posted October 30, 2006 04:23 PM              

quote:

---

I feel bad for you, especially since you just admitted it is only your leftest propaganda websites that actually call male circumcision barbaric and qualify it as mutilation.

---

???

pidaua you should stop and take a deep breath and actually read what other people post. FrontPage magazine, the website from which i posted the male mutilation article, is an extremely conservative organization and one of jwhop's faves.

posted October 30, 2006 05:13 PM              

quote:

---

I still do not see a reasonable or logical issue in your article nor do I see how it applies to the depravity demonstrated by the father when he used scissors to cut off the clitoris of his daughter.

---

quote:

---

circumcision of the male foreskin, which is almost always inflicted without anesthesia, is extraordinarily painful and traumatic. Whether or not this violence is experienced by a newborn, a young child or an adolescent, the victim’s brain and emotional state is sharply and negatively affected.

---

posted October 30, 2006 06:43 PM              

turn your speakers on if you've the stomach for it.

posted October 30, 2006 06:45 PM              

http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/002657.html

posted October 30, 2006 06:56 PM              

it's good to criticise female circumcision/mutilation.

posted October 30, 2006 07:00 PM            

I believe I posted all the information concerning male circumcision. You had the choice to do it or not and you chose not to do it. Bear has three sons and signed the consent for each one and carefully cleaned the incision until it was healed.

I will not get into a lengthy argument over it and I do not believe the crackpot BS that men go on through life becoming horrid killers because they do not know the difference between pleasure or pain because of their circumcision.

That is like stating because one cut the umbilical cord at birth and slapped the baby to get them to cry, the child will always be traumatized due to the several of the cord.

posted October 30, 2006 07:10 PM              

More and more North American boys are being allowed to keep their normal, natural penis the way nature designed it, and circumcision rates are dropping steadily. In the Western US the number of intact (not circumcised) boys is over 70% now and rising, with around 90% of boys kept intact in neighboring Western Canada. But because circumcision was once so widespread, both N. American physicians and parents have lost the ancient ‘folklore’ about how to care for a normal, natural, intact boy. This is especially true in the USA, the last country to impose routine infant circumcision on a majority of its children. One recent medical textbook on care of the newborn freely admits:

“Because circumcision is so common in the United States, the natural history of the preputial development has been lost, and one must depend on observations made in countries in which circumcision is usually not practiced.” (Avery's Neonatology: Pathophysiology and Management of the Newborn, by Mhairi G. Macdonald, Mary M. Seshia, and Martha D. Mullett (Lippincott Williams & Wilkins–2005, at page 1088).

The myth that boys need special penile hygiene, including forced retraction of the foreskin to clean the glans, was started by 19th century physicians who suggested that the child’s penis produced itchy substances which encouraged masturbation. As they believed masturbation caused insanity, blindness, tuberculosis, and a litany of other diseases (for which they could offer no other cure), these early physicians urged parents to employ aggressive, even cruel, hygiene. Those pre-germ myths became imbedded in English language culture and linger even today. They can even be heard in locker room jokes. As a result, our DOC physicians get regular complaints from parents of sons about antique advice given by well-intentioned but ill-informed medical professionals or older relatives. One medical historian points out how odd it is that boys alone were affected by this mythology:

“To appreciate the scale of the error, consider its equivalent in women: it would be as if doctors had decided that the intact hymen in infant girls was a congenital defect known as ‘imperforate hymen’ arising from ‘arrested development’ and hence needed to be artificially broken in order to allow the interior of the vagina to be washed out regularly to ensure hygiene.” (Dr. Robert L. Darby, “A Surgical Temptation: The Demonization of the Foreskin and the Rise of Circumcision in Britain” Univ. of Chicago Press 2005:235)

Thus in English-language countries, both medical providers and parents need updating in the proper way to care for the intact boy the way Europeans have understood it for centuries. Luckily this is amazingly easy—mostly, there is nothing to do –but do nothing.

We provide below some answers to common questions curious or concerned parents ask our DOC physicians all the time. We hope these provide some comfort and reassurance. Of course each child is unique. For highly unusual cases and special circumstances, we are able to recommend ‘foreskin-friendly’ medical providers in many parts of North America. Please email us in confidence and privacy if the discussion below does not assist you with your son’s situation, or you need the face-to face help of a medical provider in your region. Feel free to print out this text or portions of it, to present to your medical providers if you feel that is appropriate. We encourage you to do so.

* Was I foolhardy to leave my son intact?

* Does my intact (not circumcised) son require any special hygiene?

* Is it necessary to pull a boy’s foreskin back to clean it?

* Is it true my son’s foreskin should have been retractable by age 5?

* Should I retract my son’s foreskin just a little bit more each day?

* Does my son really need a circumcision to treat a foreskin infection?

* What if my son gets a urinary tract infection?

* Why does my son’s foreskin puff-out when he pees?

* Do the white bumps under my son’s foreskin indicate infection?

* Does my son’s overhanging foreskin need a ‘trim’?

* How do I stop my toddler from ‘fiddling’ with his penis in front of our guests?

* What should I tell my son to say if he is teased for being intact?

QUES: My doctor hinted darkly that my choice to keep my boy intact was foolhardy, and that I put him at risk for all sorts of problems, inability to retract the foreskin, infections, inability to replace the foreskin after it is retracted and other scary stuff. Was I foolish to leave my son intact?

ANS: NO. We physicians are embarrassed to admit that many of the problems intact N. American boys have are related simply to tampering by our colleagues. Countries where the boys are never circumcised have much lower rates of these concerns than English speaking countries, simply because most penis ‘problems’ are due to bad medical advice, unnecessary manipulation of the child’s genitals, and lack of respect for normal male development. Besides, circumcision itself creates a whole litany of problems for the child, not the least of which is that his normal sexual functioning has been diminished. You were wise to leave your son intact, and the risks of being left ‘normal and natural’ are grossly exaggerated.

QUES: Does my intact (not circumcised) son require any special hygiene or bathing?

ANS: Short answer: NO. The good news is that the intact boy requires NO special care whatsoever. He may be bathed exactly the same way as, and no more frequently than, his sister. In fact, vigorous or aggressive hygiene may damage natural emollients and substances that provide him protection against infection. For that reason, D.O.C. recommends against bubble baths or use of any but the mildest soap for either gender, and then only to the exterior genitalia. Warm water only, a tiny application of the very mildest soap, is all that is really needed, until puberty and even after. The genitalia of both genders is mostly self-cleaning.

QUES: I was told that a boy who was not circumcised needed to have his foreskin pulled back at each bath so that his glans could be scrubbed clean. Is this really necessary?

ANS: NO, not in the slightest, and it is very harmful. That myth is based on a 19th century pre-germ theory that the foreskin of a male child traps dangerous secretions that need to be cleaned out. In fact some of his normal secretions –lysozome and lysozyme, the same immune agents found in tears, for instance–– prevent infection. Moreover, the foreskin of a boy is not able to be retracted without tearing and bleeding which risk infection and permanent scarring. Forcible retraction is both harmful to your son and very painful; it is also expressly forbidden by the American Academy of Pediatrics, who say:

“...foreskin retraction should NEVER be forced. Until separation occurs, do NOT try to pull the foreskin back — especially an infant's. Forcing the foreskin to retract before it is ready may severely harm the penis and cause pain, bleeding and tears in the skin. " (From the American Academy of Pediatrics bulletin, "Care of the Uncircumcised Penis")

QUES: My pediatrician says my son’s foreskin should have been retractable when he reached age 5, and that he now has a condition the doctor called ‘phimosis.’

ANS: Your pediatrician is wrong, (by more than ten years), about the typical timetable for foreskin retractability. He or she may be confusing true phimosis (Greek for ‘trapping’) with normal anatomy for a child of that age. Only a careful examination of the tissue can detect the difference. His or her analysis is based on outdated clinical criteria from the 1940’s. That fast-track timetable for natural retraction has been systematically debunked, over and over, and is now considered fully obsolete. Careful and well-trained medical providers know that an ‘adherent’ foreskin, one that sticks to the glans, is a protective feature of the still-developing penis. The membrane that connects the foreskin to the glans is called the ‘balano-preputial lamina’ or BPL. The BPL is a normal, natural, protective and necessary part of your growing boy and may endure, without worry, into late puberty. The BPL protects the boy’s foreskin and glans from infection, mechanical irritation from clothing, feces and urine until puberty when the boy can care for himself. Clinical research shows that only 50% of ten year-old boys can fully retract their foreskins. At any younger age, many fewer can do so of course. In any case, there is no pressing need for anyone, including the child, to see his glans before adulthood.

QUES: I was told by my family practice doctor that I should pull my son’s foreskin back a little more each day, to break what he called the ‘adhesions’ that form there. He told me that if I did not do so, the child would surely develop phimosis and need either surgery or a circumcision. My son screams when I do this and it is very unpleasant for me and I am guessing, painful for him. Why is this necessary?

ANS: Daily foreskin retraction is not only NOT necessary, it is also very harmful to your child. Those ‘adhesions’ as your doctor erroneously terms them, are a natural protective membrane that should be left alone to develop as nature intended. That membrane is not a birth defect that needs repair or attention. Forcible retraction is, ironically, the commonest cause of iatrogenic (doctor induced) phimosis, an unnatural trapping of the glans by a foreskin that cannot be retracted because it has developed adherent scar tissue. Forced retraction of the child can also lead to adult sexual dysfunction. (See the more detailed section on forced retraction elsewhere in this website.)

QUES: My doctor says my eight year-old son has an infection of the foreskin or glans and needs to be circumcised or this will recur or get worse. Will this be necessary? It seems drastic just for one infection.

ANS: You have good instincts that circumcision is drastic care for a single infection. It is common for the foreskin or glans, which come in occasional contact with the pathogens in feces, to develop a mild irritation or infection. These usually resolve by themselves without any need for a doctor’s care. Even a lingering infection of the foreskin or glans should be treated no differently than any other infection—conservative measures used first, more aggressive measures later if early attempts fail. There are good topical ointments and antibiotics now available that may assist, if they are even needed at all. There is never a need to amputate normal, healthy, nerve-dense, sexually vital and protective tissue merely to address a transient infection.

QUES: My son has had several urinary tract infections. Our family doctor says it is because we did not have him circumcised. But that seems a harsh measure to us. What should we do?

ANS: The risk of a urinary infection in the first year of life is less than 1 in 100, but they do occur. Even so, you made the correct ethical choice when you kept your son intact. Treatment by antibiotics is usually all that is needed, same as would be true for girls (who, lifetime, get many more urinary tract infections than boys ever do.) Circumcision is NOT the ideal solution. It is possible for a child to have a congenital defect of the genitourinary system such as an incompetent connection between his kidneys and bladder, or bladder and penis, that might cause recurring infections. This can be detected by a specialized x-ray of the entire genitourinary system. But such anatomical anomalies are rare and unlikely, though not unknown. A ‘foreskin-friendly’ urologist could help you if your son’s infections indicate a more serious underlying problem which needs surgical correction. Circumcision, however, would do nothing to solve a genitourinary anomaly, and aside from being inappropriate medicine, may create problems, –including infection– of its own.

QUES: Sometimes my 4 year old son’s foreskin seems to swell up when he urinates, getting all puffy. He does not complain about it so it doesn’t appear to be painful. What is that swelling caused by?

ANS: Please don’t worry. Likely all you are seeing is ‘ballooning’ of your son’s foreskin, a natural and benign event. It is caused by the fact that when the membrane that connects the glans and the foreskin slowly dissolves, it leaves pockets, spaces where urine can migrate. When the child urinates, if the stream is powerful enough, or the child does not pull his foreskin back a tiny bit to help the stream stay straight, it can run backwards under the foreskin, inflating the spaces where the tissue has naturally detached. As urine is sterile, this is not a problem. Young intact boys have been known to amuse themselves by pinching off their preputial meatus (the foreskin opening where urine exits) to inflate their partially detached foreskins on purpose. This is harmless exploration, and as the foreskin is exquisitely nerve-dense, likely a pleasant sensation—though of course it might get messy!

QUES: My son has little white bumps under his foreskin. I am told that these might be a sign of infection. Should I be concerned?

ANS: Probably not. Very likely those ‘bumps’ are merely remnants of the dissolving balano-preputial lamina, or BPL, the membrane that connects the foreskin to the glans at birth which slowly dissolves over many years. The bumps are harmless. Unless the child has other signs of infection, –swelling, redness, discoloration, pain on urination, over-frequent urination– there is little to worry about. Those bumps will slowly dissipate, dissolve, and be shed naturally.

QUES: My child has an unusually long, overhanging foreskin. It sure seems like a lot of floppy skin he does not need. I am opposed to circumcision generally, but it seems like my son needs ‘a trim.’ Should I be concerned?

ANS: Infants commonly present with a foreskin that seems way too long for their penis. The child’s glans and internal structures may be withdrawn due to temperature changes, fear, or other stimuli, leaving a ’floppy,’ unfilled, foreskin. Moreover, that ‘redundant’ foreskin as it is mistakenly termed, will be needed at puberty when the internal structure of the child’s penis begins to develop and needs this overhanging tissue as a cover. That tissue is not redundant, extra, or unnecessary, no matter what anyone says and it is highly nerve dense and necessary to natural adult sexual functioning. Usually this tissue ‘disappears’ as the child matures and his internal tubular structure —the corposa cavernosa– grows and develops to fill it. If the child is circumcised to remove this tissue, he may not have enough skin to cover his growing penis when erections occur, or he may suffer tight, painful erections. There is NO SUCH THING as redundant, extra or unnecessary penile skin. Like the comparable tissue of females, it is all necessary and nature knows best.

QUES: My intact toddler likes to fiddle with his penis, and I find this socially embarrassing when he does it in front of guests and relatives. What should I do?

ANS: Some physicians speculate that the natural shedding of the balano-preputial lamina causes a ticklish sensatioin, that draws the boy’s attention to his penis. Others think the child’s natural exploration assists the process of dissolution of the balano-preputial lamina, much like the tendency children have to wiggle a loosening baby tooth with their tongue. One famous pediatrician says that a boy experiments with his penis “simply because it is there.” Whatever the reason, he’s doing himself no harm, possibly some benefit and you can safely ignore this behavior and it is best to do so. (Reacting noticeably may only increase his enthusiasm to show off.) Eventually a boy will figure out that, like attending a stuffy nose, penile experimentation is best left as private behavior, or he’ll just get bored and wander off to a new amusement.

QUES: I worry that my intact son is being teased by his circumcised friends. In fact he has already told me that he feels ‘different’ and wants to look like the other boys. I did not want him circumcised because I felt that nature designed the human body the way it is for a reason. What should I tell him?

ANS: Well, whatever you tell him should be age-appropriate. If he is old enough –perhaps age 10 and above– to understand human sexuality, you might reassure him that his adult sexual sensation will be far more important later than any momentary urge to look like others. Likely he will have privately discovered this for himself and you will merely be confirming his observations. If he is too young to understand the worth of his sexual sensation, you need only arm him with the confidence to assert that he is not missing anything; indeed, he has been allowed to keep something other boys have lost forever. Your son could be taught to defend himself by saying, (without hurting the feelings of circumcised boys), “My parents wanted me to make my own decision about circumcision.” In any case, in many areas of North America, and especially in other English speaking locales where circumcision once flourished, like the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, intact boys are now in the vast majority. Although that may not impress your son with his immediate peer group, it is worth pointing out to him that he is not alone. Eventually his adult sexual needs and sensation will overcome his youthful conformity concerns, and he will count himself very lucky to be intact indeed. Our advice is to wait the problem out and not give into to your son’s immature wishes to be circumcised, which he will come to deeply regret once an adult.

By

Dr. George C. Denniston, MD, MPH

Dr. Mark D. Reiss, MD

Dr. Morris L. Sorrels, MD

Along with editorial contributions by the international physician members of D.O.C.

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/

posted October 30, 2006 08:37 PM              

a Live healthy birth. ...

Shows what humans are capable of..when they don't know God... .

Inflicting unnecessary pain..is karma. . .

posted October 30, 2006 08:41 PM              

I walked into the game assuming, like most others do, that I would circumcise. But a funny thing happened on the way to the mohel. In the process of researching baby stuff, I came across arguments both for and against the practice. Arguments so passionately espoused I felt like I had walked into a bar fight. So I did the usual. I asked around, I wandered the web, I spoke to my doctor, etc etc. One thing struck me - ignorance and apathy. I was amazed by the responses I heard. "Well, everyone does it", "I don't want him to look different", "It doesn't hurt them", "It's like getting your ears pierced". That scares me. So if we're going to talk about circumcision, lets be certain we all know exactly what it is we're talking about. Hence the video.

I agree, btw, with your assessment that circumcision does not a serial killer make. However, I would take issue with this ...

quote:

---

That is like stating because one cut the umbilical cord at birth and slapped the baby to get them to cry, the child will always be traumatized due to the several of the cord.

---

The actions taken in your scenarios are necessary for the survival of the child. Circumcision is not.

posted October 31, 2006 12:21 AM              

*poof*

(btw...you might want to email me your msn...I do have msn msgr somewhere no my computer...but Im off to bed now so I'll find it tomorrow )

posted October 31, 2006 07:53 AM              

Recommended Web Sites

There are many websites that provide information about genital integrity and about circumcision. Doctors Opposing Circumcision believes that the websites indexed and linked below generally provide accurate and reliable information.

Australia
Circumcision Information Australia
The History of Circumcision

Canada
Association for Genital Integrity
FarReach
Info-Circ
Medical Fraud and the Criminal Assault of Boys

France
Association contre la Mutilation des Enfants (This site is mostly in French.)

Germany - Deutschland
NOCIRC of Germany (This site is in German.)
Phimose Information Deutschland (This site is in German.)

Israel
Af-Mila (This site is in Hebrew.)
Israeli Association Against Genital Mutilation (This site is in Hebrew.)
Kahal (This site is in Hebrew.)

New Zealand
Circumstitions

Romania
Gardian - Pentru Protectia Genitala a Baietilor (This site is in Romanian.)

South Korea
Circumcision 911

Spain
Circuncision, Asociacion de Afectados (This site is in Spanish.)

United Kingdom

National Organisation of Restoring Men - United Kingdom

United States
Alliance for Transforming the Lives of Children

Attorneys for the Rights of the Child

Catholics Against Circumcision

Circumcision Information and Resource Pages

Circumcision Reference Library

Circumcision Resource Center

Historical Medical Quotes on Circumcision

International Coalition for Genital Integrity

Jews Against Circumcision

Mothers Against Circumcision

National Organization of Circumcision

Information Resource Centers

Stop Infant Circumcision SOCIETY

Students for Genital Integrity

The Intact Network

Brit Shalom

Naming ceremonies that preserve genital integrity are increasing in popularity among Jewish parents. We offer these links:

Bris B'lee Milah
A Non-Traditional "Circumcision" Ceremony
Brit Shalom-Covenant of Wholeness
Celebrants of Brit Shalom
Circumcision Photos
This website features high quality close-up photos of a neonatal circumcision being carried out with a Gomco clamp.

Dan Heller's Photos/Pictures of the Circumcision

posted October 31, 2006 08:01 AM              

George C. Denniston, M.D., M.P.H.

In recent years, the debate on circumcision has been conducted on a relatively low plane, with proponents arguing that circumcision may prevent some rare conditions. Opponents of circumcision argue that it simply has no medical benefits, and is a violation of a man's right to grow up with an intact body. Perhaps the subject can be simplified and raised to a higher plane by focusing on the positive value of the foreskin.

Before birth, the glans penis is covered with skin. This skin is not loosely attached. Indeed it is as tightly attached to the glans as is the skin on the hand.

At approximately 17 weeks of intra­uterine life, cells in the area of separation between the future foreskin and the glans initiate the process of creating the preputial space (the space between the glans penis and the intact foreskin). This process is completed by the age of 3 years in 90% of boys, but it may take as long as 17 years for some boys to have a fully retractable foreskin.

At birth, the separation of the foreskin from the glans has just begun. The newborn's penis is, of course, not yet fully developed. Not only does circumcision interfere with its development, but it requires that the surgeon tear the skin from the sensitive glans to permit removal. As a result, scarring occurs, the surface of the glans thickens, and the urinary opening often gets smaller.

If physicians would simply leave the newborn's penis alone, as Dr. Benjamin Spock recommends in the latest edition of Baby and Child Care, the foreskin would be left to fulfill its several functions. In infancy, the foreskin protects the glans from irritation and from fecal material. In adulthood, the function of the foreskin may at first seem obscure. The shaft and the glans of an intact (uncircumcised) man's penis are covered by skin. Retracting the foreskin reveals the glans and makes the skin on the shaft somewhat loose. Of what use is this redundant skin? During erection, the penile shaft elongates, becoming about 50% longer. The foreskin covers this lengthened shaft. It is designed to accommodate an organ that is capable of a marked increase in diameter, as well as length.

In addition, the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis and can enhance the quality of sexual intercourse. Anatomical studies demonstrate that the foreskin has a greater concentration of complex nerve endings than the glans. If there were any possibility that the foreskin could contribute significantly to sexual enjoyment, is that not a cogent reason for rethinking our motives for this ritual procedure?

History shows that the arguments in favor of circumcison are questionable. At the beginning of this century, one of the reasons given for circumcision was to decrease masturbation, which was thought to lead to insanity and other "morbid" conditions. We now know that circumcision does not prevent masturbation, nor does masturbation lead to insanity.

More recently, circumcision was promoted as a means of preventing cervical cancer in the man's sexual partners; this notion has been proved incorrect.

The current excuses are that failure to remove the foreskin may contribute to urinary tract infections and penile cancer, but neither of these contentions has been proved. Even if either were correct, the risk of urinary tract infection in an uncircumcised infant is only one in one hundred. Performing 100 mutilative surgeries to possibly prevent one treatable urinary tract infection is not valid preventive medicine - it is just another excuse.

Penile cancer occurs in older men at the rate of approximately 1 in 100,000. The idea of performing 100,000 mutilating (by definition) procedures on newborns to possibly prevent cancer in one elderly man is absurd. Applying this type of reasoning to women would lead to the conclusion that removing all breasts at puberty should be done to prevent breast cancer.

One thousand years ago, the Jewish sage Maimonides said that the effect of circumcision was "to limit sexual intercourse, and to weaken the organ of generation as far as possible, and thus cause man to be moderate... for there is no doubt that circumcision weakens the power of sexual excitement, and sometimes lessens the natural enjoyment; the organ necessarily becomes weak when... deprived of its covering from the beginning."

Who has the right to order or perform such surgery on a newborn infant? I contend that no one does - certainly not the physician who should know better - since there is no proven medical reason to do so, and the procedure is known by many to be harmful. Circumcision can always be performed in adulthood for men who desire it, with fully informed consent.

Physicians who continue to perform routine circumcision are not only harming infants but are also harming the integrity of the medical profession. It is hard to accept that these physicians - many of whom have been circumcised themselves - are using their medical licenses to continue this contra­indicated practice. This is tragedy perpetuating itself.

posted October 31, 2006 08:11 AM              

American Circumcision and Brit Milah in 2003
Mark D. Reiss, M.D.

You know, there are some ideas and belief systems that we never even think about, they become so much a part of us, so ingrained, so unshakable, that it takes a revelation, an “Aha!” for us to change our minds.

Four and a half years ago, I thought that circumcision was inviolate in Judaism. I was wrong!

I grew up in a traditional and large extended Jewish family in New York. As a child and young man, I attended many a Bris of younger cousins and friends. I learned in Hebrew school about the covenant God made with Abraham, and as a good student, accepted the tradition. Later in medical school I saw and even participated in newborn circumcisions. I remember being mildly uncomfortable with the way the babies were restrained, but being a good medical student, I accepted the teachings of my professors, that it was a procedure important for the health of baby boys. We were taught that newborns had undeveloped nervous systems, and their pain was so trivialized that I stopped listening to the frantic cries of the babies. We learned nothing about foreskin anatomy or function.

So, both from a health and religious perspective, there was no question that when my first child, a son, was born, that a circumcision would be done. I never considered any alternative.

Fast-forward 37 years to April 1999. I had now retired from my Diagnostic Radiology medical practice, and was happily pursuing long-term musical goals as a performing pianist. My wife and I had moved from Sacramento to our dream city, San Francisco. Both of our kids were married and pursuing their own careers. Life was good.

For many years, I indulged myself with a weekly massage. My massage therapist, who is also a licensed Rosen Method practitioner, frequently ended my session with this subtle touch therapy. At one of these massages, falling into a deep reverie, almost a hypnotic trance, I felt a sharp pain in my genital area, and my hands involuntarily moved to protect myself. I began to cry and was very disturbed. At the end of the massage, my therapist asked me about any memories of childhood abuse, which I denied, and then very cautiously asked if I had any memories of my circumcision. The question upset me but I could not associate the experience with any conscious memory of my own circumcision and so I rejected this suggestion.

I was troubled and could not understand the experience. And that might have been the end of it, except that a few days later, I ran across a book called “Questioning Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective” by Ronald Goldman. While carefully reading the book memories of the massage flooded my consciousness. I had an epiphany that shook me to the core: Circumcision is wrong. And we need to stop!

Now, skeptics may hear this story as a kind of unbelievable “twilight zone” narrative. Since my experience, I’ve learned that this story is not unique. Licensed hypno-therapists have described similar findings with age-regressed patients reliving their circumcisions, sometimes very violently. One hypno-therapist thought she was witnessing a reliving of child abuse or molestation. However, soon after seeing a circumstraint, the immobilizing device used in hospital circumcisions, it reminded her of the position that her patient had been in while thrashing around on the floor, and she then for the first time recognized circumcision was the cause of the problem. I have also read accounts, and spoken personally to men who became aware of their own circumcision trauma, either during therapy or after reading about the experience of others.

What exactly is removed with circumcision? It has been argued that the foreskin is “just a flap of useless skin.” Far from the truth! Research has shown that this tissue contains highly specialized erotogenic nerve endings that are tailor-made for sexual stimulation. The effects of circumcision on sexual response are being studied, and most reports from men circumcised as adults indicate loss of sensation. Our medieval Jewish sages have even written about it. Maimonedes says in his Guide to the Perplexed “The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and diminishes the pleasure is indubitable.”

Circumcision is the most common surgical procedure done in the United States. I emphasize the U.S. because we are the only country in the world routinely circumcising our newborn baby boys for non-religious reasons. In 2001 more than 1.1 million circumcisions were performed. Several medical publications have shown significant postoperative complication rates of 2 to 5 %. Put into real numbers, this means that even using the lowest 2% figure, more than 20,000 newborn American boys suffered a significant postoperative complication in 2001. The death complication rate is not known, since the cause of death is rarely listed as circumcision, rather overwhelming infection or hemorrhage. We do know that every year babies do die as a result of circumcision.

As the general public and physicians are educated about the importance of foreskin function, as they come to understand the severe pain experienced by the babies, and as they appreciate that circumcision has risks which far outweigh any potential benefit, the incidence of circumcision in the U.S. has been dropping. From a peak of 85% in 1979, the national U.S. Newborn Infant Circumcision rate fell to 55% in 2001. And on the West Coast the rate has fallen below 40%. No medical society in the world recommends routine infant circumcision. The American Academy of Pediatrics, which has made conflicting statements in the past, has just recently concluded that routine newborn infant circumcision cannot be recommended. I believe that when routine circumcision stops in the U.S., physicians will look at each other and say, “Why in the world did we ever do this?”

There are so many reasons not to circumcise. Why have we Jews continued practicing this ritual for about 2,500 years? Rabbis will uniformly agree that we circumcise only because the covenant of the brit is commanded in the Torah and as such becomes part of Halacha, or Jewish law. There is no hygienic or medical basis for circumcision in Judaism.

Today, more than 50% of American Jews are unaffiliated. Many if not most of these Jews probably have their babies circumcised in the hospital within the first few days of life, rather than at a Brit Milah on the eighth day, and as such would not even fulfill the requirements of Jewish ritual. I believe that in some of these cases, circumcision is done because it is the American thing to do, rather than the Jewish thing to do. When medical circumcision disappears in the United States, I think that many American Jews will follow the lead and stop circumcising. This has certainly occurred in other countries where circumcision is frowned upon, such as Sweden, where only 40% of the newborn Jewish boys are circumcised.

There are some Jews who state that if circumcision is discontinued, it will threaten the very ethos of being Jewish. They are mistaken. Circumcision is not an identity issue in Judaism. It is only one of 613 mitzvot, or laws. A man does not need to be circumcised to be Jewish any more than he needs to follow other laws, such as keeping kosher, or observing the multiple restrictions of Shabbat. The bottom line is that if your mother is Jewish, you are Jewish! And many in the Reform tradition also accept patrilineal descent. Today, there are newborn Jewish boys the world over who are not being circumcised. These intact boys are being brought up Jewish, having Bar Mitzvahs, and ultimately taking their place in the Jewish community.

A few years ago I learned about the alternative naming ceremonies that some Jewish families choose, to peacefully and non-surgically bring their baby boys into the covenant. This is similar to the naming ceremony used for baby girls. Rather than Brit Milah, how about Brit Shalom? This name has caught on, and I now have a web page listing rabbis and other lay leaders who will help officiate at such ceremonies. I call the page “Celebrants of Brit Shalom” and it can be found at http://www.circumstitions.com/Jewish-shalom.html. It is an evolving list and I am constantly searching for more celebrants. At last count, we had 24 in the United States, and one each in Canada, England and even in Israel. Not a week goes by that I do not receive requests by phone or email from expectant parents who cannot accept circumcision, and are looking for someone to help them with Brit Shalom.

All but the most Orthodox view Judaism as an evolving religion that can and does change according to the generational needs of our people. We are far removed from the days of animal sacrifice. We no longer stone adulterous women to death. Why do we persist with this harmful and potentially dangerous tradition?

I believe that one of the reasons Brit Milah continues is that it is not openly discussed. As with other taboo subjects, there is a tremendous amount of ignorance surrounding circumcision. I’ve seen attempts at discussion degenerate into jokes, usually in poor taste, which for me indicates a profound discomfort level. Circumcision jokes are disrespectful to those of us who know that this is a traumatic event for baby boys. This jocularity is the same as Li’l Black Sambo and Aunt Jemima jokes that offend African-Americans, and homosexual jokes that offend gays and lesbians.

Judaism has always honored debate and discussion. I hope that by having an open and respectful dialogue on the subject, the fear of seriously talking about circumcision will diminish. Only then will the veil be lifted from this very important life cycle event. Our newborn babies deserve this consideration as we honor them by giving them their names and ushering them into the covenant of our faith.

A final thought. If you can suspend your disbelief, try to imagine that Judaism, having survived the millennia, never had circumcision as part of our tradition, culture or laws. Never harmed our baby boy infants on their eighth day of life. Had peaceful Brit Shalom naming ceremonies for baby boys as well as baby girls as we gently and lovingly brought them into the covenant. And then, try to imagine that now, in 2003, a charismatic rabbi suddenly announces that he had a dream, that God called to him telling him that in order to fulfill the covenant, we must begin cutting off the foreskins of all of our baby boys. He calls it circumcision, and it will be the new law for the Children of Israel! What would you think?

posted October 31, 2006 12:18 PM            

I also don't think you would put me down or my husband for choosing to cicumcize his sons or should we have a son- we do still opt for circumcision.

Naiad,

I will not even entertain responding to you. You can find all the articles you want from doctors that are against male circumcision because of their personal or radical beliefs. I will go by what the majority of the Medical (specifically pediatric) associations say considering the negative stats show only a slight percentage of those having the surgery have any life long problems.