Glen Callender wants Canadians to embrace the foreskin, and he’s got a few surprises up his pants to show people why the foreskin isn’t “just the wrapper; it’s the candy”.
“I want to communicate to people how big of a deal circumcision really is,” Callender told the Georgia Straight by phone from Courtenay, B.C.
The founder of the Canadian Foreskin Awareness Project—an advocacy group that wants circumcision performed on male minors to be made illegal in Canada under the Criminal Code—Callender will showcase his foreskin and all the parts that come with it in a tent at the Davie Street Pride Party on Friday (July 30) and the Sunset Beach Pride Festival on Sunday (August 1).
The boisterous 36-year-old will explain the anatomy and function of the foreskin and demonstrate how to clean an uncircumcised penis. Cleanliness is often cited as a reason parents opt to circumcise their sons, but Callender says that parents should have more faith in their kid’s ability to self-groom.
“It is insane that people cut off a part of their son’s anatomy because they don’t think that their kid will be intelligent enough to pull back his foreskin and clean under it,” he explained.
Callender recalls the first time he noticed something different about other guys’ penises. “I remember I was in the pool, and I would see the men and boys who were circumcised, and it didn’t occur to me that they were cut,” he said. “I just looked at them and thought, ”˜How the hell are they keeping their foreskins pulled back like that without using their fingers?’ ”
He soon learned about the practice of circumcision—the removal of a fold of skin that covers the head of the penis—and is horrified that the procedure is still legal in Canada.
“It’s simply a human-rights issue,” he said. “You are imposing an amputation of sex organs by force on a child who has no idea what is being done to them.”
Dr. Arif Bhimji, a spokesperson for the Association for Genital Integrity—a Canadian group that’s raising public awareness of the issue of infant-male circumcision—told the Straight in a phone interview that children’s rights are being violated by this “unnecessary procedure”, since it is carried out on a nonconsenting individual.
Circumcision is required by the Jewish and Islamic faiths, but Bhimji questions the pious veil under which many circumcisions are performed, arguing that we shouldn’t be making an exception for religion.
“It’s irrelevant the reason that you’re doing it,” he said. “There are long-term consequences”¦it’s irreversible, and if we’re not doing it to females, then why are we doing it to males?”
On the other hand, some members of the gay community think it’s all about personal preference when it comes to circumcision.
Mark Robins of Gayvancouver.net told the Straight by phone that his preference is for men who are circumcised, but he thinks it might be a generational thing.
“I understand that there are people who prefer [their sexual partners] to be uncut, but it’s like saying, ”˜Do you like cherries or blueberries?’ ” Robins said.
He also understands why Callender chose Pride weekend to promote his message, noting that when it comes to topics that are taboo in some circles, the LGBTQ community tends to be much more welcoming.
“I think the gay community tries to be accepting, and we do try and be supportive of people dealing with sexual matters, because we’re not afraid of that,” he said. “That’s the underlying joyfulness about the gay community, as far as I’m concerned.”
But a word to the wise: it won’t be your junior-high sex-ed curriculum on display this weekend.
“People are in for a fantastic dick trick,” Callender said with a chuckle. “I do something with a handful of red seedless grapes that is physically impossible to do with a circumcised penis.”
Should circumcision be made illegal in Canada?
76% (427)
Yes
24% (134)
No
Follow us on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Google
Comments
Would we allow people to be cutting the clitoris off of little baby girls? No, we wouldn't. That would make us savages, right?
circumcision make sense if you live in a desert where there is little access to water and you can't bathe for weeks at a time.
But in a time and place like ours, where hygiene is easy, cheap and convenient, it is a rather silly thing to do.
It's crazy enough for Jews to cut an 8 month old boy, but Muslims are even more hardcore, doing it to their13 year olds. It's a rite of passage to toughen the little guy up.
Not the same as clit as sexual function intact(as I know)
Most chicks prefer circ'd as less smegma
I fully support circumcision for consenting adults and if you want to circumcise your son, I believe you should go under the knife as well regardless of whether you are Mom or Dad and regardless of whether you are already circumcised or not.
I also believe if a parent is allowed to circumcise a child, the child should have the right of repricosity at any time he chooses. That means that the child you circumcise today can come back in 20 or 40 years and force a circumcision on Mom or Dad. I suspect if a law were passsed establishing that, there would be no need for a law banning infant circumcisions.
Frank
Read a book or two, there are cultures that castrate women. Some just remove a tiny piece of flesh from the clitoris.
"Decreases HPV/HIV spread "
You need to read more than a few books...
Again, another scare tactic to make parents cut their children. Do you even know what the long term complications are?
And of you who are for circ, I suggest that you go into the doctor, and have them remove part of your genitals with no anesthetic. Do you even know how much blood loss from a circumcision it takes to kill an infant? 2.5 ounces.
I suggest you fools visit www.savingpenises.org and get your facts straight.
The US has the 2nd highest circ rate (after Israel), yet has the 2nd highest HIV/AIDS rate (after Africa). Meanwhile, Scandinavian countries -- like Finland, where MGM (male genital mutilation) is ILLEGAL!!! -- have a near-ZERO (0)% circ rate yet, yet have some of THE lowest HIV/AIDS rates globally. Other European countries follow.
www.circumcisionandhiv.com
PS I'm intact and have NEVER (ever!) had smegma. Also, _girls_ get more smegma and NOTHING is cut off.
Rightallthetime - how can you make a blanket statement like "most chicks"? I'd say since 75%+ of the world is intact, "most chicks" prefer foreskin.
PS- love your name.
The report in the New England Journal of Medicine revealed that circumcision reduced herpes risk by 25 percent and HPV by 35 percent. Previously, three independent studies showed that HIV risk was reduced 50 to 60 percent by male circumcision.
In other multi-national studies, which were done in countries around the world including Brazil, Mexico, Spain, the Philippines, Thailand, Denmark and the United States, the findings mirror each other. A study of 988 men in three countries, Brazil, Mexico and the US, the authors reported, "In this multi-national study where approximately 60 percent of study participants were un-circumcised, we found circumcision to be associated with a significantly reduced risk of...human papillomavirus."
Although circumcision may have a greater impact on the health of people in countries where the incidence of HIV is highest, there are benefits to be considered for men in any country of the world.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/26/healthmag.circumcision.hpv.herpes/i...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217123817.htm
An orgasm is produced when erogenous tissue is stimulated and builds up energy until threshold is reached, at which point the nerve energy is released.
What do you think happens when you drastically reduce the number of neural modulators involved in this process?
The removal of sexual tissue from a nonconsenting human, female OR male, unless absolutely medically necessary, is a hideous crime.
Anyway, unlike FGM, I know of no real impediment or negative effect to leading a normal life of being circumcised. I have never met anyone who regretted it for whatever reason or held negative views about it or the decision of their parents/elders.
I think the movement to ban it is marginal like the anti-vaccination movement.
Surely our time and resources would be better spent defending the rights of these children than whinging about a procedure with no comparison on boys.
Thats right. I TALK to my kids. Unlike this clowns absentee father. Just give him attention and he'll be happy
The best way to prevent herpes, HIV and HPV spread would be to remove penises altogether, but personally, I prefer education and intelligence. There is nothing wrong with our bodies as they are, only the way we treat and use them.
You could be harboring HIV and HCV and HPV as we speak
80% of sexually active adults contrct HPV in their lifetimes, most clear it naturally without symptoms but some don't. We don't know who does and doesn't, the key is to reduce the potential
BTW you are a fool for having unprotected sex andf you are putting your partner at higher risk than a cut man. SHAME!
http://vimeo.com/9233042
http://theelders.org/womens-initiatives/health-care
I have been having unprotected sex with my current, monogamous, partner for the last four years. I am not putting her at risk for disease. Yes, I have been tested after each of my partners, or at least regularly when I have been in non-monogamous relationships as I am a sexually and socially responsible man.
I'm not sure if it's your reading comprehension, or a lifetime of overzealous sex education is to blame for your extreme reaction, but please note: unprotected sex, performed responsibly, is not a bad thing. It's fine, it's healthy and it's enjoyable.
The point of my post was to show how we can act responsibly, be safe and have fun with our foreskins with no adverse reactions. You sound like you're suggesting that because my parents elected not to mutilate my penis, that I should be quarantined in a condom for all of my sexual relationships. This is unnecessary. I'm not scared of sex, and enjoy it in a number of forms. I have a foreskin, hear me roar.
And Kate Van, thanks for stating the "fact" that girls are subject to genital mutilation in Canada and providing the "proof" of this fact with links that tell us what we already know: this is happening in other parts of the non-Western world (despite the one campaign's use of a white woman to gain our sympathy). Removing clitorises is not part of the Western ideal.
IF FGM is happening in Canada, it is not the same as male, as it is not medically sanctioned, not performed with public money, not normalised in our health discourses etc. FGM is an important issue, but not comparable to male circumcision in this context. This article is about raising awareness of something that there is a lot to be aware of in this country. What you did is like urging the paper to explore the issue of homelessness and poverty in Africa at the end of an article about homelessness and poverty in Canada. Both are worthy of exploration, but let's spend some time on the issue that is closer to home and one where we can make some immediate impact, okay?
I do not have an "uncircumcised vulva", I have intact genitals!
Language is a powerful cultural influence and by using the term "uncircumcised" to describe healthy anatomy, we are by default making circumcision the norm or the standard.
There is another reason for popularizing male circucision in America. According to some long range planning, Hitler was suppose to take over America without even fighting. There was enough pacifists and isolationists in US to make it possible. Jewish doctors were afraid that Nazis would recognize Jews by looking at their penis. They did it in Poland to send Jews to Auschwitz. If everybody was circumcised, how would anti-semites know who is who?
If that barbaric procedure was advantageous for human evolution, Jews and Muslim would have been born without it!
I fooled several women who said that they would prefer sex with circumcised men, pretending that I do not have it. They had fantastic orgasms and were very surprised.
Fallacy of preventing HIV, may be a result of those circumcised men having less sex as they were considered less atractive and less able to keep the erection because of lower sensitivity of the tip of the penis growing tough skin when rubbing against fabric of underwear. That makes it similar to sole or a heel rather than organ sheltered like clitoris.
Mark Jaworski Vancouver BC
Glenn Callender says:
"It’s simply a human-rights issue. You are imposing an amputation of sex organs by force on a child who has no idea what is being done to them."
For a self-professed expert on the topic, I'm surprised that Mr. Callender seems to be unaware of the meaning of either the term "sex organ" or the term "amputation" - perhaps both. In any case, the foreskin, which is amputated during circumcision, is not a sex organ. It is merely a flap of skin covering a sex organ which, as a matter of fact, is left 100% intact by the procedure. Of course, Mr. Callender knows this, as well. This polemic claim is nothing but a subtle setup for a mind-blowingly off-base comparison which is then made explicit by Dr. Arif Bhimji.
"...if we’re not doing it to females, then why are we doing it to males?"
This question primarily makes me want to ask Dr. Bhimji exactly what kind of doctorate he holds. As an MD, one would imagine, he could answer this question himself. The difference is, of course, that female circumcision actually does consist of the amputation of part of a sex organ, namely most of the clitoris. Unlike male circumcision, where many would claim the opposite is true, this is done precisely for the reason of reducing sexual pleasure on the basis of archaic anti-hedonistic considerations. Also different from male circumcisions, with which there are hardly ever any real complications - especially when performed on infants - and which, when successful, have literally no medical downsides, female circumcision has a whole range of short- and long-term common health risks. All that while offering literally benefit to the circumcised. So, if you ask: "Why circumcise boys but not girls?" then the answer is simple: Because the two things have absolutely nothing to do which each other. The surgical and sexual equivalent of apples and oranges. [continued...]
Bill’s religious sidestep aside, as a male who was circumcised in adulthood at his own volition, I feel uniquely qualified to address this question. And, again, the answer is actually very straight-forward: At the end of the day, male circumcision really comes down to nothing but personal preference. And even that mainly in regards to aesthetic aspects. While I have met men who have had circumcisions performed as adults who say that they experience sex no differently than before and some (including myself) for whom sexual pleasure has improved after the procedure, I have never met or heard of a man who claimed that circumcision had negatively affected either his sexual performance or pleasure. Bottom line: There are no objective disadvantages to male circumcision. Adult circumcision, however, has a severe disadvantages over infant circumcision, namely the fact that the procedure or, rather, its aftermath is excessively painful and results in two to three weeks of considerable inconvenience and humiliation. All this is extremely mitigated, to the point of negligibility, when the procedure is performed on an infant: The amount of skin removed is miniscule, the healing process much faster and the danger of having your stitches torn by an involuntary erection non-existent. Despite all these temporary downsides with adult circumcision, I have yet to meet a man who would not do it again – a fact that should speak for itself. Thus, when the process with all its upsides (easier hygiene, improved sexual pleasure in some, etc.) can be realized without any of the downsides (i.e. in early childhood), I fail to see why it shouldn't be.
Ultimately, the comments of uncircumcised men like Mr. Callender on the advantages and disadvantages of cut vs. uncut sex are questionable at best, because they have no means of comparison. Like men who were circumcised in early childhood and have never known sex with an uncut penis and still claim that they are "missing something," their position is completely ideological.
Here is a good starting point:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7cy49_the-prepuce-explained-by-doctors...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im0-LTqOHxs
http://espanol.video.yahoo.com/watch/7329022/19147355
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKOSiYWwcio
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-mWaJ3AgZs
I am restoring my foreskin. I can speak of both conditions from personal experience. Having a foreskin, even a restored one, is much better than not having one. Both my wife and I get a lot of pleasure from my foreskin. We no longer need to use lube and she does not get sore from sex.
http://www.drmomma.org/2010/01/cut-vs-intact-outcome-statistics.html
And here are a few more that are very informative:
http://www.drmomma.org/2010/05/death-from-circumcision.html
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drmomma.org%2F2009%2F10...
I feel for parents who have realized the damage they have caused and hope that they can be forgiven and can forgive themselves.
I'd also like to state that ANY male who was circumcised as a minor (with or without the consent of their parents) has a legal case. You are the victim of a horrible crime. A part of your body was removed FOR NO REASON. There are many cases where circumcision has left a man disfigured, but even if your penis functions properly, you still have a case. Some men are receiving as much as $18,000 in settlement money from the hospital that performed their circumcision. You can even sue the insurance company that covered the procedure, because you can bet if it weren't covered your parents wouldn't have shelled out the money for it. All I can say, is a few more lawsuits and hospitals will stop performing the VERY LUCRATIVE business routine infant circumcision.
Also: Just a thought out loud- The new health care bill will NOT be covering birth control as a "preventative" but it covers infant genital mutilation as a "preventative?" ... Hmmmmm....
You appear to strongly believe that the only sexually sensitive tissue on the male penis is the glans and the coronal ridge. From this I surmise that you were circumcised very tightly, as most circumcised males I've talked to at least have some frenular remnants along their scarline. Then again, my sample is not random nor is it extensive: it may be the case that a vast number of males are completely missing any frenular tissue.
Either way, there are many ways to confirm that the frenular tissue is highly erogenous. You could, for example, browse through some of the peer reviewed literature that details some of the histological properties of the prepuce, as well as the later research that has mapped out some of the sensory topography of these structures.
You could also ask any number of intact males what their frenulum feels like when stimulated.
Then again, you could always not do any of this, and stick your head in the sand of the glans centric desert in which you seem to find so much comfort.
Do you know why a lot of men are hungry for all these circumcision "studies?" It's because most of them are circumcised themselves, and they are searching for some sort of logical alibi.
The people who wrote these "studies?" Circumcised themselves, and from circumcising cultures. Look at Robert Bailey and Daniel Halperin. The guy who invented the circumcision/HIV myth before there were ever even "studies" to "prove" it? Aaron J. Fink. Jewish. Who's gobbling up all these "studies?" People in Malaysia. Kenya. South Africa. Where, circumcision is already prevalent. These "studies" were written BY circumcision advocates, FOR circumcision advocates. As long as there's some on-going quest for "benefits," circumcision is murky and can't be outright condemned as mutilation.
But what if there were "studies" that looked at the "benefits" of female circumcision? What if "studies showed" that it "could reduce the risk of HIV?" There are at least two. Stallings 2009 showed that female circumcision reduces the risk of HIV by half. But nobody even looks at this. The WHO or UNAids would never even CONSIDER a study that said ANYTHING good about female circumcision. Not even if it prevented AIDS 100%. This is because while male circumcision is still quite prevalent in the west (namely America), the consensus is that female circumcision is BAD. It's a catch 22; while scientists are patiently waiting for that "study" that will finally vindicate male circumcision, female circumcision is condemned as "genital mutilation" from the beginning. You don't need any kind of "study." WHY is this?
Usually, medical research seeks to AVOID radical surgery, if not outright ABOLISH it. Cancer is studied because nobody wants to lose their breasts. Their testicles. Their prostate. Circumcision "studies" are unique in that they seek to condemn a normal, healthy body part to legitimize its destruction. They're the only ones seeking to NECESSITATE surgery.
WHY can't "researchers" seem to study anything else? What "research" is being done to try and displace circumcision? Isn't anything being saught to provide "benefits" without having to mutilate my organs and the organs of my children?
Isn't seeking to necessitate surgery, instead of avoiding it, kind of retrograde? I see it as akin to trying to preserve the 8-track cassette when we've long since moved past the CD.
No one "studies" blood-letting anymore. I don't think medical journals will accept "studies" on trephination any time soon. We'd be HORRIFIED if someone tried to "study" of other cultural practices, such as female circumcision, infibulation, feet-binding, breast-ironing, etc. What are "researchers" and "scientists" doing to move on?
The latest hullaballoo is that circumcision "reduces the risk of HIV by 60%." Why on EARTH would I EVER want to do that to myself and my children, when condoms are cheaper and worlds more effective? If I'm going to be faithful to my wife, WHY would I need any extra "protection?" It is an insult that scientists are trying to create the stereotype that having anatomically correct genitalia = promiscuous AIDS risk. It assumes everyone with a foreskin is out there having unprotected sex. It assumes all children if left to have anatomically correct genitalia will indeed grow up to be promiscuous and too stupid to learn about protection.
Even IF "studies" were true, they cannot refute the fact that circumcision FAILS. Circumcised men would still need to wear condoms. So what is the point. These "studies" are absolute junk-science. It is an absolute waste of AIDS money to be proliferating this carp. Indeed, because it is discouraging the use of condoms, it is a complete disservice to the fight against AIDS.
PATHETIC that circumcision advocates are exploiting HIV/AIDS to hawk their quackery.
Except that circumcision can't even begin to work like a vaccine. A vaccine works by strengthening the body's immune system against pathogens that cause disease.
The body will not fight off HIV by mere virtue of being circumcised. Marketing circumcision as any kind of "vaccine" is grossly misleading.
I've seen other statistics being touted here... the "studies" that claim that circumcision "reduces the risk" of HPV by 35% and of herpes by 28%. Really? That's it? When a condom prevents these over 90% of the time? Why on EARTH would I want to mutilate myself or my children for these meager "reductions" when protection is better achieved with a condom?
Let's look the latest "statistics" in reverse. Male circumcision, if studies are correct (and I have quite a few reasons to believe they're rigged), "reduces the risk" of HIV by 60%. HPV by 35%, and herpes by 28%.
But that's really just another way of saying that a circumcised man would still be at risk for HIV by 40%. For HPV by 65%, and for herpes by 72%.
Suddenly the "benefits" don't seem quite as alluring.
Actually, I've talked with quite a few women who have told me that they got HPV from CIRCUMCISED partners. They tell me that getting laser surgery isn't that fun.
There are many problems with the "studies" people are trying to use to promote circumcision, the biggest one being that their "conclusions" conflict with a few realities.
In America, for example, 80% of men are already circumcised from birth. The rates of infant circumcision are dropping, but at large, the population remains circumcised. These rates are at their highest in the East Coast, where cities such as Philadelphia and Washington DC rival HIV hotspots in South Africa. In the 1980s, when the AIDS epidemic first hit, the rate of circumcised men in America was at 90%. One needs to question how something that never worked here in our own country is suddenly going to start working wonders in Africa.
In other countries, the "protection" remains to be seen as well. AIDS is a rising problem in Israel, where the majority of the male population is already circumcised. On Wednesday, July 7th, Malaysian AIDS Council vice-president Datuk Zaman Khan announced that than 70% of the 87,710 HIV/AIDS sufferers in the country are Muslims (where all men are circumcised). The Muslim population accounts for 70% of the incidence of HIV, but only 60% of the population, which means that HIV is spreading at a much higher rate among the population which primarily circumcises its men.
I'd like for "studies" to explain this to me.
BOTTOM LINE: Circumcision cannot, doesn not prevent against any STD. Circumcised men can and do get every STD that a man with anatomically correct genitalia gets. There is absolutely not one study, not one "researcher" that can refute this fact. This is why they are careful to disclaim that "circumcision promotion must be accompanied by the promotion of condoms." (Sounds a lot like stone soup...)
As for the issue at hand, I never contested that the foreskin contains erogenous parts. As I have outlined above, I was myself uncircumcised well into the age of sexual activity and therefore am very much aware that uncut sex is also quite pleasant. My point is that the absence of the foreskin does, in the absolute majority of cases, not diminish that pleasure. It may now be focused on different areas of the penis, but the overall pleasure gained from various sexual practices post-circumcision is, for most men, either equal or superior. With the rare exception of very few men who may have been the victim of a botched circumcision (and you can botch just about any surgical procedure), all men I have met, heard of or read about who were circumcised in adulthood have not regretted their decision. The only thing they did regret was not having it done earlier, preferably when they would not even have noticed it. The only men I have ever met who "missed" their foreskin couldn't even remember having or, for that matter, losing it (PTSD, my ass). And here my point is: These men only have that problem because people like Glenn Callender - and, apparently, you - tell them that they should be missing it.
Anatomically speaking (with empirical backup), there is no causal reason why a (successful) circumcision should result in less sexual pleasure. And the absolute majority of these procedures are successful - especially when performed on infants, where they are indeed little more invasive than getting your ear pierced. Yet, that seems to be the only real argument for not being circumcised. The claim of easier day-to-day hygiene cannot be refuted and if it should indeed be true that the spreading of certain STDs is no different in cut and uncut men, then that hardly is an argument against circumcision, either. Nonetheless, all of a sudden people like you come along and convince some men that they have been robbed. I'm sure if you just came up with enough vague science to suggest one cannot be a complete human being without tonsils or an appendix, some people would believe that, too.
Your statement makes no sense. If the pleasure must be focused on other parts of the penis, then this can only mean that pleasure was lost. How can getting used to new sensations be "pleasure gained," when it's "pleasure" one could have always had in the first place?
"Equal" or "superior?" I'm sorry, sir, but you will be hard pressed to convince me that "less is more" in this regard. Men that lose their eye-sight must find different ways to get around. I'm not sure this can be considered a "gain" that might be "equal" or "superior" to one who can see.
"With the rare exception of very few men who may have been the victim of a botched circumcision (and you can botch just about any surgical procedure), all men I have met, heard of or read about who were circumcised in adulthood have not regretted their decision. The only thing they did regret was not having it done earlier, preferably when they would not even have noticed it. The only men I have ever met who "missed" their foreskin couldn't even remember having or, for that matter, losing it (PTSD, my ass)."
Firstly, since circumcision is medically unnecessary, why should ANY man be a victim of a "botch?"
And secondly. I think you better speak for yourself and only yourself. I'm suspicious of your "friends" as they are a subjective experience. I myself have met quite a lot of men who got circumcised as adults, who, quite opposite from your experience, ALL have told me that it was the worst mistake of their lives. Most tell me that initially, they were euphoric about having "new penises." But this wore off when desensitization started setting in.
I'm suspicious of the men that you say you have met that say they "wish they would have had been circumcised when they couldn't remember." What is this, an argument to circumcise boys? I have met quite a few people who have gotten modifications. Such as tattoos, earings, piercings, prince alberts... not one tells me they wish they would have "done it earlier."
And then, I'm sure you'll pull out the next urban legend; the case of the man who had phimosis and damned his parents for not having circumcised earlier... I suppose all operations should be done on a man so that he will not have experience any pain... better get that prostate out because who knows... 1 in 6 men get it... bottom line is, there is recovery period for everything. It is quite a silly argument to suggest that men should undergo an operation in the rare case they should need it later on because "oh the pain."
"And here my point is: These men only have that problem because people like Glenn Callender - and, apparently, you - tell them that they should be missing it."
This is faulty logic. By this we should not go over to Africa and protest about female circumcision. Perhaps the only reason women have a problem with it is because we have western women telling them how great it is to have labia and a clitoris.
What are you TALKING about. 20,000 nerves missing, and I'm supposed to believe this shouldn't "reduce" sexual pleasure?
Just as if you pluck out an eye it will no longer be able to see, if you sever the foreskin, you will no longer be able to feel with it. I wonder if you really WERE circumcised as an adult, and aren't just lying under the comfort of the anonymity of the internet.
"Successful" (male) circumcision. Is that anything like a "successful" female circumcision?
"And the absolute majority of these procedures are successful - especially when performed on infants, where they are indeed little more invasive than getting your ear pierced."
Succeful according to WHOM? If an infant was tattooed "successfully," would that make the action any more right? "Little more invasive" than getting your ears pierced. Try tearing your ear off.
"The claim of easier day-to-day hygiene cannot be refuted..."
Uh, actually YES IT CAN. Cleaning anatomically correct male genitalia is no harder to clean than anatomically correct FEMALE genitalia. Actually female genitalia is much, much harder to keep clean. "Day-to-day hygiene" dictates that when our bodies get dirty, we CLEAN them, not cut parts of it off.
"Nonetheless, all of a sudden people like you come along and convince some men that they have been robbed."
Whether they are convinced or not, circumcising a child IS robbing the man he is to become. For the same reason that circumcising a non-consenting girl is robbing her. Nay, it is rape. WORSE than rape. It is forever mutilating the body.
"I'm sure if you just came up with enough vague science to suggest one cannot be a complete human being without tonsils or an appendix, some people would believe that, too."
It is quite erroneous to be comparing the circumcision of healthy, non-consenting children with the removal of swollen tonsils or a burst appendix.
No one is arguing that circumcisions shouldn't be performed if they are medically necessary, only that it is needless mutilation when it is not. When doctors charge adults for procedures they do not need, it's medical fraud. When they charge parents to perform needless circumcision in defenseless children, it is abuse. It IS robbing a man of a healthy, normal sexual experience for the rest of his life.
The only person who should make this "decision" is adult men alone. If and when a child develops a condition that cannot be cured any other way, perhaps parents have a "choice." NOT when their child is perfectly healthy. Eliciting a "decision" from parents of healthy children to circumcise them is medical fraud and child abuse, if not also abuse of parental naivete.
There are plenty of studies that show a loss of sexual satisfaction after adult circumcision. There are also plenty that show no loss of satisfaction.
A few methodological issues:
1) These are self report studies, rather than objective measures. I would very much like to see a study that actually measured physiologic differences between intact and circumcised males, for example one that measured prolactin levels post orgasm, changes in skin conductance, differences in ejaculation volume, etc.
2) Many men circumcised as adults choose to keep the most sensitive parts of the foreskin - the ventral frenular area including the frenulum. Many babies are not so lucky and are missing almost all of this extremely important tissue.
Importantly, there are many studies into female genital cutting that show no harmful effect - again, the same methodological issues involving self report. Furthermore, many women go out of their way to have themselves circumcised as adults, and it is women who perpetuate this practice. And there is actually one study that shows a protective effect against HIV, yet we do not suppose it a good idea to do randomized clinical trials as a followup.
In the case of female genital cutting, our moral reaction to the practice stems from the fact that it is simply wrong to remove sexual tissue from a female child. We would consider it wrong even if it made cleaning the vulva easier, or if it reduced the chances of STD transmission. We would consider it wrong even if we removed a 10th of the available nerves (far less than is removed in most male circumcisions).
I have absolutely no problem with an adult female or male choosing to remove any part of their own body. To do this to a nonconsenting human is inexcusable.
Oh, you are really too priceless. But, of course, if there is a conspiracy by the shady circumcision lobby to steal all our male offspring's foreskins, it would make total sense for individuals to give otherwise unnecessary false testimony to back it up. If I ever need a textbook example to illustrate the nature of a closed ideological system, I'll be sure to reference this discussion. But now, my "intact" friends, I'll return to spending my time on something at least a little more relevant than whether or not to remove a flap of skin.
Why do I know this? Cause I'm a natural boy-proud of it. Why'm I natural? the first child didn't survive a botched cutting, that's why. To think, in gym class, I was embarassed as a kid!
It's frankly astonishing what people don't know-and astonishing some of the exeriences I've had. Once, a girl I was briefly interested in, appropos of nothing, loudly asserted that she thought an uncut guy was absolutely disgusting, she preferred the mutilated version. I replied "You know, if I was to announce that I just cannot handle a natural female-I prefer botoxed, and plastic surgeried to the nth degree, you'd have a hissy fit."
Oh yeah, here's another advantage you may not know of: being a natural man means that sex is better. Yes, this is also proven. Cut guys, well, the glans builds up a nice layer of scar tissue-yes, scar tissue. Ugly thought, isn't it? Apparently, the action of the foreskin, on the glans, is there for many reasons, on of them being a signifigantly higher pleasure. Translates to condoms being not so bad.
So, for those of you who are on the mutilated side of the issue, you've been gypped, in at least a few ways. And anyways, the argument that being natural is 'dirtier' is just so freakin' North American, and a really ridiculously weak argument. The reply to which is obviously "Then clean it."
Finally, it's a body issue-it's an infant, it can't make those choices, and we take away it's right to make a choice, and it's elective surgery. In cultures where circumsion takes place in early adolescence, that should at least be the step we take-let the kid decide, when he has, hopefully, enough maturity to do so.
Also, the only way to really prevent yourself from getting HIV is to use a condom. Sadly many men who are cut believe that not having a foreskin makes it 100% certain that they will not get HIV, which is far from the truth, and they therefore engage in risky unprotected sex.
Also, you men who are glad to be cut -- your parents should have let you decide when you were 18, they shouldn't have made the choice for you as a baby. And how do you know for sure that being cut is better than being uncut, when you never had a foreskin?
I have never ever heard of anyone without a foreskin not wering a condom thinking that no cap lessens their chance of getting HIV, that may be the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
This is them vs us. Ugly wormy penis vs handsome penis. You're winning but then most women settle for a mate anyways right ladies?