Monday, July 29, 2013

Why most circumcised men seem satisfied?

We've always seen in the heated circumcision debates the guy that starts by announcing "I'm circumcised and I'm fine"...

But yet those of us who have had the "ahaaa" moment, those who have seen what's wrong about circumcision, just can't seem to unsee it, to even stop thinking about it.

Why is there such disconnect? Check this out:

Friday, July 26, 2013

Physicians guide to the uncircumcised penis - treatment, no circumcision

Excellent text by Doctors Opposing Circumcision, this page exposes several of the reasons (or excuses) presented by doctors to circumcise, discusses the normal issues that may be experienced during the development of the foreskin and conservative treatments, and the functions of the foreskin.

Great guide for physicians, nurses, and even parents who want to be well informed and have a critical position on the health care recommended for their children.

Read the Physicians guide to the normal (intact) penis

Friday, July 19, 2013

My responses to the Gentleman Scholar on "The Unkindest Cut"

I appreciate that the author recognizes that the AAP statement relies mostly on foreign data that doesn't apply to the American conditions.

As a disclosure, I don't blame circumcision on every frustration of my life. In fact, I'm not frustrated at all, I've had a quite enjoyable life, and I didn't question circumcision until I was in my early 40s.

As for the AAP Technical Report, I'm most surprised by an interesting sentence:

"Parents should weigh the health
benefits and risks in light of their
own religious, cultural, and personal
preferences, as the medical
benefits alone may not outweigh
these other considerations for individual

This is a statement that requires some thoughtful reading, because it's deceiving. What it really means is that the "health benefits" alone may not outweigh other considerations UNLESS you have a cultural or religious bias towards circumcision.

The AAP remains blind to the sexual effects of circ on the adult male. When 38 non-U.S. physicians questioned this (and pointed the cultural bias), the AAP responded:

"However, the task force
did not move beyond what these
studies actually reveal (the foreskin
has nerve bundles and pain fibers,
the foreskin contains Meissner corpuscles,
the inner surface of the foreskin
resembles a mucous membrane)
to speculate about the effect that circumcision
might have on sexual function
or pleasure."

Cultural Bias and Circumcision: The AAP Task
Force on Circumcision Responds,
doi:10.1542/peds.2013-0081, published April of 2013

Isn't this interesting? Basically they acknowledge that they don't know or understand what sexual role the foreskin has. Isn't this an important question to research by a task force that is going to provide a recommendation about the routine excision of this tissue? If they didn't have an answer to this question, should they have even published a Policy Statement?

Be it also the chance to remember that one of the 8 members of the Task Force, Doug Diekema, was also the Chairperson of another committee that in 2010 presented a policy statement on "Ritual Genital Cutting of Female Minors", advocating for physicians to be able to provide a "ritual nick" which would have been less extensive than male circumcision - and which would have been a federal crime based on the FGM law of 1997. Public outrage (including the WHO and UN) forced the AAP to retire this Policy Statement.

Add to this guy Diekema at least 2 physicians from a cultural group that practices religious circumcision, and 5 other physicians who were likely denied the right to experience their own foreskins, and you have the task force that presented the new Policy Statement. Is it any surprise that there would be some kind of cultural bias?

A reader commented:

This is what makes this such a headache issue.

There are bad things that can happen if you get circumcised, but they're vanishingly rare.
There are bad things that can happen if you don't get circumcised, but they're vanishingly rare.

Whichever decision you make, the vast majority of the time it's going to turn out fine.

But for some reason, to certain people, these vanishingly rare outcomes are the most important thing in the entire world. Even moreso, arguing endlessly about them on the internet is the most important thing in your life.

The people who REALLY care about this stuff are absolutely OBSESSED with it. There is no rational discussion with them; it's all in hysterical, apocalyptic terms

I responded:  

If one of those bad complications occurred to you, you would still only have one body and one life. Once chance. So it wouldn't be a big deal. As it happened to David Reimer, who lost his organ during his circ. and was raised as a girl for a while. He committed suicide at 39.

But even without complications, circ removes erogenous tissue that has functions during intercourse. That's not a small deal.

I recently met a new friend who tells that he always experienced pain during m** since he was a teenager, but he never thought anything about that because it was the only way he head experienced it. Until he became open to the information and realize that it was the result of an otherwise successful circumcision. How many other males experience pain like this, we will never know.

There is a reason to be this obsessed: stop the cultural inertial. If this procedure is not necessary and can cause harm, why continue doing it? But how do you stop the snowball rolling down the hill?

Another person commented:

I love this notion that circumcised men have "inferior" orgasms.  
It may be a slightly different path to orgasm town, but when they get there they're there. 

I responded:

One interesting little known fact is that the foreskin and the glans interact during intercourse, as the foreskin glides over the glans, causing friction between two very innervated areas: the ridge of the corona and the tip of the foreskin.

Without the foreskin, this mechanism is destroyed.

If you only had one eye, would you enjoy 3D movies equally, or less? You wouldn't be able to see the 3D effects, you know. The foreskin has nerve endings that are different from those on the glans: the ones in the glans perceive rough sensation, the ones on the foreskin perceive soft touch. Remove the soft touch, and you are listening to the bass but are missing the guitars in the song

Male genital mutilation in Africa

Can we start calling this Male Genital Mutilation?

BBC reports: When circumcision can mean death in Africa

Please watch video at the BBC page.

Thursday, July 18, 2013

If Your Son Is Not Circumcised... Beware the Well-Baby Check

Imagine this. It's the middle of the night and your baby boy has croup -- you are worried. So you take him to your local emergency room. The ER doc comes in, removes the boy's diaper, and forcibly retracts your child's foreskin, leaving the child screaming in pain and bleeding. Within a couple hours, his penis and foreskin are swollen. And you don't have a clue what to do. This just happened to a couple right here in my home state. And there wasn't a thing the parents could do about it. I want you to know why this is occurring all over the U.S. today, so you can protect your son!

As ludicrous as this might seem for an ER doctor to do this for croup in the first place, pediatricians forcibly retract foreskins for intact (uncircumcised) boys during well-baby checks throughout the U.S. every day because the health care provider doesn't know any better. The injury to the baby is called premature, forcible, foreskin retraction (PFFR), and, ironically, the trauma often requires that the child be circumcised after all, in order for the damage to be repaired.

Circumcision has lost favor in the U.S. in recent years so much so that now roughly 1 million newborn boys are not circumcised (each year). [1] Simultaneously, the American medical professionals appear to have lost the folk knowledge of parents who, for tens of thousands of years, once left their child's foreskin entirely alone, to develop normally by itself, the way Europeans do.

Without this folk knowledge, they refer to the current medical texts or organizations to understand normal penile anatomy and development. Unfortunately, some of these texts and organizations propagate out-of-date or inaccurate information.

Continue reading...

Also: Circumcision at age 5: how your doctor gets to lie and collect a check

Phimosis at 12, another medical fraud. This was shared by an intactivist friend:

Friends, please warn your Intact son that he will always be at risk if he sees the wrong doctor. Krista has shared her son's painful story with us, as follows... "I've never said all of this outloud Brother K...please proof it as typing through blinding tears is tough. I hope it helps someone... anyone... if even only one.

"In 1996 I gave birth to a gorgeous 8 pounds 12.5 oz perfect baby boy. Bald head, chubby cheeks, enormous chocolate tootsie pop brown eyes that sparkled, never not there, lop-sided drooly grin. He and I went against the grain. I loudly and proudly told everyone if I had a boy I would never have him cut. I even went against my husband at the time, his father. This was out of the norm around here... especially in my family. There were whispers behind my back, well intended but often times ill informed and unsolicited "advice". Our Dr. chastised my choice... I always pushed his buttons.

"Things went well and as my son grew we talked about anatomy, bodily functions at age appropriate times. Eventually those talks turned into how some mommies and daddies circumcised their sons, but how I thought he was so perfect that I wouldn't let them. I explained the procedure in ways he could understand and over the years as he grew, on several occasions he said to me "mommy Thank you for not cutting off my wiener" he matured he understood more and grasped that they didn't actually cut it off but a part of it.

"He was friendly, kind-hearted, very secure. soothsayer of sorts.

"When we went for his first sports physical... I left in tears... disgusted with myself, filled with a guilt that threatened to consume me. The Dr tried to retract his skin at 12 years old.... it wouldn't budge. An emergency surgery was scheduled. I was told since I hadn't cut him and had also not properly cared for his penis that his very next erection could and would most likely cause the skin to retract behind the glans (they used the term head) and because I failed to properly retract the foreskin it would stop the blood flow resulting in perhaps permanent damage to the head of his penis. There were no alternatives I was told this was dangerous.

"Now I was forced to explain to my son how I had messed up. So I took my son in for surgery watching the fear and anxiety that someone was going to cut on the most personal parts of his body.

"I told him I love him and he said he loved me as they wheeled him off to surgery but his very the last words prior to them making me let go of his hand were "but mom I thought you said I was perfect"

"He came through surgery fine.... the next two weeks were hell. I know / knew more about my sons 12 year old penis than most.

"He's 17 now, a football player... honor student.... still breathtakingly gorgeous. We've discussed what happened and how I was tricked, lied to and manipulated. I got copies of his them all over and over....the need for surgery was a lie... the phimosis he had was minimal and as I have come to understand over the years... nothing to worry about especially at 12..

"He knows all of this... I have his forgiveness... he knows how tragic and unnecessary his mutilation was.....

"He will however at times say things like "yeah because you made me have a surgery I didn't need". I guess time will tell how he deals with it. He knows about restoration... I will pay if he chooses.

"I want to add he had never ever had any sort of issues with being left whole and intact.

"Now I too live with the guilt and shame of having allowed something so horrific to be done to my child.

"Please think about my Tman before you take perfect parts of your perfect baby away. His body his choice." ~Krista.

And at 18, they will still try to get you with their lies:
Friends, we heard some heartbreaking stories at San Francisco Pride. This man's was possibly the saddest. He grew up in the Northeast, moved to California a few years ago, and found out that some American doctors will take any opportunity to circumcise a grown man. He trusted them and was devastated. It's not enough to teach your son that his penis is normal -- he will be at risk when he moves out and becomes independent, as follows... "Unfortunately, this man was still in shock about his circumcision at age 18 by a doctor who gave him misleading and inaccurate information. He had no problems but during a routine physical at Kaiser, Walnut Creek, (Schoen territory) the doctor said that he had to be circumcised. After the operation he said "it feels like my penis is dead" and "I can't even let my girlfriend touch it" (the head) because it is too irritating. Stories like his tear you up but remind you how important it is to be there and continue our work."
They told him his foreskin was non-retractable. He was an easy target for them unfortunately.

he was having NO problems. That's the sickness of the doctors.

He didn't seem to question them at the time, just accepted it but possibly just the normal naivete of a young man who didn't realize the war over the penis that is raging in America, and he fell victim to it.

My impression was that he's an extremely trusting person who fell into the wrong hands.   

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

The purification of Suhail Shahir Sarhan

Really disgusting. At 4:32 the circumcised baby is raised in arms for all family while the mom appears to cry. At 5:37 women point at the discarded foreskin and photograph it laughing. One kid shakes hands with the doctor. This is nothing but a blood sacrifice, a collective disease rotting the minds of generation after generation, a bloody prank on an innocent child.
To put it in perspective, if you held an adult in that way and forcefully removed a part of his body, you would be committing aggravated assault.
In the video, notice that there is no anesthesia. At most he is given some sugar water to suck prior to the procedure. Would you remove a part of anyone's body without anesthesia? Is the baby crying because he doesn't like restrained, or is he crying out of pure physical pain?
Circumcision (whether male or female) of minors is nothing but hazing in the person of those most vulnerable.
What can be impure in a baby? What is it so terrible about a normal part of the penis that it's removal would be called purification? Look at the awkward pointing at the lifeless foreskin. Nothing but contempt for normal humanity.

Monday, July 8, 2013

Circumcision and oral suction (metzitzah b'peh) consent form

Is it a nightmare that a government entity will issue a form entitling a religious practitioner to SUCK the wounded PENIS of an 8 day baby, enshrined as a matter religious freedom? Are we living in an alternative reality?

And is it coincidence that Susan Blank, member of the AAP Task Force on Circumcision 2012, was one of the people from the NYC Department of Health responsible for creating this form?

In what parallel universe is this a holy thing to do?

On April of 2013 two more babies in New York City contracted Herpes after being subjected to this ritual. Several cases have occurred in the last decade, including at least two deaths and two cases of severe brain damage.

Are some New York City hospitals and the city’s Department of Health suppressing disclosure of more cases of Herpes due to Metzitzah b'Peh?

One Mohel involved in 4 cases of herpes, including one death, is Yitzhok Fischer.

Is it a "Blood libel" to denounce this blood ritual performed on innocent babies, endangering their lives and molesting their bodies? Isn't it the ultimate irony to claim your religious right to slice open a baby's penis and then suck the blood out of it?

Rabbies protesting the requirement of a "consent form" before performing Metzitzah b'Peh

Friday, July 5, 2013

The Completely Unregulated Practice of Male Circumcision: Human Rights’ Abuse Enshrined in Law?

John V. Geisheker


We are witnessing a disturbing tend to “enshrine” male circumcision into law, shielding the practice from health and safety regulation of any kind. This trend precedes any honest attempt to assess “morbidity,” the unavoidable complications of any surgery, especially poignant for this unregulated and pre-germ-theory practice. Without a thorough assessment of morbidity, all bioethical discussions are, logically, premature. The author details a “permissive and incautious” milieu, including a lack of qualifications for circumcisers, rudimentary training, septic non-clinical settings, withheld anesthesia and analgesia, sub-optimal surgical protocols, a lack of back-up resources, minimal post-operative observation, minimal legal remedies, and other shortcomings. It is argued that serious inquiry must ethically precede blanket legal protections accommodating atavistic adult urges.
Follow link to read full paper.

The Impact of Neonatal Circumcision:

Implications for Doctors of Men’s Experiences
In Regressive Therapy

By Robert Clover Johnson

Published in Genital Autonomy: Protecting Personal Choice. Denniston, George C.;
Hodges, Frederick M.; Milos, Marilyn Fayre, Eds., (pp. 149-166)
2010 Springer Science and Business Media, ISBN: 978-90-481-9445-2
Website for the book: