Circumcision Fact-Finding Tour
(Top Posts - Social/Legal - 050801)

First off, I must admit that I object to circumcision
of infants. I, myself, was circumcised as an infant,
in 1955, as was the common medical practice in
America at that time.

Times have changed, and the following information
is provided to 1) make a strong case for changing
the perceptions of circumcision in America, and
2) present the facts [and opinions] that allow a
person to assess the facts reasonably and deter-
mine whether or not previously held views should
be reconsidered ...

- - -

Sex As Nature Intended It : The Most Important
Thing You Need to Know About Making Love,
but No One Could Tell You Until Now
by Kristen O'Hara, Jeffrey O'Hara
Paperback - 414 pages (January 2001)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0970044208

Review Excerpt:

"... A major aspect of the book focuses in on the
role that sexual pleasure during intercourse plays
in the well-being of an intimate love relationship.

And that the sex organs, as designed by Nature,
work to enrich our lives in two ways:

(1) they create sexual pleasure, and thereby,

(2) create feelings of love for our lovemaking partner.

In the process of explaining this, it lifts up the bed-
covers in America's boudoirs and illuminates the
shocking revelation that the part of the penis that
plays the most important role in creating sexual
pleasure (and ultimately love)--the foreskin--is
removed in infancy by circumcision and thrown
in the waste basket.

I foresee the current widespread acceptance of cir-
cumcision in this country (it is not practiced in most
countries of the world) dwindling quickly once the
information in this book hits the fan.

Especially important, it offers hope and inspiration
to men who want to restore their foreskin. Yes, this
was a surprising solution. Foreskin restoration, though
it may seem a 'far out' concept, is presented as a dig-
nified way for circumcised men to get back their fore-
skin through skin expansion techniques ('regrow,' as
the author states it).

And the author points out that although this concept
affects men directly, it will also emerge as an important
women's issue, and the book presents a convincing case
for why women will be highly interested in their partner
restoring--increased sexual pleasure for the woman. ...

People think that circumcision is an issue of concern
only to expecting parents and that the infant is only
affected by it for the short time of his operation.

But Sex As Nature Intended It presents clear, unrelenting,
logical evidence that in the end, it adversely affects the
sexuality of both the man and his female partner through-
out their lives, who are harmed by this primitive practice,
held over from a bygone era.

Yet, its message and encouragement for foreskin restor-
ation appears to hold great promise for improved sex-
uality of both partners.

The circumcision debate seems to be popping up in var-
ious places these days. And I believe this book will be
elevated to landmark distinction principally for two rea-
sons.

One, the thoroughness, lucidity, and persuasiveness of its
argument.

Two, its inclusion of the woman, the man's female sexual
partner, into male circumcision's injuriousness. Women
will be struck to the core when they learn about the detri-
ments this practice wreaks on female sexual enjoyment,
a message driven home through the reporting of the book's
survey of women who had had sexual intercourse with both
circumcised and uncircumcised men. The results of which
were astonishing. ..."

-end excerpt-

- - -

http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com/circumcisedman/

Excerpt:

"First of all, it is important for you to know that most
of the world's men (approximately 80%) are not circum-
cised. Routine circumcision is practiced by only a few
countries. Circumcision is not the standard in the world;
it is the exception.

However, since America is a circumcising country, most
American men are circumcised. ...

Although the circumcision rate in America is declining
(presently around 60%), in the not-too-distant past almost
9 out of 10 newborn males were circumcised.

During the 20th century in America, circumcision was
performed routinely by the medical community, principally
because it was believed to have medical benefits-benefits
that have now been discredited.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recently con-
ducted a two-year intensive review of the medical literature
on circumcision from the last 40 years.

As a result, they issued a policy statement in March, 1999,
declaring that existing scientific evidence demonstrating
potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision
'are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal [infant]
circumcision.'

Subsequently, in August, 2000, the American Medical
Association (AMA), the largest medical association in
America, posted a statement on their website concurring
with the AAP's findings, saying routine infant circumcision
is 'non-therapeutic' and unnecessary.

Because of the above, the already declining rate will undoubt-
edly continue to spiral downward as more people become
informed on this important issue.

Have you ever wondered . . . ?

Why nature equips every baby boy with a foreskin (a fold
of 'extra' skin at the front of the penis that enwraps the penis
head).

Would it surprise you to learn that . . . ?

Circumcision removes much more than just a little 'extra'
skin... it removes highly erogenous tissue. And it impairs
much of the neurological 'wiring' in the penis that transmits
pleasure sensations to the brain. ..."

-end excerpt-

- - -

Sex As Nature Intended It (web site)
http://www.SexAsNatureIntendedIt.com

- - -

The Ridged Band - Specialized Sexual Tissue
http://research.cirp.org/index.html

- - -

Circumcision study halted due to trauma
December 23, 1997
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9712/23/circumcision.anesthetic/
Excerpt: "A new study found circumcision so
traumatic that doctors ended the study early
rather than subject any more babies to the
operation without anesthesia.

The researchers discovered that for those
circumcised without anesthesia there was not
only severe pain, but also an increased risk
of choking and difficulty breathing.

... Up to 96 percent of the babies in the United
States and Canada receive no anesthesia when
they are circumcised, according to a report
from the University of Alberta in Edmonton. ..."

-end excerpt-

- - -

A most excellent article (debunking myths and offering
support to those who wish to put an end to this ancient
ritual), written in 1997 for Salon Magazine ...

foreskin or against it?
is circumcision the unkindest cut of all?
http://www.salon.com/aug97/mothers/circ970820.html

This is just a snippet from the article - for the entire
perspective, please read the entire article ...

Excerpt:

"... JAMA turned out to be the acronym for the very
respectable 'Journal of the American Medical Asso-
ciation.' The article Tim guided me to, 'Circumcision
in the United States,' appeared in the April 2, 1997,
issue.

When I read it, I started to sweat. I had to stop every
10 minutes and drink some water. I paced around,
agitated, alarmed by the statistics. Unlike the pro-
circumcision reports, which were distant and smug,
this one clanged with truths I recognized from my
own genital experience.

I've suffered through two urinary tract infections and
one inflamed prostate. Would my urology be even
sicker if I had a prepuce? No, claims Dr. Laumann.
His investigation discovered that 'circumcised men
were slightly more likely to have both a bacterial and
a viral STD in their lifetime.' The greatest disparity
involved chlamydia: He found 26 cases in circumcised
men, but zero in those left intact! Grrr! I snarled. I had
chlamydia! What a mess -- I passed it on to a very mad
girlfriend! Chlamydia ... damn! Can I blame it on the
geeks who stole my shield?

The study also exposed the stupidity of the original
Victorian impulse: Circumcised men, it reported, actually
masturbate 1.4 times more frequently than intact males.

Two days later, my wife and I watched the video. Carol
bravely stared straight at the 'live circumcision' footage
while I peered through my quivering fingers. The infant,
spread-eagled in a restrainer, shuddered when the Gomco
clamp bit into his penis. He shrieked with terror and pain
during the amputation. Blood gushed in his crotch. After-
wards, he was catatonic, detached.

When it ended, Carol stood up and bellowed, 'We've got
to save Rebecca's unborn child!'

Puzzled, I asked her, 'Rebecca's getting an abortion? Why?
She's eight months pregnant!'

'No!' my wife raved, 'it's a boy! Rebecca's going to circum-
cise him!'

'Oh dear,' I whined. 'What can we do?'

'Talk to her!' My wife pleaded. 'You've got a penis; she'll
listen to you!'

'OK, OK, OK,' I stuttered. 'I'll ... study. I'll learn everything.'

I memorized all the data in the pamphlets; I carefully made
notes from the video. I discovered that:

o Ninety percent of U.S. boys used to undergo circumcision,
but this figure has recently been snipped down to 60 percent.

o The United States is the only nation that severs the foreskin
for medical (rather than religious) reasons.

o Dr. Dean Edell and Dr. Benjamin Spock oppose the proce-
dure.

o Foreskin anatomy isn't studied in medical school, but doc-
tors learn to slash it off anyway.

o The foreskin has 1,000 nerve endings -- 36 percent of the
organ's pleasure reception. ..."

-end excerpt-

- - -

A web site addressing the circumcision issues pertaining
to studies involving HIV transmission ...

http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html

Excerpt (excellent site - please read the whole site if
you're really interested in this issue, as this is but a
tidbit of what's there):

"... A common criticism of 'Circumcision prevents HIV'
is 'But HIV is very common in the US, where circumcision
is prevalent.'

A common reply from the pro-circumcision lobby is that
HIV is primarily transmitted homosexually in the US, hetero-
sexually in Africa, and anal receptivity of HIV is unaffected
by circumcision.

This can be countered by comparing the United States with
Europe, where homosexual and heterosexual rates of trans-
mission are comparable, but circumcision rates are very dif-
ferent.

The US proves to have a much higher rate of HIV than
Europe, and a disproportionate rate of male to female
transmission. ..."

-end excerpt-

- - -

Web site revealing flaws and biases in the methodology
and conclusions of HIV studies taking place in Africa
and comparisons of those studies to the high HIV infec-
tion rate in the U.S. ...

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/

Excerpt:

" ... Studies from developed countries

According to Laumann et al., data from the National
Health and Social Life Survey in the United States
indicate that, in 1992, of 1511 men surveyed who were
between 18 and 59 years of age, 77 percent of U.S.
born men were circumcised; this high percentage is
unique among the industrialized nations.

World Heath Organization data from 1995 show the
following AIDS rates for that year:

             AIDS cases per
Nation . . . 100,000 population

USA . . . . . . . 16.0
Australia  . . . . 4.5
Canada . . . . . . 3.8
France . . . . . . 3.5
Netherlands  . . . 3.1
United Kingdom . . 2.4
Germany  . . . . . 2.2
Sweden . . . . . . 2.0
Norway . . . . . . 1.6
New Zealand  . . . 1.2
Finland  . . . . . 0.9
Japan  . . . . . . 0.2


The United States HIV incidence rate is 3.5 times
higher than that of the closest advanced industrialized
nation.

Storms and Nicoll noted that the high incidence of male
circumcision in the US did nothing to prevent the spread
of this infection.

Nicoll, in fact, states that 'the US is the industrialized
country most burdened with HIV.' ..."

-end excerpt-

- - -

Circumcision and Cancer
http://www.circumstitions.com/Cancer.html

- - -

Cervical Cancer and Circumcision Status
http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/cerv-cancer/

- - -

Cervical Cancer - Risks and Causes
http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=2755

Excerpt:

"... Some researchers found that women whose
partners were circumcised were less likely to get
cervical cancer. They thought that this may be
because the secretions of the foreskin covering
the penis in uncircumcised men may be irritant to
the cervix and so possibly a factor in cervical can-
cer. This led to male circumcision being thought
a factor in cervical cancer.

But now, researchers are fairly sure that as long as
uncircumcised men are careful about keeping their
genitals clean, the risk of cervical cancer in their
partners should not be any greater than that for
circumcised men. It is likely that this association
has risen because certain religious groups who
practice circumcision, such as the Jews, also have
a low risk of cervical cancer due to low levels of
promiscuity. ..."

-end excerpt-

- - -

Mothers Against Circumcision
http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/

Excerpts:

"... March 1, 1999: After a two year investigation, the
American Academy of Pediatrics concluded that the
'potential medical benefits' of infant circumcision aren't
significant enough and therefore, they do not recom-
mend it as a routine procedure.

Routine Infant Circumcision [RIC] is not practiced
in most medically advanced nations. Unlike American
parents, few parents worldwide are actually faced with
this choice. Their babies are automatically brought
home intact. 82% of the world's living men are intact.
Few people are aware of the fact that circumcision
was introduced to our culture in an attempt to eliminate
masturbation. ...

Many parents are led to believe that circumcision is
safer than leaving the penis in its natural form. Your
Child's Health by Barton Schmitt reports one out
of every 500 circumcisions results in a serious
complication. ...

Today, many Jews are questioning circumcision and
opting against it. Some Christians also believe circum-
cision is required. Read Religious Circumcision to
address both Jewish and Christian circumcision:
http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/religious.htm ..."

- - -

The Religious Reasons (Christian & Jewish
efforts to repress masturbation) why Circum-
cision Became All the Rage in America
http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/

Excerpt:

"... Many men do not miss their penile tissue until
they discover the historical basis of circumcision:

Just as with female circumcision in some parts of
the world, the intent of male circumcision in America
was to control sexual activity. It is clear from the
historical evidence that circumcision in America
was instituted in a futile attempt to prevent mastur-
bation by reducing sexual sensitivity.

Abraham ordered his followers to sacrifice the fore-
skin as evidence of their covenant, but Christ exempted
Christians from circumcision. The Jews and Muslims
have largely continued to follow Abraham's example.

Despite this exemption for Christians, a few 19th century
fundamentalist Christian doctors joined with Jewish doc-
tors to promote male circumcision in the US. Their clearly
stated and sole intent was to eliminate masturbation by
reducing the sexual sensitivity of the penis. Circumcision
rates have plummeted in the US as more men confront
the real reason why they were sexually altered.

Most circumcised men have only a narrow band of sex-
ually sensitive tissue remaining.

---

One hundred years ago, sexual extremists instituted the
sexual mutilation of children in the United States. Finally,
there are signs that circumcision may someday become
as rare in America as it is in Europe."

-end excerpt-

- - -

Female Circumcision - Clitoridectomy
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/fgm1.html
Excerpt: "... Genital mutilation, also referred to
as female circumcision, genital cutting, or excision,
is a coming-of-age ritual that signifies a girl's entry
into womanhood.

It is accompanied by public celebrations and is
often a source of pride for the girl. For some it
also carries religious significance. ...

The World Health Organization estimates that
more than 130 million women have undergone
the procedure.

Although it is most often associated with Islam,
it is also practiced by Christians, adherents to
traditional African religions, and one Jewish sect. ..."

-end excerpt-

- - -

For comprehensive details on how this issue was
handled by the writers of the Christian Bible, see
"The Bible's View on Foreskins & Circumcision" ...
http://prohuman.net/disbelief/circumcision.htm

- - -

Conclusion:

I've conveyed information in this post which has
demonstrated ...

1) the anti-humanism inherent in torturing infants,

2) the harm to sexuality inherent in removing a part of
another's body that is designed by nature to bring plea-
sure to both the possessor of said part and to the partner
of that possessor,

3) the sexism and anti-humanism entailed in promoting said
torture/part removal,

4) the cause and complicity of religiosity and status quo
Americanism in the origins, myths, and continuance of said
practice,

5) the facts regarding 80-82 percent of the world's men not
suffering said torture/body part removal,

6) the ability of men to reverse said procedure,

7) the advantages in having said body part and the anti-
humanism inherent in without consent slashing/torturing
a helpless infant,

and

8) the manner in which inaccurate attributions based on
flawed and biased studies have been erroneously and
unjustly used to perpetuate the practice of circumcision ...

- - -