Moral Landscapes

I've posted a rebuttal to this article here:

http://circumcisionnews.blogspot.com/2011/09/debunking-another-myths-art...

Fabulous article! Thanks for cutting through the b.s. surrounding this unnecessary surgery on unconsenting minors.

What anti-circumcision fanatics WON'T tell you: http://goo.gl/kKPgD

Most of what I read here seem like pure speculation and opinion, and of course, its coming from someone who has no idea what its like to even have a penis. When was the last time you read an article at Psychology Today that had a man writing about the pain of a vaginal issue. What a crock.

Fabulously written Lilli and, as always, very factual without being boring. I wish that I had this information BEFORE circumcising Kevin, but having it now means not only can I use it for any upcoming cicumcision decisions I may need to make in the future but I can also use it to inform others about the procedure. I can't wait to read your ucoming articles =)

So I suppose this San Francisco bunch is against circumcision that hurts babies but all for giving new borns needles for vaccinations. I've been circumcised, and I still have some forskin, it is the least sensitive skin on my body when my penis is not erect. It would hurt more getting a needle than having it cut.

I'm a male and have a penis. I can tell you that circumcision is not necessary and might actually be harmful.
Why not give double masectomies to females once they grow breasts to prevent breast cancer?
Why not have all of your teeth removed to prevent cavaties?
Then why the heck circumcise to prevent minor infections that might never happen?
Wouldn't it be better to teach a boy to keep his penis clean than to cut off part of the penis because it's easier?
Rub your fingers over your lips gently. Feel that sensation? That's the amount of sensitivity that's on the foreskin. Imagine having that sensation gone.
Most of the world does not circumcise. It's a crazy American thing to have all boys circumcised upon birth.
Its a sex organ. God, or evolution or whatever, perfected it the most crucial part of human survival a long time ago. Why do people want to mess with what nature has created perfectly?

I love how you just pick and choose which statistics to reference. Most of these "facts" are extremely outdated and vary drastically from current estimates. Seriously, you're going to reference something from 1990? Very credible...

Darcia, you are fear mongering again and presenting your opinion as fact. I have submitted my complaint to the staff at PT.

"What anti-circumcision fanatics WON'T tell you"

I sincerely hope you're joking. You are, aren't you? Honestly, you really shouldn't be linking to that website for reputable information of any sort. The person behind it suffers from a raging narcissistic personality disorder.

"Most of what I read here seem like pure speculation and opinion, and of course, its coming from someone who has no idea what its like to even have a penis. When was the last time you read an article at Psychology Today that had a man writing about the pain of a vaginal issue. What a crock."

That does not prevent her from forming an educated opinion on the matter. Don't like it? Tough. Stow the antiquated beliefs please. On that note, I am a man who was circumcised at birth and I don't like it. I agree with her.

"I love how you just pick and choose which statistics to reference. Most of these "facts" are extremely outdated and vary drastically from current estimates. Seriously, you're going to reference something from 1990? Very credible..."

And you know something? That's not at all unlike what pro circumcision advocates will do in order to support their arguments. They conveniently ignore the alternative studies that conflict with their opinions and premise, such as this one, which contradicts the Langerhans cell theory behind HIV transmission. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR200703...

"Darcia, you are fear mongering again and presenting your opinion as fact. I have submitted my complaint to the staff at PT."

Unbelievable. Then just what do you call the scare tactics involved with promoting circumcision? They run the gamut from the HIV scare to penis insecurities and even cervical cancer which was debunked, since it is HPV that causes it and not the foreskin. She provides citations to back her claims, so I don't see how opinion is being passed off as fact here.

Though i don't know why I waste my time, since I'm sure nobody will pay attention.

I fully the right of all children to keep their whole naturally born, healthy body parts. I will never understand how a woman can so carefully gestate a healthy baby only to toss part of him into a medical waste bin (or worse yet, have his foreskin sold to the cosmetic industry!)
We do not allow the genital cutting of girls in America yet we carve up boys at every available opportunity. The hypicrisy is sickening. And this is a women's issue because only the mother has the power to sign the consent form prior to leaving a hospital after birth. The father can object to circumcision but the mother has the power to sign consent and have it happen, in direct opposition to the father.
The foreskin has a very important role in sexual intercourse. As a woman who has had the opportunity to experience sex as nature/God intended it to be with a natural intact penis, I can absolutely say it was a more pleasurable experience. An intact man doesn't need to use excessive force to achieve the stimulation a circumcised man needs. An intact penis retains the natural lubrication generated in sex. All the cultures known for their virile skilled lovers are intact cultures: the Latin lovers, the Italians, the French! All intact cultures.

- that it's needed in the first place. Encouraging any sort of unnecessary surgery on children is criminal, IMHO.

I'm a member of the half of the population that has a penis (and was circumsized). I could not help but feel sick and to squirm while reading this article. Wow.

I believed so many of those myths...although I always somewhat questioned the one that said it was "just cutting a flap of skin" since when you look at an "uncut" penis it looks like it's a whole sheath so that never made much sense.

Thank you for this educational and informative article. I'm a collegiate debater, I'm sure I'll work this into some sort of ethics argument on FGM at some point or another.

Darcia, you should rename your blog "Everything You Are Doing Is Wrong!"

Let's see, according to you our babies...

-are unhappy
-are less intelligent due to formula feeding.
-will suffer PTSD due to being circumsized.
-have low self esteem
-"are distracted, unhappy, and dazed"

Seriously?

On a more serious note, your fantastical concept is one that claims we should keep babies from feeling any pain, loneliness, or fear. You attempt to back this up by saying our ancestors did a better job raising babies than we do now. There are two major problems with this:

1.) Pain, loneliness and fear are a part of life. Exposure to the realities of life when there is a good support from loved ones, along with teaching stress tolerance and life skills is what we should be striving for, not trying to encapsulate our children in the fantastical worlds where they don't cry (you actually stated there is something wrong if our babies are crying)and get every need met. Reality is reality and we have to work with it and teach our children that pain is OK and give them our love and support as well. Some of the very things you are so against are things people just have to work with, mothers who can't breastfeed etc.

2.) Our ancestors had a very high mortality, committed infanticide, and had cutting rituals for initiation. Hunter and gatherers today have their own rituals, the Hadza, a contemporary hunter and gatherer society cut babies faces so the tears will sting to reduce crying. So, you have romanticized these societal soups.

I think your intentions are good, however, you take it too far and blow the meaning way out of proportion. I would suggest you reflect on this and how it affects the readership.

No national medical association recommends infant male circumcision, and more than ten denounce any medical justification for it.

The Dutch Medical Association's May 2010 report, backed by 7 other national medical associations, concluded:

"Contrary to what is often thought, circumcision entails the risk of medical or psychological complications."

"Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors conflicts with the child's right to autonomy and physical integrity."

"There are good reasons for a legal prohibition of non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors, as there is for female genital mutilation."

"There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene."

www.norm-uk.org/news.html?action=showitem&item=1306

British Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons' 9/09 report declared:

"There is no evidence to support routine circumcision of newborn and infant males."

"The stated benefits of protection against urinary tract infection are marginal, and do not justify mass circumcision. Our changing understanding of the relationship between urinary tract infection and chronic renal disease further weakens the case for routine circumcision."

"There is evidence that circumcision does result in memory of painful experiences, and is not quite as simple and low risk as your report suggests."

www.smh.com.au/national/letters/no-evidence-to-support-routine-circumcis...

Australian College of Physicians' 9/09 report declared:

"The benefits of infant male circumcision that have been promoted over time include the prevention of urinary tract infections and sexually transmitted diseases, and the reduction in risk of penile and cervical cancer. Current consensus of medical opinion, including that of the Canadian and American Paediatric Societies and the American Urological Society, is that there is insufficient evidence that these benefits outweigh the potential risks. That is, routine infant male circumcision, i.e. routine removal of normal tissue in a healthy infant, is not recommended."

www.cpsbc.ca/files/u6/Circumcision-Infant-Male.pdf

The South African Medical Association denounced infant male circumcision as unethical and illegal and expressed "serious concern that not enough scientifically-based evidence was available to confirm that circumcisions prevented HIV contraction and that the public at large was influenced by incorrect and misrepresented information. The committee reiterated its view that it did not support circumcision to prevent HIV transmission."

http://www.intactnews.pfeyz.com/openpublish/article/south-african-medica...

The Dutch Medical Association recently issued a report backed by 7 other medical associations finding infant male circumcision is harmful, has no medical benefit and infringes on a child's right to bodily autonomy. www.norm-uk.org/news.html?action=showitem&item=1306

And a recent study in Denmark just found "circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfillment." www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=21672947

Readers should beware a user named Jake Waskett. He often goes by the name JakeW, or something of this sort. Jake would have you believe that he is this neutral, impartial and objective dispenser of advice, but he is actually an avid circumcision promoter who has a sick obsession with circumcision. Others who have followed him around for years know that his true interest in circumcision and the penis stem from a sick fetish. (Google circumfetish.)

Despite the fact that he holds absolutely no degree in pediatrics, urology or even epidemiology, actually, he holds no degree in medicine at all, he maintains a few websites that (try to) specialize on the matter. He has been recruited by other avid circumcision promoters, such as Australian quack Brian Morris. He is their spindoctor, and he is a twister of logic and truth. He spends the majority of his day editing articles on circumcision and the penis on Wikipedia, and lurking on parenting websites trying to convince parents to circumcise their children. Readers would be wise to actually look up medical literature for themselves instead of trusting a known circumfetishist who has an unhealthy obsession with penises and circumcision.

Read more about Jake Waskett here:

http://circleaks.org/index.php?title=Jake_waskett

When Jews were herded into concentration camps by the Nazis, they were branded with a tattoo on the arm. Their Jewish identity was made clear permanently by surgical abuse without the victim's consent.

When baby boys are born into Jewish or Muslim homes they are branded with a surgical removal of a body part. Their Jewish identity is made clear permanently by surgical abuse without the victim's consent.

One form of abuse has religious sanction, the other does not. Both are repugnant barbarisms. Religious tradition does not make it right.
.