Friday, June 15, 2012

A sacrifice of blood

(A poem about circumcision)

In the 19th century the role of the foreskin in erotic sensation was well understood by physicians who wanted to cut it off precisely because they considered it the major factor leading boys to masturbation. The Victorian physician and venereologist William Acton (1814–1875) damned it as "a source of serious mischief", and most of his contemporaries concurred. Both opponents and supporters of circumcision agreed that the significant role the foreskin played in sexual response was the main reason why it should be either left in place or removed. William Hammond, a Professor of Mind in New York in the late 19th century, commented that "circumcision, when performed in early life, generally lessens the voluptuous sensations of sexual intercourse", and both he and Acton considered the foreskin necessary for optimal sexual function, especially in old age. Jonathan Hutchinson, English surgeon and pathologist (1828–1913), and many others, thought this was the main reason why it should be excised.

Robert Darby - Australian Medical Journal - See

Preston states that circumcision creates, “undesirable psychological, sexual, and medico-legal difficulties.” Further research has shown that circumcision, “performed around the phallic stage is perceived by the child as an act of aggression and castration,” (Cansever, 1965).

Removing Pleasure: Male Genital Mutilation
By Keith D. Mitchell © 2011 - 

A sacrifice of blood on an altar of emptiness,
it's just a simple action that no one will object to,
it's just a dick, who cares, it has bad reputation;
blind the man, who will know that it could be any different?

A victim cries in silence grieving the missing flesh,
it was no one's to take, who would steal from a baby
and mutilate the man with a wound for a lifetime
hidden under the cloak of a shameful taboo?

Who, if not for the parents, will shutter the innocence,
who, if not for the doctors with their blades and their clamps,
who, if not for the priests and their sacred commandments,

will hurt vulnerable children invoking superstitions,
will present throbbing pain as kind and gentle sleep
and inflict on their lives wounds that never will heal?

Juan A. Alzate

Wanna buy some foreskin?

Of course, the other motivation behind circumcision is money.

You can buy 500 µg Human Foreskin Fibroblast Whole Cell Lysate for $265.00. "Ready-to-use whole cell lysates produced by Rockland Immunochemicals are derived from cell lines or tissues using highly refined extraction protocols to ensure exceptionally high quality, protein integrity and lot-to-lot reproducibility."

"CET's human foreskin fibroblast cells are derived from neonatal human foreskins. Cells are passaged until uniform fibroblast morphology is achieved. HFF's are versatile cells that are important in a variety of disciplines including use as stem cell feeder lines and in virological applications. CET can treat cells with mitomycin C, for use as feeder cells, for an additional charge". $220 for 500,000 cells.

"In an article for The Tyee, Dr. Paul Tinari estimated that a single male foreskin can be worth upwards of $100,000". (

"Foreskin fibroblasts are big business. A fibroblast is a piece of human skin that is used as a culture to grow other skin or cells -- like human yogurt kits. Human foreskin fibroblast is used in all kinds of medical procedures from growing skin for burn victims and for eyelid replacement, to growing skin for those with diabetic ulcers (who need replacement skin to cover ulcers that won't heal), to making creams and collagens in the cosmetics industry (yes, the product that is injected into puffy movie-starlet lips)."

"Foreskin-derived skin, sourced from circumcisions (now considered by many experts to be painful and also unnecessary) is still often considered the "cruelty free" alternative to testing cosmetic products on animals. One foreskin can be used for decades to produce miles of skin, much of which helps people in genuine medical need. And that's the reason one foreskin can generate as much as $100,000: that's not the fee from a one-time sale, but the fees from the fibroblasts that are created from those original skin cells."

"But not all uses of foreskin fibroblast are "medical" in nature. One of the most publicized examples of the foreskin-for-sale trend involves a skin cream that has been promoted by none other than Oprah Winfrey. SkinMedica'sa face cream, which costs over $100 US for a 0.63 oz bottle, is used by many high-profile celebrities (such as Winfrey and Barbara Walters) as an alternative to cosmetic surgery. "

Thursday, June 14, 2012

Don't Circumcise Your Kid Even If You're Happy With Yours!!!!

Susie and Richanda get an inbox from a fan who is circumcised and happy. Even though he's happy with his circumcision many men are not and it takes away so it is important to keep your children intact.

Susie and Richanda watch a video where a woman gives a 16 year old girl advice not to give a boyfriend a bj until he gets circumcised. That advice is stupid. 

Year one - circumcision

Ban circumcision?



Laci Green:

Cameron Diaz Talks Circumcision

In this CafeMom Exclusive, Cameron Diaz hilariously explains why we're so skittish about circumcision - and her "What To Expect When You're Expecting" co-star, Matthew Morrison, is stunned silent!

We knew [people were skittish] when they made us cut out a bunch about circumcision. To get a PG-13 rating we had to cut out the actual description of circumcision. So apparently it is very uncomfortable for people to hear how it works -- when you have to clamp on the foreskin, pull it over [the glans], and then slice it off. That is apparently really uncomfortable for people to hear. But I think it is important to know. America is the same way about their beef - they just want it delivered in a styrofoam package with saran wrap over it. They don't want to know how it got to you. Same thing with circumcision...


First newborn circumcision

User hbciba on YouTube describes:

Almost every doctor can recall the joy of delivering a healthy normal infant. This joy was shattered one day when one of the residents said, "There are some circumcisions that need to be done, go and do them." At the time I guess I knew what a circumcision was, but that was about it. I had certainly learned nothing about the subject in medical school. Obediently, I proceeded to the newborn nursery, where another medical student was already waiting. I felt nervous, and he looked quite nervous, too. Strapped to a board on the long counter in front of each of us was a bawling male infant. Beside the infant was a surgical tray filled with instruments. Imagine our consternation when we found there was no one to tell us what to do. Obediently, we put on surgical gowns, then surgical gloves. Then we began to try to figure out how to use what I later learned was a Gomco Clamp.

I look back on the only time I have ever performed any circumcisions with regret and resentment. I resent having had no opportunity to study circumcision in medical school or to consider whether I thought it a treatment for anything. I resent the resident commanding me to do it, while offering no further guidance or help. In fact, I was treated just as the medical profession treats innocent new parents today. Doctors tell them a circumcision needs to be done. Before the new parent has time to consider, it is all over. Then it is too late to say no, and everyone has to live with the consequences.

Child Circumcision: An Elephant in the Hospital

Ryan McAllister, Ph.D., Executive Director of and others.
One of NotJustSkin's primary missions is to educate the public about violations of informed consent or bodily integrity. In the U.S., male genital cutting, more often called circumcision, is commonly practiced even though parents rarely receive the information that would be required to give informed consent to any other procedure. Circumcision is the only procedure where a doctor can legally amputate part of a nonconsenting child without any medical reason.
You can watch our lecture on circumcision, Child Circumcision: an Elephant in the Hospital. Note that this presentation includes graphic material to convey more complete information about the topic

Wednesday, June 13, 2012


Filmmaker and photographer Jeffrey Braverman explores circumcision’s medical, sexual, and religious complexities against the backdrop of San Francisco’s recent controversy to ban circumcision.

Snip snip

Filmmaker Nick Zayas dares to ask a question that has plagued man for centuries: What is the deal with circumcision?

NSFW, but highly educational

Written and Directed by Nick Zayas
Copyright 2005 - FSU Film School

Cut: slicing through the myths of circumcision

Cut is a documentary film by Eliyahu Ungar-Sargon which examines the subject of male circumcision from a religious, scientific and ethical perspective. Using cutting-edge research, in addition to interview footage of rabbis, philosophers, and scientists, Cut challenges the viewer to confront their biases by asking difficult questions about this long-standing practice.

Only Clean What is Seen: Reversing The Epidemic of Forcible Retraction


Sadly, premature, forcible foreskin retraction (PFFR) is a much more painful, serious, and potentially permanent injury than most parents imagine. It is also epidemic in Anglo-American medicine and, as the number of intact boys grows, the situation is worsening.


Parents were also advised to retract their boy's foreskin and scrub out any 'dangerous' secretions regularly, or have the boy circumcised so these could not possibly accumulate. Throughout the 20th century in all English-speaking countries, forced retraction for genital cleaning became standard medical practice. Millions of living, intact Anglo men, it is safe to say, were forcibly—and painfully—retracted as children.

An Australian medical historian recently published the following observation about the invented and erroneous myth of the need for rigorous infant male hygiene. He notes the irony that females only narrowly escaped similar treatment:

To appreciate the scale of the error, consider its equivalent in women: it would be as if doctors had decided that the intact hymen in infant girls was a congenital defect known as 'imperforate hymen' arising from 'arrested development' and hence needed to be artificially broken in order to allow the interior of the vagina to be washed out regularly to ensure hygiene.

—Dr. Robert Darby, A Surgical Temptation, The Demonization of the Foreskin and the Rise of Circumcision in Britain.


Care of the foreskin

Proper infant hygiene, for both girls and boys, is actually astonishingly simple:

'Only Clean What Is Seen.'

This means the boy (or girl) needs only warm water, gently applied to the outer, visible, portions of his or her genitalia. No soap is needed. No intrusive or interior cleaning of the genitalia of either gender is ever needed or desirable. Aggressive interior hygiene is destructive of developing tissue and natural flora, and is harmful as well as painful.

At birth the penis is anatomically immature. The foreskin is connected to the glans by a natural membrane, the balano-preputial lamina (translation: 'glans-foreskin layer'). This membrane is apparently nature's method of protecting the highly nerve-supplied and erogenous foreskin of the developing penis from irritation by faeces, the ammonia in urine, and invading pathogens. Although very different in structure, it can reasonably be thought of as the male's hymen, protecting the sexual organs during the years when they are not needed for sexual purposes. This membrane may take as long as 18 years or more to disappear naturally, allowing retraction.

Numerous studies have shown that the mean age for natural foreskin retraction without pain or trauma is around 10 years.  Some men never see their glans until they are in their 20s. Any age is normal; there is no need to see the glans prematurely. Indeed, pre-adolescent boys, like pre-adolescent girls, need no internal cleaning whatsoever, and to suggest toddlers need to be retracted at each bath, or should be taught to do so themselves, is antique, 19th-century, medical superstition.


So what happens to little boys with forecibly retracted foreskin? 

″ Premature forcible foreskin retraction is uniquely painful because the foreskin is among the most densely nerve-supplied structures of the male body. Research shows that pain alone holds later psychological consequences.

″ Likely the child now has an 'iatrogenic' (physician-induced) infection, caused by unnecessary tampering. Invariably forcible retractions are performed without surgical gloves or proper antisepsis, and the open wound becomes an immediate portal for disease.

″ Any infection may worsen, leading to urethral ulceration, and, perhaps to urinary stenosis (blockage). Indeed, septic genital tampering is the likely cause of many avoidable urinary tract infections, themselves then used to justify post-neonatal circumcision.

″ The raw, bleeding surfaces, formerly separated by a natural membrane, might now grow together, causing unnatural adhesions or skin bridges that may, or may not, eventually dissolve.

″ Any infection may leave scar tissue, which renders the foreskin inelastic, complicating adult hygiene and normal sexual functioning.

″ This inelasticity may create pathologic phimosis, an unnatural tightness of the foreskin opening, which might not fade with time and, ironically, may require medical intervention.

″ The child with an inelastic foreskin may suffer periodic paraphimosis emergencies, or trapping of the foreskin behind the glans' corona when retracted. His glans may become strangled, trapping blood and causing swelling, which then must be released by hand.

″ The child may now endure painful nocturnal erections because of his compromised foreskin (four or five involuntary nightly erections are normal at all ages for both genders). This may interfere with necessary REM sleep and might even create sexual dysfunction in adulthood.

″ The child may become understandably reluctant to have any adult touch his genitals or bathe him.

Forcible retraction and circumcision

You might already have sensed the connection between the historical marketing of circumcision and forcible foreskin retraction. Teaching youthful and trusting parents that an intact boy needs thoroughgoing internal hygiene at each bath helped to market circumcision, as it implied amputation might free the parents of this burden, unpleasant for them; painful for their son. Better—goes the argument—the immediate acute pain of circumcision than the periodic pain inflicted by parents over the years. And when the forcible retraction by parents did cause infection, or scar tissue, or adhesions, phimosis, or other problems, it was easy to blame the parents for inadequate hygiene or failing to choose circumcision, the 'sensible' option, to begin with.

Indeed, there is much anecdotal evidence that forcible retraction in the 20th century became a sort of retribution for non-compliant Anglo parents who declined circumcision for their newborn. The two, circumcision and forced retraction, have always been closely allied, and both create work for medical professionals, while leaving the intact boy alone to develop normally holds no economic benefit whatsoever. The false 'either-or' choice presented to parents for over 140 years has always been retraction and cleaning—or circumcision. The easy and more ethical European or Asian solution—leaving the child's genitals entirely alone—has only rarely been recommended in Anglo medical practice.

Post-neonatal circumcision

A tendency to misidentify the normal connective foreskin membrane of toddlers and young boys as an abnormal 'adhesion' also leads to unnecessary post-neonatal circumcisions. Millions of older toddlers in the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have endured painful, unnecessary, and psychologically challenging post-neonatal circumcision, with or without anaesthesia, based on this ignorance.

Misdiagnosis of the child's normal connective membrane is also the origin of the circumcision marketing mantra that 'he'll only need it later'. It is the direct source of many a family's story of their Uncle Bruce's painful circumcision at age six, of which he is only too happy to remind everyone. The implication is that circumcision is best done at birth, when, in truth, normal genitalia do not need fixing at any age, and never did.

Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Getting personal: my own circumcision story

I always had a negative feeling towards circumcision. I wished I had not been circumcised, even if I didn't really have a rational reason for that at the time. But this is how it happened.

According to my calculations, I was 5 or 6 years old. I was either in kindergarten or 1st grade when it happened.

The memories at that age are not linear. We remember some details and not others. Stories start in a certain point and finish at something else, and we can't put it together in our timeline.

I was at the doctor. I knew the doctor: he was related to my family.

Was it night? Were we at his house? Or was this at his practice or a hospital? I don't know.

By the time this memory starts, I'm not wearing pants. I was being explained that I had phimosis, and they were going to cut a part of my penis.

"Don't cut my pee pee", I cried.

At that age, children cry by the sight of a single drop of blood if they pinch their finger with a needle. The idea of a "cut" and my "pee pee" just didn't go well together.

It was not my whole penis, they clarified. It was just "un cuerito" (a little flap of skin).

I cried again: "no, leave it like that, I like it like that, it's pretty like that"

They kept explaining that if they didn't do it, they would have to insert a needle in my penis for me to urinate. I kept crying. From what I remember I figured I needed to escape. I tried to run from wherever I was. (Is this part of the memory a fabrication? I don't know). The nurse ran behind me. I was held. Everything went black.

I don't remember more.

I can only speculate. Did they held me by force? Did they injected anesthesia? Did someone cover my eyes? Because, if I had seen it, how would I forget it?

(I've learned that I was sedated. How exactly, I don't know. Nor I understand why nobody from my family was there to comfort me, to help me calm down, or why the doctor didn't call them to help me relax. Or why nobody ever talked to me about this anymore.)

I have another "floating memory" of me lying in a bed, without pants, telling my grandma: "me duele este huesito" (this little bone hurts), and her responding "that's not a little bone".

Some time goes by and I'm visiting my friend Guido, a Bolivian kid. While I was very modest, for some reason this one time we used the bathroom together. We were both peeing at the same time. I pointed at my penis and said: "this is called circumcision". He said his parents had done it to him as well, but it had grown again.

For some time I secretly hoped mine would grow again. I realize now, years and years later, that he had probably been retracted by his parents, and that's what he was referring to. We were kids, what did we know?

In 5th grade we had a doctor come to our school. I took an appointment. He asked about my medical history, including if I had any surgeries. I said "no". Then when he did the physical exam, he asked me why I had said I had no surgeries when I was circumcised. I said I didn't know that circumcision was a surgery.

I became a teenager. I learned about masturbation because I would pull my skin to cover my glans trying to look uncircumcised. The skin would retract immediately, and I tried again. It felt nice. I kept repeating it and suddenly I ejaculated for the first time. I talked about this experience with my best friend. We talked about everything and all the time.

I knew that the head of my penis had more girth than the shaft, and I realized the apparent contradiction of the glans having to go in and out of the foreskin. I kept asking my friend how that was even possible, but he couldn't understand what I was asking. I guess what I couldn't understand was that the skin is somewhat flexible and the opening expands to allow the glans to come out when pushed by the growing shaft, and contracts after the glans retracts.

What I did notice one time was that his glans was shiny and slightly purple. Just not the same color as the skin. My glans was dry and the same color of my skin. We were only teenagers.

I had my first girlfriend at 18, and we had sex for the first time when I was 19. I asked her afterwards if she had noticed that I was circumcised. She was not concerned about it but she noticed.

It would be 7 years until this topic came out in another relationship. My girlfriend when I was 26 pointed: "that is your scar". I didn't know what she was referring to. My circumcision scar, that big scar that goes around the penis, between the skin of the shaft and the glans in all circumcised men.

As an adult, I often dream back to the high school years. I feel that my inner me is still a teenager.

In one of my dreams, a doctor comes to the classroom to perform circumcisions. All the kids crowd around the teacher's desk, and this doctor pulls a guillotine looking device to circumcise kid after kid. I don't know if I'm supposed to go because I am already circumcised, but I go just to ask. However I don't even have the time to ask: I'm circumcised again. When I look at my penis, it has something like a head on top of a head.

Hilarious as that image might be, it's also disturbing. Thinking about it now, I think it points to a trauma.

I had my son. Circumcision never came because in my country it is not a routine practice, but I knew I wanted my son to be intact.

I moved to the United States, at age 29 (year 2000). During the first years I kept reading and reading stuff on the internet, and I learned about "foreskin restoration". I thought it was cool. I wanted to have a foreskin. But the idea of spending 3 or 4 years with a daily routine with "complicated" devices just seemed overwhelming, and I didn't even had a "rational" reason to have a foreskin in the first place.

I just didn't know I had one.

One time I was motivated after reading about the "multiple O rings" method. I went to the hardware store but I couldn't figure out which O rings I would need, so I put it off again.

There was also the canister method (using medical tape and a film canister). I got a canister and bought some tape, but the whole idea of taping just didn't work with me.

This topic went again to the back  burner, where things flow in spirals and if you don't catch them when you see them, you can be sure they will come back to haunt you later on.

During these years in the United States, I had been to nudist resorts. Most men were circumcised there. Okay, I felt less weird. I noticed that when I saw someone who was not circumcised, I tended to peek. I was curious about uncircumcised penises.

Some friends were gay, and when I met some of them, upon learning that I was South American, the next question would almost always be if I was uncut. Hmm, so I'm not the only one that's curious about intact penises.

A friend had 2 sons. One day they came to visit. The youngest one still wore diapers, and my friend had to change his diaper. I noticed that the baby was circumcised. I wondered why, but I didn't ask. Were they circumcising all the babies?

Later on, a coworker and his wife had a baby. He told us he would be late on a certain date because he would be taking his son to be circumcised. This time I asked why, but even though I was emotionally against it, I had no rational arguments. Maybe it was cleaner.

So I turn 40, and I'm following a blog by Dr. Gloria Brame, "The truth about sex", and she mentions in a post how the routine circumcision of babies in the United States began as a way of "curing" boys from masturbation. Oh wow, that's strange.

Google came handy. I was against it right away, because, come on, this was based from the beginning not in science, but in a moral judgement by extremists.

Reading about the risks, the pain... And drawing from my own experience, it seemed clear: circumcising babies was cruel and pointless. I was glad my son had not been circumcised. A doctor had recently asked why I didn't have him circumcised, and I said it was not customary in my country. I wish I had that doctor in front of me again to give him some real facts!

One thing I started finding over and over: men's testimonials about how circumcision had affected their lives and their sexuality.

Some things resonated: masturbation being more difficult. The frenulum being the most sensitive spot of the penis. The dry and rough skin of the glans.

Maybe my own sexual life had been impacted by this and I didn't even knew it.

Then I remembered restoration. I didn't want to be circumcised anymore. It shouldn't be that hard. I read again about the multiple O rings. I went to the hardware store. I bought 3 boxes of different sizes of O-rings. I got started right away.

My routine was to put on a ring (and later two or three or more) as soon as I got out of the shower, and keep them on until just before bed. I only have to take them off to use the bathroom, and putting them on again takes about 30 seconds.

I would now look at my body in the mirror while wearing the rings, and I knew I wanted to look like that. I always wanted to look like that, with an intact penis.

When a doctor cuts a foreskin, the baby may grow old. But it's always the baby or the child the one who suffered the loss. It doesn't matter how strong you are: it was your inner baby's loss.

Restoration showed it's first benefits almost immediately. My glans soon became softer by the simple fact of being covered all the time. The sensation of touching it was nicer.

Then one day I had to take off the rings earlier, and later on as I was driving, I noticed a particular sensation. I knew that my skin had to be covering part of my glans. I had never felt that before. I got home and went to the bathroom to check. Sure enough, the skin was spontaneously covering around half of my glans. The touch between the skin and the glans was pleasurable, like a tickle that was always there overlayed to anything that I was doing or watching or thinking. I liked feeling it.

I would experience this again often. Most of the times when not wearing the rings, the skin just falls back behind the corona. There are now more wrinkles and more skin than before, but still not a lot. But sometimes it spontaneously falls over the glans, and it's little sparks of pleasure.

Restoring has enabled me to see myself as I always wanted to perceive myself. I feel empowered, less of a victim than before. Things happened, but I'm rebuilding my body. And I have experienced sensations in a part of my body that I didn't even have 3 months ago.

Every day I'm more convinced that routine circumcision is cruel and violates the children's right to have a whole body. I know that in some instances it might be needed to treat some conditions. In those cases, it's better to do it than not to do it. However most of the routine circumcisions had no reason of being.

Did I really have phimosis when I was a child? Nowadays phimosis is not diagnosed until after puberty. Did I develop acquired phimosis as a result of repeated forced retraction? I remember my mom asking me one time if it burned when I urinated, but I don't know if this was prior to or after being circumcised. I always thought that because of my mom being away from her husband and not really experienced in having men around, maybe she had not been able to keep the hygiene that I needed and because of that I had to be circumcised. Now, I wonder if she was overzealous in cleaning me and that caused acquired phimosis. Or if she was sold into the "it's more clean, it's more healthy" propaganda, and the doctor was just telling me that I might suffer of phimosis in the future. I know that she has a heart of gold and would never do anything to hurt her son, but I also know that she grew up in a family where the only man was her dad, and she didn't have a lot of information on sex. My dad traveled overseas when I was 2 years, so he wasn't there at the time of my circumcision. And I don't know whether he is circumcised or not.

With my own son, the pediatrician thought us to retract and clean his foreskin when we bathed him. I'm glad we really didn't follow through, now that I understand the danger of forced retraction.

I know that being circumcised I missed on aspects of sexuality that my intact friends took for granted. I think it's extremely selfish to impose that on children who are only beginning their lives, who have no idea of what's happening to them, and who have no need for the procedure.

When I discuss circumcision of babies in online forums, I'm moved by compassion: I suffered a loss, and I know many individuals like me who are aware of their own loss, and sometimes they endured more terrible consequences of the operation. I wish for this to stop. I wish that those babies who are being born won't look at themselves in the mirror in fifteen or twenty years to see a scar on their penis and have to wonder why that was done to them.

I have nothing to win. I have nothing to lose. I fight against routine infant circumcision because it's just fair. Babies can't defend themselves, so someone should do it. The cycle needs to stop.

I often find people who respond with contempt: "it's just a penis, get over it". What they don't understand is that they are victimizing a victim. We didn't choose to be circumcised. It was imposed on us, and some are happy about it and some aren't, that's not the issue. The issue is that we did not have a word on what our body was going to be like. So when they say: "it's just a penis", I have to wonder: what if it was just an eye. Or just a finger. Or just a toe. Or just an ear. Or just a nipple.

Why is the penis so maligned? All men love their own penises. But socially it is so acceptable to despise male sexuality and males in general. Males are supposed to be tough. But the foreskins are not taken from the men, they are taken from the babies, and the babies remain inside the men crying for their mutilation. Why can't we respect that?

It's their body. Unless a medical condition develops, it should be their choice.

Surgery offers hope for victims of female genital mutilation

Fatima Sheriff has a sketchy recollection of the day her mother pinned down her four-year-old body while a stranger slashed at her genitals.
"I remember I was fighting," the 32-year-old told AFP, pointing to her back where she bears a scar from flailing about on the stony ground on which she was mutilated.
"I remember my mum was the one who held me," she said, recounting that her assailants had wielded a razor blade.
"If somebody did that to me today I would kill them," she said simply.
Sheriff was living in the west African state of Sierra Leone when the nightmare took place.
She is one of about 140 million women worldwide to have been subjected to genital mutilation -- a practice in which a young girl's clitoris and labia are removed, all or in part, in the belief that this will reduce libido and keep a woman chaste.
The cost to this beautiful young woman was years of shame and pleasureless sex, feelings of victimisation and inadequacy, and jealousy of women with intact genitals.
But 18 months ago, Sheriff's life changed when she underwent reconstructive surgery that included rebuilding her clitoris.
Following weeks of painful recovery, she was rewarded with her first orgasm.
"I went: 'Wow, that's me! I can do this!'" said the mother of two girls, recalling the event with tears in her eyes.
Sheriff, an aesthetician training as an English teacher, was a patient of Pierre Foldes, a surgeon at Poissy-Saint Germain Hospital northwest of Paris.
He is one of fewer than 10 doctors trained to do the procedure in France -- where the operation has been covered by national health insurance since 2004.
Foldes' 2,938 patients between 1998 and 2009 were mainly from Mali, Senegal and Ivory Coast, though 560 had been mutilated in France. Most were between the ages of five and nine when it happened.
In a paper published in The Lancet medical journal on Tuesday, Foldes and colleagues report on the success of the procedure based on a follow-up of 866 patients.
In the first comprehensive assessment of the surgery's long-term benefits to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, the authors report that more than a third of the women who had never experienced an orgasm before the corrective procedure started to have them afterward.
With support from a sex therapist, half who had "restricted" orgasms were now climaxing regularly.
"Clitoral reconstruction after female genital mutilation is feasible," the authors conclude.
"It can certainly improve women's pleasure and lessen their pain. It also allows mutilated women to recover their identity."
According to the World Health Organisation, about three million girls a year fall victim to genital mutilation.
It is commonest in western, eastern, and northeastern regions of Africa and the Middle East and among communities of migrants from these areas now living in Europe and North America.
Reviled and outlawed internationally, the practice not only wreaks emotional havoc.
It can cause health problems ranging from urinary difficulties, cysts and infection to infertility and complications in childbirth.
Sheriff said the surgery had given her a new self-confidence that resonates beyond her sex life.
She only recently started talking about her experience, and plans to launch a blog titled "My Clitoris and Me" to help women who have been through the same ordeal and encourage them to have the surgery.
"It is the best thing I ever did," she said. "For the first time, I am living my life. I feel like I can conquer the world."
But she is one of the lucky ones.
"In most developed and all developing countries, reconstructive surgery is prohibitively expensive," the paper says.

Circumcision resources - videos

A boy's coming of age circumcision: Kerry Lammi

This documentary focuses in on the experience of one boy's coming of age--a circumcision party in Turkey.

A painful ancient ritual - female circumcision

The mistreatment of young girls and women in general in parts of the world, in the name of tradition


Theo Van Gogh worked with Somali-born writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali to produce the film Submission, which was critical of the treatment of women in Islam. On 2 November 2004 he was assassinated by Mohammed Bouyeri, a Dutch-Moroccan Muslim.

Common myths about circumcision

Great text by Darcia Narvaez, Ph. D., published on 2011.

"When I was pregnant with my first child, I just thought that circumcision was what you did, no big deal, and that every man was circumcised.  Then one day I saw a picture of a baby being circumcised, and everything changed.  Just one tiny, grainy photo was enough to make me want to know more, and the more I knew, the worse it got.  It turns out, circumcision really is a big deal."

Part 1. Surgery Myths

Part 2. STD/Hygiene myths

Part 3: Social and sexual myths

Part 4. The ethics and economics of circumcision

Part 5: Greatest danger for uncircumcised boys

Part 6. Harming boys through ignorance of male anatomy


Where do all the foreskins go?

"Is it ethical to cut off a baby's foreskin, charge his parents for the operation, sell his foreskin without telling his parents, and keep the money? Is it legal?"

John A. Erickson

Final note: please remember, we don't oppose every circumcision. I oppose the routine circumcision of babies (and infants) as non-consenting individuals, and I oppose doctors minimizing the risks and consequences of circumcisions in order to "sell" the surgery - even to adults, i.e. by omitting to mention that the penis might become considerably less sensible. I've read of cases of adults becoming terribly depressed, to the point of being suicidal, after being circumcised; in general, this happened when they had a normal sexual life and were sold into circumcision for minimal reasons. However, for adults with conditions that prevent them from having a normal sexual life, circumcision may be the solution and they are likely to be satisfied since the procedure might enable them to have normal sexual activity again.

I understand that there are cases where an infant might actually need a circumcision if a condition is developed that interrupts normal urination or causes constant pain (probably as a consequence of "forced retraction" causing "acquired phimosis"), and I also understand that adults may need to undergo the procedure to solve one of a number of conditions, or may choose to do it for any personal reasons.

When it comes to personal reasons and preferences, it should be justifiable to modify one's owns genitalia, but not the genitalia of one's children.

Friday, June 8, 2012

Circumcision: Female circumcision in America

Please read this: Confessions of a circumcised woman

"I step out of the shower and I stand in front of the mirror and I look like your average European American, pale skin, red hair, green eyes. I am not your average woman though."

"I am circumcised."

"I am a white American, non-Muslim woman who was circumcised as a toddler by the same pediatrician that circumcised my brothers and at the same hospital at which I was born. I have no clitoral hood and only a V shaped scar and the tiniest bit of inner labia they were kind enough to leave behind. I always knew something was different. I have a half sister seven years my senior and she had a normal looking vagina. Mine always looked wrong to me but I never said anything because after all, every woman is unique and different."

"It was only as I was nearing my late twenties, had been divorced and had other sexual partners all of which commented in some way or another on the difference of my vagina, that I had an uncontrollable urge to dig deeper. Then at a well woman check up with my now favorite Ob/Gyn he told me or rather asked me why I was a circumcised female. He felt awful when he realized that I did not know and he had assumed I had consented to vaginal cosmetic surgery."

"After months of demanding, digging, and putting my foot down I obtained the records from my birth that told me nothing but did lead me to my childhood pediatrician. Those records revealed the ghastly truth of a two-year-old girl circumcised at her mother's request. "


Thursday, June 7, 2012

Circumcision: the sensitive sensitivity and pleasure issue

One of the big debates about circumcision is whether it has any effect on the sexual life of the circumcised. Every time that the subject is discussed in any forum, a big emotional debate occurs, from those who say they have never missed having a foreskin and wouldn't want one, to those who blame circumcision for Erectile Dysfunction.

I was just reading today, and someone with a somewhat scientific profile argued that while the health benefits are not completely proved, the effects on sensitivity and sexual life have even less prove. I was thinking about it...

Different studies render different results. The doctors of yore where adamant on reducing the sensuality of men: "To obtain the best results one must cut away enough skin and mucous membrane to rather put it on the stretch when erections come later. There must be no play in the skin" (E.J.Spratling, Masturbation in the Adult, Medical Record, vol. 24. (1895): pp. 442-443.) and "Civilization, on the contrary, requires chastity, and the glans of the circumcised rapidly assumes a leathery texture less sensitive than skin. Thus the adolescent has his attention drawn to his penis much less often." R.W. Cockshut. Circumcision. British Medical Journal, Vol.2 (1935): p.764., and yet today's doctors assert that circumcision "has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, penile sensation or satisfaction and may enhance the male sexual experience" (

A different study concluded that: "Adult circumcision appears to result in worsened erectile function (p = 0.01), decreased penile sensitivity (p = 0.08), no change in sexual activity (p = 0.22) and improved satisfaction (p = 0.04). Of the men 50% reported benefits and 38% reported harm. Overall, 62% of men were satisfied with having been circumcised."

Some argue that women (American women at least) prefer circumcised men, while others argue that the circumcised penis causes chaffing of the inner walls of the vagina and remove the natural lubrication, making sex painful.

The problem is that there is no real way to measure sensitivity and satisfaction. Some like it rough, some like it gentle. There is no way to connect a "pleasurometer" to a person's brain and see how it measures. I contend that in studies over men circumcised as adults, there are variables that are not controlled and they possibly lack mid to long term follow up. Let's see some of the issues:

Circumcision is not a one size fits all procedure. Every person faces this decision based on different circumstances and with different expectations. I am basing my observations here in anecdotal evidence taken from online forums, so this is not a scientific study, just a personal disertation.

Some men decide to get circumcised as adults because of existing conditions of the penis that made sex painful or even impossible: phimosis, paraphimosis, recurrent infections. In these cases, the ability to resume and normalize the patient's sexual life is an obvious advantage, regardless of a potential loss of sensitivity. Being able to have sex is better than not being able to have any.

Other men arrived at circumcision with not a lot of thought, and for reasons that could have been treated differently: a patient with "shrinking foreskin" who didn't attempt any alternative treatment. A guy that was convinced of doing it for aesthetic reasons. Both were quick to assert that they should have studied things better and that getting circumcised had been the worse mistake of their lives. One of them said that his wife hated the way his penis felt after circumcision. A video testimonial of another man says that the doctor never mentioned the potential lose of sensitivity, and proceeds to state that the loss was huge. He said it was like walking outside on a sunny day with blue sky and not be able to feel the heat on the skin.

Some people who were circumcised as babies are perfectly happy and would even circumcise their own children. Some hate their parents for having them circumcised. For example some have so little skin that erection is painful always.

Tabulating the degree of satisfaction or enjoyment of sex would require studies that are impossible to perform in the real world. To study the effect of circumcision in men, it would be impossible to produce blind studies, as obviously every man will know his own circumcision status. To study the effect of the circumcised or uncircumcised penis in women during sex we would need to conduct blind studies where all the other variables were removed: basically women would need to have sex with different partners without seeing the partners, without any additional touch or word, in order to compare exclusively the feeling of the penis inside their bodies.

What the previous anecdotes show, in addition to the existing studies, is that circumcision changes the sexual experience of men. This change might be positive, or it might be negative. Things are just never the same. It also shows that the percentage of people who believe that their circumcision had a positive effect is not that different from the number of people who think they had a negative effect. There is no big majority. There is no average. Every case is different.

However, what is undeniable is the physical change of the penis. An intact penis has slack skin that offers a gliding effect: skin can move freely up and down the shaft during sex or masturbation. The glans is shiny and soft with a strong color. In circumcised men, the skin is tight, to the point that there is little play or no play at all during erection. The glans, over time, becomes hard and dry because it's exposed to constant friction. There is no need for complex studies: we can compare a few penis of men circumcised when they were babies with the penis of a few intact men. The physical differences in the penis are obvious in plain sight. I say this without judgment. Whether one or the other feels better for his owner, or for his partner, is a different issue, but the difference exists.

The man who gets circumcised as an adult experiences an evolution over time. Initially the glans is very sensitive, as it is not used to being exposed. This can be uncomfortable at the beginning. With time, the glans becomes keratinized. This is the way the body reacts to being constantly exposed, by desensitizing itself. This may be an advantage as it may give more endurance to the man, or it may be negative as it may make orgasm more difficult to achieve. It's all matter of perspective and expectations.

When one chooses to get circumcised, one has to consider carefully his own motivation and expectations. Satisfaction depends greatly upon the reasons, circumstances, and previous experiences.

Where all this leads is to the dilemma of circumcising babies. As adults, we might have lived through different circumstances and we might find the need or not to undergo surgery. The problem with babies is: they haven't lived yet; they don't have previous experiences; they don't have motivation or reasons to get circumcised, and we can't really discuss the issue with them and receive their feedback.

If we choose to circumcise them, they are going to have to live with it all their lives. They may like it or they may not, but they won't be able to change it.

I've heard people say: "I don't know anyone who is circumcised and unhappy about it". Well, I am. And I've seen forums full of people like me, who had no choice in the matter.

If we leave the babies intact, they may one day develop a condition that requires circumcision, or they may not. They may decide that they want to be circumcised for aesthetic reasons, or not. If it's really important for them, they might choose the surgery. Or they may be afraid of the pain, the healing process and decide against it. Or they may not find any reason to do it at all. Whatever the case, it will be their choice. If they do it and they don't like it, it was their mistake. If they do it and they enjoy it, it was their call. If they don't do it, again it is their choice.

Considering the mixed results in terms of satisfaction, who would like to take actions that are not reversible and will affect the adult life of our babies with unpredictable results?

Wednesday, June 6, 2012

Circumcision: when it's needed

I am circumcised. I was circumcised at some point between 5 and 6 years old, if I remember correctly. I spoke with the doctor prior to my surgery, with the voice and the mind of a scared child. I remember the conversation. I don't remember the procedure. I didn't want it to happen.

Did I need it? I don't know for sure. The doctor said I had phimosis, and he said he would have to put a needle through my penis if he didn't circumcise me. That's what I remember - I've never validated this information with my family.

Today it is said that phimosis cannot be diagnosed until later in life. There is however, acquired phimosis. Since the glans and the foreskin are fused in the infant, retracting causes tearing of membranes. They heal into scars. Retracting again hurts them, and they become harder. In the end, the foreskin may not retract more, and circumcision might become necessary. I wonder if that's what happened to me.

Teenagers and adults may suffer from phimosis: either the glans is too big or the foreskin too tight, either way preventing retraction. Sometimes this can be treated by stretching and with the help of steroid creams; sometimes it doesn't work, and circumcision is required. Not treating phimosis may lead to painful sex, or inability to have penetrative sex.

There's also a condition called paraphimosis: retraction is possible, but the foreskin gets stuck behind the corona and cannot roll again over the glans. This can become really dangerous, as it can cut the supply of blood to the glans or prevent urination.

Acute balanoposthitis is a swelling of the foreskin that can cause burning sensation, pain and difficulty to urinate. Normally it reacts to medication, but sometimes it becomes a recurrent condition, and circumcision can become an option to prevent further incidences of the problem.

Circumcision per se is an aesthetic procedure. Some people may prefer to look circumcised, especially if they are immerse in cultures where circumcision is prevalent. In this case, opting for circumcision as a consenting adult is a valid option. It is important to know that by having the procedure, some discomfort will come initially from having the glans exposed, and some sensitivity might be lost in the future. Some of the risks include the possibility of injury and even loss of the penis, as it happened in 2012 to a man in China ( and one in Kentucky in 2007 ( when the doctor changed the operation upon finding a tumor in the penis. Of course it doesn't happen to everybody, but it's important to be informed; there is no such thing as a risk-free surgery.

Once you evaluate the risks, it is your choice.

Personally, I find the aesthetic value of circumcision strange, somewhat similar to scarrification in some African tribes, or enlargement of the lips or the ear lobes. But it's understandable that after over 150 years of brain washing, the American culture is conditioned to believe that cut is nicer. The point is, if you believe that circumcised looks better, get circumcised yourself if you are not. But let your children decide for themselves. Think about it in a similar light to breast enlargement: you don't take a 12 year old daughter to get breast enlargement because you prefer women with big breasts. If this sounds creepy, then circumcising your baby because your wife prefers circumcised males or because baby has to look like his daddy is just as creepy!

For those suffering of some of the medical reasons listed above, circumcision might be the final resort to eliminate the condition. It may not be pleasant, nor your ideal state, but it may be the only way to get rid of a health issue.

Most of the situations that require circumcision can wait until the adult age. And most of those situations have alternative, less destructive treatments that can be tried first, prior to operating.

Acquired phimosis and really bad cases of other conditions might not be able to wait, if they become too recurrent or too acute and present danger for the patient; in those cases, waiting might not be practical and parents should take the course of action in the best interest of their child.

Intactivists don't oppose circumcision as a whole. What we oppose is the indiscriminate circumcision of babies without any medical need, because we feel that it takes away their right to have a whole body and any possibility of making an informed choice as consenting adults.

We don't endorse routine circumcision as prevention of the transmission of HIV, or to prevent penile cancer or STDs. There are too many ethical issues with this. Circumcision alone does not prevent STDs or transmission of HIV, but improper information might become a false security blanket that will promote unsafe sex. Incidences of penile cancer are generally too low to justify massive action.

People don't just get preventive surgeries for every possible malady. We don't perform double mastectomy of teenage girls to prevent breast cancer for example. We don't take antibiotics today for the infection of next week. As such, performing a circumcision on a baby to prevent things that may not even happen to a baby when he becomes adult is a very invasive course of treatment -one that does not come without sacrifices.

However, once we are adults, we can ponder  those sacrifices, we can weight the benefits vs the risks based on knowledge of our own body, our own experience and circumstances, and make our choice. If that choice means that we need to sacrifice a part of our body for a more integral life experience, so be it: we are adults, we can handle it.

One thing to remember is that circumcision is not just trimming something. It's not a haircut or a manicure. It's the excision of an organ. As every surgery, it does not come without risks. However, those risks are in general more manageable and less critical on an adult.

The loss of blood that can kill a baby can be easier to control and much less critical in an adult. Infections that would kill a baby can be easily treated in an adult - and there is less risk, as an adult wouldn't have a diaper collecting feces and urine while he heals. An adult might be less likely to have a bad reaction to anesthesia, so pain during the surgery is easier to manage. An adult is less likely to go into cardiac arrest after the surgery. The recovery process might be uncomfortable and disrupt your life for a couple of weeks, but as an adult you can act on pain, you can take pain medication as needed, you can take action. A baby can't even tell you when it hurts really bad.

Even for religious reasons: if an adult believes that his way to follow his religious path is to be circumcised as an expression of his faith, so be it. But we don't agree with circumcising babies for religious reasons: again, as a parent, you may hope, but you don't know if your child will wish to continue in your religion. In the end you may sacrifice a part of your child's body, just to have your child choose to follow a different path, one that doesn't require such sacrifice, and he might resent you for having hurt his body. By imposing your religion on your son through a flesh ritual, you violate his religious freedom and his right to a whole body.

But if you, as an adult, wish to express your faith by cutting your foreskin, go ahead. We won't do anything to stop you.

As an adult, you are free to choose how you want to experience life, or how you want to deal with your own health and sexuality. That freedom needs to be protected. And that is why we need to protect infants, so that they may, years from now, have the same freedom to choose what they want to do with their lives and their bodies.

His body, his choice.

Jesus was circumcised, circumcision is biblical...

Philippians 3: 1-7

So then, my brothers and sisters, be glad in the Lord. It’s no trouble for me to repeat the same things to you because they will help keep you on track. Watch out for the “dogs.” Watch out for people who do evil things. Watch out for those who insist on circumcision, which is really mutilation. We are the circumcision. We are the ones who serve by God’s Spirit and who boast in Christ Jesus. We don’t put our confidence in rituals performed on the body, though I have good reason to have this kind of confidence. If anyone else has reason to put their confidence in physical advantages, I have even more:
I was circumcised on the eighth day.
I am from the people of Israel and the tribe of Benjamin.
I am a Hebrew of the Hebrews.
With respect to observing the Law, I’m a Pharisee.
With respect to devotion to the faith, I harassed the church.
With respect to righteousness under the Law, I’m blameless.
These things were my assets, but I wrote them off as a loss for the sake of Christ.

Enough said.

Tuesday, June 5, 2012

Does Circumcision affect sexual sensitivity?

Many proponents of routine circumcision state that it "has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, penile sensation or satisfaction and may enhance the male sexual experience" ( and go as far as criticizing that "a minority of studies has reported moderate adverse effects, but expert scrutiny [157-159] of these has revealed fundamental flaws that make the findings unreliable".

Of course that's no consolation if you are a man that have slowly seen your sexual satisfaction decrease over time, or if you are a man who was circumcised as adult and suddenly realize that the doctor never mentioned the loss of sensitivity, or even if he mentioned "a slight loss", you find it's more like 90% (real case) and sink into depression.

According to one study: "Adult circumcision appears to result in worsened erectile function (p = 0.01), decreased penile sensitivity (p = 0.08), no change in sexual activity (p = 0.22) and improved satisfaction (p = 0.04). Of the men 50% reported benefits and 38% reported harm. Overall, 62% of men were satisfied with having been circumcised."

One of the problems I see with these studies is how soon do they rate the results after the surgery. What about long term effects? Initially, the glans is going to be very sensitive as it's not used to being exposed to the elements. With time it will start hardening and drying. This is not even up for debate: all you need to do is compare any circumcised man with any intact man, and you will see the difference in the texture of the glans: softer, shinier, more colorful in the intact man; harder and dry in the circumcised man.

That sexual function and sensitivity are not affected is an important element of the 21st century marketing of circumcision -and the one sore spot in the presentation. Not so much in earlier times, when circumcision was performed precisely with the purpose of reducing sexual pleasure.

According to the first century C.E. Jewish philosopher Philo, circumcision represents the excision of the pleasure of sex, which bewitches the mind... thus making circumcision the figure of the excision of excessive and superfluous pleasure (Philo, Special Laws 2-11.)

As we move to the beginning of the routine circumcision of neonates in the United States, we have to start around 1850. Please note that the following quotes are documented in

"In cases of masturbation we must, I believe, break the habit by inducing such a condition of the parts as will cause too much local suffering to allow of the practice to be continued. For this purpose, if the prepuce is long, we may circumcise the male patient with present and probably with future advantages; the operation, too, should not be performed under chloroform, so that the pain experienced may be associated with the habit we wish to eradicate." On An Injurious Habit Occasionally Met with in Infancy and Early Childhood, Athol A. W. Johnson. The Lancet, vol. 1 (7 April 1860): pp. 344-345.

"There can be no doubt of [masturbation's] injurous effect, and of the proneness to practice it on the part of children with defective brains. Circumcision should always be practiced. It may be necessary to make the genitals so sore by blistering fluids that pain results from attempts to rub the parts." Angel Money. Treatment of Disease In Children.Philidelphia: P. Blakiston, 1887. p.421.

Okay, did I read that right? What has a defective brain to do with masturbation and how do they jump from there to the foreskin?


"In all cases of masturbation circumcision is undoubtedly the physician's closest friend and ally... To obtain the best results one must cut away enough skin and mucous membrane to rather put it on the stretch when erections come later. There must be no play in the skin after the wound has thoroughly healed, but it must fit tightly over the penis, for should there be any play the patient will be found to readily resume his practice, not begrudging the time and extra energy required to produce the orgasm. It is true, however, that the longer it takes to have an orgasm, the less frequently it will be attempted, consequently the greater the benefit gained... The younger the patient operated upon the more pronounced the benefit, though occasionally we find patients who were circumcised before puberty that require a resection of the skin, as it has grown loose and pliant after that epoch." E.J.Spratling, Masturbation in the Adult, Medical Record, vol. 24. (1895): pp. 442-443.

And in 1900

"Finally, circumcision probably tends to increase the power of sexual control. The only physiological advantage which the prepuce can be supposed to confer is that of maintaining the penis in a condition susceptible to more acute sensation than would otherwise exist. It may increase the pleasure of intercourse and the impulse to it: but these are advantages which in the present state of society can well be spared. If in their loss increase in sexual control should result, one should be thankful." Editor, Medical News. Our London Letter. Medical World,(1900).vol.77:pp.707-8

"It has been urged as an argument against the universal adoption of circumcision that the removal of the protective covering of the glans tends to dull the sensitivity of that exquisitly sensitive structure and thereby diminishes sexual appetite and the pleasurable effects of coitus. Granted that this be true, my answer is that, whatever may have been the case in days gone by, sensuality in our time needs neither whip nor spur, but would be all the better for a little more judicious use of curb and bearing-rein." E. Harding Freeland, Circumcision as a Preventative of Syphilis and Other Disorders, The Lancet, vol. 2 (29 Dec. 1900): pp.1869-1871.


"Circumcision not only reduces the irritability of the child's penis, but also the so-called passion of which so many married men are so extreamly proud, to the detriment of their wives and their married life. Many youthful rapes could be prevented, many separations, and divorces also, and many an unhappy marriage improved if this unnatural passion was cut down by a timely circumcision." L.W. Wuesthoff, MD. Benefits of Circumcision. Medical World, (1915) Vol.33. p.434.

"Circumcision and Operation on Clitoris Circumcision is the removal of the foreskin in the male. Sometimes the hood of the clitoris of the female needs to be cut down or drawn back. Sometime the foreskin or the hood of the clitoris is so tight as to cause irritation and keep the passions excited and perhaps they are a cause for masturbation. When such is the case these operations should be performed. Parents should carefully looks after these condtions as they, instead of a depraved mind, are the causes of many immoral practices." "The People's Home Library", A Library of Three Practical books by Published by R.C Barnum Company Copyright 1910

The most important one, from 1935:

"I suggest that all male children should be circumcised. This is "against nature", but that is exactly the reason why it should be done. Nature intends that the adolescent male shall copulate as often and as promiscuously as possible, and to that end covers the sensitive glans so that it shall be ever ready to receive stimuli. Civilization, on the contrary, requires chastity, and the glans of the circumcised rapidly assumes a leathery texture less sensitive than skin. Thus the adolescent has his attention drawn to his penis much less often. I am convinced that masturbation is much less common in the circumcised. With these considerations in view it does not seem apt to argue that 'God knows best how to make little boys.'" R.W. Cockshut. Circumcision. British Medical Journal, Vol.2 (1935): p.764.

So, definitively those who started the routine practice of circumcision knew what they were doing and knew what their goal was. It was the same goal in 1860 than it was in the first century of our era. Excision of the pleasure of sex. A leathery texture less sensitive than skin. Unnatural passion cut down by a timely circumcision. Diminishing sexual appetite and the pleasurable effects of coitus.

What has changed from 1935 to 2012, that the new doctors are convinced that circumcision "has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, penile sensation or satisfaction", and are willing to defend this statement by bullying those who are willing to stand in front of the crowd and testify to their own dissatisfaction?

It's important to note that new studies (which will probably be criticized) show that circumcised men are 4.5 times more likely to experience Erectile Dysfunction. Some recommended readings:

Is your circumcision making you soft?

Wikipedia shows that many studies contradict each other and arrive at opposed conclusions.

And a doctor's input on this "sadistic procedure", that is both rational and emotional.