Her.meneutics: The Case for Male Circumcision

back to Christianity Today

RSS Feed | Help

e-mail to a friend

twitter updates

Follow Her.meneutics on Twitter

What Is Her.meneutics?

The Christianity Today women's blog provides news and analysis from the perspective of evangelical women. We cover news stories and books related to international justice and evangelism, pregnancy and sexual ethics, marriage, parenting, and celibacy, pop culture, health and body image, raising girls, and women in the church and parachurch.

Her.meneutics is edited by associate editor Katelyn Beaty and online editor Sarah Pulliam Bailey.

interests

books and media

church life

justice and politics

relationships and family

sexuality and health

spirituality

theology

women of note

writers

More ...

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

« The President's Speech and Parental Rights | Main | The Confusing Case of Caster Semenya »

September 10, 2009

The Case for Male Circumcision

Why the arguments from sentiment and sexual pleasure don't cut it for me.

Christine A. Scheller

What mother hasn’t, in the halcyon days after the birth of a son, felt her ferocious she-wolf instincts kick in when it comes time for her boy to be circumcised? Having perhaps suffered violence to her genitals during the birth, the physical ache to all that is vulnerable in her world can seem unbearable. And then it is done, and life goes on.

Anti-circumcision activists would have us believe that life does not in fact go on, that boys grow into men whose sexual pleasure (and that of the women they love) is compromised by this act of “genital mutilation.” While increasing numbers are swayed by both argument and sentiment, I’m stupefied by the controversy.

Male sexual pleasure is not my highest priority, having rarely witnessed a lack thereof. Nor is my own, if in fact I’m speaking out of my ignorance of the delight foreskin can deliver. What I am concerned about is sky-rocketing rates of sexually transmitted diseases, and the gender inequality evident in these rates.

A 2008 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study estimates that 25 percent of American women ages 14–19 are infected with at least one of the four most common STDs. Eighteen percent of them have human papilloma virus (HPV), which can cause genital warts and cervical cancer. Four percent have chlamydia, which, if left untreated, can lead to Pelvic inflammatory disease and sterility. Chlamydia can also be passed from mother to baby during vaginal birth, and is reported to occur in women at three times the rate it occurs in men. Furthermore, nearly half (48 percent) of African American women in this age group were infected with an STD, compared with 20 percent of white women.

Based on multiple studies suggesting that male circumcision reduces the risk of STDs, U.S. health officials are encouraging routine circumcision for male babies at a time when circumcision rates are declining. In a BloggingHeads.tv discussion with colleague Emily Bazelon, DoubleX editor Hanna Rosin surmised that the recommendation is ultimately about confronting a decline in Medicaid funding of the $300 procedure in at-risk communities.

Even if STD prevention benefits are as overblown as critics suggest, the risks are far less dubious than those related to prevention measures like the HPV vaccine Gardasil, which young women are coerced by their governments into receiving. Last year Andrew Jones, also known as Tall Skinny Kiwi, reported that his 13-year-old daughter had been “jabbed” with the vaccine in her British school after she and her parents had opposed it in writing. Earlier this year, the FDA agreed to investigate possible risks for deadly Lou Gehrig's disease-like symptoms after at least three young women developed such symptoms soon after being vaccinated.

Meanwhile, Intact America, an anti-circumcision group, says that boys can be taught the good hygiene necessary to ensure that their foreskins don’t harbor disease. As the mother of boys, I wouldn’t entrust my sexual health to the grooming habits of young men.

And why should women?

We bear the brunt of the communal sexual and reproductive health load in our bodies. We take birth control pills and fertility drugs laden with side effects. We have unnecessary C sections and hysterectomies. We are surgically sterilized at five times the rate of men. We have elective surgery, both cosmetic and bariatric, to attract them. We diet obsessively.

Opponents would argue that we have choice in these matters, while baby boys don’t. To which I say, “Hooey!” Absent the enthusiasm of a male OB-GYN and the cultural ascendancy of second-wave feminism in my formative years, I doubt I would have had an irreversible tubal ligation at age 23 or taken birth control pills at 16.

Call me ignorant if you want, but in this debate, I’ll side with women — women like Marjan Hezareh, scientific director of the Los Angeles–based AIDS Research Alliances. In 2007, she concluded, “The health benefits for women of having a circumcised partner have been sufficiently proven, and the medical benefits should outweigh any stigma against both adult and infant circumcision.”

As for the biblical mandate to circumcise, the apostles settled that one for Christians in the first century (Acts 15:6-11; Gal. 5:6). It’s unnecessary.

Comments

Scheller's opinion makes me wish that only dads could chose circumcision for their son, not moms like her with their agendas. Better yet, let the boy decide. That's what the Federal law protecting girls says. What's good for the goose...

Here is where Scheller and I REALLY part company: circumcision and cervical cancer. She advocates forced genital cutting on one group (males) for the benefit of another group (females). We have a word for such bias. I won't be so crass as to accuse her of it in her own blog. If you can't think of it, just reverse the genders in her suggestion and you'll understand.

I will side with the infant boys that need to make this decision for themselves.

Would you support female circumcision if there was a correlation between female circumcision and decreased HIV infection?

"As the mother of boys, I wouldn’t entrust my sexual health to the grooming habits of young men."

Even the most ardent pro-circumcision person doesn't claim that circumcision protects women. So I guess you are going to have to trust your sexual health to that young man or **gasp** demand that he wear a condom.

Also, remember that when HIV first appeared in America, circumcision WAS universal and that currently, 80% of adult males are circumcised. Note that circumcision in Western Europe is rare and that they have a lot less STDs and HIV than we do.

Seriously, what's wrong with condoms? What's wrong with talking to your kids about sex? I guess its much simpler for the squeamish mother to cut her son and pretend that everything is just going to be ok. Or maybe you just like circumcision. After all, its not your genitals.

Amputation is NEVER the answer

I am 100% against strongly encouraging parents to routinely circumcise their newborn boys. I find Ms. Scheller's comments mis-informed and disturbing. She sounds bitter about life in general and admits to not caring about male sexual pleasure or an infants human rights.

Here are my reasons:

The circumcision rate has decreased in the United States to the lowest point since before WWII. More and more people are realizing that the United States being the only Westernized country with the majority of boys being circumcised for non-religious reasons is wrong in its thinking.

The foreskin, which is a healthy body part that serves a major function in protecting the glans of newborns, belongs to the owner. Parents and doctors should only concern themselves in the VERY rare event that there is an anomaly necessitating the modification or removing of the foreskin. This is a civil rights issue. In our country, we have seen lawsuits filed against doctors and parents by young men who have been circumcised against their will. I believe there will be an increase in this activity. We have laws against modifying female genitalia, why not protect males as well? This is a double standard. The female genitalia is responsible for spreading and harboring disease, yet we protect females. "Circumcised" females would also be cleaner and lead to higher reductions in transferring disease.

The foreskin protects the glans, keeping the skin of the glans soft and sensitive. This is a major plus during sexual activity, whether it be masturbation, intercourse or other activity. In addition, the female and male both benefit from the foreskin's gliding action leading to more pleasure for both parties.

The foreskin has some 20,000 nerve receptors, providing more sexual satisfaction for the male.

The removal of the foreskin often has adverse results. Many men say they feel robbed because they find a hardening of the skin on the glans leading to less sensitivity. Many men feel robbed because they did not have the choice to choose between having and not having a foreskin. Circumcision also leads to too much or too little skin being removed. Too much skin removed leads to painful erections. Too little removed leads to re-circumcisions and penile skin adhesions. Also, the instance of meatal stenosis is high. Cosmetically, a lot of circumcisions have glaring scarring that is there for the life of the male.

The act of circumcising a newborn is painful. Even though there are guidelines strongly recommending proper anesthesia, many doctors use no anesthesia or use Emla Cream which is not recommended by the manufacturer or the AAP. Imagine, the pain of feces and urine stinging the open wound over the week to ten days it takes to fully heal.

A study that was unveiled on the opening day of the CDC Convention in Atlanta showed very clearly that mass circumcision would not make a dent in the number of HIV/Aids cases in the United States. Almost all of the cases are derived from male-to-male sex and dirty needles.

There is a belief that uncircumcised males suffer from an elevated level of urinary tract infections. Yes, there is a slight elevation compared to their circumcised counterparts, but still below the incidence of urinary tract infections in baby girls.

There is a belief that uncircumcised males will get penis cancer. As you know, it is VERY rare to see penis cancer in an uncircumcised man.

There is a belief that chlamydia is spread by uncircumcised males. It is a rampant disease with no relation to circumcision status.

It is said there is a slight increase in cases of syphilis and gonorrhea instances in and transference from uncircumcised males to others. It is important to note that these are slight increases.

As a country, we need to closely observe why in several European countries, circumcision rates are under 10% and HIV rates are also minuscule. I imagine it is because of more education of youth and adults so that protective actions are taken prior to sex. Unprotected sex is the problem, not the foreskin. The CDC's energies would be far better spent on massive education on how to have safe sex and about the need for abstinence if protection isn't used. Let's say the cost of circumcision is $300.00 and let's say that all insurance companies and all state Medicaid programs covered neonatal circumcision. In one year, a million circumcisions would cost $300,000,000. That is a lot of money that could be put into education and the availability of free condoms. And, because this program would not be aimed solely at circumcision (which would have only a slight positive effect of the spreading of disease) we would see a major downturn in all types of diseases and in children being born out of wedlock and in other non-planned pregnancies. We are talking about BILLIONS of dollars in benefit every year.

Leave our foreskins alone. Appreciate all of the positive aspects of leaving little babies intact. Should a young man decide he wants a circumcision, then it becomes his choice. In writing a recommendation, clearly state the true statements regarding the minor benefits of circumcision, but instead of recommending universal circumcision of baby boys, stress what needs to be done in preventing contact between infected and unifected people and stress the need for medical screening of sexually active teens and adults to identify and treat STD's.

"Call me ignorant if you want..."

Reading your reasoning for non-medical circumcision, I must call you ignorant, and very much so.

I have to say, being accused of not being capable of basic hygiene seems pretty strange.

I find it interesting that there is so much interest in the personal hygiene of the penis...it's cleanliness and it's smells. The penis and the clitoris are companion organs. As a baby develops, the penis and clitoris are the same. When the sex of the child becomes clear, the clitoris becomes a penis in little boys. The clitoris has a foreskin (prepuce). Smegma is produced by the female internal organs. It is a natural process. I don't hear disgust over the smells and fluids in the woman's genitalia. It is interesting the fixation Americans have with the penis, isn't it?

This is not about women's health. STD's are spread because people contract them through unsafe sex, then spread them because they don't get tested. If you engage in these behaviors, odds are you WILL get an STD. Intact genitals are not the cause of STD's, nor should they be the focus of STD prevention.

I almost detect a sort of anger at men in this article. Almost as if we are blaming them for the troubles that we face as women. No woman should feel as if her own genitals "suffered violence" during birth. Obstetric practices in this country are largely profit driven, convenience driven, and not evidence-based. All women deserve one on one care and to give birth with dignity and support. But that's another issue.

Just because women get STD's easier, have less than ideal birth control options, are pushed into unnecessary c-sections and hysterectomies, does NOT mean that men are to blame, or that ANY of this is the fault of uncircumcised men. Circumcising little boys who cannot consent does not address any of these cultural problems.

If you're scrolling down looking for a post that agrees with Ms Scheller, keep scrolling.

What gets up my nose is her dismissal of a basic human right, the right to decide for yourself what integral, healthy, pleasureable parts of your own body you get to keep, as "sentiment". There's no other part of a baby boy's body (and none at all of a baby girl's, or an adult man's) that it's even legal to amputate at parental whim.

Ms Scheller's only answer to this is to compare it to choices she didn't have - but should have had. That's a really rotten argument.

Wow. Still amazed at the rampant ignorance and myth still prevalent in this country regarding the natural, NORMAL intact penis. Ms Scheller's post is merely the latest in a 150-year parade of misinformation. The fact is that about 80% of the males on this planet are intact, as they were born. The fact is that less than 1% of males will ever require surgical intervention on the prepuce (foreskin). The fact is that mostly intact places like Europe, Japan, Asia (and now Canada and Australia) have lower rates than the US of just about everything circumcision is supposed to prevent.

The empirical evidence tells us that the American circumcision experiment (which originally began as a crusade to stop boys from masturbating) has failed in a big way. As more parents and doctors wake up and join the rest of the civilized world, we'll hopefully see a decline in this archaic, unnecessary sexual assault.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

To Ms. Scheller,

I find your advocacy of circumcision to be largely based on false information, faulty logic, and a sort of personal vendetta against males.

I found many of the comments you made frankly offensive to men, and to those who value the rights of a child to not be injured unnecessarily.

You said: "As the mother of boys, I wouldn’t entrust my sexual health to the grooming habits of young men." The solution to your problem is not to cut genital tissue from infants, but to not sleep with men if you didn't feel safe with them. I can assure you, though, young men are just as capable of understanding the importance of taking a shower as women - and found it sexist of you to claim otherwise.

Ultimately STDs and HIV are behavioral problems, and as such, the only solution is to change the behavior. They can be entirely avoided with proper education, and safe sexual activities, including std testing. Amputating someone else's genital tissue to 'protect' them is like saying you don't believe they are capable of being educated or caring about their own health. THAT I find sexist.

Don't think that the intactivist movement is trying to push birth control pills, or HPV vaccines on young girls either, many of us are also standing up against Gardasil and investing time and effort into helping solve the HIV problems around the world.

But you need to truly reconsider your position on infant circumcision. To say you don't care about the damage amputating genital tissue causes, because men are already sensitive enough is NOT fair. A foreskin does not belong to you, even if it belongs to a person you grew in your stomach - it only belongs to one person, the person born with it.

Thanks Christine A. Scheller for being so transparent.

After reading your diatribe about male circumcision, I have to add: get over your bitterness. You chose to have children, a male infant doesn't choose to be mutilated. Your below comments speak volumes.

You said, "Having perhaps suffered violence to her genitals during the birth, the physical ache to all that is vulnerable in her world can seem unbearable. And then it is done, and life goes on."

Suffering from a little tit for tat are we? Ya, pretty obvious.

A 23-yr-old married woman with kids who gets herself sterilized, and a 16-yr-old libidinous young woman who gets herself to the doctor to obtain prescription contraceptives, has no more choice about those acts than a newborn baby boy being circumcised? Seriously?

This is the problem with complementarianism: It sees women as (or worse, teaches women to be) child-like, powerless, intimidated, in need of guidance or protection, or overwhelmed by the "cultural ascendancy of second wave feminism" or of the "enthusiasm of a male OB-GYN."

This is remarkably like what the farthest left of the feminists also believe -- that male domination is the cause of every bad thing that happens. Perhaps the far right of the complementarians and the far left of the feminists go so far around the bend of their respective ends of the political spectrum that they meet on some dark-side-of-the-moon place where everything is a conspiracy, everything is hopeless, and everything is someone else's fault.

For heaven's sake, women are, and should be taught to be, fully sentient human beings God made them in God's image to be -- capable of and responsible for making, implementing, and owning their own decisions. There's a world of difference between exercising one's choices in a way that one later regrets (and we've all been there), and not being old enough to articulate any choice at all.

For the same reasons that women should make and own their own decisions, men should make their own decision about being circumcised. And, if the goal really is public health, science and logic would dictate, instead of circumcision, advocacy of age-appropriate comprehensive sex education in school and meaningful access to safe and affordable contraceptive options for all who seek them.

wow, you really are an ignorant AND stupid!

Scientists Discover A Cure For Low Libido (impotence) which Is totally natural
--------------------------------------------------------
The use of Butea Superba compared to sildenafil for treating low libido & erectile dysfunction

Published Friday, 21 August 2009

• Karolinska Institute, CKK Urologic Oncology Group, Stockholm, Sweden.
• Urology Service, University Hospital 'Dr José E. González' UANL, Monterrey, NL, México.
To evaluate the effect of an extract of Butea superba (BS) compared to sildenafil for treating erectile dysfunction & Low Libido.
THE OBJECT OF THE TEST-
An open label study was carried out among 32 men with organic erectile dysfunction (ED) to evaluate the response on the International Index of Erectile Function 5(IIEF-5) to Butea Superba, a 'natural health' product (50mg), compared to 50 mg of sildenafil (a phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor). After a 1-week wash-out, responders to Butea received either 100 mg starch or 100 mg of another batch of Butea (double-blind).
Of the patients in the Butea group, 27 (84%) responded positively, compared with 26 (81%) in the sildenafil group. When assessing the score alone, 12 (38%) had a better score after taking Butea, compared to seven (22%) after sildenafil, and eight (25%) had the same score. The results were surprising. A 'natural' health product containing Butea Superba was more effective than sildenafil in the study.
Written by:
Cortés-González JR, Arratia-Maqueo JA, Gómez-Guerra LS, Holmberg AR
Butea Superba can be obtained online at http://www.healthyed.co.uk The Butea in HealthyhED pills is supplied direct from Thailand where it is grown and distributed under government control. This regulation ensures a high potency and guarantees the maintenance of an international standard.

Horrifyingly sexist!

This argument starts bad and gets worse. Misrepresenting the opinion of supporters of genital integrity as "they believe life does not go on" is utterly false. Would it be so difficult for the author to present her case while truthful and honestly presenting the opinion of those she opposes?

I can't speak for everyone, but my belief is that circumcision perpetuates circumcision through dismissive attitudes toward the value of male feelings- both physical and emotional, (the opinion that if male feeling is harmed- that we can claim that as a benefit), that the history of circumcision and all the men who have lived circumcised is a justification enough for passing it on to the next generation (with utter disregard for all the humans who have no cultural history of circumcision and all those men who were not harmed by their sex organs in their entirety and most obviously left out, the many men who do recognise the way circumcision has caused them harm) and lastly, through ignorance and shame and social stigma.

I am glad that despite the high rate of STDs in teen women today, no one is coming after me with a knife! I wish more people could see how sexist this approach to public health is!

The foreskin is not just skin and does not just protect the glans(head). The real news is that circumcision is now known to ablate the most sensitive parts of the male genitals. This surgery takes away main male pleasure zones with about 20000 fine touch and stretch nerve endings amputated. The foreskin has several parts including the ridged band that is great for ones pleasure (that is why nutters like Kellogg wanted to chop em off, to curtail masturbastion), and the ridged band directly contacts the vagina for very great pleasure all around.

Taking away male pleasure zones without consent is ABUSE.

Also the ALLEGED HIV risk change is minimal (3.2% to 1.8% risk) and not observed outside Africa. It may be linked to how often one showers or be non-existant as the cut men did not have sex during a large part of the study and were told to use condoms. A condom is still needed for unsafe sex and circumcision raises the risk of women catching HIV (in the same Africa study).

If "skyrocketing" STDs are such a problem. maybe female circumcision should be pushed as well -- same HIV risk lowering (says an AAfrica Study) same moist p;aces, same tissue with same cells. Female circumcision lowers a women’s risk of HIV. Any women want to be circumcised to reduce the HIV problem? How abbout the author leading that?

Wow! Amazingly heated! Where are the None of these Diseases advocates of McMillen & Stern riding to the defense of Ms. Scheller. Yet, Ms. Scheller does not help her arguments with her own personal experience in the way.
The anti-circumcision crowd makes a major point on this surgery needing to be chosen by the infant. If this is the case, where does a parent draw the line in making decisions for an infant and as that infant grows into childhood? Let us stay away from the insane question whether to introduce carrots into the baby's diet. Let us talk about something spiritual, like infant baptism or Sunday school or catechism classes or family devotions or teaching a child about the "way" that they should go? With the reasoning from the anti-circumcision crowd, we should postpone these things until the child can decide on their own. As a baptism by immersion advocate, we could stop the paedo-baptist in their tracks. Yet, that is not right! The mode of baptism is not a debate based on human rights, but on theological grounds. I do admire the idea of infant baptism advocates that the parent's faith stands in for the infant's faith until the child can make a decision on their own. The parent(s) make the decision on behalf of the child.
While I understand the arguments both for and against male circumcision, I do not want anyone making that decision for the child, except the parent(s). And no one should belittle any parent(s) decision either way.
For those males who wished that their parent(s) made the other decision, I do have some sympathy, but you do have a choice to do something about it. And while your penis may not have what it could have had, just think about all the men in the world who wished that their parents had "better"(?) genes that would have made their penis larger. :)

What Tony Springer apparently doesn't understand is that circumcision is non-therapeutic, meaning it is recognized by the medical community of every nation in the world as not being necessary for the health of the child. As such, it falls under the category of elective cosmetic surgery, which requires the informed consent of the patient.

The pro-cutting crowd is fond of comparing circumcision to inoculations or emergency surgeries of therapeutic value, but it's ultimately an apples-to-oranges comparison. Circumcision fails to meet the standard of care physicians must maintain, and it fails the test of medical ethics. It is not like baptism, or cutting hair, or any other non-permanent physical alteration. It is unnecessary, painful, scarring surgery on the genitals of a neonate. And that strikes more than a few folks as being barbaric and a little bit sick.

Hmm. We just had a baby boy and the hospital gave us a brochure listing the reasons for and against circumcision (it was not a religiously-affiliated hospital). I was surprised to read of the numerous medical reasons supporting circumcision. So, if I got this information in writing from a medical institution, why should I believe the anti-circumcision comments here? Please post some proof, such as links to CDC websites or such.

In response to the comment about circumcision being added "later" to the OT writings, this shows a real ignorance of the entire Bible's message and the way the texts were handled. There is no way that the entire OT could be altered at a later date to add in circumcision, since it was a huge element of Israel being "set apart" which is referenced throughout Scripture and is the major identifying factor of an Israelite. The OT texts were so sacred to scribes that some of them would wash, change their clothes, and throw away their pens every time they came to the Name of God to be copied into the text. If one mistake were found, the entire copy was destroyed. The Gospel of Thomas is a pseudepigraphal work, not Holy Scripture; we shouldn't look to it for what God tells us.

The allegation that the Pharisees were trying to dissuade Christianity by enforcing circumcision is NOT the point of Acts 15, nor does the text support this interpretation. "Circumcision" is used broadly in the NT to refer to the idea of trying to uphold the entire Jewish law, including holiness codes (this would include things like eating kosher). God gave Peter the vision on the rooftop by using a sheet filled with unclean animals, not a vision of circumcision. One must take the WHOLE OF SCRIPTURE, not just rip passages out of context and make reference to uninspired texts as if they are the Word of God.

What is startling is the evidence that GOD gave us circumcision. The OT Scriptures give the command to perform this ritual on the eighth day of life. Medical tests show that Vitamin K, a vital clotting component, is highest on the eighth day of life (None of These Diseases by McMillen & Stern, and http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2204). How would Abraham, a desert nomad, come up with this idea on his own?

The way the anti-circumcision posts are worded (references to non-Christian documents as having spiritual authority, claims to statistics that I can't find substantiated elsewhere, complaints about having been circumcised and wishing it were different, focus on sexual pleasure) makes me strongly suspicious that there must be a forum or board out there about anti-circumcision that got wind of this article and alerted their members to it.

Thanks for all the comments. I expect that some of our regular readers can parse a little hyperbole now and then. As to those of you who are passionately opposed to circumcision, my position on the issue is more "give me a break, women have been..." than anything else.

CL, so it's only complementarianism that has the power to oppress, eh? I'm exceedingly grateful for feminism, but also committed to confronting its excesses and distortions as I don't believe it's the one virgin idealogy in all of human history. You also don't get to tell me what influences shaped my life and decision making. There were others besides 2nd wave feminism, but it was central in many respects.

Adam S., I have no doubt that you, like my own husband are more than capable of good hygiene. There are a lot of men, particularly adolescent ones, who I would not trust my own or my nieces' sexual health to.

I should add that I love men, and always have, particularly the one I've been happily married to for nearly 24 years, the two sons I have loved and nurtured with all my being for just as long, and my dear sweet dad who's in the next room. Blessings~

It sounds like Christine has a deep-seated hatred of men. I haven't come across her before, but her flippant attitude about genital mutilation is highly offensive. One has to wonder if she would be so flippant if girls were being routinely put under the knife (after all, the same hygiene arguments could be made for labia as well).

I also find it offensive that she would put the well being and comfort of women above men. Isn't this supposed to be the 21st century? Chivalry is supposed to be dead..it died along with equal rights for women. The way she talks, she would prefer that women we back home, barefoot, and pregnant (as if women can't be trusted to make their own choices about who they sleep with and how clean they are!) What a disgustingly sexist rant.

The first three paras. comprise a near-endless amount of material.

"Having perhaps suffered violence to her genitals during the birth..."

Child-birth may include violence to genitals, sure. There may be injuries that result from a difficult birth. But guess what-- your labia minor is unlikely to get cut off during a difficult birth. If the surgeons have to make incisions, then it's to keep the birth from resulting in a worse state of affairs. But in any case, it happens when you're an adult and can make decisions about whether to take the risks associated with having a baby. Babies themselves cannot.

"I’m stupefied by the controversy."

I doubt you would be if you had a penis.

"Male sexual pleasure is not my highest priority,..."

Figured that already.

"...if in fact I’m speaking out of my ignorance of the delight foreskin can deliver..."

Indeed you are.

"What I am concerned about is sky-rocketing rates of sexually transmitted diseases, and the gender inequality evident in these rates."

OK, so let me get this straight. A male with an STD may give it to a female and then one says that this awful male gave her the STD. Well we know that the fellow likes sex with women, otherwise he would not have had sex with the female. Now assuming he is str8 and not bi, he had to have gotten the STD from someone. That someone was likely to be female. So I ask the author of this blog entry, why isn't she as condemning of the female who gave the STD to the male?

Her complaint that chlamydia occurs at 3x the rates in females as males has to do with the particular biological roles of the sexes' reproductive organs and their particular design differences. Cutting off foreskins may reduce STDs spreading marginally but probably not due to a reduction in contact area. More likely any reduction detected (and I have my serious doubts about these studies) is due to the fact that since sex is not as pleasurable for circumcised men as uncircumcised ones, they are probably less likely to have it. Or didn't anyone who did these "studies" look into that possibility? Perhaps, but maybe they just didn't care.

So what is the answer to my question? This: She is a female chauvinist bigot. Would she support removal of the labias-minor of infant girls if by reducing skin contact area one could reduce the transmission rate (for whatever reason) of STDs? Doubt it. She mentions that gov'ts are "coercing" girls into taking injections of Gardasil. Is "coercing" parents or men into getting circumcisions for their infant sons or themselves less wrong? Seems the author thinks so.

But at least she takes down the religious angle of the matter when she closes with this: "As for the biblical mandate to circumcise, the apostles settled that one for Christians in the first century (Acts 15:6-11; Gal. 5:6). It’s unnecessary." That's about the only thing she got right.

Christine claims "CL, so it's only complementarianism that has the power to oppress, eh?"

-- No, I expressly called out BOTH the "far right of the complementarians" AND the "far left of the feminists" for BOTH making the SAME mistake -- infantilizing women and blaming others for everything.

And, while you certainly are the only one who can say what influenced your own life, your article goes way beyond that. It offers a portion of your life story to claim that women don't actually have any choices at all: "Opponents would argue that we have choice in these matters, while baby boys don’t. To which I say, 'Hooey!'"

To which I have to say, if you want to teach our young people that they are powerless in the face of the "culture," have at it, but don't be surprised when these same young people succumb to the buffeting winds of suggestion, peer pressure, and defeatism rather than learning to stand strong and take responsibility for themselves and the circumstances of their lives.

The paternalism of the far right complementarians, just like the maternalism of the the far left feminists, is disempowering to women and instead breeds weakness.

Advocating cutting off men's foreskins to protect women, rather than advocating education and contraception for women so they can protect themselves, is just another creepy example of the disempowerment of women under the guise of "protection."

Christine,

I am a mother of two boys. I had them each circumcised with very little research and knowledge about the procedure. It is a decision I deeply regret.

Make no mistake, circumcision is genital mutilation.

If your defense is the STD reduction argument, then wait until your boys are sexually active and let them make the decision to be circumcised or not for themselves. Why make this choice when they are a newborn? I suspect the reason you would be against this is because you do not believe they would choose it due to the pain. I do not believe there is any difference in the amount of pain a new born feels vs a young man. It has got to hurt!

As a Christian, you of all people should feel that God made you a mother to protect your child. Now do your job!!

You say that male sexual sensation is not your priority. Did you ever think that it may be a priority to your son? What if next time you go to a gynecologist, he or she performed a procedure that reduced your sexual pleasure without consent and his excuse was that your sexual pleasure did not matter to him? Your statement about not caring about your son's sexual pleasure makes you look like an uncaring, selfish monster who is playing God with your child's life.

Parents cannot undo what they have done. All I can do with my guilt is to try to persuade others not to circumcise their children. I should add that I am a Christian mother of two boys and I am also a registered nurse, but I will refuse to assist in circumcision if ever asked to do so.

Also, there may come a day when parents and health care workers are sued and personally held liable for their actions of genital mutilation. Even though some groups are telling you to circumcise your children, at some point you need to stop following along and question authority.

I never considered male circumcision a controversial subject–in fact, I was surprised by how controversial it actually is–but the discussion has definitely given me much to think about for when I have a son.

My guess is that you need to talk to your nieces about several things if the top point is genital hygiene. Obviously, the first point would be to talk about sex outside of marriage, then proper contraception and the reality of sexually transmitted disease. After all of that you might get to genital cleanliness. But frankly unless your nieces are fairly young and sexually active, I would think they would know enough to require basic hygiene (which usually is a completely body issue, not just one part of a body.) It just seems like hygiene is so outside the realm of this discussion (at least for people that are old enough to be sexually active) that it shouldn't be a part of the discussion.

As a Christian Catholic, I feel really embarrassed to read such article and to believe that you are in fact a Christian yourself :( I am Latina and as many people know, the majority of the Latinos don't believe in circumcision. Most of the male in my family are all intact, healthy with wives and children (3 generations of men). Except my dad because my grandmother was brainwashed by her ignorant doctor (who educated himself in the US) to have him circumcised. It's pretty bizarre when I hear people saying that amputation of a part of a body (that it was meant to be there) is needed to keep things clean or to fight infections. It's like saying, I am going to cut off my daughters' labia to prevent their own infections which happens a lot more than my intact boy (go figure!) or like to cut off my daughters' breasts buds to prevent them from having breast cancer which is extremely common than all those diseases you mentioned related with male circumcision. All that amputation of healthy body parts sound archaic and barbaric. This is 2010 people!!! There has been studies that show female circ prevents HIV or decreases the chances, yet we are not advocating that one, aren't we? I feel pretty appalled by this fellow Christian to say that cutting off part of a gender's genitals will guard diseases off the other gender. It's horrific to me :-/

Christine, thanks for your post. It spurred me on to do some thinking about a subject I've never really given serious consideration before. I don't have children and I'm not male so I'm not going to pretend I know what I'd do in the situation. But if this practice is truly so incredibly horrific, as many commenters seem to suggest, why did God ever command it for any of his children, let alone his entire nation of believers, for so long? I would like to hear a Christian's viewpoint on this, seriously. This point seems to have been lost among the personal attacks.

For what it's worth, I've been asking around among my male friends (most in their early-mid 20s, most circumcised) the past few days, and no one I've talked to so far has expressed any feelings of anguish over the issue, or even any awareness that some people consider this a big deal.

Some people will choose to circumcize their sons. Others will not. But I don't think it's necessary or appropriate to demonize those who disagree with us by saying hurtful, personal things about someone we have never met.

And what about these boys' HUMAN RIGHTS?

The male foreskin is foreskin is a high functioning sexual organ that been found by recent objective research (using fine-touch medical instruments) to be the most sensitive part of the penis. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/03/990302063210.htm
http://www.nocirc.org/touch-test/bju_6685.pdf

The male foreskin is also gynecologically equivalent to the clitoral hood (and, arguably even functionally equivalent to a clitoris). (Darby, R. and Svoboda, J. S., ‘A rose by any other name?; rethinking the similarities and differences between male and female genital cutting,’ Medical Anthropology Quarterly (2007), Vol. 21, Issue 3, pp. 301-323.)
A recent study in China confirmed the exact same finding. (Yang DM, Lin H, Zhang B, Guo W. [Circumcision affects glans penis vibration perception threshold]. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue 2008; 14: 328-30, Dept. of Urology, the First Hospital Affiliated to Guangzhou Medical College, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510120, China.)

I'm very grateful for the loving decision my parents made 49 years ago when they decided not to have me circumcised. I'm in the 0th risk group for the transmission of HIV and other sexually-related diseases. I do not take drugs. I am not promiscuous. I do not engage in homosexual anal sex. I'm not afraid of condoms. I know how to clean my penis every morning in the shower (it takes all but 3 seconds). Circumcision, or the lack of, has nothing to do with it. Children should not be forced to suffer because of the unsafe sex practices of adults.

It is obvious that many here have come with some sort of concerted agenda from the save the foreskin club (I wonder what their T shirts look like???). I can understand the emotion exhibited here but I find the personal attacks to be out of balance with the comments Christine made. As her husband I think I know Christine better than anyone and I can assure all who care about the truth and not the agenda that Christine is not a “feminazi” as Lion said amidst the venom he spewed and has no hatred toward men as a gender. By the way Lion I would love to get together with you to discuss the ugly things you said about Christine especially the not so veiled threat “Women like you will pay christine” that you concluded your rant with. Nor is she “bitter” as some of you so ignorantly stated. I guess it’s just easier to degrade someone with whom you disagree than to do the work it would take to formulate a real argument. By work I don’t mean reading a list of talking points from a website and regurgitating them. Something obvious from the repetition of ideas such as 20,000 nerve receptors, circumcision of females, human rights issue, Christine you are a sexist pig man hater and of course pain and suffering of the new born boys etc…

As for the nerve receptors I don’t personally know of any guy that is complaining about the lack of stimulation he enjoys during intercourse because he was circumcised as an infant. I’m sure it is an issue that must be taken on a case by case basis but I’ll leave it by saying that for me it has not been a problem as far as I can remember. I am not really sure how I would know what the difference would be for me since I could only compare my experience with that of uncircumcised men which would be silly since every individuals experience would be different. If I never had it how could I know I miss it? That is unless I was trying to make a case against infant circumcision and was struggling to find real facts to back position. Speaking of remembering, I have no, that is ZERO recollection of any pain or suffering that I may have experienced as a result of this procedure and I would be interested to know the statistics on how many men who were circumcised as an infant do.

When it came time to make the circumcision decision for our sons do you think that Christine sat back and said well boys here’s for all the wrong that men have ever perpetrated upon women, cut away doc! No, she made what was not an easy decision that she believed would be in the best interest of her babies. We sought council from her doctor and discussed it at length before deciding. This is a personal medical decision that should be made between parents and their medical professional. It should be left this way until such time that there is real medical evidence that it is not the best thing for the child and those they come in contact with. The argument posed that we in the US should not do it because most of the rest of the world doesn’t do it is like saying in many countries adults do not bathe daily so maybe it is wrong for us to do it here. One has little if nothing to do with the other.

Would you say that it is abusive to perform 10 surgeries on an infant born with a cleft lip? What about if the last five were for cosmetic reasons only? That is a lot of pain and suffering just for the sake of cosmetics isn’t it. How could any loving parent do that to their own child? What if that child would have liked the way they looked, shouldn’t it be their choice? Isn’t this a “human rights” issue? Chad Kyle offered the statement that “amputation is NEVER the answer”. Chad, would it be the answer if the child was born with six fingers on each hand? How about both male and female genitalia? Complicated isn’t it? What do we as parents do in the face of such decisions? We seek counsel and do what we believe is right before our maker, best for our child and all others concerned.

Those who asked questions equating male and female circumcision like “Would you support female circumcision if there was a correlation between female circumcision and decreased HIV infection?” offered no evidence of this and so I suppose one might replace female circumcision with lobotomy or tooth extraction to make their point as well. I’m not sure what the driving force is behind some of the off kilter remarks I’ve read here but if I use the same disingenuous tactics, poor judgment, anger and hatred that I’ve seen here I could come up with all sorts of great stuff like: I know that according to Jewish law all Jewish males are circumcised on the eighth day according to the Law. I wonder how many anti circumcision advocates just don’t want in any way to be identified with the Jews. I believe they call that anti-Semitism not anti circumcision. Maybe we should alert the anti defamation league.

Just something to think about
Jeff (Christine’s husband)

Laura- You ask a good question, but I'm not sure if it was rhetorical, "If we can associate circumcision with God's will, can't we then trust that it's a good thing?"

I would like to remind you that many things that happened by God's will in the Bible were quite brutal and horrifying on the personal level. For example, all those firstborn Egyptian infants who were slaughtered the night of Passover... all the families and creatures who drowned in the great flood, all those taken out by any of the numerous plagues and famines, and the death of his own son Jesus on a cross, to name a few. All of these events must have had a purpose in the grand scheme of things and I trust that God provided for those souls with unbounded love in the hereafter. The fact that God did these things, or that they were commanded of Jews, does not mean that Christian can then mimic these things without having to answer to the personal questions of both our cultural and religious beliefs.

If you are truly questioning circumcision for the first time, perhaps this would be a good time to hold up some of the excuses for circumcision against your own values and see how well it stands up, once you stop propping it up with assumptions about it's harmlessness and goodness for mankind.

I can say with assurance that God did not want Jews to circumcise in order to reduce their risk of catching STD's. He had that question well in hand when he invented chastity and monogamy.

I can say that God did not want Jews to circumcise because foreskins are ugly or women like circumcised men better, because we were created in God's image, uncircumcised.

He also didn't do it so kids would "fit in" ... in fact- he did it so Jews would stand apart! Imagine the difference between a Jew willing to circumcise their baby in WWII Europe, and a God fearing Christian American parent who is afraid Johnny is going to be teased for a turtleneck... bowing to secular peer pressure against your convictions was certainly not part of God's plan.

Jews also didn't circumcise to keep sand from getting trapped under their foreskins (yes folks- I've heard this theory) because if that was the case, they would have never neglected circumcision during the 40 years they wandered the desert.

Lastly, I offer a point to ponder. Can it be accepted that circumcision is benign because it's associated with a commandment from God? Isn't God kind of famous for asking people to sacrifice things of great value? Maybe you could consider for the first time, that the fact that the knife went right to this point- and not any other part of the body- that it's actually evidence of what a big loss it represents to a man.

If you are curious, open the Bible and read the actual covenant that was passed to Abraham. Read the points that are given for why and how Jews must do this and ask- does this concept carry forward to modern Christianity? For example- the blood of the circumcision is an actual blood covenant for Jews, some Orthodox Mohels actually suck the blood from the freshly cut penis- does the Christianity you practice require you to spill any blood- human or animal? Other than Baptism and accepting Jesus as savior- are there any bonus points for Christians? (Can any blood from a modern baby do more than Christ's blood on the cross for your salvation?) Lastly, Jews are commanded to be cast out from their people if they refuse to comply!- Are you willing to separate yourself from me- and the fellowship of every other non-circumcising Christian because we have neglected this? Do you think the Christian church- which was almost split by this topic once (and this was resolved), should be split today into circumcising and non-circumcising churches, should we convert to Judiasm? If you are not willing to follow through with the cultural ostracism outlined as part of the covenant (or is that too cruel?) Why would you feel motivated to follow through with the genital cutting part of it?

Jeff- I imagine that Christine is having a hard day and I appreciate that you are there for her. I'd like you to imagine for a while that you were not circumcised. When you and she met and fell in love, if you had the opportunity to read with opinion piece with awareness of what it was that she was dismissing. I think your heart would feel stung and you would hear the sexism then.

Jeffery,

You said, "I wonder how many anti circumcision advocates just don’t want in any way to be identified with the Jews. I believe they call that anti-Semitism not anti circumcision. Maybe we should alert the anti defamation league."

Ah yes, and the anti-Semite card is played. I wonder how my Jewish anti-circumcision girlfriend and her anti-circumcision Mother and all their Jewish anti-circumcision friends would find your sweeping generalization about Jews, maybe... anti-Semitic?

Jeffery said, "If you are curious, open the Bible and read the actual covenant that was passed to Abraham."

I did read the Bible but answer this for me? Why in the world are there two Abrahamic covenants? There is Genesis 15 and Genesis 17. According to the majority of Biblical Scholars, Genesis 17 (circumcision) , was added by Aaronid Priests around 550BCE (known as the Priestly source). The "real" covenant was Genesis 15, the cutting of animals and was created 400 to 1000 years before and is part of the J-text.

Hope that helps.

Jeffery Said:
"It is obvious that many here have come with some sort of concerted agenda from the save the foreskin club (I wonder what their T shirts look like???)."
Not a concerted effort just thoughtful parents trying to get people to think about the question that is never addressed, why?

Why are we the only first world western country to circumcise a majority of our boys for secular reasons?

Why is it a problem for so many parents to give their son a choice with regard to this very personal piece of his body?

Why do bloggers write in a tone that ridicules, and she did ridicule, people who believe that this is a personal decision, for the person to whom the penis is attached.

Why did she suggests that men are unable to clean themselves? That should be insulting for any man intact or circumcised.

You can by a t-shirt here[1].

But you want some of her claims discussed more directly. Fine. The US does have a climbing rate of STDs. We also have by far the highest rates of virtually all STDs in the first world. From MSN[2]

"The U.S. has the highest STD rates of any country in the industrialized world."

Similar information from Advocates for Youth[3]. I guess you've already surmised that people in those countries don't circumcise yet they are pretty well ahead of us on the public health curve.

Christine speaks about Chlamydia but neglects to discuss one of the more recent studies[4] that said: Adult Male Circumcision Does Not Reduce the Risk of Incident Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Chlamydia trachomatis, or Trichomonas vaginalis Infection: Results from a Randomized, Controlled Trial in Kenya

I am not blaming her, it's not like a study like this makes news in the US ever. What good is it to splash headlines that says circumcision didn't do something? Americans don't want to hear that.

Christine speak bad about Gardasil, saying it's an imposition on women. They don't have to take it; they're at an age where the discussion can be between parent, doctor, and child. Further, she neglects to mention that the FDA has now approved the use of Gardasil in boys and men. So we can each share the burden of that one. I will say one thing about Gardasil though, it is true that there are a lot of questions about it's usefulness because HPV in 95% of cases are a benign infection for both men and women. It's true that cervical cancer occurs in about 11,000 women each year but more than 80% of them haven't even had a pap smeare in more than 5 years according to the CDC. So there is in fact a legitimate[5] question as to Gardasil's usefulness. But it ha s nothing to do with circumcision.

I should add (since we're talking about STDs) that the same study that made the HPV circumcision connection found no connection with a reduced rate of Syphilis.

And I am not sure I want to tell you all this (it might be another burden on women) there is a Phase 3 clinical trial for a women's only herpes vaccine which appears to be pretty efficient [6].

Finally, you wanted to know about female circumcision and reduced risk of HIV, here it is[7]. Regrettably, nobody has followed up on the work.

I will concede the point that sometimes posters on this subject argue in a way that isn't constructive. That clearly happened here but your wife's post was just as guilty of that. Finally, don't try and trot out that antisemitism canard that's almost as insulting as saying men can't keep themselves clean.

Intactivist mom: I like your biblical post BTW.

1. tinyurl.com/mdlk77
2. tinyurl.com/58exfn
3. tinyurl.com/m8k6m9
4. tinyurl.com/lkgzue
5. tinyurl.com/nr6zmn
6. tinyurl.com/kqfjcr
7. tinyurl.com/d9uom

It is NOT for adult females to decide and pre-empt what male children might "do" in the future to other members of their gender. Additionally, arguments for male infant circumcision based on controversial STD transmission theories borders on the criminal.

I am shocked at the blind, female supremacist slant of this article. We need legislation now to protect male children from intrusive, mutilating surgery that has not been consented to.

I'm sickened at the double standards

Christine, I'm sorry you've had to endure such hateful responses.
For the record, I understand both sides of the argument, but I'm pretty appalled by the hostility of some Christianity Today readers! State your opinions, you're entitled to them. But if you are accusing every parent that has chosen to circumcise their son as barbaric, cruel and uneducated, your harsh insults are causing much violence as well.

Jeffrey wrote: "If I never had it how could I know I miss it? That is unless I was trying to make a case against infant circumcision and was struggling to find real facts to back position."

So the only people claiming the foreskin has a sexual function are circumcised men "struggling" to back up their position? You seem to forget that intact men even exist! Every man with a foreskin knows exactly how those alleged 20,000 nerve endings function. The natural penis has at least three erogenous areas that are amputated during circumcision. It has something called a "rigid band" at the tip of the foreskin that provides the most exquisite sensation when moved back and forth. You will never know that sensation, and neither will the children you circumcised. To that, your wife says dismissively, "Male sexual pleasure is not my highest priority." That's sad. That's just sad.

From the New testament:

~Gal. 5:2 "Behold, I Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing!"

~Gal. 5:3 "And I testify again to every male who receives circumcision, that he is in debt to keep the whole Law. You who do so have been severed from Christ. . . you have fallen from grace."

~Gal. 5:6 "For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision gives spiritual power, but faith working through love."

~Gal. 5:12 "I wish that those who are pushing you to do so would mutilate themselves!

Notice how Paul says mutilate.

"As the mother of boys, I wouldn’t entrust my sexual health to the grooming habits of young men."

Specifically AS the mother of boys? You mean you look at your own specific children, and think, "good thing I had their foreskins stripped off, because no woman should trust them?"

That is a dark, chilly view of motherhood.

Jeff,

None of your comparisons made me change my position of anti-circumcision. You seem to think that since adults can't remember pain that was inflicted on them as infants that it makes it OK to mutilate them.

I also disagree that having foreskin is like a birth defect (you compared it's removal to removing a 6th finger or extra genitalia). Are you aware that the foreskin has a function and is not a birth defect? By circumcising male newborns you are taking away healthy, functioning tissue that provides protection, lubrication and sensation during sex.

As I said in my first post, I am a mother that had her sons circumcised and I regret it. I passed the decision on to their father that had the final say and is circumcised himself. We agreed that father and son should look alike, and I read over the literature that they gave my in the hospital. It seemed like o good thing to do, so as a couple we gave our consent. I can NEVER go back on that decision.

I consider myself a loving and caring mom, as I prepared for motherhood by reading books and such. Like many mothers, I had no idea that the subject of circumcision was so controversial. I failed to protect my children because I was so trusting of the medical experts. No where in the literature did it tell me of the function of the foreskin, and most circumcised men have no idea what they are missing (how can you miss what you have never experienced).

I also notice that there is NOT ONE uncircumcised man that has spoken up to say he wished he were circumcised. NOT ONE!

I hope you and Christine will reconsider your position on circumcision. As you can see by all the posts, it really does not make any sense. We should not circumcise males for the same reason we do not circumcise females.

And by the way, I am not any member of a group, I am simply a caring mother.

While I'm not sure on my position on male circumcision, I find the comparison to female circumcision to be offensive. To compare something that might lessen physical sensation with something that destroys physical sensation and causes lifelong pain is crazy.

They are not the same thing. The issues are completely different and need to be treated as such. One is a tool of oppression of women and is used by men who think that their pleasure matters more than the well-being and needs of women. The other may be wrong, but it does not have the same connotations of elevating pleasure over physical health and devaluing the victim.

Anna, you are so wrong.

Although the reasons for male and female circ may be different, the outcome is the same. It is virtually the same operation.

Why is one 'offensive' to you, and the other you are 'not sure about'? Please give that some thought.

I notice you use the phrase "might lesson physical sensation" when referring to male cicumcision. There is no MIGHT about it! Removal of nerves and tissue ABSOLUTELY reduces sensation.

So I take it that if female circumcision is for 'health' reasons and not 'oppression' then you are all for it and will be willing to mutilate your daughter?

If you have a fascist turn of mind then coerced circumcision will not seem in anyway wrong to you. If baby boys having no no rights then again circumcision will seem totally normal to you.

On the other hand if you Ms Scheller had an ounce of humanity and decency you would see it for what it is - a total invasion of personal freedom and individual rights.

Your remark about male sexual pleasure is just risible. You know nothing about male sexual pleasure; no woman does as you are all far too selfish for that.

[sigh]

[admission: my insomnia has taken me to new heights... I'm a mother of girls, have never been interested in this topic (for lack of being faced with it as a personal decision... though perhaps I should consider it to be part of my "personal life" because it is a human question). Anyway, I really should be in bed... but here I am, having read through *all* the comments... and I can't go back to sleep, so much has this wakened me]

So. Here is why I can't go back to sleep:

1. I'm thinking that Christine, like any good journalist (and she is a good one, with years of experience), must have known coming into this that it was a hot-button issue. Hot-button issues tend to invite vitriolic comment. She wrote the article anyway. Wow. I'm the kind of writer whose work has a completely different function; most people who read my work thank me deeply for it. I am stunned, yet again, at what sacrifice and courage it takes to be a journalist.

2. in a way, it is okay to be vitriolic, even though we potentially hurt each other's feelings; it means we have been stirred, it means we care, it is more refreshing than pretense; hopefully we move beyond the vitriol at some point, but I do believe it's okay as a step in the conversation process

3. this article has achieved what the best articles do... it has opened a conversation that needs to be had, in a place where it might be less likely to be had (forgive my awkward sentences here... I'm supposed to be in bed, remember? :); case in point, I am still awake having this conversation, so strongly has it impacted me... and before this moment I had little concern about the issue

4. I recall now the horror I experienced as a child when I first read about circumcision in the bible; I read it without agenda, without theological bias... I simply read it, and I was mortified.

5. it seems important to me to pay attention to that horror... what does it mean that God asked this of Abraham?

6. it seems important to me to pay attention to that horror again, with the arrival of Christ, which effectively ended the call for circumcision (well, at least from God's side). What does it mean that Christ's arrival is associated with the end of trauma and the restoration of deep pleasure?

okay, to bed now... I'm thinking I might actually be able to go back to sleep... for tonight anyway.

Tony Springer asks:
"where does a parent draw the line in making decisions for an infant and as that infant grows into childhood?"

How about, not cutting integral healthy non-renewable parts of his body off? It's not hard: the line has been drawn for them already with every other part of his body, and if it's a girl, with every single part of hers. In fact there are special laws about just exactly that part of hers.

The question is not, how to decide whether to cut part of his pen!s off, but why is it even allowed?

Clo: That's "ridged" band, not rigid. The ridges, just inside the opening of the foreskin are tiny, soft and flexible, and packed with nerves specialised for fine touch, rather like the fingertip.

Female Genital Cutting? A group of educated, circumcised Sierra Leonean women strongly defend their custom, because it admits them to their secret women's societies. It's hard to see how that can be "a tool of oppression of women and is used by men". They defend it by explicitly comparing it to male circumcision in the developed world. If they confined it to themselves as adults, who could complain? But they also claim the right to do it to their daughters.

This is a personal subject, but I am a circumcised male who had his son circumcised. I enjoy sexual pleasure with my wife very much. I have no regrets.

The link to FGM seems false to me. The descriptions of how FGM is done make me cringe in horror. Unsanitary and painful, leaving life-long consequences. It seems to me that a better analogy would be chopping the heads of of 13-year-old boys' penises, causing a great deal of pain, bleeding, and sexual dysfunction. It's not a perfect analogy but I think better than the one from the common Western practice of male circumcision to 3rd world FGM.

Matt a bit of a correction. Not western practice, American practice. Secular circumcision is very uncommon outside the US. Canada also used to practice it but it's declined alot there. And let's not forget trival male circumcision in Africa. Over 50 boys have died in the last 3 months or so.

That is tribal not trival and south africa only who knows what the count for the continent is.

Matt's comment that circumcision is a common Western problem, seems to sum up the confusion that many Americans have about this issue. The same goes for Christine's opening line when she presumes "the time comes" for EVERY women that she gives up her child to be cut.

Circumcision is NOT a common Western practice. The rest of the Western World (Britain, Europe, Scandinavia) looks at America with HORROR on this issue. The Europeans that I know consider it a human rights violation, not a "common" practice.

This has got to have been the most ill-conceived, irresponsible article I've ever read.

LL Barkat, I don't think it was good journalism that made this writer spew the vitriol that she did. I think it was ignorance, plain and simple. She was convinced that everyone would agree with her, that everyone would scoff at the intactivists too. That's a lot of things, but it isn't bravery.

The name Christine A. Scheller will be tied to this perverse article for the rest of her career. I, for one, will never forget it.

Christianity Today should be ashamed of itself for publishing this. If they have any sense they will publish a rebuttal as well. Otherwise this vile albatross will weigh down their necks as well.

That was well said, Christine. As a mother of boys, and married to the same man for over 20 years, all of whom are circumsized, I am in agreement with the conclusions you presented.

But the approach I would prefer is this: inform the young women. Help them understand, pervasively, what is at stake. Because we choose who we marry. And we don't have to marry or be intimate with uncircumsized men. Some won't care, but many will when they understand the ramifications.

And then the men can decide which is more valuable. And the mothers can watch while their adult sons struggle with what would have been much much much simpler as infants. But they can all be content that they waited and let the 'adults' decide. Sometimes people getting what they think they want is really the best thing.

We all understand our world from the experiences we encounter.

With this, I am so happy and proud to have a circumcised boy. I have encountered FIRSTHAND (not from pictures on the "Internets", lobbyist groups, or someone's cousin-aunt-second removed ex-husband) the heart-breaking infections that many uncircumcised boys/men and their families have to deal with (countless urologists appointments, circumcision in later years). I'm guessing that no one on here has experienced the fun of cleaning all the cracks and crevices on a squirming baby or how a child has to be reminded numerous times to brush his/her teeth or if he/she wiped themselves and washed their hands after using the bathroom. Thank you, Heavenly Father, that my precious boy will not have to go through what so many uncircumcised boys have.

Christine, the way these anti-circ people have "proved" their point with their words is the true shame. Your sons and husband must be very proud to have a strong and caring mother and wife like yourself. You handled yourself like a true Christian, and they, um...well, it's pretty obvious.

AGAIN, we all understand our world from the experiences we encounter.

And may we ALL take a gulp of humility.

Yes, she "handled herself like a true Christian" by promoting a cruel and mutilating practice that the Crucifixion of Jesus specifically brought to an end.

And Desiree, for what it's worth, you don't clean "the cracks and crevices" on a squirming baby's penis. THEY retract their foreskin when they get old enough. And THEY are taught to clean. I'm not sure why you are having such trouble "reminding" your children to wipe themselves after they go to the bathroom, but for everyone else whose mastered that, cleaning the foreskin takes all of ten second in the shower.

Hi Desiree,

I am a Christian mother of two boys and part of the anti-circ crowed that you seem to think is acting so terribly. How would you suggest we act when we encounter people encouraging mutilation of newborns?

I am sure Christine is a loving mother and wife, but look at the tone of her article and tell me she doesn't have some criticism coming.

The anti-circ crowd has presented their argument with facts and reason.

The pro-circ crowd has not answered the question about letting a boy decide wether to be circ or not at the time he becomes sexually active. Although some comments have implied that it would be too emotionally an physically traumatic to wait.

So is that the only reasoning you can come up with? Because a newborn boy will 'forget' the pain and trauma that it should be done against his consent?

Also how do you accept the lost function of the foreskin? Yes, I am aware that many circumcised men are living just fine w/o theirs. But that's because they don't know what they are missing. You never see uncircumcised men willing to give up their foreskin do you?

When or if cutting off the female's clitoral hood proved to be more sanitary, would you suggest we do that to all baby girls?

I had my baby boys circumcised based on the literature they gave me at the hospital, now that I know more about foreskin and it's function it is a decision I deeply regret. I hope future mothers read these comments and understand what is at stake.

I am hoping that one day this barbaric practice will stop. Unfortunately it may only happen when parents and health care workers get sued for their actions, and that day might be coming sooner than you think. As a registered nurse, I will not participate in any circumcision operation.

Kris: The Anti-Circ movement, as represented here, has not presented their arguments with facts and reason. What they have used is emotion, and they argue from a point of view that seeks to impose it's will and view on others. The very language used [e.g. mutilation, amputation, barbaric, etc] is intentionally inflammatory and insulting, and then we get to all the apples-to-oranges comparisons and it loses all semblence of reason.

The original article was calmly presented and quite rational. It was not hostile in the least. If one had a vested intested in a different argument, it might be taken personally but it isn't an attack on anyone. And makes a solid case for not joining the anti-circ crowd.

Those of you that feel strongly about not circumcizing your boys, I should think that making that choice and not circumcizing your sons could be sufficient. But it isn't. Is it? It doesn't stop there. You want to feel good about that choice - having others agree with you is apparently necessary for any sense of peace on your part. But we don't all agree with you. And those of us that still don't agree with you are rational, intelligent, calm, compassionate, loving... and moms, dads, doctors, scienfic researchers, and public health agencies. Which, I am sorry to observe, clearly rankles just a bit.

After reading Christine’s post I was thinking YES, you tell’um…and then I read the comments. I never realized this issue could incite such passion. I was curious about the claims regarding diminished sexual pleasure so I did a little quick research on Wikipedia. Under the heading, Sexual effects, wiki cited numerous studies and most seemed to support the claim that there are no negative sexual effects. In fact one study concluded that there was more sensitivity with circumcision.
If we could rally the same passion, the same vehemence behind many of the comments made here by men in defense of their sexual pleasure, think of the possibilities, think of what we could stamp out…domestic violence, sexual abuse, inequality, misogyny…issues of more importance than any negative results from male circumcision. I am hoping that most of these comments represent a very small minority of men.

Lion, thank you for your kind words. I am a bit confused by one of your comments, would you mind expanding on it for me?
"Women like your wife will pay Jeffery"

Carrie you said we didn't provide any facts? I say the OP didn't provide any facts. TheOP claimed that intact men have higher rates of chlamida I provide a link to a large august 2009 study that says otherwise. She claims that intact men have higher rates of STDs but neglects the fact thT the US has both the highest rate of STDs among western countries and we're the only one that performs circumcision. If intact men have all these problem why don't European doctors see them? She claims Gardasil is dangerous despite the fact that the FDA not only cleared it but expanded it's use to boys. You claim to have scientist and public health officials on your side? Except for Africa and some Americans this is not the case. So reead my post and look at the links and tell me where my Information is wrong.

Kris,

Three facts you present seem weak to me:

1) "You never see uncircumcised men willing to give up their foreskin do you?" Actually, it is my understanding that sometimes this DOES happen pursuant to infections or other problems that would have been prevented by circumcision early on.

2) "When or if cutting off the female's clitoral hood proved to be more sanitary,"

And when pigs fly... It isn't more sanity because it isn't more sanity. Apples and elephants.

3) "I had my baby boys circumcised based on the literature they gave me at the hospital, now that I know more about foreskin and it's function it is a decision I deeply regret."

They have complained? Or you have decided for them that this was such a loss? If it is the latter, then, respectfully, who are you to know better than them? If the former, I would be curious to know on what basis.

One more: you have repeated that men who were not circumcised aren't lining up for it. Fine - I have never known a man who was circumcised who wishes he weren't. I have always seen it as a convenience, personally. It seems to me that you are judging the set of circumcised men who prefer it that way incompetent to speak for themselves. Not sure what or who gave you this right. My mom and dad had me circumcised and I feel capable of saying I am glad they did. It's not fair for you to declare my opinion invalid. You claim I don't know what I'm missing. And you are qualified to judge what I currently have against what I supposedly could have had? I'll speak for myself, thanks.

I'll be just a little crass: SA (sex addict anonymous) groups are not filled with circumcised men only. Circ and uncirc alike. Circumcision does not ruin sex. Plenty of sexually addicted circumcised men will attest to this.

Too bad!!! STD cases on the rise!
A friend of mine who works for the largest STD dating == Positivefish. com == told me that the new subscribers have increased 30% over 2008. Rising STD rate sparks online dating sites.

This was just published in Sidney, Austalia:

No Evidence to Support Routine Circumcision
September 12, 2009

The key point of the recent statement on circumcision from the Royal Australasian College of Physicians is that the college believes there is no evidence to support routine circumcision of newborn and infant males (''Doctors circumspect on circumcision'', September 11).

Your article sends the dangerous message that circumcision prevents HIV transmission. It is vital that everyone engage in safe sexual practices such as condom use, whether circumcised or not. Recent reports of circumcision offering some protection against HIV infection in Africa relate to circumcision of adult males, not of infants.

The stated benefits of protection against urinary tract infection are marginal, and do not justify mass circumcision. Our changing understanding of the relationship between urinary tract infection and chronic renal disease further weakens the case for routine circumcision.

There is evidence that circumcision does result in memory of painful experiences, and is not quite as simple and low risk as your report suggests.

The college's statement is not anti-circumcision, but clearly states that parents should be informed of risks and benefits, and then supported in their decision. When circumcision is undertaken it should be with appropriate anaesthesia, and by a skilled operator who can minimise the risk of side effects.

The option of delaying the decision to circumcise is one way of dealing with the ethical and potential legal issues of undertaking an elective procedure in a minor. The procedure is not to be equated with vaccination, either in its delivery or its effectiveness.

Professor Brian Morris, quoted in your report, is not a member of the college. He is not and has not been engaged as a reviewer for the college.

David Forbes Chairman, pediatrics and child health policy and advocacy committee, Royal Australasian College of Physicians, Sydney

Matt,

1. After some research I have found some men that decided to be circumcised as adults. Here is a link to a good story. Of course this support your belief, but it also points out that adult males are capable of making their own decision when the time comes and the surgery for an adult is not that traumatic. http://www.circinfo.com/an_account.html

So this is a story about a man that was not circumcised as an infant and decided he wanted to be.
But Matt, what about men that ARE circumcised as infants, but wish that they weren't? They have no options do they?

2. The clitoral hood does trap moisture and bacteria. Here is a link about sanitary reasons for removing it. Why do you believe that female circumcision of removing the hood is any different than male circ? It seems like 'apples to apples' to me. http://www.revirgination.net/clitoral-hood-removal.html/

3. The reason I regret my decision to have my boys circed is that I know some men that regret being circumcised. Also as a RN, I realize that the human body is amazing, everything has a purpose. Surgery should always be a last resort. There also is the respect issue in regards to my sons (and every person). It should have been 'their body, their choice'. It is not like ear piercing, there is no going back! There is NEVER any harm in waiting on circumcision.

"I have never known a man who was circumcised who wishes he weren't."

You obviously haven't asked or checked the right places. If you scroll up in the comments here, you will even find a man that had his foreskin surgically restored.

I apologize that you feel I was speaking for all circumcised men, when you are clearly able to speak and defend your own position.

You are practically making my point for me. Males should be able to decide for themselves. Why have someone else's position on circumcision imposed onto you? But by circumcising newborns, without their consent, that is exactly what you are doing

I do not want to outlaw circumcision or take away that option. I just do not want it forced onto baby boys who have no say in the matter. Let them decide for themselves when they are older!

Response to Carrie:

> "...they [anti-circ crowd] argue from a point of view that seeks to impose it's will and view on others."

Newborn circumcising is ALL ABOUT imposing YOUR will and view on newborns that are unable to speak up for themselves.

How will you feel when an adult male informs you that he wished he wasn't circumcised? . Go to an anti-circ site and you will see this happens frequently. There is even one post mixed in here about a man that had his foreskin surgically restored. What do you say to him?

I am glad you brought up the subject of imposing personal views on others because that is exactly what the anti-circ group wants to stop!

Let every boy decide for themselves if they wish to be circumcised or not. Some one has to speak up for the innocent babies that have no voice of their own.

> "The very language used [e.g. mutilation, amputation, barbaric, etc] is intentionally inflammatory and insulting"

Yes, it is all of those things, but what else do you call removing healthy functioning tissue without consent of the patient? I call it what it is. If circumcision cases ever go to court, I am sure that will be the language used.

> "The original article was calmly presented and quite rational. It was not hostile in the least."

This is a matter of opinion. Christine describes herself as 'ignorant' and she has an attitude that implies that women go through so much pain and suffering with birth control, child birth, etc that males deserve something put on them to even the score. I am female and I find her attitude very irrational.

I also find it irrational that we are considering cutting off a body part to prevent STDs, when STD's are caused by behavior, not foreskin!

And her whole distrust of men and their hygiene habits may not be downright hostile, but it is insulting.

> "And those of us that still don't agree with you are rational, intelligent, calm, compassionate, loving... and moms, dads, doctors, scienfic researchers, and public health agencies. Which, I am sorry to observe, clearly rankles just a bit. "

Carrie, if you are trying to argue that you have more people on your side, you have lost! The US is the ONLY country that circumcises at a high rate. Other countries are laughing at us, and this includes their mothers, fathers, doctors, etc. Most countries ARE AGAINST CIRCUMCISION.

I forgot to fill in my name on my post above to Carrie, but it's from me (Kris)

Kris, your case is eroding, sorry. Your argument that:
"You never see uncircumcised men willing to give up their foreskin do you?" was clearly an overstatement.

And though you claim "I do not want to outlaw circumcision or take away that option" earlier you stated "Also, there may come a day when parents and health care workers are sued and personally held liable for their actions of genital mutilation." along with stating that out of conscience you will have nothing to do with such a surgery. You don't see it as a valid option, so it is disingenuous for you to claim that you do. Just be honest and admit you are trying to control every new mother into accepting your position.

Your frustration with yourself that you circumcised your boys seems based on your own change of opinion, not their input. You claim to want to reserve the right for men to have their own opinion but you seem to be speaking for them without their input on this one. Again, it strikes me as an overstatement.

And seriously, you can't see the difference between the female hood and the foreskin?

Kris: God gave my children to me. Not to you. [If that bothers you, or distressess you, you can take it up with Him.] My 'will' as you see it is my responsibility and obligation to care for them, which I will not shirk. And if I, and other mothers/fathers, choose to care for our sons and daughters differently than you wish you had... that's simply not your concern or your jurisdiction. [Surely you have enough to manage in your own life that you aren't free to run everyone else's too. But even if you were... they aren't yours to run.]

I have not demanded that everyone circumsize their sons. I do find it silly if they do not [if it's for the reasons offered here for avoiding it] but I do not demand it. I'm quite comfortable with each of us coming to the natural consequences for our own decisions. I find consequences to be persuasive and instructive, and continue to be fascinated at the genius in the design of creation to work that way. And you can keep shouting if you like with those CAPS, but if you don't know much about persuasive techniques... that's one that doesn't work.

Like others here, neither my sons nor my husband have the least interest in complaining or wishing they hadn't been circumcized. It's a non-issue. In spite of all the machinations the anti-circ crowd here wants to spin, it really isn't an issue.

Which gets me to my main thought today... do you people really have nothing more important, nothing more urgent, nothing of more pressing need today and the rest of your life, than to fuss over a piece of skin that the vast majority of circumcized men never give a second thought about? The more you struggle to give this the appearance of a mountain, the easier it is for the rest of us to see it is a molehill.

You guys go ahead and keep pushing for the mutilation of little boys. I obviously am not going to talk you out of it.

I circumcised my boys before I was a nurse and based on the hospital literature, which I don't believe contained enough information to base such a decision on. I believe the hospitals are opening up themselves for a lawsuit.

Stating that I didn't know of any uncirc men that choose circ was an overstatement. I found one, It does not throw my argument off, infact it supports it because grown men are capable of making decisions on their own. Those that ARE NOT circed as infants have a choice as adults. Those that ARE circed as infants have no choice as adults. Do they? (Please answer).

Matt, you seem to be getting confused over my statements. I stated that there may be a day when healthcare workers may get sued for their actions of circumcision. Now listen closely, this is because they are performing ELECTIVE surgery on a patient without consent of the PATIENT. As this child grows into an adult, he may realize that he did not want to be circumcised. Should he have no legal recourse? I bet someday you will see men suing doctors over circumcision performed against their will as infants. (look at the post above that states in Australia that the law is murky as to wether doctors have protection from such lawsuits.)

I still support circumcision for an adult male that chooses to do so.

There is no contradiction in my argument. In one, I am speaking of babies, in the other I am speaking about adults.

And you don't see the similarity in the clitoral hood and foreskin? Seriously?

The rest of the world filled with loving caring, mothers, fathers, doctors, scientist who are all laughing at the USA for chopping off a healthy, functioning body part.

As parents you have the right to care for your children, but I doubt you would have even thought about circ if you were not raised around it in the USA and had never seen a circumcised male or were not circumcised yourself.

I am not imposing my beliefs on parents or adult males. I am speaking up for infants, that cannot speak for themselves!

I am glad that neither of you know adult men that wish they hadn't been circed, but I do and although they are not going to sue their own parents, they are bitter about it. It is their testimony that made me change my mind about my boys as well as my acquired knowledge about foreskin and it's purpose.

We are obviously not going to agree or change each others' minds. This going back and forth is getting tiring. I'm done.

As a baby boy, I was circumcised. Has it scarred me? I don't believe so. Do I regret what my parents had done to me? No. Nevertheless, others have made a great point: shouldn't the individual have a right to choose what surgery is done to his or her own body when that surgery isn't reversible and isn't necessary? Is it a wise practice to start removing body parts from our children that might cause them problems later in life or might be a hassle to maintain? Should parents preemptively remove tonsils and appendices? If not, then why not? I am honestly curious what motivates people to circumcise their children. If it's health reasons, then why not remove every other body part that APPEARS to have no use and MIGHT cause trouble in the future? Is this more about a tradition?
As for those who believe that it's wrong for those who oppose circumcision to "force" their will upon mothers, do you feel the same way about pro-lifers who want to "force" their will upon what mothers? It's different, one might say, and I agree: the pro-lifers see abortion as murder and the anti-circumcision crowd sees forced circumcision as mutilation. Both are atrocious acts and though it might not be politically correct to want to stop socially-accepted murder or mutilation, I definitely believe that anybody who sees abortion as murder or circumcision as mutilation and yet tolerates it as a choice that should be left to the parents is a monster.

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

At the link there are several cases of adult men suing the medical establishments that circumcised them as newborns.

Here is one excerpt:

SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK An 18- year-old filed suit Tuesday in the US District Court, Eastern District of New York, against the physician that circumcised him as a newborn and the hospital where he was circumcised.

William Stowell
Plaintiff William G. Stowell, born on December 22, 1981 at Good Samaritan Hospital in West Islip, NY, was circumcised the following day by his mother’s obstetrician, Frank P. Cariello, MD. Mr. Stowell recalls being at camp at the age of 14 and noticing that another boy had a foreskin. 'I wanted to know why he had one and I didn’t and, more importantly," says Stowell, “where mine was. Shortly afterwards I formed the opinion that the whole procedure and idea of circumcision were wrong. I came to believe I deserve compensation from the person who scarred and damaged me permanently, and from the hospital where this damage was allowed to occur."

According to J. Steven Svoboda, Executive Director, Attorneys for the Rights of the Child, "This case highlights the travesty of infant circumcision, which seriously breaches the child’s right to bodily integrity and is incompatible with the doctor’s legal and ethical duties toward the child patient. Circumcising a child without medical necessity is criminal assault. All physicians and hospitals that currently circumcise males without medical justification would be wise to reconsider this practice."

This landmark case brings into question whether a physician can remove healthy, normal tissue from unconsenting minors for non-therapeutic reasons, and whether a parent can legally consent to a medically contraindicated surgery for a minor child. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) first acknowledged that there was no medical justification for routine circumcision in 1971. Last year, the AAP reaffirmed that it does not recommend routine circumcision. The American Medical Association concurred this year, calling routine circumcision 'non-therapeutic'. No national or international medical organization recommends routine circumcision. The United States is the only country that continues to circumcise the majority of its newborns for non-religious reasons. As parents have become more educated about the surgery, the circumcision rate in the US, from data supplied by HCIA-Sachs, has fallen to 57%.

[the lawsuit was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount]

In Europe, almost no-one circumcises unless they're Muslim or Jewish, and they have significantly lower rates of almost all STI's including HIV.

Even in Africa, there are six countries where men are more likely to be HIV+ if they've been circumcised: Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, and Swaziland. Eg in Malawi, the HIV rate is 13.2% among circumcised men, but only 9.5% among intact men. In Rwanda, the HIV rate is 3.5% among circumcised men, but only 2.1% among intact men. If circumcision really worked against AIDS, this just wouldn't happen. We now have people calling circumcision a "vaccine" or "invisible condom", and viewing circumcision as an alternative to condoms.

The one study into male-to-female transmission showed a 50% higher rate in the group where the men had been circumcised btw.

ABC (Abstinence, Being faithful, Condoms) is the way forward. Promoting genital surgery will cost lives, not save them.

Carrie - you accuse us of not presenting you with facts. You further say that you believe that to not circumcise a boy based on what has been provided here is silly. What is silly about not risking a surgery for no practical benefit?

I have addressed the OP's points with regard to perceived benefits and asked you where you thought I erred. I do understand your position. American culture places a high, irrational value on circumcision and its alleged wonders. Whether it's the perceived health benefits for diseases that are already unlikely in a normal human state or a fear that schoolmates and sexual partners will laugh at a boy if he's normal rather than common, we don't (neither our society nor our public health officials) evaluate circumcision factually. Circumcision is a pernicious practice with strong social pressures it is difficult to pry that out of a society but it has been done before it will be done again.

Someone above said that the wiki on male sexual pleasure said that circ does not change anything. This is wiki PC BS. The studies show that the most sensitive parts are ablated by circ. The cut male has the circ scar as the most sensitive part. The natural male has pleasure zones with thousands of pleaure giving nerve endings. A Canadian study is often sited for showing intact and cut are the same. That study showed that during erection, the glans for cut and natural are somewhat numb, not sensitive. That study left out the numerous erogenous parts that are cut off by circumcision. It is like comparing col;r and BW sight and not going into color at all. Cut men are fully missing fine touch and stretch nerve endings. Also, the cutting hurts ones ability to get and maintain an erection. The interal part -- the glans is protected by the covering. It is more sensitive before arousal than dried up cut glans. As it senses temp, uncovering helps with arousal. There is no scientific question, you cut off erogenous tissue, you harm sexual function. How can anyone even try to argue that point? If you do argue the point, it is like saying you don't really know what the parts that are together called the foreskin do.

OH and stop this can't even compare FGM and MGM. Notice the don't compare people always talk about dirty knives and pain for life. FGM is horrendous. Like MGM it can involve dirty knives and pain for life -- see all the boys that die each year in Africa from MGM. However, most FGM is cutting of Labia and clitoral hood. The women that have it done to them push it (just like MGM in USA) and say it is cleaner and the sex is fine!!! And yes there is a study that showed FGM lowers HIV risk for women. As MGM raises HIV risk for women, those pushing MGM for HIV reduction better also embrace FGM.

Thank you for your responses to Christine's post, which addressed a topic that obviously stirs many deep-seated convictions about human rights, parenting, and sexual pleasure and disease. It was unfortunate to see some commenters use name calling and threats to make their points; most, however, were able to articulate their beliefs in a constructive manner. The editors of the women's blog appreciate that, and are interested in continuing the circumcision debate with other posts, so be looking for more in the weeks ahead. You are welcome to continue commenting on Christine's post, of course, but please do not do so if you are doing so only to personally attack Christine or other commenters.

Thank you,
Katelyn Beaty

I just noticed the subtitle in Ms. Scheller's article:

"Why the arguments from sentiment and sexual pleasure don't cut it for me." -Christine Scheller

That is blatantly selfish of her. And people here think she is acting like a "true Christian"?

She openly admits that she doesn't care if a man would like to keep his foreskin or if he wants to maintain his sexual pleasure! He should be cut no matter what! She is placing her will before the will of the person that the foreskin belongs to! She does not think men should have a choice in regards to their own bodies??!!

Who made her God?

Why are people on this board defending her? No matter how one feels about circumcision, she owes men an apology.

Anonymous, the point she is making is that pleasure comes secondary to health and well-being. Plus, the loss of the foreskin doesn't mean complete lost of sensation. It may mean the loss of a tiny bit, but circumsized men still feel pleasure.

To say that the loss of a tiny ammount of pleasure is more important than the health of yourself and others is a bit ridiculous.

Anna, if a circumcised man does not wear a condom, he is at risk of contracting HIV, just like everyone else. If a man, circumcised or not, DOES wear a condom, he and his partner will be protected.

Circumcision, WITHOUT a condom, does NOT protect health (no one, even the most pro-circ, claim that it does). Being intact, WITH a condom, protects everyone 100 per cent.

As for your claim that circumcision "doesn't mean complete loss of sensation" and that circumcised men can "still feel pleaure," that might be good enough for some people (!), but I'd prefer to have ALL my pleasure and ALL my penis.

Anna,

I understand your point. Here is how I see it:

1. The pro-circ and anti-circ people are in disagreement over wether there are really any health benefits to being circumcised. Both parties provide data and studies to support their position. We are probably not going to change each other's minds. Keep in mind that the USA has the highest rate of circumcision AND one of the highest rate of STD's.

But we are talking about STD's. Shouldn't a person make up their own mind in how they control the spread of STDs? Maybe choosing abstinence, condoms and/or healthy lifestyle?

2. Why put this on a baby. Babies do not need protection from STDs. Circumcision can easily be done when a person becomes sexually active. As I have just learned and provided a example and a link to, the surgery is relatively easy and is just the same as performing it on a baby. At least the man is making his own choice.

Circumcising a baby boy to protect him from STDs in the future is like injecting a female baby with birth control to prevent her from unwanted pregnancy in her future. Both of these unwanted events (STD and unplanned pregnancy) can be prevented when the time comes through healthy choices and the decision about prevention should be up to the individual that will be faced with such consequences.

3. Why should other people place a value on another person's sexual pleasure? Shouldn't it be up to the individual to decide if it is worth sacrificing or not? If we were talking about female circumcising, I would be horrified if a man said he did not care if he was impacting my sexual pleasure.

I thought Kris said she was done. You've already had your boys and chosen TO circumcise them, so you really shouldn't have much vested interest in going on and on about the subject. Apparently, you are carrying loads of guilt and wish to guilt us all into doing things your way.

Incidentally, I live in a country where they make it nearly impossible for you to to have your son circumcised, even if you wish to do so for religious and cultural reasons. While I'm really not all that concerned about taking away my baby boy's choice to or to not have a foreskin (as his legal guardian, I get to make those choices for him), I am really hot and bothered about my not having any choice in whether or not he is circumcised. So perhaps the issue isn't so much to or to not circumcise, but rather, be thankful there is a choice in the matter (in some countries, anyway).

Also, I did think this article did have the appearance of being a tad flippant and did not sway me in the least. The responses on the other hand...

I, too, am stupefied by this debate.

I am stupefied that anyone would have the audacity to tell a parent that their decision is wrong. There are good arguments on both sides. Why not give parents the benefit of the doubt and RESPECT their choices for their children? There is NO REASON for this to devolve into nastiness and personal attacks on those who make either choice. Period.

Also, the author states that women shouldn't have to trust their health to the grooming habits of young men. If the young man is responsible and mature enough to have sex (and hopefully married), why then, he should be responsible and mature enough to clean his foreskin. Men are not morons. Give them some credit.

Robyn, times change. People are starting to see circumcision for what it is - a cosmetic surgery masquerading as cure for the disease du jour. And as people reach that conclusion, they wonder why people are allowed to cosmetically alter their baby boy's genitals to suit their personal sexual preferences.

Look into the pro-circumcision arguments. They push surgery for UTIs when a $4 antibiotic and breast feeding will do better. They push surgery when a little soap and water will do better. They push surgery when a condom and safe sex will do better. They push surgery to prevent a very very very rare cancer of very old men that is caused by vaccine-preventable HPV. They push surgery, knowing that MRSA is a huge risk for infants. They push surgery, knowing that amputation is a very real possibility. Their arguments don't pass muster in any other first world country, but fly here because people are accustomed to male circumcision. This is the fraud that more Americans are acknowledging.

The problem is doctors and the for-profit nature of American medicine. What incentive does a doctor or hospital have to tell patients the truth about circumcision when they can bring in $300 or more per circumcision? or when the urologists can make even more doing "corrections" and "revisions" to suit parents' desired cosmetic outcome? My wife's OB was furious when we declined circumcision because that's money out of her pocket.

This was published a couple weeks ago in Australia:

Review into Male Circumcision Legality

Paul Carter
August 20, 2009
Laws protect girls from genital surgery but parents wanting to circumcise boys can "go around willy-nilly chopping up bits of their sons", a state children's commissioner says.

Tasmania's commissioner for children Paul Mason and the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute have embarked on what they say is the largest review into the legalities of male circumcision in Australia's history.

Mr Mason said a critical issue for any non-therapeutic circumcision is whether parental consent is sufficient to protect a surgeon from legal action if the child's genital autonomy is thought to have been infringed.

"The only thing that protects a doctor from an action for assault or a civil prosecution is the valid consent of the patient," he said.

"The law is getting pretty hazy about whether a parent can give a valid consent for a child's non-medical procedure."

Mr Mason said about 90 per cent of Australian male babies were circumcised in the 1970s, dropping to about two per cent these days.

Its infrequency nowadays only heightens the chance of a circumcised boy feeling aggrieved as an adult that his rights were ignored as a child, he said.

But High Court rulings and United Nations conventions on the rights of parents and children and legal consent in terms of bodily integrity argue against parental-consent circumcision, he said.

"To me they suggest parents are not entitled to cut or wound their children unless it is for a medical purpose," he said.

Mr Mason said another grey legal area was that many jurisdiction outlaw female genital alteration, not just the most severe form, because it infringed on girls' rights.

"But we have a situation where girls have legal protection from any surgery on their genitals but parents can go around willy-nilly chopping up bits of their boys.

"That is a discrimination any way you look at it," he said.

University of Tasmania circumcision-law researcher Warwick Marshall is working closely with Mr Mason and the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute review.

Mr Marshall says criminal and civil laws fail to provide adequate certainty for parents and doctors.

"The crux of the uncertainty is whether the consent of the parent of the child being circumcised provides the circumciser with protection from criminal and civil actions which may be brought against them for performing a circumcision," Mr Marshall said.

expat said: Incidentally, I live in a country where they make it nearly impossible for you to to have your son circumcised, even if you wish to do so for religious and cultural reasons.

You have to understand why that is expat. The doctors in those countries are looking at the situation unencumbered by the influence of culture and arriving at a proper medically ethical conclusion, the child is healthy no surgery is indicated.

It would be like asking a Dr in the US (or anywhere else for that matter) to give your infant son a Prince Albert. What do you think the pediatrician would say to that request? The same thing Drs in your country say to circumcsion.

A few days ago Carrie posted something that I wanted to address, but due to the origins of my insight, I was afraid. I have summoned the courage.

She wrote, "But the approach I would prefer is this: inform the young women. Help them understand, pervasively, what is at stake. Because we choose who we marry. And we don't have to marry or be intimate with uncircumsized men. Some won't care, but many will when they understand the ramifications."

I have heard that there are some African tribes which believe that a man may become impotent if his penis comes in contact with an uncircumcised woman's genitals.

Carrie, I would like to tell you a story about ramifications. When I was a young woman in college it was the early days of "the gay plague" AIDS was all over the headlines, but for the most part heterosexual people felt very isolated from the problem. I was sexually active and I used condoms for birth control, not STD prevention.

I knew some stuff about STDs, from two sources- the scientific facts about the various diseases from health class, books and pamphlets at doctors offices... and the social information from the society I was raised in. I knew there was a social stigma, the nasty words and assumptions about who gets STDs and the tasteless jokes, descriptive words for people like "skanky" ...as far as I was concerned there were three types of people who got the heterosexual STDs, drug addicts who live in a ghetto, prostitutes and men who cheat on their wives and sleep with prostitutes... so on one hand I knew the facts and on the other hand I had a lot of social reassurance that I was not one of those people affected by the facts.

So you can imagine my shock, a few days after my good looking, fit, handsome, white (with a great complexion and beautiful blue eyes), upper middle class, educated boyfriend made a visit to me from his college out of state to mine- and a thick horrible puslike discharge started coming out of my vagina! A big sore developed and it hurt like hell when urine got on the sore... after going through a humiliating physical exam and much too personal interview- the test for HSV-2 came back positive.

Suddenly I had a whole new perspective on the "branding" of people who have STDs... I had never noticed before how many herpes jokes people make in mixed company- under the assumption that no one in earshot could POSSIBLY have herpes. I became even more aware of my own stupidity and assumptions when I heard these comments with my new ears, knowing the unfounded security these people felt by creating an untrue stereotypes about STD infected people. If anything, no matter the sting these comments deliver (to this day) it did at least reassure me that my naieve, now shattered, sense of security was actually based on something which really does exist in a very real way in our society.

Carrie, I know you are curious... he was circumcised. His circumcision did nothing to protect him from getting herpes... and it did nothing to prevent him from passing it on to me. Had he been an intact or circumcised man who was not infected with a STD- there is NO way that I could have got a STD from him. Had I had the sense to demand a STD test from a person I assumed was STD free because of his vigorous all American physical characteristics...(well that's another issue all together because standard STD screening doesn't even screen for HSV!) but had I known, I certainly would have done things differently.

Which brings me to this Carrie, if you think the circumcision of males will protect you or the girls you think you are qualified to pervasively educate from "ramifications" you are gravely mistaken. Your attitude that makes assumptions based on sweeping statistical assumptions and a false sense of security, rather than individual case by case truths is the crux of the STD epedemic in America.

I really appreciate all the insightful, civil comments on this post. I'm not going to respond to them or to the hostile ones, as I've said my piece and others have filled in the blanks.

What I would like to explain is that as a journalist, I look for an angle on a topic that has not been covered sufficiently elsewhere. In my research for this post, I noticed that the writers I was reading seemed to miss the comparison to women's embodied experience, so I chose to highlight that comparison.

I always consider what I write a contribution to public conversation, not a definitive statement on any given topic. Thus, I am gratified that what I've written has spurred people to think about something they might not have otherwise considered. If readers disagree with me, fine. Let the conversation continue and lead to change where it might be necessary.

In regard to this particular issue, I confess a subtle bias that I did not reveal in the post. I trust the Bible as my primary source of authority and have a bias towards its commands and injunctions. For example, I suspect that a kosher diet is probably healthiest, even though I don't keep kosher. When God told women to stay outside the camp during menstruation, I think of that as a mercy. In the case of circumcision, I tend to think that if God ordained it, there is something inherently beneficial in the act itself.

When Abraham was commanded to be circumcised, he was a grown man, and must have been as horrified as many of you. Family members who did not hear from God must have been even more horrified. (LL Barkat made this point to me privately.) Still, circumcision became the sign of faith. Even if there were no medical benefits that science would later suggest, there are other values demonstrated in the act: pleasure is not our highest end; we are to acknowledge God's sovereignty over our most vulnerable, intimate issues and trust him with our whole selves; logic is not to be our final authority, etc.

Don't misunderstand. As I've already stated, the apostles declared circumcision of the heart the true sign of faith, as was consistent with Jesus' reforms. Our Lord affirmed the Law though, and so I respect it, even when I don't entirely understand it or live it out or think we are subject to it. I simply have a bias towards it.

I confess that there is a superstitious element to my reasoning. I also confess that scientism is probably the bigger problem with all kinds of medical procedures. If postmodernism has done nothing else, it has given us back a willingness to own our instincts.

Which brings me back to our faithful reader, Christian Lawyer, who I chose to engage because she consistently makes good points.

This I agree with: "If you want to teach our young people that they are powerless in the face of the "culture," have at it, but don't be surprised when these same young people succumb to the buffeting winds of suggestion, peer pressure, and defeatism rather than learning to stand strong and take responsibility for themselves and the circumstances of their lives.

The paternalism of the far right complementarians, just like the maternalism of the the far left feminists, is disempowering to women and instead breeds weakness."

However, I never said I was powerless. I said I was influenced. Because of public conversations like the ones we have here at Her.meneutics, the excesses of both feminism and FAR RIGHT complementarianism may weaken. I hope to advance those goals.

With this, I disagree:

"Advocating cutting off men's foreskins to protect women, rather than advocating education and contraception for women so they can protect themselves, is just another creepy example of the disempowerment of women under the guise of 'protection.'"

Not either/or, but both/and. I am grateful that my mother took me to a gynecologist for contraception when she knew I was having sex and had no intention of stopping. However, this doctor (like the one who performed my tubal ligation) doled out treatment without asking a single penetrating question. I think this was a combination of both sexism and scientism.

Finally, I am no longer going to respond to anyone who does not own their comments with their full name and/or a link to their website or blog. I own my public comments both here and elsewhere. When I comment on other blogs, I usually do so under my initials, CAS, and leave the link to my blog when that feature is offered. In this way, internet searches of my name lead only to my work, but I am still held accountable for what I write online.

Thanks again for your interest. I look forward to what my colleagues have to say on this topic.

Anonymous... I think maybe what many readers here assume is that a writer's article is her only view on the subject... as a writer myself I can say how disheartening this is ... the truth is that we writers present one side for a particular place and time, for a particular reason. I'm guessing that C.S. could have written an article equally in the other direction, except that her research showed it might be more needful to air this side (yes, I have reason to believe this).

It saddens me too that she puts her name to her article, accepts the heat (and following her in other on-line arenas, I know she knew up front that the heat was coming... ) but then people comment without their names attached, some in a very unfriendly manner. This feels uncomfortable to me.

I think it's odd too that people focus on her specifically, and so deeply, when she is presenting an actual viewpoint that exists in its own right. I like to remember this about journalists: they write to bring viewpoints to light, to begin or encourage conversations. I guess because this place appears to be a blog and makes use of the personal narrative, the lines get blurry. But in the end, CT is journalistic.

Oh! I'm mildly amused. While I was typing my comment, C.S. came by and said some of the same things. She pushed the button before me, and... how funny does it look for me to say I have reason to believe this... when it appears that I just read it in her comment?

Okay, is there room for mild amusement? Even in the midst of this touch-and-go conversation?

I am somewhat amused by the authors bible blurb in the response above. I consider myself a Christian, someone trying to follow the law of Christ Love God and love your neighbor as yourself. I certainly have troubles with the second commandment.

In grade school, HS and College I had a ton of religious education but focused on the NT and Catholic doctrine as well as comparative religions and philosophy. I heard about the Abraham covenant (BTW based on the concept of sexual sacrifice) as well as the horrors of the God of the Israelites but did not think much about this at all.

Some years ago I decided to sit down and read the bible from one and to the other. After, I realized still I could be a Christian, but I did need to distance myself from the OT. It is a story of a hateful God, that pushes his people toward genocide and has them kill, harm and hurt. How can the creator favor some of its creation over others? How can this God do these things. Most likely answer is that most if not all of the OT was writen by humans and has little or no God input. I further became very unhappy with Christian sects that embrace Jewish tradition. I find it very disturbing that some like the author embrace OT superstitions. Most of them have no good basis at all. Eating Kosher is far from healthy and may even be bad for you (some practices). Circumcision is bad for you, but some just don’t see that. I think the acceptance of the harm of circ and the attempt to justify it are mostly due to this blind following of what any rational person should find to be a BS – humans of the past manipulating humans now, but for no good (certainly no GOD) reason. That the OT was manipulated – is a known fact. Whether there is any God content is debatable. I think circ was at least changed from a minor cut off at the tip to make it a drastic cut (do some research).

IMHO, the literal NT is to a great extent not compatible with Christianity. Regardless of Paul and Jesus himself, circumcision is not acceptable for Christian parents to practice. It is a very much a violation of the do unto others. If you know the pleasure these parts can give, it is not acceptable as a Christian to take them away from someone else. I would further argue that as with the LAW, ignorance is no excuse.

Should not the Christians get away from the superstitions of the NT, particularly the ones that violate the two basic commandments of Jesus? No one is killing animals, preaching genocide so lets stop the chopping off of other peoples genitals. Stop hurting the baby boys.

JorgeM, I still maintain that personal attacks and questioning a parent's fitness as a parent based on this issue is wrong. I don't think cicumcision is necessary, personally, but I would never demonize someone who chose it as some have done in these comments. Neither would I demonize someone who chose differently than I have on other medical issues for their children, such as vaccinations. I am saying that the terms of the debate have become uncivil in some cases, and THAT is a problem.

Here are some observational studies on STD's in developed nations:

The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey looked at 8,849 sexually active men and women aged 18 to 59 from 1999 to 2004 and found that Circumcised men were almost twice as likely to have Genital Warts, the only visible sign of an HPV infection.
http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/hpv-genital-warts/news/20080403/thwart-genital-warts-dont-sleep-around

The US Navy conducted a study that found that circumcised men in the Navy were more likely to have HIV than uncircumcised men, although not statistically significant.
http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA458066&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

A study of Boys in New Zealand found by age 32 the STI rate was about the same for circumcised and uncircumcised, with the uncircumcised boys having a slightly lower rate.
http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476%2807%2900707-X/abstract

There have also been studies that found circumcised WOMEN to be less likely to have HIV, even when adjusted for confound factors. I bring this up only because no one would suggest circumcising women to prevent HIV.
http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138

The current hypothesis for circumcision lowering HIV infection rates is Langerhans cells are the perfect host for HIV. Langerhans cells are largely present in the foreskin (and clitoral hood). But this hypothesis is questioned due to a study that found Langerhans cells are a natural barrier to HIV.
http://health.msn.com/health-topics/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100157237&wa=wsignin1.0

Jack, I enjoyed your post. I think most Christians, if they are honest with themselves, decide what they are going to take from the bible and how they are going to interpret it, and what they are going to leave behind. In the end we are all sinners, and our God is a forgiving God. I trust He will know our intent.

Christine,
This is an unusual forum in that you, the author of the original article has remained engaged with the replies. Thank you.
I think that a central element, perhaps the central element in this controversy has not been fully discussed. The majority of those who express opposition to circumcision, including me, are actually not opposed to circumcision. We are opposed to circumcision of minors. That is the issue. Adults have every right to do whatever they wish to their bodies. I defend that right. However I am adamately opposed to circumcision of minors.
I have posted two current articles from newspapers in Australia. One is a reaffirmation of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians saying circumcision of minors is not recommended (inspite of all the "news" out of Africa). It reports the Australian circumcison rate has fallen from 70% to two percent today. The second is about a current Australian legal review as whether anyone who circumcises a minor, even with parental consent, can be held liable for assualt. Examples from other countries could also be cited. The United States has been on the wrong side of history on this issue. From a jury of our peers, so to speak, 80% of the worlds population says we are wrong, including all of our closest English speaking friends, England, Canada, New Zealand and Australia.
Yet even the United States is changing. Circumcision is down to 30% on the West coast. This very dicussion on this board is evidence of our society changing. I feel it is only a matter of time, 20 years maybe, before it is made illegal to modifiy a male minor in the United States.
Circumcision is not a vaccine or a haircut or similar in any to all the other myriad choises a parent makes. It is an unethical violation of another human beings right to bodiliy integrity. I was circumcised against my will. I am angry about it. No one had the right to do this to me. I don't care that other men accept it, maybe even like it. I do not. Emotionally (not in reality, of course) I feel like shooting the butcher who did this to me.
Circumcision on a minor is not a medical proceedure, except in rarest instances. It is true that their can be potential medical benefits down the road, but at the time circumcision is done, on a minor, it is unethical social cosmetic modification. There are major potential medical benefits to both the individual and to society in removing infant female breast buds. The benefits from this proceedure would be vastly larger than anything circumcision can give. Yet it is patently unethical to do and offensive to even talk of it. There is absolutely no difference. No, there is a difference. In the United States some people have grown accustomed to male genital reduction. Yet in both prodeedues you are forceably removing normal, natural body tissue from another person who had every right to keep it. In the end all the "good" intentions and rationalizations of those who are removing the tissues mean nothing.
Two of the worlds great religions are going to have to come to terms with the ethical issue of circumcision of minors. It will mean adjusting to adulthood the age at which circumcision is done (or going to an accepting country). I do not say this causually. It is a very difficult issue. I have personal experience with this. I am a member of a religion that many years ago had to adjust one of our religious practices due to a prohibition against it by federal law. It was difficult, but we did it. I do have empathy.
Thanks for the opportunity to speak, James

Kris,
Well put. Peace and Love to all and sorry for all the times that I forget to express such.
JAck

Christine scolds: "Finally, I am no longer going to respond to anyone who does not own their comments with their full name and/or a link to their website or blog. I own my public comments both here and elsewhere."

-- Oh horrors! Anonymous posters! Whatever can the interwebs be coming to? Seriously, you've unilaterally decided to make up extra rules, not dicated by powers-that-be at CT, and which fly in the face of the internet world in which you live? Isn't this just a microcosm of what's so wrong with modern Evangelicalism, not to mention what's so warped about the Complementarians?

Plus, I guess this means you're leaving me (and the vast majority of the rest of the commenters, who also don't use their full name) to have the last word when we disagree? Cool for me, but isn't that cutting off your nose to spite your face?

Oh, and BTW, your admission that you were only "influenced" by the culture rather than left without choices, as you originally wrote, was my whole point exactly. It was your original overstatement of your powerlessness that was so demeaning to women. Glad you're owning that.

I remember my first informative discussion about circumcision. Being female it was something I never thought about. My husband and young boys are all circumcised without any complaints.

However, the discussion came up on a forum such as this, and I casually mentioned that I had my boys circumcised when they were born. I was neither for it or against it. I thought of it as just a choice parents make one way or the other.

However, some men on the forum came down on me harshly for what I had done, and for my attitude about it not being any big deal. At first I was defensive, saying things about how I'm a caring mom. I talked it over with my husband, parents make the best choice that they can, and so forth.

A few guys mentioned the purpose and function of the foreskin, that was never discussed in the hospital literature. When I got over their angry tone, I realized there was a reason for their passion. I began to feel like I had been duped by the hospital. I wish I had been more informed and done more research.

I came to realize that I had no defense for the 'modification of my child's penis without his consent' aspect of the argument; and how I would feel if my sons ever wished they weren't circumcised. By now, I had asked around and I realized there are some men that wish that they weren't. They are probably a small portion of circumcised men, but their feelings are very valid.

It took me awhile, because no one wants to admit when they are wrong, especially when the act has already been done on your own children, but over time I thought back on that discussion and I came to realize that newborn circumcision isn't right and should probably even be outlawed (you realize it even more when you see that most men are not circumcised - it is really only an American or Jewish thing). And in other cultures circumcision is thought to be barbaric and cruel.

I hope this discussion persuades people who have never thought about it to give it some thought.

Even if you have already had your boys circumcised and defended your decision like I had, you can still change your position on the issue. It's never too late to do the right thing,

Also I hope some of the excellent posts above do not get buried. If you haven't read James' post, just two posts up from this one, it is a must read as he states everything so eloquently. I also like Jim's post with all the links.

Christian Lawyer, The last word is yours. Enjoy~

Christine A. Scheller, take a look at this:
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fsest.htm

it shows countries which do not circ such as European countries - Britian, France, Ireland, Germany, Italy, etc have lower rates of STI's than the USA.

An intact penis is no more unhygienic than an intact vagina. In fact girls are more likely to get UTI's. UTI's are rare and usually harmless.

Really, you know nothing about circumcision.

Google or youtube search "foreskin functions" and "complications of circumcision."

I just visited the 'Intact America' website for the first time.

What great T-shirts they have. They have female, maternity and infant shirts as well. Great slogans.

On a maternity shirt it says "I'm bringing the WHOLE baby home"

Infant shirts say "Whole and Happy" or "My Body, My Choice"

http://www.cafepress.com/IntactAmerica

Their site says to take and distribute information, so I am taking their list of reason's not to circumcise. If Ms. Scheller does another article on circumcision, I hope she addresses some of these points. I think the main point that anti-circ people have emphasized is surgery on a minor.

http://www.intactamerica.org/node/6

10 Reasons NOT to Circumcise Your Baby Boy

1. Because there is no medical reason for "routine" circumcision of baby boys. No professional medical association in the United States or the rest of the world recommends routine neonatal circumcision.

2. Because the foreskin is not a birth defect.

3. Because you wouldn't circumcise your baby girl. In the United States, girls of all ages are protected by federal and state laws from genital surgery to which they do not consent, whether practiced in medical or non-medical settings, and regardless of the religious or cultural preferences of their parents. There is no ethical rationale for distinguishing between female and male genital alteration. If it is wrong to remove part of a baby girl's healthy genitals, then it is wrong to do the same to those of a baby boy.

4. Because your baby does not want to be circumcised. Circumcision painfully and permanently alters a baby boy's genitals, removing healthy, protective, functional tissue from the penis and exposing the child to unnecessary pain and medical risks – all for no medical benefit. What do you think your baby boy would say if he could tell you? Of course, no baby boy can consent for himself, and parents cannot ethically consent to surgery on behalf of a child unless the child's health or life is at risk.

5. Because removing part of a baby's penis is painful, risky and harmful.

6. Because times and attitudes have changed.

7. Because most medically advanced nations do not circumcise baby boys. People in Europe, Asia and Latin America are often appalled to hear that American doctors and hospitals routinely remove part of a boy's penis shortly after birth. Approximately 75% of the men in the world are not circumcised and remain intact throughout their lives.

8. Because caring for and cleaning the foreskin is easy. A natural, intact penis requires no special care. Gently wash the genital area with warm water while bathing. That's it. Later, when the foreskin can be retracted (something that often does not occur until adolescence), a boy can be taught to pull back his foreskin to wash his penis. The boy should be the first person to retract his foreskin, since forcible retraction by anyone else results in pain and injury.

9. Because circumcision does not prevent HIV or other diseases. Despite common misinformation, studies show no conclusive link between circumcision and sexually transmitted disease (STD) prevention. Over the years, the claims that circumcision prevents various diseases have repeatedly been proven to be exaggerated or outright fabrications. Most men in the United States are circumcised, but our STD rates are as high as or higher than those in countries where circumcision is rare; it is obvious that circumcision does not protect against STDs.

10. Because children should be protected from permanent
bodily alteration inflicted on them without their consent in the name of culture, religion, profit, or parental preference.

Christians are opposed to abortion, right? But they have no problem in MUTILATING days old baby boys!!

It's astonishing that Ms. Scheller's tripe was worthy of Christianity Today. Her heartless, woefully supported argument had no basis. Does she know anything about medical ethics, about double standards, about human rights, about a structure put there by nature/God eons ago for a purpose? The case against circumcision is massive. Sadly, there are people out there who read that stuff and it becomes all they need to deprive helpless baby boys of their wholeness and body integrity. Don't buy that woman's nonsense, folks.

I agree entirely with you. If not for religious purposes, circumcision should be a personal choice. It has been my experience that uncircumsized men are more sensitive than circumsized men. I think that all men should have that option, it's not fair to take that from them. Is it child abuse....that's debatable, but is it wrong....most definately.

This was just published today:

Circumcision Not Enough to Stop HIV, Experts Warn

Although circumcision has been touted as one of the ways to prevent HIV infection, recent findings show an increase in HIV infection in regions where most males are circumcised.

By ARTHUR OKWEMBAPosted Saturday, September 26 2009

As thousands of young men in Nyanza Province troop to health centres to be circumcised in hopes of fending off HIV, new studies show it might be too early to claim victory. Although circumcision has been touted as one of the ways to prevent HIV infection, recent findings show an increase in HIV infection in regions where most males are circumcised.

According to findings of the Kenya Aids Indicator Survey (Kais) released last week, North Eastern and Coast provinces, where 97 per cent of males are circumcised, registered an increase in HIV prevalence.

In the United States, the religious rights of parents are being questioned in regard to the constitutional rights of infants and children. Freedom of religion became a legal issue when it was introduced in a circumcision lawsuit claiming a male had been denied his right to freedom of religion when his body was marked by circumcision in accordance with his parents' religion.

By no means is circumcision "mutilation" that is just a buzzword used by people against it. I have never met a man who was upset he was circumcised. Most people I know think you are weird if you are not. The majority of Ameircan women find a uncircumsized penis very unattractive. In American culture a circumcised penis is considered healthy and attractive. How would this ever be considered "mutilation".

mutilate: to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of (from the Merriam-Webster dictionary)

There have been some men here that have posted here saying that they do not like being circumcised. Either you did not read all of the comments or your are being ignorant of their feelings. Go to any anti-circ site and you will read the testimony of many men that wish they were not, and feel that the decision should have been theirs to make.

The issue is really about making the decision for babies that cannot speak for themselves. Removing healthy foreskin is an irreversible act that reduces sexual pleasure. Who should make this decision?

You did hit the nail on the head by using the term "AMERICAN woman' and went on to describe what they view as healthy and normal. But that is a great point that it is mostly white American families that circ for religious and cultural reasons.

Go outside the USA and some girls have never seen a circumcised penis. Most of the world views circumcision as weird, unhealthy and inhumane.

And should a girl's opinion about how a penis should look really be part of the discussion? Would you surgically alter your vagina if a man felt it would look better?

Kris,
Your children will not care if you don’t make a big deal about it. You freaking out is will not change anything. Trust me your kids will not care and will probably like the majority of people who have had it done be happy about it. This is America not the rest of the world so why should you care. Does you baby consent on the shots you give it or does a baby consent to get its cleft pallet fixed. As a parent you make many decisions that impact your children’s life that will have a significant effect. You just have to make the decisions you feel you right. In America it is commonly expected and is considered desirable. I feel everyone wants to feel attractive and this is a big bonus. I have read that one in three women prefer the look. Also if you are worried about sexual enjoyment if you are circumcised you get more fellatio. Many women will not give fellatio to an uncircumcised man because it is much less enjoyable. Many women feel that uncircumcised penis's smell weird and are dirty. Sex also becomes more pleasurable for the women because of the ribbed head of the penis (http://www.circs.org/library/williamson/index.html). Don’t you one second feel bad about what you did. As a man for a fact I know it does not matter very few people care. Plain and simple forget all the facts everything everyone has said you kid will not care. I hope you can forgive yourself because you did nothing wrong.

Terry,
You don't get out very much.

You have never met a man who was upset he was circumcised? Check the internet and the thousands of US men trying to restore there protective covering. However, they will never get the erogeous tissue back. Thery are upset, some so much. The others are very much like the women in Africa that like there circumsised genitals and think the sex is great and want their daughters to be "clean". Wake up. Most people uou know must be shallow and silly if they think you are weird if you have not had genital erogenous tissue cut off as a baby. They are the monsters to think that. That is what they think in Afirca about non cut girls where the majority of men find an uncircumcised woman unatractive.

How would this ever be considered "mutilation"?

How can one think that there is no damage cutting off and throwing away erogenous tissue? The fore skin is not just skin and does not just protect the glans(head). Male circumcision amputates the most sensitive parts of the male genitals. This surgery takes away the main male pleasure zones with over 20000 fine touch and stretch nerve endings amputated (more pleasure sensing nerves than the clitoris). The foreskin has several parts including the ridged band that is great for ones pleasure (that is why nutters like Kellogg wanted to chop em off, to curtail masturbation), and the ridged band directly contacts the vagina. Male circumcision changes the dynamics of sex. What a horrible thing is being done to male babies here in the US. Stop this horrible practice.

In America, I feel everyone wants to feel attractive and this is a big bonus. I have read that one in three women prefer the look. Also if you are worried about sexual enjoyment if you are circumcised you get more fellatio. Many women will not give fellatio to an uncircumcised man because it is much less enjoyable. Many women feel that uncircumcised penis's smell weird and are dirty.

Predictably when a woman expresses a preference for cleanliness (and maybe aesthetics, though not stated) in males she's hit by a torrent of invective from malcontent males ungrateful as to having been circumcised, as they are so apt to whine, "without their consent." Here's hoping the CDC will weigh in for mandatory male circumcision. These guys should consider getting a mental health examination. Just circumcise the males and stop complaining. Burn victims need that skin which, if left "where it belongs," causes problems, and it is sensually repulsive.

I am a Christian young man who is 25 years old, circumcised, and a virgin...wait, what did he say? yes, you heard me correctly. I am a virgin, not because I'm ugly or socially awkward, but because the bible says that sex is for marriage. (I'm not weird by any means, I have actually had women ask to flat out to sleep with me and I have turned them down.) I know you can make fun, but If you claim to be a Christian and you disagree with that statement, then you haven't read much of your bible. With that being said, I was circumcised as a baby and wish I was not. When I was little I had to go to the doctor a couple of times because the foreskin that was left was trying to grow on and attached itself to the rim of the gland. I remember the doctor literally had to tear it apart. It was very painful and raw for quite a while afterward. As I got older and involved in sports, the gland was easily irritated by rubbing in my underwear. I now understand why I had those problems. God intended me to have a foreskin covering the gland. The Abrahamic covenet was part of the old testament and we now identify ourselves through baptism instead. Only recently in the late 1800's and early 1900's did they circumcise for heath reasons. They thought that a cauloused penis would help prevent masturbation. During the war, it was used because men would go months through wet weather in the same clothes without a shower or bath. Today it is simply a money maker. Follow the dollars...Europe doesn't circumcise because it is not paid for. In America, insurance companies and the government pay a lot for a surgery that takes a couple of minutes. We were created in God's image with a foreskin, why would we cut it off? you don't cut off your eye lids...they have a similar job, to protect and keep the eye moist. I shower at least once a day in America, so bathing isn't an issue. Most importantly, since this IS supposedly coming from a christian view, STD's should not even be an issue. If the boy and his wife are raised in a christian home, accept Chirst as their savior, it should be automatic in their thinking that sex is only for marriage. The foreskin is not what causes std's it is premisciuos sex with multiple partners. If you think I' being unreasonable saying that you should only have one life partner and that birth control at 16 should have never been needed, then I suggest you take a break from writing/reading this article and comments and pick up your dusty bible and read what God expects of you. After all, sex maybe tempting, but God says he will make a way of escape...he also says we will give an account for the things we do. Maybe part of the concequences of sex outside of marriage is std's. Next time, weather its this issue or another, don't look at it as woe is me, and I feel sorry for myself and women. Look at it from God's point of view. Did God screw up when he created man?...on every man, literally? you're really going to go there and call the almight God out on that?...

As a Christian it's hard to believe you haven't read what the bible says about circumcision. Paul tells us that those who circumcise our already pure children and continue to follow the law of mosses do not except Jesus as our savor.

Dr. Bernadine Healy advocates baby boys should be circumcised. She mentions use of anesthesia but surveys of male and female OBGYN's, who typically perform circumcisions, reveal that maybe one in five provide pain relief. Reason is it has its own set of risks. Circumcision without pain relief might sound cruel but it's actually safer and he won't remember it. There just is no way to maintain cleanliness without amputating the foreskin from the penis. It's time to make male circumcision compulsory by law---and enforce it. Choice? It is not appropriate to leave to individual males they don't need way to "opt out" when it isn't in society's best interests to have irresponsible uncircumcised males spreading illness.

Wow, I love how you put everything in quotations like that. I wonder if how I feel is similar to how some people feel when they read "rape"?

I do not see women lining up to amputate their own prepuces, the "clitoral hood". After all, how on earth do you remember to clean them?

That said, I have been thinking of cutting off my lips to make it easier to brush my teeth. The damp dark environment created by the lips' shelter creates a place suitable for plaque.

I mean really, if we don't cut off the lips of newborn infants, we are putting them at a higher risk of gum disease and dooming them to a daily regimen of tooth-brushing. That is beyond neglect, it is child abuse.

Hermenuetics

twitter updates

What Is Her.meneutics?

interests

writers

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

The Case for Male Circumcision

Comments

recent posts

Archives

February 2012
Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29

Hermenuetics

twitter updates

What Is Her.meneutics?

interests

writers

Free Newsletters

books we're reading

blogs we're watching

The Case for Male Circumcision

Comments

recent posts

tags

Archives