Amy,

I am in full agreeement here.

me too

I was unfortunately asked to hold my nephew during his and it was the most horrible thing that I had ever taken part in

I was very relieved my sister didn't have another son

Well, dang!

Is there a disfigurement issue here? Because I certainly don't miss anything, and I can tell you from that experience known as "boot camp" that the majority of males reporting for duty in 1979 were circumsized. I understand there is considerable sexual utility granted by the procedure - though, clearly, I can't make a comparison directly - and personal hygiene is easier.

I'm not one to advocate the trimming of puppy ears, even - but isn't the point what works best for the participant, not the observer?

Maybe the participant should be able to decide, when of age, as to whether he wishes to be mutilated in the name of religion. Rad, because a lot of people do something isn't reason to follow suit. A lot of people are unthinking or just plain stupid, or hadn't you noticed? Moreover, to say you don't miss anything is ridiculous. Since you have nothing to compare to, how do you know you haven't lost sensation or otherwise suffered negative effects?

You're quoting Paul Fleiss?!? Heidi Fleiss's tax-evading dad who thinks children should breast-feed till 4 and sleep in the parents' bed till...whenever? The "Family Bed" and La Leche League philosophies typically are popular with the anti-circumcision crowd.

A herpes-infected nut irresponsibly circumcising babies is not quite the same thing as responsible rabbis and doctors performing healthy circumcisions -- which became common practice in the latter part of the 20th-century among educated people for medical, not religious, reasons. One of which, by the way, was that doctors noticed cervical cancer was oddly rare among Jewish women.

The anti-circumcision crowd likes to trot out pediatricians who say there's no medical reason to circumcise babies. And it's true that uncircumcised children are unlikely to have problems. A urologist who sees uncircumcised middle-aged men will tell you a different story. As a doctor I know once said, "I see those guys 40 or 50 years later, so I have a different opinion than Paul Fleiss."

There are numerous studies finding no link between circumcision and lack of cervical cancer in Jewish women. Lack of existence of cervical cancer does not prove causality. Here's a link on that.

http://www.norm-uk.org/cervix.html

I don't care what kind of nut Paul Fleiss is on some issues -- I conveniently chose his article because he makes good points. If you disagree with the points he makes in that link, attack him on those.

It's hard to debate that urologist since you don't say what his opinion is, specifically. According to these journal articles, it doesn't improve penile hygiene:

http://www.norm-uk.org/hygiene.html

Here's another link by other doctors in the UK, with links at the bottom as to why it isn't good for a variety of reasons.

http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_myths.html

Just because people have been doing it for many years and it's a Jewish tradition doesn't mean it's good or smart or medically appropriate.

PS Paul Fleiss, it seems, was published in the Lancet, which is a peer-reviewed journal.

Despite the obviously irrational cruelty of circumcision, the profit incentive in American medical practice is unlikely to allow science or human rights principles to interrupt the highly lucrative American circumcision industry. It is now time for European medical associations loudly to condemn the North American medical community for participating in and profiting from what is by any standard a senseless and barbaric sexual mutilation of innocent children. [Paul M. Fleiss. Circumcision. Lancet 1995;345:927.]

Here's a comment by a guy named Richard about the creepy custom of Orthodox mohels sucking the blood out of little boys' penises after circumcision:

http://www.bloggingbaby.com/entry/1234000747056208/#c415318

Metsitsah (various spellings transliterate in Roman alphabet) is Hebrew for sucking the circumcision wound. All Orthodox mohels practice it. (As mentioned in the article, in some cases a mohel may use a glass tube to do the sucking, so his mouth will not come in contact with the infant penis, a minor improvement to those with no concern for other hazards and human rights violations, but still disliked by many Orthodox Jews.)

Some non-Orthodox Jews patronize Orthodox mohels, and most Jews oppose any legal restrictions on what any mohels do. Because circumcision is widely practiced and is often a taboo topic in both US culture and US Jewish society, any legal restriction on it is impulsively opposed by many. Court orders and legislation have prevented Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, and Appalachian Snake Handling Churches from endangering their children with religious PRACTICES, in contrast to religious BELIEFS, which must not be restricted. Are Jewish infants less entitled to life than the children of those other sects?

Metsitsah is a part of a ritual instituted in the Common Era. It was not directed by God to Abraham. Until about 100-150 CE a Jewish circumcision involved cutting off only the very tip of the foreskin. Total foreskin amputation was decreed to prevent Jewish youth from covering their glans easily, using a rawhide string, so they could participate in Greek athletic games. Ancient Greek games were played in the nude; display of the glans was considered vulgar and exhibitionist.

New medical research shows that even early Jewish circumicison took off much neuro-transmitter tissue, but it was not nearly as destructive as the "modern" Jewish practice, which is the model for US "medical" circumcisions. (Many or most Muslim circumcisions are also limited to the tip of the foreskin. Worldwide, 80% of males are NOT circumcised at all. Muslims are 16% of world population; non-Muslims, mostly US males, make up the other 4%.)

Please read the new book, _Marked In Your Flesh: Circumcision From Ancient Judea to Modern America_, by Leonard Glick, Oxford Univ Press, 2005. Dr Glick is a Professor of Anthropology, a Medical Doctor, and a Jewish American. Whatever your ethnicity or faith, and/or your beliefs about circumcision, you will be enlightened.

Dammit, where's Lena when you need her!?

Glad I left my sons intact after they were born.

Just thought I'd share that I agree with this article but also the medical reason that forced us to have our son circumcised at age 4. My husband and I had decided that was a choice he should make - it wasn't our penis after all. Anyway, our son was part of the small percentage of boys whose foreskin doesn't separate completely from the penis. No matter how thoroughly you try to clean, there are pockets in there that you just can't reach. Needless to say, he became infected, very painful and horrible to watch being treated. After the second infection his pediatrician recommended circumcision because they would just keep happening.

On a more amusing note, even at 4 boys are conditioned to want a large penis. The first thing he said when the bandage was removed was "But it's so small now!" :)

Amy - neither my parents nor my doctor proceeded on a religious basis. I'm not attempting the fallacy, "appeal to popularity" either - I am noting that the practice is widespread, is not confined to the Jewish faithful, and that I cannot recognize a single deleterious effect at any later time.

When I was a graduate student in Brussels in the late 70's I lived w/ an older Jewish couple who had hid out during WW2. They told me a story about the son of a Jewish friend of theirs. Seems that this friend did not believe in circumcision and thus did not have the procedure done to the son. The son was also in Brussels during the Nazi occupation and one day when he was on the street, he was pointed out by an informant who was riding around w/ a bunch of Nazis in an SS auto. The guards got out and grabbed the young man who protested that he wasn't Jewish, why he wasn't even circumcised. The guards made him drop his trousers right there in the street but when they discovered that he was, in fact, not circumcised, they let him go.

Nowadays Hitchens is my favorite writer and my penis is my favorite organ, but he's wrong about this.

I heard Cindy Sheehan speak here in LA tonight. She was fantastic.

Was beginning to worry about Crid & Lena!!!

One of the sacrifices a circumsized male gives up is sexual gratification. Fewer nerve endings means fewer sensations, and circumcision removes about 1/3 of those nerve endings.

http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_lost.html

Let's just hope Crid and Lena are back, and not just visiting!

PS Why, Crid?

And Lena, details!

Yes, by all means let's hear what the Sage of Crawford is now venting her well - developed spleen about today. Here's the latest talking points memorandum from the bloviating one:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cindy-sheehan/hypocrites-and-liars_b_5965.html

My favorite part: "The people who have come out to Camp Casey to help coordinate the press and events with me are not putting words in my mouth, they are taking words out of my mouth."

It's just those kinds of statements that will galvanize the anti- war crowd and force Bush to pull us out of Iraq, pronto!

Dmac, please at least post your anti-anti-Bush railings at the John Stewart link, not in off-topic places. Please copy and paste your Sheehan comment above to today's John Stewart blog item, and I'll come back and erase it here.

"I heard Cindy Sheehan speak here in LA tonight. She was fantastic."

"And Lena, details!"

I was responding to these items that were posted on this thread specifically, which took the original topic way off - base.

Well, to be fair, Dmac was responding here to Lena, who was responding to Crid, who mentioned Hitchens, who is anti-Cindy Sheehan but also apparently anti-circumcision (because he is anti-religion), which is why you mentioned Hitchens in this post.

I'm sorry if I sounded a bit harsh re Paul Fleiss, but I'm particularly aware that this is not really a doctor whose judgment you can trust, because he's had a longtime practice in my neighborhood. And I've talked to too many parents who've become disillusioned with his theories after their kids ran into real medical problems -- like ear infections that needed quick antibiotics, for instance. So if Paul Fleiss is against something, that's just one more reason to be for it.

The bottom line is that most uncircumcised men are going to be fine, just as most circumcised men are going to be fine. So to call either choice child abuse is ridiculous. But while circumcision problems are quite rare, problems because of uncircumcision with adult men are not uncommon. Pediatricians don't see this, but urologists and GPs do. Most involve ordinary (but aggravating) infections that often end up needing to be cured by adult circumcision, a far more painful and traumatic event than infant circumcision, which is really nothing. And then there are the rarer problems, like penile cancer -- fortunately not common at all, but horrible when it happens and virtually unheard of among circumcised men.

In any case, circumcision is most often done for medical, not relgious reasons. You may not agree with those reasons, but the fact is they are the main reasons.

Something else to keep in mind: Those bratty kids you often see at cafes? I used to see them regularly at the park -- howling, underpants or diapers (even at age 3 or 4) down, getting changed in full view of everyone, then demanding to nurse. The anti-circumcision parent is typically a permissive parent. So the next time you're annoyed by a small child running around and screaming while the parents do nothing, keep in mind that if it's a masculine child, he's probably got a little garden hose under his shorts.

[Comical string of comparisons of my penis to Christopher Hitchens deleted... The passage would have included lotsa bookish wording and silly metaphor. You'da loved it. But let's keep this moving along...]

Cathy, according to studies, not hearsay, circumcision is not done for medical reasons but for religious ones. You may want to go along with tradition on this, but because one neighborhood doctor you have problems with is against them, and because it's a religious tradition doesn't mean they're beneficial.

"Most involve ordinary (but aggravating) infections"

Such as?

Studies show that ordinary cleanliness -- with soap and water -- is what it takes to prevent urinary tract infections, which are rare. And condoms prevent HIV infections. And there are medical risks to circumcision -- including death -- a high price to pay for a non-medically necessary surgery.

And saying "the anti-circumcision parent is typically a permissive parent" is, again, a generality. Boys, biologically, are more rambunctious than girls. But to say it's because they're uncircumcised? I don't think you can say that.

I'm launching into a study on this -- I'm going to read the studies and data. As much as I respect your opinion on many topics, I think you have preconceived notions on this that are not borne out by studies -- well-done studies with good methodology, that is.

Here's the data-based statement from the American Academy Of Pediatrics (it's long, but the conclusion is below):

Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3b103/3/686

And here are the pluses and minuses of that statement:

http://www.circumcision.org/aap.htm

Well my father is black and agnostic and he still had my brother circ'd because he had to wait to do it when he was older and it was painful. It's not all about religion, doctors offer it as soon as a baby is born. I've yet to meet a guy black, white, brown or Catholic who wasn't circ'd. I think parents choose to do it early to avoid later possible health problems. Though the idea of doing it in a big room full of people while you make a relative hold the boy down...it's not child abuse persay, but it sounds like it sucks.

Amy do you want children? I thought you didn't, but I can't see why else you'd be involved in a debate about the state of the genitalia of little boys everywhere so nevermind... And it's NOTHING like female circumcision. That is done to girls up to 16 years of age with a piece of glass or whatever is handy, no pain med, they are held down sometimes kicking and screaming and the point is to remove the parts of female genitalia that give pleasure so the woman can remain focused on her husband's pleasure. They are also sometimes sewn up completely to maintain 'virtue' and the husband can choose to have it done whenever he goes out of town if he chooses. There's no comparison, at least not to the mental and physical shock of it in my opinion.

Lia writes:

That is done to girls up to 16 years of age with a piece of glass or whatever is handy, no pain med, they are held down sometimes kicking and screaming and the point is to remove the parts of female genitalia that give pleasure so the woman can remain focused on her husband's pleasure.

Since removing the male's foreskin also diminishes his sexual pleasure by removing a significant portion of the nerve endings, you could make the same argument about male pleasure.

By the way, your comment "Amy do you want children? I thought you didn't, but I can't see why else you'd be involved in a debate about the state of the genitalia of little boys everywhere so nevermind..." Uh, what??? This is an incredible non-sequitir. So, Amy has to want to have children to care about whether or not a useless medical procedure is perpetrated on newborns? Circumcision does not effect the ability to have children. And why is it necessary that she want children of her own in order to object to a procedure that's routinely being perpetrated on them?

"Amy do you want children? I thought you didn't, but I can't see why else you'd be involved in a debate about the state of the genitalia of little boys everywhere so nevermind..."

Lia, perhaps you hadn't noticed, but I earn a living with my opinion, and I give it on many a topic. I'm not a man either, but many men are very happy with the advice I give them on a variety of subjects.

Lia, doctors don't offer to do it for medical reasons -- because there usually aren't any. Before you go on about "possible health problems" you might inquire as to what those "possible health problems" are. And FYI, according to an old quote from Maimonides, boys were cut to prevent sexual pleasure.

Oh, and thanks Patrick. I only read your comment now...amazingly, I'm not from New Orleans either, but I sent money and a couple shipments of stuff to victims of the flood.

> diminishes his sexual pleasure by
> removing a significant portion of the
> nerve endings...

Diminished sensation seems likely, but isn't diminished pleasure an profoundly subjective call?

Diminished sensation is more correct.

Here's the link to the Maimonides quote -- http://www.infocirc.org/maim.htm -- and the quote below:

Moses Maimonides
(1135-1204 A.D.)
On Circumcision

“As regards circumcision,
I think that one of its objects is to limit sexual intercourse,
and to weaken the organ of generation as far as possible,
and thus cause man to be moderate.

Some people believe that circumcision is to remove
a defect in man’s formation;
but every one can easily reply:
how can products of nature be deficient
so as to require external completion,
especially as the use of the foreskin to that organ is evident?

This commandment has not been enjoined as a complement
to a deficient physical creation,
but as a means for perfecting man's moral shortcomings.

The bodily injury caused to that organ is exactly that which is desired;
it does not interrupt any vital function,
nor does it destroy the power of generation.

Circumcision simply counteracts excessive lust;
for there is no doubt that circumcision weakens the power
of sexual excitement,
and sometimes lessens the natural enjoyment;
the organ necessarily becomes weak when it loses blood
and is deprived of its covering from the beginning.

Our Sages say distinctly:
It is hard for a woman,
with whom an uncircumcised had sexual intercourse,
to separate from him.
This is, as I believe, the best reason
for the commandment concerning circumcision.”

When you make the case against circumcision, based on the presumption that the original design is perfect, you endorse, though mildly, "intelligent design". In fact, there are millions of examples of "design" flaws in naturally-occurring creatures. Let us extend the principle. Quit using makeup, hair coloring, etc., due to the obvious risks. Ritalin lets you concentrate? OK, what are the risks there?

Let us turn to professionals: can anyone name a male porn star who is uncut? I have no idea - and whatever the result there is a reason why. What is it?

Cathy Seipp writes: In any case, circumcision is most often done for medical, not relgious reasons. You may not agree with those reasons, but the fact is they are the main reasons.

According to the pediatricians I talked to and the studies I read about circ (an issue I studied in depth while pregnant, before I learned I was having a daughter), the main reason that most U.S. parents give for wanting their sons circumsized is neither medical nor religious, but simply the fact they want their son to look like the father. Which is quite circular, because most of the fathers were only circumsized because it's been the fashion in the U.S. for several generations, and it started for "medical reasons" that have proven not to be strong enough to justify what has become an almost universal procedure.

Those who favor circumcision may trot out medical justification, but their real reason is more along the lines of "what will happen if he's different in the locker room?" (he'd grow some real balls, maybe?) But the fact of the matter is that the medical problems from non-circumcision are teeny, tiny, both statistically and in terms of severity - way too insignificant to justify doing it automatically (similar to yanking all kids' tonsils in the 50's and 60's - as my MD father used to say, most doctors seemed to think that the indication for a tonsillectomy was the presence of tonsils). And if a male develops these problems, he can always be circumsized later.

The so-called medical justification of automatic infant circumcision is like advocating that all adolescent girls be given a bilateral mastetectomy as soon as they grow breasts, so they can avoid developing breast cancer in adulthood. Except that there would be MUCH better statistical justifications for universal mastectomy, both in terms of frequency and severity of the problem you're trying to prevent, and fewer alternatives to achieve the same results.

Melissa, you think like a brilliant lawyer. Oh, wait...!

Cathy, I'm at a loss as to why you bring up the presumed permissiveness of parents who oppose circ. Even assuming you're correct, what does that have to do with the medical issues??

Yes, Paul Fleiss may be full of it in many regards, but even a broken clock is right twice a day, so it doesn't say much for your logic if you oppose something just because he favors it. And he's actually right in some respects, even if he may go overboard and overstate the case for wholistic approaches. Both the wholistic and mainstream medicine camps tend to get polarized and not respect (or even admit) that the other may have something valid to offer, but balance is key, imho - balance and information.

Many years ago, we took part in a Fleiss group interview of prospective patients. We were the only ones with a toddler, since we were moving back to LA - the rest were pregnant couples who needed to choose a pediatrician for newborn care. I wrote Fleiss off because he told the pregnant moms that they were "of course" having unmedicated natural births. Well, I tried to do it that way for almost 3 days of labor - and then I needed medical intervention and am damn glad it was available. But I wept at the time, because I felt like a failure, having been schooled in the views of the natural birth absolutists. So I resented Fleiss copping that absolutist attitude with those poor first-time moms, some of whom might need medical help with their birth - and some who might simply decide on an epidural because, as the comedy team The Mommies put it "The epidural when I was in labor felt better than the sex that got me pregnant in the first place." Those moms didn't need the additional complication of a guilt trip from a so-called expert.

What we really need is information - lots of awareness about the pros and cons and any on-going debate or areas that are grey or not adequately researched - not garbage science, not prejudices dressed up with pseudo-justifications. And we need room to make our own minds up, both as parents and consumers, and the ability to respect differences in values and opinions.

Then if you want to mutilate your son with circumcision, that's actually fine with me. (I don't feel the same way about female genital mutiliation, because it isn't equivalent and doesn't deserve to be called female circumcision, and contagious mohels are a different issue altogether.) Just don't pretend you're doing it for anything other than personal preferences or religious convictions, because there's no good medical reason to routinely circumcize all newborn boys who have no specific indications. Anyone who believes otherwise is simply brainwashed, uninformed, or perhaps has a stake (financial, psychological) in the status quo.

"Anyone who believes otherwise... is a fallacious statement; the fallacy is called, "poisoning the well". Now, let us see if the citation applies to me:

Brainwashed? No.

Uninformed? No.

Do I have "a stake in the status quo"? No.

I have no health problem, and have heard personally of multiple cases of difficulties with "natural" equipment; military service does mean long periods of time pass without bathing. I suffer no dysfunction of which I am aware, and I am sure, given the, um, intense nature of a couple of relationships, that this would have been pointed out to me had it been real.

Maybe a giggle test is in order, to get attention: if artificial foreskins were available, would you buy one?

And where is the outrage against plastic surgery? The ability to choose for yourself doesn't lend any intelligence to a choice.

Radwaste, you do have a psychological stake in the status quo if you are circumcized - and even more so if you have a son who is, or if you would automatically circumcize a son.

Once again, let me remind you that this is a medical issue, so anecdotal evidence about a few people is not as valid as an actual scientific study. And the studies just don't support universal circumcision of newborns. You'd outraged in any other area if parents and doctors imposed kneejerk surgery on newborns to prevent something that is terribly unlikely to occur in a given child, and readily treatable if it does occur.

And as has been pointed out, if you happen to be in that tiny minority, you can always get a circumcision later. You can't, however, get your foreskin back if your parents made a bad choice for you (though I have heard of methods to stretch vestigal skin tags back to a foreskin, it sounds too dicey and painful to be feasible as an option).

Outrage about plastic surgery and bad choices? Well, ok - we could have that discussion. But the issue isn't the same, because we're not giving nose jobs to newborns just in case a small percentage of them might develop breathing problems.

Would you buy an artificial foreskin? Some men actually might, if they thought it would increase their sexual pleasure. And having an uncut husband, plus more experience prior to marriage with both cut and uncut men than I care to recount, I can come as close as a female can to saying I think having a foreskin does make a difference. In fact, straight women might be in a better position to judge this than straight men - I've seen the responses of both types of penises, while men have no basis of comparison (unless they were circumcized as an adult), and a personal stake in thinking their own status must be preferable.

Melissa is right. Whether or not a choice is "intelligent" or not in the case of elective plastic surgery like nose jobs doesn't remove the fact that there is a choice. Because you have "heard personally" of something doesn't mean it's sensible for the world to follow your anecdotes as medical advice.