in their lives like seriously this is the fucking 21st century and maybe we should focus on our selves first before others then maybe we will see a change in society as we know it.
Sorry, friend, but you have it backwards. Circumcision on babies only continues because of making everyone look the same. A boy is stripped of his choice over his body so he can look like his Dad. On the contrary, the movement to end infant circumcision gives the right of the choice whether to go through life with a foreskin or without one back to the person who should have it – the owner of the penis. It’s his body, it should be his choice. If he wants a part removed as an adult, he can always choose that. Please visit yourwholebaby.org for fabulous info on the benefits of foreskin and the losses and harms of circumcision.
Thanks for all links to the information in this article, as well as in the comments.
I recently started a thread on male genital mutilation in a discussion forum (Beliefnet), and I am stunned at the irrationality at which this topic is approached.
I have one argument to make on this topic. It goes like this:
It is true that the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the equal protection of the laws for male as for female children, exactly as it guarantees that there cannot be sex discrimination in the naming of administrators of estates (Reed v. Reed (1971)), and as it guarantees that admission policies of state-supported universities cannot discriminate on the basis of sex (Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan (1982); US v. Virginia (1996)).
And it is true that Title 18, Part I, Chapter 7, § 116 of the US Code is a constitutional law that protects female children from violations of their rights of privacy and bodily integrity by being subjected to the non-therapeutic genital mutilation such as amputation of the prepuce.
Given that the above two facts are true, the conclusion of the following deduction is true:
P1: A Constitutionally protected right for female children is a Constitutionally protected right for male children.
P2: The right to not be subjected to genital mutilation such as the non-therapeutic amputation of the prepuce is a Constitutionally protected right for female children.
C: Therefore, the right to not be subjected to genital mutilation such as the non-therapeutic amputation of the prepuce is a Constitutionally protected right for male children.
M = P
S = M
Therefore, S = P
valid first figure syllogism!
A new study of Caribbean men was just published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine and found: “Compared with uncircumcised men, circumcised men have accumulated larger numbers of STI in their lifetime, have higher rates of previous diagnosis of warts, and were more likely to have HIV infection.” Opposite of what we’re told. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02871.x/abstract
Half of Australian doctors cconsider infant male circumcision to be child abuse.
http://www.australiandoctor.com.au/news/latest-news/strong-opposition-to-newborn-circumcision?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Australian+Doctor+Newsletter+-+send+-%3E+9%2F08%2F2012+2%3A40%3A24+PM&utm_content&spMailingID=4612950&spUserID=NDY2NzI4MTc1NAS2&spJobID=50258862&spReportId=NTAyNTg4NjIS1
Half of the Australian Doctor community believe that the circumcision of newborns is tantamount to child abuse and should never be performed, a survey reveals.
Findings from an online poll show that 74% of those responding to the question ‘should parents be routinely offered circumcision for their newborns in the public system’ said no.
Of these 51% likened the procedure to child abuse, while a further 23% said circumcision was a personal or religious choice and should only be available to parents of newborns in the private sector. One doctor wrote: “Circumcision is a personal or religious choice. However, it is a choice that is not made by the person that it is being done to. At the age of majority, the decision…
Half of Australian doctors consider infant male circumcision to be child abuse.
http://www.australiandoctor.com.au/news/latest-news/strong-opposition-to-newborn-circumcision?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Australian+Doctor+Newsletter+-+send+-%3E+9%2F08%2F2012+2%3A40%3A24+PM&utm_content&spMailingID=4612950&spUserID=NDY2NzI4MTc1NAS2&spJobID=50258862&spReportId=NTAyNTg4NjIS1
Half of the Australian Doctor community believe that the circumcision of newborns is tantamount to child abuse and should never be performed, a survey reveals.
Findings from an online poll show that 74% of those responding to the question ‘should parents be routinely offered circumcision for their newborns in the public system’ said no.
Of these 51% likened the procedure to child abuse, while a further 23% said circumcision was a personal or religious choice and should only be available to parents of newborns in the private sector. One doctor wrote: “Circumcision is a personal or religious choice. However, it is a choice that is not made by the person that it is being done to. At the age of majority, the decision…
I’m 65, circumcised and very happy about it. Thanks to Mom and Dad who are long ago deceased. The guys in this video are just quacks trying to sell books.
This subjective opinion proves nothing. The surgery objectively destroys a network of extremely sensitive nervous tissue — a 100% complication rate even when the surgery has no further adverse results (like infection, hemorrhage, meatal stenosis, disfigurement, or death).
By the way, I am 63 and very unhappy that this mutilation was done to me as a non-consenting infant, since I now have an area of numbness where my frenulum should have been. I spoke with my father (intact like all of his brothers) about this issue a few years ago (he is now deceased), and he admitted that it was done out of ignorance, merely following the opinion of a (Jewish) family doctor who also circumcised my brother and male cousins. According to my father, this physician claimed it was better for “cleanliness”. I replied to my father about simply using soap and water to achieve the same goal instead of resorting to the knife. My father agreed, but decades too late for me.
The Finnish Medical Association said "child circumcisions are in conflict with medical ethics." Nice to see progress. :- )www.hs.fi/english/article/NEWS+ANALYSIS+Finland+lacks+policy+on+religiously-mandated+male+circumcision/1329104229469
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/07/29/brutality-…
!). The foreskin is not an ORGAN. It is SKIN. It can also be a health risk because it can get dirty, be difficult to clean, and cause horrible infections. This is why plenty of religions force foreskin removal.
2). What about the thousands of women who are forced to undergo clitoral circumcision without anesthesia simply because it can bring pleasure? I fail to see the fairness in whether it is not okay for men, but perfectly okay for women.
Don't get me wrong, I am male, and I still have my foreskin. However, I believe in equality for all sexes and gender.
Female circumcision is not regarded as ok, it is illegal. When our society found out about it going on in certain parts of the world there was public outrage. Male circumsions are regarded as ok by society and expected.
Skin is actually considered an organ by the way.
Female circumcision is done in plenty of countries. Just because it is not legal in the United States, does not mean it doesn't happen elsewhere.
Male circumcision is regarded as more acceptable due to a higher wide-spread view of religious practice and the idea that the foreskin contains and holds more bacteria, therefore causing more infections and whatnot. More Western religions deem male circumcision as acceptable, and there are quite a few Eastern religions that do as well. Less Western religions deem female circumcision acceptable.
I am not saying there is anything fair at all to it, however, I feel that religion does tend to have a greater say in anything regardless of the topic. Look at government. It is supposed to be separate from religion, however we always still have religious debates in politics anyway.
Nonsense, Devon. First of all, skin itself is an organ. And the foreskin has much more than skin. It's packed with specialized mucosa and errogenous tissue. Try reading the medical reports from the Dutch and British medical associations rather than relying on myths and presumptions. And when did we say it's ok to circumcise women? It's wrong to do to ANY child. But it's only illegal to do to women. That's called a double standard .
Excellent new paper published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1753…
Another study, this one in Korea.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464…
CONCLUSION: "There was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings."
So? Are you trying to prove that all men want is sex? NO CIRCUMCISION CAUSE WE CAN'T MASTURBATE!
….
What about the women who are not allowed to even feel sexual pleasure? But I am sure that it is ALL ABOUT YOUR sexual pleasure. Cause you are a MAN.
Anon, the most common type of female circumcision is the removal of the clitoral foreskin, not removal of the clitoris. And ALL types of female circumcision, even the less intrusive ones, are illegal. That's the double standard . Removing the clitoral foreskin still allows women to feel pleasure. That doesn't make it ok. Same for men. And when did i say all men want is sex? You're not making any sense with that comment. The point is that circumcision is reducing men's pleasure in both sex and masturbation, just as it does to women when they remove the clitoral hood. Try to understand that for a moment, because it appears you're not getting it.
The South African Medical Association just denounced infant male circumcision as unethical and illegal and expressed "serious concern that not enough scientifically-based evidence was available to confirm that circumcisions prevented HIV contraction and that the public at large was influenced by incorrect and misrepresented information. The committee reiterated its view that it did not support circumcision to prevent HIV transmission."
http://www.intactnews.pfeyz.com/openpublish/artic…
Brand new study from Denmark. "Circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfillment." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=21672947
Brand new study from Denmark. "Circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfillment."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=21672947
A new study shows that circumcised men are almost five times more likely to suffer from premature ejaculation. (Tang WS, Khoo EM. Prevalence and correlates of premature ejaculation, J Sex Med 2011)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21492404
In Manila they recently used a soccer stadium to genitally mutilate 1,500 boys without anesthesia to make a world record.
Look at the faces of these boys!
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.standaa...
Unbelievable!
At least the Guinness Book of World Records is refusing to recognize it. http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/306467
The latest report in Uganda says circumcisions are INCREASING HIV rates because the men think it makes them immune.
http://allafrica.com/stories/201105050159.html
Uganda: New HIV/Aids Messages Worsening HIV Situation
This is exactly what Dr. Dean Edell warned about, saying "it will backfire."
I wish I still had my foreskin…My circumcision left me with horrible scars on my penis 🙁
Because everyone is going to see it? O_o
And you would say that to a woman who had her genitals mutilate? I doubt it, given your other posts, Devin. You’re a complete idiot.
Good for you for bucking the system and being kind to your boys. They *will* appreciate your decision when they can understand. My mother also showed forethought and mercy on this topic. Something for which I am grateful.
Jack, the male foreskin is a highly-evolved, functioning sexual organ packed with high-sensory nerve endings. It is nothing at all like an appendix.
Foreskin is NOT an ORGAN. It is SKIN. Why do you think it is called "foreSKIN"? It is not muscle. It is not bone. It is not an ORGAN. The PENIS is the organ. The foreSKIN is the skin AROUND the organ.
Skin along is an organ. So some research. And the foreskin consists of specialized mucosa and over 20,000 high sensory erogenous nerve endings. Read the reports by the Dutch and British medical associations. Seriously, do some research before spewing myths.
alone.
https://www.livescience.com/27115-skin-facts-diseases-conditions.html
The appendix actually does contribute to immune function much like the inner foreskin does. The inner foreskin contain t lymphocyte cells which secrete lysozyme (an enzyme which kills bacteria and viruses). And langerhans cells show protective function against H.I.V. Many valuable langherhans cells are lost to dick docking.
Let's stick to evolution in two aspects:
1) Some stuff like foreskin, appendix and tailbone evolution has not yet finished perfecting. So we should correct/improve it if we want to have an edge.
2) Darwin: If what Jews do to their kids is so against nature and results in a disadvantage, no Jew would today be alive if you add to that disadvantage 2000 years of discrimination, oppression, pogroms and almost total genocide.
Survival of the fittest has been proven beyond the slightest doubt by the Jewish people.
Nonsense, Jack. This isn’t about survival. It’s about the removal of a functioning sexual organ without that person’s consent. Of course the person will survive. But it’s a human right violation just as it is when you remove a baby girls’ clitoral hood. Those tribes that do that have “survived” just fine, but it’s still wrong and illegal. Survival has nothing to do with it.
All I can say is that I did my homework before my boys were born and even though boys have been brainwashed into believing circumcision is the cool thing do do because they think it is more socially acceptable , I'm sorry you couldn't fool me, I don't believe in cutting off the foreskin of a newborn so that he supposedly fits in,BS