Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

US medical body changes advice on circumcision

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. “Circumcision involves removing the tip of the penis”.

    Really? Flying a little fast and loose with the medical descriptions there, aren’t you?

    1. Susanne.D.Nimes 6 Sep 2012, 10:58am

      No. The foreskin is the tip of the penis.

      It is part of the entrained ignorance of male anatomy that makes people think that the glans constitues the tip of the penis, rather than the foreskin.

      Part of this entrained ignorance also insists that the glans is the most sensitive part of the penis, in reality, the foreskin contains more nerve endings and a greater variety of nerve endings than the glans.

      Every man should have the right to experience his life with his WHOLE sexual organ, and only reduce it by his own choice. It is a disgrace that boys are being robbed of their full sensual experience by scare-tactics such as these.

      1. I elected to be circumcised,as a young man, for medical reasons (phimosis, I believe is the term). Susanne makes it sound as if I have been maimed or disabled, albeit by consent.
        Believe me, Susanne, I felt liberated, having avoided full sex, for fear of tearing my foreskin. I have never regretted my decision.
        That’s not to say I approve of the non-medical routine cutting of babies, but I have yet to hear a Jewish or Muslim man complain about a lack of penile sensation during sex. Indeed condoms that REDUCE sensation are on sale!

        1. Spanner1960 6 Sep 2012, 11:10pm

          Phimosis is a common condition that can be treated with circumcision, and where it serves a proper medical purpose.

          Hacking some baby’s foreskin off just because of tradition or because their parents religion says so is not. That is simple mutilation.

          As for people complaining about lack of penile sensation, how would they know what it is like *with* a foreskin?

          I can assure you as an uncut man, and I am sure most would agree with me, that the glans is VERY sensitive with the foreskin pulled back.

        2. Susanne.D.Nimes 9 Sep 2012, 6:54pm

          Phimosis can be cured by simple stretching techniques, using a topical steroid to increase skin elasticity if necessary.

          Circumcision is not the first line of treatment, nor should it be – we are, after all, talking about an amputation.

          You no longer have your whole penis – see that as maiming or see it as treatment, it doesn’t matter to me, so long as you made your own choice, in full knowledge of the facts (which frankly doesn’t seem likely), and that you don’t use your experience to justify inflicting the procedure onto others.

          Some men may choose reduction in sensitivity – let that be their choice, rather than something forced on them as helpless infants – I don’t understand why you, and so many others, are incapable of getting this. It’s about the man’s choice over what does and doesn’t happen to his body. Is that so hard to grasp?

      2. Spanner1960 6 Sep 2012, 11:06pm

        The foreskin is NOT the tip of the penis. Christ woman, learn some anatomy. The tip of the penis is the glans. The foreskin is the outer sheath covering the glans.

        Most men would be crossing their legs in terror if you were suggesting they were having the top of their cocks lopped off.

        1. Susanne.D.Nimes 9 Sep 2012, 6:56pm

          Most men then SHOULD be crossing their legs in terror, because that is exactly what circumcision entails.

          The foreskin – the acroposthion specifically – is the furthest extremity of the penis (otherwise known as the “tip”).

          It serves the purpose of protecting the glans beneath it, but the glans cannot be regarded as the furthest extremity of the penis, owing to its nature as an INTERNAL organ.

          I am in need of no anatomy lesson from you, thank you very much.

          1. Midwest MD 17 Sep 2012, 1:33am

            Susanne is correct. The penis has three parts: the shaft, the glans and the foreskin.

          2. Midwest MD 17 Sep 2012, 1:53am

            Susanne is correct. The foreskin is the tip of the penis. The penis is made up of three parts: the shaft, the foreskin, and the glans. The foreskin is the end of the penis.

        2. Midwest MD 17 Sep 2012, 1:45am

          Yes, it is. I took anatomy in med school.

      3. Paddyswurds 7 Sep 2012, 12:12am

        Actually the Prepuce (foreskin) Covers the very sensitive tip of the penis. and should only be removed for extreme medical conditions such as tightness although this can be relieved by merely cutting a vertical slit but leaving the entire foreskin intact and is much preferable to removal..
        For the woman commenting above. the foreskin is attached behind the rim of the Glans and forms a protective covering over the extremely sensitive Glans and can be retracted in normal cases.. It is NOT the TIP, the Glans is.

        1. Paddyswurds 7 Sep 2012, 12:20am

          ….the foreskin is not flushed every time one urinates . Two thirds of it is not as it lies behind the glans opening and in some men the entire prepuce is behind the opening as some men have an acorn type setup with the opening always visible….Your entire comment save the last paragraph is rubbish. A man would be a long long time manipulating his foreskin before he achieved orgasm The Glans is the most sensitive part and is the part saved when a man transits to female and the glans is used to for a clitoris. Don’t comment on something you clearly know nothing about. I can’t believe you have gotten 22 thumbs up for the rubbish you posted. They must all be circumcised….

          1. Susanne.D.Nimes 9 Sep 2012, 7:03pm

            The preputial cavity fills with urine before the preputial shpinchter opens, thus it is flushed out.

            In the case of those men whose prepuce is too short to cover the glans, then I’ll agree that no such flushing occurs, though it is still not necessary to retract the foreskin in order to clean it.

            The foreskin contains more nerve endings than any other part of the penis. You can argue all you like that the glans is more sensitive, but biologically it is simply ludicrous to suggest that the most nerve-laden part of the body is not more sensitive.

            The quality of sensation that the foreskin is capable of is greater than that the glans is capable of, because the nerve endings present there are fine-touch receptors, rather than deep-touch receptors. This is biology, which may be why the comments are well-received.

          2. Susanne.D.Nimes 9 Sep 2012, 7:04pm

            It’s clear, Paddy, that I’ve done plenty of research, both in the flesh and in biological literature. The problem that many men have, when they base their entire argument on their experience, is that they insist that all other men must have the same experience.

            For example, your declaration that it would take a long time for a man to orgasm through foreskin stimulation alone – I know men who can orgasm through exactly that, and who cannot fathom having an orgasm without their foreskin.

            Instead of relying entirely on anecdote, look for evidence.

    2. de Villiers 6 Sep 2012, 3:43pm

      I cannot understand the desire for circumcision but the vehement comments here are illiberal and undemocratic.

      There are many cultures, European and non-European, where certain physical practices are followed. Those include male circumcision, tattooing and piercing.

      To prevent such groups from carrying out their established customs ignores the democratic right of groups to protection and recognition and imposes a particularly individualistic, atomistic, Anglo-American, right wing philosophy on people that seeks to strip them of their history and identity.

      Given that many gay people feel it necessary to abandon their historic identity and re-invent themselves anew, their rejection of cultural values can be seen in that light. However, the forced suppression and rejection of them for being is illiberal and dictatorial.

      Again, it appears that the only rights some seek is the right to oppress others.

      1. Susanne.D.Nimes 6 Sep 2012, 6:47pm

        de Villiers, I can only think you are seriously confused.

        Those of us here who are opposing infant circumcision do so because we DO believe in freedom of culture and expression.

        Those who would take an infant and carve into his body their own interpretation of their culture and beliefs are preventing that boy, that future man, from ever being able to develop and express his own interpretation of his culture.

        What of the boy being held down, having his penis cut for the whim of his parents, who later grows up to place a deep spiritual and emotional significance on physical wholeness? He is forever incapable of expressing such a belief because his parents were given ownership of him.

        Yes, cultures include tattooes and male circumcision – but they should only exist for the consenting, not for those too young to prevent those procedures being inflicted on them.

        What is at all controversial about asking that men be given a right to choose which rituals they will take part in?

      2. NO, de Villiers! People can do what they like to themselves but this is about the circumcision of BABIES who can no way give consent. Sure, allow circumcision for those who wish to have it, but when they’re old enough to give consent.

      3. mark young 6 Sep 2012, 8:40pm

        eww. it’s like orwellian double speak, talking about the rights of others – to abuse their children with genital mutilation. you’re truly sick.

        1. de Villiers 6 Sep 2012, 8:56pm

          Grow up.

          1. Susanne.D.Nimes 9 Sep 2012, 7:05pm

            Is it now a sign of maturity to condone robbing infants of significant portions of their sex organs?

      4. de Villiers 6 Sep 2012, 9:10pm

        Don’t be so vain, de Nimes.

        Culture for most is inherited, not created from zero. People are born into religions, nationalities, cultures – all of which impacts upon a person physically and mentally. To bring-up a child in a religious Amish culture or a secular-communist household is potentially to shape them for the rest of their lives.

        The circumcision is a manifestation of that – as is permanent tattooing or piercing.

        Your reference to a boy “being held down” on the “whim of his parents” reveals your own bigoted philosophy – they are loaded and unfair terms.

        Iris’ comment is at least polite. However, it still views children as wholly autonomous robots who can choose their lives untainted by their childhood or circumstances of birth. That is a mistaken view that people have genuine free will.

        Both comments prioritise an Anglo-Saxon notion of individualism as the highest form rather a balance with family and community.

        1. Sure there should be a balance between individualism and a balance with family and community. It stops where his body begins.

          The Amish are actually a bad example, because they send their teenagers out into the world for a year to see if they want to stay Amish. Sounds very enlightened to me.

          Why is it so hard to get it across that cutting a normal, healthy, functional, non-renewable body part off a baby boy is fundamentally different from baptism, Sunday School, vaccination, or making him eat spinach – and fundamentally similar to cutting a normal, healthy, functional, non-renewable body part off a baby girl?

          1. de Villiers 7 Sep 2012, 7:58am

            > Why is it so hard to get it across

            That sentence of its own shows your own view that you consider yourself to be so correct, so infallible, that you cannot understand or comprehend how someone can have a different view to your own. It shows an inability to appreciate and understand the views of others.

            Perhaps the AMish are a bad example – but children are altered permanently in a number of ways mentally and physically by the upbringing of their parents. ANd it is their parents who, for the most part, should make such decisions.

            THe right of groups and cultures to group practices must be balanced against the rights of individuals. But to say that individualism must always be more important is to promote a particular, narrow, Anglo-Saxon view of individualism.

        2. “Iris’ comment is at least polite.However, it still views children as wholly autonomous robots who can choose their lives untainted by their childhood or circumstances of birth”

          Thank you, de Villiers. I do TRY to be polite as much as possible. I agree that every child is influenced by their family/environment/society they grow up in, but they are, if they choose, able to move on from that if they develop differing ideas eg regarding religious belief. However, they can’t re-attach their foreskin! Therefore, I think the decision should be left to the child when they’re old enough.

          Beards can be cut off or grown, baptism can be ignored or forgotten, a tradition of Sunday roasts can be ignored or changed, etc etc, but you can’t sew a foreskin back on when you realise what you’ve lost and wish you still had it. Err on the side of caution, I say. Leave it be and let the person remove it if they choose.

        3. Susanne.D.Nimes 9 Sep 2012, 8:49pm

          How is it in any way vain to suggest that parents’ culture should be celebrated in some way other than carving it into their sons’ bodies?

          It is not a family matter whether a man is able to enjoy a full orgasm, with his whole compliment of sensory receptors. The community will not be affected if he has earth-shattering orgasms, and is able to give the same to his partner(s).

          The family is not going to be performing sex acts using his penis. HE IS. That is why it is his choice.

          If the best argument you can come up with for why the choice should not belong to the man is that society matters more, then you must *back that claim up*.

          Why does the community, or the family’s, opinion of his penis matter more than his own?

        4. Well, actually the children ARE often pinned down, no pain relief is offered to the child as they are too young. And yes, circumcision IS performed on the whim of the parent.

          Our situations, our culture, our religions and nationalities can be changed. You cannot give a child who has been circumcised his foreskin back. it’s an unchangeable thing. Something that shouldn’t be allowed until the boy is old enough to make up his own mind.

      5. There’s a world of difference between an adult tattooing his own body, and adults sanctioning a medical procedure, with permanent effects, on a baby

      6. Paddyswurds 7 Sep 2012, 12:25am

        The baby has no say in you advocacy of mutilation and I for one am not surprised that you in particular would advocate mutilation of an innocent baby boy in the pursuit of wholly discredited beliefs and customs relating to the fantasy that is religion.

        1. de Villiers 7 Sep 2012, 8:02am

          Nowhere have I advocated circumcision, Paddy. Read the comments again carefully.

          I have not advocated circumcision. I have advocated the concept of the rights of groups and cultures that are not reducible to their individual members and where those groups have separate corporate as opposed to collective personality.

          If you were circumcised, Paddy, then they threw the wrong bit away.

          1. Susanne.D.Nimes 9 Sep 2012, 5:03pm

            You have “advocated the rights of groups and cultures”, and in so doing have thrown away the rights of the individual to his own body.

            Tell me, if an intact Jew attends synagogue and prays the same as all the circumcised Jews, follows the same dietary customs and is in every other way an observant Jew, is he less a part of his community because he is intact?

            Is his community suffering as a result of his intactness?

            The answer is no.

            Circumcision is not about group identity – it has no effect on the group. It is about taking away part of the individual, for no reason other than to remove a part of himself that is natural and pleasurable.

    3. Only if you deny that the foreskin is part of the penis – as many circumcision enthusiasts do. Mine sure is (and the best part).

      1. Susanne.D.Nimes 9 Sep 2012, 7:08pm

        Hugh, sadly many people have swallowed the lie that the penis is just the glans plus shaft, and nothing else. The intricacies and wonder of the sex organ are completely ignored.

  2. Susanne.D.Nimes 6 Sep 2012, 10:56am

    //”Circumcision involves removing the tip of the penis and aims to reduce germs which growth underneath the foreskin.”//

    Germs do not grow underneath the foreskin – the foreskin is flushed out multiple times daily by sterile fluid – urine.

    It also produces its own secretions, which means the foreskin is self-cleaning. This isn’t a radical idea – the female vagina does the same thing – it keeps itself clean.

    Furthermore, “germs”, by which we mean bacteria, are essential for skin health – without “germs”, our skin is not healthy, and we are vulnerable to fungal infection.

    The aim of circumcision has nothing to do with health, and nothing to do with hygiene. It is to do with sexual control. It began as a means of dulling the sexual organ (see Maimonedes, the Jewish scholar and philosopher’s writing) and it persisted as a means of making masturbation more difficult.

    Contemporary research shows it makes it more likely that men will suffer erectile dysfunction or inability to orgasm.

    1. I’m circumcised and I have had an extremely active and successful sex life so far (I’m 28). I’m not saying this to boast, I’m saying this as a circumcised male who completely disagrees with that ‘contemporary research’.

      1. Leigh Hamilton 6 Sep 2012, 11:37am

        Why are people downvoting comments from men who are perfectly happy with how they are?

      2. Susanne.D.Nimes 6 Sep 2012, 11:57am

        Adam, your anecdotal evidence against statistical data is not terribly powerful. I think perhaps you have misunderstood the content of my post – there is a statistically higher likelihood of erectile dysfunction and anorgasmia in circumcised men and their partners than in intact men.

        What that does not mean is that ALL circumcised men have problems, or that NO intact men have problems. It is simply more likely among circumcised men that problems will occur.

        My point is that men should be entitled to choose for themselves if they will be circumcised or not. No amount of proclaimed benefits takes away a man’s right to choose for himself. Let men have ALL the information – both the good and the bad – and then let them choose for themselves.

        It is not right to inflict onto infants, and it is not right to lie to men about the risks. All I want for men is the same for women – that if there is any surgery to be performed on their genitals, it is with their fully informed adul consent.

        1. Paddyswurds 7 Sep 2012, 12:31am

          You@Susanne….
          ……..your comments are completely negated by the fact you haven’t the foggiest idea of the male anatomy, and how it works and to compare a penis with the filthy femal apparatus is doubly telling Why are women comment on something they know NOTHING about.

          1. “filthy female apparatus”?? And yet you criticise Susanne for commenting on something she knows nothing about…

          2. Susanne.D.Nimes 9 Sep 2012, 5:06pm

            Trololololol. Enjoy yourself in your negativity and ignorance. Clearly I’m far more aware, and far more presumptuous than you.

        2. Paddyswurds 11 Sep 2012, 12:40pm

          ” far more presumptuous than you.” Exactly and that is your problem. Arrogance and presumption. Find some other subject to be presumptuous about and leave men alone…

          1. Paddyswurds 11 Sep 2012, 12:57pm

            And btw, there is no spincture in the foreskin at least not in the several hundred I have had the pleasure in examining closely….

    2. It does seem a bit ridiculous to suggest the “aim” of circumcision has something to do with germs, when circumcision predates knowledge of microbes by thousands of years.

    3. Geoff Jones 6 Sep 2012, 2:37pm

      Suzanne, this is utter rubbish. Out has been proven categorically that the most common cause of cervical cancer is the HPV virus, which is found under the foreskins of men who do not exercise good penile hygiene. seminal residue – “knob cheese”, if you like, harbours many germs and IS NOT flushed out by natural bodily fluids, it needs the foreskin retracting and then the penis washing. I had problems with this prior to being circumcised because of tight foreskin stopping me from cleaning properly.
      If you look at the Jewish community, no woman who has only had sex with a Jewish man – who has been circumcised – has ever had cervical cancer.
      I suggest you get your facts straight before making ridiculous and ill-informed claims.

      1. Christopher 6 Sep 2012, 3:16pm

        You need to site more than hearsay if you wish to be taken seriously. How many double-blind studies have you done on Jewish women? Talk about ridiculous and ill-informed!! Pot, paging Kettle, line 2!~~

      2. Susanne.D.Nimes 6 Sep 2012, 3:35pm

        Geoff – firstly, you mention poor hygiene. In which case the solution would be improved hygiene, not amputation.

        Smegma is what you are referring to and, though unsightly, it is not dangerous. Just ask any woman – she will have around eight times as much smegma as any man, but she will be surviving and managing to clean herself.

        There was a study, to which you are no doubt attempting to refer, regarding cervical cancer among Jewish women. You know the problem? Cervical cancer, like many cancers, has a genetic component. The women in the original study were all from a single ethnicity. They lacked the predisposition to cervical cancer – that was the reason the rate of cervical cancer was so low, nothing to do with men’s circumcision status. As soon as the study included other ethnic groups (including other groups of Jews), they found no difference in rates of cervical cancer depending on circumcision status.

        It is you who needs to check their facts.

        1. Like a boss!!! :P

      3. Susanne.D.Nimes 6 Sep 2012, 3:38pm

        Furthermore, your assertion that “tight foreskin = unclean” is completely bogus.

        I am familiar – intimately – with a man who has never been able to retract his foreskin. Yet he is as clean as anyone I know, and has never had a single issue – never any smegma, never any ill-health, nothing whatsoever.

        It’s a shame that someone convinced you that you needed to sacrifice our foreskin, but the damage is already done. You don’t need to try and make yourself feel better by insisting that the same procedure be inflicted on infants.

        Also, just to point out – you think no Jewish woman has ever had cervical cancer..? Beggars belief. What lengths will you people go to in order to claim it’s good to take away a man’s right to choose for himself?

        1. Paddyswurds 7 Sep 2012, 12:40am

          @…..
          …. you assert “with a man who has never been able to retract his foreskin”. and then go on to write rubbish “Yet he is as clean as anyone I know, and has never had a single issue – never any smegma, never any ill-health, nothing whatsoever.” One statement or the other is correct. You cannot possibly know that he has no smegma under a foreskin he cannot retract. He is a prime candidate for cancer un less he has medical treatment soon.

          1. Susanne.D.Nimes 9 Sep 2012, 8:52pm

            Absolute bollocks.

            You seem to think that the only way to clean beneath the foreskin is to pull it back. Water can get past the preputial sphincter, you know…

            There is no contradiction between the two statements. He has never retracted his foreskin, yet he has impeccable penile health. This may seem some kind of mystery to you, but it’s pretty basic to understand if you recognise that the foreskin is not some inherently filthy part of the body that requires extra-special cleaning.

            The foreskin requires scrubbing about as much as a vagina requires douching – not at all. It needs water, that’s about it.

            He’s also lived pretty long and healthy, fathering children and having great sex, and all free of penile cancer, but thanks for your concern. You’re not attempting scare-mongering at all…

    4. Smegma is a breeding ground for fungal and other infections. Soldiers in the British Army are taught to clean under their foreskins to avoid infection.

      1. Susanne.D.Nimes 9 Sep 2012, 5:05pm

        Smegma comes from the greek word for “soap”. While it is much maligned, it is actually not very harmful at all, and is found much more on women than on men.

        Washing under the foreskin is a good idea if the foreskin can retract. In some men it cannot, but their interpreputial space is kept clean by flushing with water in the shower or bath – and also by flushing with urine (which is sterile).

        Fungal infections are incredibly rare, since fungi are usually outcompeted by the microflora (i.e. bacteria) that naturally grow on the skin. In fact, too much washing, or washing with harsh soaps, will cause damage to these microflora, and will allow fungal infections to develop.

        1. Midwest MD 17 Sep 2012, 1:53am

          Thank you Susanne. You are quite knowledgable about this unlike many physicians who received no education on this whatsoever.

  3. Leigh Hamilton 6 Sep 2012, 10:58am

    Can’t say the gay in me is massively displeased by this outcome. Mmm. :)

    1. Susanne.D.Nimes 6 Sep 2012, 11:01am

      So you think babies should be forcibly robbed of part of their sex organ in case you one day want to have sex with them?

      What’s the matter, can you not find adult men willing to have their foreskin amputated to satisfy your fetish?

      It sickens me that people cannot distinguish between their own sexual tastes (e.g. liking circumcised penises) and justification for inflicting that onto people who haven’t consented.

      What about those thousands upon thousands of men who were circumcised against their will and wish they had been left intact? You must have so very little compassion for them.

      1. Leigh Hamilton 6 Sep 2012, 11:20am

        I honestly don’t care about kids’ penises, and I’m rather worried that you do. I just like cut guys. ADULT cut guys, thank you very much.

        1. Susanne.D.Nimes 6 Sep 2012, 12:00pm

          Leigh, I care about the health and welfare of children – that includes boys and it includes their genital health.

          You are using your adult sexual preference as if it was justification for inflicting genital surgery onto healthy infants.

          That is both illogical and unethical.

          I have no objection to your adult preference, it’s irrelevant to me. What I object to is if men have part of their body taken away against their will simply because there are some adults in the world who prefer their sex partners that way.

          1. Leigh Hamilton 6 Sep 2012, 12:20pm

            I don’t care about children. I’m gay.

          2. Susanne.D.Nimes 6 Sep 2012, 12:56pm

            Leigh, it doesn’t require you to have children to care about them.

            I don’t own a pet cat, but it still disgusts me when people treat cats cruelly.

            It doesn’t require personal exposure for you to have sympathy and concern for other human beings.

            Your callousness and lack of empathy are thankfully rare.

    2. You are disgusting Leigh. Female circumcision is viewed as genital mutilation, yet male circumcision is viewed as being perfectly acceptable? Why, for the love of everything good in this world, would we rob our sons of the most pleasurable part of their penises? It’s madness. I will always view individuals who accept or advocate male circumcision as barbaric slaves to religion, hellbent on mutilating their own children. Heartbreaking.

      1. Leigh Hamilton 6 Sep 2012, 11:19am

        You’re telling someone on a gay news website you don’t know that they’re “disgusting” because they prefer cut guys to uncut. Do I even need to point out the stupidity in this?

          1. Leigh Hamilton 6 Sep 2012, 11:27am

            Yeah, a troll is whoever disagrees with you. Cool beans.

        1. Susanne.D.Nimes 6 Sep 2012, 12:09pm

          Your preference is not an issue.

          You are not “right” or “wrong” because of your preference.

          No preference is right or wrong.

          But you are defending the forced genital cutting of infant boys based on your sexual preference, with no consideration to the future preferences of those boys themselves.

          Do you think that is ethical?

          1. To continue Susanne’s concerns, it is perfectely fine if an ‘adult’ male of sound mind and with the capacity to give consent has this procedures performed on himself or herself. ; but, infants donot have capacity to give conscent to this practice. This is about power and ownership of another human being, and abuse on every level.

      2. Ty , you are right.

        Male circumcision should NOT be acceptable under any circumstances.
        If it is good enough for females to have theirs made as illegal practice, So to should it apply to men.

        Circumcision has been the scapegoat for HIV for too long. You will catch HIV regardless of being circumcised or not. Safe sex will protect you, not circumcision

        1. Leigh Hamilton 6 Sep 2012, 11:45am

          And what if an adult man of sound mind just *wants* it? I had no idea the wider gay community was so authoritarian.

          1. Then he can ask his partner to get a circumcision. I bet that would make him VERY popular with the lads.

          2. Susanne.D.Nimes 6 Sep 2012, 12:02pm

            Leigh – I know of no-one with a logical objection to adult men choosing it for themselves.

            What I, and others, object to is this procedure being inflicted on children. That is also what this post is about – notice it is the American Academy of Paediatrics – they are suggesting that children will benefit from this completely unnecessary amputation of healthy, sensitive tissue.

    3. mark young 6 Sep 2012, 8:38pm

      sick.

  4. Mutilating infants is wrong. Unless it is done because of immediate medical problems then it is a *cosmetic* procedure and tantamount to child abuse.

    1. barriejohn 6 Sep 2012, 4:00pm

      Circumcision for non-medical reasons without assent is indeed physical abuse.

  5. I find this disturbing – the whole idea of circumcision. By all means let young teens/adults choose what to do, but an unnecessary operation on a baby’s genitals, changing them for life, isn’t right, in my opinion.

    What made the AAP change its stance on this? Anyone know?

    P.S – it goes without saying, but this isn’t an attack on anyone’s religion or belief. Also, the only people I know who are circumcised had it done because it was seen as the ‘thing to do’. None of them are members of any religion that might require it. Therefore, the AAP’s stance will only add to this ‘we should do it to OUR son’ idea – parents thinking they’re doing ‘what’s right/best’.

    1. And when I say “had it done” there, of course, I mean “had it done TO them”…

      1. Trust the Americans to be so stupid, i imagine this is mainly of Jewish influence. Bacteria on the penis head is a fact and easily dealt with by washing the penis head along with the rest of the body. Let us hope one day that some one who has been circumcised decides to sue the person who inflicted it on him. I personally think a man without a foreskin is not a whole man.

        1. I’ve had a small bit of skin removed for medical reasons, and am therefore not a whole man. good to know thanks for filling me in.

        2. It is mostly the influence of right wing christians, and their anti-masturbation drive in the 19th century.

        3. martin, what you have written is absolutely stupid and racist. think before you write!

          1. Spanner1960 10 Sep 2012, 3:35pm

            It sounds totally feasible to me.
            Considering the majority of American doctors are Jewish, it seems a logical progression.

    2. Money. Pure, unadulterated love of money. This American organisation makes a lot of money selling the pride of newborns to cosmetic companies. Madness.

    3. Angie Johnston 10 Sep 2012, 6:06pm

      Insurance companies stopped covering it, so the members of the AAP stood to lose money. Sick, huh?

  6. Other than a medical reason, I cannot find any plausible reason for anyone to do this to their baby. I certainly wouldn’t do it to mine!

  7. GulliverUK 6 Sep 2012, 11:16am

    I thought one argument against it, other than the deaths of babies that have been a direct result of negligent circumcision, was that it reduced sexual sensitivity for life.

    I’m with the THT on this, and with the German courts that it should be prohibited until someone is 18 and able to chose for themselves. Its religious background has no universal application outside the place and time when it was imposed, and children aren’t born with a particular religion, and people change their religions and beliefs sometimes. The procedure is invasive and irreversible, not cosmetically necessary or medically justified, nor can consent be given.

  8. I’m circumcised and every sexual partner I’ve had that has chosen to comment on this fact has had nothing but good things to say.
    Compliments range from how much nicer it looks (if it’s possible for the male member to be attractive…) to how much more they get out of sex.
    I consider myself a militant atheist/anti-theist but if I have a boy I will definitely be getting him circumcised.

    1. I find circumcised penises distasteful to look at. That’s my personal preference. Uncircumcised penises are awesome to look at. Why would anyone say that a penis isn’t nice to look at. Is there something wrong with them? Obviously I’m talking about straight women and gay me here.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 6 Sep 2012, 1:37pm

        There are many American gays who find an uncircumcised penis an awful thing to look at. This is where much of the pro-circumcision support is coming from. I wonder what the rate of bacterial infections among uncircumcised men is? I think the AAP has a responsibility to provide the factual evidence for that, especially in western societies. I personally do not condone infant circumcision except perhaps for purely medical reasons that could immediately harm the life of a baby boy. Tonsilectomies and apendectomies aren’t performed until they’re medically necessary and I see no reason why circumcision should be performed automatically either.

        I’m not circumcised and have never had a bacterial infection in my foreskin. If males regularly wash their genitalia with good old fashioned soap and hot water, I don’t see why there should be cause for concern. The only effective method to prevent the spread of STDs is for males to use condoms, short of abstinence, simple as that, hygiene.

        1. The circumcision rates in the US are actually falling. Heavily so. It is now heading to a 50/50 split in the population between cut and uncut individuals. And the religious right is saying that this will add billions to healthcare costs. I’d like them to prove it. My uncut penis hasn’t cost the NHS a penny. One might argue it has enriched the lives of a few. If an infection occurs it means that the individual only had themselves to blame (in most cases) as they did not practice proper hygeine, which takes a few seconds, literally. Uncircumcised penises don’t cost the health industry anything, it’s laziness that does.

          I personally find circumcised penises difficult to work with as they have had the natural sliding action of their previously intact penises robbed from them.

    2. Locus Solus 6 Sep 2012, 11:33am

      Circumcised penises freak me out. It’s like looking at a scar and saying how attractive it is… weird.

      The easiest way to look at the argument of “it does or does not reduce pleasure” is: How many intact guys do you see rushing out to have part of their penises removed (non-medical)?

      I feel bad for kids who had this done to them.

    3. GulliverUK 6 Sep 2012, 11:51am

      I have no feelings one way or the other — all are awesome !

      I don’t believe it matters one way or another, but can I ask when it was done (age) and would you have chosen to have it done yourself if you had a choice (difficult I guess to answer now), and was it done for religious grounds at the time? Given you would consider this procedure for a child of your own, would it now, obviously, not be for religious reasons, and if not then aren’t you worried your child could resent you doing this without his consent?

    4. Susanne.D.Nimes 6 Sep 2012, 12:07pm

      Adam, can you guarantee that your son won’t one day fall for someone who thinks like those who have replied to you here?

      How can you guarantee that your son won’t fall for a foreskin-fetishist? How do you know he himself won’t become one?

      He can always choose to be circumcised later if it’s what he desires – he can never choose to regain his intactness if you take that away from him.

      Your negativity towards the male penis is also kind of worrying. You see, everyone I know who is positive about sex, and who enjoys the beauty of the human body is also positive about foreskin. You, on the other hand, write off male sex organ as unnattractive, and the foreskin along with it. That’s a little sad, really. Would you pass on such negativity to your son? Would you look at a newborn child, perfectly healthy, and say “yeah, he definitely needs to have bits cut off so he can be what I consider sexually attractive”?

    5. Adam, maybe your son will think like you, maybe he won’t. Why not let him decide for himself when he’s old enough?

    6. mark young 6 Sep 2012, 3:29pm

      you’ll get your ‘boy’ done because you want to abuse him in the same way you have been abused. continuing abuse in cycles through generations can sometimes happens with abused people – i’d get some help if I was you. because being proud to boast that you will be abusing your child by cutting part of his genitals off is kinda sick.

    7. Adam

      Any future son will not be your possession, like an item of clothing you might decide to get altered.

      Please let your son make his own decision about circumcision when he is old enough to do so in an informed way.

      Neonatal circumcision can be a very ugly experience:

      http://www.circumstitions.com/Pain.html

  9. Circumcision is mutilation full stop. The only reason someone shout be Circumcised is if they can’t retract their foreskin & only then. Other than that, I can’t see the point in mutilating infants. Also I have heard in the past that professional & semi professional male bodybuilders are under the misconception that they will last longer in the sack if they get circumcised , well excuse the pun, but that is just phallusy. From personal experience, being able to last in the sack is down to the Individual & not down to having or not having a foreskin.

    1. Susanne.D.Nimes 6 Sep 2012, 12:12pm

      //”The only reason someone shout be Circumcised is if they can’t retract their foreskin & only then”//

      Circumcision is not an appropriate solution to phimosis (tight foreskin). Phimosis can be cured by simple stretching. No tissue needs to be lost.

      Also, phimosis cannot be diagnosed in children. In children, the foreskin is fused to the glans underneath it – it’s *supposed* to be tight, and it is *not* supposed to pull back. Phimosis cannot be diagnosed until adolescence.

      The “last longer” myth is also kind of worrying – a man’s quality as a lover has very little to do with how long the sex lasts. There are far more important things.

      1. Leigh Hamilton 6 Sep 2012, 12:21pm

        Stretching never cured mine, and I can name a few others it hasn’t worked for either.

        1. Susanne.D.Nimes 6 Sep 2012, 12:58pm

          And yet it is proven medically to work in 90% of cases.

          So either you’re one of the tiny minority for whom it doesn’t work (in which case there are still alternatives to circumcision) or you were doing something wrong.

          I’m very sorry that you’re missing part of your genitalia, but there is still no justification for forcing this procedure onto young men who are healthy, or who can be treated without recourse to amputation.

      2. My doctor told me “we could stretch it, but it will almost certainly go back, and you’ll be at square one. I recommend circumcision”.

        1. Susanne.D.Nimes 9 Sep 2012, 5:10pm

          Your doctor needs to read current medical literature, Neil.

          Once stretched, it’s easy to maintain the elasticity of the skin, it is very unlikely to “return to square one”.

          Furthermore, even if you don’t wish to use stretching methods, circumcision is not the immediate answer – there are more conservative surgical approaches such as preputioplasty, which open the preputial sphincter without removing the foreskin.

          Sadly, it goes to show that many doctors know nothing about the foreskin except how to cut them off. Amputating any piece of tissue should be a last resort once other methods have been tried or deemed unsuitable – it should not be the automatic solution that some doctors present it as.

  10. @Adam, Sorry to say, but most penises that I have seen that have been circumcised look like the have been hacked at with a rusty penknife. But that my opinion & mine alone.

    1. You haven’t seen mine! NHS top job! ;D Seriously, I have the opposite experience.

      1. Susanne.D.Nimes 9 Sep 2012, 5:12pm

        And yet I agree with Mac.

        Even the “top jobs” will never look as sexy to me as an intact, full member.

        And repeatedly being told by circumcised men that theirs is better says more about their desperate need for reassurance than it does about their penis.

        Everyone has preferences of their own. Millions upon millions of us prefer intact – so why take that away from a man before he can even understand what his penis is for? Let men have their own preferences, and leave them to decide for themselves if they’d like a whole penis or a circumcised one.

  11. Circumcision should be the choice of adult males, not cultural pressure from the sheep.

  12. I agree strgonyl with the above words:

    “The procedure is invasive and irreversible, not cosmetically necessary or medically justified, nor can consent be given.”

    No other reason is strong enough to justify this act on a child.

  13. Aryu Gaetu 6 Sep 2012, 1:02pm

    All unnecessary operatrions, especially one that involves the removal of healthy tissue, is a senseless medieval ritual.

    I have much greater faith in natural evolution than some surgeon.

    Why don’t we just remove everything that is not absolutely necessary immediately after birth such as the infant’s appendix, second kidney and adrenal gland, etc.? Using the circumcision logic, let’s remove everything to reduce the number of body parts that may cause problems in the future.

    People are crazy, especially in large numbers.

  14. Then do it to females too.

    1. I understand your logic, but the practice of female circumcision actually removes the whole external organ, the equivalent procedure would be a total penectomy.

      1. Nawal Husnoo 6 Sep 2012, 6:43pm

        FALSE. You can remove “just the clitoral hood”. Why do people like you like to pretend that female circumcision must always remove the whole organ?

        1. Susanne.D.Nimes 6 Sep 2012, 6:51pm

          Nawal – because that’s exactly what the propaganda machine tells them. You see, in order to excuse their hypocrisy, the Americans have to make FGM sound far worse than it is. They have to pretend that infibulation is the only type of FGM that ever occurs, when really it’s the rarest type.

          In reality, even if it’s just a slice in the clitoral hood, that is still ethically inexcusable.

          Most FGM consists of removing the clitoral hood and labia minora – the exact equivalent of male circumcision – but that will never be mentioned by the powers that are trying to say MGM is okay…

          1. The labia minora contain erectile tissue, they are more than just skin.

          2. Susanne.D.Nimes 6 Sep 2012, 8:14pm

            Sevrin – the foreskin is also “more than just skin”.

            Though I once again am inclined to point out how dreadful the word “just” is in this context.

            “Just skin”? Skin is an absolutely amazingly intricate organ, it’s responsible for some of the most sensual, erotic ways we interact with the world around us and our lovers. “Just skin”? You may as well say that a rainbow is “just light”…

          3. Susanne, you obviously know a lot about this, but I thought that Type 1 FGM commonly involved not only removing the clitoral hood, but the clitoris itself?

            Either way, I can’t see that the Americans need to make FGM sound worse than it is because it sounds bl**dy disgusting to me no matter what it involves. Same goes for male circumcision, of course. ANY mutilation of ANY child’s genitals is abhorrent.

            In my opinion, it should all be illegal unless informed consent of the patient is gained – ie they’re old enough to give proper consent.

          4. P.S – loving your rainbow analogy there :)

          5. Susanne.D.Nimes 9 Sep 2012, 5:17pm

            Iris, thanks for your compliment! No surprise that an Iris should approve a rainbow comparison! xx

            I am in agreement with you that all genital cutting – both of males and of females, should only ever be performed with the consent of the person it is happening to. They will experience the effects of it more keenly than anyone else, so why should anyone else’s opinion take precedence? This is why, despite having to objection to adult men being circumcised and enjoying that, I cannot condone forced cutting of infants.

            Because the West is so intent on continuing male genital cutting, they try desperately to make it seem worlds apart from female genital cutting, which our cultures now recognise as wrong. That means writing MGC off as “a snip”, while only ever portraying the worst types of FGC.

            Most FGC is not as invasive as infibulation, and when tissue from the clitoris is removed (as in parts of Malaysia), it is usually only the very tip of the external portion (the minority).

          6. Thank you for your answer, Susanne. I find the whole idea so cringingly horrible that I can’t help shuddering when I try to imagine it. Someone cutting a child’s genitals – whether in a minor way (‘only the very tip’ – I gulped reading that) or major way – is something I cannot begin to comprehend.

            But, having heard a news story tonight about male circumcision in Germany, I can see what you mean about it being presented as ‘nothing at all’ and completely different from FGM. To me, they’re both wrong and an assault on the integrity of the child. It’s not the extremeness of surgery that defines whether it’s an assault, it’s the very first cut that’s the assault, in my opinion. People’s genitals shouldn’t be interfered with without their permission – full stop.

        2. mark young 6 Sep 2012, 8:37pm

          nawal, why would you want to remove the clitoral hood anyway? and why do people like you try and justify any type of genital mutilation?

      2. Not necessarily.
        1. They do a very minor procedure to baby girls in Indonesia and Malaysia in the name of Islam. That would be illegal in the western world.
        2. They used to “circumcise” girls in the US with a clamp that shielded the clitoris. That’s now illegal.
        3. The American Academy of Pediatrics proposed a token ritual nick of girls “much less extensive than neonatal male genital cutting” in 2010 but were howled down within a month.

        It’s a pure double standard.

        1. I don’t agree with either type. To me they both seem to be barbaric attacks on a child’s sexuality. We are born with the parts of our body for a reason. The outer ear (the part we see) does nothing- yet we don’t cut that off “in case”…

      3. Actually that depends on the “level” of the FGM you carry out. The clitoral hood can be removed, the labia flaps can also be removed, or in extreme cases the hood, labia and the clitoris itself can be removed.

  15. People who use their cult traditions as justification for mutilating their sons’ penises are truly hideous, stupid, mentally ill, child abusers

    1. Spanner1960 6 Sep 2012, 11:16pm

      He said “cult” again.

  16. mark young 6 Sep 2012, 3:31pm

    circumcision for cultural reasons is child abuse.

  17. Male genital mutilation is no less abhorrant than FGM.

  18. GingerlyColors 6 Sep 2012, 8:02pm

    Circumcism is nothing more than genital mutilation. If God intended us not to have foreskins then we would have been born without them! Whether or not a boy gets circumcised is a decision that he should make for himself when he attains adulthood. It should not be forced upon unwilling children and should be considered a form af assult and abuse. Every year 30,000 boys are circumcised in the UK, yet it is illegal to dock puppies tails here! Why should dogs have more rights than children? At the same time some 50 British born girls suffer ‘female circumcision’, or more correctly, female genital mutilation, a proceedure which is illegal in the UK. FGM is usually carried out either in the girl’s parental home country, usually an African one, or illegally here in the UK.

    1. Susanne.D.Nimes 6 Sep 2012, 8:17pm

      Regarding FGM, let’s also not forget that Britain now has a reputation for being lax on FGM, so people are coming from the continent to have their daughters circumcised here.

      There has never been a single conviction for FGM in the UK, compared with France, where there have been many. They are doing things correctly – protecting children. We are still too busy tip-toeing around adults, lest we offend them, since offense is clearly a much greater tragedy than losing body parts.

      1. GingerlyColors 7 Sep 2012, 7:30am

        The reason why we have never prosecuted for FGM is that we are too scared of being branded racist. The French on the other hand have no qualms about acting against outsiders who break the law. France by the way decriminalized gay sex 176 years before we did!

        1. Susanne.D.Nimes 9 Sep 2012, 5:20pm

          No surprises there! The French have a much stronger feeling of integration rather than multiculturalism, which works better, I feel.

          Instead of numerous different cultures existing in separate but adjacent spheres, the cultures are all mingled beneath the unifying identity that they are, first and foremost, French.

          We are far too afraid of the accusations of racism – it is far more racist to make different rules for different people depending on whether or not they are semitic..!

  19. I’m Jewish, I’m uncircumcised and I’m glad that my parents and their parents didn’t for one minute buy into the rubbish that our religion spouts to support mutilating a baby boy.

    I’ll happily support any parent who thinks they should be allowed to perform a circumcision on their child. It’s their child, their choice, but where I draw the line is metzitzah b’peh. That’s disgusting and quite frankly anyone who does it should be locked up for child sexual abuse, indefinitely.

    1. Is it “their” choice? Parents cannot choose to force a tattoo on a baby, where do we draw the line on their rights?? Also why is it OK to perform an unnecessary medical procedure on a boy, when similar ops on girls are, rightly, universally condemned? (Except by those that carry them out, obviously!)

    2. Spanner1960 6 Sep 2012, 11:19pm

      “It’s their child, their choice.”
      You make it sound like they are picking curtains.

      Surely it is up to the person to decide if they wish to have bits of their anatomy lopped off to adhere with local traditions and customs even when they may serve no purpose.

      It’s like saying “I want a tattoo of the star of David on his forehead.”

      1. I don’t agree with it, but until it becomes illegal, it is their choice. Quite frankly, I would love for it to be banned, just like female circumcision. But governments don’t seem to see how male and female gnital mutilation are identical. They just see money and support from right wing and deluded religious groups.

    3. How about his choice? And after what’s just been done to him, the baby is past caring about metzitzah b’peh.

  20. Neonatal circumcision is a bad idea. Male humans should be given the right to decide as adults whether to have their foreskins removed, when there is no medical need to do so.

    It can be a very traumatic procedure for the baby, including the recovery:

    http://www.circumstitions.com/Pain.html

    The “research” suggesting circumcision reduces HIV risk to some extent is disputed:

    http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/05/when-bad-science-kills-or-how-to-spread-aids/

  21. Paddyswurds 7 Sep 2012, 12:05am

    We are now in the twenty first century and this barbarity must stop. If a boy wants his body mutilated irreparably, he can choose to do it himself when he reaches majority. it is time affected men started suing parents and the butchers who carry out this awful procedure once and for all….

    1. Paddyswurds 7 Sep 2012, 12:45am

      I am a 60 year old who has a fine set of ” curtains” as our yank cousins say, and I have never had any problem. I did have a procedure to sever the cord which attaches the underside of the F/s to the glans and I can now retract to a point wher you would have difficulty knowing whether or not I was mutilated or not…..

  22. If there is a genuine medical need that needs to be addressed now then fine, but not for a possible thing which may or may not happen to them and to quote “to stop STIs” is a cop out – If thats the case then wait til they reach puberty! Then the boy can decide for himself if he wants to or not.

  23. Staircase2 7 Sep 2012, 1:03am

    ‘Tip of the penis’ my arse…!

    I fully support efforts to ban circumcision as an automatic procedure but it’s simply not true to scaremonger falsely.

    CHANGE THIS IMMEDIATELY, PINK NEWS

    1. Your arse? You ARE confused. The Greeks liked the overhang and called it the akroposthion)

      1. Susanne.D.Nimes 9 Sep 2012, 8:57pm

        The Greeks were not alone in their liking!

        It’s sad that people are so ingrained with this idea that if it’s not the glans, it’s not really part of the penis…

        Sit back and enjoy genitals in all their glory – instead of saying which bits are “really genitals” and which bits aren’t…

    2. Midwest MD 17 Sep 2012, 1:48am

      The penis is made of 3 parts: the foreskin, the glans, the shaft. The foreskin is the tip of the penis!!!!

  24. Dick Scalper 7 Sep 2012, 1:18am

    They brand men like a herd of cows. “Neonatal post-traumatic stress disorder” — the recurrent American
    nightmare for boys. American men are such wimps to let their sons be subjected to this absurd surgery.
    If it were women tied down & cut, the Feminists would be howling all over the world. The male genitals are a cheap commodity. There is no argument too absurd for the circumcisers. They insult the appearance of the intact penis, claim that circumcision heals everything from body warts to HIV, and draw an illogical distinction between female & male genitals. Circumcision is the mark of a slave, not a free man.

    Top Ten Tortures Less Painful Than Circumcision

    10. Get waterboarded.
    9. Pull out your fingernails.
    8. Eat a pile of steaming bear crap.
    7. Skin yourself alive.
    6. Fall into a vat of molten iron.
    5. Get run over by a train.
    4. Go through a sausage grinder.
    3. Saw off your legs.
    2. Poke out your eyes.
    1. Go To Hell

    ~Dick-Scalper.

  25. The policy is very faulty and biased towards circumcision. Here is an annotated version of the full report: tinyurl.com/aapanno

  26. In the States circumcision is about money at the end of the day. 4 operations an hour at $200 to $800 a cut. unscrupulous doctors are not going to give that up over the until parents stop being so naive of the fact. And the objection being well he should look lke his father. Well if father was an amputee, would you aso cut matching limb on a child ??? I think not.

    1. Susanne.D.Nimes 9 Sep 2012, 5:25pm

      But, hey Mac, men might get confused when they sit around comparing penises with their dad’s…

      And we all know that a kid can’t just be told “when daddy was born, they thought it was necessary to cut that bit off, but we didn’t do that to you because now we know it’s not necessary”…

      The whole “look like daddy” argument is couched in terms that it’s the kid who will be distressed to look different from his father. The reality? The father will be distressed, because he knows his son will have experiences and pleasures he has never known.

    2. Spanner1960 10 Sep 2012, 3:36pm

      4 operations an hour at $200 to $800?
      Does that include tips? ;)

  27. Midwest MD 17 Sep 2012, 1:50am

    No disease is prevented by infant circumcision. The AAP screwed up big time, but then they are all Jews, circumcised or physically circumcised their own children. Pathetic lot of them.

  28. Midwest MD 17 Sep 2012, 1:52am

    The penis: shaft, glans, foreskin. The foreskin is the tip of the penis. I learned this in med school.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all