Its not that hard to understand. Its really not.

Well I can't stop myself today...
The New York Times is hosting a debate on the what the age of consent for circumcision should be.

Reading it all is so disturbing to me even though I would say the bulk of information is in favor of boys rights.

I am very active on a few groups concerning this issue and every once in a while we get a person who "likes" the group so they can come in with guns-a-blazing and correct us on our ignorance.
It would be comical to me if I didn't think that this means they are vehemently defending cutting an infant's genitals. And its funny to me because if they think they'll join a group of intactivists that are all just hippies going on gut instinct alone then they are sorely mistaken.

You will rarely meet a group that has so intensely studied a topic from all angles. Many of us have read the scientific abstracts on all the studies done in Africa. We've listened to HOURS of podcasts (me). We have watched circumcisions of every method, thumbed through all the pages of pictures of botched jobs. We study normal anatomy and the actual situations that intact children and men run into and the chances of real problems and mythical problems.

So walking into our cyber living room and saying with authority:


"Don't you idiots know its cleaner to be circumcised?"

Ain't going to do a dang thing. You think we'll just grasp at something to cover our face and shut down all our operations?

yeah I don't think so.

As much as I would love for two thoughts to end it all, it never does. But it should - It should go like this:

HIS BODY HIS CHOICE...
why yes that makes sense I never thought of letting him decide before... or
Any thing that includes the following:
-strapping down
-non consenting individual
-cutting/removing
-healthy tissue
-genitals
-infant
Just let that word cloud sink into your brain. We should all be appalled. No debate needed.

But I will address the most common things we hear:

It is not mutilation.
I do tend to avoid this term when trying to educate anyone on the subject, its loaded and divisive and I'm more about saving babies than just pissing folks off, BUT.. If you claim this word doesn't fit I have to point out the errors of your ways.  Its a classic case of degenerative semantics - we use the word for more than its actual definition so when one says mutilation you might be prone to think of some SAW horror film. The actual definition is this:
MUTILATION. 1. : deprivation of a limb or essential part especially by excision

The confusion might come in the word essential. If one knows about the foreskin the number of erogenous nerve endings it has, how it protects the glans from dirt and keeps it moist like it is supposed to be, you consider it an essential part.

And therefore, male circumcision is mutilation. I'm sorry but it just is. I am sure you would agree that the term fits for female circumcision as well.

Its TOTALLY different from female circumcision
This one really gets me fired up. I am JUST AS OPPOSED to female circumcision as I am male - but nothing gets me angrier than saying female circ is abominable and male circ is a-ok.

There are four to five classifications of circumcision for males and females.  The exact definitions vary depending on the source.

For females the most common is removal of part or all of the clitoral hood, and next up is removal of some or all of of the clitoris. The most extreme is complete excision of ALL external genitalia - a very, very rare practice.


Male circumcision also has classifications in various levels of extreme.
The first being simple bloodletting of a couple of drops from a nick in the foreskin to removal of what little foreskin hangs past the glans.


Then the most common which is what we do everyday in this country - the ripping of the foreskin from the glans and cutting ALL of the foreskin away. The most severe male circumcision which could be compared to the most severe form for females is either castration or a practice done in Aboriginal cultures where the penis is cut from the urethra to scrotum as described here: 


Another harsh ritual, subincision, was practiced primarily among Australian aborigines and on a few Pacific Islands. It consisted of a cutting open of the urethra on the underside of the penis down to as far as near the scrotum; the subincision ritual was generally preceded by a circumcision ritual (from here)

So when you are going to truly compare apples to apples in regard to female and male circumcision the most common are BOTH removal of the prepuce aka the foreskin. Why then do we have a visceral reaction to female cutting but not male??
Even when the entire clitoris is removed (which breaks my heart). Its is removing 8000 nerve endings. The majority of the clitoris is not actually external. Circumcised females still self report sexual satisfaction and ability to orgasm.
Our cultural version of male circumcision removes 20,000 nerve endings. Males still report sexual satisfaction too. But sensitivity tests demonstrate reduced sensitivity and with age many lose ability to maintain erections or orgasm due to rapid desensitization at the scar site.

"but female circumcision is about power/control/and negatively effecting the sexual pleasure of women."

well,
Females are often the ones in such cultures to promote and carry out the circumcisions.
Sound familiar since many men are most vocal about continuing the practice in ours and most circumcisors are male?
And male circumcision was promoted in this country as a way to curb undue sexual appetite and masturbation. Even ancient Jewish texts described the practice as beneficial because men would be more drawn to spiritual study than sexual pursuits if they were properly circumcised.

Being against the female circumcision and FOR male circumcision is cultural and religious elitism.

It doesn't hurt the baby. Mine cried more at his fill in the blank (shots, first hair cut, when his cord was cut, etc.)
I only have two rebuttals to this:
1. Bullcrap.
2. Even when baby sleeps through it, is actually properly numbed (rare), cries more at something else, etc. It does not all of sudden make removing a healthy body part without consent of the owners OK. It will never be ok to me.
** side note though, they started an experiment to actually see if sugar water (commonly the only relief to infants) was a help or not, but then quickly stopped the experiment because they said the markers of distress for infants were so high its was ethically wrong to continue the study and since then have suggested actual pain relief in its various forms be offered to every infant undergoing this procedure.
Yet many are still not offered anything to this day. Including all the circs done by the Mohel I just protested against.

Yeah tell that to the 14, 30, 50, 80 year old I knew that HAD to have it done because of: phimosis, infection, adhesion, embarrassment,etc. 
We get this one a lot. And this is the sad issue of the matter here:
There has sadly existed and continues to persists a deal of shame surrounding being intact. Imagine the angst any man has about his manhood. Let that developing adolescent here one joke or snide remark about an uncircumcised penis being gross and I can understand them wanting to change that fact. No one wants to fear never being sexually accepted. I understand.
It does not change my position though. A man who had the procedure done later in life had a few things an infant didn't:
-The right to education.
-The right to consent
-The right to adequate pain relief both before and during
-The right to cleanliness while healing since most grown men aren't in diapers
-Surgery on a fully developed penis. With an infant is just an educated shot in the dark how much should be removed. Often they are wrong - just google botched circumcisions to see what I am talking about.
The other issue is doctors just don't know a lot about the intact penis. No medical texts use pictures of intact men. Medical school rarely addresses the foreskin. Most doctors themselves are cut.
If there is the slightest problem the solution is circumcision. That rarely means it was actually necessary.

My brother had it done as an adult and it hurt for three weeks, do it when they are a baby it doesn't hurt as much.
This may be an argument for you to circumcise a baby, but for me it is the opposite. The only difference in this situation is that the grown man could tell you how much it hurt and the baby couldn't.  Scientist even admit they can't properly rate pain for an infant and pain relief is dangerous in such a small baby. So this solidifies my opinion that we should not be doing this to infants. Add to that do you know how much blood loss it takes for a baby to die? 2.3 ounces. That is it.  That is not even enough to leak through one diaper before a baby could die from blood loss. Here I will show you pictures to demonstrate (taken from Drmomma.org)

 this is a tiny shot glass barely an amount there, completely contained in one diaper:

And this is not as rare as you would think: Medics consider banning circumcision after baby boy dies


You know when they are elderly they won't get cleaned as well in a nursing home?
Well I worked in a nursing home and I cleaned men and women and I feel especially qualified to answer this one, and its as simple as this:
If a nursing home can not handle cleaning an intact man you can bet your bottom dollar they can not handle a labia and its not a nursing home you want a person at. Period.
What do people picture the loch ness monster down there? I mean come on. Even if this were a real issue. Yes, Yes by all means cut your infant son's genitals because maybe in like 80 years he may be in a nursing home. I mean really???


Eww. Do it now their wife will thank you.
Well intact is officially the majority. So women hoping for only cut men start rethinking that now. Moms teach your daughters to be accepting and if you know the purposes of the foreskin be very happy for them that they will have the possibility of an INTACT sexual life - the benefits for women are strong.
On behalf of my daughters please don't cut your son. He deserves better and my daughters deserve better.

As far as women who really won't go for it. Sounds like the perfect filter for getting shallow ignorant women out of your life especially before they become your spouse.

As far as projecting your sexual preference onto your infant. That is just... well creepy.

He will never get "x" from a woman. (X is any number of sexual favors)
See above for filter removing shallow ignorant people from your life. And at the end of the day, Genitals are genitals - keep it clean treat the person you love right and they will do the same for you.

He will be made fun of in the locker room.
A big ol' helping of puhleese on this one:
1. Intact is much more common and for babies born now the majority. So your cut son might be asked "why exactly did your parents pay to make your penis smaller?"
2. Ummm what year did they stop building group showers in gyms? Or locker rooms without stalls. Keep your privates private.
3. Even when that is not an option I hear on good word from many men that there is firm don't look at any one's junk and DEFINITELY don't comment on it rule going on.
4. If that does still happen saying "why are looking at my package man" at the top of your lungs is very very powerful in a group of adolescents.

We want him to match his father./ I don't have a penis so I defaulted to my husband on this one./ I didn't want to, but my husband did so I had him circumcised out of respect for my husband.
1. Tackle this with sensitivity. I've said it before discussing the risks and outcomes of circumcision with your circumcised husband needs care and tact.
2. The fact is if your husband is circ'd, he doesn't have a foreskin. You do. So even though you are female you still are better equipped to know the joys of having your whole body.
3. You are the mother. Protect your baby. Educate your husband.  - The first is more important.

I'm Christian and God said to do it.
Please read your scriptures better. Along with eye for an eye and all that jazz Jesus Christ's actions ended the need for circumcision and its spoken pretty often and against the practice in the New Testament.

I'm Jewish and God said to do it.
Watch the documentary Cut: The Film.
Abrahamic circumcision is very, very different than what is done to boys now.
Will God really punish a man for a decision that his parents abstained from?
more info here: http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/

• Andre Gorelkin
• New York

NYT Pick

FLAG

I am a circumcised jew. I have a son who is also a circumcised jew.

If I had it to do all over again, i would not have circumcised my son. There is no valid, medical reason for the procedure. Any permanent alteration of a boys body should be decided by the boy when he is old enough to decide such things for himself.

This ruling does not infringe on anyone's religion. One may still believe whatever they want. And the boys can decide to make this "covenant" themselves when they are adults. Incidentally, Abraham was not circumcised as a child. He did it to himself as a grown man. God still seemed to think he was righteous enough nonetheless.

To those who think they should be able to do whatever they want to infants in the name of their beliefs I ask this: If a religion has a tradition of cutting off the earlobes of babies, would they support the practice? There is no function for the earlobe. So why not let them be removed?

My doctor says its better and healthier and I trust him more than you.
Well I wonder where your doctor worship will get you? I am sorry but I can't compete with an idol like that, but I can tell you where to find information - whether you partake is up to you.
Since doctors are often the ones using myths over facts I am hesitant to trust any doctor.
There are Doctors opposing circumcision.
And there is NO MEDICAL ORGANIZATION that supports routine infant circumcision. Some default to parental decision but I suspect that is politically based.
I can direct you to doctors and nurses testimony begging parents to stop asking them to do this to babies.

from here

A nurse sent the above image and told her side of things, things she can't say openly at her place of employment: 

Parents don't see this sickening thing and I wish they could - it is like something out of a horror movie. Parents are told that the babies barely notice and sometimes don't cry at all - this is an absolute blatant lie. They are also told that pain relief will be provided, but are never informed that all the 'pain relief' babies receive is an infant's Tylenol and a pacifier dipped in sugar water. 


An hour before circumcision, babies are denied any breastfeeding (or formula) so they do not vomit and choke when they scream. So sometimes they are already crying and upset before they are taken to be cut because they are so hungry. Babies are returned to their parents when they have passed out and they will not wake up to eat for many hours after circumcision. When they do wake, they are immensely hungry and in terrible pain. 


I could go on and on... It is the worst part of my job as a pediatric nurse by far. And it happens every single morning.

One nurse said every time she brings a baby boy back to his mom she wants to scream at the top of her lungs "Do you realize what you just made me do?"

I want actual FACTS and no crap from the internet. That doesn't count.

Well I am sorry to inform you that most information in 2012 has moved to the big bad internet and that even most medical studies and abstracts are on the net as well. And I am just sure that if you are opposed to clicking on a link you will go buy a book or check one out at the library, but if that is what you will listen to then here are some great ones:
Marked in the Flesh by Leonard B. Glick
What your doctor may not tell you about circumcision by Paul M. Fleiss
As Nature Made Him by John Colapinto


Am I missing anything? Any lingering thoughts/questions? Any argument that you think actually justifies doing this to babies?

I'm all ears.

Apology from Family Physician who did circumcisions: