Circumcision Articles and Discussions

[Brenda86]

When I was 7-8 years of age I was circumcised. I still remember the pain after the removal of the foreskin. It was that intense, really.
The reason why this approach was used was to my knowledge that my foreskin was too narrow and needed to be removed.-

Hi DHTH

I think the 'too narrow' problem isn't really a problem at all if, from a young age like maybe 2-3, the parents while bathing their children manually clean their childrens genitals including carefully peeling back the foreskin. Overtime it stretches...but if parents don't clean the area properly then certainly it could be a problem....but even still morning and night manipulation of the foreskin would have eventually stretched it naturally, even if only starting from an age of 7.

Doctors are too quick to mutilate the body. I'm sorry for the pain you went through.

I agree with you that doctors are way too quick in their assessments when it comes to mutilating the body and in general I think. My parents have probably been to much "believers in the system" at the time and just took the word from the doctor as the only option. It is my impression nowadays there is other solutions offered .


Thanks for the empathy MethodOfMadness

I have also done some research about proper care of young boys genitals when they are intact as, especially in American culture, we are woefully ignorant of it. And apparently, parents trying to retract the foreskin manually before it's ready is actually one of the things that can cause infections and other issues because the foreskin is actually fused to the glans at birth and until it begins to separate and retract on its own trying to retract it can be very painful for the child and darn near impossible to really do.

This leads a lot of parents and doctors to wrongfully assume the foreskin is too tight when, in fact, the child just has not reached a point when the foreskin is retractable yet. The age it happens can be in toddlerhood all the way up to puberty. And then even if the foreskin IS too narrow there are other ways to treat this, such as topical steroid creams, that can loosen it up over time without resorting to such a drastic measure as circumcision.

I am just so flabbergasted sometimes by the thinking in circumcision cultures. In America, if a woman gets a genital infection, we treat it with antibiotics or anti-fungal creams, etc. If a man gets an infection... CUT OF THE FORESKIN or better yet... CUT IT OFF BEFORE HE EVER EVEN SHOWS ANY SIGNS OF A PROBLEM.

Edit for clarification.

 

[Gwenllian]

I am happy to say that with the information a gained here I chose to leave my son the way he was born and also got most of my family to not just reluctantly support the choice to leave him intact but begin to wonder why any sane person would do it if they really thought about it for more than a few minutes.

Good for you and your family! That is wonderful. I am so glad for your son. And for you, because I suspect an operation like that must be rough on some parents? :/

 

[Brenda86]

I am happy to say that with the information a gained here I chose to leave my son the way he was born and also got most of my family to not just reluctantly support the choice to leave him intact but begin to wonder why any sane person would do it if they really thought about it for more than a few minutes.

Good for you and your family! That is wonderful. I am so glad for your son. And for you, because I suspect an operation like that must be rough on some parents? :/

Yes! Even when I was naive and thought it was a potentially necessary operation, the thought of it made me sick to my stomach. My baby boy screaming and crying in pain. The amount of relief I felt when I learned that it is not necessary cannot be exaggerated. And then... upon learning that not only is it not necessary, but very probably quite harmful I got that familiar sick feeling in the pit of my stomach thinking about all the poor baby boys whose parents do not have or ignore the truth about it. :(

Once I was armed with information there was no one who was going to convince me to allow that to be done to my baby.

 

[Gwenllian]

I am happy to say that with the information a gained here I chose to leave my son the way he was born and also got most of my family to not just reluctantly support the choice to leave him intact but begin to wonder why any sane person would do it if they really thought about it for more than a few minutes.

Good for you and your family! That is wonderful. I am so glad for your son. And for you, because I suspect an operation like that must be rough on some parents? :/

Yes! Even when I was naive and thought it was a potentially necessary operation, the thought of it made me sick to my stomach. My baby boy screaming and crying in pain. The amount of relief I felt when I learned that it is not necessary cannot be exaggerated. And then... upon learning that not only is it not necessary, but very probably quite harmful I got that familiar sick feeling in the pit of my stomach thinking about all the poor baby boys whose parents do not have or ignore the truth about it. :(

Once I was armed with information there was no one who was going to convince me to allow that to be done to my baby.

:) Applied knowledge does protect. No question about it.

I read in that little book about babies by Desmond Morris that a group of women nurses in the US initiated a group against circumcision of boys. If I am not mistaken he said that these women could do that, because they had not been circumcised and as a result did not have to suppress these painful experiences. Thus, they could feel empathy for the little boys that underwent these barbaric operations. And they could do something about it.
That made perfect sense to me at the time, it still does.

Wonderful news, Brenda. It must be such a relief. Your son (in the future) will be very pleased and happy when you tell him that you made this decision when he was small and couldn't decide for himself. OSIT. Or maybe he has already picked up on that and senses that you have got his back and more. :)

 

[Brenda86]

I am happy to say that with the information a gained here I chose to leave my son the way he was born and also got most of my family to not just reluctantly support the choice to leave him intact but begin to wonder why any sane person would do it if they really thought about it for more than a few minutes.

Good for you and your family! That is wonderful. I am so glad for your son. And for you, because I suspect an operation like that must be rough on some parents? :/

Yes! Even when I was naive and thought it was a potentially necessary operation, the thought of it made me sick to my stomach. My baby boy screaming and crying in pain. The amount of relief I felt when I learned that it is not necessary cannot be exaggerated. And then... upon learning that not only is it not necessary, but very probably quite harmful I got that familiar sick feeling in the pit of my stomach thinking about all the poor baby boys whose parents do not have or ignore the truth about it. :(

Once I was armed with information there was no one who was going to convince me to allow that to be done to my baby.

:) Applied knowledge does protect. No question about it.

I read in that little book about babies by Desmond Morris that a group of women nurses in the US initiated a group against circumcision of boys. If I am not mistaken he said that these women could do that, because they had not been circumcised and as a result did not have to suppress these painful experiences. Thus, they could feel empathy for the little boys that underwent these barbaric operations. And they could do something about it.
That made perfect sense to me at the time, it still does.

Wonderful news, Brenda. It must be such a relief. Your son (in the future) will be very pleased and happy when you tell him that you made this decision when he was small and couldn't decide for himself. OSIT. Or maybe he has already picked up on that and senses that you have got his back and more. :)

Ah! Interestingly, along those same lines I have heard that in many countries where FEMALE circumcision is the norm and MALES are the ones left intact, that it is the males advocating that females not be circumcised! I will have to try to find some articles relating to this, but it just adds more weight to the research that this practice definitely wounds more than the physical body as the very people who have undergone the practice are some of the ones who have the hardest time empathizing and realizing the practice is wrong!

 

[Hashhashin]

When I was 7-8 years of age I was circumcised. I still remember the pain after the removal of the foreskin. It was that intense, really.
The reason why this approach was used was to my knowledge that my foreskin was too narrow and needed to be removed.-

Hi DHTH

I think the 'too narrow' problem isn't really a problem at all if, from a young age like maybe 2-3, the parents while bathing their children manually clean their childrens genitals including carefully peeling back the foreskin. Overtime it stretches...but if parents don't clean the area properly then certainly it could be a problem....but even still morning and night manipulation of the foreskin would have eventually stretched it naturally, even if only starting from an age of 7.

Doctors are too quick to mutilate the body. I'm sorry for the pain you went through.

I agree with you that doctors are way too quick in their assessments when it comes to mutilating the body and in general I think. My parents have probably been to much "believers in the system" at the time and just took the word from the doctor as the only option. It is my impression nowadays there is other solutions offered .


Thanks for the empathy MethodOfMadness

I have also done some research about proper care of young boys genitals when they are intact as, especially in American culture, we are woefully ignorant of it. And apparently, parents trying to retract the foreskin manually before it's ready is actually one of the things that can cause infections and other issues because the foreskin is actually fused to the glans at birth and until it begins to separate and retract on its own trying to retract it can be very painful for the child and darn near impossible to really do.

This leads a lot of parents and doctors to wrongfully assume the foreskin is too tight when, in fact, the child just has not reached a point when the foreskin is retractable yet. The age it happens can be in toddlerhood all the way up to puberty. And then even if the foreskin IS too narrow there are other ways to treat this, such as topical steroid creams, that can loosen it up over time without resorting to such a drastic measure as circumcision.

I am just so flabbergasted sometimes by the thinking in circumcision cultures. In America, if a woman gets a genital infection, we treat it with antibiotics or anti-fungal creams, etc. If a man gets an infection... CUT OF THE FORESKIN or better yet... CUT IT OFF BEFORE HE EVER EVEN SHOWS ANY SIGNS OF A PROBLEM.

Edit for clarification.

Hi Brenda

Sorry for the nearly two year delay in my reply.

I wholly agree, trying to do it too early could also cause issues (as infants) and we have never tried, nor would we. It is only when they start going to the toilet and in the bath where we start encouraging them to attempt to retract the foreskin, and of course it is never forced and only at the rate that is comfortable for them, and enough to allow water to rinse and refresh the top area. Funnily enough, my 2 year old, once showing him, became highly fascinated with his ability to retract the foreskin and attempted to show everyone he could his new discovery! Ahhh, kids...ya just gotta love em!

 

[thorbiorn]

In this post, I revisit the topic beginning with a statement from the Danish PM from a Danish newspaper Berlingske.dk which led some doctors to say the debate about the circumcision of boys is no longer about health, but about minority concerns. Next comes thoughts about circumcision in Islam followed by excerpts from an article about female genital mutilation/cutting, since groups practicing these forms also could call for minority protection from an obliging Government. At the end, I quote a few research articles on the effects of male circumcision, as it affects women during coitus and the health of men.

Doctors now give very last critique of ritual circumcisions: "I do not know what else we can do"
In a final response to the Danish Agency for Patient Safety, the Danish Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Medicine criticizes the ritual circumcisions of boys.
Friday, October 23. 2020, 14.25

The Prime Minister has made it very clear. Circumcision is not going to be based on healthcare practice.

Joachim Hoffmann-Petersen thinks so hard that it can be said.

As chairman of the Danish Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DASAIM), he has fought a futile battle to get the guidelines for ritual circumcisions of boy children changed. DASAIM does not believe that the procedure can be performed under local anesthesia, but that it requires full anesthesia.

When the anesthetists did not feel heard by the Danish Agency for Patient Safety, they withdrew from the working group that was to prepare the guidelines. The same was done by a myriad of other professional groups.

It would be a long time before the politicians showed up on the field. On 10 September, Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen (S) confirmed this.

'It does not help that we see this as an individual case and not as part of a historical context. The Jews have been persecuted in Europe for many hundreds of years. It culminated in the darkest chapter in European history, in the Holocaust, 'she said:

'That is why we have given a promise to take care of the Jews, to take care of the Danish Jews, and I intend to keep that promise, and that is why a ban is not the right way.'

'There it stopped being about health,' says Joachim Hoffmann-Petersen:

'This is no longer about health - it's about a minority concern.'

The anesthetists have now given their consultation response to the Danish Agency for Patient Safety, in which they strike a blow for their attitudes to the procedure, which should be postponed, 'until the young man can independently give informed consent from the age of 18'.

DASAIM finds it below professional standard to perform a painful surgical procedure on children without adequate pain relief.

It is thus the last convulsion for the anesthetists who must be true that the government does not support their position.

“At the moment, I do not see anything we can do. I do not know how it develops when it goes through the Folketing. Our advice has been ignored, so I do not know what else we can do, 'says Joachim Hoffmann-Petersen:

'In fact, I hope that the members of parliament who want to press the button will remember that this is something that has taken place over the heads of professional knowledge.'

According to the latest so-called Sexus survey, as many as 88 percent of the population support a ban on ritual circumcision, but before the summer it was difficult to get a clear answer from the largest parties in the Folketing.

The Socialist People's Party, the Unity List, the Danish People's Party and the now defunct non-partisan party Fremad were against the ritual practice.

Islam and male circumcision​

In the article, there is a reference to the Jewish community, but the other and much, much larger community that favors circumcision, is Islam. The Danish PM does not mention them, but they surely will suffer/benefit too. An MSM source like the BBC informs us on one of their information pages about religion:

Circumcision of boys​

Last updated 2009-08-13
Muslims are still the largest single religious group to circumcise boys. This article looks at the reasons for this.

Islam and male circumcision​

Muslims are still the largest single religious group to circumcise boys. In Islam circumcision is also known as tahara, meaning purification.

Circumcision is not mentioned in the Qur'an but it is highlighted in the Sunnah (the Prophet Muhammad's recorded words and actions). In the Sunnah, Muhammad stated that circumcision was a "law for men."

The main reason given for the ritual is cleanliness. It is essential that every Muslim washes before praying. It is important that no urine is left on the body.

Muslims believe the removal of the foreksin makes it easier to keep the penis clean because urine can't get trapped there.

Supporters of circumcision also argue that excrements may collect under the foreskin which may lead to fatal diseases such as cancer.

Some Muslims see circumcision as a preventive measure against infection and diseases. Belonging
For the majority of Muslims, circumcision is seen as an introduction to the Islamic faith and a sign of belonging.

In Islam there is no fixed age for circumcision. The age at which it is performed varies depending on family, region and country.

The preferred age is often seven although some Muslims are circumcised as early as the seventh day after birth and as late as puberty.

There is no equivalent of a Jewish 'mohel' in Islam. Circumcisions are usually carried out in a clinic or hospital. The circumciser is not required to be a Muslim but he must be medically trained.

In some Islamic countries circumcision is performed after Muslim boys have recited the whole of the Qur'an from start to finish.

In Malaysia, for example, the operation is a puberty rite that separates the boy from childhood and introduces him to adulthood. An essential practice
Circumcision is not compulsory in Islam but it is an important ritual aimed at improving cleanliness. It is strongly encouraged but not enforced.

The ritual dates back to the time of the Prophet Muhammad. According to tradition Muhammad was born without a foreskin (aposthetic). Some Muslims who practise circumcision see it as a way of being like him.

Circumcision was also practised by past prophets.

Dr Bashir Quereshi, author of Transcultural Medicine, explains: "Every Muslim is expected to follow the way and the life of the Prophet Muhammad. Therefore, all Muslims - devouts, liberals or seculars - observe this ritual. Muslim are obliged to follow not only Allah's message in the Holy Qur'an but also what the Prophet said or did, as proof of their dedication to Islam."

Traditionally, adult converts to Islam were encouraged to undergo the operation but this practice is not universally endorsed, particularly if the procedure poses a health risk.

Where is do minority concerns stop?
If boys can be circumcised, what about girls? Legally not here, but couldn't it be argued that it should be allowed out of minority concerns. I looked up the subject and informative was the next:
FEMALE CIRCUMCISION IN ISLAM (PART 1 OF 2): THE HISTORY OF FEMALE GENITAL CUTTING (FGC) AND ITS TYPES
[Supported by the charities one can find in the attached screenshot.] They begin their article with an introduction, where they say:

The Female Genital Cutting Education and Networking Project states, “...it is not an Islamic practice. FGC is a cross-cultural and cross-religious ritual. In Africa and the Middle East, it is performed by Muslims, Coptic Christians, members of various indigenous groups, Protestants, and Catholics, to name a few.”[3] One sect of Jews, the Falashas, also circumcise both sexes.[4] We will first look into the various types of FGC, and then examine why various cultures implemented these techniques upon their female constituencies.

Following this, they lay out four types of procedures that I skip, except for context when it gets to level three as mentioned below. After a level three procedure, "Only a small, pencil-size hole is left" Then comes a paragraph called Geography, where one learns where this practice of FGC/FGM is common.

Various forms of FGC is practiced throughout the world, but it is most common in sub-Saharan Africa, in a band stretching East from Senegal to Somalia, as shown on the map. It also exists in the Middle East, North and South America, Indonesia and Malaysia. Type III is almost exclusive to Somalia, Sudan and southern Egypt, along with some areas in Mali and Nigeria.

We find that in some societies, such as Somalia, Eritrea , and Ethiopia, almost all women undergo type III of FGC. Reasons range from regarding the woman as unclean if the clitoris is not completely removed, to ensuring that women remain chaste until marriage. This is practice is an age old custom in these societies, and members fear to leave it out of fear of chastisement. Women may not be able to get married, or even be accused of committing fornication. Families may also loose their honor if this tradition is not kept with.

FGC was also a common practice in North America, and specifically in the U.S., type I, II and III was common until the 1950’s in order to control female sexuality. Clitoridectomy was performed for various reasons. One of the most common reasons was to reduce masturbation. In England, Isaac Baker Brown published a book about his successes in treating female masturbation with clitoridectomy. He also claimed it to cure obscure nervous disorders such as hysteria and epilepsy.[8] Many more solutions were offered for masturbation, such as chastity belts, first used in medieval times to ensure that wives remain chaste while their husbands were away. In order to prevent masturbation in boys, spiked rings even more drastic measures were employed, such as cauterization and even castration.[9]

In one of the most classic of pediatric textbooks, Diseases of Infancy and Childhood, published 11 times from 1897 to 1940, the author L.E. Holt advocated cauterization of the clitoris as well as blistering the vulva as a preventive measures for masturbation. Masturbation was seen as the reason of many ills, such as neuroticism, disobedience, and disrespect of parents.[10

In the U.S. an organization known as the Orificial Surgery Society was formed, publishing journals mentioning the various benefits of clitoridectomy, even for things as trivial as headaches.

There were also many hygienic benefits that were thought to be produced by clitoridotomy. C.F. McDonald states in a 1958 paper entitled Circumcision of the Female[11]: “If the male needs circumcision for cleanliness and hygiene, why not the female? I have operated on perhaps 40 patients who needed this attention.” The author states that it remedies “irritation, scratching, irritability, masturbation, frequency and urgency,” and smegmaliths causing “dyspareunia and frigidity.”

Until recently the clitoris was seen as un unclean thing. Even Sigmund Freud, one of the founders of modern psychology, stated in one of his books Sexuality and the Psychology of Love, the “elimination of clitoral sexuality is a necessary precondition for the development of femininity.”

Today in the west, many adults choose to undergo clitoridotomy, as some doctors[12] and others[13] advocate clitoridotomy, claiming that it increases sexual pleasure. They state that over-sized clitoral hood may impede in the stimulation of the clitoris. Some websites, such as Circlist, BMEzine, and geocities, even have testimonials of people who underwent the process, as well as medical reports promoting the practice. They show that the majority of women reported increased sexual pleasure after the procedure (87.5% in Rathmann’s 1959 study[14] and 75% in Knowles’).

Just looking at the above map one might foresee there will be more "minority concerns" to attend to. The only question is if the groups still practicing FGM in the minds of sick politicians deserve as much respect as the traditions that maintain the right to circumcise the boys of their religion.

There is also a part two to this article. They say in the beginning:

Although circumcision of males is an act regarded as commendable in Islam, the scholars have differed in regards to females. Some scholars have regarded the act as commendable, while others regard it as merely permissible. Lately, some have even stated its impermissibility. All these opinions are based upon a number of Prophetic narrations (hadeeths) relating to this subject.

Then they write:

“There is no report about circumcision that can be relied upon, and no chain of transmission that can be followed.”[1]

It is known amongst the scholars of Islam that if a hadeeth is found to be weak and unreliable, it is impermissible that it be used as evidence to establish a ruling in Islam, as all legal rulings in the religion must be verified with authentic, unambiguous proofs “Sunnah” Circumcision
What one can see is that Type I FGC, sometimes called “Sunnah” circumcision, does have some basis in the religion of Islam, however weak this basis may be. It is key to note, however, that it is only this first type which some of the scholars regarded as permissible or commendable, which is the clipping of the prepuce until the glans becomes visible, or less. This procedure is harmless and has no detrimental effects upon women, and is similar to the circumcision of men, as mentioned previously. Rather, some have even argued that there are some benefits to this procedure, as mentioned earlier, such as increase of sexual pleasure, prevention of unpleasant odors which result from foul secretions beneath the prepuce, and reduction of the incidence of urinary tract infections and infections affecting the reproductive system.[2]

They end the article with:

We must emphasize, however, that the correct stance is that there is no reliable text which directly encourages any form of circumcision, and thus the matter is left to other general texts which prohibit infliction of harm and those which encourage all things healthy and beneficial. One fundamental of Islamic jurisprudence is that what is not specifically prohibited is allowed, but still subject to other indirect texts. This makes for a great deal of tolerance in religion, but also allows it to cope with new issues brought by time. If it is found that circumcision is medically beneficial to females or to society, then it would be at the most something encouraged by Islam, as all things beneficial to life are regarded as commendable in religion. But if it is found, on the other hand, that circumcision is harmful, then it would definitely be regarded as something forbidden in Islam, as Dr. Abd al-Rahmân b. Hasan al-Nafisah, editor of the Contemporary Jurisprudence Research Journal based in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia stated in his article entitles Female Circumcision & Islam: “In Islamic Law, preservation of the person – the life and bodily soundness of the person – is a legal necessity. Anything that compromises this legal necessity by bringing harm to the person is unlawful.”[3]

It seems to me, the style of arguing based on the law, which in this context is the Quran and the Hadith is rather similar to what one has seen for centuries in Judaism in the interpretations of the Tora, and the Talmud.

Protecting children in traditional Islam - "part of the rights due to children is circumcision"
Although the views on male circumcision in Islam may vary slightly, the website quoted has at least a position on the subject. In WHAT ISLAM SAYS ABOUT CHILDREN (PART 3 OF 5): WELCOMING THE NEWBORN, they begin very nicely about the need to protect the children.

One of the most important obligations in Islam is for parents to love and nurture their children. Children have the right to be protected, and the right to learn how to worship and obey God. As previously discussed children’s rights come into play even before their conception and birth and God warns humankind to protect themselves and their families from the torment of the fire.

“O you who believe! Ward off yourselves and your families against a Fire (Hell) …” (Quran 66:6)

The birth of a child, male or female, is a cause for great celebration. In Islam there is certain etiquette involved in welcoming the child into the family and community. There are a number of recommended rituals from the authentic traditions of Prophet Muhammad, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, that are to be done that ensure the newborn is received properly by the Muslim society. However, the absence of any or all of these recommended actions does not negate any children’s rights in Islam.

Further down is the recommendation to circumcise the boys:

One of the rituals pertaining to newborn children and part of the rights due to children is circumcision. It is obligatory for baby boys to be circumcised. Prophet Muhammad, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, said that five things are part of the inherent nature of people. They are circumcision, shaving the pubic hair, plucking the armpit hair, cutting the nails, and trimming the moustache.[7] These things are related to purity and essential conditions of prayer and imply complete submission to the will of God.

One could point out that "part of the rights due to children is circumcision." and "Children have the right to be protected" do not seem to mix. One could try to pursue the contradiction between the claim to health and protection?

A few studies on the effects of circumcision
I looked up a couple of studies that approached the subject of male circumcision from the point of women. Surprisingly few studies are available, but I did find a few studies.:

Male circumcision and sexual function in men and women: a survey-based, cross-sectional study in Denmark†
Morten Frisch, Morten Lindholm, Morten Grønbæk
International Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 40, Issue 5, October 2011, Pages 1367–1381, Male circumcision and sexual function in men and women: a survey-based, cross-sectional study in Denmark †
Published:

14 June 2011
Background One-third of the world’s men are circumcised, but little is known about possible sexual consequences of male circumcision. In Denmark (~5% circumcised), we examined associations of male circumcision with a range of sexual measures in both sexes.

Methods Participants in a national health survey (n = 5552) provided information about their own (men) or their spouse’s (women) circumcision status and details about their sex lives. Logistic regression-derived odds ratios (ORs) measured associations of circumcision status with sexual experiences and current difficulties with sexual desire, sexual needs fulfilment and sexual functioning.

Results Age at first intercourse, perceived importance of a good sex life and current sexual activity differed little between circumcised and uncircumcised men or between women with circumcised and uncircumcised spouses. However, circumcised men reported more partners and were more likely to report frequent orgasm difficulties after adjustment for potential confounding factors [11 vs 4%, ORadj = 3.26; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.42–7.47], and women with circumcised spouses more often reported incomplete sexual needs fulfilment (38 vs 28%, ORadj = 2.09; 95% CI 1.05–4.16) and frequent sexual function difficulties overall (31 vs 22%, ORadj = 3.26; 95% CI 1.15–9.27), notably orgasm difficulties (19 vs 14%, ORadj = 2.66; 95% CI 1.07–6.66) and dyspareunia (12 vs 3%, ORadj = 8.45; 95% CI 3.01–23.74). Findings were stable in several robustness analyses, including one restricted to non-Jews and non-Moslems.

Conclusions Circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfilment. Thorough examination of these matters in areas where male circumcision is more common is warranted.

Here is another paper studying the perspective of women:

BJU International (1999), 83, Suppl. 1, 79–84
The effect of male circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner
K. O’HARA and J. O’HARA

Respondents overwhelmingly concurred that the )mechanics of coitus were different for the two groups of men. Of the women, 73% reported that circumcised men tended to thrust harder and deeper, using elongated strokes, while unaltered men by comparison tended to thrust more gently, to have shorter thrusts, and tended )to be in contact with the mons pubis and clitoris more, according to 71% of the respondents.

The article goes into a lot more detail, it is almost a shame to just copy the above, but the point is that the perspective of the health of women could have a place in the arguments regarding male circumcision. Besides the papers I bring up, there are also several studies from Africa that mostly tend to come to conclusions in favor of circumcision.

Circumcision and the immunity of the man

Sex Transm Infect. 1998 Oct; 74(5): 364–367.
doi: 10.1136/sti.74.5.364
PMCID: PMC1758142
PMID: 10195034
Immunological functions of the human prepuce
P. M. Fleiss, F. M. Hodges, and R. S. Van Howe
Historically, the most common reason given for circumcision has been that it prevents masturbation. Today, the most common reason given is that it inhibits the transmission of STDs, even though rigorously controlled studies have consistently shown that circumcised males are at greater risk for all major STDs than males whose penises are intact.2–6 Circumcision advocates are now claiming that circumcision prevents AIDS. A review of the scientific literature, however, reveals that the actual effect of circumcision is the destruction of the clinically demonstrated hygienic and immunological properties of the prepuce and intact penis.

One last thought is if circumcision whether male or female is neither about health or minority concerns, but about control, programming, power, and politics.

 

[Yupo]

This barbaric practice has incensed me for years ever since a baby I knew was permanently harmed by the procedure.

As a Jewish by birth woman in the United States, it has been almost impossible to to discuss opposition to circumcision in any rational way with almost anyone within the Jewish community or even within my country because everyone is so brainwashed by our medical and religious establishments, which is no surprise, of course, but very isolating because in my gut, ever since I was young and first learned what circumcision meant, I knew it was mutilation.

This may be TMI but on personal note, after traveling in Europe and having two German lovers, uncircumcised is much preferred. ;)

It is there for a good reason!
Without getting into TMI, I've discussed this subject with several friends that have had similar experience with the difference. One of them circumcised her son anyway. I did not. It wasn't easy to get him home from the hospital untouched, but I did. I got all manner of grief from a chain of pediatricians about how I was putting my baby at risk for UTIs and penis cancer by refusing to do so.
As that child got older, I told him I didn't do it because it was his body and he could not consent properly to body alteration. I told him I'd pay for it if he decided to do it, but please become an adult before making such an important decision. As it turned out, he moved to Europe where foreskins are the norm. Yay!