Would you have your child circumsized?

---

I like being cut...just never said so

Hmmmm...Hyperion, you have brought up many issues.

First: When you have your child circumcised, we must presume that you really mean it. But why restrict genital mutilation to a male child? If it's good for a boy, it's even better for a girl, and you wouldn't want to be accused of discrimination, would you?

Second: "Christians" may mutilate the genitals of their children, but by so doing, they are denying Christ, who died to fulfill the Law. In the Gospel of Thomas, Christ was asked, "Is circumcision beneficial or not?" He said to them, "If it were beneficial, their father would beget them already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become completely profitable." In Galatians 5:1-2, Paul writes: "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast theefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law." (That is, if you are circumcised, you are a Jew, only, and not a Christian. As a circumcised Jew, you are required to follow ALL of Jewish religious law, including dietary and the other, numerous, restrictions, which that religion places upon life.)

Third: The genitally mutilated penis is prone to ALL common diseases, including AIDS, Lichen Sclerosus, Venereal diseases, Urinary tract infections, and what have you. Where did you read otherwise?

This is not to mention the many maladies common to circumcision, ranging from skin tags, skin bridges, loss of glans penis, loss of entire penis, disappearing penis, uncontrollable bleeding, and death, among others.

Fourth: Decreases in penile sensitivity due to the excision of half the skin of the penis, which includes the most sensitive tissue on the human body, bar none, are extreme. The tests to which you referred involved ONLY the glans penis, perhaps the part of the penis most lacking in sensitivity. The test should have involved the entire penis, as the foreskin and the glans are designed to work together, in concert. Additionally, loss of sensitivity as a result of genital mutilation is progressive. In this case,however, testing ceased, before the end of five years. Ask any circumcised man if he has suffered a loss of sensitivity over his lifetime and he will invariably say, Yes, of course. That is, unless he is one of the very few men who have eroticized genital mutilation and the exposed glans penis.

Fifth: Abnormal child behaviour: Perhaps you have something here, but then, no child being circumcised has yet had a brain scan during the excision of the most sensitive part of his body which would "scientifically" measure the effect on the part of his brain designed to receive pleasurable impulses. Perhaps you might film the circumcision of an infant so that you may measure his screams, watch his eyes roll into his head, and witness the uncontrollable spasms of his little body. Would that be measure enough?

But then, ask anyone involved in the effects of trauma upon children, and they will say that the effects are indisputable. Since the male fetus has been photographed masturbating in the womb, we can be sure that a newborn child is exquisitely aware of sensation.

As any mother might tell you, the newly circumcised baby is too sore and uncomfortable to nurse, normally. Simply being held by the mother next to her breast elicits not pleasureable sensations, but painful ones. Therefore, your assertion that circumcision doesn't have an abnormal affect upon children is, on its face, patently untrue. Whatever consequences ensue in future years, we may not be able to judge precisely, though a child's eventual awareness that his parents chose to mutilate him without his permission should awaken notions of the blatant unfairness of routine infant genital mutilation, perhaps causing a rupture in parent/child communication.

Sixth: Cleanliness is MUCH easier for the intact male, particularly when newborn. The foreskin, being attached to the glans, much like the eyelids of newborn kittens are attached to the eyeball, protects the glans penis and the eurethra from infections. A circumcised baby's exposed glans and eurethra are bathed constantly, by comparison, in feces and urine. Finally, fresh urine being sterile, it cleanses beneath the foreskin of the child, washing out any impurity.

Seventh: We have already discussed the fact that Christ did away with circumcision for Christians. Genital mutilation is a practice which is common only to most, but not all, Jews. Christians who mutilate the genitals of their children seem to have read only the Old, Jewish, Testament.

Eighth: So, you think that parents own their children and are free to mutilate their genitals without consequence? Thank GOD for doctors who have the sense to protest. My only question: Where did you find them? In the United States they are so rare!

Ninth: Your turn.

Korydon

Please refrain from the term "genital mutilation". In reply to: Third: The genitally mutilated penis is prone to ALL common diseases, including AIDS, Lichen Sclerosus, Venereal diseases, Urinary tract infections, and what have you. Where did you read otherwise? Yes, STDs can happen to everybody who partakes in unprotected sex, foreskin does not prevent that, because it's rolled back during sex, giving the appearance of a cut penis. In reply to: Sixth: Cleanliness is MUCH easier for the intact male, particularly when newborn. Yes, for newborns and until the skin separates from the glans, it may be easier, but babies grow up. The skin becomes retractable, and then one must clean under the foreskin, regardless of time consumption, it is still an additional task.And since Jesus put and end to circumcision, what are you saying? that all the cut guys are going to hell? Please elaborate.

In reply to:what are you saying? that all the cut guys are going to hell? Please elaborate. I don't think he was inferring that. Only that Christianity deems it unecessary.

Hello BMOC! Let me try to answer your questions and reply to your comments, OK?

1. "Genital mutilation" is a term which defines the amputation of a healthy, useful body part without which normal sexuality becomes impossible for both men and women. Similar definitions may be found in every dictionary. Or would you rather we use "maim" or "mangle"?

2. Ah, not quite. The foreskin is designed to be dynamically, but gently, mobile during sexual intercourse, unlike the stiff, 2-dimensional circumcised variety, which acts like a battering ram. Otherwise, yes, both are subject to disease, contrary to your original assertion.

3. Cleanliness is next to Godliness, and, as the chief source of dirt and infection in the human body is found in the fingers, perhaps we should amputate them and spare the useful and highly sensitive foreskin?

4. Yes, the mod is correct. Christians don't mutilate their children, but when, out of stupidity or ignorance, parents DO harm the child, perhaps it is the they who should suffer the ultimate agony, not the child. By genitally mutilating their children they are failing in their duty as stewards of the next generation.

N.B. Of course if the youth or man mutilates himself ... it is not so much a "sin", as it is a mental disease, which is a different kind of hell. Take it from me.

Korydon

meh But I would love it if people stopped using the term mutilated to describe circumcision. The act is not mutilation. Dictionary.com: MutilateTo deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.: to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of My penis, as well as the penis' of other cut guys are in no way crippled (To disable, damage, or impair the functioning of). Nor are they destroyed (To ruin completely; To render useless or ineffective). So please just refer to it as what it is, a circumcised penis. thanks.

Genital mutilation, whether male or female, perfectly describes the effect upon the human animal of the procedure you would have us term by the innocuous euphemism, "circumcision".

"Circumcision", meaning "to cut around", only describes the action of slicing skin. It doesn't define the EFFECT of the action. Every penis which has had half of its nerve rich skin and mucous membrane sliced off and thrown into the garbage can has been deprived of ALL of its facility to function normally. The genitally mutilated penis retains a mere shadow of its original functional utility, and is unable to share in the dynamic and complex relationship with associated vaginal tissues. Instead, the circumcised penis becomes a brutal battering ram, unable to participate normally in the slow, gentle, loving experience for which people are entitled, and which we term sexual intercourse.

Circumcision does interfere with the ability to orgasm, as everyone circumcised as an adult can attest. Indeed, some of the men subject to premature ejaculation consider the change an improvement, at least until time catches up with them, and orgasm becomes more and more difficult, as sensations are dulled by exposure and chafing. If we consider that the excision of tissue doesn't (usually) prevent orgasm and ejaculation, we can also state that female circumcision doesn't prevent pregnancy and birth, though the woman so mutilated cannot, like her circumcised male cohort, experience the full range of sensual advantages which are normal to their unmutilated friends.

It's best to face reality, BMOC, and make the best of a bad situation.

Korydon

I think you're being a little harsh about it. You can't sit there and say that every man that is circumcised can no longer enjoy sex. I have been with two men, one who was in his late 30's and another who was in his early 40's, and both were circumcised as adults. Neither one regrets having it done, nor says they have lost any sensitivity. I've been with both uncut and cut men. There's no difference in "sexual comfort" for me. Yes some men may regret it, but others don't. I don't think you should look down upon those who are cut.

I do agree that you are not crippled or ruined. However, words have multiple definitions:Websters.commu·ti·late ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mytl-t)tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates 1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple. 2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue.3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts. So I believe that #'s 2 & 3, may apply to the definition he is using. Korydon, I think you are being a bit too "militant" in your views which may end up turning people off to your views.

I never said that circumcision impaired it's functionality. But what's harsh about #2 and #3??? If you strictly look at the definitions, a "normal" untouched intact penis would be in it's intended perfect state. By cutting it, you are disfiguring it and making it imperfect since you altered it. And please don't tell me that a cut penis is not disfigued and is perfect for you. I'm just talking straight definitions and not aesthetics.

So when someone smashes their face up and they are left all scarred up, are they not disfigured? Their face is still fully funnctional even though it is disfigured. You are thinking emotionally as opposed to the literal sense of the word.

No I'm not emotional.. It's just semantics. If someone is scarred up, if their arm is burned they are disfigured... functionality has nothing to do with it. Come on use your college education.dis·fig·ure ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ds-fgyr)tr.v. dis·fig·ured, dis·fig·ur·ing, dis·fig·ures To mar or spoil the appearance or shape of; deform.

That's fine and emotional attachment has nothing to do with it. The definitions are pretty black and white to me. You were making them grey. I could care less who is cut or not.

Amanda ...

Circumcision changes forever the normal, natural sexual experience for men and their sexual partners, and not for the better, but the statement " ... every man that is circumcised can no longer enjoy sex." was written by you, not me.

I dare say that the women in cultures in which female genital mutilation is practiced "enjoy" sex, but you can imagine better than me how much more they would enjoy the experience had their genitals not been mutilated. So, if you believe words can be harsh ... imagine how painful it can be to have such tissue forcibly removed. Then empathize with the infant males (and those adolescent girls) who scream in pain when the most sensitive parts of their bodies are ripped and sliced from their bodies.

The diminution in sensitivity after male circumcision is both immediate and progressive, so, if your friends in their 30's and 40's will keep in touch with you until they are in their 50's, 60's, and 70's, come back to us and confirm that they have experienced no loss.

Additionally, your comfort levels may be OK after a night or two of circumcised sex, but have intercourse with a circumcised man long term, as it takes him longer and longer to achieve orgasm over the years, and confirm that you still experience comparable "comfort" levels.

Finally, the two men with whom you have had sex ... the adult males who chose to have themselves circumcised ... they wouldn't by any chance be Circumsexuals (men who have eroticized genital mutilation and the permanently exposed glans penis) would they?

Korydon

Yes, please shut up. Because it is virtually impossible for any person in the world to try to compare the two sides of circumcision at birth and circumcision as an adult. You can not give your opinions as fact purely based on research you read and/or hear. You must give a first hand account of both sides, before you can undoubtably pass something as fact. Since it is impossible for that to happen I must insist that you please stop referring to "cut" members as mutilated and near non-functional. And stop trying to force your opinions on us.

Blackmanoncampus

Sorry, BMOC. Practically everything that I have written, I have experienced firsthand, plus a lot more, which gives me the right to tell the truth. You can disregard it if you wish, as it's a free world. But come join us in downtown Phoenix on Monday, 17 January, during the Martin Luther King Civil Rights Day celebration, where we will be manning an information table in support of civil rights for children, and where a large banner will proclaim: "Circumcision IS Child Abuse". Korydon

No, you can't experience being cut from birth as well as being cut as an adult...therefor, you can't know the truth.

My dear Kristal:Surely fighting for the fundamental rights and dignity of children, without distinction, is a noble endeavor, to which all thoughful men and women must subscribe. As you may well know, these rights are enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which has been signed, as of this date, by every country of the world save two.According to Article 19 of the Convention, "States Parties shall ... protect the child from ALL forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse ... including sexual abuse ... " Furthermore, Article 24 charges each nation state to " ... take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prjudicial to the health of children." These articles directly attack the traditional practices of male and female genital mutilation.I dare say that every State of these United States also attempts to protect the rights of children in their respective criminal codes. In my home state of Arizona, the appropriate statutes are located under Title 13 of the Criminal Code: Chapter 36, Family Offenses, to wit:" ... any person who causes a child to suffer physical injury (including skin bruising, bleeding, subdural hematoma, soft tissue swelling, injury to any internal organ or any physical condition that imperils health or welfare), or serious physical injury (creating a reasonable risk of death or that causes serious or permanent disfigurement, serious impairment of health or loss or protracted impairment of the function of ANY bodily organ or limb.) if done intentionally or knowlingly, offense is a class 2 felony, and if the victim is under fifteen years of age it is punishable pursuant to # 13-604.01.Clearly these offenses to the rights of children are not trivial but real, with male and female genital mutilation falling directly within their scope.

Dear SDP: No, sorry, all three definitions apply to genital mutilation, the first as well as two and three, from your chosen lexicon. The penis was designed over millions of years through natural selection to act as a unit. It is presumptuous of certain groups of people to assume that they can play God and excise this part or that, according to some peculiar notion of propriety, whether sexo-erotic, pseudo-religious, or through simple, ordinary, plain, dull ignorance. When over half of the nerve-rich tissue of the penis has been sliced away, an essential part has been excised, and the penis as a whole has lost its dynamic integrity. After it has been mutilated by circumcision, the penis can no longer function as designed. Where once it was a complex system of moveable parts, each fulfilling a certain function, the circumcised penis has been relegated to, essentially, a one-dimenstional battering ram. In effect, it has been "crippled": genitally mutilated. Korydon

Oh, my dear BMOC, I fear that you are under a certain misapprehension regarding the existence of multitudes of erotic sensations experienced by men and their genitals, over time, as a consequence of genital mutilation. Why only last Monday, 10 January 2005, an adult male Circumsexual from Boston had a procedure to remove a fully formed foreskin from his penis. It was, however, his second foreskin and his second circumcision, the first circumcision having occurred when he was an infant. You may read all about the latest mutilation of his genitals by going to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/adultcircumcisionandrevision/message/841 Men left intact at birth, but who eroticized the exposed glans and circumcision, itself, have experienced up to five or more separate circumcisions, as the procedure has become for them an erotic obsession. A plethora of internet sites are devoted to their peculiar needs, such as the above named site.Other men, circumcised as infants or by mistake, as adults, having been misled by ignorant, malevolent, or rapacious doctors, have in their thousands restored their foreskin, by encouraging new skin cell growth. Foreskin restoration support groups exist throughout the world. You may access these groups and through them, numerous links to varying aspects of the subject by going to: http://www.norm.org, http://www.norm-phoenix.org/, or, http://www.norm-uk.org, among others.