Chuck, you may want to leave your anti-Islam feelings aside here for a minute. This practise predates Islam and is actually done in plenty of African animistic tribes. I agree wholeheartedly that Islam is a religion that oppresses women but there are plenty of Islamic countries where FGM is not practised. This is a tradition more common to the African Continent.

Now, I personally compare female genital mutilation to the snipping of foreskin done to millions of baby boys of all religions. These boys weren't asking for it and it was done by parents who felt that it was traditionally (whether by religion or family) the right thing for their child. Of course, the aggressive act of removal of a boys tender foreskin is not designed to hamper the child's sexual function in life as opposed to the terrorising act of FGM . But just like with FGM it is done to an unwilling, uninformed participant who had no say in the matter.

Boy, this ought to bring out some iiiiiinteresting posts..... let's hear it.

Reality check here... Although I understand your reasons for feeling the way you do about the circumcision of baby boys, I am deeply offended by your comparison to teh genital mutilation of girls and women in Africa... THERE IS NO COMPARISON!

Circumcision of boys is done by an MD or other health care professional, with specific medical instruments, most often in hospitals or doctor's offices. The procedures are sterile, and infection is either prevented or treated.

Female circumcision is performed by women, sometimes several women, often in village settings where they often hold the young woman down on the ground! There are no sterile ER's, no doctors, no nurses, no anesthesia, no infection control. The women use crude cutting tools, sometimes even broken glass. They cut off the labia and the clitoris. Women die from this! While most live, they are unable to ever experience orgasm or any kind of sexual pleasure. Intercourse can remain painful for the rest of their lives, in cultures where refusing men is NOT an option.

I have studied the politics of genital mutilation, and am a Registered Nurse, so I know what I am talking about. Please don't make blanket statements that are contradicted by medical realities.

sierra leone is not an islamic nor a christian nation. it has a population that is 50% on each side. it is the most religious tolerant country in the world where christians marry muslims and each party continue their religious belief. the practice of cutting is not religion based but tradition based where it is being continued from generation to generation without questioning the meaning or origins.

To Hedwig - If you personally compare male circucision to Female Genital Mutilation then you apparently do not understand Women. The Female Labia Majorum combined with her clitoris is an extremely intensive Feminine center of sexual balance of both giving and taking with a Man; A Woman's unspoken integrated communication with one She is Special with. The severing of these Extremely Important Feminine areas of sensitivity and communication in the name of religion, morality or "practical control of the female" is an injurious abomination and without a doubt the work of a dimented person who should be behind bars for keeps.

Ms. RN, do the newborn infant boys that are strapped onto the table explicitly provide consent? Nope, didn't think so. The comparison I drew wasn't the hygenic disparities but the similarities that exist between our cultures. In each culture the act is carried out by well-meaning, caring adults that believe they are doing the best for the child. The method here is not the discussion. The method is something you are free to discuss with the village witch doctor. I am drawing a parallel between the voiceless victims of FGM and Circumcision. In all cases the recipient of such abuse wasn't asked about their opinion. In all cases the care-giving adults felt they did what was best for the recipient. This is not a blanket statement.

Read the story, one of the features victims did receive her mutilations on hand of an MD with the benefit of anaesthesia. While I am sure that the memories of the pain associated with these torturous traditions ring loud and clear it's the end-result that these women seek to escape.

I never claimed that circumcision was made to rob a male of sexual satisfaction, even though, I am not convinced that it doesn't dull the sensations a bit. The practise of FGM clearly is designed (as well described by JKom) to be a surgical chastity belt. It is nothing other than barbaric. Just as a clinically performed cicumcision on a 2 day old boy who never consented to this abuse and torture.

Hedwig, you really need to read this book I found by accident called "Do They Hear You When You Cry?' by Fauziya Kassindja. It will really change your views on FGM and hopefully you'll understand how trivial your comparison seem. And I found this book by accident because I was a doing a paper on asylum in the U.S. and it popped up. I read it anyways and was instantly bought aware of this horrendous thing that happens to women. You should really read it.

Hedwic,the biggest diference between a 2 day old boy, and a 12 year old girl this is happening to is that the baby boy will not remember this, the 12 year old girl will NEVER forget was done to her.

Hey Chuck,

Can you please supply a reference for the information you stated. I'v

Actually, there are many variants to female genital mutilation, some EXACTLY like male circumcision - you might try reading some of the descriptions available at:

http://circumstitions.com/FGM-defined.html

Further, men circumcised as adults have often reported a significant drop in sensation - it happened to a friend of mine, who claims he lost 30% of feeling. But more accurate information is needed - there has not been a single study that has investigated the impact of circumcision on sexual satisfaction on a physiologic level. They have all used self report and sensitivity thresholds.

Also, it is ridiculous to compare tribal cutting of girls with cutting of boys in American hospitals - aren't you aware that NO culture cuts females without also cutting males? In violently unsanitary conditions? Try reading these stories of men castrated by circumcision:

http://circumstitions.com/news/news38.html#bat

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-fg-africa-circumcision-20100823,0,1512136,full.story

Or try watching this shocking video showing what actually happens to boys (including with a machete)?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3647643446904557563#docid=-2372535130226634650

Here is an excellent quote from one writer on the subject:

I have come to understand that the foundation of the pro-male-circumcision movement in America is this very myth: that female circumcision is a curse that results in the sexual equivalent of a nuclear winter while male circumcision is a gift of health that doesn’t hurt a man’s sexual function one bit or cause an infant boy any pain. Pro-male circumcision forces rely on the idea that it’s distasteful in the extreme to discuss the two practices in the same paragraph or even refer to them with the same words. For them to keep collecting foreskins, one has to be circumcision, the other a mutilation.

In particular, they’d like to keep our focus on genital mutilation 10,000 miles away, in a Somalian village and keep our minds occupied with an old crone (no coincidence that she’s black or Muslim or–hide the children–both) holding a dirty shard of glass and with the infections and with the horror show of infibulation because if we keep thinking about that, male circumcision performed by a clean white male doctor in a clean hospital room in Brooklyn starts to seem like a ride at Disneyland and, combined with America’s misandrous view of male sexuality, the attitude that results is an exasperated sigh of “What are you bitching about?! at least you’re not a girl in a dirty village in Africa with an infection and a sewn up vagina so shut up and stop whining about your stupid foreskin!” (It’s not a valid argument but it’s an excellent rhetorical device, I have to admit.)

As a reader pointed out, the insistent focus on the horrors of the dirty village circumcision scenario is laced with a racist assumption that we are the only genital cutters in the world who do our cutting in the best conditions available. (Female genital cutters who have access to hospitals do it in hospitals, just like we do. Does that make it more civilized?)"

He's right on with his analysis.

Finally, don't you realize that women in tribal cultures are not stupid? They see our attacks on FGM (female genital mutilation) side-by-side with our defense of MGM (male genital mutilation) and recognize our hypocrisy for what it is. By attacking FGM while defending MGM, we reveal our biases, and make it easier for the defenders of female genital mutilation to treat our arguments as cultural byproducts, not demands for human rights. You weaken your arguments against FGM every time you feel the need to defend male circumcision, or minimize its impact.

I agree that the Islamic culture is barbaric, however as a very educated Christian woman, I feel anything but demeaned and debased. Christ was ahead of his time in relation to women. He was one of the first "feminist". There are many examples of that. I feel special, free, and comforted to have a Saviour who sees me on equal terms with any man.

I am a Christian woman and I have never felt demeaned or debased. As the person who responded before I explained, Christ was ahead of his time regarding women. For an example of this, read when He invited Mary Magdeline to pray with him. To this day, Orthodox Jews separate men and women during prayer. Jesus treated Mary as an equal and invited her to pray along side of the group. Also, be advised that circumcision is a primarily Jewish practice, not a Christian one. Regardless, male circumcision is practiced world-wide because it is thought to help with cleanliness and avoiding infection. Female circumcision is practiced SOLELY for the purpose of disfiguring the female so that she cannot acheive climax during intercourse, if she can be aroused at all. Furthermore, the little girl is sewn up so that there is only a very tiny opening to allow the flow of urine and menstrual fluid. Sex is extremely painful and during childbirth, women will always tear in the worst way.

Respectfully, please get your facts straight before commenting.

He didn't say Christ, he said Christianity.

"Jesus, save me from your followers!"

What is your definition of Christianity?

If you knew the definition, you would know that Christ is the reason for authentic Christianity. The two are inseperable. The original languages (Hebrew and Greek) support this.

If you knew the definition

You can't comprehend that there's a difference between the origin and intent of something versus the actual practice of it?

So again, what is your definition of Christianity?

Brenda

One of the most sensible comments today. I know you meant Sex is to be enjoyed by the men.

I guess people have forgotten about the Medieval Chasity Belts. They also resulted in the deaths of many women in Europe.

It's a misogynistic practise period. Religion has nothing to do with it.

And if it's a woman, a hot curling iron inserted into her vagina!

Something like this was prosecuted in the U.S. not too long ago. The male had been a immigrant to the States and he circumcised his daughter in the garage and neighbors called the cops and he was arrested but got off light I think. His lawyer claimed 'religious practices' and ignorance of a new country's laws regarding women's rights. I think penalties for these issues need to be addressed a little more throughly though...

This was all done to reduce promiscuity.

Excuse me, but you left out a word: This was all done to reduce FEMALE promiscuity.

It seems in these same societies that men are encouraged to be promiscuous.

It seems in these same societies that men are encouraged to be promiscuous.

Only if they're not gay.

But according to most of these people, that's not even worth mentioning simply because it's not as horrible. Never mind the fact that some of the same stupid motivations are behind an equally unnecessary surgery that adversely affects the sexual pleasure of a person with no choice in the matter. And even when it's done "correctly", it leaves a permanent scar and forever limits the skin's natural range of motion (i.e. the extent to which you can enjoy various activities without needing to use lubrication).

Actually, for boys, it is still done for medical reasons. It helps with infection that can originate in the folds of the skin.

You really need to bone up on your facts. There is no (medical) reason to circumcise a male - the penis is a self-cleaning organ (as is the vagina). Basic lessons on personal care once a uncircumcised male becomes retractable is all it takes (just as you teach a girl about basic genital care as she enters puberty).

Male circumcision predates Judaism. Abraham (Judah's great-grandfather), his sons and those with him were circumcised.

In at least one part of Africa, in an area where there is neither Jew nor Muslim, it started as a way to "beautify" the man.

There is plenty of research re. the spread of AIDS/HIV/STDs and the effectiveness of circumcised vs. not circumcised.

Circumcision is far less effective than a condom in the spread of AIDS.

The Kenya report spotlighted a 53% reduction of HIV acquisition in circumcised men relative to genitally intact men. However, only 47 of the 1,391 (one in 30) genitally intact men in the study contracted HIV, compared to 22 of the 1,393 (one in 63) circumcised men. These figures showed that about 56 circumcisions were needed to prevent one HIV infection, and 55 out of 56 circumcised men received no benefit. In the Uganda study, investigators estimated that 67 circumcisions were needed to prevent one HIV infection while the rate of moderate and severe circumcision complications was about 4%. Therefore, the chance of such a complication was more than 2.5 times greater than the chance of protection from an HIV infection, not including complications that would appear years later. In addition, an association between circumcision and HIV infection does not prove a cause and effect relationship. There could be confounding variables. For example, circumcision changes sexual behavior. The studies failed to avoid selection bias and expectation bias. The studies were stopped early, and duration of the trials were short. No long-term followup can be done. The effects of commercial sex workers, female circumcision, genital ulcers, unsafe medical practices, nonsexual HIV infection, and condom use were not included. Furthermore, the HIV status of the female partners in the studies was not determined. We recommend using the common sense test: if any other healthy body part (e.g., finger, toe, ear) were recommended for removal to prevent an unlikely disease, would American observers respond with equal approval?

The fact is that the United States has a high circumcision rate and the highest prevalence of HIV infection in the developed world.(5) Other countries have lower rates of HIV infection than the United States and do not practice circumcision. National medical organizations unanimously find no proven medical benefit for circumcision and do not recommend it.(6) Furthermore, in a previous study published on the effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV acquisition, heterosexual couples that included an HIV-infected partner used condoms consistently in a total of about 15,000 instances of intercourse. None of the uninfected partners became infected.(7)

That's why the American Medical Association states that "behavioral factors are far more important risk factors for acquisition of HIV and other sexually transmissible diseases than circumcision status, and circumcision cannot be responsibly viewed as 'protecting' against such infections."(8) Using or promoting unnecessary surgery when much less invasive, much less costly, and much more effective methods are available (e.g., condoms) raises ethical concerns. The cost of one circumcision in Africa can pay for 3500 condoms. The African study investigators also advise circumcision for treating phimosis (nonretractable foreskin) when other less invasive and less costly methods are available.(9) Furthermore, the studies recommend the use of condoms in addition to circumcision. Because of the superior effectiveness of condoms, circumcision adds little additional protection.

5. Nicoll, A. "Routine Male Neonatal Circumcision and Risk of Infection with HIV-1 and Other Sexually Transmitted Diseases," Arch Dis Child 77 (1997):194-5.
6. Medical organization statements at http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/.
7. De Vincenzi, I. "A Longitudinal Study of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Transmission by Heterosexual Partners," New England Journal of Medicine 331 (1994): 341-6.
8. Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association. Report 10: Neonatal circumcision, Chicago: American Medical Association, 2000.
9. Chu C, Chen K, Diau G. "Topical Steroid Treatment of Phimosis in Boys," Journal of Urology 162 (1999) : 861-3.

The doctor who delivered my son told me about infections. If for nothing else, my son told his dad that he's glad he's been circumcized, because "that other way looks gross". Out of the mouth of babes!

That is probably the dumbest reason I have ever heard for circumsision. Let's just cut off 1/2 of the nerve endings in my penis because it looks gross. Okay. Sure. No problem.

I guess you never miss what you never had, right?

I didn't say that was the reason. I said my doctor told me it was better for infection reasons. My son just made a comment, which he is allowed to do.

Also, I'm tallking about circumcision at birth. I thnk that there are so many conflicting messages that it's obviously the parent's choice. My son and husband don't remember it being done. Imagine that!

I guess that is where we disagree. I don't believe anyone has the right to make this type of personal choice except the man who's body this pertains to.

And just because they don't remember it doesn't mean that they didn't feel it at the time. I dare you to watch a video of an infant being circumcised and say that they didn't feel it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcIf6xRFPpw&feature=related

Where you there when they circumcised your son? Did you hold him why he screamed and cried? Did you strap his hands down and his legs?? Educate yourself. If you make the same choice with your next son, at least you can say you made the decision with all the facts.

You're not going to believe this, but I did hear him scream, and we knew exactly what was going on. My husband is a college professor of Old and New Testament Studies, so he knows the Jewish traditions. We trusted our doctor and the medical profession and we still do. We did what we felt was best for him. We would do it again, without hesitation. I assume you are pro-choice if you are concerned with hurting (and in this case, murdering) babies?

Robyn - the decision might have been made by you, but it was up to your baby. It's his body. He should have the right to choose what is or isn't cut off of it. You took his choice away.

Wouldn't you want the same choice for yourself? Goodness, if he wanted it done, you could have taken him to get the surgery when he was older when he could make the choice for himself.

As far as them being too young to remember, we still have so little knowledge about the importance of our first few moments of life. We don't know how TRAUMA (unnecessary trauma at that) affects a baby's body, mind, etc.

What we do seem to keep learning is that nature is really good at doing what it's supposed to do....

Sorry, as I said somewhere else, until he can sign the hippa form, we are his legal guardians and we did what we thought was best for him, not you. By the way, if you had read my earlier comments, my son has said that he sure was glad he had it done, because he thinks the other way looks gross. He said it, not me. I liked my doctor's reasons for doing it., and I will take his advice since my newborn had no idea what was good or bad for him.

he thinks the other way looks gross.

He probably thinks the other way looks gross because he's looked at his own penis ten times a day for his entire life and he's probably seen uncircumcised penises all of once or twice.

It's not surprising that people prefer what they're accustomed to.

Circumcision removes about one-half of the erogenous tissue on the penile shaft. The foreskin protects the head of the penis and is comprised of unique zones with several kinds of specialized nerves that are important to optimum sexual sensitivity.

(Taylor, J. et al., "The Prepuce: Specialized Mucosa of the Penis and Its Loss to Circumcision," BJU 77 (1996): 291�295).

I think my husband would disagree with you!

If your husband is not intact how would he know exactly what sensation he was missing?

Because, he says if had anymore sensation he might hurt himself!! It's great!! You and your spouse?? just might be missing something!!!!!!!!

I've never met a man who said he wished he felt less sexual sensation.

I rarely respond to articles or other comments on the vine, but felt compelled after reading Robyn D's comments. You are one boneheaded, annoying woman. No cares about your son's circumcision or how fantastic and "hyper sensitive" your husband is. Lady, there is a very good chance your husband is using his "high sensation" on someone other than you too, right as we speak, so why don't you shut it? Thanks.

I certainly was not the one who sensationalized these topics. Pashari is the one who can't accept another person's decision. You both sound very frustrated. I wish you both happiness and satisfaction.

Pashari is the one who can't accept another person's decision.

Robyn - it wasn't your decision to make! No matter how you look at it. It is HIS body.

Just curious-what are your abortion thoughts. Do you think children should be murdered because it's the woman's body??

Inability to retract the foreskin is known as phimosis.

Boys/Men become retractable at very different ages. Some as young as toddlers - some not until puberty or even older. As boys naturally explore their bodies they eventually retract all on their own. Some children are prohibited from this normal self-exploration as our society deems this purely sensory exploration a sexual one. (i.e. "Get your hands out of your privates, Tommy" "We don't touch our winnie, Billy")

I'm so glad you mentioned how much better a circumcized penis looks! I was thinking it, but a little embarrassed to mention it. I TOTALLY agree. So does my husband, and if he feels better about it, we're all happy! Right?

Statistics can be extremely misleading and you really need to be careful before you assign a correlation. Did you know that, statistically speaking, studies have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that drowning rates in America are highest in geographical areas with strong ice cream sales. Does this mean that buying ice cream causes people to drown? No. More likely it means that ice cream sales tend to be strong at the beach and people drown at the beach because there is water there.

"Look up the statistics. Years of studies as to the occurence of vaginal, uterine and ovarian cancer show that the incidence of these types of cancers occur dramatically less when the woman's sexual partner is circumcised. Jewish women have a very low incidence of cancer of the reproductive organs."

What a ridiculous comment! "Years of studies"? Are you completely unaware that Jewish women are genetically LESS likely to get cervical cancer? The circumcised state of their husbands has nothing to do with it. Try reading:

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/menczer1/

Here are two quotes:

"Although the dispute over the association of circumcision and cervical cancer in various populations is still ongoing [23,24], there seems to be no hard evidence that circumcision prevents its occurrence in Jewish women, and it is no longer considered to play a protective role." and

"These findings support the possibility that the low prevalence of the homozygous arginine polymorphism may play a role in determining the low incidence of cervical cancer in Jewish women and may also explain the differences between the ethnic groups. If these observations are confirmed, then the low incidence of cervical cancer in Jewish women is genetically determined, and an explanation for the ethnic incidence pattern of cervical cancer in Jewish women has also finally been found."

Also, non-Jewish women married to intact men do NOT have higher rates of these diseases. There have been more than thirteen such studies, three showing a connection, and the rest none. In studies done outside of the US, a man's circumcision rate results in no differing amounts of the illnesses you name.

Further, Jewish women are also genetically MORE likely to get breast cancer; by following your way of thinking, do I get to say that circumcision is the cause?

As for the comment that a circumcised penis looks better - if you ever get a breast removed, would you be happy being married to someone who fetishized the scar, as you do? You are reacting to what you have been shown as normal - stripped skin and scarring. Try thinking outside your narrow box. And if men can "be happy" either way, why not leave them intact?