Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    See note 234 in AIMHI::PARENTING for a LOT of discussion on this
    topic.
    			Steve

    No I did not (have my son circumsized) and have not regretted
    the decision.
    
    My son was in the intensive care nursery for 2 weeks, and I had
    the "privilege" of listening to the boy babies scream during and
    after the procedure.
    
    Our decision was made long before I witnessed the process.  I am
    adamently opposed to circumcision.
    
    

    
    
    	You might also want to look in MARX::BAGELS
    	Note #143.*  "Circumcision, is it still necessary?"
    	for another point of view.
    
    	Michael
    
    

    re .3:
    
    Who said anything about communists?
    
    - M

     re .4 (re .3 (MARX::BAGELS)):
     
                <<< MARX::USER6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]BAGELS.NOTE;2 >>>
================================================================================
Note 247.0              Fuel for an old anti-Semitic fire              7 replies
CALLME::IRRESISTABLE                                  8 lines  11-DEC-1986 10:10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     
     I'm concerned that the cluster alias for the host system might
     fuel the old myth of the Jewish-Communist conspiracy.
     
     Is anyone else uneasy about MARX::BAGELS?  (Especially since 'bagel'
     coincidentally, or not-so-coincidentally, rhymes with 'Hegel'.)
     
     --Anonymous

Thank you for the earlier replies, howver, this is mennotes, *not* 
parenting or bagels, what I would like to know is how men feel about being 
either circumcised or uncircumcised. Not whether or not to circumcise a 
child or the religious consideration.

I for one am glad I am not circumcised as I feel evolution has done a prety 
good job of developing the human body and that to mutilate it deliberately 
for no good reason is a ridiculous idea.



Jerry

    If you would read the discussion in PARENTING (haven't seen the
    one in BAGELS), you'd find a LOT of comments from men (myself included)
    on how we feel about it.  I don't feel like repeating myself.
    					Steve

>    If you would read the discussion in PARENTING (haven't seen the
>    one in BAGELS), you'd find a LOT of comments from men (myself included)
>    on how we feel about it.  I don't feel like repeating myself.
>    					Steve


Thanks Steve, I alrady had, and neither do I ask you to repeat yourself. 
If, however, other conributors to this conference feel they have a comment 
on this subject and are not users of the parenting conference, I would be 
very interested in hearing their comment on this subject in the context 
of being a man rather than as a parent. Hope this clarifies my point.

Jerry

    
    
    
    	IN the BAGELS conference, you will find
    	conversations of MEN talking about what it
    	is like to have a circumcision and if they
    	personally like it.
    
    
    

    At the risk of ansering Jerrys question, rather than prevaricating
    as to whther this question has been answered elsewhere, I decided
    long ago that my male children would not be circumcised unless on
    grounds of physical necessity, as can happen.
    
    I made this decision basically because I'm not, can see no good
    reason that my children be and have no religous grounds for doing
    so.
    
    I'm pretty certain that circumcision cuts down penile sensitivity
    also.
    
    Andy

    
    
    	How can you measure something so purely
    	subjective as the sensativety of a part
    	of the body ?
    
    
    	

>    	How can you measure something so purely
>    	subjective as the sensativety of a part
>    	of the body ?
    
Many yaers ago (so no source quoted) I read articles which claimed that
men circumised for medical reasons late in life (after puberty) experienced
a loss in sensativity over their previous experience. Anyone got any old
Lancets?

Dave.

>Many yaers ago (so no source quoted) I read articles which claimed that
>men circumised for medical reasons late in life (after puberty) experienced
>a loss in sensativity over their previous experience. Anyone got any old
>Lancets?


All I can say is that if I were to be circumcised and were to retain the 
current sensitivity I have without the protection of the foreskin I would 
be in agony, therefore circumcision *must* desensitise.


Jerry

	I think this sort of "surgery" is barbaric when it is done for
	no other reason than custom, or possible projected hygene problems!
	But there again I would cuz I'm not!

Richard.

    Your "licensed *MD*" sounds like a complete wanker. There is usually no
    necessity on any grounds other than custom to circumsize. Problems
    with a tight foreskin and tumescence do not usually occur until
    puberty. 
    
    Never mind, it could have been much worse: a girl child he wished to
    circumsize! 

    Andy     

When it comes to surgery always get a second opinion (unless it is an
emergency and time is of the essence).

Dave.

Re: sensitivity, I just thought I'd mention that I've had mail from someone 
who didn't want to join in the public forum strongly agreeing that 
circumcision desensitises.

Anyone uncircumcised would be well aware of this. Personally I think it is 
a barbaric practice, but certainly *not* as bad as the ill-named practise 
of female 'circumcision', which is the removal of the clitoris. I am 
ashamed to say that until recently it turns out that there were 'surgeons' 
in London who carried out this practise for arab clients. The sole function 
of female circumcision is to prevent the female from enjoying the sexual 
act. Many die through infection as a result of this when it is performed in 
unhygienic conditions.

Just in passing, my school experience on the the attitude of boys was a 
mild interest as to whether you were a 'roundhead' or a 'cavalier'   :-)


Jerry

I watched a television talk show a while back that was addressing the 
subject of female circumcision... I may be wrong as they may have gone 
off on a tangent but I thought I remember them defining female circumcision 
as "the cleaning up of the area surrounding the clitoris"... I remembered
them saying things like making it "more tidy", removing the hood or tissues
sourround it and that sort of thing..  I think this practice is equally
barbaric either way.. if it is indeed the sergical removal of it or the
process of removing the surrounding tissue..  

In recent years I have come to wonder why we as a human race feel the
need to improve, through surgery, our anatomy.. I understand such cosmetic
surgery as altering a disfigured part of the body or mending an ill formed
part of the body but I don't understand the removal of healthy tissue
in the name of hygene...  Hygene is something to be taught not avoided
by a surgery!

> Anyone got any old Lancets?

Ouch!
 <_Jym_>

    re .21:
    
>I watched a television talk show a while back that was addressing the 
>subject of female circumcision... I may be wrong as they may have gone 
>off on a tangent but I thought I remember them defining female circumcision 
>as "the cleaning up of the area surrounding the clitoris"... I remembered
>them saying things like making it "more tidy", removing the hood or tissues
>sourround it and that sort of thing..  I think this practice is equally
>barbaric either way.. if it is indeed the sergical removal of it or the
>process of removing the surrounding tissue..  

    "Cleaning up of the area surrounding the clitoris"???!!!
    
    What the *&*$#! does that mean?  I didn't know mine needed cleaning!
    Sounds like an excuse for what .20 (?) just said.

    "making it more tidy"???!!!

    What kind of excuse is that?  This makes me angry that these
    barbarisms are done to women in the name of "cleanliness".
    
    	-Ellen

>    What kind of excuse is that?  This makes me angry that these
>    barbarisms are done to women in the name of "cleanliness".
    
 	So it's ok to butcher a boy/man but not for a woman???????

Richard.

Clitoridectomies are falsely known as female circumcision, and is *still* 
practised in modern tribes, using approximately the same techniques as just 
described, the operation being performed at puberty by the older women of 
the tribe. As I say, it was until *very* recently being performed by 
surgeons in London.


Jerry

    Yes, I guess I was confusing clitoridectomies with female
    circumcision.  Clitoridectomies are what I was railing against.
    I know of know operation routinely performed on males that obtains
    the same results of this operation routinely performed on females
    in some parts of the world.

    	-Ellen

Female circumcism as practiced today in some cultures has lead to frequent
occurances of the closing of the vagina through the build up of scar tissue.
This can make sex impossible or very painfull. Should a women become pregnant
in this condition a caesarean section would be necessary to deliver the child.

The practice of female circumcism is continued today without medical
supervision because most doctors refuse to do it and in some cases it is
illegal.

Dave.

    I am reading here alot of nonsense about circumcision (especially
    by uncircumsized men). I will certainly not read a book to teach
    me  how I feel about circumcision. I was circumsized in a remote
    part of the world when I was 10 years old. The tool was a sharp
    knife cleaned with alcohol. The man who did it received  a small
    fee for doing it. It was a graceful(would you believe it?) religious
    ceremony. I received a gold watch for it from my father which I
    still keep. The only pain I remember feeling is a little girl
    whom I liked watching the whole thing with her big brown eyes
    and the embrassment I felt. My father and probably tens of generations
    before him were circumsized similarly. It is part of a little boy's
    passing into manhood. I never regretted being circumsized. I have
    never had any hangups about it. I also believe that it improved
    my  sex life considerably. And I never heard a woman or girlfriend
    complaining about it. I am  40 now. All my adult life  I have been
    free of sexual hangups. When my son was born 8 years ago, I let
    the doctor perform the operation with full confidence in my decision.
    (I probably would not let him circumsized if I did not know how
    it felt like and how it feels like to be circumsized). I did not
    want to wait until he was 10 simply because I didn't want to worry
    about it when he was 10.
    I would recommend circumsition to all of you uncircumsized. It is
    simpler,less expensive and less painful than getting contact lenses.
    And you will have something to show to your girlfriends and wives!
    As for the assertion that circumsition is a barbaric act, I would
    suggest to reconsider such socially acceptable acts like wearing
    braces for months, sometimes years, having a vasectomy to avoid
    commitment and intimacy and various kinds of diets and punishments
    people exert their bodies against to improve their lot!
    
    
    
    
    

Re -1


Ouch!!


Still don't see what your argument is *for* it???

    I was circumcised in '52 when it was customary to do so.  I have
    no regrets, especially since my wife thinks that uncircumcised is
    gross looking (just her opinion, guys).  And if it were any more
    sensitive than it is, I wouldn't be able to stand it.  I don't know
    anything different.
    
    BTW, I was a baby at the time.

>    I was circumcised in '52 when it was customary to do so.  I have
>    no regrets, especially since my wife thinks that uncircumcised is
>    gross looking (just her opinion, guys).  And if it were any more
>    sensitive than it is, I wouldn't be able to stand it.  I don't know
>    anything different.


So, doesn't this beg the question about adjustment of your body to please 
others, eg, the 'a ring in your ear??' discussion        ;-)



Personally I prefer women to have their little fingers removed, as I find 
all five digits on each hand look a little gross          ;-)



Jerry

    Re: 33
    
    	.32 is not saying he would circumcise himself to please his
    wife or as an act of physical 'improvement.'  Are you suggesting
    people who would have holes put in their ears would?
    
    Douglas

    re 31
    It is a completely useless patch of skin that is standing in  between
    you and your loved one. It is one of those mistakes that come as
    a result of
    millions of years of cell mutations (evolution) like wisdom teeth
    and a few other things I forgot that our bodies possess.
    My guess is that several hundred years ago when cleaning water was
    not easily available, it caused infections and probably spread of
    venereal disease. Hence the religious order of circumcision by at
    least two major religions (Judaism and Muslim). I realize that
    some people don't want to convert into these religions and like
    to keep their patches as a souvenir (I kept my wisdom teeth)
    So, I won't advertise circumcision here anymore.                    
    

>                   -< my point(why do I have to make one?) >-

Because this is a place for discussion, not a body mutilation advertising 
centre

>    It is a completely useless patch of skin that is standing in  between
>    you and your loved one. It is one of those mistakes that come as
>    a result of
>    millions of years of cell mutations (evolution) like wisdom teeth
>    and a few other things I forgot that our bodies possess.

Wisdom teeth exist because it is assumed by the body that you'll lose a few 
teeth by the time they arrive. 

What do you mean by mistake?? Am I a mistake? Are you a mistake?

As you are circumcised you do not know what it is like to be adult and 
not circumcised. 


>    My guess is that several hundred years ago when cleaning water was
>    not easily available, it caused infections and probably spread of
>    venereal disease. Hence the religious order of circumcision by at
>    least two major religions (Judaism and Muslim). I realize that
>    some people don't want to convert into these religions and like
>    to keep their patches as a souvenir (I kept my wisdom teeth)

This was in very hot countries, cleaning water is available where I live, 
what is the point in circumcision today, you have still not explained 
that???

>    So, I won't advertise circumcision here anymore.                    


Good, try discussing it instead.    

    This subject has been debated for years and will probably continue
    as long as free choice is available. One thing for sure, there isn't
    any middle ground (I haven't heard of anyone being half circumcised
    8-)). I was born in 1945 and my mother had me circumcised. I never
    asked her why. The only mention that I remember her making was in
    relation to the doctor's attitude that came up in a discussion of
    religious intolerance. The doc asked her "What do you want to do,
    make a little Jew boy out of him?". My recommendation to new or
    prospective parents would be that if you have any doubt, don't
    have it done. It is possible to have the operation done at a later
    date if the person so desires. I don't think anyone has ever suc-
    ceded in reversing one. 
    
    I am not against having it done, I can't get as uptight about it
    as some by saying that it is 'body mutilation'.
    
    Being a new daddy, I can relate that this discussion came up in
    the child birth classes. Not that a vote was taken, it was kept
    in the context of 'Here's another thing to consider. One woman
    related the fact that she had discussed this with her grandmother.
    It seems that grandma had been married several times and it was
    her opinion that sex for her was better with the circumcised 
    husbands than the others. The reason given was because the ones
    that were circumcised were a little less sensitive, the sex lasted
    longer and therefore she was more satisfied. Personaly, if I was
    any more sensitive I don't think I could handle it. But then, I'll
    never know.
    
    My wife's attitude was it might be very hard to keep a 'little one'
    clean and she would opt for the operation on a male child so that
    there wasn't any possibility of infections.
    
    I worked with a guy that had himself circumcised. He was in his
    mid-twenties and had suffered from a number of infections, even
    though he tried to avoid them (I'll have to take his word for that).
    He was out of work a couple of days and when he came back he was
    teased quite a bit by the women in the area. I suppose, they all
    had visions of him 'ripping out the stitches' if he got an erection.
    (Before I am flamed, I make that statement because of the actions
    that I observed and not from assuming that that is what they were
    up to.)
    
    There are many sides to this issue and I would just like to state
    my belief that the choice is up to the parents. They have the
    option to do it or not and no one should be ridiculed for making
    the decision that they feel is right.
    
    Bob Mc
    

>		(I haven't heard of anyone being half circumcised

I have heard of this, very recently in fact, apparently quite unpleasant.

>		It is possible to have the operation done at a later
>    date if the person so desires. I don't think anyone has ever suc-
>    ceded in reversing one. 

Yes!, so why should parents choose to do it, leave it to the child at a 
later date if he so chooses.
    
>    I am not against having it done, I can't get as uptight about it
>    as some by saying that it is 'body mutilation'.

Who's getting uptight? It *is* body mutilation, as you say yourself, it is 
irreversible.    

>    There are many sides to this issue and I would just like to state
>    my belief that the choice is up to the parents. They have the
>    option to do it or not and no one should be ridiculed for making
>    the decision that they feel is right.
    
See above, the choice should lie with the child when adult.


Jerry

    This is not a flame.  I am curious about the definition of "body
    mutilation".  Is it also mutilation to remove tonsils, extra fingers
    and toes, separate toes in a child with webbed feet, take out an
    appendix?  Even more, but possibly a digression, trimming hair and
    fingernails.
    
    Now, the way I see it is this:
    Tonsils are removed as a last resort and only if they are inflammed.
    	I just found this out 2 days ago.  I still have mine.
    Extra fingers and toes are obvious to the general population and
    	would lead to ridicule.
    Webbed feet would be semi-obvious to the general population in
    	situations where one would have to remove one's shoes.  I.E.
    	swimming, PE class showers.
    An appendix is only removed when it is diseased and a serious health
    	concern.
    The foreskin is removed for convenience and possibly health reasons.
    	It would be obvious in the boy's showers and to a lover.
    
    I think that ?.16?, RE mistakes, was thinking about these types
    of "mistakes of nature".  It has been proven that most of these
    have a specific function, although it is minor compared to the rest
    of the organs and appendiges.
    
    Little finger - used for grasping, not a mistake
    Little toe - used for balance, not a mistake
    Tonsils - digestion I think, maybe a hormone or something, not a
    	mistake
    Appendix - has a function, I forget what it is, not a mistake
    Extra fingers and toes - a mistake of nature
    Webbed feet - another mistake
    Foreskin - I don't think its a mistake because all males are born
    	with it.  What is its function?  Protection?  Or is it like
    	tonsils, it has a function, but it is relatively insignificant
    	to the performance of the body.
    Hair and fingernails are dead tissue and can lead to problems if
    	not kept under control.  But, is it mutilation to do so?    
    
    I would classify all of these as mutilations, but that doesn't mean
    that said mutilation is wrong.  Removal of the foreskin is the only
    one that I can think of that is done for convenience, not because
    it is diseased.  It is separated from extra fingers and webbed feet
    because it is normal for a male to have it.  The Nazis determined
    if a man was Jewish by whether or not he had been circumsized. The
    Americans really threw a wrench in their plans because we didn't
    have to be Jewish to be circumsized.
    
    I do not have an opinion (shock, shock) on whether or not it is
    the right thing to do.  But, I would have to say that it is indeed
    a mutilation, as are all of the above mentioned items.  My question
    is whether or not that mutilation is wrong.  I have not suffered
    any ill effects because of my lack of a foreskin, I haven't known
    the difference.  
    
    Spence

    How many of you men out there who were circumsized as a baby, have
    regrets about being circumsized before you had any consent?
    
    I have no regrets.
    
    Spence

    RE .39
    Your tonsils are part of your immmune system, they help to filter
    bacteria out of your blood and body fluids.
    The appendix has no function in a human. It has devolved from
    an organ used to ferment fibrous vegetation to promote more
    complete digestion.

        Re:   last  few - and as an aside to this topic - could it be
        possible that as  we  become  more sophisticated 'tool users'
        that evolution is trying  to  adapt  the human race by giving
        extra fingers for increased dexterity?
        
        Andy
        

    re .38
    
    Had to stretch a bit to find something to criticize?
    
    The phrase 'body mutilation' is an emotionally charged one and
    therefore, is used to evoke feelings of fear and dread. That is
    why I say it is 'uptight'.
    
    The choice is up to the parents of the child, since they are
    responsible for the care and well being of the child until
    it is able to be responsible for itself. The choices are
    either yes or no and the reasons for the choice are as varied
    as the number of people involved. If you weren't so hung up
    on your emotionally charged words, you would have understood
    that.
    
    Again, I don't think a parent should be criticized or ridiculed
    for making a decision based on their feelings. If they never
    considered the choices or reasons and just went along with the
    flow, then they are open to criticism.
    
    Bob Mc
    
    

    I am sorry I don't know if you were a mistake. I know that I am
    not. Because I asked my mom and I am satisfied with her answer.
    I think you need to do some basic research in evolutionary
    biology. Wisdom teeth are completely useless in human independent
    of when they show up in your mouth. There is note a few notes back
    that explains the evolutionary reason for appendice and that is
    useless now.
    There are often no black and white reasons for human behavior. But
    now I know that I can create hostility in men by merely mentioning
    my views on circumcision. There is no law that enforces circumsition.
    And I am not advocating one. I was circumsized when I was old enough
    to be getting erections (we start early in that part of the world).
    One funny note about my circumsition is that the little girl I mentioned
    in my note got really curious about my new organ and we were caught
    by my father when we were playing a rather innocous "circumsition
    game" in which I was circumsizing her!                     
    The argument about hot countries causing infections is probably
    a good one even though I still think that cleaning could still be a
    problem in a vast portion of this world independent of climate.
    If I remember correctly only 20% of the world population have clean tap
    water available to them. 

    Re .32, I agree with your wife.  Maybe it should just be considered
    cosmetic surgery.  After all, some people get their noses fixed
    so they'll look cuter :-)  !!
    
    
    Lorna
    

	You think a knob with a large scar on it is cute??????

    A thought just struck me. In all the adverts, and (minimal) visits
    to shops, I can't recall ever seeing an uncircumcised reproduction
    of a penis. Does this reflect some latent bias on the part of the
    manufacturers and illustrators?
    
    Bob Mc
    ps - beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
    

	Re last,

	Me defensive, no, just pionting out the stupidity of some of the 
	recent replies. 
	People represent things how they see them, with a little license,
	for example, I have never seen a penus 18 inches long by 5 inches
	in diameter, can you imagine the effort needed to cover that with 
	a foreskin? I have never seen a penus with ribs and knobbles all
	over it either. Most photos of naked men, that I have seen, were
	covered as nature intended with a foreskin.

    And now a note from our co-moderator...
    
    Please refrain from the graphic descriptions of anatomical parts
    - some readers may find these offensive, and they are not required
    for the topic under discussion.  I'm not quite alarmed enough
    yet to consider removing the notes in question, though if the
    authors wish to do so, that would be fine.  Thank you.
    
    					Steve

	With as much respect as I can muster, How on earth can you 
	talk about Circumcision, with out talking about......
	em....eh......naughty bits......if people are going to be offended
	then they are reading the wrong note!

Richard.

    Re .46, .50, no, just "cuter"!  But, then what can one expect from
    "naughty bits" anyway?  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    Dear Richard, AKA RKE,
    You consider my wife's OPINION, and Lorna's OPINION to be stupid???
    If you've read anything stupid, you must be rereading your own replies.
    I agree with Lorna that it should be considered cosmetic surgery.
    I prefer the taste of apples to oranges because they are sweeter.
    I prefer dark brown hair to blonde.
    I prefer blue eyes to brown eyes.
    
    Are these opinions of mine equally stupid.  I think not, as someone
    pointed out, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, not necessarily
    stupid.  I believe that you took the issue as a personal slam against
    yourself because my wife and Lorna may not think that your organ
    is attractive.  There are surely other women who would think the
    opposite, should I consider their opinions to be stupid?
    
    Different strokes for different folks.
    
    Spence

>>    A thought just struck me. In all the adverts, and (minimal) visits
>>    to shops, I can't recall ever seeing an uncircumcised reproduction
>>    of a penis. Does this reflect some latent bias on the part of the
>>    manufacturers and illustrators?
  
In the toy departments this past Christmas, a very popular item was 
the anatomically correct baby dolls.. these dolls come in both male and
female and represent new born babies.  The dolls imported from France were
not circumcised.. the dolls made in the US were.  These dolls have been
causing quite a stir on the American market as it seems the general public
is not quite ready for such things.

As the mother of two daughters I personally have no objection to them.  I
would purchase them for my children if they showed an interest.  My children
are getting older and growing out of their doll stage but I did seize the
opportunity while shopping to show them to them and point out the difference.
The younger one simply blushed and preferred not to comment..  The older one
asked me if they really "cut it off" baby boys and "doesn't it hurt?".. I
said yes that the general practice was to circumcise infant baby boys in the
US but was not so much the practice in Europe.. She left it at that.

I don't think this was reflecting a bias on the part of the manufacturers but
an attempt to portray the infant male dolls as they see acceptable.  

Mr. Moderator:
If the following is too graphic please just delete me don't mail me.

I had planned to hold my tongue on this issue but I feel it is time for 
some more feminine perspective as to this issue.

I am 31 years old.  Up until last year when I feel in love with an un
circumcised male I had never seen in person, up close a penis that had not 
been circumcised.  When I found out, my now fiance', penis was uncircumcised
I was as curious as a 16 year old about to experience a first kiss.  I had 
a pack of questions as long as I am and because we have an excellent 
relationship and discuss most things with ease and maturity he answered 
them all for me.  

What I had come to believe over the years regarding un circumcised males 
was:
1.  It was un clean not to be circumcised
2.  It caused odor
3.  It caused infections
4.  It decreased the time of intercourse because of the penis being extra
    sensitive thus causing the male to climax quicker
5.  It was un attractive
6.  It interfered with forplay (yes I am watching my language)
7.  It was un natural NOT to be circumcised

Well all I can say is ALL of the above are un true.  I think an 
uncircumcised male is quite attractive.  In fact it looks very normal and 
un altered the way nature intended (I believe).  As far as hygiene issues 
are concerned I now fail to see any correlation.  It is as any other part 
of the body.. clean if kept that way and not if not!  Feet smell if they 
are not washed but we don't trim off the smelly bits!!!!  Out of fear of
being deleted here I will not say anything further than none of the things
I listed are true so it seems...  Un circumcised males are healthy normal 
intact males.  I am not saying that circumcised males are not healthy and 
normal mind you, I am just simply stating that having become educated first 
hand I no longer see the need to circumcise males unless they choose it or
have a problem that warrants it.

gailann

>    	You consider my wife's OPINION, and Lorna's OPINION to be stupid???

	Perhaps stupid was a bad word to use, uninformed would have been better.

>    	I agree with Lorna that it should be considered cosmetic surgery.

	So if it should be regarded as cosmetic surgery, why not wait and give
	the poor infants a chance to make their own mine up about it?
	(I regard this as uninformed.)

>	I believe that you took the issue as a personal slam against
>       yourself because my wife and Lorna may not think that your organ
>       is attractive.  

	This, also, is uninformed. Where did I say I was uncircumsised?    
    	There are none so blind as those who will not see, if you want to
	go on mutalating your infant boys, go for it!

A slight aside.....

	At no time have I made a personal attack on any individual in this 
	topic, I believe mennotes is a good forum for an interchange of ideas.
	I have known several noters who have left this conference, due to this 
	type of narrow minded personal abuse I have just responded to. 
	I feel it would be sad if this conference slide into the same abyss 
	as other conferences, not a million miles from here.
	If you want a good slagging match, I will play, but not here.

Richard.

Re: 56.54 

Right on Gailann - you have said what I have wanted to say during this 
whole debate!  Thank you for saying it so well!

Angeline

The *original* topic is below.

*Why* is it done???  I am still puzzled.  No-one has said why, a lot has 
been said about parents right to do it, but no *satisfactory* explanation 
as to why to do it in the first place.

>Circumcision
>============
>
>Why is it done?
>
>Is there any proven medical value for it?
>
>Would you have your child circumcised?
>
>Has it had any effect on you?

    Re: .57
    
    It is largely done because it has BEEN done for thousands of years,
    and is thus well embedded in our culture.  This is not an attempt
    at a justification, just an explanation.  Too many people consider
    circumcision to be "necessary" and too few consider it harmful to
    make any appreciable dent in the rate at which it is performed.
    The vast majority consider it harmless and traditional.
    
    Please don't attempt to read any personal opinion on the subject
    in the above words.
    					Steve

    When we had our oldest son circumcised the doctors told us it was
    healthier. It seemed the natural thing to do, we believed the
    doctor and had it done. It has been the "normal" thing to do
    in America for at least a couple of generations and no one questioned
    it. When we adopted our second son he was not circumcised and
    we got pressure from the doctor (cleanliness, look like his Dad
    and his brother) and from friends (stories of men who had had it
    done painfully as adults due to infections) to have the operation
    done. We chose not to largely beccause it wasn't covered by our
    insurance. It has been done because parents believed the information
    mentioned earlier and felt they were doing the right thing.

    Re .54, Gailann, I don't intend for this to be offensive either.
     As I stated earlier I do consider circumcised to look more attractive
    than uncircumcised.  However, that is just personal opinion (and
    kind of a joke, though true - sorry - I know it's a serious
    discussion).  The fact is I really am totally unconcerned as to
    whether any male on the face of this earth has or has not been
    circumcised.  Let's face it it's generally not the first thing we
    know about a man when we meet him.  Were I to fall in love, or even
    be very attracted to a man, and then find out he wasn't circumcised
    I wouldn't say, "Well, the heck with you.  Go take a hike.  You're
    uncircumcised."   I guess that, as a woman with no sons, I have
    a difficult time even appreciating the seriousness of this discussion.
     I don't want to be thought of as "taking sides" though.  It is
    not a matter that deeply concerns me.
    
    Lorna
    

RE: .0 (base note)

I really think there is only one MAIN reason why circumcision still 
takes place... It has been done for centuries and we now have so 
many circumcised males that have been that way from shortly after 
their birth (or in other case early teens) that is is just viewed as 
normal to have the son the same as his father as his father as his 
father before him.  If something was normal for you, you grew up 
with it being normal for you, then you will perceive it normal for 
your off spring to follow unless your opinion as been somehow 
altered.  



RE: -1

As I have no male children I don't particulars 'worry' about it too 
much either.  I never even gave it much thought until recently in 
my life.

The thing that has concerned me as of late is what if I had given birth 
to sons instead of daughters?  I would have surely been talked into 
circumcising them by the circumcised males in my family without ever 
having given the alternative of not circumcising them a thought as I 
would have been ill informed about the whole thing.  Certainly we 
should all know the pros and cons of anything that may touch us in 
our life time and for this I take an interest.

gailann

>>Why is it done?
    
    North American (U.S.) tradition.  Possibly Jewish religion.
    
>>Is there any proven medical value for it?
    
    I don't know for sure.
    
>>Would you have your child circumcised?
               
    Before this discussion, yes.
    After this discussion, I would probably wait and let him make the
    choice.                     
    
>>Has it had any effect on you?

    No.  I wouldn't know otherwise.
    

    I have a disgusting horror story about this that I do not think
    apropos for this file.
    If you want to hear it send me mail.
    But I still think there is a valid reason to have the operation.
    

    My grandfather died in his 20's of cancer of the penis.  For that 
    reason, I would circumsize any sons I have, so as not to take any 
    chances.  If I did not have this family history, then I am not sure 
    whether or not I would circumsize.  There are books on the subject
    now.  If anyone is still wondering what to do with their own sons,
    I would recommend reading one (or more) of these books.
    
                   Carol

>    My grandfather died in his 20's of cancer of the penis.  For that 
>    reason, I would circumsize any sons I have, so as not to take any 
 
	If your mother had died of brest cancer, would you have your
	brests removed, just in case?

Richard.

    
    After reading all the replys one gets to the point of saying
    WHO CARES .....although it is an issue that many people care 
    about!!
    
    Just thinking back (I have 2 daughters),but I think it was believed
    that MOST not all doctors were of the Jewish faith and circumcision
    being a religious tradition...[the cleanliness bit by todays standards
    is a myth....while in the past it may have been true].....just got 
    passed on for that reason!!!Influenced (sp) by a doctor from the
    Jewish faith who may have been in a position of POWER and could
    decide ones future???
    
    Tony.....
    
    P.S.  I am,but because my mother had it done to me for religious
    reasons.

    When working in the hospital urology clinic, there were many men
    who came in for circumcisions due to infections, inability to maintain
    a certain level of cleanliness, tears in the foreskin, and some
    men's forskin was so tight that they were unable to function.
    Some children had to be circumcised at a later age for the above
    reasons and some parents chose circumcision for their sons to help
    avoid the above situations in later life.  
    

    
    
         I have found that in such discussons, statistics are created
    where no true ones exist.  Since no one is going to present a set
    of recognized case studies on the matter, it will only go back and
    forth ad nauseum.  I believe these topics were for presenting personal
    views and letting the reader make his own judgement.  There should
    be no anger or screams of 'LIAR!'.
    
         Now, I would like to hear more from the female side in this
    matter.  Do you discern any added pleasure in the sex act from either
    the circumcised or uncircumcised populus?  If so, or if not, why?
    

    
         My note -.2 was aimed at no one in particular and my "LIAR"
    comment was certainly a general impression and not verbatim.  I
    just attempted to keep the flames down.  
    
         On with the topic!!
    

	If "most uncircumcised men" have galloping knob rot, why is it
	that it is not public enemy No 1 in Europe? Or is it like PMT
	and not discussed in polite circles? Most problems of the 
	foreskin are avoidable by educating the owners of said foreskin, 
	before they reach puberty, however most (I would imagine) find
	out for themselves what the ancillary equipment is for at puberity.

Richard.

    
    	Aren't we getting just a wee bit border-line "Sexcetera" here?
    
    	Bob, I hardly believe being THAT discriptive is necessary in
    	this forum.
    
    	Todd

aw c'mon Todd... 

if Bob wants to talk about his winky why not let him?  

besides what ever happened to "better understanding through education
and enlightment!"



hi Bob!   ;-)

later, gailann

    To the gentleman who got upset.....
    I was just relating what I had witnessed while working in a hospital.
    Education would be the deterant to any of the items I had listed.
    There are no statistics to relate. Doctors should educate and I
    am aware that some don't, that is generally where problems come
    in.  So please, I was not offering the gospel with statistics etc
    included.  The situations I related were in *one* hospital I don't
    think a world wide survey has been done.  Am I forgiven?
    
    have a day .....
    
    vivian
    
    

    re: .77
    
    "Ah rah goo gum bay" (Wave of hand over the mass crowd, poor vivian
    waiting to be blessed), and the Great <whomever> says 'conseder
    the birds .. pigeons and sparrows ...", and they are Forgiven.
    
    So to, Ms Sparrow, you too are forgiven !  :^) :^) - aka - bob
    
    Re: Cleanliness - 
    
    Hmm perhaps a topic called: "Grooming for Health and Pleasure" will
    give others the opportunities to explain the 'proper' method of
    keeping their 'winkies' clean ?  :^&  |^}  
    
    Bob
    

    Geez... You learn something new about someone every day...
    
    Hi Bob!
    8-)

	From candid observation men who are not circumcised seen to 
	to have more fun, after relieving themselves. (sur le pissior).

Richard. 

    I know this reply is really late, but I just had to reply.  You
    see I have three daughters, oldest being almost 6, youngest ready
    to turn 2....  Prior to the birth of all three children, my wife
    and I got into heated arguements regarding whether to circumcise
    any boys we might have.... as it turned out we argued for nothing.
    
    But my reasoning was "hey let the boy decide later on in life if
    he wants to have his foreskin removed", I personally believe they
    remove them more for hygeine than any other reasons, but in this
    day and age I really think its unnecessary.
    
    My wife is of the belief that its the thing to do because everybody
    does it.... needless to say we didn't see eye to eye on the subject.
    
    If I hadn't had mine removed when I was an infant, I might have
    had it done later, but the thing is it would be my decision. 
    
    I like the helmet look but always wonder what it would have been 
    like with the raincoat on.... :-)
    
    Fra

                    -< Origins of Circumcision in U.S. >-
                          
    The last time I was at the doctor's office, I read a magazine for
    parents (title unknown) that claimed that circumcision in the U.S.
    had become popular around the time of the civil war.  At that time
    it was thought to prevent mastubation which as we all know causes
    every disease known to mankind. :{)
    
    Jay.

    Once upon a time, on a dark rainy night somewhere in West
    Middlesex, there was a couple making love in front of an
    open fire.  Suddenly, with a cry of pain the main jumps up....
    
    No.. this is not a tall tale.  This in fact happened to my 
    partner.  To cut a long story short, the effect was like having
    an elastic band pulled very tight, thus cutting off the
    circulation... result one three o'clock rush to the West Mid,
    followed by an operation later that month that meant staying
    in for nearly one week...
    
    I also don't mind one way or the other.  His enjoyment remained.
    
    Merely a thought to mull over..
    
    

    .84
    
    For "main" read "man"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    Freudian slip maybe?
    
    

    Hi Bob,
    
    You missed something???????????????? Naaa I don't believe it!!!
    
    
    Joan (In search of Summer)
    
    

    Did anyone notice the Sci Tech section of the Boston Globe last
    week. It contained an article which indicated that there may be
    a lower rate of urinary tract infections in circumcised males.

    RE: -1
    
    Why would that be?
          
    
    
    John M.

    Does anyone know of any group, religion, culture, etc. that requires
    circumcision other than Jews?
    

    
    
      There are African tribes that require circumcision for both male
    and female at the time of puberty, it is part of thier initiation
    rite to adulthood.

    RE: .90
    
    I believe that Arabs also require circumcision of male children.
    
      Alan

Well, having ploughed my way throught the previous 92 notes, I haven't seen or 
read anything to change my mind.

My opinion still is that circumcision is a barbaric tribal rite, one step
removed from sharpened flints and a stone sacrifical altar. 

I liken it to the manager who insists that all people he employs/are in his 
department, have degrees. He's got one, and if he employs someone without one, 
it devalues his own.

Laurie.

    
    Keep those sharpened flints away from me .... !
    
    Also any other sharp instruments like knives, scissors, etc..

    
    Re: .93 and .94
    
    Digression - in the Health/Fitness section of the Jan. 9 Nashua
    Telegraph, there was a short article about the increasing use of
    obsidian blades to replace steel surgical instruments.  Obsidian
    can be fractured to a thickness of only a few molecules and has
    tested out to be as much as 500 times sharper than steel.  It is
    already being used in corneal transplant and cataract surgery.
    Who knows where it will be used next  8^)
    
    Ron

    	There has been so much negative press in here regarding
    circumcision that I feel I have to give it some positive press.
    When I was 13, my foreskin lost its elasticity and began to close
    over the end of the meatus. The penis began to fold and urination
    was painful. Sex was impossible (started at 11). The foreskin had
    begun to adhere so my family doctor consulting with 2 others
    recommended circumcision. I had the first juvenile spinal block
    in Maine for this procedure which was viewed by nearly 40 surgeons
    and anestesiologists in a forum. My parents agreed because the surgery
    was free. (no insurance). Strangely enough no problems since. 1
    scar due to a dynamite red headed nurse who applied vaseline the
    evening following surgery and an erection causing tearing in the
    stitches.
    
    My brother had the same problem a couple of years later and the
    procedure was done on him.
    
    I had my son done with a local anestetic.
    
    Ken 

    97 replkys and no one came up with the obvious reason. To keep it
    out of the zipper. OOUUCCHH!!!!!!!!

    
    Please bear with me if this topic has been covered elsewhere, but
    I'm in need of some advice....
    
    I have a very shy male friend - 25 years old and totally inexperienced
    with women. He seemed to believe that there was "something wrong" with
    him, but was too shy to go into any details....                  
    
    In a nutshell, I persuaded him to show me the part that is causing
    so much anxiety. His foreskin is unretractable - it seems that it's
    never stretched back over his glans at all, and is now immovable.
    My first thought was sympathy for the poor lad, the second that
    this could be very unhygenic.
    
    I would like to be able to give him some reassuring advice -
    either "There's nothing wrong - don't worry" or "for hygenic reasons
    a minor op would help you out" or something....
    
    Any advice?
     
    'gail
    

    Well, I had a friend in the military that would agree with you on
    the hygene part....  He decided that he was going to have it removed.
    
    As I recall, it was one of the most painful experiences he had ever
    encountered....
    
    He should go see his doctor... s/he would be able to come up with
    a "plan" for him...
    
    "plan" meaning, wether or not to remove the foreskin or not......
    
    I know this isnt a big help but I thought that you should know that
    it isnt a very fun thing to go through....
    
    

    
    Yeah....I had heard that being circumcised when you're adult isn't
    a bundle of fun....I didn't know if they could just sort of stretch
    it or something.
    
    Apologies for making anyone's eyes water!
    (As a colleague of mine remarked on seeing this note...)
    
    'gail
    

	I didn't have my son circumsized when he was born.

	What the doctor told me was when he was in a warm
	batch to gently pull the skin back a little.  Do
	this everytime he is in the bath, and in several
	months it should easily slide back.

	/Robin

Yes, from what I have read, it can be stretched.  A doctor can help 
out with specific exercises like the one mentioned in the previous 
note.


						--Ger

    
    re .103
    
    a warm batch of what?

    Dick,
    
    This is just a guess, as I really don't know that much about the
    subject, nor have I had much exposure to it either (as it were :-)
    ahem)
    
    My youngest son (adopted) was supposed to have been circumcised
    as a baby, but has some foreskin remaining.
    
   It wouldn't take very much to loosen that skin up until it
    covered the tip of his organ and looked like his next older
    brother's who was not circumsized at all.
    
    I am only guessing, but perhaps, the Jewish men still had some skin
    remaining which could be 'encouraged' to look like the 'natural'
    condition. (It still would have hurt like **#@!* without anesthesia
    to even cut that much).
    
    Bonnie

    I was circumcised as an infant and so don't recall the pain but
    am very happy with the results.  The freinds that I have that are
    not circumcised have told me upon occassion that women that they
    have been with find oral sex less pleasurable - (I hope that is not
    out of line moderators) - do to the hygiene issue.
    
    My brother was not circumcised until two years ago when he was 22 yrs.
    old.  And as mentioned in earlier replies IT IS THE WORST PAIN YOU CAN
    IMAGINE !!
    
    Reading this dicussion has prompted me to want to talk to my brother about
    his reasons for doing so.  It should be quite interesting and I will 
    let you guys know what he says if your interested.  Up until know we
    have only discussed the pain involved not the reasoning.
         

    I have read through the entire note to obtain the history of other
    peoples remarks before adding my own.  When I was twelve my family
    Dr. recommended that I be circ.. As a twelve year old I didn't have
    much perspective on the issue.  But I did spend the major part of
    my boyhood uncut with the remaining part having been circumcised.  At
    the time, mid 1950's the majority of other boys were circumcised.  I
    did find that other boys made mild remarks to me regarding my
    "difference" before it was done.  At the time I was concerned about
    what they were going to do to my organ but I was also relieve that
    now I would be "like" the other boys.  During the immediate following
    years I was glad that it had been done.  It was done under a general
    anesthesia and the weeks immediately following it I was sore... but
    it was hardly (as others have said) the most painful thing I have
    ever experienced.  A sprained ankle hurts more, (in my experience).
    Anyway, as an adult what do I think.  At the time I was young it
    mattered for the reasons mentioned before.  Now it doesn't matter
    so much.  Sometimes I do wonder what sex would be like without having
    had it done, but its not a big deal.
    Then my son was born... decision time again.  We decided to have it
    done based on preference.  The medical reasons seem to pretty much be
    50/50 it can be argued either way depending on which study you read.
    That was before I read this conference but I don't regret the decison
    for him.  If there is any big argument against it, it would be that he
    didn't get to make the decison for himself.   Other than that I don't
    think it matters much which is chosen.  With (according to the
    notesfile) approx. 50 percent of boys being circed, and 50 percent
    not the "difference" wouldn't be as much of an issue for current kids
    as it would for me and I BELIEVED for my son.     Jeff

    I don't know if anyone will ever read this entry, but I must ask, after
    having read most of these notes, a question I don't think anyone asked
    in this conference......
    
    Why did nature give the male of the species a foreskin ??
    
      Could it be -  it was so all the various ethnic/religious groups of the
    world could practice the tribal tradition for centuries, thus
    perpetuating the idea that this was 'better' or 'cleaner' or 'We've
    always done it this way'....
    
    					or
    
    Maybe it simply evolved that way, to protect the sensitive area, and man,
    somewhere along the evolutionary line, developed the custom of removing
    it ?
    
    I say it is completely a ritual which any group can justify to suit
    their needs and traditions, and the only time it would have to be
    removed is in the relatively rare case of infection or when it does not
    retract easily. I am not circumsised, and I am really glad I was not.
    I remember when I was in the Navy, being told by the 'normal' guys -
    " boy, you oughtta be circumsised ". There was a circumsision craze, too.
    Guys were having it done, just to have it done. NOT ME, thank you. Only if
    it was absolutely necessary.
    
    No son of mine will ever be circumsised, either.    
    
    
                                               

    I dunno WHY, exactly, but the male's foreskin is
    the same as the "hood" over the woman's clitoris.
    
    In the first couple of months of development of the
    human embryo, the sex is indistinguishable.  The embryo
    has a protuberance about where a penis is, and it
    has gonads about where a woman's ovaries end up.
    
    Then, around the third month, if the embryo is to be a male,
    the protuberance develops into flaps of skin that come down
    around the end of the developing urethra (tube from the bladder) 
    and the glans (end of penis) develops on the end.
    In effect, the end of the urethra gets wrapped by skin
    on both sides and the skin forms a seam that seals up.
    The urethra keeps growing out with the sensitive glans on
    its end, and it becomes a penis.
    In the meantime, the gonads drop from being way up above
    the bladder and fall down through openings in the muscle wall into
    a sack of skin and muscle that encloses them, to become the scrotum,
    with testes enclosed.  This explains the apparently round-about
    route that the vas deferens makes from the testes, up over the
    pubic bone, and then back behind the bladder and forward again
    to hook up with the urethra coming out of the bottom of the
    bladder and prostate.  If the testes had stayed up where they started out,
    this would have been a fairly straight drop down, like the tubes from
    the kidneys into the bladder, or like the Fallopian tubes into
    the uterus.  So, the journey of the male gonads in their search
    for a little cooler place to exist creates a big arc for the
    sperm to travel through from testes to the delivery system.
    
    If the embryo is to be a female, the gonads stay where 
    they started out, turn in to ovaries, and get connected 
    via fallopian tubes to the developing uterus.  The uterus
    gets its own opening through the muscle wall via a
    developing vagina.  In the meantime, the protuberance
    becomes a clitoris and the urethral opening stays behind
    it, the flaps of skin of the protuberance enclose the clitoris
    to form the "hood", but do not seal  up on the 
    lower side, but becomes the inner and outer labia enclosing 
    the clitoris in front, the urethral opening behind it 
    and the vaginal opening behind that.
    
    With a hand mirror, good lighting, and a cooperative partner 
    of the opposite sex, you can examine each other's undersides 
    and imagine all this happening on both people.
    
    The clitoris and the glans/penis become enlarged and
    very sensitive in the same way when we're excited, because
    they both developed from the same protuberance in the
    embryo -- same kind of cells, I guess.
    
    (There's a lot of variation in what happens, so we're not
    all alike and lots of things can go wrong, leaving things
    in the wrong place, not completely enclosed, whatever.
    Some people have "extras", as if they were intended to be
    a twin, but didn't make it and sometimes people's extras
    belong to the other sex, and they are hermaphrodites.)
    
    We could blame the foreskin on women ( ;-) ).  If they 
    didn't have the clitoris so carefully tucked away inside
    its hood and inside the labia, we wouldn't have the glans
    so carefully tucked away inside the foreskin.  On the other
    hand, they could put the blame on us.   In fact, it's just
    a variation in how the skin of the embryo's protuberance
    adapts to what is happening behind it around the third month
    of development.
    
    Bill

    You know, at the age of 40, having traveled the world, suffered through
    combat, survived a failing marriage, lived through 14 years at DEC ...
    you think you've heard everything....

    Today on Dr. Dean Adell (spelling may be improper), a radio talk show
    physician ... a guy called in and questioned the reversal of his
    circumcision.  It seems as though this guy, at the age of 14, tried to
    self-circumcision, only did a marginal job, and, now, at the age of 28
    wants to reverse what he did....

    At the age of 14 he wanted to be "normal" like everyone else ... the
    good doctor pointed out that *he* was the only "normal" one who had,
    unaltered, what nature had given him....I think that this was good from
    the prospective that any other boys going through puberty may have
    taken heart that just because they are not circumcised there's nothing
    "abnormal".

    Reversal?  Well, seems as though there *is* some research going on in
    this area .. according to the good doctor.

    I thought I'd heard everything....well...never too old to learn.

    Jerry
    
    PS - forgive me if this has been discussed in this note - I didn't go
    through the 100+ replies before posting this.

    
    I always guessed that it was there to protect what can be a *very*
    sensitive area, and to provide an "indirect" way of stimulating that
    area to product pleasure when direct contact could be practically 
    painful....
    
    Re: clitoral structure.
    Yes - they are kind of similar, aren't they?
    I read a description somewhere that said that direct clitoral
    contact feels like "biting on silver paper".....makes sense to me!
    (Yowch!)
    
    I have to confess, I've sometimes felt somewhat at a loss as to
    what to *do* with a circumcised guy....(this is *not* a call for tips,
    btw!:-) Being used to men with foreskin (and most men here in the UK
    seem to still have one) I miss the variety of things that it
    lends itself to....
    
    'gail
     

        One way to look at it was that men and women, originally, had
        little to no  clothing.   The foreskin was probably more of a
        protection against the elements, but as  clothing flourished,
        there wasn't a need to have that  natural protection anymore.
        Therefore,  the  option  of `keeping things cleaner' started.
        Especially  since back then, there were no indoor showers  or
        bath tubs or hygiene products the way we have them today.
        
        I  don't  see  circumcision  to be much of an issue  anymore,
        although  there  are religious  reasons  associated  with  it
        (although I don't know why there  should  be any) that I will
        not get into.  
        
        Matt

    RE. 113 - -
    
    Great dissertation !
    
    RE. 115 - -
    
    Glad to hear a female point of view.... ;{)

    re .115, you've got to be kidding!  :-)  But, it looks so yucky when
    men aren't circumcized!  (to me anyway!)
    
    Lorna
    

>    Reversal?  Well, seems as though there *is* some research going on in
>    this area .. according to the good doctor.

I'm pretty sure that it's been done.  

I have no data on "success" rate, or anything like that.


							--Ger

    What would it mean, to reverse an operation where a piece of tissue was
    removed and thrown away a few decades before? Would you get a new
    foreskin from a foreskin doner? Since most foreskins re removed during
    babyhood, would an adult need a dozen teeny donations sewn together?
    The mind boggles.
    
    - Hoyt

    
    Last year, this subject was discussed on a TV program with
    Dr. Art Ulene (sp?) a popular health-editor for one of the
    big 3 (US) netowrks. In any case, several facts were mentioned:
    
    1) The American Pediatrics Association recommends AGAINST having
       male children circumcised, citing that there is NO evidence that
       it is beneficial in today's day and age. Circumcision myths
       include: it reduces the risk of infection, it prevents alergies,
       it makes babies grow up stronger, and it reduces the risk of AIDS.
    
    2) The foreskin is there to protect the sensitive nerve endings
       on the end of the penis.
    
    3) More often than not, at birth, the foreskin and the glans (head)
       are one piece, and that circumcision often requires ripping or
       tearing the foreskin away from the glans in order to do the cutting.
       This premature exposing of the nerve endings, often leads to
       sexual dysfunction later in life. Also the constant rubbing of the
       exposed nerves against the diaper, and later the underpants, helps
       to de-sensitize the nerves, leading to a reduction in sexual
       sensitivity and increasing the chances of sexual dysfunction.
    
    4) The circumcision rate in the US is down to about 50% (and falling), 
       in the UK its down to about 15%. Even some Jewish couples are 
       foregoing the procedure today.
    
    5) Every year in the US, about 500 babies die as a result (either 
       directly or indirectly) due to the procedure.
    
    6) There are documented cases where the procedure has been reversed,
       mainly to correct the previously mentioned sexual dysfunction.
       (I remember an interview with one man who had it reversed, he
        said the reversal was the wisest thing he had ever done in his 
        life. He also mentioned that the difference in enjoying sex
        was like night and day. They also interviewed a man who had been
        circumcised in his thirties, and he remarked that it was the worst
        decision he had ever made.)
    
    7)  There are two methods for performing the procedure; the slice
        method (using a sharp blade) and the crush method (which acts
        like a bolt cutter, crushing the skin till it separates). Mind
        you that since circumcision is mostly performed on new-borns,
        NO anesthetic can be used, so the baby has to be tied down
        in restraints so that doesn't interfere with the procedure while
        flailing in pain. And for days after, everytime the baby urinates,
    	the wet diaper/dressing will cause a burining pain.
    
    
    	That's about all I can remember, but it was enough for my wife
        and I to decide not to have our son circumcised.
    
    
    				-Steve

Re: .121

It's apparent that your information is from biased sources.  In particular,
the description of the operation is wildly inaccurate.  But people will
believe what they want to believe.

			Steve

    re .121, I find it very difficult to believe that 500 babies die in the
    US, each year, because of, or related to, circumcision.
    
    Lorna
    

    RE: .121
    
    > the description of the operation is wildly inaccurate.
    
    	And so is the sensitivity myth. I suppose over sensitive men who
    	feel they reach orgasm too soon are all uncircumcised?
    
    	Actual problems with physical under-sensitivity are very rare, the
    	overwhelming majority of the cases involve mental dilemmas, and
    	even fewer, recent rough treatment.
    
    	I find the reference to lack of sensitivity resulting from diaper
    	friction at an early age to be utterly ridiculous.
        
    	-Erik  

    A doctor friend of mine performed this operation for years and saved
    all the little skins and finally decided to do something with them
    so he took them to the local leather shop and asked the guy just
    to make him something that would be nice and would be back in a 
    week or so.
    
    A week had passed and the doctor returned to find a nice little 
    wallet had been made.He then asked how much and the owner said
    $800.00.The doctor was amazed and asked why so much.
    
    and the owner replyed......
    
       because if you rub it the right way it turns into a suitcase!!!!

    re. sensitivity
    
    I've heard quite often that it's supposed to reduce sensitivity. As I
    had my foreskin removed as a just-one-day-old baby on direct order of
    my mother (no doubt Freud would have a fascinating interpretation...),
    I have thought occasionally if I'm missing on something REALLY
    mindblowing because of reduced sensitivity... But, on the other side,
    hell, hadn't my sensitivity been artificially reduced, I gather I'd be
    fainting everytime I make love...
    ...Paul

    I can't see how removing the skin would make it any less sensitive.
    
    How ridiculous.
    
    Gene




>    I can't see how removing the skin would make it any less sensitive.
    
>    How ridiculous.

 It's true. The foreskin covers the glans, so when you are wearing clothes,
the contact between the organ and the clothes occurs at the foreskin. The 
foreskin shields the glans from direct contact with clothes, etc. When the
foreskin is removed, such protection is nonexistant, and the skin covering the
glans toughens and thickens, thus reducing sensitivity (which is not always
bad...). :-)

 The Doctah

     <<< Note 56.128 by SFCPMO::TEGLOVIC "Pools of sorrow, waves of joy" >>>
                                -< Aw c'mon.. >-

>    I can't see how removing the skin would make it any less sensitive.
    
>    How ridiculous.
 


I had circumcision when I was in my teens, for medical reasons.  As my foreskin
did not pull back far enough and used to get dry a lot, intercourse was at
times painful.

After the circumcision everything is fine now.   I can say from my experience
that after circumcision the sensitivity is less.  In a way it is good as the
duration of the intercourse is now long, as there is less likelihood of
premature ejaculation.

girish

    Re: Last two.
    
    Really?  I stand corrected, what with a control group and no
    experimental group. :^)
    
    All those years, all that sensitivity gone. :-(  I plan to have
    a word with Mom about this!  ;^)
    
    Gene

    Re exposed glans reducing sensitivity:
    
    I've long worn sand-paper inside my jockey-shorts, eventually working
    up to the grade used for stripping paint off warships. This has reduced
    my sensitivity to the extent that I have to put postit notes on the
    bedstead so I remember I'm having sex. Needless to say, premature
    ejaculation is no issue; just last week, in fact, I climaxed from some
    sex I'd had one evening during freshman year in college. (It's great
    when they sneak up on you like that!)
    
    - Hoyt

    
    This note reminds me of a experience I had when a women first saw my
    "natural" penis.
    
    She " Gee, I've never *seen* one like that before!"
    
    Me  "That's the way they come from the factory"
    
    I suppose deep down, she was thinking what Lorna said in .118.
    Fortunately, this woman didn't spend much time actually looking at
    it, but had other ideas :-).
    
    Guy
    

    We go round and round (so to speak) on this issue.  I read in the New
    England Journal of Medicine (May 1990) that the recent debate over NOT
    circ ing boys has tilted back the other way medically.  That is the
    more current thinking is that it is medically appropriate. Why! For
    many of the reasons already stated in earlier notes:
    
    1. Reduced incidence of penile cancer later in life.
    
    2. Easier to keep ones penis clean, thus reduced infections.
    
    It seems that people tend to forget some of the legit reasons it was
    done in the first place. 
    
    There is some incidence of infection associated with the circ because
    of the raw wound. But I have no idea how that stacks up against
    infections due to being uncirc'ed and this supposedly less clean.
    
    But the cancer bit does get my attention, THAT is something I don't
    need.
    
    Reduced sensitivity, yes that does make sense... but that six of one
    and a half dozen of the other, some would LIKE the reduced sensivity.
    
    Having been circ at 12 years old I have lived part of my life both
    ways. I agree sensitivity is reduced.  Looking like the other boys
    when I was 12 DID matter to me. (of course with less circ today the
    balance of being 'different' would be closer).
    
    Pain at having it done at birth? We had our son circ at birth and he 
    hardly seemed to noticed the after effects less than a half hour later.
    
    Pain at having it done at 12 for me? A bit sore for a few weeks but no
    big deal. Kidney stones are far worse... I can personally vouch for
    that. 
    
    I think people make a BIG DEAL our of a procedure which really doesn't
    matter that much in most cases.
    
    The biggest argument against it as far as I am concerned is that the
    infant doesn't get the chance to make a choice for himself if you have
    it done.  When I was 12 my Dr. recommended it... I did not get to make
    an informed choice even at 12 years old because I didn't have enough
    information.  But I am glad it was done because AT THE TIME it made me
    like most other boys and that did matter to me.
    
    We had our son done because of my experiences and at the time we had it
    done (and still almost is) that most boys have had the procedure in the
    U.S.
    
    Does Australia routinely perform this operation as the U.S. does? I
    know Europe and the U.K. generally don't do it.
    
    
    

	<whew>   I'm sure glad I don't have one !





	kits  :-)

    At the risk of repeating myself, and I am...why did nature put the
    foreskin there in the first place ?? Just so man could cut it off,
    right ??????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    
    	psssssst! kits!
    
    	you don't *need* one to `have it done'....
    	i'm reading THE book.

>    At the risk of repeating myself, and I am...why did nature put the
>    foreskin there in the first place ?? Just so man could cut it off,
>    right ??????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

	Well not that I know the answer or anything..but some
	random thoughts on the matter.

	* Nature put it there for protection for sensitive bits.

	* Nature didn't expect that man would use it so often
	  and cause so much friction. (we all know that it is
	  only supposed to be used for procreation)  :-)

	* Nature was stoopid.



	kits

    Hmmmmm, do I hear penis envy here?  Well, we can't all have one, so I
    guess those of us who do will have to do the worrying for you women. 
    
    I suppose circumcision falls into the same category as having ones ears
    pieced, or putting thick sticks through your lips, or heavy rings
    around your neck, or even polishing your nails? "If nature had wanted
    women to have red nails they would have been born with them red". 
    
    Lets face it, ALL societies have their body multilation quirks and it 
    depends on your point of view whether your consider it necessary and
    appropriate. 
    
    As we all know if nature had made the World perfect she wouldn't have
    given us hands to build bulldozers with, right?   

	re :  ::GILMAN


	I don't envy you your penis.


	kits

    Kits... I hope this issue is tongue in cheek with you because it is
    with me.  I have no idea whether an individual has penis envy but as
    I understand it some do have.  The topic was starting to slant around 
    toward humor so I thought I would add my bit and see it people laughed,
    I guess not so I will stop trying to be funny. 
    
    Jeff

	Jeff...

	It was tongue in cheek....... :-)

	I should have added a smiley face...........


	kits

    Unless there is a medical reason for it, I still rank circumcision
    alongside primitive tribal rights.
    
    To paraphrase someone whose name escapes me, to all you 'roundheads'
    out there saying how wonderful it is... "well they would say that,
    wouldn't they".
    
    Premature ejaculation? What's that? (and no, that wasn't a question).
    
    Laurie.

>    To paraphrase someone whose name escapes me, to all you 'roundheads'
>    out there saying how wonderful it is... "well they would say that,
>    wouldn't they".

 I musta missed the note where someone who was circumsized stated that it was
"better."

 The Doctah

    Well if it's not better why on earth have it done!
    
    Paul.

>    <<< Note 56.145 by PEKING::AMANNP "Gift of the people of the E.E.C." >>>
 

>    Well if it's not better why on earth have it done!
 


	Mebbe cuz it looks nicer ?
   



	kits

>    Well if it's not better why on earth have it done!

 I didn't say it didn't have advantages. I just said that I didn't notice anyone
saying it was "better." 

> I do beleive that Laurie was paying attention

 Good, because I didn't say word one about Laurie paying attention. I said
I must not have been paying attention. You do understand there's a difference
between Laurie and I, don't you? ;-) :-)

 The Doctah

    I had my son circumcised primarily because I had read that circumsised 
    males are not at risk of penile cancer (for which, I read at the 
    time, the only treatment was amputation of the penis).  That was 21 years 
    ago, and perhaps the information was incorrect - then or now.  I've never 
    asked him how he >ahem< feels about it.
    
    My father and my husband are both circumsised, which undoubtedly made it 
    an easier decision for me to make.  I say "for me to make" since my 
    husband was serving in Viet Nam, and my parents were stationed in Europe, 
    so although we had discussed it prior to the birth, I was the one who had
    to sign the papers.
    
    So why is the prepuce there?  Gee, I don't know.  Maybe it's like the
    appendix; I don't know why that's there either.
    
    aq
    

    I suspect that the main reason it is done in the US is so the
    pediatrician can meet his monthly Porsche payment.
    
    We, as mostly young parents, tended to "do what the doctor
    recommended".
    
    	-rjc-
    

    
    RE .118 and other comments
    
    Do other wmn reading here *really* think that an uncircumcised penis
    is ugly? I mean, to the point of being a turn-off?
    
    Must admit I've never given much thought to it, being more concerned
    with who the thing is attached to. Maybe it's just what you're used
    to....I hadn't seriously considered the aesthetics.
    'gail

    re .150:
    
    I deeply resent the insinuation that physicians perform services
    only because they need to make payments on fancy automobiles. I have
    many friends who are physicians, and I assure you, they pay cash.
    
    - Hoyt

    Hoyt 
    
    Have you been listening to car talk again?  That looked like pretty
    shameless plagarism to me.
    
    I only have girls so the decision to circumsize or not hasn't come our
    way.  However, Frankand I decided that if we had had a boy the foreskin
    would stay.
    
    Meg

    
>    Do other wmn reading here *really* think that an uncircumcised penis
>    is ugly? I mean, to the point of being a turn-off?
    
One gay-male vote: I like them uncircumsized.  (Opinion based more on 
function than on looks.)

...though it really isn't an important issue for me; unlike required
attributes, such as, for instance, a mustache.  ;-) 


								--Ger

    Re plagiarism: Yes, I listen to Click and Clack, the Tappet Brothers!
    
    - Hoyt

    
    re: .151
    
    Nah!!  They're all ugly!
    
    :-) (I promise)
    
    		Holly

    re .134
    
    Circ was once performed without a second's thought in Australia, but
    today you have to hunt far and wide for a doctor who willdo it.  When I
    was born the doctor did it without even asking my mother, when my
    brother was born she was asked and refused.  I refused to mutilate
    either of my sons.
    
    re .139
    
>    I suppose circumcision falls into the same category as having ones ears
>    pieced, or putting thick sticks through your lips, or heavy rings
>    around your neck, or even polishing your nails? "If nature had wanted
>    women to have red nails they would have been born with them red". 
    
    Not so.  I had one ear pierced.  It was _my_ decision, and if I change
    my mind I can simply let the skin grow back and the hole will go away. 
    Circumcision is mutilation and if I had the power I'd ban it utterly
    except for genuine medical reasons.  (Before you ask, religious beliefs
    don't cut any ice with me - let the victim make an informed, adult
    choice about their compact with God).

    I'm always surprised at the depth of emotion this topic seems to raise,
    and the amount of non-rational dialog that goes on. Only abortion seems
    to generate more...
    
    	-- Charles (circumsized with an uncircumsized son)

    re .158  I agree with your observation.  It is an emotional topic. Most
    subjects which are related to the genitals tend to be emotional and
    this is no exception especially when the pro/con positions seem so
    evenly divided. For every pro argument one can find a con, and vice
    versa. Its sort of like motorcycles, people usually love them or hate
    them. With circ, people tend to either be FOR it or AGAINST it!
    In my opinion, it doesn't REALLY matter much.  For every medical con
    one can counter with a medical pro.  It finally boils down to personal
    choice. And the argument that a baby can't make an informed choice for
    himself is a valid one.  But that is what parents are for... to do the
    thing they belive is right for their son (in this example).  It can
    be argued that parents have no right to make a choice to 'mutilate'
    their son but parents have to make more life threatening choices than
    that for their children.  
    
    My wife and I went with having our son circ'd because I am and because
    (at the time) we believed that most other boys were.  Now it seems to
    be coming back toward more of a 50/50 deal so that kids will not stand
    out in locker rooms with their peers as cut or uncut. 
    
    I remember in Navy Boot Camp. We had a 'short arms inspection'.  This
    was in the mid 1960's. At the time I assumed it was a venereal disease
    inspection but in hindsite I realized it was a circumcism inspection! 
    We all lined up in ranks (all 60 of us) and dropped our drawers. The 
    Dr's went down the ranks and found ONE guy uncut out of 60. He was
    singled out and sent to the showers to wash himself until the entire
    bar of soap was used up. "He was dirty", or so we were told. I didn't
    believe it and neither did the other guys.  The military made a big
    deal of it, we didn't.  
    
    Maybe with more of a 50/50 ratio that sort of thing wouldn't happen
    now.  But I remembered that and wanted my son to be in the 'normal'
    ranks.
    
    Jeff

Anecdote: This is true, but the facts have been edited to prevent annoyance.

I know of a case of a person in the British military (not me!) who had what 
might be considered the logical inversion of the previous story.

He was at one point put forward for a 'Top Secret' clearance requiring what in
Britain we call a "positive vetting". In due course the vetting officer's report
came back with a recomendation for further investigation. 

Reason given : "the candidate is circumcised"

Logic of course is "British people do not normally have their male children
circumcised, but those of Hebraic and Arabic traits do... therefore there 
just *might* be a strong family sympathy with a foreign government..."

He eventually got his clearance after a five day "investigative enquiry" during
which he was severely questioned about any contacts with Israel or any arab
nation. Final clearance was marked "disposition: not cleared for service in
Middle East or access to associated files".

/. Ian .\

    
    just the kind of silliness I'd expect from HM Royal Corps of Spooks..
    
    yet they let the crew from Cambridge run off with the Royal secrets 
    to comrade Stalin....
    
    wonder if the KeGeBe check the dongs of their intelligence officers?

like they say "Military Intelligence is an oxymoron"

/. Ian .\

I find myself getting a bit upset when I read things saying how unclean an
uncircumcised penis is.  Are folks speaking from a point of experience, or
rehashing what they've read?  Many discussions leave the impression that it is
truly disgusting, and that circumcision avoids a great deal of risk, work and
filth. I feel the same kind of anger that some black people feel when
non-blacks insinuate that they are all lazy, that blondes feel when people
assume they are airheads, etc. It's the same tired statement that has been used
for thousands of years in places like the Bible, and serves no other purpose
but to put a wall of alienation between people who view another group as
somehow different. Is it a rule that uncircumcised = unclean?  The folks who
purport that it is true have something to gain from believing that it's the
truth, especially the pseudomedical child care books.  It is not based on
observation of a large number of uncircumcised men.

I spend about 3 seconds a day on keeping myself clean.  I have had no
complaints over the years from my lady, who is extremely picky about hygiene. 
Infections are extremely rare among me, my many relatives, and friends (I've
asked people who trust me and I trust them).  They are also easily treated if
they occur.  I'm certain that self-respect keeps most people clean.

Years ago, (in the pre-AIDS years) I worked with, and became close friends
with, an extrememly promiscuous and very vocal gay man.  He said that he
had never encountered an unclean uncut man.  Logic tells me that if people's
level of hygiene was so low in the past, they would have had problems finding
partners, and been weeded out of the gene pool. Who likes to have sex with
someone who stinks?  If cancer of the penis is such a concern, why is it so
very rare to hear that someone has it?  If cancer is such a big factor, why
aren't the Europeans flocking to get circumcised?  I know someone who lost a
breast to cancer.  Was it because she never washed it?  If cleanliness were a
real issue, wouldn't you hear people complaining about it?  Donahue and Oprah,
perhaps?

I never hear people discuss the aesthetic pros and cons of labia minora.  It
seems odd that there is such vehemence over the aesthetics of a foreskin.

I wish that people would live and let live, and not hypothesize about something
they have no first-hand (sorry) experience with.  For the record, I've got two
boys, one with a foreskin and one without.  I don't think either has a big 
advantage over the other. 

I really loved the note from the person who joked about the sandpaper.  There
is someone who is as sick of the exaggeration of the callousing of the 
circumcised penis as I am of the all-too-common hygiene slander of the
uncircumcised one.  It's this kind of inaccurate talk that prevents people from
making realistic, informed choices.  Given the climb in world population, I'm
certain that both kinds work fine.  
	Tom

    Tom, I get the OVERALL impression from this string that its pretty much
    a matter of personal preference. For every pro one can find a con on 
    both sides of the argument. What is clear is that people regard circ
    pretty much the way they regard motorcycles: People tend to LOVE em or
    HATE em.  The genitals are an emotional topic and once people make up
    their minds pro or con on circ they tend to find arguments to support
    THEIR side of the issue, I am no exception to this.  You say penile
    cancer among the uncut is rare.  Maybe it is, but I don't believe the
    rare person who does have penile cancer is going to run around
    advertising the fact. Of COURSE one doesn't hear much about penile
    cancer from the few who do have it.
    
    I have read in a Medical Journal (The New England Journal of Medicine,
    June 1990 Issue) that STATISTICALLY penile cancer is more common in
    uncut men and that that finding is causing some Dr.'s to recommending
    circumcism more often than they used to.
    
    If you believe that comments about how dirty uncut men are is
    inaccurate (which I agree with, that is, that the belief is inaccurate)
    remember that those saying that have little statistical data to back
    the belief up.  Its like anything else, some people have dirty hair,
    others have clean hair. Does that mean that anybody with hair is dirty
    and we should all cut our hair off?  Of course not... it depends on 
    individual hygiene.  I suggest you not get TOO upset at the
    generalizations directed toward uncut men.
    
    Jeff

    Attention! Dave Barry has added circumcision to the long list of topics
    he's discussed in his columns, such as exploding cows and Tupperware!
    "What's so funny about circumcision," you may ask. Well, check out 
    note 713 in HYDRA::DAVE_BARRY...
    
    -b