Strollerderby

As long as they are there maybe they should also speak up about things that matter. Maybe pack an extra sign proclaiming how they feel about healthcare, the economy, car makers...

Shouldn't they actually be protesting at thier parents' house? That is afterall, where the people who made the decision to remove the weeny wrap live.

Part of this sad and scary movement is a good helping of antisemitism (whether it is self imposed or directed at others).  

Circumsion is not abuse.  Their claims are complete garbage.  

Why is it complete garbage?  How can you justify cutting off a useful part of a child's body. The foreskin is 1/3 of the sexually sensitive skin on the penis.

I see it as less of an issue of which is better-foreskin or no foreskin, than an issue of is it morally acceptable to make the permanent decision to remove a piece of another's body before he can protest or consent.

I'm with Mar, I think it's immoral to permanently remove healthy tissue from a nonconsenting person.

The STD results are horribly flawed and apply only to a specific population with little or no relation to the people WE are talking about.

Are they trying to prevent anyone from getting a circumcision? Very silly.

btw, like someone else said, the STD results are not necessarily relevant to our population.

I think this is something the parents need to decide for themselves. We decided not to, because there were good reasons for either side (to cut or not to cut) and I'd rather not do a medical procedure unless there is a sure reason to do it. However, this is a pretty standard procedure, and I would not judge someone who decided to do it.

This article I consider an insult.  For starters, good for those guys on the march, this is a topic which many people know nothing about, author included.  Secondly I'd like to state that STD's are exactly that: Sexually Transmitted Diseases, that you more often than not get from a partner (but not always).  Sure, having your foreskin removed is more hygienic in the eyes of some people, but what it boils down to is how hygienic said individual is.  As for your comment about little flaps of flesh, why don't you go get your little flesh flaps removed, then rephrase your statement.

I don't think circumcision is that big a deal either way. Personally, I wouldn't do it to my boy because it seems unnecessary. But it was done to me, and I'm okay with that. One thing I don't fully get is this consent argument, though. Babies don't really consent to anything, starting with being made in the first place. Maybe you could argue that you think the peenie is too important to mess with, but the consent argument generally stated as a principle is a little weird to this parent who makes decisions for his kid all the time.

1) I'm tired of circumcised men trying to justify cutting parts off other people's bodies.  Babies aren't going to be getting any STI's before they're old enough to decide for themselves whether or not they want part of their genitals cutting off.  It's their body; it should be their decision.

2) These latest studies are from Africa.  A 29 year study of males in New Zealand showed a slightly *higher* rate of STI's among circumcised men:

www.jpeds.com/.../S0022-3476(07)00707-X/abstract

3) If we found out that cutting off part of a girl's genitals reduced her risk of contracting an STI, would that make it acceptable?

This study shows exactly that:  www.ias-2005.org/.../Abstracts.aspx

If female circumcision had caught on in the USA (it was promoted in medical papers till at least 1959, and practised till the early 70's), and western researchers were now looking for benefits of female circumcision as enthusiastically as they are looking for benefits of male circumcision, we'd now be getting news articles about how female circumcision help prevent STI's.  It wouldn't mean that there aren't better ways to prevent STI's, and it wouldn't make it right.

News just in yesterday: A jury in Atlanta has awarded $1.8 million to a boy whose penis was severed in a botched circumcision five years ago. The Fulton County jury also awarded the boy's mother another $500,000.

I watched my newborn be circumcised just a few weeks ago.  I was a little hesitant about watching the procedure since my husband was the one who watched our eldest son's circumcision.  

It was remarkably simple.  His clothes were removed as well as his diaper.  He was given a local anesthetic (which was the worst) and once that took hold, he happily sucked his pacifier throughout.  Healed in 4 days.

Jeanne Sager:

The circumcisions were performed on adult married volunteers in conjunction w/an intensive anti adultery education in a population extremely averse to condom use. Are the lower infection rates reduced due to the circumcision, the education, the aversion to adultery due to genital mutilation...?

American populations are not the same as African populations. Safe sex campaigns begun in the 80's that promote condom use were pretty successful. The effects were dramatically reduced with the rise of abstinence education. If the US would abandon abstinence education and educate its children to have sex safely, if and when they eventually have sex, the rates of STD transmission will see a swift and dramatic reduction.

In Africa, condom use is a lost cause. There is huge resistance to it, which is why other avenues, like circumcising grown men, is being explored.

I know any time we read an article on Babble about circumcision, it inevitably degenerates into wither or not the practice is humane.  So bear with me if I choose to focus instead on the hilarity (and I'm sorry if some of you don't find it hilarious in the least) of a group of grown men marching on Washington over a procedure that happened to them before they could even remember it.  A procedure that has probably had no adverse effects on them.

I have heard the many arguments that the foreskin contains 1/3 of the sexually responsive nerve endings of the penis...but I've never heard of a circumcised man unable to ejaculate just fine, despite the loss of his foreskin.

I think it's a pretty cool policy to if you want to modify your body, it should be your own decision. I don't even like the idea of piercing baby girl's ears.

Jeanne, the reasons that the African data may not apply to the US is the difference in STD rates. In Africa, condom use is looked down upon, and a heartbreakingly high number of people have STD's.

There is no conclusion as yet as to whether or not the data applies to the US. I am not saying that is absolutely does not apply, just that it is inconclusive. The AAP is currently looking at the data and trying to figure out if anything can be taken from it for our population.

btw, one thing I have never seen is an analysis of STD rates in the US (where most men are circumcised) and Europe (where most men are uncircumcised.) It may be difficult to separate other variables, but I wonder if anyone has tried to do this?

Have fun with this: I chose to circumcise my son and see nothing wrong with that choice. He has checked out his member many times and so far, no complaints. However, I strongly disagree with piercing a young girls ears.

Circumcision is still seen as a religious duty.

One last thought, I agree with the person who reminded us that circumcised men ejaculate just fine. So either I am a sexual genius or the men I have been with are capable of getting the much desired orgasm. Oh forget it, I am a sexual genius! hehe

Back in the 1890's to the early 1900's a group of liars pimped this perversion into this society. Saying that circumcision prevented 1)masturbation, 2)insanity, 3)cancer, 4)crime including rape, 5)syphilis, 6)gonorrhea, 7)feeble mindedness, 8)diabetes, 9)obesity & 10)even immorality!

Time has PROVEN THEM TO BE 1)Liars, 2) Liars, 3)Liars, 4)Liars, 5)Liars, 6)Liars. 7)Liars, 8)Liars, 9)Liars, & finally 10)Liars!  

If HPV or HIV had been around back then that same group would have included these disease's in their lies when trying to pimp their perversion. That same group is doing that same thing now. If they can pervert everyone around them then they appear to be normal. If this society casts out their sin then they can't hide in a sea of sin any longer. They would suddenly become exposed as a perverted minority. This happened to them 4 or 5 centuries ago when some southern European countries outlawed

circumcision.      

Ali-Oop

You said that circumcision was outlawed in Southern Europe 4 or 5 centuries ago.  You do realize this was during the inquisition and that this was an attempt to shatter Judaism.

Twyla, I find it strange that you think peircing a girl's ears is wrong when she is a baby in comparrison to circumsision.  My ears were peirced when I was a baby.  And I can say that it was more of a family tradition thing considering my parents come from a country that is fifty percent ethnically Indian (India Indian).  A lot of the traditions remain and have carried over to the black, white and Chinese of the island.  the big difference though is that a girl can stop wearing the earrings if that is not something she believes in.  Not so much with circumsision.  I do understand that it is done in both Jewish and Muslim culture for religious reasons.  And there is nothing wrong with that.  But it is perfectly valid that a man could complain and protest about the fact that the decision was made for him rather than by him.

My husband was not circumcised, because he is Swedish and it was pointed out to him when he was in sixth grade after moving to the US.  It made him self concious for about a week and he is very happy as an adult that it was never done to him.

I always wonder how these men know for sure that the decision has adversely impacted their lives? I respect anyone's right to bodily autonomy, and I respect what they're saying - they didn't have a say in this procedure, because it was done when young, and they can't change it now.  I just wonder what exactly it is that they are so sure would be different?  And those who didn't have it done - they can't really know either that their lives would be different if they had had it done.  You can't prove something like sexual pleasure, right? - because that's going to differ from person to person anyway. And it might well be that being conscious of and unhappy about the state of your body can impact this negatively - like persons of size who are uncomfortable with their size may not enjoy sex because they are too busy being worried about how they are being perceived by their partner, or being down on themselves. I wonder if these men shouldn't also direct efforts towards helping circumsized men who are unhappy about it work to feel as good as they can about their bodies.

On consent...

My eldest child has had ear tubes placed and his adenoids removed without his consent.  He has had no choice in the school he attends or doctor he visits.

As a parent, it is my obligation to make decisions for him.  I chose to circumcise him because as a Jew, it is part of our covenant and because I believe it is better for his long term health.  I also believe that if I failed to have him circumcised he would do it later and it would be more painful and more complicated.

I do not expect him to be unhappy with this decision.

Besides circumcised penises are much better looking.

If only this article were an April Fool's joke.

I mean, really, what do these guys want politicians to do about circumcision? Outlaw it? There are lots of us Jews here, folks, and we wouldn't much appreciate having our religious traditions outlawed.

If these guys have the time to worry about everyone else's weenies while the economy falls down around us... sheesh. Tasteless, clueless, and useless. (Also: the post above referring to circumcision as "sin" only strengthens my conviction that "intactivists" are nuts.)

women talking about "little flaps of skin" as if they have a penis is about as ignorant as men talking about the uterus and menstrual cramps as if they have one.

Lisa,

I thought your comments were thoughtful (even though I disagree with your point of view) until I read "Besides circumcised penises are much better looking." No, they're not- at least not to everyone.

I did not become an anti-circumcision advocate until I started dating an intact man in college. At first I thought it looked a little unusual, but after dating him for a year and doing some research for a pregnant friend of mine who was grappling with the issue of whether or not to circumcise her boy when he was born, I started to understand what Europeans have known for ages- that the foreskin is there for a reason. Circumcised penises look trimmed an unnatural now- it's all a matter of what you're used to seeing.

anavoog, you are right on.. NO woman has the right to be dismissive about "little flaps of skin". How would women feel if doctors decided that removing the inner labia should be standard at birth to slightly reduce the chances of contracting STDs?

If the protest was by women in Africa against genital mutilation, the vast majority of Americans would applaud it. We seem to be blind to our own similar, unnecessary "tradition". I've often wondered what we consider normal that future generations will be appalled at -- I think circumcision is one example.

Watch what doctors think about circumcision:

www.youtube.com/watch

Pregnant peanut and Twyla: if the only thing about sex that matters to you is whether he can ejaculate or not, then I'm REALLY sorry for you both - and your men. Men who've been circumcised in adulthood compare the result with going colourblind. It's not just the quantity of sensation, it's the quality. A foreskin gives him more feedback, and hence more control.

Pregnant peanut: if the fact that they don't remember it makes it all right, doesn't that make drug rape all right too (as long as he wears a condom)? They still know it happened, every time they look down at what's left.

The "STD reductions" look impressive when they're presented, as they invariably are, as relative risk reductions, in big percentages. In the most recent studies, it would take about 40 circumcisions (in Uganda where herpes is prevalent) to delay one transmission.