Circumcision. Seeking opinions based on personal experiences

[Albert Tatlock]

However, fortunately I found out that my sister, who is a pediatrician, is certified to do circumcisions, and she completely understands my reasoning and will do the ‘freehand’ cut. She told me that she will remove all of the foreskin down the entire shaft, as well as all of the frenulum, which will maximize the reduction in sensitivity. This in contrast to a typical modern circumcision, in which only the upper portion of the foreskin is removed, leaving a lot of foreskin at the base of the penis (as well as the entire frenulum), which still makes masturbation quite pleasurable. She also said she will trim off the outer ‘ridge’ of his glans, thereby removing some of the pleasurable friction a partner normally feels from a circumcised penis, and she will even snip some of the lateral nerves which run from the main dorsal nerve to further reduce sensitivity. But she also warned me that, being an older boy, the operation will probably be much more painful than your typical neonatal procedure. She said he might be in ‘intense’ pain for days or a few weeks, and that sometimes full recovery takes over a month. However, she has said she will write him a prescription for the pain, an analgesic cream which she says is pretty effective.

I think the question here is not so much whether you should have your son circumcised but rather should you be locked up for conspiracy to commit child abuse. I can barely believe what I'm reading, is this some sort of wind up or are you genuinely as sick in the head as you sound?

[Eduk]

the article I linked refuted the effects on masturbation.
Circumcisions are a sacrifice. Sacrifices are common in circumstances where a group bond is the goal. For example frat induction ceremonies. After all who wants to go through all that and then say actually they aren't really into the whole frat/religion/group thing.

[Razblo]

curcumcision is child abuse.

-- Updated November 26th, 2017, 5:00 pm to add the following --

Darcia Narvaez Ph.D.
Moral Landscapes
Myths about Circumcision You Likely Believe
CIrcumcision does great harm to babies
Posted Sep 11, 2011


NOTE: Primary author is Lillian Dell'Aquila Cannon (see her blog) (link is external)

When I was pregnant with my first child, I just thought that circumcision was what you did, no big deal, and that every man was circumcised. Then one day I saw a picture of a baby being circumcised, and everything changed. Just one tiny, grainy photo was enough to make me want to know more, and the more I knew, the worse it got. It turns out, circumcision really is a big deal.

Part 1 - Circumcision Surgery Myths

Myth 1: They just cut off a flap of skin.

Reality check: Not true. The foreskin is half of the penis's skin, not just a flap. In an adult man, the foreskin is 15 square inches of skin. In babies and children, the foreskin is adhered to the head of the penis with the same type of tissue that adheres fingernails to their nail beds. Removing it requires shoving a blunt probe between the foreskin and the head of the penis and then cutting down and around the whole penis. Check out these photos: http://www.drmomma.org/2011/08/intact-o ... icant.html

Myth 2: It doesn't hurt the baby.

Reality check: Wrong. In 1997, doctors in Canada did a study to see what type of anesthesia was most effective in relieving the pain of circumcision. As with any study, they needed a control group that received no anesthesia. The doctors quickly realized that the babies who were not anesthetized were in so much pain that it would be unethical to continue with the study. Even the best commonly available method of pain relief studied, the dorsal penile nerve block, did not block all the babies' pain. Some of the babies in the study were in such pain that they began choking and one even had a seizure (Lander 1997).

Myth 3: My doctor uses anesthesia.

Reality check: Not necessarily. Most newborns do not receive adequate anesthesia. Only 45% of doctors who do circumcisions use any anesthesia at all. Obstetricians perform 70% of circumcisions and are least likely to use anesthesia - only 25% do. The most common reasons why they don't? They didn't think the procedure warranted it, and it takes too long (Stang 1998). A circumcision with adequate anesthesia takes a half-hour - if they brought your baby back sooner, he was in severe pain during the surgery.

Myth 4: Even if it is painful, the baby won't remember it.

Reality check: The body is a historical repository and remembers everything. The pain of circumcision causes a rewiring of the baby's brain so that he is more sensitive to pain later (Taddio 1997, Anand 2000). Circumcision also can cause post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anger, low self-esteem and problems with intimacy (Boyle 2002, Hammond 1999, Goldman 1999). Even with a lack of explicit memory and the inability to protest - does that make it right to inflict pain? Ethical guidelines for animal research whenever possible* - do babies deserve any less?

Myth 5: My baby slept right through it.

Reality check: Not possible without total anesthesia, which is not available. Even the dorsal penile nerve block leaves the underside of the penis receptive to pain. Babies go into shock, which though it looks like a quiet state, is actually the body's reaction to profound pain and distress. Nurses often tell the parents "He slept right through it" so as not to upset them. Who would want to hear that his or her baby was screaming in agony?

Myth 6: It doesn't cause the baby long-term harm.

Reality check: Incorrect. Removal of healthy tissue from a non-consenting patient is, in itself, harm (more on this point later). Circumcision has an array of risks and side effects. There is a 1-3% complication rate during the newborn period alone (Schwartz 1990). Here is a short list potential complications.

Meatal Stenosis: Many circumcised boys and men suffer from meatal stenosis. This is a narrowing of the urethra which can interfere with urination and require surgery to fix.

Adhesions. Circumcised babies can suffer from adhesions, where the foreskin remnants try to heal to the head of the penis in an area they are not supposed to grow on. Doctors treat these by ripping them open with no anesthesia.

Buried penis. Circumcision can lead to trapped or buried penis - too much skin is removed, and so the penis is forced inside the body. This can lead to problems in adulthood when the man does not have enough skin to have a comfortable erection. Some men even have their skin split open when they have an erection. There are even more sexual consequences, which we will address in a future post.

Infection. The circumcision wound can become infected. This is especially dangerous now with the prevalence of hospital-acquired multi-drug resistant bacteria.

Death. Babies can even die of circumcision. Over 100 newborns die each year in the USA, mostly from loss of blood and infection (Van Howe 1997 & 2004, Bollinger 2010).

Darcia Narvaez, Ph.D., is a Professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Notre Dame. Her prior careers include professional musician, classroom music teacher, business owner, seminarian and middle school Spanish teacher. Dr. Narvaez’s current research explores how early life experience influences societal culture and moral character in children and adults. She integrates neurobiological, clinical, developmental and education sciences in her theories and research about moral development. She publishes extensively on moral development, parenting and education. Recently she has been studying the Evolved Developmental Niche (nest) and how it influences moral development, moral capacities and preferences. She hosts interdisciplinary conferences at the University of Notre Dame regarding early experience, flourishing and evolution. In 2016, she organizes a conference on Sustainable Wisdom: Integrating Indigenous KnowHow for Global Flourishing. She is the author or editor of numerous books and articles. Her recent book, Neurobiology and the Development of Human Morality: Evolution, Culture and Wisdom (2014), won the 2015 William James Book Award from the American Psychological Association and the 2017 Expanded Reason Award. She is former executive editor of the Journal of Moral Education.

-- Updated November 26th, 2017, 5:07 pm to add the following --

2. As a Christian, I like the concept of dedication to God. The idea of sacrificing something for God, of dedicating my child to God, seems very appealing to me, barbaric or not.

Barbarity is appealing? Sacrificing somebody else for YOUR deluded benefits?

-- Updated November 26th, 2017, 5:12 pm to add the following --

Then I read up on foreskin. I googled words like "foreskin" and "uncircumcised penis." Basically, from all my googling I learned that foreskin does indeed have a purpose. Its almost exclusive purpose is to aid in the pleasure and facilitation of sex. (If you're squeemish and/or offended by sex, skip the next two paragraphs, because for those of you who have never researched this, I'm about to get descriptive). The tip or head of the penis, "the glans," is designed to be constantly moist, much like the interior of a person's mouth or vagina. In an uncircumcised male, this glans is covered by the foreskin when the penis is flaccid and only emerges when the man has an erection. The foreskin is then able to slide down the shaft of the penis and back up over the glans, back and forth, adding extra stimulation to the male and cushioning against the more harsh friction from the vagina (or your hand, whatever floats your boat). It is also more pleasing to the partner, as the tip is naturally lubricated from being protected by the foreskin for most of its life. An uncircumcised penis enters the vagina far more easily and quickly than a circumcised one. The added lubrication means the pressure of lubricating for sex doesn't fall entirely upon the woman or on a bottle of K-Y. Win win. Finally, the foreskin contains approximately 3/4 of a male's stimulatory nerves. This means that uncircumcised men theoretically experience four times the pleasure. Also, the nerves are highly focused in one area and somehow help the man to better control ejaculation. Instead of feeling an all-over feeling of pleasure that results in an often unpredictable explosion, an uncircumcised man is able to control the pleasure in its more localized (but undoubtedly more intense) state. I also learned that circumcision only became prevalent in America in the 1800's during the Victorian era, where it was primarily used to help curtail masturbation in teen boys, the idea being that without the foreskin the experience would be much less pleasurable and therefore, less appealing and addictive.

After reading all of this, I realized for the first time why sex with my husband is so much different than it was with my jewish ex-boyfriend. I had always attributed it just to him being a better lover, but now I realized that it was the foreskin that made all the difference. I had just never thought about it and put two and two together until I read about it.The difference is simply remarkable. My husband seems to be much more sensitive and responsive when it comes to sex. I can send him through the roof just by lightly caressing his foreskin, but my ex was much less sensitive, and seemed to only enjoy the act of sexual release. Sex with my H seems to be very fulfilling to him, and he doesn't need to thrust as hard during intercourse, but my ex only liked violent thrusting and never seemed to enjoy hjs or bjs nearly as much. Now I know it was because of the lack of foreskin. Also, for those of you who do not know, it is far better from the women's pov with a foreskin. I would say that sex is 10 times better with my H than with my ex, yes 10 times! The gliding motion of the foreskin just feels better, it's not as rough, and no lube is necessary. It's just a whole different ball game if you ask me, like night and day, like multiple O's versus none at all, and there is no way I could imagine ever going back to a circed penis. In fact, I can't imagine any woman being satisfied sexually with a cut guy after having had an uncut guy. It's just that much better for both parties, especially considering that I enjoy it more when I know my partner is also enjoying it immensely. I would definitely feel "jipped" going back to a circumcised penis.

But back to the point.... Actually, after reading up on it and seeing firsthand the incredible difference in pleasure for both parties, especially the man, it began to make a little bit of sense to me why God chose to ask men to cut off that particular part of their body. What better way could there be to show dedication to God than to deny yourself 3/4 of your sexual pleasure? Denial of sexual pleasure has been part of religious tradition since the institution of religion. Why do you think priests don't marry? Why is there some version of the chaste monk and/or nun in nearly every religion? Even religions which claim to have no God outside of the self have people taking vows of chastity for meditative purification purposes. Of course, some religions take the opposite extreme, but the point is that withholding sexual pleasure has long been a means of showing dedication to certain religious ideals. Nowadays, we have chastity rings. Back in the Old Testament they chose to be a bit more graphically symbolic. True dedication meant cutting off a portion of your penis. It insured you were taking one more step toward being totally focused on God.

Of course, circumcision is still common practice today and not everyone does it for religious dedication. Plenty of circumcised guys are complete sleeze bags. Plenty of rapists and sexual predators out there are circumcised, I’m sure. This just goes to show that in asking man to sacrifice some of his sexual pleasure to show his true spiritual dedication, God still left man enough sexual pleasure to procreate. Men could still have sex, but it was for procreation, not for his personal pleasure. Sex for pleasure was considered a "distraction" from your walk with God, a distraction keeping you from being totally focused on Him.

Your obsession with sex should be self analyzed and here is just one reason why:

The penis and clitoris are analogous and homologous organs: they perform similar functions, share a common design, and biologically develop from the same tissues inutero. The glans (head) of the penis or clitoris is an internal organ. It is meant to remain covered for the majority of its livelihood, in similar nature to the way that the eyeballs are covered for a good portion of our lives (when we blink or sleep), and the way the ends of our fingers and toes are protected by our nails.

If we surgically amputate the eyelids or fingernails, we will face the repercussions of making an organ that was designed to be internal, external. In order to survive this damage, the organ must adapt. To do so, a variety of features will change (both immediately, and progressively over the years): pH will be altered, temperature will no longer remain stable in that organ, moisture and lubrication levels will not be maintained, leading to dryness and potential chapping, antibodies and healthy microflora that previously served to protect will cease to exist, and callusing (the build-up of multiple hardened layers of skin) will take place. Our body may attempt to heal itself by forming skin bridges or re-adhesions over the amputation site. Our eyeballs and fingertips would become thick, dry, discolored, and no longer function in the manner they were designed to.

So it is the same with the glans of the penis or clitoris. If we remove the very organ, the prepuce, which serves to cover, protect and regulate the health, pH, temperature, lubrication, antibodies, movement and functioning of the genitals, we've altered form so dramatically that the purposes it was created to fulfill can no longer be realized.

Not only is this evident in research: human development and sexuality especially, but the dramatic difference is also readily apparent to any lay onlooker observing the intact human genitals versus those that no longer remain in their original whole state.

Female and male genital cutting, especially in the manner that prepuce amputation is carried out in U.S. style male circumcision surgery (most often via Gomco or Plastibell amputations), is not only immediately damaging to a newborn baby; it is also permanently altering and forever changing the adult male body, and impacts all future sexual partner(s) as well.

-- Updated November 26th, 2017, 5:14 pm to add the following --

What did you decide, Kathy?

Milady and I were discussing this last night. Though we're both too old (and I'm vasectomized) to start a family, we agreed that, unless it would be medically necessary, we would not circumcise a male child.

And females?

[Steve3007]

Come on guys, cut the lady some slack (as it were). She didn't have to come here for advice.

[Albert Tatlock]

Come on guys, cut the lady some slack (as it were). She didn't have to come here for advice.

Something tells me her posts on this subject are not completely on the level, she couldn't possibly be that uncivilised.

[Steve3007]

I'm pretty uncivilized myself. Thanks to Woody Allen, for ages I thought it was only Jewish people who got circumcised. (The scene from "Everything you Always Wanted to Know About Sex" where he plays a sperm cell, and just as he's jumping out, during ejaculation, he looks around and says "Well, at least he's Jewish". That's what passed as sex education for me.)

[Razblo]

Come on guys, cut the lady some slack (as it were). She didn't have to come here for advice.

She should not cut and allow the poor boy some slack.

"The first cut is the deepest, baby I know"

'Rod Stewardship' should be the name of the cause for male baby's rights.

Look after your rods and the rods of the most vulnerable.

[Steve3007]

Razblo:

She should not cut and allow the poor boy some slack.

Yes, I agree. I enjoy my own slack, and have allowed my own sons the same latitude. But softly softly catchy monkey.

[Razblo]

Razblo:

She should not cut and allow the poor boy some slack.

Yes, I agree. I enjoy my own slack, and have allowed my own sons the same latitude. But softly softly catchy monkey.

You won't catch that one with anything. Her utter determination, I think, is clear. The medical information I provided should be more than enough for the relatively sane.

[Burning ghost]

TO BE CLEAR ...

I think an a cultural tradition, as a coming of age ceremony, I don't see anything wrong with this. What I do not like to hear is medical justifications for such a procedure, nor references to religious texts as justification.

Many cultural traditions have a coming of age ceremony. I honestly think these are something society could do with more of them!! Reaching a certain age and having to be faced with pain and hardship is probably a damn good thing. Understanding pain and danger is a worthy lesson (the most important lessons of life involve pain and suffering).

If circumcision was something the child was brought up to understand as a "coming of age" ceremony, and the ceremony was not one which did permanent damage to the person, I can fully understand it. Other traditions like taking someone out to hunt for the first time and kill an animal for the first time are very important lessons. In most western societies such understanding of death is usually taught by owning pets. To me it seems like a very soft way of teaching the lesson about the cycles of life. I have never killed an animal, but I would happy pay more money to kill what I eat. I completely understand the relationship between death and life, and that during our lives we have to suffer to understand who we are and who we want to be.

Women should deal with girls and men should deal with boys. This is not to say that we should divide the responsibility only that we should appreciate that men know boys better than women (for obvious reasons.) I may have comments about how I believe girls should be treated and I should voice them, but whilst doing so I have to maintain that my perspective is one of a certain degree of ignorance that I'll never be able to surpass. That said, as we mature more and more, and experience life more and more, we can in our latter years come to a certain head of understanding I believe.

Razblo -

Yes, she seems determined. I would again point out that she has at least made an effort to discuss this and I have a niggling feeling that the reason she posted here is because she already knows the best thing to do, but she's having a hard time consolidating her ignorance of the opposite sex with her impression of the opposite sex.

It takes a certain degree of bravery to discuss something so personal and I wish more people would do this. I doubt there is a single one of us who is not carry around some myopic view of the world we're completely blind too. I just hope that whatever blinkered views I have of the world are not too detrimental to the bigger picture I live within.

[Razblo]

TO BE CLEAR ...

I think an a cultural tradition, as a coming of age ceremony, I don't see anything wrong with this. What I do not like to hear is medical justifications for such a procedure, nor references to religious texts as justification.

Many cultural traditions have a coming of age ceremony. I honestly think these are something society could do with more of them!! Reaching a certain age and having to be faced with pain and hardship is probably a damn good thing. Understanding pain and danger is a worthy lesson (the most important lessons of life involve pain and suffering).

If circumcision was something the child was brought up to understand as a "coming of age" ceremony, and the ceremony was not one which did permanent damage to the person, I can fully understand it. .

I don't think one could really justify a baby as having come of age or understand the context.

Once this mother comes of age she may then realize circumcision is child abuse.

[Burning ghost]

Razblo -

Did I say anything like that? You even quoted what I said so I am assuming you read it? Do you know how to read or are you just looking to an argument where there isn't one?

Ear piercings and such things are a more moderate example. Where I live people pierce their babies ears a few months after birth. I don't agree with circumcision, but if the ceremony was one that happened during puberty and enmeshed in traditions of male responsibility and machoism I can understand why it would be continued. I would not be for such a thing against the will of the child involved though and it is here that the parents may force such actions upon their children out of guilt.

I think a lot of these practices are due to a bygone era where children had to grow up more quickly. It appears we're living in a grey area now where we're overly protective and unfortunately causing more harm in the long term. I would not be for circumcision in modern societies that don't have any history of such a tradition. If we're talking about some large community within which it is a tradition embedded in a "coming of age" ceremony then I would certainly encourage altering the tradition somehow.

My comments are on general traditions within certain contained community traditions. Within this context I can understand that circumcision can be considered "beneficial" even if they're, from my perspective, irrational.

[Razblo]

I would not be for circumcision in modern societies that don't have any history of such a tradition.

FGM has a long historic tradition. Are you therefore for that?

[Burning ghost]

I would not be for circumcision in modern societies that don't have any history of such a tradition.

FGM has a long historic tradition. Are you therefore for that?

If I can predict someone response I tend to pay less and less attention to what they have to say. Go make an effigy out of someone else's words so you can feel proactive. I'm not biting if you've nothing of substance to say that hasn't been said already, or at least put across in an original manner.

Read back what you've quoted from me and look at the attachments you've made to them.

I am more against the mutilation of language than the mutilation of bodies. Physical mutilation tends to follow after lingual mutilation not after. I am circumcised btw and it functions perfectly well and is most certainly sensitive enough!

[Razblo]

(Nested quote removed.)


FGM has a long historic tradition. Are you therefore for that?

If I can predict someone response I tend to pay less and less attention to what they have to say. Go make an effigy out of someone else's words so you can feel proactive. I'm not biting if you've nothing of substance to say that hasn't been said already, or at least put across in an original manner.

Read back what you've quoted from me and look at the attachments you've made to them.

I am more against the mutilation of language than the mutilation of bodies. Physical mutilation tends to follow after lingual mutilation not after. I am circumcised btw and it functions perfectly well and is most certainly sensitive enough!

ok, so you are therefore also against circumcision in modern societies that have any history of such a tradition. Took a bit of extraction, but there we have it.