Male Circumcision: Mothers, Don’t Mutilate Your Boys

Betty Dodson's picture
Fri, 01/16/2009 - 10:25
Submitted by Betty Dodson

What do American men have in common with Middle Eastern and Tribal African men? All three societies routinely perform circumcision on boys while the rest of the world does not. In the United States, we circumcise babies within the first few days or week. Muslims do it to young boys who are between 12 and 15 while African boys are between 6 to 10 years of age. In all three instances circumcision is performed without anesthesia!

Perhaps Muslims circumcise boys late to insure they will become angry young men willing to sacrifice their life for Allah. In Africa it's a rite of passage into manhood, a warrior who now can kill animals and other men. The fact that the AMA does not support circumcision citing there is no health benefit, I suspect it's the same for Americans: circumcision prepares our young men to go to war. After all, War Inc. has been America's number one industry ever since 1914 following WWI.

The Jews maintain the tradition of circumcision because some second century rabbis thought it was a good idea; a perfect example of religious ignorance. But why do Protestants, Catholics or Atheists do it? The most common reason mothers give is, "I want my son to look like his father." Or, "I don't want him to look different from other boys in the locker room." So this barbaric, horrific procedure continues without rhyme or reason other than those few who have the courage to say "No" and dare to be different. That was my mother, Bess Dodson. She refused to circumcise her baby boys and she had four sons. Daddy was not circumcised, but Mother later told me that even if he had been, she still would never let them do that to her babies. It made no sense because she believed they were fine just like Nature intended. That was Mother! She always relied upon "plain old horse sense," as she called it.

Over the decades of listening to a multitude of people's sex problems, I've often been asked for my opinion on circumcision. Consistently I have been against it for many reasons mainly because I believed it was meant to curb male masturbation. Like Mother, I too believe our bodies are perfectly designed by Nature. However, I never made a big issue out of my stand against circumcision in deference to all the men who'd been cut. Thanks to an active sex life during the two liberated decades of the sixties and seventies, I knew more American men were cut than not, so why make a big issue of it? However, I did comment regularly that circumcision was a barbaric procedure that was an attack on the male sex organ in the name of cleanliness or holiness. I would never recommend or support it.

In the early eighties, I spent several weeks in Amsterdam running workshops. At one point, I remember thinking how sweet and gentle most Dutch men were. More like my brothers and the boys I'd dated back in High School in Wichita. Looking back I wondered how many of them had been circumcised. European countries do not perform circumcision routinely like we do here in America. When I moved to New York in the fifties, most of my lovers were Jewish and they were all circumcised. My former husband was circumcised and he ended up with a small hole about three inches above the cut line where a bit of skin got snipped off by accident. He had to remove the dried mucous from it regularly like squeezing a pimple. He was also a premature ejaculator who claimed he rarely masturbated as a child and never as an adult.

Also during the eighties, more truth about circumcision emerged and many gay men begin to rebel against this form of genital mutilation. Some of the guys were restoring their foreskins by stretching the remaining skin. About the same time, feminists were raging against Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) in Muslim and African countries. Instinctively I would ask, "What about Male Genital Mutilation with circumcision?" Women were adamant about it not being the same thing. Men could still ejaculate with their cut dicks which fulfilled the role of procreation.

I didn't make the connection on how circumcision changed the act of intercourse until my recent correspondence with Dr. Rob, an American studying in Moscow. He rekindled my interest in the subject when he sent a video clip of a baby having the procedure done. I'm still reeling from the images. It's one thing to imagine what this is like. It's altogether different to actually see it performed. Truth is I'm a tough old broad, but I broke down and cried like a sissy girl. Any person who watches this video would never, ever allow their baby boy to be circumcised. There are no words to describe the horror I witnessed with my own eyes.

The method practiced in most hospitals today use a Gomco or Mogen clamp that slowly crushes the skin and seals the vessels resulting in an almost bloodless procedure. However, the baby experiences severe pain for up to twenty minutes as the clamp slowly mashes sensitive nerve endings. The foreskin is similar to a girl's clitoris; both are heavily endowed with thousands of nerve endings. I saw a happy little baby boy laid down inside a cold plastic mold imitating an infant's shape. Then his little legs are straightened out and strapped down along with his arms whereupon Baby naturally begins to cry. Unbelievably, the father is standing by. He asks the doctor if he can give his son a pacifier to suck.

While Baby is temporarily calmed, the doctor swabs the area with a soft applicator covered with antiseptic. It obviously feels good because Baby's penis becomes partially erect. Then the pain and screams come as his sweet little penis is put into the Gomco. The doc pulls the foreskin out with a cold metal clamp and thrusts a probe inside the foreskin and circles the shaft to separate the skin from the penis. The cries are now horrendous as Baby struggles against his bondage. Just try to imagine your clitoral hood being stretched out and then a sharp instrument inserted to separate the hood from the clitoral glans. The father mentions at one point that his baby is really upset. The doc assures him he's fine and he won't remember any of it.

I believe heterosexuality is at war with itself because of circumcision. First Baby feels pleasurable sensations that are abruptly followed by a barbaric torturous treatment that reduces his penis to a bloody stump! Is it any wonder why these men hate women or they don't trust anyone? Research has shown that the pain of circumcision is present in personal memories. When I Googled "against circumcision" some 300,000 sources appeared beginning with Mothers against Circumcision, Catholics, Protestants, Doctors and even Rabbi's who don't support it. Any nurse who has witnessed one is absolutely against it after seeing a baby suffer first hand. At least the Jewish-style circumcision uses a finely honed blade of surgical steel. In Africa it's a bit of glass or an old razor blade. My friend Rob in Moscow said he was haunted by the memory of the white searing pain until he was eight years old. He is now restoring his foreskin by stretching what's left. While other men are doing this, all those thousands of nerve endings have been lost for good.

In the sixties I was dating a man who was not circumcised. Grant practically worshipped women's genitals and loved all forms of sex. When we decided to date other people, the first thing I discovered was how difficult it was for me to have an orgasm with casual sex (research has shown that women are more likely to orgasm with a genitally intact partner). Meanwhile I figured he was coming all over the place. My conclusion at the time was while he could "run the fuck" I was limited to each man's technique. During that time, I was reading Wilhelm Reich who talked about the angry man who penetrated a woman's vagina using his penis like a weapon. I eventually named this the "Hard Fuck" where a guy would bang away. The first man I came with outside my primary relationship was uncircumcised. Unfortunately none of this registered at the time. I've only recently made the connection between the hard fuck and circumcision where a man struggles to get adequate stimulation during intercourse.

Later on when Grant I entered the sexual revolution and attended sex parties together, I quickly learned never to end up on my back and let a stranger fuck me. I always got on top so I could control the depth of penetration. I'd also stimulate my clitoris at the same time and I always added additional lubrication. Now that I understand how circumcision plays out in men's lives, my ride ‘em Cowgirl stance made sense. Circumcised men have lost so much sensation in the head of their penis that they masturbate with a heavy hand and fast rhythm which naturally translates into a hard and fast friction fuck!

Better than my Ph.D in sexology was having lots of sexual experiences with many different people. After I viewed the video sent by Dr. Rob in Moscow, I saw the difference in sexual penetration and thrusting of the natural man versus a circumcised man. As a result of this, I thought back over some of my boyfriends. My Spanish Doctor was not circumcised and I always came with him from intercourse in my twenties. Victor was a circumcised Jew with a nice fat dick and I could come with him if I got on top. Then I remembered Ira whose edge of his glans looked like a serrated kitchen knife. When I asked about his butchered penis, he said it was from a bad circumcision. Although I was crazy about him, my insides were sore after our first hard fuck so on the third date, I told him we were sexually incompatible and stopped seeing him.

Mother said she always came from intercourse with my uncircumcised father. She often commented on what good control he had and said they were a perfect fit. One site showed the difference between a natural foreskin that bunched up and pressed against a woman's clitoris during penetration; nerve bundles gently kissing other nerve bundles with a smooth gliding motion. It was Mother Nature's clitoral stimulator. Uncircumcised glans are moist and they look like satin while exposed glans have a different rougher texture that's always dry.

I'm amazed it's taken me all this time to understand heterosexual intercourse with and without a foreskin. My sexlife with Eric Amaranth, who is circumcised, was good in part because I requested a slow fuck with lots of extra lubrication. I'm proud of his capacity for care as well as passion during sex. I also realize why my life's work has been centered on liberating masturbation. It's one sure way that women can have orgasms. Given the physical and psychological damage done to American men with this unholy procedure, I'd say vibrators have saved the day for us gals. Once circumcision is ended for good, it will be a big step toward ending the war between the sexes, healing erectile dysfunction (ED) along with ending premature ejaculation. It will also create a healing for all the pre-orgasmic women that rarely or never can orgasm from those hard friction fucks.

It's no wonder men hate women consciously or subconsciously. Look at what mothers have allowed a doctor to do to them. First Baby feels pleasure with soft touches that get him partially erect. It feels good until the Doc applies a cold hard metal clamp. The searing pain that follows lasts twenty minutes or more like a sustained torture. May I suggest we consider the similarities between American men and their Islamic brothers or a primitive African tribe? The one thing they have in common is their puritanical and ignorant approach to male sexuality. We must end the barbaric practice of circumcision now! It's up to Mothers to take a stand and protect their baby boys. He can look different from Daddy and eventually know the truth: daddy was a victim of male genital mutilation (MGM) which is no longer practiced in a sexually enlightened society.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Great article!

Sun, 02/15/2009 - 17:17
Richard Arthur Angell (not verified)

If I wanted to be circumcised, I'd have asked for it.

Article

Sun, 03/15/2009 - 10:09
cutatbirth (not verified)

I chuckled when I saw this. My son was circumcised in an Army Hospital without my permission.

I am a victim of circ myself, and I used to call the war b/w israelis and Palestinians the "circumcision wars" . They can't have normal sex so life is very frustrating for them. The normal outlet (an orgasm) never happens.
As a cut male I recognized that a circumcised male likely has no idea what a real orgasm is. A cut male can ejaculate, but an orgasm on the order of magnitude that a female has (or can have) is physically impossible. Too many nerve endings have been removed. We can, however get enough stimulation to ejaculate usually, but with a cut man, sex stimulation is mostly visual, not physical.
Therefore, satisfaction is a pipe dream, and I feel that the deep physical sexual connection between partners is interrupted with circumcision, and sex for the man is "running the marathon" and trying to get enough visual and physical stimulation to finish.
Further, if I am having sex, the moment I think of my circumcision or my mother, who always insisted she did nothing wrong by having me cut, is a crazy lunatic religious rightwing nutcase, I lose my erection. She always complains I never call her, but I can't escape her. Every time I look down there and see the mutilation I got at her request, there she is. The LAST thing I want to do is actually phone her.
Mothers, take it from me. Cut your sons and risk being referred to as the "Crazy lunatic bitch" for the rest of your life.

I would love a video!

Joelface's picture
Mon, 04/13/2009 - 00:50

I know you already told me you two plan to make a video regarding this topic soon, I would like to reiterate that I think you two could make SUCH a huge difference by doing so.

I find you two are such positive forces in the pro-sex movement - I just think getting this message out there could really help save so many young infant boys from having one of the most sensitive parts of their genitalia permanently amputated from their bodies for no medical need!

<3 Thank-you, both of you, for being such great women!

-------------------------------------

23 - M - Critical Relativist and Feminist (Equalist) - Canada

Male Circumcision Revisted

Betty Dodson's picture
Mon, 04/13/2009 - 16:05

Every morning when I first get up, I immediately go to the computer and bring up our website. Each time, I’m utterly amazed at the speed and ease of the internet. Thanks to Ted Nelson, the brilliant creator of this medium, I am instantly in touch with the whole wide world. Maybe it’s my age, but I never cease to marvel at the potential of this kind of communication.

Today, I accidentally ended up on a page that had viewer responses to my article on male circumcision. As I reread them, I again realized how many thoughtful people had shared their ideas and feelings on the subject, including a few men who called me out on some of my statements. And get this, I agree with what many of my critics said. Yes, I made some brash statements with no data to back them up but I wrote that essay after I’d just watched the clip (enter) showing a baby being circumcised. It actually sickened me as I observed this infants suffering while two adult males, one a doctor and the other his father, simply stood by and allowed this to happen to a helpless baby that was put into restraints. Still in an emotional state, I typed out my response to this unnecessary procedure.

Okay, I’ll admit I got carried away with several statements about cut men hating women and how circumcision made men more willing to go to war, and claiming it was the cause of all the “hard fucks” in the world. Another blunder was calling African tribes “primitive,” especially after living through the Bush/Cheney years which surpassed all of man’s inhumanity to man with their penchant for torture. (I still say those missing tapes are Cheney’s preferred porn. One look at his face tells me he’s a practicing sadist).

To further explain my emotional outburst, I primarily learn through my eyes. That explains why I was so drawn to art. My background was the study of drawing and painting the nude with five years of the best schooling available in New York and Paris. I am not an academic so I have never crunched numbers nor am I a diligent reader or researcher. This has advantages as well as disadvantages. However, I believe many of Wilhelm Reich’s ideas made sense. One that stayed with me was how the physical body retained the memory of pain as well as pleasure.

My PhD in sexology from the Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality was primarily based on my unique field work. I’d logged in twenty years of running masturbation workshops with women and documenting my observations about female masturbation with a book, videos and numerous articles written on the subject. When it comes to partnersex, my knowledge again comes from actual sexual experience thanks to America’s sexual revolutions of the sixties and seventies. Yes, I’ve read some of the important books written about sex, but as I’m somewhat dyslexic, it’s difficult for me to retain information. However, once I’ve seen it, I’ve got it for good.

The responses to my essay on male circumcision were very exciting and I learned from it. I want to thank all of you who posted your opinions. I only wish you were not all anonymous as several begged a reply. Others I would love to correspond with, especially the man who had only one sex partner, his wife. From what he wrote, I believe they have a divine sex life. It’s moments like this when I read or see something that blasts through all my conceived ideas or theories. I’m humbled by all of your thoughtful responses.

Re: Male Circumcision Revisted

Joelface's picture
Tue, 04/14/2009 - 02:27

Betty, I am glad to hear you are thinking of this topic again.

<3

Your re-assessment of your claims about the psychological and psyiological effects of circumcision was very encouraging to hear. I agree with you in your latest conclusion, that it was perhaps simply being carried away that led you to make the claims about circumcision resulting in aggressive behavior and war, namely the somewhat offensive comment about muslims, and the primitive comment about Africans. I know you to be a caring soul who believes everyone deserves equal respect, so I knew you had simply let your emotional feelings on this topic get the best of you at the time. I am glad you have taken the time to re-evaluate those views though.

However, I do believe MUCH of your original article was RIGHT on the mark. I think it is SO important that you fight for this cause, its an ethical dilemma in OUR country that goes on every day... the most common surgery in the USA! We know better than this. It is not a medically necessary procedure, and parents do this to their children for unjustified reasosn - generally because they are uneducated on just how useful, and functional the foreskin is, and because of the astounding number of myths that exist regarding the foreskin.

Baby Genitals need protecting!

-------------------------------------

23 - M - Critical Relativist and Feminist (Equalist) - Canada

The unfortunate truth

Sat, 04/25/2009 - 01:31
Anonymous User (not verified)

I want to thank you for showing such rationality in a public forum. Male genital mutilation goes unnoticed in the West, when it is truly barbaric and unnecessary. It perpetuates itself in a medical setting because of widespread ignorance, so I think it's really important that we have people like you to help dispel the myths and give our boys the same protection we give our girls.

In attempting to reverse the effects of this procedure, I've realized how truly crippled my sex life was as a circumcised man. Nobody deserves to needlessly be made an amputee, let alone by force or at birth.

Circumcision

Sun, 05/10/2009 - 18:09
Anonymous User (not verified)

As a guy circumcised at birth, I cannot say whether being uncircumcised gives more sensation during sex or masturbation. All I can say is I have never felt underprivileged because I am missing a bit of my foreskin - the sex has always been great - and i have done it about 10,000 times. My circumcision is a "loose cut", meaning that most of the foreskin still remains, but that it sits behind the coronal ridge when my penis is soft, and most of it becomes part of the shaft skin when it is erect, except for a little extra skin in the area at the base of my frenulum, which helps "twang" the frenulum when I thrust during intercourse. And my girlfriend loves to play with or nibble this little extra skin.

I have a feeling that guys who are uncut and have a more sensitive glans have a greater likelihood of having a premature ejaculation problem, but I don't have any hard evidence, other than comments from guys I have advised about premature ejaculation problems. Also, from a number of recent studies in Africa and New Zealand there is clear evidence that being circumcised lessens the incidence of STDs by over 50%. (Of course, consistent use of a condom evens this out entirely.)

All in all, if I had a son (I have daughters), I would have him circumcised, but with a "loose cut". When I masturbate, I can pull my remaining foreskin entirely over the glans when soft and two thirds over it when hard. I have the best of both worlds, and I don't have to worry about cleaning off the smegma.

Know your "scientific evidence"

Sun, 05/10/2009 - 19:57
Anonymous User (not verified)

Members of our "medical fields" need to be especially mindful of the "scientific evidence" that they use to support their recommendations. Again and again, when it comes to routine neonatal male circumcision, researchers continue to fail to disclose the demographic information on their study participants. It turns out that the men who benefit from circumcision are more likely to come from lower socieconomic sets, have more at-risk sexual behaviors, and more high-risk lifestyle behaviors. Please learn to delve deeper into scientific studies before you begin to cousel your patients.

Male Circumcision

Sun, 05/17/2009 - 06:01
Redwine (not verified)

U know what? I was absolutely aghast that we stiil do this inhumane practice in the western world. When my son was born I fought for his foreskin and won. NOBODY was mutilating my child! His foreskin retracted by the age of four. He is now 38 years old and has two sons of his own and is a sworn anti-circumcision father and thanked me for my fight. His father's reasons were so he could be like him. Unbelievable and ignorant! That video made me feel sick, Dr Betty. Thanks for posting it for all to see. The next time someone tells me there is a decision to make here I intend forwarding this link to them. My personal experience with men is that the uncircumcised actually take more care of their personal hygiene like a woman learns to do. My man's uncircumcised penis gives me pleasure and before anyone says I dont know the difference; I do. I have had two husbands...one circumcised and one not. Give me natural every time.
Women have the power to stop this. Use it.

Mothers, Don’t Mutilate Your Boys

Tue, 06/02/2009 - 09:30

Male Circumcision: Mothers, Don't Multilate your Boys

Comments

Don't rob your son of his greatest sexual possessions.

"I go through the streets and I feel sorry for all the women I see who did never experience the pleasure of being united with a natural man." These are the words of a woman who enjoyed finally the softness and the gentleness of the smooth penetration with a natural partner.

The creator has given the man with the foreskin such a magnificent feature that makes penetration so smooth and the love live a dream.

The foreskin protects the sensitive glans like the eyelid protects the eyes. So moist and fine is the shiny covering of the glans that man should not dare to expose it unprotected to the harsh external elements and the rubbing of the clothing.

The smooth rolling foreskin is also a functional creation to support masturbation. The playing fingers can grope the free foreskin and simulate the delicate forces and caresses of the vagina playing with the embedded male glans. No friction, just the unrolling double walled foreskin rolling over, rolling back and forth, inside out, outside in, giving the finest delicate sensation and feelings. The foreskin is therefore an indispensable natural training tool for the man.

Another function of the foreskin is assisting the penetration. The free double walled tube of skin cover of the glans is the most vital and indispensable tool in the art of the smooth entrance through the gate of love. With the unrolling of the foreskin during the frictionless entrance of the penis into the vagina, the woman feels only the soft radial forces opening her gate while the glans is moving inside its unrolling skin sheet smoothly through the narrow gate. No friction to the vagina. The foreskin helps to master the first and most delicate step on the man’s path to celebrate the long lasting sexual union.

The foreskin plays also its important mission while the penis is already inside the temple of love. Wile the glans is playing inside the vagina the man can push and roll the free moving foreskin over or off the glans and corona to control its sensitivity by protecting or releasing the highly responsive zones from the overwhelming flow of feeling. He can then remain on the edge of the highest possible level of lust without loosing his sexual control.

In short, the dynamic, free gliding foreskin system of the male penis facilitates the frictionless, supple and smooth sexual reunion of man and woman. The man can control the sexual sensitivity of the inserted penis and both can consume the deep flow of the sexual communion over the time span they desire.

Mothers and fathers don't do it!

The foreskin of the penis is part of the man and an essential part of his sexual anatomy. Every normal human being is born with it. Cutting off a large piece of foreskin is disabling the normal sexual functioning which evolved over millions of years.

The use of the foreskin

In my work "A Practical Guide for the smooth and controlled sexual reunion of man and woman" I do describe the basic function of the foreskin before and during the sexual union. I show how the intact man can make use of the foreskin to attain and hold his highest level of lust without loosing his sexual control. His wife can enjoy the softness of his entrance and linger in the sexual union over the time span she desires.

Please read on and learn how you can optimize the usage of the foreskin to be a successful, happy and satisfied lover.

Enclosure:

HGL 2005 0205 E 2009 02; ISBN 978-3-033-02048-1

The dynamic skin system of the male penis and its gliding mechanism

A practical guide for the smooth and controlled sexual reunion of man and woman

 

 

 

HGL 2005 0205 E 2009 02

 

circumcision prevents HIV/Aids:flawed research

Mon, 06/22/2009 - 23:32
Burt (not verified)

The recent studies that showed a decreased risk of HIV/Aids in circumcised men was based on seriously flawed research. Several international medical journals refused to publish the research because of its unscientific aspects. Furthermore, there are no other proven health benefits to circumcision. The idea that female partners of intact men are at greater risk for cervical cancer has been debunked for many years - yet that myth persists. A greater risk of penile cancer has been attributed to the uncircumcised - however, penile cancer is so rare that any deviation between circumcised and uncircumcised penile cancer is so small as to be scientifically unmeasurable. Supposedly, uncircumcised baby boys are more susceptable to UTIs; however, more babies have medical complications from the circumcision itself than those affected by uncircumcised UTIs. It has been said that a male circumcised at birth never misses what he never had. The same can be said of a female circumcised at birth (Pharoic circumcisions excepted - which, by the way, are rare.) FGM which removes the clitoral hood and the inner labia is the closest equivalent of male circumcision. In both cases, MUCH, if not most, sensual nerve endings are forever removed, but supposedly, not missed. The main justifications for male circumcision are religion and/or tradition and the myths of better "hygiene" and "appearance." Those are the exact same justifications given for FGM. And, both are wrong. The idea of circumcising new borns so that they won't have to experience the pain and inconvenience as an adult is asinine. First, babies are circumcised without anesthetic which caused indescribable pain and trauma. Older males are provided a variety of anesthetia and recovery is no more traumatic than recovery from wisdom tooth surgery. Many men, circumcised at birth, grow up to have overly tight penile skin or other problems that would not occur with an adult circumcision - primarily because penile growth cannot be predicted in a newborn. Lastly, babies cannot give consent - an adult has a choice.

good point (somewhat) badly argued

Mon, 08/17/2009 - 13:09
katja (not verified)

after the initial 2 day romance with your site this is, unfortunately, my first serious disappointment.
while I do agree with you on your core arguments there are issues that bother me here.
let’s take the agreements first
the procedure on infants IS purely barbaric.
as circumcision is primarily aesthetic it should only be undertaken by individuals of legal age, just like any cosmetic surgery. In the rare cases, where there is a medical reason, it should be done one smaller children, but with proper anesthesia, incisions and stitching,
But, contrary to the black and white picture you paint even a google search will reveal that the medical community is not in agreement on the benefits, or the drawbacks of circumcision. Nor are there any conclusive findings on sexual benefits neither for men or for women (here i do not count botched procedures)
what i find even more incredible is that you treat your own sexual preference as some kind of proof, on par with medical and sexological research findings. no matter how vast your experience is, as a generalization it is taken one step too far. implicitly you are also labeling millions of circumcised men as sexually dysfunctional, which may or may not be the case.
besides, your argument stands well even without the generalization of your personal preference which, to add one last thing, implicitly opens up the question whether circumcision could be justified if it was sexually pleasurable to women?

and on the statements that circumcision makes men hate women (why not men since most doctors are still men) or become terrorists (it is not the west that insists on circumcision)… I won’t even justify those with a comment

But studies are finding that

Mon, 08/24/2009 - 18:54
Anonymous User (not verified)

But studies are finding that male circumcision can prevent HIV spread.....

For one interested in

Mon, 09/07/2009 - 19:19
PakhitKris (not verified)

For one interested in science and facts, you seem to be missing alot of them. The Germans didn't start the first world war, Austria-Hungry did. Everyone else in Europe was either allied to Austria-Hungry or to their enemy. Yes, the Germans were pretty vicious during the war, but they didn't start anything. Ever hear of the "powder kegg of Europe"?
The crusades was a religious war, in which everyone's egos were involved, not so much their penises (although that depends on how you see those connected or not).
And as for the French Revolution, if you were being treated the way that the citicens of France were being treated by your government, the most gentle-hearted uncircumcised man would have been outraged. Also, penises had little to do with that war too. The most defensive and outrageous group were the french WOMEN during the march of versailles. You know, the women from the fish markets rampaging with their butcher's knives?

And it also has little to do with foreskin ENVY (seeing as most men who are circumcised don't know what their missing) and more to do with having a more rigid personality (in general, not judging individuals) due to having one of your primary "pleasure parts" peeled from you.

And although you may be right that the removal of the foreskin may have different SPECIFIC effects on men, I think we can aknowledge that all of these effects are negative. And on a spiritual level, and I don't care if you would rather look at statistics, a part of the mans body has been taken away from him, which is like having the door ripped off of your home. Baby boys don't feel safe without their shell. Lack of security causes fear, which causes hostility.

There is no need for research. I am not against researching this, that's your cup of tea, but it's not neccessary. Any sane person with a good dose of common sense knows that your body parts are supposed to be a part of your body, as circular as that statement sounds. You don't just go around torturing babies and mutilating bodies, that sort of thing is seen as repulsive and evil in civilised society (which leads me to wonder how civilised USA really is at this time).

Men do hate women. You should really look into anthropology, and history for that matter, it is proven that society itself is very mysoginistic; although I am not going to push aside the all too few yet miraculous number of indivuduals (both male and female) that actually aknowledge and teach themselves to be radical towards this general attitude. You should also look into psychology and even language, you will find that the very term "female" derives from the latin words that mean "that which has no faith", a plight against women during a time when religion was everything (which I have also to question if that time has actually ended, especially for politicians). Keep looking into language, you will see that it is very male chauvanist.

Betty loves men because she has learned to reach out to them and make her life more rich, and too forgive the past and look ahead for the future of both men and women, to be happy and loving and peaceful towards eachother.
She suggests mastrubration because your defensive attitude shows a serious lack of respect towards one's own body and denial of the affects that circumcision has had on the psychology of humanity, which is possibly because you do not want to admit your own inner greif and fury. Masturbation, or "self love", is a great way to become more in touch with yourself (for lack of a less ironic phrase) and find your own inner truths on an emotional level, and for you to heal the opressions and violations that have been done to your body and mind.

Does it really matter which

Mon, 09/07/2009 - 19:43
PakhitKris (not verified)

Does it really matter which is worse? Does it really matter that some die and others have to live with pain &/or sexual opression for the rest of their lives? How can any one person truly say, other than from opinion, which is worse? What kind of a person would hold the opinion that one is worse than the other?

The BIG PICTURE here is that babies and children are being TORTURED and HUMILIATED. Their natural and purely animal parts have been stolen from them and they have undergone temendous pain, and somehow there are people that find it more important to debate over which is worse and who this effects more and all of that other petty crap.

Sure, research may be a good idea, and there are finer details that are also very important, but if EVERY SINGLE HUMAN can not comprehend the revolting issue that is the treatment these victims have gone through, then there is a serious problem, one that is much bigger than science and debate.

I do not believe that she is

Mon, 09/07/2009 - 19:48
PakhitKris (not verified)

I do not believe that she is saying that all muslims are angry, I know first-hand that they are not, but it is conceivable that the REASON why circumcision even started was to produce warriors during the times of the crusades, or even now, and that it might not have succeeded but has certainly persisted.
And why does it bother you so much that she mentioned that about muslims, but you have yet to criticize her for suggesting it as being the cause for hostility in American men and men of other cultures during a time of war? Search yourself (in more than one way, man I love this site!).

Many Africans ARE primative.

Mon, 09/07/2009 - 19:57
PakhitKris (not verified)

Many Africans ARE primative. Although the words have different roots, the word "primative" can be synonymous with "tribal". Many African nations still adhere to their tribal traditions. There is no need to blow everything out of the water, open your mind and please channel your rage in a more positive and composed way.

Even if she did not mean it as "tribal", then I suspect that you need to learn to see mockery/irony/sarcasm when it is written, which, contrary to what many people say, is NOT difficult to read when people take the time to adapt to that color of language.

While I can respect that you

Tue, 09/08/2009 - 09:15
PakhitKris (not verified)

While I can respect that you would rather hear facts than opinions, I would like to ask how someone's own opinion does not become them. How is that?
You do not like or agree with her opinion, even though it is reasonable and at least conceivable, because of two reasons:
Too many people feel that STRONG opinions are only said out loud because someone wants to cause controversy, when this is not the case. She is speaking the truth as she sees it.
The other reason is that "modern people" care very little, as a majority, for the emotional and spiritual aspects of people. Anything that is not hardcore fact that has been perpetuated for at least a decade is either the latest fad or something everyone wants to oppose to, perhaps quite a bit of both (especially considering the political dichotomy in America, which is seriously lacking in any compromise).

Now to get the the point, what right have you to tell her that she is wrong to speak out about something that is probably true? And further more, what proof do you have that shows that hers isn't a hyothesis worth looking into and researching (since everyone seems to feel that research is the best way to proove her wrong).

I agree. Wish more people

Sat, 10/24/2009 - 15:38
Alison (not verified)

I agree. Wish more people understood that this is not a necessary procedure. My son was born at 31 weeks and only 3 lbs. I told them then that I did not want him circumcised. They explained to me that most children keep the same appearance as their father's. I told them that dad was circumcised but that the baby will NOT be. After spending 3 wks in the NICU they said that he was finally strong enough to be circumcised. Do they really believe that a child that has already been struggling, should then have his penis mutilated before coming home? It kind of makes me sick that they were so persistent.

I do agree with those who

Wed, 12/16/2009 - 13:59
consa (not verified)

I do agree with those who submit that the post that started this thread made a number of very debatable assertions about the sociology and social psychology of male sexuality and violence. Many circumcised men and their partners have adequate and satisfying lifelong sex lives. Let me now say a few things about why routine neonatal circumcision remains a bad thing to do.

Circumcision without anesthesia should be illegal and deemed a grave breach of medical ethics.

I do not accept UTIs as a reason to circumcise at birth. I won't go into the specifics of here.

Circumcising neonates creates a small risk of a damaged adult penis. The damage sometimes does not set in until after age 40. Two men for which this is the case have revealed themselves to me. Do we really want to circumcise neonates routinely, if 1 case out of a 1000 results in painful erections or the inability to enjoy vaginal intercourse after a certain age? The sexual downside of circumcision has yet to be properly researched, because American medicine fears an avalanche of malpractice lawsuits, and because American researchers are themselves circumcised men. Clinical research on the mechanics of sex is almost entirely American.

All claimed reasons to circumcise other than UTIs do not require circumcising at birth. Doing it between puberty and the onset of sexual activity would address the matter. (South Korea more or less does this.) It is easier to avoid a dysfunctional outcome when operating on a teenage boy or young man, simply because the penis is much larger and the foreskin has detached from the glans.

The African clinical trials on circ and HIV tell us nothing about whether it is advisable to routinely circumcise infants in western nations. SubSaharan Africa and the North Atlantic differ hugely along many dimensions: sanitation, condom access, sexual knowledge, drug use, chronic genital ulceration, and more.

Circumcision interferes with optimal sexual pleasure in a number of ways.
Circumcision makes male masturbation harder to do and less pleasurable. The same is true for the handjob, which is a fine form of safe sex that should be taught to teenagers. Circumcision rules out her fingers playing with his frenulum and frenular delta. I have recently discovered that this is an awesome form of foreplay. Finger foreplay with the foreskin and frenulum stimulates precum, the best possible sexual lubricant. The foreskin helps distribute the precum in a nice way. Having foreskin makes intercourse between the thighs an option.

Some women say they are thrilled by the feel of a moving foreskin in their vaginas. Other women report that intact men thrust more gently and more slowly. My wife often felt sore after sex with a condom, but never did so when we went bareback. Research in this area is sadly deficient, in good part because O'Hara and O'Hara were not well trained social scientists.

A terrible failing of a great deal of extant research on circumcision is that it is naive about how the presence or absence of foreskin is correlated with a nation's class structure. In the USA and Canada, circumcised adult men are better off and better educated than the average man; in Europe, where most circumcised men belong to the Moslem underclass, the opposite is the case. Income and education interact with health and sexuality in powerful ways which are by no means well understood. I go so far as to say that most circumcision research is naive about class realities in western nations. And that a great deal of the emotions surrounding circumcision stems from its role as a status and class marker.

Circumcision

Sat, 02/13/2010 - 21:36
Bernd R (not verified)

-- Having grown up in Germany, I am glad that I was not circumcised. The inside of my foreskin is the greatest source of pleasant feelings. When I enter the vagina of my partner, my foreskin rolls and slides back, covering the outside of the penis shaft. This rolling allows me to enter the vagina without friction, even if there is no lubrication. This unrolling of the foreskin, as it stretches and touches the wall of the vagina, gives me great pleasure.
-- My son once asked me why I had not have him circumcised. I told him "you are welcome to cut off your foreskin anytime, but you can never put it back on." End of story.

Betty, you are fairly typical for a sophisticated USA woman.

Sun, 02/14/2010 - 16:22

Betty,

While your experience with cut and uncut is unusually rich and long (going back to your cut husband of 50 years ago), what you have concluded from that experience is not unusual, at least among American women whose minds are not held in thrall by having seen cut only while growing up. Namely, you prefer intact because it runs more smoothly and gently. You are not the only American women to find that orgasm with cut is a challenge, and that with intact orgasm can be taken pretty much for granted.

What you call the Hard Fuck is an American barbarity. When I read about it, I have the urge to complete an imaginary form seceding from the male sex. If that is the male role in vaginal intercourse, then I am proudly NOT MALE. If a man has to pump brutally to come when he's 20 or 30, I bet there is a fair chance he won't come at all at 50 or 60. I recently read that a large majority of Viagra sales occur in the USA and the Middle East, with a large part of the non-American supply coming from an Israeli firm that makes it without a licence. Viagra: only Jews, Moslems, and... Americans need apply!

Medical Health Utopia?

ChrisOnline's picture
Mon, 02/15/2010 - 09:20

fem85:

One more reply in this long string is really not necessary, but I wanted to respond to you because you are a doctor in training. so...

Should we remove a body part from a newborn because the
act moves us one step closer to medical health utopia? Is there really a large population
of men who wear condoms + have foreskin + get HIV in America these days?

I feel like there’s an unnecessary level of general health anxiety
because people are encouraged to believe that medicine will set them free from
all potential negative health events. A lot is media driven.  But, bad shit can happen to healthy people too.
I wish we would stop trying for a world where nothing bad happens, and
everything is fixable with the right pill. It’s not possible, and drives us to do
nutty things.

Just so you know where I’m coming from, I do not have my
kids get flu shots. Their risk factor of dying from the flu is so low, the shot
is absolutely medical overkill, in my opinion. On the other hand, It
pisses me off that my father-in-law forgoes all forms of enjoyable food just to
aviod taking medicine for high colestoral. That’s the other extreme. A world
without the ocastional chocolate shake is just not worth it.

How about a little moderation? Let’s have our medial experts focus on teaching boys how to understand and care for their intact bodies, before we giveup and just cut it off.

BETTY AND CARLIN- please read!

Tue, 02/16/2010 - 18:18
anon 93 (not verified)

Hey! Just wanted to stop into this post and let everyone know that some people have been talking that somatic stem cells may be able to not only grow back the foreskin, but also the corona and frenulum (unlike any other foreskin restoration method)! What do you think about that?!

No, it's not. Genital

Wed, 02/24/2010 - 15:46
Usha (not verified)

No, it's not. Genital mutilation is genital mutilation. The reasons for FGM given - it's cleaner, they will be unattractive to their husbands, it's cultural, it's religious are the same reasons given for MGM here. All children deserve to decide for themselves, as adults, if they want healthy tissue remove. All abuse is abuse.

Thankyou ChrisOnline

Joelface's picture
Mon, 10/18/2010 - 04:10

"Let’s have our medial experts focus on teaching boys how to understand and care for their intact bodies, before we giveup and just cut it off." Perfect. Thank you for speaking out on this issue, Chris. Unlike a lot of activist causes, simply talking to people about circumcision is enough to stop it from happening. Please keep educating people on this issue - there is so much misinformation and our culture needs more rational, informed people like you to speak out.

American women who bring up FGM to minimize MGM are sexist.

Mon, 10/18/2010 - 16:07
Equality (not verified)

I really get tired of women who minimize male infant circumcision. Should rape of a women be minimized or made legal? The clitoris is always compared to the penis and the hood to the foreskin, except the foreskin has 20,000 speicalized nerve endings and matches up better to the clitoris with it's 8,000 specialized nerve endings. The penis has a urethra going through it. The clitoris does not. It's interesting how easily we accept all scientific "facts" as actually being 100% accurate. Science has been wrong before and will be again and again. Circumcision is done in Amwerica where American women live. FGM is done where American women don't live. I have no problem with women being concerned about FGM since it is horrible. A male losing his penis and undergoing a sex change is worse than the worst type of FGM. He will never enjoy sex, never reproduce and have to be reared as the opposite sex. Why can't these women be against both equally? What's going on in their minds? It seems to be difficult for feminists to grasp their own sexism regarding the issue. That's why most seem to be pro-choice for the parents of baby boys. Both males and females suffer under gender roles that are stupid and unnatural. Why do these American women want to throw salt in our wounds by minimizing circumcision? Granted not all males feel it is bad but a growing number of males are coming out of the closet and these are straight males too. Feminists have said it's a man's world so it's important to maintain that myth. Circumcision gives both older men and older women power and control over a male child and an adult male. Women benefit from this patriarchy which benefits males and females at the top the most. Primarily young males are used as expendable warriors. We forget about 18 and 19 year olds dying in battle. Since MGM and FGM are practiced together in tribal group in Africa, if America outlawed male circumcision then worked on stopping male circumcision in Africa, FGM could be stopped as well. Trying to maintain MGM as Bill and Melinda Gates are doing only helps to perpetuates FGM. I can understand why some feel men hate women. It's because many men are braindead insensitive to their own suffering that they are oblivious to insensitive treatment of women as well.

All right causes will have their trolls...

Sat, 10/23/2010 - 01:16
Toby (not verified)

@ Authors: AMEN! This (and other barbarities) must end.

@ Very Anonymous User:  "It's no wonder men hate women consciously or subconsciously" quickly followed by "We love men" - these statements are obviously in no way contradictory.

@fem85: Citations please. Nobody else has heard of such results.

I think mutilation is the

Sun, 04/10/2011 - 22:56
ultraorange (not verified)

I think mutilation is the same wether or not it is performed by a doctor. And I think we might find ther are more little boys having part of their penis removed forcibly and with out consent then we will clitorectomy. Neither plight is more important they are the same problem just being commited against both sexes. 

We don't kill men or women we kill people.

Supplicating circumcision

Sun, 06/19/2011 - 16:21
soapberryusa (not verified)

This is choice.  Russell Crowe says that circumcision is barbaric and all the slow-witted women all want to follow his instructions on circumcision which has nothing even to do with a woman. Typical woman logic.  If Russell Crowe was working at a Dollar Store they wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire. He is just an actor. The supplicating chowder heads all jump on the bandwagon and want to express the horror of mutilation of the poor little babies.  Any man that likes a foreskin is has no geometric graphic vision.  They can like what they like but it is not mutilation anymore than a facelift, nose job or lipo.  The witless wisdom of the bags, rags and nags goes on and on.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.