Pharyngula

Posted by: Deepsix | May 6, 2010 1:41 PM

This one is for all the hormonal little guys who need a place to hold hands and cry together.

Well, I'm certainly not posting in this thread!

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | May 6, 2010 1:43 PM

Thank you, PZ, my thoughts exactly (as a guy who was circumcised as an infant, would probably prefer not to have been, but who's had no sexual pleasure problems, and who understands that he doesn't get to make equivalences between male circumcision and FGM until male circumcision = head of penis chopped off).

Posted by: Givesgoodemail | May 6, 2010 1:44 PM

@3: Do not have the circumcision done. If your son wants to have it done once he is of majority age, he can choose to do so.

Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french | May 6, 2010 1:45 PM

I agree that female genital mutilation is worse than male circumcision by several orders of magnitude.

I agree that the posts about it were a bit off topic.

I do not agree with the sentiment (Which was expressed several times in the previous thread) that those making said posts were horrible sexists and probably Osama Hitler bin Dracula. Yes, they were off topic. Yes, we should be talking about what the thread is about. No, they are not HORRIBLE PEOPLE for discussing a different issue.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 6, 2010 1:47 PM

Yahoomess:

Frankly, I don't want too because of the religious reasons involved, but pressured because I don't want my son to be ostracized.

Why would your son be ostracized and by who? I don't think any male infant should be circumcised. If your son decides at some point (say, in his teens) he'd prefer to be circumcised, it can be done then.

Posted by: Tenek | May 6, 2010 1:47 PM

So why all the hatred for people who propose to take something significantly worse than circumcision and reduce it to something significantly better?

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 6, 2010 1:50 PM

Tenek:

So why all the hatred for people who propose to take something significantly worse than circumcision and reduce it to something significantly better?

You're in the wrong thread. Try the right one, eh?

Posted by: Benjamin "pardon my French" Geiger | May 6, 2010 1:52 PM

Three levels of mutilation:

1. What the AAP is talking about, and what some more progressive religious (yes, that's an oxymoron) communities practice: pricking the genitals of an infant to satisfy the letter of religious law.

2. Male circumcision.

...

3. Female genital mutilation.

There's a big gap between 2 and 3 for a reason.

And note that the AAP is not talking about 3. Nobody should be practicing 3. 3 is child abuse, full stop.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 6, 2010 1:53 PM

Boys tend not to flaunt their penises at each other

pffffffft

Tell that to George Alan Rekers

Posted by: CJO | May 6, 2010 1:54 PM

yahhohash @ #3:

I am circumcized, my son is not. There's no need to worry. It requires a little extra instruction in the hygeine department, that is all. Ostracism seems a little over the top, unless you live in an Orthodox Jewish community or something. It's just not that big of a deal for most people and if his peers are mostly circumcized, he might be teased a little, but you can't eliminate that. Everybody gets teased in school about something, and your job as a parent is to raise a confident, compassionate, well-adjusted social being, not to try to anticipate and eliminate beforehand any possible source of childhood anxiety over being different in some way.

Posted by: Givesgoodemail | May 6, 2010 1:58 PM

@12:
1. Because this sort of harm, of any kind, directly contradicts the Hippocratic Oath.
2. Because this sort of harm is designed to placate those who would violate the law and a shitpile of human rights to satisfy a cultural imperative only slightly better than murder.
3. Because this sort of harm is misogynistic in the extreme and is designed to subjugate women to men.

Posted by: SomeGuy123 | May 6, 2010 1:59 PM

like piercings and tattoos, it should only be practiced on consenting adults

You can actually get a tattoo down there? I had no idea.

circumcision is mutilation, too, and it shouldn't be done, and doctors shouldn't be collaborating in such a primitive and barbarous practice on children

Those doctors should be charged, because they had malice aforeskin...er, I mean aforethought.

But even worse than genital mutilation is refusal to vaccinate, since it has this unfortunate side effect known as,...oh what is it again?...oh, right, death.

I know, why don't we genitally mutilate parents who don't vaccinate their children and those children later die of some entirely preventable disease like measles? That ought to make everyone happy.

Posted by: SaraJ | May 6, 2010 2:00 PM

Benjamin @18: "Nobody should be practicing 3. 3 is child abuse, full stop."

Okay, but why isn't male circumcision child abuse? It is cutting something off of a baby's body for an unnecessary reason. Yes, female genital mutilation is horrific and terrible and bad, but so is male genital mutilation. And I just can't accept that because one is worse it means we have to ignore the other simply because we're talking about boys and girls.

And this is nowhere near the same thing as saying "we're paying more attention to the girls in math class and forgetting the poor wittle boys", this is saying "we are cutting body parts off of children, and it needs to stop, period".

Posted by: jemand | May 6, 2010 2:00 PM

Alright, I'm ignoring PZ, I'm a lady and butting in to say that being upset about unconsensual cosmetic surgery isn't something that you have to be hormonal to raise a stink over... and raising a stink and trying to change social norms and laws isn't exactly the same as just crying in a corner and holding hands either (though that would just be trivializing to those who have been hurt, anyway).

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | May 6, 2010 2:03 PM

what's the evidence for reduced sensitivity? I understand not wanting to cut your kids penis (and I will readily admit that that is the more rational choice), but is this just another myth? I'm cut, and I don't think I would benefit from a MORE sensitive penis. Constant boners!

Like I said in the other thread, two people close to me had miserable experiences when a circumcision became necessary later in life, so it biases me. I understand the disagreement, but I don't understand the anger. Sometimes I feel like some of the really angry anti-circumcision folks are projecting a few of their sexual inadequacy issues on that procedure.

Someone in the other thread brought up forced appendectomies as an example. They chose the WRONG example! I spent ten days in the hospital and almost two months out of commission (some of that dealing with a newly discovered penicillin allergy) because of my appendix; I would have loved it if that damn thing was removed at birth.

Posted by: Budbear | May 6, 2010 2:03 PM

"tallywhacker" is one of my favorite euphemisms for my junior partner, jimmy-jammy, trouser trout, one-eyed snake, love wand,
bald-headed giggle stick, meat missile, etc.

Posted by: Ben Goren | May 6, 2010 2:05 PM

Anybody considering ordering or consenting to a boy being circumcised needs to watch the Penn & Teller Bullshit! episode on the subject. Google is your friend.

Cheers,

b&

--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''

Posted by: eigenperson | May 6, 2010 2:06 PM

I was circumcised during infancy. I also don't give a shit.

It's not like my human experience has been significantly changed. Basically the difference is that I use different techniques to clean a certain region of my body than I would have otherwise.

The literature on the whole doesn't support the idea that circumcision in infancy changes one's experience of sexual pleasure in any way. This isn't surprising, since the brain is so plastic at that stage of life. The area in my sensory cortex devoted to my penis is probably the same size as it would have been had I not been circumcised.

Posted by: Becky | May 6, 2010 2:08 PM

@B

FGM has also been associated with a reduced risk of AIDS in a couple of studies, but since it is *unethical,* it hasn't been been investigated as a potential way to fight AIDS. Circumcision is considered as a possible solution because it is assumed that it is acceptable.

Posted by: mikmik | May 6, 2010 2:09 PM

Yeah, I didn't even know i was circumcised and i doubt i care.
i have no doubts about my manhood or enjoyment of sex.
in fact, this has caused me to wonder if what happens to us very early in life is really relevant to our development.
now that's a interesting thought. at what age do experiences affect our development.
can being hungry or cold or experiencing pain in the first few days or weeks impact our personality?
i doubt it.

Posted by: unclexbob | May 6, 2010 2:11 PM

#33, you should take any study involving circumcision with a very large dose of salt, because the people pushing it are usually religious groups.

All the studies I've read on it are horrible.

Not like it matters much, even if there is some small percentage difference, you don't prevent aids by chopping up the genitals. You give them proper sex education.

Posted by: jemand | May 6, 2010 2:11 PM

@strange gods before me, again, I'm a woman and didn't post in the last thread, but it seems to me as long as there is widespread acceptance of genital cutting of children, NO child will be safe, male or female, anywhere. And... it's just a fact that male genital mutilation is EXCEEDINGLY more common all over the world than it is for female children.

So I think in *this particular* case it may not be a case of men trying to make it all about themselves, but a disagreement between those who have different practical viewpoints, whether it would be most efficient to first attack the most common practice, or whether it would be best to first attack the worst practice.

The latter view *leads too* opinions such as those of the medical association in the last thread where 'mild' forms are substituted in place of extreme forms, whereas the second lends itself to saying, no, we need to stop all of it immediately.

Posted by: catta | May 6, 2010 2:12 PM

WTF. I'm a woman. Reading the last thread, as outraged as I was by the female genital mutilation topic, I a) not once got the impression that the people mentioning male circumcision were hijacking anything or being particularly "male-priviledged" or whatever and b) couldn't help but think of how widespread circumcision is in the US and how little difference I see in the procedures. Yes, even as the owner of a clitoris, and despite having had unanaesthesized surgery on my private parts as an adult, which is, mildly put, horrifying.

If you make the statement "no waving scalpels around infant genitals, ever", then don't exclude male infants because it's accepted in your culture (don't start on "it's not comparable" -- Yes, it is. The only reason you think it isn't is that one of them is common practice where you live.)

Also, I guess you can put me down as a weird girl who has had the chance to compare and has found that the lack of sensitivity caused by a missing foreskin makes my experience less enjoyable, fwiw. Furthermore: the number of people in the other thread claiming that the entire clitoris surprised me quite a bit, too. The clitoris is much, much bigger than the part you see peeking out between the labia, people! Maybe the idea that the visible part is the only important one explains why people seem to think the lack of sensitivity caused by male circumcision makes no difference to their partners.

Seriously. Unanaesthesized surgery on infants is unanaesthesized surgery on infants, period. If the size of the lopped-off bits counts at all, then the apologetic "it's just a nick compared to the procedures performed in Africa" is a valid argument. And last time I checked, everybody agreed that it wasn't.

Posted by: Weed Monkey | May 6, 2010 2:14 PM

I truly enjoy my foreskin, and when I say enjoy, yes, I mean masturbation. Who in their right minds would like to diminish THAT pleasure for their children?

Posted by: MultiTool | May 6, 2010 2:15 PM

I thought circumcision increased sensitivity, by exposing the glans of the penis.

I remember a guy who was circumcised in his 20s (due to an infection); he was annoyed that it became harder to delay orgasm.

And... just when you thought snipping dicks was headed the way of human sacrifice, it turns out to be a tool (heh heh) in the fight against HIV/AIDS:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

So much so that Bill Gates is funding mass circumcisions in Africa:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17312

So all those men bitching about their poor wangs might as well shut up and count their blessings.

Posted by: Becca the Over Socialized | May 6, 2010 2:18 PM

yahoomess @3 We faced a similar issue when my son was born; we opted not to circumcise. We live in a very small town, and he went to school with a bunch of rednecks. He didn't report one incident of being teased or any comment at all on the subject. I know, anecdote is not data, but our experience has been good.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkduSiHEcXKGQvpZ4TOg7xZa3cLOBte4XQ | May 6, 2010 2:19 PM

I agree with several other posters here. While it may be overblown to compare regular FGM with male circumcision, it seems perfectly valid to compare what the Academy has proposed here.

As for the HIV benefits, that hardly means it's ethical.

Posted by: SaraJ | May 6, 2010 2:21 PM

Well eigenperson, if it had no effect on you, then clearly it's fine for everyone. Right?

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | May 6, 2010 2:22 PM

@45

gonna just roll my eyes at that. See previous comment.

I notice you frothing anti-circumcision folks still haven't felt the need to back up the "loss of sensitivity" claim. Beyond that, what's the harm? My brother and I are both circumcised, him later in life, me at birth. His was a painful process (now that it was mentioned, I believe it was the 'too tight' problem) leading to a painful surgery and a painful recovery process. I don't frigging remember it and I've always been happy with my dong.

I definitely understand the people who don't want to put a knife to their newborn, but I feel like the positives and negatives are pretty evenly weighted (again, probably my bias).

Posted by: SaraJ | May 6, 2010 2:22 PM

We are PZ!

Posted by: tacroy | May 6, 2010 2:23 PM

B @ #33:

You know what else reduces the risk of AIDS transmission? Condoms. And you can take a condom off afterwards, but you can't put your foreskin back on.

(The actual process involves weighting down the skin of the cut, so that it stretches out over time and creates another foreskin. It's pretty gross.)

Posted by: Benjamin "pardon my French" Geiger | May 6, 2010 2:24 PM

SaraJ:

Yes, male circumcision is child abuse, but it's not nearly as bad. As has been repeatedly pointed out, female "circumcision" isn't comparable to male circumcision; it's more akin to cutting off the glans penis.

I was simply pointing out that people seem to misunderstand (possibly intentionally) what the AAP is talking about. They talk about 1 and people start screaming about 3. And the irony is that the AAP points out 1 as a possibility in order to make 3 less likely.

Posted by: unclexbob | May 6, 2010 2:25 PM

it truly shocks me how many people are peddling nonsense about the benefits of male circumcision here. I guess I expected the skeptic community to be a little more skeptical.

But hey, if you REALLY care about your kids, cut the entire dick off. No STI's then.

Posted by: Becky | May 6, 2010 2:28 PM

"but I feel like the positives and negatives are pretty evenly weighted (again, probably my bias)"

I believe that boys/men in the US are more likely to be told that they "need" a circ when in countries where circ is not the norm other options would be presented for their conditions. Still, I agree with you that medically, it seems pretty balanced. There are a few boys that need to be circed later, there are some circed boys that end up needing later surgery to fix a botched circ or correct meatal stenosis. Circ makes a difference in the rate of contracting STIs, but practicing safe sex provides the same benefit.

That said, I don't think that amputation of a body part should be undertaken except for clear medical benefits. For me, "medically balanced" isn't a good enough reason to justify circ.

Posted by: Randomfactor | May 6, 2010 2:30 PM

We are all PZ.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/AKp_B_gSkpRDRUl5yBtgnnB0OHZG#94c23 | May 6, 2010 2:32 PM

I was cut as an infant for religious reasons. But, let me review what I got out of it: less self-maintenance requirements, and increased staying power.

Sorry, but I have a hard time feeling like I was dicked-over by this. (pun definitely intended)

--Raynfala

Posted by: Randomfactor | May 6, 2010 2:32 PM

You know what else reduces the risk of AIDS transmission? Condoms.

Tell it to the Pope...

Posted by: mmj_gregory | May 6, 2010 2:34 PM

@18

That is where my mind goes. I completely agree that FGM and circumcision are in different categories as far as the amount of harm done and whatnot. My problem with what the AAP is doing is that they are now attempting to make female circumcision as "acceptable" as what male circumcision has become by lessing the tourture of it all. Can we be honest? If the religious nutjobs could cut off more of the penis or plug it shut the way they do during FGM...they would. Maybe if the majority of religious leaders were women and not men they would have already found a way to make male circumcision more terrorizing. If the AAP guidelines become the norm what is to keep their new form of female circumcision from becoming as popular as male circumcision is today? All I can think is that people aren't immune to that idea the way they are for baby boys but who is to say what would happen in a few decades?

I have a girl and am about to give birth to a boy. I have done ALOT of research and it seems that besides lowering the male's risk of AIDS (especially in places like Africa), there is NO benefit. If my son decides that he wants to have exhorbant amounts of unprotected sex with strangers when he gets older, he can get his penis cut himself.

Posted by: KaneHau | May 6, 2010 2:38 PM

Well, here's another for you then. I am adopted and originally from a middle eastern country. I was circumcised at birth - and at the same time, they did something else...

Namely, they inserted tiny stones into my dick (the skin just below the head). Growing up, I didn't know what they were (and one time I tried to remove one, that didn't work *OUCH*).

However, when I got married, my wife knew exactly what it was. "Ribbed for her pleasure" was her comment. Since then I've read about the practice (seems that it was done to increase pleasure).

Now that I've switched to the other side... I'm ribbed for HIS pleasure :)

Posted by: Jimmy-boy | May 6, 2010 2:39 PM

@65 (and all the other "the science supports it" gang). Firstly - the science is being pretty robustly challenged I believe.

However, in Europe we don't routinely circumcise babies/children unless clinically indicated (it's called evidence based medicine).

The contra-indication would be the small incidence of death from associated bleeding.

Doesn't really seem worth it does it?

And - absolutely: FGM is in it's whole own special category of very bad things that very bad people do - where the male issue doesn't really feature.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | May 6, 2010 2:41 PM

jemand, there is nothing stopping those who have different priorities from starting their own blogs or forum threads and organizing themselves. They are welcome to do it.

In the meantime, we cannot have a discussion of FGM without these guys showing up. That's great for you that you don't find it distracting, but other people shouldn't have to put up with routine threadjacking.

I'm circumcised. It is not and should not be a priority on the same level as FGM. The amount of suffering is lower, it does not function as sexual control throughout men's lives, and there are anti-HIV benefits to male circumcision which complicate the balance.

Now, I hope that I answered you adequately, because I do not intend to post in this thread again.

Posted by: qpsk | May 6, 2010 2:41 PM

Hi, my name's Dave. *waits for "Hi Dave"* And I'm a victim of male circumcision.

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | May 6, 2010 2:45 PM

@78

Not "NO positives", but the positives are minor. Less upkeep and not having to get the procedure done later in life are the ones that spring to mind. But what are the negatives? I get that the big one is CUTTING BABIES, but we also stab babies with needles and that's ok. Again, I understand that circumcision is permanent, and therefore different. But you're going to provide more negatives to justify the hysteria surrounding the issue.

FGM has truly NO benefits and never has to be done later in life, so there's no justifying it. Male circumcision, on the other hand seems to have some small benefit and no real harm. I think it's justifiable.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 6, 2010 2:47 PM

mikerattlesnake:

notice that the people posting "nonsense" are actually backing up their claims with links to trusted sources.

Uh, not exactly. This is hardly a new topic here, and many of those links lead to studies which have been successfully refuted and debunked. Yes, there are circumstances where circumcision might be desirable, however, the 'study' which claims circumcision cuts down on HIV transmission is one that has been debunked. I'll see if I can track down the paper. (I'm running on no sleep here, so my brain isn't at it's best). Good hygiene and common sense, such as condoms when it comes to safe sex work great.

Again, these issues need to be investigated closely, because many of the pro-circumcision studies have religious affiliation and aren't always conducted properly. MGM is down due to parents doing research and talking with their physicians about it. The people who truly have a vested interest in keeping the status quo are religious. The bible goes on and on and on about foreskins and how badly god wants 'em. That's not a good reason to mutilate a child.

Posted by: Ben Goren | May 6, 2010 2:51 PM

Look people. Can we agree that just because a shotgun blast to the chest is worse than a bullet in the rump it’s still a bad idea to go ’round poppin’ caps in people’s asses?

I mean, really. It’s like those Republicans who want to waterboard everybody with brown skin wearing a turban because it’s not quite as bad as what happens to political prisoners in China.

All y’ll all are whinin’ about what has or hasn’t been done to your dicks yet none of you have the balls to consider the matter objectively.

In what other context would one even make it past sheer horror at the thought of taking a knife to a child — let alone a child’s privates? Would it be okay if we were talking about cutting off the child’s earlobe?

Jesusfuckingmaryonastick, y’all are a bunch of barbarians.

Cheers,

b&

--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''

Posted by: Utakata | May 6, 2010 2:52 PM

I bet these boys nitpick about homophones as well.

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | May 6, 2010 2:57 PM

@90

which is why I hav ebrought up religious reasons exactly zero times.

@92

If I could choose to give my child an almost zero risk, no-scar appendectomy at birth I would at least consider it. If my appendix had burst a couple of years earlier than it did, when I was in the middle of the great rift valley with a malfunctioning land rover, I might have died. You're gonna have to do better with your rhetoric or come up with some conclusive data. Seriously, if studies showed that circumcision had a significant effect on erectile disfunction or sensitivity later in life I wouldn't even consider it. Bring the data, folks.

Posted by: David Marjanović | May 6, 2010 2:59 PM

There are actual medical reasons to consider circumcision. It's hardly a mutilation of the penis, any "sensitivity" issues are dubious complaints at best. There are various studies that show it appears to reduce STIs, it is certainly more hygienic, and it may reduce penile cancer. Additionally, it's not terribly uncommon for young men to have to get it done later due to an inability to pull the foreskin back (too tight).

One argument from ignorance about another.

- Why don't those medical reasons seem to occur more often outside the US of A?
- Call it "amputation" if "mutilation" is too value-laden for you.
- Having a foreskin, I can tell it's sensitive. More importantly, it protects the sensitive area beneath... I think I'd have trouble wearing clothes without that protection.
- As far as I've seen, those studies all have flaws, such as using inappropriate control groups.
- "Certainly more hygienic"? Where's the epidemic in Europe?
- I'm not surprised that amputating part of the penis reduces the risk of cancer...
- "Not terribly uncommon"? Why have I never heard or read of such a case outside this very blog?
- Why is inability to pull the foreskin back supposed to be a problem? I can't pull mine back more than 2 mm or suchlike, and I don't have any complaints. Nothing hurts, everything that needs to get through gets through. Sure, I can't use a wet sponge to clean the glans like the 8th-grade biology textbook said, but nothing gets to it anyway, so I don't need to clean it at all. I don't even seem to produce any smegma.

are you dismissing all the medical literature on the benefits of male circumcision?

Did you even know that only Jews, Muslims, and Americans are circumcised?

(Apart from a few small cultures in subsaharan Africa and in Australia.)

I was surprised at the number of people who thought the whole clitoris was cut off, when it isn't.

FGM has many different forms. One is like circumcision; the other extreme is to cut everything off, scratch everything out, and sew the rest shut afterwards.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | May 6, 2010 3:02 PM

All y’ll all are whinin’ about what has or hasn’t been done to your dicks yet none of you have the balls to consider the matter objectively.

Hardly my fault. The pediatrician slipped.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | May 6, 2010 3:04 PM

FGM has many different forms. One is like circumcision; the other extreme is to cut everything off, scratch everything out, and sew the rest shut afterwards.

And the purpose of this? To make having sex as painful as possible for the woman. After all, a pure woman does not find sex enjoyable.

Posted by: SaraJ | May 6, 2010 3:06 PM

So my new understanding of male genital mutilation is that because there is some shaky evidence that it's beneficial, and not much evidence that it's harmful, we should keep doing it without further study because it's culturally acceptable? Do I have that right?

Posted by: Unaspammer | May 6, 2010 3:08 PM

@mikerattlesnake,

If I could choose to give my child an almost zero risk, no-scar appendectomy at birth I would at least consider it.

There's no such thing as a zero-risk procedure. The risk of complications from circumcision is around 2-3%.

The basis of your argument seems to me that you want to spare your sons a small (~1%) risk of having to undergo a painful experience later in life. Please bear in mind that circumcision is no less painful for a newborn than it is for an older child. The only difference is that the older child will actually remember it, and memories of physical pain are, in my experience, never painful.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | May 6, 2010 3:08 PM

SaraJ, thank you for your comment at #99. As far as I am concerned, that is all that needs to be said on the subject.

(Sadly, it will not be the last word.)

Posted by: SaraJ | May 6, 2010 3:12 PM

Janine, thank you. I did bring this up in the other thread, and I am truly sorry if it felt like I was derailing the thread. I can't speak for anyone else, just myself, but I honestly equate the two because they both seem so terrible to me, and because they do have to do with cutting into sex organs.

Posted by: Michelle R | May 6, 2010 3:17 PM

@ David Marjanović: "Did you even know that only Jews, Muslims, and Americans are circumcised?"

You know what? It just struck me that I cannot tell if most men here in Quebec are circumsized or not.

Damn, now I got to do some research. Excuse me...

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/SaqGVG0xvJEQVwURVamS3DTCdvov0BLhXK1jOsYPPJQ-#b4893 | May 6, 2010 3:21 PM

What happened to the short-sighted circumcisor?

He got the sack.

(You're welcome.)

MikeM

Posted by: tracy.caraker | May 6, 2010 3:23 PM

One of my friends married the love of her life from England. She told him one day how glad she was that HE was circumcised. He looked at her and, straight faced, said "I am?". Because apparently he is NOT. So not all women even know what the difference is between the two. LOL! And yes, they have a fabulous sex life :)

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | May 6, 2010 3:25 PM

I was circumcised as an infant. I don't miss the piece of skin I have no memory of having or losing. I've been able to perform sexually to several partners' satisfaction. And I am sick and tired of hearing or reading folks whining about male circumcision. If you're a man and don't like circumcision, then don't have one. If you don't want your son to have one then don't give him one. Other than that, stop your nagging about it.

Female circumcision is a whole different subject.

Posted by: russell.glasser | May 6, 2010 3:26 PM

My two cents, which seem to be generally unpopular in my atheist group:

I had culturally Jewish, atheist parents who circumcised me.

I remember nothing. I have experienced no discomfort since then. I have no objection to the way it looks or feels. If there is a downside, it is beyond trivial.

I can entertain arguments that if you are a parent, you should make the decision not to do it. I don't really accept the idea that society should take any sort of proactive role in stopping it. As far as I can tell from anything I've ever read, it is a neutral action in terms of lasting effects.

Until it is shown in some way to do any kind of demonstrable, lasting harm, I'm fine leaving the decision in the hands of the parents, whether or not it's a decision I would make. (For the record, I didn't circumcise my son, but I wouldn't have opposed it either.)

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | May 6, 2010 3:27 PM

I don't understand why the people opposing one feel like they have to compete with those opposing the other.

That's kind of exactly the point we were making, so just take what you meant when you said it and reverse the sexes.

When we were trying to decide whether to circumcise my sons, with a huge amount of history and societal pressure on one side, and (for that time, pre-superinternet) a tiny bit of actual information on the other, the (male) pediatrician likened it to piercing a baby's ears. Which...no. Piercing a baby's ears is stupid, but not in any league with circumcision. I'm still shocked that a doctor would make that kind of comparison.

Posted by: Leon | May 6, 2010 3:28 PM

FWIW, I'm circumcised, and I don't consider it a big deal. It was just what parents did back then, so I don't hold it against mine--and I'm sensitive enough down there as it is.

At the same time, it isn't just what parents do any more, and there's an awareness now just what an ugly thing the procedure is. So my son isn't circumcised.

He's coming on three now and hygiene just isn't an issue with it, for anyone who might wonder.

Posted by: SaraJ | May 6, 2010 3:29 PM

Tis Himself, please see my post at 99.

Posted by: toth | May 6, 2010 3:30 PM

So because MGM is less traumatizing, long term, than FGM, those who are complaining about the former are whiny crybabies? You know, it's possible to say they are both horrible and leave it at that. This post was kind of a dick move, PZ.

Posted by: danielm | May 6, 2010 3:33 PM

oh gods, quick send the waaaambulance.

alright, hands up (eew, eew, I said *hands* up - stop that, you'll go blind), who was the tallywhacker with a chip on their shoulder about having got their tip snipped? whoever it was, you're officially branded with the sandy vagina branding iron.

whilst it's still wrong to nobble the todger, it's nowhere near as bad, wrong, evil, fucked up, wicked, twisted and despicable as it is to slice up a girl.

for a male, it can *sometimes* be necessary (you crazy yanks and your perversity in making it common are *not* excused) but for a girl? never. ever.

honestly, the first time I heard about it, I thought "what the *bloody* fuck is that supposed to do? cleanliness? fuck that, I'd rather keep my one eyed trouser snake intact!" and I thanked god (yes, I was that young) that such madness isn't common in the UK - only jews did it at the time, and not even all the time then because you got teased about it if you *did* get it lopped off.

Posted by: stompsfrogs | May 6, 2010 3:35 PM

I see the relation between FGM, female circumcision and male circumcision. One's really bad, the other two are iffy. Slippery slope from circumcision of either sex to FGM. I get it. I'm fine if you guys want to talk about male circumcision. You have my permission :)

But allow a lady to jump in and say, please don't circumcise the boys. You're making me go broke on lube. Condom + circumcised boy = buy stock in astroglide.

Posted by: Unaspammer | May 6, 2010 3:38 PM

Memory and cognition have a whole lot to do with pain perception. We wouldn't have words like "suffering" if they didn't.

Please elaborate. In particular, what does the word "suffering" have to do with memory?

I've had two surgeries in the past 6 months. I already can't remember the experience of the pain, just the general description of it and that it sucked. I don't consider myself worse off in any way at this moment for having experienced it.

Posted by: Benjamin "pardon my French" Geiger | May 6, 2010 3:44 PM

Janine:

PZ's wording in the body of this post was rather dickish, and toth called him out on it. Fair.

Posted by: Joe Fogey | May 6, 2010 3:47 PM

What's the big deal? I had it done as a baby for "hygienic" reasons - it seemed to be routine then. If sex was any more enjoyable it might be dangerous.

It's probably a mistake to get the snip as an adult, though. A guy I knew had it done in his twenties. They should have given him hormones (to suppress erection) and painkillers to take afterwards, but by some cock-up he was given two lots of hormones. He was in agony for days and started growing breasts.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 6, 2010 3:49 PM

Benjamin Geiger:

PZ's wording in the body of this post was rather dickish, and toth called him out on it. Fair.

No, it wasn't dickish. It was blunt and to the point. When comparing "tweaking" a 5 year old girl's clitoris then taking a pair of scissors and cutting it and the minor labia out then sewing up the outer labia, the binding the child's legs for two weeks all without anasthesia is nowhere near the same as MGM and the idjits who think it's comparable deserve to be called out.

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | May 6, 2010 3:53 PM

well, suffering implies pain over time. A creature that can't percieve time can't suffer, it can only experience momentary pain constantly.

Posted by: stompsfrogs | May 6, 2010 3:56 PM

You choose poorly, #143.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | May 6, 2010 3:56 PM

Yes, I am belittling your loss, because compared to what mutilated women have lost, it's goddamned trivial.

Why, yes, Benjamin and toth, you are both correct. PZ is most certainly being asshole by pointing out that circumcised men have not been injured as much as women who have had FGM. All men should feel insulted.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 6, 2010 4:01 PM

It looks friendly!
[/Mr. Deity]

Posted by: blog.notdot.net | May 6, 2010 4:01 PM

@143 Your son will do a lot more masturbating than he will receive blowjobs - and wanking is a _lot_ easier and more comfortable if you're uncircumsized.

It honestly looks to me like many people here are arguing with a strawman. Yes, FGM is unquestionably far, far worse than circumcision. But the comparison being made is with the 'ritual prick' the AAP are suggesting. Can anyone provide a rational argument why a 'ritual prick' is worse than circumcision?

Posted by: SomeGuy123 | May 6, 2010 4:06 PM

For the record, it's a boo-boo on the pee-pee.

I thought that was called scabies.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 6, 2010 4:07 PM

brianemond71:

Is there a woman out there that would suck on an uncircumcised penis? If a single responded says no, then I would opt on the side of caution and get circumcised. I chose to circumcise my son for this very reason alone.

Well, I suppose we can hope all he ever gets are blowjobs, that way he won't breed and pass the stupidity on.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawl3TpOVyxxwCT5cVU3M80c_cpxoMBZmiOQ | May 6, 2010 4:08 PM

You know, if you regularly take a shower, having or not having that extra piece o' skin is not really making a difference when it comes to hygiene and therefore also won't make a difference when it comes to BJs. So there.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | May 6, 2010 4:10 PM

Things have gotten silly when PZ starts swinging his sausage.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 6, 2010 4:10 PM

got smegma?

Posted by: Benjamin "pardon my French" Geiger | May 6, 2010 4:11 PM

Caine:

Did you actually read the previous post? Not even the thread... just the post. That's *exactly* what the AAP is talking about.

Posted by: Mario | May 6, 2010 4:12 PM

@155 Masturbation is easier because you do not need lubrication at all, you just move the foreskin up and down and away we go.

Posted by: SaraJ | May 6, 2010 4:16 PM

Penises are awesome. Vaginas, labia, and clitorises are awesome. Let's stop cutting them up, that's all I ask. THINK OF THE SEX ORGANS!

Posted by: Benjamin "pardon my French" Geiger | May 6, 2010 4:17 PM

blog.notdot.net: Exactly.

Mario: Maybe this is just because I'm fat, but I can do that, and I'm circumcised.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 6, 2010 4:20 PM

SaraJ:

THINK OF THE SEX ORGANS!

I am! I am! ... As Jayne would say, I'll be in m'bunk. ;D

Posted by: Benjamin "pardon my French" Geiger | May 6, 2010 4:23 PM

PZ @ #170:

Back in the 1920s, we Americans argued that drinking alcohol is wrong. So the government outlawed it. Murders (and, more appropriately, accidental poisonings) skyrocketed.

Even though drinking alcohol was still considered 'wrong', they eventually repealed the laws against it. They tightly regulated it, but they legalized a form of it.

And we're all better off for it.

Posted by: matthew.james.neil | May 6, 2010 4:24 PM

Anecdotally:

When I was in the hospital after my daughter was born, I was at the nurses' station handing in some paperwork when another new dad came up frantically trying to get the attention of one of the nurses. I found out later that his newly circumcised son had gotten meconium all over his newly circumcised penis. The father was frantic because the kid was screaming bloody murder, and he had no idea how to clean it off.

That was enough for me to decide any future son of mine would remain uncut.

Posted by: skeptifem | May 6, 2010 4:25 PM

This happens in most of the threads about FGM on skeptics forums, because most skeptics are dudes.
Misogynist dudes have to make everything about them. They won't even allow lesbians to have sexuality that doesn't involve men somehow, either by commodifying and fetishizing their interactions or by hating ones that do not conform to heterosexual male fantasy. When I made threads about rape on places like JREF people made the thread into something about men being falsely accused, or how dude victims do not have enough resources (which is an issue, but get your own fucking thread, thanks). Threads about women in general turn into threads about how fuckable/not the men in the thread find her to be. It has to do with the shock of not being the center of fucking attention all the time if you ask me, because dudes take the general concern of others completely for granted. Issues that affect their half of the population are not pushed off to the side to take up a small genre deemed 'mens issues', mens issues are just the issues. Men make up more than half of people in popular culture and way more than half of people making decisions in society like ceos, professors, doctors, lawyers, and politicians. It is all about them constantly. Boo fucking hoo, assholes, imagine how it must feel for everyone else all the damn time next time you want to whine about how ignored your oh-so-important problems are, because no one wanting to hear you is the default for people who are actually on the receiving end of most of the violence and hardship in the world.

Posted by: Unaspammer | May 6, 2010 4:28 PM

well, suffering implies pain over time. A creature that can't percieve time can't suffer, it can only experience momentary pain constantly.

"Pain over time" implies that the being is still in pain. We were talking about the memory of the pain once it's gone, which I still maintain is irrelevant.

Posted by: AJKamper | May 6, 2010 4:30 PM

Oh, and a) I'm circumcised, b) I wouldn't do it to my son if I had one (two daughters), and c) anyone who wants to barge in with the unfairness of MGM in an FGM debate is a total maroon.

Posted by: JBlilie | May 6, 2010 4:32 PM

Disclosure: Male, circumcised for non-religous, medical reasons. Had son C'ed for same reasons.

IMO: Only botched circumcisions are a problem. I see no issues with it otherwise at all. Although I won't be imposing my opinions on others -- if you-all want to go au naturel, good onya, hey no skin off my ... er nose.

(Normal, correctly performed) Circumcision is in no way in the same class/neighborhood/level of impact with FGM.

[We do ALL KINDS of things to/for our kids before the age of consent; it's pretty near the definition of parenting. The medical consensus as far as I read favored circumcision for future medical prophylactic reasons at the time our son was born. I can attest peronally that it in no way interferes with a good sex life. I don't have a all-natural hangup. I've had my body modified through surgery in various ways to correct (mainly) orthopedic issues. Circumcision, for me, seems no more consequential than such surgery and certainly has fewer negative side effects/direct effects.]

My $0.02

Posted by: Travis | May 6, 2010 4:39 PM

I had phimosis all of my life and for a long time I did not realize it was different than anyone else's. When I got older I realized that something was up but I did not know it was a condition until I started having sex. Then I realized it was a problem. However, I just lived with it for years as I was silly and embarrassed about my problem. Last summer, on the urging of my girlfriend I went to a doctor, tried the steroid creams, and they did not work, and eventually had a circumcision done. It was pretty unpleasant for some time. I was naked for about a week as I was so sensitive and in pain. And rather than taking 3-4 weeks before I was healed enough for sexual intercourse I had to wait about 8 weeks. I am glad I had it done though. Since then I have been a lot more happy with how everything works.

I am now a strong proponent of circumcision when it is needed. I think there are a lot of people out there who were embarrassed like I was and live with pretty unhappy sex lives. So I hope that by being open they might talk to their doctors about it. But please do not take this as meaning I endorse the practice of infant circumcision. I think people should be old enough to make the decision themselves. Sadly that does mean that some people like myself will have to live in some discomfort as adult.

Posted by: pteryxx | May 6, 2010 4:46 PM

*sigh* Whenever the boy-snipping fight breaks out anew, I refer folks to erotica-readers, for actual polite and curious discussion.

Cut or Uncut - what is your preference?

Circumcision - does it work for you?

But in summary, some people prefer uncut partners, some prefer cut. Some men got teased for being cut, some got teased for being uncut, and for some, nobody cared. Sometimes circumcisions can lead to later medical problems, and sometimes natural foreskins can lead to later medical problems. Foreskins vary tremendously in length and tightness, and so do circumcisions. Men can have good or bad hygiene regardless. YMMV, YMMV, YMMV. Sheesh.

I can find only one difference between the two adult conditions that doesn't boil down to personal preference, personal comfort zone, cultural/religious standards, or minute statistical inferences:

Some circumcised men resent the loss of their foreskins. Uncircumcised men don't seem to resent not being snipped. They can, if they wish, choose to be circumcised later. Adult circumcision seems to be less complicated and more often successful than foreskin restoration does. Therefore, leaving boys uncut would be the less harmful default position.

(note: this does not address the kerfuffle-veiled issue of whether infant circumcision is painful, traumatic, performed with sufficient skill, easier, or any of that. It's finals week and I just don't have the time; but feel free.)

Posted by: matthew.james.neil | May 6, 2010 5:00 PM

RE: sensitivity

The glans penis is, as I understand it, a corresponding part of the anatomy to the glans clitoris. Like the clitoral hood protects the clitoris until arousal, so the foreskin protects the glans penis when not aroused. As any (most?) women will tell you, too much direct contact with the clitoris can be overly stimulating to the point of not just being uncomfortable, but painful. While the glans penis doesn't have as many nerve endings, it is still a very sensitive part of the anatomy. With the foreskin completely removed, the body necessarily needs to compensate for the constant stimulation that results from contact, and so dulls the sensitivity of the skin (much like developing a callous).

I don't know how much of a difference this makes, but there is a necessary reduced sensitivity otherwise circumcised men could never wear clothing. The increased sensitivity that men relate after a circumcision in their adult life is not just because of having skin removed in that area, it is also because a very sensitive part of their body is being overstimulated.

Posted by: rufustfirefly66 | May 6, 2010 5:23 PM

I don't remember being circumcised, of course. I most likely wouldn't have it done as an adult without a very good reason, but aesthetically, I like the way my cut dick looks.

Now, when I was around 11, the meatus began closing up. They rubbed a little ointment that was supposed to numb it on the end of my dick, used forceps to pinch up the tip, and sliced off the excess. Now that hurt. And the next time I pissed, that hurt.

But I doubt if comes close to FGM in some third world ass backward patriarchal society.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/SaqGVG0xvJEQVwURVamS3DTCdvov0BLhXK1jOsYPPJQ-#b4893 | May 6, 2010 5:40 PM

Well, allow me to draw a parallel:

Some people have a pain in their lower-left abdomen. For many of these people, that turns out to be an appendicitis. Quick surgery, and 2 months later, you never knew you had a problem.

For a few others, the pain turned out to be Crohn's Disease, which stays with you for life and has a number of really nasty symptoms.

Think of the male circumcision as being more like the appy, and the female circumcision more like Crohn's. The appy might qualify as an interesting topic for discussion, in passing, and nothing more, while Crohn's is life-altering, and nothing less.

No one should be circumcised, but for men, it's just way less of a concern than it is for women. You don't compare the two; you contrast them.

In some parts of Africa, close to 100% of women have been mutilated. And do you want to start talking about breast ironing, too? How about foot-binding?

Women have it worse than men here, and it's all about power. I thought the world had come farther than that, but I guess not.

Been a while since I had a rant here. I feel much better now, thank you.

(Yeah, I have Crohn's.)

MikeM

Posted by: Morse | May 6, 2010 5:46 PM

I'm with the "PZ is being a dick" crowd. I don't think that anyone in the last thread was every trying to equate the horror of FGM with circumcision, but I don't think it was wrong or sexist to open the topic up to all forms of genital cutting, especially when the AAP used the excuse that 'nicking' would probably be okay since it was 'not as bad as male circumcision'. It is not a wrong response in that case to say "no, we should not be nicking women, and we shouldn't be nicking the men either."

I also think that the reason that FGM threads might 'derail' into discussions on circumcision is that there's nothing really to 'discuss' on the topic of FGM. We all agree, it's horrible, it's barbaric, and anyone caught doing it should be stripped of their parenting privileges. Pretty much the only thing to discuss is the fastest way we can stop this horror. I don't even see the discussion of other forms of genital cutting as a derail when it is actually taking a stronger stand against all forms of non-consensual genital cutting.

The thing about circumcision is that even though it's not as bad as FGM (not even the same ballpark), it's much more widely practiced in our society right now. As a woman in a western world, if your parents take a scalpel to your genitalia, they will be jailed. If you were a man though, they might be pressured into and applauded for that act. The reason circumcision is brought into these threads is that there is still very much a discussion to be had about circumcision (as evidenced by this thread). Just look at the people in this thread who have already had their opinions changed. Rational debate over circumcision makes a difference, whereas no number of comments will have an effect on the last holdouts of FGM.

Sorry for the long rant, I just got tired of people throwing around words like sexist, mansplainer, and whiner when the discussion evolved in a topical and logical direction.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | May 6, 2010 5:49 PM

Is there a woman out there that would suck on an uncircumcised penis? If a single responded says no, then I would opt on the side of caution and get circumcised. I chose to circumcise my son for this very reason alone.

That's pretty fucking stupid.

Posted by: Leon | May 6, 2010 5:58 PM

I can't believe no one is talking about blowjobs yet!

Is there a woman out there that would suck on an uncircumcised penis? If a single responded says no, then I would opt on the side of caution and get circumcised. I chose to circumcise my son for this very reason alone.

'Course, results of a survey group of 1 are hardly conclusive.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | May 6, 2010 6:10 PM

It seems odd that anyone can defend forced genital mutilation regardless of sex. If an adult male wants to get circumcised for whatever reason, all the power to them. But forcing it on a child?

ftr, not circumcised. Not tattooed either, would be pretty annoyed if my parents tattooed me as a baby tbh.

Posted by: Neilgue | May 6, 2010 6:15 PM

My wife is a midwife and has seen what goes on.

Her answer is that the mother should hold the baby while he is being cut. The eldest son may have it done, but none of his brothers will.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/hairychris444#96384 | May 6, 2010 6:29 PM

*Medical reasons in adulthood*

*Couldn't walk properly for weeks*

*Won't even compare that with the hideous female shit*

Posted by: toth | May 6, 2010 6:43 PM

"All PZ did was set up a seperate thread for those people who feel the need to talk about MGM instead of derailing a thread about FGM."

No, Janine. That's not all he did. Did you actually READ the fucking post? His references to "hormonal little boys wringing their hands"? You're either being stupid or dishonest. Whichever one, you're wrong.

Posted by: Weed Monkey | May 6, 2010 6:45 PM

Visions of uncomfortable looking piercings just flooded my head.

Posted by: Unaspammer | May 6, 2010 7:02 PM

Morse @200,

Another possible reason for it, and I think the reason I've been spending more time in this thread than the other one, is just that FGM is so damn horrifying. I'm comfortable talking about circumcision because I can relate to it. I'm more familiar with the anatomy involved, and I know plenty of people who are circumcised who seem no worse than the wear for it.

Reading that AAP recommendation, on the other hand, feels like watching a snuff video. I don't want to read it, or discuss it, or think about it any more than I want to discuss a YouTube video of a street gang beheading somebody in Malaysia.

Let me just say that I admire those who actually have the stomach to stand up and confront it and be passionate about it, because I couldn't do that.

Posted by: redrabbitslife | May 6, 2010 7:24 PM

The HIV transmission thing: have you read the studies? The confounders are HUGE, far bigger than the effect. I'm always astonished that this sort of study gets published, but I can only assume the publishers were hoping nobody would look at it too carefully or something.

The cancer thing? Hm. Maybe, but penile cancer is that uncommon. Just use a condom, and inspect your penis regularly (as if most guys need to be told).

I'm a family doctor and people ask me for referrals routinely for circumcision for newborns.

Here's the rub: I give them the risks (infection, accident, poor healing) and benefits (he'll look like daddy, usually). Someone (the mother) usually asks, hoping for reassurance I guess: "Will it hurt?"

I say, of course it will hurt. He'll have pain for about a week to ten days, vaseline in the diaper to keep it from sticking to the wound.

But I can't, in all conscience, say they shouldn't do it. While it remains legal, I have an obligation to give them the facts and let them make their own decisions. I disagree heartily, but I can't refuse to provide the referral.

Before someone jumps down my throat with both feet, remember, if this was abortion and I was "morally opposed," I would have an obligation to nonetheless provide the information and referral.

If you have other suggestions about how I might handle this, please, help.

Posted by: luyola | May 6, 2010 7:29 PM

My 2 cents:

Firstly, I'm from South Africa, where male circumcision is a tribal rite of passage performed at around 12-13 in certain cultures.
My Dad's a medical doctor and familiar with the results of these procedures - he's assured me it's quite a horrific practice, although not everyone it happens to agrees, probably because it's the norm in their culture. Ring any bells?
(incidentally, a large percentage of these boys end up hospitilised)

Moving on, from a medical and hygiene perspective, my Dad always told me there was absolutely no reason to be circumcised. Not as far as his medical knowledge and experience had shown. Further reading on the subject in later life, as well as being the owner of a foreskin for many years, has led credence to this.

Regarding the sensation / sensitivity argument - I have a VERY sensitive "member". I can't handle much friction to the exposed glans. If you can, and you must be able to if you're circumcised, then you're less sensitive than me. Does this make you enjoy sex less? I don't know, but I do know that I wouldn't wanna take the chance. Even if I had to have it cut for medical reasons, that would be an absolute last resort.
I guess what I'm saying is, doing it to your baby without his consent is wrong, cruel, barbaric and irresponsible, not to mention disrespectful.

To get back on topic - yes, FGM is beyond terrible, and people shouldn't be derailing discussions about it, but that doesn't mean you can belittle the suffering of others, just because their's is "not as bad" (PZ, toth was right, you were being a bit of a dick, even though u were just doing so to make a point.) Other's in this thread are just being assholes tho. You know what, just cos you're ok with being circumcised, doesn't mean it's ok to allow the practice to continue unopposed.

OK, rant over.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | May 6, 2010 7:35 PM

Is there a woman out there that would suck on an uncircumcised penis? If a single responded says no, then I would opt on the side of caution and get circumcised. I chose to circumcise my son for this very reason alone.

You idiot. Most men in Europe aren't circumcised, yet I'm not aware of any dearth of oral sex on the continent.

And just FYI - I wouldn't suck your lousy dick if I was suffocating and there was oxygen in your balls.

Posted by: luyola | May 6, 2010 7:38 PM

oops, forgot to add:
Some of those HIV studies were done here in South Africa, where we it's prevalent. At first everyone was all gung-ho to circumcise their way across Africa, but as more data came in and more studies were done, it was found that the original results were inaccurate. (too small a sample or something? I can't remember)

Anyway, this isn't new, people have mentioned it in this thread before, I just wanted to give the common-sense explanation from someone who lives in SA.
The highest incidence of HIV/AIDS in South Africa is among the Black population. This is also the population group which practices the most circumcision. So all these circumcised men are spreading HIV like wildfire.
hm, doesn't really gel with the circumcision is preventative idea, does it?

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | May 6, 2010 7:49 PM

Fake wife:

bring up male circumspection

That was a deliciously appropriate malapropism!

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | May 6, 2010 7:54 PM

Fake hubby, you mean there is such a thing?

Sorry, luyola, I cannot take toth's whining seriously.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | May 6, 2010 8:01 PM

PZ:

just imagine if there were a thread about prostate cancer, and women kept butting in insisting that you address breast cancer RIGHT NOW.

Agreed with you totally, but I think it's even worse than your analogy. Prostate cancer is much less deadly and disfiguring (usually) than breast cancer (not that that would make it OK to derail a thread about prostate cancer). What we're seeing here is male privilege bumping aside what's often a hideously disfiguring, horrifying act on female genitals in favor of a comparatively benign (though not OK) male circumcision. And you're right, it always happens when this topic comes up.

Posted by: Restoring Tally | May 6, 2010 8:27 PM

Mutilation is mutilation. The form of genital mutilation that the AAP is talking about making legitimate is less severe than male circumcision. With the current stance of the AAP, male circumcision falls between what they want to allow for women and infibulation, the severest form of FGM.

What say we leave the sex organs of babies alone? That means girls and boys could grow up with their whole body.

Posted by: JustALurker | May 6, 2010 8:57 PM

Is there a woman out there that would suck on an uncircumcised penis?

*waves hand vigorously*
I will and do on a regular basis, my boyfriend is not circumcised. I hate the stigma against men who are not circumcised. My bf was hurt emotionally by people who made fun of him, and women that refused to have sex with him because of it. It's not a problem that he's not circumcised, it makes no difference to our sex life. If I ever have a son, he certainly isn't going to be circumcised, there's no point in doing it.

And no, that doesn't mean I go around sucking and fucking any dick and I won't be doing anything with yours at all. (preemptive strike, I have a feeling some jackass would say something like that after my post.)

FGM is horrible. I was first exposed to this in college when I read "The Hidden Face of Eve". I cried when she described her experience. I also saw a video about an African women who went back to her village to try and stop the practice. She videotaped the ritual and showed it to the male elders who were horrified at the practice. They had no idea since they have never seen it done. They simply made the rule to control their women. I tried to find it to share but am still looking for it now......

Posted by: FossilFishy | May 6, 2010 9:15 PM

Caine 233:

There really aren't enough words for this type of behaviour.

Misogynistic, ignorant, moronic, repugnant, heinous, repulsive, barbaric, revolting, sadistic, brutal, inhuman, depraved, malevolent, foul, vile, obscene, vicious, monstrous, goddamned FUCKING EVIL!

Ah shit, in light of the topic and the nature of this site I was trying to leave out words with sexual or religious connotations. But seriously, I have a 2 year old daughter and the thought of this practice reduces me to the words that have the most emotional weight for me, and all of those words are religious or sexual.

Posted by: gregvalcourt | May 6, 2010 9:21 PM

Usually I enjoy and a agree with PZ's posts. I'm kind of annoyed with the way he framed this one: "I am belittling your loss, because compared to what mutilated women have lost, it's goddamned trivial." That's like saying the Catholic Church's sexual abuse problem is goddamned trivial compared to the Crusades.

We live in a culture (I live in Canada) where female genitals are put on a pedestal (and rightly so) while male genitals are treated like dirt. Human rights commissions have routinely ignored this issue. What's the point of a human rights commission if they just accept what is cultural?

I can see why MGM comes up during FGM (it's more horrible, I know) discussions. When your having a conversation about the flowers blooming in the garden, you don't suddenly change the subject to MGM (it's weird). However, if the discussion is already on GM (specifically FGM), you can move into MGM without being a weirdo. It's not about comparing FGM to MGM, it's simply an entry point in the conversation. It's already illegal in our countries to perform FGM on infants. Let's move on to discussing why it should be illegal to perform MGM on infants.

I realize that FGM is a problem in other countries that we should all be opposed to. Let's lead by example by showing that all forms of infant genital mutilation are not acceptable.

I'm usually just a lurker on this forum, but I am going to call PZ on this one, because he bloody well knows what culture he is living in and he just wanted to come off as PC.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | May 6, 2010 9:31 PM

This is the one major argument in my marriage. Mr. ODS and I are trying to have kids. I'm an atheist who was raised by atheists and he's a Jewish agnostic. However, even though we're not going to raise any children in a religion (duh), he insists that if we have boys they must be circumsised.

Me: Why the hell do you even care?
Mr. ODS: It's a part of my culture.
Me: I call bullshit on that. You eat bacon.
Mr. ODS: Well, what if he decides to join a temple?
Me: 1) He won't and 2) they don't do penis checks at the door.
Mr. ODS: Yes, they do.

He's so irrational, I don't think I can even win this argument. :(

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 6, 2010 9:37 PM

gregvalcourt:

It's not about comparing FGM to MGM, it's simply an entry point in the conversation.

Wrong. It's about making penises the center of the discussion when the topic is female genital mutilation. You know, those people who don't have penises. Every effing time FGM has been up for discussion here, the MGM brigade comes along, and it's all about the penis. PZ and others have said this so many fucking times already: would it kill you guys to talk about the problem in regard to females just once, and leave your dicks out of it? That's why PZ made a special boys and their penises thread.

It's already illegal in our countries to perform FGM on infants.

Well, if you'd take a look at the FGM thread, you'd see that might well be in danger. Or not, if you don't have any problems with ritual nicking of a young girl's clitoris.

Posted by: gregvalcourt | May 6, 2010 9:42 PM

PZ #230:

PZ, your analogy isn't apt. We could stop MGM by simply not doing it anymore. Breast cancer (any cancer) requires more research to cure.

Women's issues are important. So are men's. Why can't the importance of men's issues be = to importance of women's issues. Females already have legal protection from FGM. In an equal world, so would males.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | May 6, 2010 9:44 PM

@Lynne:

so I did some research. What finally convinced me to allow the procedure was a study that was done that found circumcised men were the recipients of fellatio more often than uncircumcised men.

You're kidding, right? You're a Poe, right?

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 6, 2010 9:47 PM

Josh, apparently people like Brianwhatshisface and CaptainWhatever aren't alone in choosing ritual mutilation due to fears their son won't get enough fellatio.

I'm finding it very difficult to grok this moronic line of "reasoning".

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 6, 2010 9:50 PM

'mutters something about the poor oppressed men of the patriarchy'

Janine, are you trying to make me choke on my cider?

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | May 6, 2010 9:54 PM

Janine, are you trying to make me choke on my cider?

Caine, only if the result is cider coming out of your nose. Anything else would be unacceptable.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | May 6, 2010 10:00 PM

OurDeadSelves:

Mr. ODS and I have talked about this extensively and there's no way he's accepting anything less than infant circumcision. (That's what he had! That's what happened to his father and grandfather! It's tradition!)

ODS, I can't tell you how to run your relationships, but here's how I see it:

ODS: There's no medical reason to circumcise our son, and I'm not going to subject him to having his foreskin cut.

Mr. ODS: OMG! Grandpappy did! Daddy did! Tradition!

ODS: Tradition is not a good enough reason to inflict a medical procedure on our son that's not necessary, and which alters his natural sexual function.

Mr. ODS: Tradition!

ODS: Not good enough. You need to think through this more soberly. I'm not getting pregnant until you can have this conversation without reflexively insisting on genital cutting. End of story.

Mr. ODS: Tradition!

ODS: Neither of us owns our son, and we have no right to do something to him that he might not choose to do himself as a grown man, unless it's necessary to save his life or protect him.

Posted by: JustALurker | May 6, 2010 10:03 PM

@248

That's what I was thinking.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 6, 2010 10:04 PM

Janine:

Caine, only if the result is cider coming out of your nose. Anything else would be unacceptable.

Good thing I wasn't drinking when I read this, or you would have gotten just that result. :D

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | May 6, 2010 10:07 PM

@Lynne:

No, just a mother who bowed to social pressure, and tried to rationalize it.

I commend you for your honesty.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 6, 2010 10:10 PM

Josh:

Jesus. . .that we even have to have this discussion.

I know. And they're the parents. Oy vey.

Posted by: headers | May 6, 2010 10:13 PM

I am an uncircumcised male living in North America. There is no ostracism, I have never had a problem.

Chopping pieces of sexual organs off kids is legally assault, in addition sexual assault, and also just plain wrong. Anybody who performs it or sanctions it should be tried, sentenced and put on the sex offenders list. That means you, parents going with the flow. It is a serious crime and is plainly wrong to any thinking person.

S

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 6, 2010 10:20 PM

tremorfan:

No one is arguing that male circumcision is worse than female circumcision, but the difference is that most, if not all, of the women here have never had their genitals mutilated, whereas most of the men probably have.

When a discussion about female genital mutilation gets overrun by penis discussion, it's worse than comparison, it's complete indifference to a subject which involves females not males.

As for most women here not having mutilated genitals, that's right. Most men here, if circumcised, had it done as infants and have no memory and no knowledge of ever being different, so don't make out like it is anything like FGM. It's not. If you men had the head of your penises removed routinely, fine, then we could compare and have equal things happening. And just in case you haven't noticed, the females, for the most part, are vociferously against MGM.

None of that though has to do with one simple godsdamned thing: when it is an issue which has to do specifically with females, including a law that deals only with females that a bunch of you men simply cannot discuss the subject without steering the discussion to your penises. Christ, how many times does that need to be said?

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | May 6, 2010 10:21 PM

Josh and Caine:

Thanks for the advice, guys :). I know a big part of the problem is that we haven't been able to talk about it rationally because we're both so stuck in our ways.

I didn't mean to turn this into a "poor ODS and her problems" convo. To bring it back on track, the whole "fellatio argument" has got to be bunk-- from experience, I don't care one way or the other and I doubt that many other people do either. If you like penis, you like penis. End of story.

Posted by: gregvalcourt | May 6, 2010 10:25 PM

#247

But you can't do it without being a jerk who is pushing aside the actual issue that was raised in favor of one you'd rather talk about.

Please tell me when it is appropriate to raise the issue. And why is it more import to talk about FGM in a culture that promotes MGM? How do we set an example by arguing over a form of GM that is not acceptable in our culture while ignoring a form that is?

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 6, 2010 10:30 PM

OurDeadSelves:

I didn't mean to turn this into a "poor ODS and her problems" convo.

If you can't discuss it in this thread, then where? It's a major problem, I know it's not one I would settle on if I had ever wanted kids. I don't know exactly how I would have handled it, either, if it turned out my partner was opposed.

Posted by: middo | May 6, 2010 10:48 PM

My father was circumcised. He also did National Service as it was known in the 50's. He said that on outback camps, by day 3 without washing you could smell which guys were circumcised and which were not, from 3 feet away. He had me circumcised. I have not suffered, and do not regret his decision at all. When my son was born, I also had him circumcised, for the same reasons.

More recently, AIDS research shows that circumcised males are less likely to contract HIV than those who are "intact". In fact, a South African study was stopped, and all males offered circumcism because the evidence half way through was so clear that a circumcised male is less likely to catch HIV.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | May 6, 2010 10:55 PM

@OurDeadSelves:

He goes from being a regular non-religious guy to OMG! MY PEOPLE! YOU'RE DENYING US OUR CULTURAL HERITAGE! And we haven't even had a kid yet.

Girl, please. If he wants to have that argument, send him to me. I'll throttle his ass so hard he won't even see it coming. That's bullshit.

Or, if you want to be more gentle with him, I can do that too. We can talk for a while about the precious, to-be-treasured "cultural heritage" of chopping up penises. Your choice, and I take Visa/Mastercard.

Bottomline: You have to draw a line in the sand. No compromise, no giving in to his stupid ego.

And it is stupid.

Posted by: Morse | May 6, 2010 10:59 PM

@Caine #273 I think the problem people are having is that you keep trying to turn this into some sort of sexist issue. You are insinuating that people brought up circumcision because MEN REALLY JUST WANT TO TALK ABOUT THEIR PENISES AND IGNORE WOMEN'S PROBLEMS. You're being insulting. You're acting as though men are more interested in their penises, and couldn't care less about a women being brutally tortured.

Does it escape you though that, in a thread about genital mutilation, and whether it's okay in our society, that someone may just comment on a form of genital mutilation that's still really common and accepted in our current society.

I think that splitting the threads was a good idea, this one has turned into a fruitful discussion about male circumcision, and the other thread has refocused on the AAP's policies.

Just please, stop implying that anyone who brings up male circumcision in a genital mutilation thread is a misogynist who only wants to talk about penis. Stop trying to make this a battle of the sexes when it doesn't need to be one.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | May 6, 2010 11:03 PM

I didn't mean to turn this into a "poor ODS and her problems" convo.

Caine already commented on this but I feel the need to second her. You did no such thing. It was on topic and it is a dilemma that many women have to face. Good luck in conceiving a fetus and good luck in talking hubby into going her route. And I hope that the advise given helps you and oher mothers to be.

I just wish more women were like mommimus-prime, see what it is and decide that it is something that baby boys should not go through.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 6, 2010 11:05 PM

OurDeadSelves:

He goes from being a regular non-religious guy to OMG! MY PEOPLE! YOU'RE DENYING US OUR CULTURAL HERITAGE!

Oh boy. For me, those would be fightin' words, as in you're gonna die. There has to be a way to discuss that particular distinction though. There has to be a wealth of ways in which his actual cultural heritage is displayed and shared, if not by him specifically, then by family.

Passing on deliberate bodily mutilation is not a good way to share cultural heritage, it's like passing on abuse. It's just continuing the cycle. I honestly think you need Jewish perspective on this, to give you talking points which are truly helpful, so I'd bring this up in the endless thread (after the frickin' election and the resultant must talk about it forever biz) to get a lot of varied viewpoints. JeffreyD might be very helpful, he'll be back to the thread in a while.

Meanwhile, you might have something with that Rakfisk. I know if I was threatened with lutefisk, it would be a most powerful weapon. ;D

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 6, 2010 11:11 PM

Janine:

I just wish more women were like mommimus-prime, see what it is and decide that it is something that baby boys should not go through.

You know, that might not be a bad idea, for ODS to see if it would be possible to watch a circumcision, with the Mr.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 6, 2010 11:18 PM

female genitals are put on a pedestal (and rightly so) while male genitals are treated like dirt

That is a very weird metaphor/simile suite there.

Posted by: Rachel Bronwyn | May 6, 2010 11:24 PM

“He said that on outback camps, by day 3 without washing you could smell which guys were circumcised and which were not, from 3 feet away.”

This is bullshit. Even if it were true, most people have access to showers daily, so it doesn’t matter.

“He had me circumcised. I have not suffered, and do not regret his decision at all.”

How could you? You have no grasp of what being uncut entails. You don’t know what you’re missing. Doesn’t mean you aren’t missing out on anything.

“When my son was born, I also had him circumcised, for the same reasons.”

So, when he doesn’t shower for days at a time, his dick doesn’t stink? I’ll just teach my kids proper hygiene, thanks.

“More recently, AIDS research shows that circumcised males are less likely to contract HIV than those who are "intact".”

And guess what’s more than twice as effective regarding HIV transmission prevention? Condoms. And you don’t lose a big chunk of your dick when you use them. For most of us in the developed world, there’s also the option of not having sex with people with HIV.

Unless you live in an HIV-ridden part of the world where condoms aren’t available to you nor is clean water, circumcision is completely without merit.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | May 6, 2010 11:25 PM

There has to be a wealth of ways in which his actual cultural heritage is displayed and shared, if not by him specifically, then by family.

Besides the holiday part, there's not much that Mr. ODS has done to celebrate his heritage. Scratch that, he also likes to make and eat traditional Polish foods. Which is partially why I don't understand why he's so insistent on the circumcision issue-- my best guess is that it's a combination of religious upbringing and American society saying that a cut wiener is the preferred wiener.

ps- My Dad has horror stories about having to eat lutefisk as a kid. From the way he described it (lumpy snot in sour cream), I didn't believe that it could be something that people actually willingly ate until I saw my granddad sucking it down like it was his last meal. Why, oh why, do I have to be descendant of people with shitty foods?

pps- I don't know what's wrong with me and all of my blockquote fails today. I haven't even been drinking!

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | May 6, 2010 11:27 PM

#291:

Are you fucking nuts?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 6, 2010 11:33 PM

they're the way they were born, and my reaction is the same as a dood freaking out that his new g/f doesn't have the same effortlessly perfect breasts and manicured toes and smooth and golden legs he's used to seeing everywhere.

um, no

It's nothing like that

Posted by: Rachel Bronwyn | May 6, 2010 11:35 PM

My ears were pierced around ten and I can go years without wearing earings without the holes closing. None of my other piercings close when I don't wear jewellery either. I don't think it has a thing to do with age.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | May 6, 2010 11:36 PM

You know, that might not be a bad idea, for ODS to see if it would be possible to watch a circumcision, with the Mr.

In theory, yes that would be in great idea.
In practice, though... ugh, I'd lose my lunch.

Don't be pressured, don't be dissuaded. Your son deserves to make his own choices about his body, when he's an adult.

You're totally right, Josh. I'm not backing down from this.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | May 6, 2010 11:37 PM

Do the US posters talking about cleanliness and fellatio have any idea how fucking stupid this sounds from the perspective of countries which don't routinely snip?

Posted by: Rachel Bronwyn | May 6, 2010 11:39 PM

I honestly don't think Americans who preach the supposed benefits of circumcision realise how dumb they sound to the rest of the world, who does just fine without modifying their genitals at birth.

Posted by: Weed Monkey | May 6, 2010 11:42 PM

@djinnag #291:

Did you really just say you'd like to circumcise your son because that's your sexual preference? You really need to start thinking, hard and good.

Posted by: Rorschach | May 6, 2010 11:42 PM

Are you fucking nuts?

She expressed an opinion and her preference.You might disagree.Why call her fucking nuts?

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | May 6, 2010 11:47 PM

I know I'm hardcore, and uncompromising, and that's not always the best way. But in your case, I think you need to hear it.

I did need to hear it and I'm sure I will in the future.

I'm still learning that there are things that can be compromised on and things that can't. I've always liked to be the person who can find the middle ground but dammit, this is too freaking important to back down on.

Posted by: Gaia sighs... | May 6, 2010 11:51 PM

"what's the evidence for reduced sensitivity?"

Male circumcision removes the frenar band, that band of super-sensitive Meissner's corpuscles lining the foreskin that are responsible for a male's actual,volitional control of orgasm. Males who possess an intact foreskin are usually more gentle lovers, who needn't resort to paroxysms of athletic thrusting to achieve a little death -- as Maimonides well knew when he advised that circumcision's actual intent was to lessen sexual pleasure (for their mates, as well as the men afflicted).

I'm rather taken aback by PZ's almost rabid belittlement of male circumcision and those who dare to mention it in the same breath as FGM. Such a reaction would surely be a pointer to serious denial if it was observed in a clinical setting...

Posted by: Weed Monkey | May 6, 2010 11:52 PM

BTW my main objection with lutefisk - or lipeäkala as we say - is that it doesn't taste much like anything. On christmas table it's topped with a bland sauce made of milk and flour, and flavoured usually with just allspice.

Posted by: Kraid | May 6, 2010 11:53 PM

Morse #280

Does it escape you though that, in a thread about genital mutilation, and whether it's okay in our society, that someone may just comment on a form of genital mutilation that's still really common and accepted in our current society.

Curiously, I think that kind of attitude (the one I'm parodying, not yours) reveals a subtle sexism of its own, but I'll not push my luck trying to make that case here.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | May 6, 2010 11:54 PM

@313: did you read the other, fucking nuts, parts?

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 6, 2010 11:56 PM

Gaia sighs:

Males who possess an intact foreskin are usually more gentle lovers, who needn't resort to paroxysms of athletic thrusting to achieve a little death -- as Maimonides well knew when he advised that circumcision's actual intent was to lessen sexual pleasure

That's useful information. Thank you.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | May 6, 2010 11:58 PM

Hey, thanks for everything, guys! :) Seeing as though it's about midnight here, I am off to bed.

I'll pop in the endless thread after the election fervor dies down* to see if anyone has any advice for approaching this rationally.

And one last note about lutefisk: it's not the taste, it's the texture.

*The election was tonight, right? I only have to wait until the post-election analysis is done, right? YOU BRITS BETTER GET CRACKIN' ON THAT. I have more important things to discuss than your silly "parliament."

Posted by: Stephen Wells | May 7, 2010 12:00 AM

Can we have a huge fucking CITATION NEEDED on the claim that having foreskins makes men more gentle lovers?

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 7, 2010 12:04 AM

Stephen, sure. I'd like to see citations on that, actually.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | May 7, 2010 12:09 AM

It rang a few alarm bells because claims about the frenar band being the primary male erogenous zone, uniquely sensitive etc. seem to circulate largely among anti-circumcision groups without being well anchored in the general literature on sexual response. I'm opposed to circumcision myself, but am wary of the pernicious effects of bad arguments in a good cause. So, cites would be good.

Even if circumcision doesn't affect sexual response at all I would still object to it on the grounds that cutting bits of your children off is bizarre.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 7, 2010 12:15 AM

Stephen, okay. I'll make a note of that and do some searching tomorrow. I apologize for just accepting it, I'm 34 hours without sleep and I've had 3 ciders. Brain's a bit mushy.

I would like to read legitimate research on the subject.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 7, 2010 12:22 AM

Rutee, imperfect breasts are natural. A perfect manicure is an absurd and incredibly stupid comparison. It's mutilation. One that is not necessary. At all. If you read the thread, you'd find that no, male circumcisions are not done just for looks. There are all manner of asinine justifications for them. Doesn't make them right. Would you think labia tucks on newborn girls was cool?

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | May 7, 2010 12:26 AM

Would you think labia tucks on newborn girls was cool?

Well, sure, if that means Lil' Bindi gets laid...

(runs, ducking)

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawl1k6PszjnGq9QW3VPLA3NUnoXywPJe7ZQ | May 7, 2010 12:34 AM

A lot of you are missing the point.

The point is not about belittling the loss. The point is that for the overwhelming majority of circumcised men, there's just no loss.

For that matter, it may be true, but I have a hard time believing that there is any significant number of circumcised men who really, sincerely feel that they are missing something. I can't say that for sure because I don't talk about it with other men, I don't look at other men's penises, and I have only my own experience to go by, but I just don't believe it. I really think they're just pretending.

I don't quite get why, though.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 7, 2010 12:39 AM

Googlemess @ 336:

I don't quite get why, though.

I don't think men are pretending about being concerned and upset about routine MGM. It's the fact that it is routine that's the problem. I get why and I'm not male. Unnecessary mutilation of a child who cannot consent is wrong.

Josh...;D :D

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | May 7, 2010 12:42 AM

I don't look at other men's penises, and I have only my own experience to go by, but I just don't believe it

Let's share experiences. Come on - you tell me yours, I'll tell you mine. Ooooooh. . . .

I believe it, baby.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | May 7, 2010 12:46 AM

...I'm 34 hours without sleep...

Why? Woman, get some sleep. Do not come back to this blog for at least twelve hours. It is for your own health and sanity.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | May 7, 2010 12:48 AM

it would not surprise me much if here weren't great peer reviewed research on penile sensitivity and function.

Bitch, please (he says, jokingly). Peer review this.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 7, 2010 12:50 AM

Gaia sighs, it's not the least trollish. It was a very reasonable response to me. Perhaps you aren't aware, but literature is different from scientific research and evidence. An uncircumcised penis can be praised to the sky in literature and all manner of claims made, that doesn't make them true.

Actual research and evidence is objective. I imagine there have been studies done with sexually active males who were not circumcised until some point of adulthood. I'll look into it tomorrow. As for Stephen, he asked you for citations (scientific research) as to your claim about sex with an uncircumcised penis. Do you have something other than literature?

Posted by: Usagichan | May 7, 2010 12:51 AM

* the last sentence of 343 should have read -

"It is adults inflicting their choices upon infants that is the crux of the matter..."

Posted by: JustALurker | May 7, 2010 12:52 AM

Stephen, I seriously doubt it. If it helps, both Josh and I are 'Mericans and we about had a meltdown over the fellatio thing.

I'm in the same boat, and gladly whack anyone on the head when they bring this stupid shit up. Especially, when it's in front of my bf since it really makes him feel bad and disgusting for being "uncut".

I find your shallow, ignorant view disgusting.
Opinions like this throughly piss me off. My wonderful, brilliant, funny bf is put down because of some stupid social trend. A penis is a fucking penis. Love it, fuck it or leave it, I don't give a damn what your personal preference is unless it hurts someone else. Your opinion certainly falls into this category. Sure, I'm attracted to it and love getting some dick but honestly a penis is not "hot" and neither is my vulva. The human body is a beautiful, amazing thing don't fucking degrade it and promote mutilation in order to get your rocks off.

Posted by: JustALurker | May 7, 2010 12:55 AM

shit. blockqute fail, my fail,

the quote that is disgusting and ignorant was this one,

I've watched plenty of porn and uncut cocks are fucking disgusting.

I find your shallow, ignorant view disgusting.
Opinions like this throughly piss me off. My wonderful, brilliant, funny bf is put down because of some stupid social trend. A penis is a fucking penis. Love it, fuck it or leave it, I don't give a damn what your personal preference is unless it hurts someone else. Your opinion certainly falls into this category. Sure, I'm attracted to it and love getting some dick but honestly a penis is not "hot" and neither is my vulva. The human body is a beautiful, amazing thing don't fucking degrade it and promote mutilation in order to get your rocks off.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | May 7, 2010 12:55 AM

Yeah, Josh? I thought I wasn't your type, being, like, female, and all.

Well, see, I'm mysterious that way. I have all these fake wives: Carlie, Janine, Lynna, Caine, SC (if she lets me).

I mean, what's another? More's the merrier, in my gay harem, right? Lol.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | May 7, 2010 1:00 AM

SC? That hussy? I missed that!

How come no one told me about that?

Josh, do you have any other wives and husbands to declare. Dammit, I thought that openness and honesty was the foundation of our fake marriage?

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | May 7, 2010 1:02 AM

Perhaps you aren't aware, but literature is different from scientific research and evidence. An uncircumcised penis can be praised to the sky in literature and all manner of claims made, that doesn't make them true.

Caine, Gaia Sighs said "in the literature", commonly taken to mean "in the scientific literature".

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | May 7, 2010 1:05 AM

@Janine:

Josh, do you have any other wives and husbands to declare. Dammit, I thought that openness and honesty was the foundation of our fake marriage?

Um, uh, Miss Janine. . I ain't got no other womenz or menz. . I swear. . . and . .stuff. ..

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | May 7, 2010 1:09 AM

Ah, I see where you were coming from, Caine.

You're not the only one who should hit the hay, I guess.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | May 7, 2010 1:12 AM

(me looks around)

(blink. . blink)

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 7, 2010 1:15 AM

G'night, Janine! Josh, I'd watch your ass if I were you...

G'night, Brownian. We'll check up on the scientific literature of Maimonides later. ;D

Posted by: jack.rawlinson | May 7, 2010 1:22 AM

Of course female circumcision is worse than male circumcision. But infant male circumcision is still child abuse, and it is still utterly inexcusable.

Do you know that I, as a typical uncircumcised male Brit, had no idea why so many American males talked about "lube" in conjunction with wanking until I figured out that many American males are circumcised? I'd just like to point out to all those brainwashed American males that defend needless circumcision that we uncircumcised males don't need lube to wank. We just let that soft, pliable little foreskin ride up and down over our glans and mmm-MMM, it feels so good.

I just thought I'd share that with with you.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | May 7, 2010 1:25 AM

Oh, dear. I do not want to piss off Number One Wife. How may I please you, J, dear?

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | May 7, 2010 1:31 AM

You-should-not-have-to-ask-me-be-cause-you-should-al-read-y-know.

'ggggrrrrrrrr'

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | May 7, 2010 1:35 AM

Perhaps it is time to pour cat food down your pants and set the cats on you. I am sure that they are...hungry!

Posted by: Kraid | May 7, 2010 1:49 AM

#336:

I really think they're just pretending.
I don't quite get why, though.

It's difficult to find literature on the topic that doesn't come from anti-circumcision groups, so I suppose that leads to some bias. But with that in mind, try this:
http://www.noharmm.org/bju.htm
and scroll down to the heading "Psychological Consequences." Hell, read the Physical Consequences section too. 27% of the respondents were circumcised so tightly that they couldn't get a normal erection. You don't think that naturally leads them to some resentment in those folks?

Re: "there's nothing lost," personally I suspect that most men harboring this macho "Get over it, I wasn't hurt by it" dismissive attitude are partially described here, particularly by points 4 and 5:
http://www.circumcision.org/satisfied.htm
I'm going to go ahead and risk overstating my case by likening it, in at least this one dimension, to rape victims who consequently devalue sex in order to reduce the psychological impact of the trauma. Likewise, many men will tell themselves "it was just a flap of useless skin" in order to better ignore the very painful notion that they were physically violated and robbed of an exquisitely sensitive, highly personal, irreplaceable part of themselves. See also: sour grapes.

Before anyone objects, no I'm not claiming that rape is exactly analogous to circumcision. However, I do think there are some striking parallels.

Posted by: DominEditrix | May 7, 2010 1:59 AM

When my son was born, I also had him circumcised, for the same reasons.

a) All men stink after 3 days sans bathing, be they cut or not;

b) It takes far less energy to teach one's son to wash himself correctly than it does to get him to pee into the toilet. My son had mastered it at age two.

Is there a woman out there that would suck on an uncircumcised penis?

Thousands. Hundreds of thousands. Millions. Because the number of men in the world whose cultures don't call for routine circumcision is in the millions. Hmmm - counting two Frenchmen, three Englishmen, a Swede and a Catholic from Pittsburgh, I can recall seven uncut men I've known personally who regularly got blow jobs.

Posted by: Travis | May 7, 2010 3:26 AM

@367 JustALurker,
Hehe, I am glad not everyone is looking for the gentle lover. I had a foreskin but the only reason it make me a gentle lover at times was because it caused problems and could be painful at times. Once it was removed I certainly did not get more gentle.
But gentle is also not the way I like it:-)

Before my surgery I did some reading about the reduction of sensitivity and it seemed to be pretty inconclusive. While I did not do a full literature review or anything like that the papers I did find did not seem to find much difference between those who were cut or uncut, at least in terms of their satisfaction or abilities. Other studies did not find a much difference in terms of feeling through direct testing by prodding some poor penises. But I do not have the references now. Doh. So I admit I could be biased in reporting these broad conclusions.

Posted by: arkestrate | May 7, 2010 3:44 AM

#14: "Boys tend not to flaunt their penises at each other..."

...You've not been to Pakistan, have you, PZ?

Posted by: Travis | May 7, 2010 5:20 AM

Just another note, the reason I was mentioning what I had read, and the difference in sensitivity was simply because it was asked about earlier on. Not because I wanted to support infant circumcision in any way. Simply because it might feel pretty much as good cut as uncut does not mean it would be okay in my opinion.

I read about it mainly because I was worried research might show a drastic change. No matter what I was going to get it done as it was for a medical condition. Though I figure no matter what I am better off now.

Okay, enough about my penis.

Posted by: f.boniboni | May 7, 2010 7:17 AM

No matter how satisfied you are with your genital mutilation it is, STILL, CHILD ABUSE. The kid should have its normal development and then, if it's for cultural reasons, decide to mutilate itself.

Posted by: Darreth | May 7, 2010 8:19 AM

Who are these men who have issues with circumcision and why?

I have no issue whatsoever being circumcised. None. No sexual dysfunction, no need to feel cheated, etc. And I like the look, too. No ragged end hanging over the tip of my tallywacker. No smegma smell, eg, no issues with hygiene, etc.

I totally understand why parents wouldn't want to have their sons crying like a banshee after such a procedure: it looks like torture. But I don't remember my circumcision and no one I have ever talked to about it remembers it either (I'm gay and we talk about these things).

All that makes sense here is that there must have been some sort of unconscious trauma associated with those who were cut as infants.

Posted by: JustALurker | May 7, 2010 8:43 AM

Who are these men who have issues with circumcision and why?

If you read the thread, most (not all of course) men are okay with their cut. There are some that okay with it and oppose it happening to other children for many reasons. Like the fact that there is no medical reason, it may in fact limit how sensitive your penis is and of course, the fact that INFANTS CAN'T CONSENT. The reason for male circumcision? Debunked medical reasons, cultural "norms" and of course the horrible chance some shallow, misinformed woman will think your natural penis looks funny. *rolls eyes*

No smegma smell, eg, no issues with hygiene, etc.

Uncut men also don't have a problem with hygiene if you clean. Obviously, if you take care of yourself you won't smell cut or not.

I have no issue whatsoever being circumcised. None. No sexual dysfunction, no need to feel cheated, etc. And I like the look, too

Wonderful for you. You like it and go with the fucked up social norm. That doesn't make it okay do it. If it was a social norm that you liked, would that make it okay for FGM? Do you realize how stupid that sounds?

But I don't remember my circumcision and no one I have ever talked to about it remembers it either (I'm gay and we talk about these things).

So if I knock you out and rape you it isn't a problem since you don't remember? How about pedophiles who target infants, I mean they don't remember it so its ok, right? So fucking wrong. This has been covered up thread already.

All that makes sense here is that there must have been some sort of unconscious trauma associated with those who were cut as infants.

Are you really that incapable of understanding why someone might not like having a piece of their dick cut off without their permission? And you do realize there are complications sometimes right? Or is that just "some trauma" the wussy boys need to get over?

All of this has been covered up thread, if you are capable of reading for comprehension. The whole rape analogy was used up thread too. Try reading it, the regulars here are much better at this than me, maybe you will learn something.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | May 7, 2010 8:55 AM

Fuck off, copyleft. When the issue is clitoral excision, having the bandwidth filled out with men displaying their penises is not helpful. If anyone's had their penis entirely cut off, that might be more relevant. And guess what? those who want to turn the discussion dickwards get _this_ thread to play in.

Posted by: EvilSooty | May 7, 2010 9:11 AM

I agree Copyleft.

We should all also remember that it is misogynistic, sexist and a symptom of penis worship to mention a form of genital mutilation of infants in a thread already about genital mutilation of infants.

We should instead save such irrelevant discussions for threads that have nothing to do with genital mutilation of infants.

Posted by: Copyleft | May 7, 2010 9:33 AM

Actually, Janine, I was going to express the same sympathy for you.

I, for one, apologize on behalf of all Internet discussions everywhere for the evil of thread drift. More people need to remember that topics affecting women should be the sole exception to that pattern.

SO sorry you can't control how discussions meander. It's just wrong and evil of people not to respond in the way you'd prefer.

Posted by: Darreth | May 7, 2010 9:36 AM

I think #390 proved my point. This is a huge unconscious 'rape' issue for some men.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | May 7, 2010 9:37 AM

Fuck off and fuck you.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 7, 2010 9:45 AM

I'm trying to figure out the point to #399

Posted by: EvilSooty | May 7, 2010 9:49 AM

AJKamper:

'Culture's important. Ritual is important to many, many people. And as much as it might be nice for those of us who do not rely on ritual for cultural belonging to tell others to just STOP IT, people aren't wired that way.'

So it is acceptable to commit actual bodily harm against an infant who cannot consent for ritual purposes?

Glad we cleared that up.

Posted by: AJKamper | May 7, 2010 10:04 AM

EvilSooty:

"So it is acceptable to commit actual bodily harm against an infant who cannot consent for ritual purposes?"

Depending on the degree of harm, sure. Think of it as a continuum: Is ear piercing okay? A ritual prick of the toe? These are all actual physical harm, but so minimal that they don't really matter on a pragmatic level.

Male circumcision is clearly more significant harmwise, and certainly shouldn't be considered lightly. As a group we should disapprove of it. We should try to convince people not to do it. But we should also recognize that it's not the end of the freaking world, and that to some people ritual and culture is important enough that it outweighs the harm done.

Maybe you can afford to be idealistic about it; I don't have much patience for idealism these days.

Posted by: Gaia sighs... | May 7, 2010 10:19 AM

It's surprising how ill-informed many offering comment on male circumcision here are. For an excellent, informative overview of the subject, I'd recommend Zoske's "Male Circumcision: A Gender Perspective" to be found at http://www.noharmm.org/zoske.htm

It should also be mentioned that there are, indeed, forms of male circumcision that far exceed in brutality that inflicted by the more abridged forms of FGM. One, in particular, comes to mind: in some areas of the Mid East circumcision of males entails literally flensing the entire genital area below the navel at puberty.

Posted by: Rachel Bronwyn | May 7, 2010 10:22 AM

Darreth,

I think #390 proved my point. This is a huge unconscious 'rape' issue for some men.

Just because you're pleased to have been circumcised as an infant and enjoy the outcome, Darreth, does not mean those who do feel their rights were violated as infants are being irrational. Your insistance that there's absolutely no legitimate reason any man should be unhappy about having been circumcised as an infant and that those who are unhappy about it are just silly is profoundly condescending and dismissive. Not everyone's experience is the same as yours nor are their preferences.

Glad you like that your parents opted had your genitals cosmetically altered at birth. My boyfriend certainly isn't and it's got nothing to do with rape.

Posted by: mommimus-prime | May 7, 2010 10:26 AM

I've never understood the I want my son to look like me reasoning for cutting. Do dads and sons really stand around looking at each others penes comparing them? My hubby and son don't. And they're not the same anywhere else, why should they be the same there? And if the subject comes up isn't it a wonderful chance for a grownup talk about the subject, a chance to educate?

This was one of the reasons I heard all through my time as a nurse and later. I never got it.

I'm also curious (I haven't been a nurse in a very long time and haven't kept up on all the literature and I know I could google it) but is it still common practice not to use an anesthetic? I do know it was just starting to be talked about in the 80s and 90s but from one comment upthread, I got the impression that it's still not a common practice.

Posted by: AJKamper | May 7, 2010 10:37 AM

Copyleft:

After all, those things do a lot less harm than injecting God into science classrooms and outlawing gay mariage "cuz Gawd hates gays," so why bother commenting on them?

Well, commenting on them is one thing. Feel free to comment. Idealism is easy in idle chitchat. But it's what we do and where we spend our resources in the real world that matter. And I think I'd rather make sure that we actually get some good done rather than fighting for every principle without considering the real-world consequences.

Posted by: Westcoaster | May 7, 2010 10:55 AM

The original article wasn't just about female genital mutilation, it was about the AAP's response to it, and the assertion by the AAP that ritual "nicking" would be appropriate. My point when I raised the issue of male circumcision was that any kind of genital mutilation is wrong. Yes, male circ is trivial compared to full on FGM, but so is clitoral nicking. That's not the point. The point is that the AAP is an organiztion that supports the mutilation of babys of both sexes. It's not about men and women, its about cutting babies.

Posted by: JustALurker | May 7, 2010 11:17 AM

Darreth, I think #390 proved my point. This is a huge unconscious 'rape' issue for some men.

Excuse me? I wasn't trying to say the two are equivalent but this was mentioned here up thread and it was brought up in the FGM thread. I was just trying to point out the stupidity of the "I don't remember it so its ok" excuse.
I'm sorry if in the heat of the moment I wasn't very clear.

See comment 46 from FGM thread.

Your statement about them remembering the procedure as an excuse to do it when they're a baby (and therefore unlikely to remember) could be used as a defence for using rohypnol to rape someone. Afterall, they don't remember it right? What's the harm?

And for your fucking information rape is extremely damaging, whether you're conscious or not. You are simply trying to down play it as "oh, they just feel raped, boo hoo" and that's bullshit. As a person who has actually been raped, FUCK YOU. Your dismissive and condescending attitude towards male circumcision and rape is appalling.

Again, just because you or every other fucking man on the planet is okay with their cut off foreskins doesn't mean it's okay for it to be done. Fucking moron.

I second comment 410. Again, I apologize if I'm not being clear.....

Posted by: Copyleft | May 7, 2010 11:24 AM

If the overwhelming majority of a given community agreed that lesbian students shouldn't be allowed to attend a high-school prom, would that make it okay? After all, there's no real harm done....

Since the F-bomb seems popular on this thread, I'll reply to the whole idealism-vs-cultural-tradition debate in like manner: fuck cultural tradition.

Posted by: brianemond71 | May 7, 2010 12:20 PM

I'm slow to respond, but respond I shall!

So far I've been called idiotic, stupid, whatever for circumcising my son because I'm concerned about what women may find preferable in a man (circumcised vs uncircumcised). It doesn't appear that I got too may female responses as to what would be preferable; but I can tell you that my wife obviously had input into this, and her sentiment was that she would likely be put-off by an uncircumcised penis as opposed to circumcised. This has just become an (unfortunate?) norm for American society.

All human beings spend ridiculous amounts of money making themselves more attractive to the opposite (or perhaps not) species. To criticize me because I'm thinking about what may be more preferable to the likely future suitors of my son is incredibly hypocritical in a country that spends billions of dollars a year on plastic surgeries.

I think we've all established here that circumcision (when done right) is not a life-altering, tragic mutilation. Rather in the context I'm arguing, it is a form of male plastic surgery, which like any other plastic surgery, is to heighten the likely attractiveness of yourself to your interested partners.

Posted by: Tim Harris | May 7, 2010 12:41 PM

A thread should be confined to FGM if that's how it started - should it? You know, apart from the splendid feeling that comes from publicly indulging one's outrage at such barbarousness, which a large number of posters duly and dutifully did, there is not, really, much to be argued about - I noticed nobody arguing for the practice, which is, let it be said again, something that endangers very, very few young American women; the only serious issue was whether the Association was right or wrong in fudging principle a bit in an attempt to reduce the damage caused by the practice. There has not been a proper discussion of this, or any real attempt to seriously address the argument of the one person who seems to have actually read the Association's paper and who defended it.
But beyond that: as more than one person has pointed out, MGM in certain non-American countries is not the nicely sterile practice that so many Americans feel comfortable with. And beyond that: what is surely worth addressing is precisely the role of religion in the practice of genital mutilation, whether female or male, and why it is, in the main, religions originating in the Near East that advocate it (the very high incidence of MGM in the USA in comparison with other developed countries surely has a lot to do with the power and importance of Christianity in the USA, whatever the reasons in favour of MGM put forward by various people). Of course I agree that FGM and MGM (in its sanitised Western guise) are incomparable, but it is religion, and particular religions' attitudes to the human body that undergird the practice, and this needs to be recognised and addressed. In East Asia, where I live, as (mostly) in Europe, there is no genital mutilation generally practiced on either sex. And then what needs to be asked is the best way of dealing with a practice that involves deep-seated religious beliefs and is sanctioned by tradition: it is all very well to indulge one's justified outrage and to complain, rightly, about patriarchal societies, but this outrage and those complaints are not only unlikely to be accepted, they are unlikely even to be understood by those who believe in the correctness of the practice. Cries of 'Fuck cultural tradition!' are worthless. The USA is not (thank whoever!)in the position of the British in India, and its power to stop the practice is limited. So how should it be stopped? I have no answers, but the religious dimension to genital mutilation needs to taken seriously and seriously addressed, as opposed to the ready and easy way of merely reiterating 'religion bad', which is something most sensible people realise. And perhaps for Americans it might be a good idea to begin at home, and to ask themselves why it is that male circumcision is so prevalent in the States and why people flounder around trying to find or invent nice secular reasons for it; this might lead to a better understanding of why certain societies like to mutilate females and of the reasons that members of those societies give for doing so (I shouldn't have to say this, but understanding and acceptance are two different things).

Posted by: SaraJ | May 7, 2010 12:54 PM

brianemond71 @423:

I know you don't want to read through 400+ posts, but the point is, if a consenting adult wants to make the decision for themselves, that is fine, but slicing and dicing an infant because of some weird cultural norm is not okay.

You say it's like any cosmetic surgery, okay, would you give your son (or daughter) a nose job as an infant, or an eyebrow lift, or an ear pinning, because you're afraid those features are going to be grotesque to some mysterious future woman? And do you REALLY want your son to be with a woman who is so shallow that she wouldn't like your son if his penis wasn't circumcised?

Posted by: brianemond71 | May 7, 2010 1:06 PM

Tim Harris: You almost convinced me that you had a thought in your head at #424, and then you just go and show yourself to be just another one of PZ Myers 'I'm right and if you disagree with me your an asshole' douchebags!

Why don't you respond with a real fucking point to make regarding my post instead of resorting to childish name calling? And calling me parochial and self-indulgent does not count as making a point.

Posted by: SaraJ | May 7, 2010 1:23 PM

brianemond71, so far you have not answered either myself or JustALurker. I'm waiting for your answer on whether or not you would perform rhinoplasty, ear pinning, or other cosmetic procedures on your infant son purely because you didn't like how his features looked and you were worried he wouldn't be able to attract a future mate.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 7, 2010 1:29 PM

Uh oh. Do we have another that needs to be pointed to the intersection?

Posted by: brianemond71 | May 7, 2010 1:44 PM

@429

fucking child mutilating douche bag

Cute - keep trying to make it sound as BAD as you can. As myself and many others have said, I'm circumcised, I'm glad for it, I'm glad I did it for my son and I'm quite certain he will hold no ill-will for me in the future over his missing foreskin. My god they way some of you whine over a useless piece of skin just makes me laugh!

Right, because we all know the only way to fight stupid American norms is to go along with them

Every one of us, everyday, makes a choice to go along with some social norms, and ignore or oppose others. In my estimate, this one isn't anywhere near as important as anything else you're trying to compare it to. Not matter how hard you or others try, ITS JUST NOT THAT BIG OF A FUCKING DEAL!

In this same sense, would you then have a labia tuck for your infant daughter

hypocritical, ignorant

Yes, my son didn't have a choice in the matter. Neither did I. As some have pointed out, making the choice later in life truly is a painful process, and that played into my decision to have it done for him as an infant.

Keep trying, but you're not gonna make me feel guilty, ashamed, whatever for making this choice for him.

Posted by: Hairhead | May 7, 2010 1:56 PM

Carlie, Fleur, et al. WE HAVE A WINNER!

We have finally found a North American male who supports FGM, viz:

"In this same sense, would you then have a labia tuck for your infant daughter

I have no idea what the hell that even is, but I'll play your game. If this was a relatively painless procedure that a majority of women were doing in a region I lived in, then yes, I would do it for my daughter if my wife also consented to it."

Yup, there is the connection. A person who supports MGM will also support FGM. Because "other people do it."

Posted by: JustALurker | May 7, 2010 2:02 PM

Rather all of you who think you know best, and that only one way, clearly uncircumcised, is the only way human males should exist on the planet while pretending to be defenders of human freedoms and choice, are the true ignorant hypocrites.

WOW. That clearly demonstrates your ignorance. Did I ever say it's the only way males should exist on the planet? Nope, not even fucking close. If a male wants to do it when he's old enough to be informed and consent, that's fine by me. It's his body and his own damn decision at that point. That's what defending human rights and liberties is about you jackass. Why not trying reading the fucking thread? Or do you just skim it over the parts that point out your ignorance?

As myself and many others have said, I'm circumcised, I'm glad for it, I'm glad I did it for my son and I'm quite certain he will hold no ill-will for me in the future over his missing foreskin. My god they way some of you whine over a useless piece of skin just makes me laugh!

Ok, I am going to repeat this again, very slowly so maybe you can get it though your pea sized brain:

Just because you are fine with it and okay doesn't mean every other man who has had their foreskins removed without their permission, is okay with it. It doesn't mean that your son will be okay with it. It doesn't make it right if every man on the planet is circumcised. This is not "just a piece of skin". This is taking an infant and removing a piece of them without their consent for no damn reason. And no, social norm is not a fucking reason. Just like social norm is not an excuse for FGM* or infant nose jobs, or infant tattoos.

*Obviously, FGM is far, far worse than removing the foreskin, and has deadly effects physically, sexually, and mentally. I am no way trying to say they are equal. They just have similarities that I am using to demonstrate his horrible viewpoint.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 7, 2010 2:09 PM

Rather all of you who think you know best, and that only one way, clearly uncircumcised, is the only way human males should exist on the planet while pretending to be defenders of human freedoms and choice, are the true ignorant hypocrites.

If you look up quick enough you'll see the point sailing far over your head.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 7, 2010 2:25 PM

Thousands of people will starve to death today and you people think a useless piece of skin being cut off an infant's dick is some kind of a worldwide epidemic. Please...I wish this was the pinnacle of problems our planet had!

logic, you're doing it wrong.

Posted by: JustALurker | May 7, 2010 2:26 PM

JustATroll :

Oh, so now I'm a fucking troll now? I thought I was one of PZ's mindless heard? FUCK OFF. If you care to read, I apologized I didn't realize it would be that big, I haven't use my text formatting bar before. Oh and the irony of saying

Why don't you use all caps next time like a christian fundie?

ITS NOT A BIG FUCKING DEAL

So what isn't not the planet's biggest problem? Does that mean we just let the problem stand even if we can do something about it? National Day of Prayer isn't the planet's biggest problem, ( even if it is a symptom of a bigger one,) so do we let that stand? And yes, we do actually work towards resolving the major fucking issues of the planet but that doesn't mean we should ignore the "little" ones either.

Posted by: JustALurker | May 7, 2010 2:40 PM

Naddyfive, interesting that you mention that indeed.

FWIW, male circumcision in many African tribes takes place under similarly harrowing conditions. But that's not the comparison men on these threads are making.

Of course not, because the people they are arguing against are against all mutilation of infant genitalia. Plus we have the unfortunate posting of a man who will be in favor of any social norm, provided the infants have " a relatively painless procedure that a majority of people were doing in a region I lived in". So load 'em up on pain killers, on with the ritual pin prick in the genitals. (snortle)

Sorry, genuinely liked your post and your observations, not meant to snortle at you or anything.

Posted by: naddyfive | May 7, 2010 2:44 PM

I understand what labiaplasty is, but what on earth are "protruding labia"??

*googles*

Wow... you learn something new everyday. I was picturing labia majora reconstruction, but it looks like most of the photos are of labia minora reconstructions. How common are protruding labia, I wonder? Never seen this before, and I'm no naif.

Anybody who would get elective surgery on such a sensitive area would have to be doing it to make money. Or maybe they have a really creepy, controlling partner? Majora would be bad enough, but... I can't even think about it...

Posted by: Knockgoats | May 7, 2010 2:58 PM

I do not see circumcision as a painful, highly involved process (its not, its trivial) - brianemond71

The foreskin is packed with nerve-endings, capable of transmitting pain as well as pleasure. If you hadn't been robbed of yours, you'd know that. Cutting it off also involves a small but non-trivial risk of death or irreversible loss of sexual function. No, of course it's not comparable to FGM, or starvation. So?

Posted by: brianemond71 | May 7, 2010 4:34 PM

If they do end up with a shallow bitch who won't accept them for who they are

You sound like someone who's never gotten head before, or had to deal with the shame of having a woman look at your creepy-looking dick and say 'no thanks'.

After all, since he won't remember the pain, why don't you look into surgical options

As I stated already, I would not be for any involved, lengthy (hehe), painful or otherwise overly invasive procedure done to my child purely for cosmetic reasons. And as I already stated, I do not believe circumcision falls into any of the above-mentioned categories, and numerous people have been quick to disagree with me. We'll simply have to agree to disagree on this at this point.

If you simply must focus on giving your son more 'attractive' genitalia, might I suggest instead teaching him the basics of proper pubic hair grooming

I can't teach my son anything that I struggle with myself :)

Posted by: skeptifem | May 7, 2010 5:06 PM

I know there are women out there who don't like uncircumcised wangs. The feelings the uncut dudes have at that is a good opportunity for them to have some empathy for women. We are constantly given the message that our bodies are disgusting without altering them fundamentally- like shaving off all the hair that we grow (except on eyelashes/head), dieting ourselves way below normal body weight, wearing strange contraptions on our feet and busts, making sure our vaginas and tits fit some porn defined dimensions, pretending that we don't have periods, etc etc. I have had the same conversation about fellatio and pubic hair that has gone on here about fellatio and foreskins. The same bullshit reasons get brought up (hygiene!!11). It does feel bad and I am sorry you all feel that way, but imagine for a second if every part of your body had that kind of freakish scrutiny applied to it in public. I have heard so many conversations where the fuckability of women was discussed on the basis of some specific bodily trait/lack of it. A wee bit of it being shot back at you all is a chance to get some perspective, not a special cookie for yer plight.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 7, 2010 6:01 PM

I used to be a huge fan of yours but not anymore. This post is disgraceful and disgusting.

You have lost a reader.

I'm sure PZ is devastated.

Posted by: Rorschach | May 8, 2010 4:23 AM

To repeat from PZ's post above :

But since some of you are so insistent on demanding that your tallywhackers must be privileged with sympathy, this thread is for you.

Happens every 6 months or so, when we discuss this, and it always goes down the same lines, never to disappoint !

@ 439,

No, there is not functional reasons. No hygiene reasons, no medical reasons, nothing. In fact, if you're not cut you can masturbate without using lube because that "flap of skin" you so loving downplay actually has a function.

I have yet to see any cut guy who needs lube to masturbate, what a nonsense.
And yes there is medical reasons(phimosis etc), hygiene reasons(smegma, possibly STDs).I'm surprised that after 2 threads and nearly 1000 comments you still haven't tried to at least inform yourself.

Posted by: JustALurker | May 8, 2010 5:41 AM

Masterbation - Ok, not all cut men need or use lube but in come cases it does make it difficult or uncomfortable. I was only pointing out the uncut men don't have to unless that's how they prefer it.

In this area it depends on how tightly a guy is circumcised. Some guys are circumcised so tightly (that is, there's little/no mobility in the shaft skin) that they pretty much have to use lube, otherwise it gets uncomfortable or painful. However, some guys are circumcised pretty loosely, so they can stroke the loose skin up and down their penis almost as if they had a really really short foreskin. It does hurt some guys to masturbate without lube if they're circumcised really tightly. In some cases a guy may be circumcised so tightly that erection itself is a bit uncomfortable/painful, because there might not be enough skin left over to "cover" the erection.With a foreskin lube is never necessary, just an option.

Smega? Wash it.

production of smegma increases from adolescence until sexual maturity when the function of smegma for lubrication assumes its full value, and from middle-age production starts to decline and in old age virtually no smegma is produced

Phimosis? Right, because it's such a huge problem that effecting so many of our male children we must cut off all their foreskins. If there are problems later in life, it is a small percentage and can be done then for medical reasons. Or because the man wants it.

Age is reportedly a factor in non-retractability: according to Huntley et al. the foreskin is reportedly retractable in approximately 50% of cases at 1 year of age, 90% by 3 years of age, and 99% by age 17. These authors argue that, unless scarring or other abnormality is present, non-retractibility may "be considered normal for males up to and including adolescence."[2] Hill states that full retractability of the foreskin may not be achieved until late childhood or early adulthood.[18]
Some pediatric urologists have argued that many physicians continue to have trouble distinguishing developmental non-retractility from pathological phimosis.

STDs? Tell them to use a condom since it is a documented way to prevent STDs/HIV and it doesn't involve removing a piece of themselves.

What began as speculation has resulted a century later in 60-75% of American boys being circumcised with no clearly confirmed medical benefit. In the interim, no solid epidemiological evidence has been found to support the theory that circumcision prevents STDs or to justify a policy of involuntary mass circumcision as a public health measure. While the number of confounding factors and the inability to perform a random, double-blind, propective trial make assessing the role of circumcision in STD acquisition difficult, there is no clear evidence that circumcision prevents STDs. The only consistent trend is that uncircumcised males may be more susceptible to GUD, while circumcised men are more prone to urethritis. Currently, in developed nations, urethritis is more common than GUD [34]. In summary, the medical literature does not support the theory that circumcision prevents STDs.

HIV?

There have been 36 case-controlled studies published in peer-reviewed journals addressing the relationship between the foreskin and HIV infection; the results have been inconsistent. Several studies performed in STD clinics have found the foreskin to be a risk factor [17,18,21,25,29,30,68-72], while several random population surveys, which do not have the population bias of an STD clinic study, have found circumcised men to be at higher risk [32,73-75]. Several studies have failed to detect a statistically significant difference between men with and without a foreskin [31,76-87]. In several studies, when the populations are controlled for GUD, number of sexual partners and other factors, the results differ significantly from the raw data. The USA has the highest incidence of HIV infection, as well as the highest incidence of male circumcision amongst developed nations. This speaks against the protective effect of circumcision [89]. The inconsistency of the results and the number of confounding factors make it impossible to link the foreskin to HIV infection [36,90].

I have tried to inform myself. If there is more current data that hasn't been debunked that proves me otherwise I would love to see it. If that evidence is out there, I would gladly review it and reestablish my views. However, all of the information I have found and received supports what I said. This is not something I came to a decision lightly on. Before I knew the sex of my child I talked to my doctor about it and researched it. Feel free to provide the links that show my ignorance and arrogance. I humbly await your evidence.

(Ok, that part is snarky, but honestly, if I'm wrong you have to put up or shut up. I've done my homework to the best of my abilities, so nothing else will do. And if there is evidence that shows I'm wrong, I'm will look at it and reassess my views.)

link for HIV/STD http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/vanhowe6/

Others against circumcision:
http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/garcia/
http://www.circumstitions.com/reasonsnotto.html

Posted by: JustALurker | May 8, 2010 5:43 AM

@459

Exactly Kel, thank you.

Posted by: Rorschach | May 8, 2010 5:49 AM

Again, rare and if it does happen, they can do the correct medical procedure to correct it.

Certainly not rare, in the medical sense of the term rare.I assume you know nothing about it, as with the other things you mentioned.
And the correct medical procedure is circumcision, when you stated at 439 that a medical indication for it did not exist.
So I conclude that you are clueless and have no idea what you are talking about.

Posted by: Usagichan | May 8, 2010 5:53 AM

#458

To repeat PZ's post from above

For the record, I agree with you: circumcision is mutilation, too, and it shouldn't be done, and doctors shouldn't be collaborating in such a primitive and barbarous practice on children

FGM is of course far more harmful, but for that reason it is less controversial here - any right-minded adult should oppose it.

Hygiene is not a problem for uncut guys (or are you claiming that cut guys that don't wash properly are magically cleaner), and as for protection against STD's, using a condom is far more effective and less permanent.

It is not a question of whether circumcision is a good idea or not, but of whether a parent has the right to make that decision for their child. Still, its your culture so who are we to tell you what to do to your children?

Posted by: Rorschach | May 8, 2010 6:02 AM

(for example, parents are circumcising their children in Africa because it supposedly reduces the risk of AIDS

I don't have much time tonight, but I think the evidence for this is dubious at best.

And what about for non-medical (aesthetic or cultural reasons) as it is justified so often these days?

By far the most common reason for circumcision in Australia is religious.Aesthetic, as in lifestyle choice? Never heard about that being done a lot over here.Different in the US I guess.

Posted by: Rorschach | May 8, 2010 6:07 AM

What I've been arguing against is circumcising infants when there's no medical reason to do so at that time.

Fair enough, I can agree with that.Sorry if I misunderstood your comment.

Posted by: JustALurker | May 8, 2010 6:15 AM

Fair enough, I can agree with that.Sorry if I misunderstood your comment

Thanks, and I'm sorry if I wasn't clear and got too snarky. I was commenting on someone who was for infant circumcision for those medical reasons down the line and generalized too much. Looking back now, I really should have specified and been more clear that if there is a problem down the line that needs a circumcision, I certainly won't have a problem with it.

Posted by: negentropyeater | May 8, 2010 6:21 AM

People here argue that is okay to do infant circumcision because it supposedly looks better

I think uncut dicks look much more pretty. And my personal experience as an uncut gay guy who lived in America was that most cut American gay guys agreed with me.

Posted by: naddyfive | May 8, 2010 10:51 AM

Yeah, Skeptifem.

I don't care if people want to alter themselves as adults, but a lot of men are completely blind to the ways in which women are told they're disgusting if they don't alter themselves, all the time, every day, in every cultural arena.

People think women don't watch as much porn because they don't like it, or think it's demeaning, or icky, to see people fucking on screen. Maybe for some, that's the issue. But for most of us, the reason why porn shuts us down is because of the way the only breasts allowed are the kind that are ten times larger than what would look proportionate and they don't even move or resemble flesh. The extreme fake tans. The anorexia. The surgeried faces.

That's whats gross about it, to me. (Well, that and the pneumatic drill close-ups and fake female orgasms). And before some rube claims I'm probably some overweight or hideous jealous person who can't handle the fact that there are good-looking people in the world-- I'm not. I just don't happen to think "porn star" is an attractive look.

Posted by: Knockgoats | May 8, 2010 4:50 PM

Naddyfive, Rachel Bronwyn,

I can only think you've never looked at the range of porn that's available. I hasten to add, nor have I - but I have seen enough to know that the range of body types appearing (of all possible sexes) is vast (and indeed, includes performers who are themselves vast).

Posted by: Stephen Wells | May 8, 2010 5:02 PM

Rule 34, everybody: if it exists, there is porn of it. This includes natural bodies.

I'm impressed by the psychic powers of those who know what the fashion in foreskins will be in several decades time.

Posted by: Shirudo | May 9, 2010 6:05 PM

although it is actually a painful procedure, A) most circumcisions are done shortly after birth, and as such there is no actual memory of the event, just a subconscious imprint that tells males not to let anything near that region again. and B) Circumcisions are actually done for health reason, to prevent infections of the penis, by eliminating the risk of buildup of bacteria and dirt/skin/urine etc etc etc.

For many uncircumcised men, they later have severe health issues when they start to get older because of infections that started near/in the penis, and causes potentially permanent damage (such as e.d.) and/or pain/discomfort while urinating or even just constantly while doing nothing.

And its not so much the removal of the head of the penis, as it is the removal of some of the foreskin around the penis.

Posted by: redrabbitslife | May 10, 2010 11:57 AM

@Jimmy 385: I'm in Canada.

Of course I tell my patients that there is no medical indication for circumcision (unless there is in their case). Of course I teach them how to care for and clean a foreskin.

But I do also direct them to a physician who performs them. No, a medical clinic is not a sweetshop, but as things stand currently, elective circumcision is not yet considered child abuse, and as such, people are independent and have a right to take my advice or leave it. My duty to them is to make sure that they have the appropriate info. I may start directing them to this thread.

Paternalistic medicine is, for better or worse (mostly better, I think), on the way out.

Oh, and phimosis does not mean a foreskin "too tight to pee." Phimosis refers to foreskins which have become attached to the glans, usually via skin bridges. These are normal in children, and I spend a lot of time reassuring mums.

Posted by: hugh7 | May 11, 2010 6:07 AM

As for angry circumcised men hijacking threads about FGC, this seldom happens until someone (often enough the OP) says "Oh you mustn't call it 'female circumcision'. Male circumcision is painless, healthful, puts hair on your chest and is commanded by God."

Posted by: nilirem.m | May 28, 2010 12:57 PM

Hmmm... Mayhaps the people doing the hijacking were being beat down upon too harshly. However, it still stands: in a discussion like that, it's *not* okay to trot out your own booboos. It's a specific discussion about a specific problem and your ego does not have a place in it.

And it's not okay to get mad at feminism when feminism wants to have relevant discussions about the problems it deals with. And then a person who has priviledge over women (ie:men, like white folk are priviledged over coloured folk, heterosexual over homosexual folk etc) comes and starts mansplaining, and because this happens *so fucking often* they're met with anger, because it can get pretty damn tiring to explain again and again what priviledge is and how not to/why not to hijack discussions.

Anyway... guys and gals offended over the smackdown can take their hurt egos and play in this corner here, kindly provided by PZ. And no, I'm not mocking guys for being angered and/or hurt over being told to not hijack. As we all know, if anything defines humans, it's egocentrism: no one wants to be told they're uninformed, or acting the wrong way, or being selfish. But in discussions about social issues it's pretty damn important to put that all away and listen up: you will probably be smarter walking away if you bother to pay attention and not bark back because you got an ego-ouchy.

/tired rant

Posted by: Rorschach | May 29, 2010 5:32 AM

The range of severity of the mutilations overlaps.

Whats lapping over is the retardedness of your false equivalence. There is not even any proof apart from few personal anecdotes that male circumcision has any influence on ability to experience sexual pleasure at all. And you are still trying to seriously compare this to removing a female's clitoris +/- labia minora.
You are truly a pathetic loser.Go hug your dick mate, he needs a cuddle.

Posted by: bettySwollox | June 4, 2010 10:19 AM

Wow, PZ Myers acting like a complete and utter - for want of a better expression on this particular topic - prick!

Would it have been any trouble to have simply said "Sorry gents, this is a thread for the ladies, here's a link to the page for boys" or something to that effect?

Ad hominem attacks, and trivialising genuine points of discussion, is not something that I would have expected from PZ Myers. It's as if he had little regard for matter at hand, instead, he found it more suitable to poke fun at the men who are circumcised, and suggest that they shouldn't complain, due to the fact that what's been done to them, isn't anywhere near as bad as that done to women.

Surely the discussion isn't about 'who suffers more?', instead it should be about the fact that NOBODY has the right to decide what to do with another person's genitalia. Period!

To trivialise someone's argument, by pointing out a more severe - in your eyes PZ Myers - example, of the same thing, is nothing short of pathetic, and it shows a lack of sympathy and understanding of the point being raised. If someone loses a loved one to cancer, it would be rather insensitive to say: 'Well, boo hoo, there are other people in this world who've lost far more family members to cancer, than you, so you shouldn't complain.'. Wouldn't it?

Can you imagine waking up in a hospital bed, after a terrible car crash, and the Doctor comes to you and tells you that you are paralysed from the waist down, and as the news sinks in, PZ Myers walks in, leans over your bed and starts saying stuff like 'Look at the guy in the other bed, he's paralysed from the NECK down, that is "much more serious". Are you going to cry now, gonna get all "hormonal" on us, you need someone to "hold hands" with, so you guys can maybe "cry together"?'.

I'm really flabbergasted that PZ Myers has reacted in this, flippant and insensitive way. A definite 10 out of 10 on the Dickhead-O-Meter.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | June 4, 2010 10:50 AM

Betty, Are you trying to tell me that when the subject of FGM comes up and a guy immediately brings up the topic of his wee-wee, it doesn't seem just a wee bit creepy to you?

I mean the subject of the thread was FGM. The questionable policy had to do with FGM. I don't see why it is necessary to change the subject to talk about some guy's John Thomas.

Posted by: irondanimal | June 4, 2010 12:05 PM

You know what PZ, with that last post you just turned the volume up to 12. Just because you think other people are being pricks that really is not justification for you to be a prick too. This just makes you a hypocrite. People look up to you and respect your opinion and you come up with something so out of character like this? You really should be ashamed of yourself.

Posted by: irondanimal | June 4, 2010 12:39 PM

Hey look. Another hypocrite. Please, keep digging.

Posted by: irondanimal | June 4, 2010 12:51 PM

Endor: So I should be ashamed for insulting somebody who I said should be ashamed for insulting people? I guess that means you agree with me. Thanks!

Posted by: Endor | June 4, 2010 1:55 PM

LOL. Goodness, you type a lot of words to say absolutely nothing. Please, keep whining about tone - it makes it nice and clear you've got nothing of value to say.

Posted by: irondanimal | June 4, 2010 2:07 PM

bettySwollox: Agree

Walton: Bullshit

Posted by: bettySwollox | June 4, 2010 2:50 PM

For those of you who are interested, I would suggest paying the YouTuber freedom0f5peech's channel a wee visit, and watch the following video:

Strawman Fallacy: FGM vs. MGM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOk-rZTk0Rc&playnext_from=TL&videos=LJKakxSc-HU&feature=sub

He also has many more video covering this topic, and I think he does a great job in raising the bar on it too.

Enjoy!

Posted by: irondanimal | June 4, 2010 7:20 PM

BettySwollox: Couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks for the link too.

To indulge PZs analogy a little further...

Imagine the situation where there are some people who a paralysed from the neck down, the practise of doing this to them is widely condemned and is illegal in the civilised world. When someone suggests that instead of paralysing them from the neck down they should have their foot stamped on with a nail instead there is an outcry; this is seen as still far too harsh a thing to do to this first group of people.

Now imagine there is a much larger group containing people who are being paralysed from the waist down. Not only it legal to paralyse the people as babies it is being sanctioned by health care professionals and others claiming not only that it is not harmful but that it is for their own good. The people being paralysed complain, but nobody listens or does anything to stop the practice. In fact even otherwise sane and rational people are telling them to shut up and stop making such a fuss about it.

Too fucking right they should be banging on that door.

Posted by: Chaos Cryptic | June 4, 2010 7:45 PM

...to continue with the weird metaphor/analogy thing.

Posted by: irondanimal | June 5, 2010 5:12 AM

511- Precisely

510: Well maybe those otherwise sane and rational people might now have some idea just how frustrated those paralysed from the neck down people feel. It is those otherwise sane and rational people who are starting to look like assholes now since the vast majority of them have not been paralysed at all and seem quite happy to tell those that have been paralysed to shut up and stop making a fuss. If all that had been said was "sorry, wrong meeting" then we would not be commenting on this thread at all.

For the record I have not yet come across one paralysed from the waist down person who is not sympathetic or indeed empathetic to the paralysed from the neck down, but there are plenty of otherwise sane rationals who deny that there is even a problem with mutilating the genitals of male babies and children (sorry I mean paralysing people from the waist down)

Posted by: Timberwoof | October 5, 2010 12:21 AM

Mikerattlesnake, you wrote, "What's the evidence for reduced sensitivity? … I notice you frothing anti-circumcision folks still haven't felt the need to back up the "loss of sensitivity" claim."

rorschach, you wrote that "There is not even any proof apart from few personal anecdotes that male circumcision has any influence on ability to experience sexual pleasure at all."

Hang on, let me wipe my mouth.

Actually, there is. If I can find the materials I got from the booth at Folsom Street Fair the other week I could get you the exact reference. A neurologist is performing a standard skin-sensitivity test on three groups of men: circumcised, circumcised who have done restoration, and uncircumcised (the control group). Preliminary results show that circumcision reduces sensitivity about as much as two condoms would and that foreskin restoration does work.

I have experienced the masturbation technique that circumcised men use; it is astoundingly intense and unbearable to me. Every cut guy I've been with did the same thing to me. Holy shit, how much their sensitivity must be reduced for them to use that technique!

The foreskin itself has a lot of nerve endings; it is possible to stimulate an uncut guy to orgasm without touching his glans penis.

The good news from that study is that restoration (by stretching) does work. The layer of callus that the glans penis develops does go away, and sensitivity returns. The stretched foreskin appears to increase its sensitivity as well.

PZM wrote, "Boys are not ostracized for being uncircumcised -- it's another myth used to promote the procedure." Actually, I was. (I got over it.) My sister had my nephew circumcised on the advice of his grandfather, that this surgical procedure would spare him humiliation. That's not an ethical reason for surgery.

The rates of infection, injury, and death resulting from circumcision far outweigh any claimed benefit for hygiene and reduced transmission of disease. If cleanliness was a legitimate reason for amputation, then you should pull out all a kid's teeth and nails when he turns fifteen. (Do it with anesthesia, of course. The right amount of fentanyl and versed will ensure he suffers no trauma. I'm promoting snark, not cruelty!)

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 18, 2010 9:37 PM

men who have foreskins are not as hungry to find any mucosal tissue they can - mouths, anuses, vaginas, chopped liver - for they have their own soft, wet, warm, sensuous tissue surrounding the head of their penis 24/7. they are not desperate, not hungry.

Citation needed.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/sTvjbAhtoIjDTqO.4MnnRNmdNRk-#18cc1 | November 19, 2010 3:27 PM

:) caine, sorry that yahoo identifies me so oddly. my name is patricia robinett and i am the author of "the rape of innocence - FGM & circumcision in the USA. i saw this link on a yahoo video and thought it was good to include FGM in the USA in such an interesting discussion.

i appreciate your posts about keeping both girls and boys whole.

i find it ironic that americans are up in arms about genital mutilation in other countries, while we don't examine our own, here at home. wouldn't you like to discuss the reality of FGM in the USA? i think it's an important subject. it makes the point that our country, for all its bells and whistles and shiny technology, is not necessarily more 'civilized' than other cultures in which they cut children's genitals.

any particular unsubstantiated claim you would like me to find references for? i'll be happy to oblige you.

you asked someone else, earlier, to support their statement that 'intact men are gentler lovers'. see SexAsNatureIntendedIt - book and website. or... try both 'styles' yourself. experience is the best teacher. the o'hare study was published in the BJU (british journal of urology) as well... so it was 'peer reviewed'.

it is not the fault of any man who was circumcised if he has to move fast and press hard, down toward the remnant of his frenulum, to stimulate it - while the woman needs him to move up, where her clitoris is... hence, the 'war between the sexes' - sexual incompatibility - has been artificially created via circumcision. see the following statement from Isaac ben Yediah, 13th Century:

---

When a woman makes love to an uncircumcised man, she feels pleasure and reaches orgasm first. When an uncircumcised man sleeps with her and then resolves to return to his home, she brazenly grasps him, holding onto his genitals and says to him, "Come back, make love to me". This is because of the pleasure that she finds in intercourse with him, from the sinews of his testicles -- sinew of iron and from his ejaculation -- that of a horse -- which he shoots like an arrow into her womb.

With the circumcised man it is different. He will find himself performing his task quickly, emitting his seed as soon as he inserts the crown. … As soon as he begins intercourse, he immediately comes to a climax. The woman has no pleasure from him. She leaves the marriage bed frustrated. She does not have an orgasm once a year, except on rare occasions.

[This is good for her husband: freed from lascivious desires] he will not empty his brain because of his wife [and] his heart will be strong to seek out God.
---
Quoted in David Gollaher, Circumcision: A history of the world's most controversial surgery, p. 22 - Isaac ben Yedaiah was a disciple of Maimonides.

let me know which 'claim' of mine you'd like substantiated... i'll be happy to accommodate you.

-----

foreskin restoration is quite a beautiful gift for men to give themselves and their mates.

rev, you asked for a citation? i have had conversations with men who have restored - but you can talk to them yourself... just find a list or a forum about foreskin restoration. men who have restored their foreskins find that their sexual 'cycle; or 'appetite' is more in tune with their wives'. they are MORE satisfied because they have FULL BODY orgasms and they feel a 'need' less frequently for sex. they begin to understand how their women can go for days, while they used to press for multiple releases every day. they had been trying to make up for the quality of their sexual experience with quantity... scratching an itch. with a restored body, they relax and 'normalize'... are no longer demanding. i also have personal experience with men of both 'styles'.

conversely, their women want them more often because the sex is better - no more pain. i too have avoided sex with cut men after a few times, not understanding why, other than it didn't feel good - it hurt - yet now i understand why i was always open and ready for my intact boyfriends. i didn't catch on to the 'style' difference until after i began to study the subject of circumcision.

nerve endings are jammed up when cut & scarified. i speak from experience, not from theory. first, from my own clitoridectomy and next from having lost the tips of two fingers... an interesting lesson in how amputation affects sensation, blood and nerve flow. it leaves one with an 'icky' feeling, drawing attention to that area of the anatomy. i remember one young man saying quite plaintively, "it HURTS"... just having an erection was painful.

an interesting citation is taylor & cold's research. try googling. of course, they don't address the more personal aspect of how 'hungry' - desperate - people become when they are deprived of sensation. but i think it's pretty obvious once you start observing the difference.

Posted by: eident9 | December 1, 2010 10:40 PM

Huh, so just like the P Z Myers "first, do no harm" board that was supposedly for FGM, you're telling an actual FGM victim to fuck off on THIS thread too.

Caine who said to the FGM victim "So, please don't waltz in here with all manner of unsubstantiated claims 7 months later and expect anyone to take you seriously or actually give a shit." And who said to her on the so called FGM thread to, "go the fuck away."

And P Z Douchebag, who said "This Patricia person is not bringing information here: she's babbling some genuinely weird nonsense. I don't believe a word she says." (again on the thread that was supposedly for FGM victims)

P Z saying he's all about the FGM victims. That is until they speak their mind.

You all just insist on telling all us cut people how we stack up, when cut people all get it; cut people have massive respect for each other and never diminish the other.

P Z, you're just an attention whore. You pick hot topics and look for any way to inflame people so your name goes along for the ride. Guys don't be fooled again; don't give this twit a second of attention. There are honest objective forums out there where everyone's really trying to help a matter and no one's just trying to get time in the limelight.

Posted by: eident9 | June 27, 2011 7:47 AM

Recent matters have reminded me of this board. And I'm wondering, is P Z Myers willing to apologize for what he said on this?

Posted by: John Morales | June 27, 2011 7:56 AM

eident9, you really are slow, ain't ya? ;)

Posted by: John Morales | June 27, 2011 8:04 AM

eident9, who was it who advocated not giving PZ "a second of attention"?

Yet here you are, pawing at his door.

(Heh)

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 27, 2011 8:11 AM

rev, you asked for a citation? i have had conversations with men who have restored - but you can talk to them yourself... just find a list or a forum about foreskin restoration. men who have restored their foreskins find that their sexual 'cycle; or 'appetite' is more in tune with their wives'. they are MORE satisfied because they have FULL BODY orgasms and they feel a 'need' less frequently for sex. they begin to understand how their women can go for days, while they used to press for multiple releases every day. they had been trying to make up for the quality of their sexual experience with quantity... scratching an itch. with a restored body, they relax and 'normalize'... are no longer demanding. i also have personal experience with men of both 'styles'.

wow

If ever there was a time for "the plural of anecdotes is not data" it is now.

Especially unsubstantiated anecdotes.

Posted by: eident9 | June 27, 2011 8:16 AM

John, that sounds crazy. Should you ask PZ to get online? PZ's questionable but he's not as crazy as that response (I hope).

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 27, 2011 8:28 AM

Ooh, spoiled brat can't shut the fuck up. I don't give a shit why you feel slighted. You don't demand apologies from a six month dead thread. Only egotistical losers do that. And you fit the bill. Fuck off loser.

Posted by: eident9 | June 27, 2011 8:33 AM

And does PZ? I want to be sure.

Posted by: eident9 | June 27, 2011 8:43 AM

I'm asking to speak with PZ (and I'm sorry for that outburst John)

Posted by: eident9 | June 27, 2011 8:49 AM

to Strange: um, you must be joking after reading Nerd's comments toward me. Keep criticisms within rational limits and I'll listen.

Posted by: eident9 | June 27, 2011 8:54 AM

Hey John, I know we've traded insults in past but I remember you from this board and am asking for a discussion, not a lynching. I want to try and be polite and talk, not attack. Anyway I'm just asking why you guys did that last year and if you know we, for the first time, had two initiatives to add male children to the laws already passed to protect female children from genital cutting in the US. And again, I'd like to know if PZ Myers is available for a discussion on this.

Posted by: eident9 | June 27, 2011 8:58 AM

to strange gods: so spoiled brat and egotistical loser and fuck off loser are something you totally ignore but you focus in on me responding to those insults as if I'm the jerk?

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | June 27, 2011 9:05 AM

That's correct.

"spoiled brat and egotistical loser and fuck off loser" are not classist insults.

I don't care about individuals being mean to individuals. I do care about classism, racism, sexism, heterosexism, and ableism.

Nerd was mean to you; one individual was mean to another. You responded with classist insults which degrade whole groups of people based on their socioeconomic status. Please don't do that.

Posted by: eident9 | June 27, 2011 9:10 AM

John, before this gets ugly, can we please have a polite conversation?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 27, 2011 9:13 AM

Hi Rev: yeah my prev post apparently didn't post but I was saying yes, I'd like to speak with PZ. I don't want this thing to escalate I just want to talk.

Ok just so we're clear here, you want to speak with PZ right?

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | June 27, 2011 9:32 AM

"We" didn't delete you. PZ banned you. That means you are breaking US federal law by continuing to post here.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 27, 2011 9:44 AM

can we please have a polite conversation?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 27, 2011 9:47 AM

So wait, you wanted to speak to PZ?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 27, 2011 10:36 AM

Funny how if you push the right buttons you get to really see what someone is all about.

Mr. everchaningnym9, your misogyny is showing and it's ain't pretty or circumcised.