Health plans cut circumcision

I had no idea about the issues surounding circumcision until recently.

I was 20 and pregnant with my first son. As I neared my 9th month my doctor told me to be thinking about circumcision. She never offered any real advice, she mainly discussed price because it was not covered (I had private insurance).

I spoke to my baby's dad (who has been in a lot of locker rooms -I am sure he has seen a lot of guys, and is circumcised himself) he never said much, and we agreed that father and son should be alike in that way. Also the male pediatrician that treated my son when he was born, and performed the circumcision, only spoke about the 'hygiene issues' and said it was really just a parents personal preference.

Me and the father were both present when the procedure was done.

When my second son was born a year later, I figure he should be circumcised just like his brother.

No one EVER told me about the nerves and loss of sexual sensation.

Now I regret that it was ever done. And ya know, now that I'm thinking about it, the literature that they hand out to you about circumcision doesn't say all that much. Just talks about hygiene and stuff.

I used to think that circumcision was the right thing to do b/c I was raised in a family where my father, my brother, and I were circumcised. We were also a pretty religious family and my father was aware of the parts of the Bible that claim things like 'no uncircumcised man will enter heaven', which of course is completely untrue.

In the New Testament, the bible also says that circumcision is not necessary to be Christian. St. Paul decided this. He said "you have to circumcise your heart, not your body".

Given this, and the fact that something could go wrong, and the fact that child has to suffer through the procedure, and the fact that part of the penis is being removed permanently and for no good reason, and it becomes quite clear how pointless it really is.

Perhaps it would be beneficial for hygiene if we all lived in the desert and there was no water anywhere (like in the days of the old testament), but we live where there is plenty of running water and we can bathe whenever we want. Thus, circumcision is clearly not necessary or even sensible.

Evan AKA X-TRNL
Real Men Don't Take Abuse!

Are you willing to pay the entire cost of having reconstructive surgery done for both of your sons? (That is, should they decide they want to be restored using a surgical method as opposed to a non-surgical method.)

Are you willing to fork out the $$$ to have the surgery performed for both of them if they want it?

----------

"[John Galt] raised his hand and over the desolate earth he traced in space the sign of the dollar." -Atlas Shrugged

The real question is why on earth are any states funding circumcision? Removing a girl's foreskin is a crime, so why don't boys get the same protection? Why is it legal to cut off the most sensitive part of a boy's body before he's old enough to make his own decision?

If my son wants to be circumcised when he's 18 (16 if he knows what he's doing), I'll pay for it and help him find a good surgeon. Until then, he stays intact. His body - his decision. If he wants to be circumcised later, it's easy to fix - safer, less painful, and better cosmetic results. If we'd had him circumcised, and he wanted to be intact, it's a problem.

It's worth remembering that we wouldn't even be having this discussion if it weren't for the fact that 19th century doctors thought that :
a) masturbation caused various physical and mental problems (including epilepsy, convulsions, paralysis, tuberculosis etc), and
b) circumcision stopped masturbation.

Both of those sound ridiculous today I know, but if you don't believe me, then check out this link:
A Short History of Circumcision in North America In the Physicians' Own Words

Over a hundred years later, circumcised men keep looking for new ways to defend the practice.

Fortunately, the practice seems to be dying out.

Drops in male circumcision:
USA: from 90% to 57%
Canada: from 47% to 14%
UK: from 35% to about 4% (less than 1% among non-Muslims)
Australia: 90% to 12.6% ("routine" circumcision has recently been *banned* in public hospitals in all states except one, so the rate will now be a lot lower)
New Zealand: 95% to below 3% (mostly Samoans and Tongans)
South America and Europe: never above 5%

You're kidding right? Or is this your desperate attempt to spew anger towards me (a female)?

Are you circumcised? And if so, are you suing your parents? Are you encouraging any and all circumcised males at this sight to sue their parents? I didn't think so. That's why I know your post is only a pathetic rant towards any female that dares to post at this site.

The male doctor that performed the circumcisions should have given me complete and accurate information about circumcision. If I had known then what I know now, I would not have chosen it. That is the point that I am trying to make. Also, my boys' father had the final decision on this matter.

Nobody said anything about a lawsuit.

I asked if you were willing to fork out the money to pay for a surgical reversal. You know, as in VOLUNTEERING to pay for the surgery. They shouldn't have to sue you since you should be WILLING to pay to undo the damage you caused.

You are willing, aren't you?

----------

"[John Galt] raised his hand and over the desolate earth he traced in space the sign of the dollar." -Atlas Shrugged

Okay, I will keep entertaining you. Yes, I will pay for reconstruction if my boys ask for it. I think the chances of them asking is like zero.

I looked back at other threads in regards to circumcision and xtrnl's post above and cannot help but notice that you have NEVER asked a male if they are going to ask their parents to pay for reconstruction. Why not?. Oh yeah, you only like to hassle females. You should stop because you are not very good at it.

The reason, dear Kris, is that they can make up their own minds whether they want to ask for their parents to pay for the surgery. You know, it's THEIR choice. It's not up to me to try and persuade them one way or the other.

I ask YOU if you are willing to pay because in the event that your sons decide they do want it reversed, YOU are the one morally obligated to fix the damage you caused.

Granted, it's your sons' choice if they want to ask you. And it's your obligation to take every step necessary to undo the damage you had a hand in causing.

Hey, if you're truly willing to pay, hat's off to you.

----------

"[John Galt] raised his hand and over the desolate earth he traced in space the sign of the dollar." -Atlas Shrugged

Like I said before, I regret my decision to have them circumcised. You do not say where you are from, but here in the US, circumcision is as routine as cutting the umbilical cord. It is considered the normal thing to do. That is why so many circumcised fathers turn around and have their sons circumcised as well (as in the case of my boys).

It is unfortunate and I am glad to see the issue getting some attention. Like many men already know, if the situation was reversed, and females were getting mutilated you can bet that there would be rallies and lawsuits.

As a parent I do the best I can and I rely on the medical professionals to provide complete information. In my case they made it sound like I was doing my boys a favor and only spoke about the hygiene issues my boys would be avoiding by being circumcised as well as fitting in and looking the same as other boys (in the US at least)..

A similar discussion could be made about immunizations (not the mutilation part, but the part about needing to make informed decisions that could later prove to be harmful). Immunizations for newborns and children are routine. If you do not immunize, you will be criticized for exposing your children to disease. But other studies show that immunizations contain poison and may be linked to the rising rates of autism. Could a child later sue his parent for making such choices?. .

Please don't come down too hard on parents that have circumcised their children without proper information. Anger should be directed towards the medical profession and society that promotes such things.

Listen, I apologize if it seemed like I was attacking you earlier. That certainly was not the intention.

As a matter of fact, I asked a father that same question at another board, and his reaction was less-than-stellar. What compounded his hypocrisy is that he then went on to attempt making excuses why having his son mutilated was the right thing to do. Instead of simply admitting that he was wrong and that the choice should have been his son's, he attempted to justify his own actions.

I don't blame parent's who made a good-faith decision based on what the doctors told them. Granted, I wish that more parents would research the issue, but because doctor's supposed have our "best interests" at heart, some people accept what doctors tell them. I agree that the doctor's should be held at least partially accountable.

That being said, I do believe that parents have a responsibility to fix the problems that they cause. Granted, they might have had their childrens' best interests at heart, but mistakes can be made even when one means well. Our moral obligation to fix a problem we cause isn't negated by the fact that we may have meant well.

Again, please don't think I'm attacking you, because I'm not. In fact, I admire a parent who steps up to the plate and says "I'll do whatever I can to undo the damage".

----------

"[John Galt] raised his hand and over the desolate earth he traced in space the sign of the dollar." -Atlas Shrugged

I'm so very glad I was not circumcised. My brother was and he has said he wants his foreskin, that's all he will say about it. You can't undo it once it's done, I wish people would see that. I'm now 40 years old and I would still never have my foreskin removed. It is perfectly clean and healthy so all this nonsense I hear about hygiene and diseases is just a lot of hot air being blown around. I wasn't circumcised because my mom said when my older brother was born and taken to be cut she heard him screaming and it chilled her soul. She said years later she can still hear him screaming in her mind and she has nightmares about it. When I was born they took me to be circumcised and from what I was told my mother threatened to kill them if they touched me. I'm sorry that my brother had to be harmed for me to be saved. We need to end this horrible and senseless mutilation of baby boys.

Do I believe circumcision is an outdated practice?
Of course. Most Americans don't circumcise because of religion. Jesus Christ is the New Covenant, rendering all of the Old Testament practices, including the Abrahamic covenant of circumcision, null and void.

When the Gospel was to be spread to the Gentile world, during the time of St. Paul, circumcision of Gentile converts was a matter of intense debate. Circumcision was dangerous, painful, and culturally repugnant to the Greeks and Romans. Early Christian church authorities quickly decided that circumcision was unnecessary.

"For freedom, Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we can wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love." Galatians 5:1-6

"It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh that would compel you to be circumcised, and only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. For even those who receive circumcision do not themselves keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may glory in your flesh. But far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. Peace and mercy be upon all who walk by this rule, upon the Israel of God." Galatians 6:12-16.

"Look out for the dogs, look out for the evil-workers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh. For we are the true circumcision, who worship God in spirit, and glory in Christ Jesus, and put no confidence in the flesh." Philippians 3:2-3.

This was nearly 2,000 years ago. Throughout most of history, and in most parts of the world today, Christians are rarely circumcised. In many cultures, people are often not even aware of what circumcision is.

Non religious circumcision was taken up in the late 1800's - but only in English speaking countries. The main reason was to prevent masturbation. Masturbation was thought to cause all sorts of maladies - particularly to do with the nervous system. In Britain, circumcision never really caught on and by 1950, it had been abandoned. In the USA however, it became routine. Ever since then it is just been a case of coming up with more reasons to justify the practice. Never mind that most of the world (80%) do not circumcise (including all of Europe - Britain,France,Germany etc) and they are all doing fine. In Canada and Australia , medical associations turned against the procedure in the 1970's and rates of newborn circumcision declined. Now less than 10% of boys are circumcised in those 2 countries. In the USA , the rate has fallen from 85% to about 55-60%. It is still too high. Many men are still being mutilated for life.
http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=5&id=70&Itemid=48

In regards to the medical aspects - the point is kind of moot when you consider the ethical problem of performing such a sever operation on a boy without his consent. But if we did do examine the medical aspects, even then, there are no compelling reasons to circumcise. Like I said, European countries, who don' circumcise, aren't suffering major health defects. In fact, STI's and HIV rates are greater in the USA. Genital cancers are also more prevalent in the circumcising USA. This isn't surprising considering how medical circumcision was first established.

I'd recommend people check out http://www.cirp.org/library/ and http://www.circumstitions.com/

Circumcision also has a dramatic effect on the functionality of the penis. The foreskin contains many nerves on it's underside (it is a mucous membrane). As the foreskin is moved up and down, the nerves are stimulated. The cirucmcised guy loses the nerves and the gliding action of the skin. The gliding action of the skin means no lube is needed for masturbation and sex.

Another consequence is that the foreskin no longer covers the glans(head of penis). Because of this the glans dries out. It also rubs on clothes which makes the glans skin tough and leathery. both these things reduce sensitivity further.

In terms of sex both partners enjoy it more when the man is intact. The foreskin makes insertion of the penis into the vagina easier. It also traps moisture meaning that there is less risk of vaginal dryness. Because the intact man has greater sensitivity he doesn't need to thrust as hard; circumcised men often do not realize they are hurting the woman banging away. Finally the intact man is more able to control ejaculation; the foreskin contains stretch receptors and nerves which give feedback as to how close he is to orgasm.

For more info on the sexual effects of circumcision go to http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com/10F/doctor_northrup.html

I feel even more guilt and anger after reading your post above, James. The last few paragraphs were full of information that should be on the literature that they give to parents at the hospital (I am speaking from my experience in the US, that hand parents literature about circ & hygiene).

My boys still see the pediatrician that performed the circumcision when they were born. I think I am going to tell him how I feel about it at their next appointment.