Conference quark::mennotes

    Later in life will be much, much harder. I would do it ASAP.
    
    Marc H.

If you're going to do it, do it now.  

You'll find lots of debate on the subject in the PARENTING file as well
as version 1 of MENNOTES.  

				Steve

    Take Shakespeare (Macbeth) to heart:  "If it were done when 'tis done,
    then 'twere well it were done quickly."  Absolutely - if you're going
    to do it, do it now, not later.  For an adult it is exquisitely painful
    and relatively slow to heal.
    
    -dick

>    to do it, do it now, not later.  For an adult it is exquisitely painful
>    and relatively slow to heal.

Is it any less exquisitely painful as a newborn?

-marc 

    re .4, well, you don't know any men who can remember having it done as
    infants, do you?
    
    Lorna
    

    	Circumcision is almost unknown in Europe except for religious
    reasons.
    
    	If you are doing it for religious reasons then the religion will
    probably dictate how and when it is done. Otherwise I wouldn't even
    consider it. Did they ask you if you wanted his appendix removed too
    while they were at it?

    If it's going to be done, do it now.  My son cried, but stopped as soon
    as they turned off that bright light in his eyes.  If you feel bad
    about subjecting your son to any pain, the doctor will probably allow you
    to be with him to ensure that he is ok.  But, our doctor assured us
    that the benefit of a painkiller in this case was outweighed by other
    concerns. 

    Re .6
    
    I don't recall the basenoter's having asked for our opinions as to
    whether his boy child should be circumcised.  Why do you feel compelled
    to offer your unsolicited remarks?  Do you think that, if it is for
    religious reasons, he is uninformed enough to need an explanation by
    someone potentially from outside his religion?
    
    -dick

    re .0
    
    Why do you feel it necessary for the doctor to bodily mutilate your
    newborn son?

    Re .9
    
    Why, what*ever* prompts you to ask such a rude, invasive question?

    re: .8
.0>    My question is
.0>    Can he have a circumcision when he growns up (20-30years old) and how
.0>    much less/or more suffering at the old age compared to the young age
.0>    and how long the operation lasts. 
    
    	I agree that this is asking semantically for facts rather than
    opinions, but I am sure the base noter realises that you can have any
    part of your body cut off at any age, and that since amount of
    suffering is subjective we can only give opinions.
    
    	In practice, if he leaves the decision until the child is 30 years
    old he will no longer have the decision anyway. That was effectively my
    advice.

    re .9
    
>    Why, what*ever* prompts you to ask such a rude, invasive question?
    
    I have a thing about people bodily mutilating babies.  If you think
    that's rude then tough.

    Re .11
    
    You and I must read your remarks very differently.  From your .6:
    
    >     If you are doing it for religious reasons then the religion will
    > probably dictate how and when it is done. Otherwise I wouldn't even
    > consider it.
    
    Your advice, by this quotation, is that unless it is for religious
    reasons, he not have it done.  Period.  There is nothing here remotely
    suggesting that he not take the decision now so that eventually it will
    not be his decision to take.  I suppose you must read these words much
    differently?
    
    -dick

    RE: .12
    
    Have to give you credit where credit is due. Your comment insults
    more people per letter than any other I have read in here or
    Sapbox. You are truly....A winner.
    
    Marc H.

    re .14
    
    I was once accused (in another conference) of insulting every person on
    the planet.  But he was a weirdo.

    Last I heard, there were no medical reasons to circumsize a child.
    
    If that's still the case, and the procedure is not demanded by my
    chosen religion, I would decline.

    RE: .15
    
    You know, I really haven't a clue just *WHY* you keep noting here.
    If this is the "style" of noting that is needed or wanted in here,
    then I'm out. Sure....I can and have insulted many people in the past,
    but, I grew out of it. Maybe you have something to prove....I don't
    know. But, if these type of comments continue, then I'm out of here.
    It just isn't worth have cheap, stupid shots being thrown around.
    
    Marc H.

    re: .13
    	I think it is just a misunderstanding of words. He can choose not
    to have it done until the child is legally adult, and he was suggesting
    leaving a decision until the child was 20 or 30 years old.
    
    	I assume that the age of maturity in whatever country the base
    noter is writing is probably less than 30, so leaving a decision until
    the child is 30 is equivalent to him (the base noter) deciding that it
    will not be done.
    
    	You can read my advice as "the upper end of your 0-30 age range
    that you allowed sounds right to me".

    Re .18
    
    But the basenoter did not ask whether he should leave the decision
    until the child is mature.  (He is writing from the USA, by the way.) 
    He asked whether circumcision can be done to an adult and whether it is
    more painful/difficult when done to an infant or when done to an adult.
    
    -dick

    re .12, but, surely you know it's common practice in the U.S.
    
    Besides, many, if not most, of us, have gotten used to the way it
    looks.  (The word mutilation usually brings to mind doing something
    that will make people look worse, when it could be argued that
    circumsion does just the opposite.)
    
    Lorna
    

    re .20
    
    Surgically removing a part of the body for no sound medical reason and
    without anaesthetic is to my mind mutilation.  That it is done to
    infants only makes it worse.

    
    We recently had to make this decision ...  stuff we were told
    
    1) A couple of the docs in Emmy's practice refused to do them because
       they believed it was unneeded surgery.
    
    2) If cleaned well an uncircumized penis is just as healthy ... but
       often younger boys aren't real good about cleaning themselves well.
    
    3) It can be done at any age but it definately is less painful as a young
       infant ... (my guess at least two things at work ... 1) nerve development
       continues well past birth and 2) the penis, pre-puberty, is probably
       less sensitive.
    
    Good Luck,
    Greg
    
    

    I suppose I should also mention that some guys feel "less than full
    men" without their foreskin.  There was a series of notes on this in
    the old MenNotes or HR.
    
    Some men go so far as to have surgery to get them back to their pre-
    circumcision condition.

    re .23, well, there must be a lot of men in America who feel "less than
    full men" then, because my experience would indicate that most men
    between the ages of 25-50, in the US, are circumcised.  It's so common
    it seems normal to me, and I think it looks a lot better.
    
    Lorna
    

    There are medical reasons to circumcize routinely... cancer of the
    penis.
    
    A few years ago a study came out saying it made no difference.
    
    I read in the New England Journal of Medicine about a year and a half
    ago that new studies DO show an increase in cases of cancer of the penis
    in uncircumsized males and that doctors were revising their think back
    to recommending it because of that study.
    
    Its interesting, people tend to have INTENSE emotions regarding this.
    Either they are FOR it or AGAINST it... its sort of like motorcycles...
    people tend to LOVE em or HATE em.
    
    When making the decision regarding my son my wife and I did quite a
    bit of reading and thinking about it.  The studies we read indicated
    that newborns have less sensation of pain because their nervous system
    isn't completely wired in yet. 
    
    I had it done at the age of 12 on the advise of our family Dr.  
    I have lived both sides of the issue for part of my life.
    Yes, it was painful at 12, but kidney stones are FAR worse.  The
    pain was about the equivalent to stubbing your toe.... I speak from
    experience on all those issues.
    
    "Multilation" So is piercing your ears.
    
    IMO its not that big a deal either way... but if your going to get it
    done... get it done while he is an infant.
    
    Jeff

    rep
    
>    "Multilation" So is piercing your ears.
    
    Wrong.  I have one ear pierced.  It was genuinely painless, is not
    permanent and was my choice.  They day I don't want it any more I take
    out the stud and forget about it.
    
    That's a hell of lot different to surgically slicing off a bit of an
    infant's body, without anaesthetic, for no valid reason.  (The studies
    quoted are out of date.  More current studies show that when the man
    keeps himself properly clean there is no increae in either cancer of
    the penis or of the cervix).
    
    Mutilating babies is sick.

    Rathole: by some definitions, ear-piercing certainly _is_ mutilation -
    and for many people, it's also permanent; not everybody's punctures
    will close up, even after years of not wearing earrings. Note, however,
    that "ritual mutilation" of some sort or other is a very common human
    practice, and when one defines "mutilation" as "_unsightly_ alteration
    or damage" rather than simply "unnecessary damage," it becomes very
    subjective. If one finds pierced ears (or circumcised penises)
    attractive, then they're not mutilated; if one finds them unattractive,
    they are. 
    
    In any case, my preference would be to leave all of these things undone
    and let the kids decide for themselves when they get old enough. But it
    does seem to be true that it's "easier" on infants than on adults to
    have bits of themselves punctured or sliced, so if a parent thinks the
    odds are that the kid will have wished it had been done, it makes sense
    to do it early.
    
    Glad I don't have to make this decision for anybody! ;-)
    
    -b

    If you're going to have it done, I think it should be done while an
    infant when the baby won't remember having it done and any pain
    associated with it. I know of men who have had it done much later in
    life for medical reasons, and the feedback I got was that it was a
    bit painful, but the biggest complaint was that it took so long to
    heal. And I know of a 3-year-old who had to have it done for
    medical reasons, and ended up getting a urinary tract infection 
    because he had been potty trained but refused to go because of the
    burning sensation caused after the circumcision.
    
    There have also been studies that say some women can develop more
    UTI's from having intercourse with men who have not been circumcised
    and some studies that say a higher incidence of men without
    circumcisions get cancer of the penis.  
    
    Based on all that, when my son was born, we had him circumcised.  The
    doctor said he would heal in about 3 days (vs. a much longer time for
    an adult), and he did.  If you want it done, I'd definitely opt for
    doing it when the baby is just an infant.

    re .27
    
    It is true that some pierced ears won't heal automatically because of a
    thin layer of scar tissue that forms around the hole.  But, according
    to a friend of mine who is a doctor, it is a trivial task to scrape
    away just enough to get the blood flowing again and then the skin will
    heal naturally.  The same cannot be said for circumcision.
    
    The rest of your argument doesn't hold water either.  The issue is not
    whether something is or is not attractive.  The issue is the
    fundamental problem of people voluntarily having their babies bodies
    surgically altered without either sound reasons, anaesthetic and
    (blatantly obviously) informed consent.  That is mutilation and it is
    unforgiveable.
    
    re .28
    
    Do try to keep up.  The old myths about cancer of the penic/cervix have
    been blown away by more recent studies, as I mentioned not two notes
    ago.  Congratulations.  You mutilated your child for no reason.  I hope
    he forgives you.

Re: .29

David, you are also apparently behind the times.  There is recent (last few
months) data that shows there is a medical benefit to circumcision.  Not
a big one, admittedly, and not one which I would view as a compelling reason
to choose it, but it is there.

Nonetheless, this is one of those cultural issues in which you won't find
agreement on an absolute right or wrong, and it is inappropriate to insult
those who hold a view different from your own.

				Steve

    "Mutilation"  Its in the eye of the beholder I think.  By YOUR (.29)
    definition it IS mutilation because you SEE it that way. I can't
    argue with your point of view.
    
    To me its not mutilation.
    
    Parents have it done or not because they believe its in the best
    interests of their son.  What more can the parents do?
    
    A point in our consideration of the subject for our son was whether
    'most' other boys were circumsized or not.  Most kids want to be 'like'
    the other kids... no one wants to stand out.  At the time we made our
    choice (mid 1980's) most boys in the U.S. were being circumsized
    (somewhere around 80%). That has changed since the late 1980s, now
    (especially in Calif.) its closer to 50 50 or 2/3rd done 1/3 not done
    so a kid would't stand out either way as much nowadays.
    
    When I was a kid (and uncirc) that sort of thing was noticed by your
    peers. No BIG deal but enough to draw comments which made me feel
    'different' and I didn't like it.  I determined right then that my son
    (should I have one) would have it done or not depending on the
    prevailing social trend of the times.
    
    I think the biggest point against circ is that the parent makes an 
    essentially non reversable minor surgery choice for their boy if they
    decide to have it done.
    
    But parents make life changing choices for their children ROUTINELY.
    Many are far more important than whether he is circ or not.  Thats the
    nature of parenting.... its part of the job. 
    
    I don't think you go wrong WHICHEVER you choose. Do the thing which
    makes you comfortable and you think your son will have wanted you to
    do.
    
    Jeff
    

    Mutilation? You mean like piercing ears?

    		Alfred

    Yes Alfred, that is how many of us define both circumcision and ear
    piercing.  However when my ears were peirced, I made the decision to
    self-mutilate, the decision wasn't made for me by someone else.  
    
    Frank and I decided that we wouldn't circumcize any infants unless
    there was a medically necessary reason to do it.  We haven't had a boy
    at this point, so the question has been moot.  I also didn't pierce my
    daughters' ears when they were infants.  Lolita got hers done when she
    was 11, and Carrie has stated she doesn't wants hers done at this time. 
    She is 7.  Frank resents the fact that his parents made this decision
    for him.  As for attractiveness circumcized or hooded never made any
    difference to me as long as the man practises reasonable hygeine.     
    
    There are very real risks and complications of circumcision, as there 
    are for any surgery. If you are trying to decide on a risk/benefits
    basis, I would ask the pediatrician (or mohil if you can find one),
    what his/her complication rate is,  what the potential complications
    were, how this person has dealt with them, and were there any long-term
    effects from the complications.  
    
    meg 

    An interesting observation (correlation?)...

    It would seem that the European members of this file tend to be against
    circumcision but advocate gun control (kind of a NO snipping, NO sniping
    attitude) according to "Men and Guns" (note 46) whereas the Americans
    advocate circumcision and are strongly opposed to gun control.  

    I wonder if there is anything really to this...

    re .34, anything to it?  
    
    Maybe only the willingness of people to unquestioningly accept the
    status quo of whatever culture they happen to have been raised in.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .30
    
>agreement on an absolute right or wrong, and it is inappropriate to insult
>those who hold a view different from your own.
    
    I don't hold to this sort of wishy-washy liberalism.  I thought you'd
    have known that by now.  I have only barely scratched the surface of
    how I feel about people who mutilate infants.  And it is mutilation. 
    Go look up the word in a good dictionary.
    
    Fortunately this barbaric practice is on the decline in most of the
    civilised world.  When my sons were born you couldn't find a doctor who
    who even consider it, nor did I for a second.  Only one woman in the
    maternity ward even mentioned it and somehow I don't think she was
    ready for the chilly reception she received from the staff, doctors and
    nurses alike.
    
    One day history will look on circumcision as one of the horrible yet
    curious customs of the primitive ancients.  And that day won't be a
    moment too soon.
    
    re .34
    
    I'm not European or American.

    My son was not circumcised when he was an infant because he was born
    prematurely and his penis was not large enough for the surgeons to do
    it. Not having it done has caused problems with getting clean urine
    specimens in his older years. The results are that to insure  getting
    clean specimen, he must be catheterised. Consider doing this to
    your-self and then you'll see circumcising an infant is not such a bad
    idea.

    Jim

Re .29

I was keeping up.

I made the right decision for my son based on the medical information at
hand and the risks of future medical problems further on down the road.
As far as mutilation, if you saw my son and how 'mutilated' he's been so
far by all his major (life-saving) surgeries, you'd get a good feel for
what mutilation looks like based on the scars he's already got, and he's
not even 2 yet.  I know my child and how he measures up medically, and given
his propensity for always being in that small minority, I was not willing
to take the chance of having to have it done later in life.  He's been
through enough that he hopefully won't remember, and I expect he'll
still need more surgery.

And to the person who couldn't have his son circumcised because of the
prematurity. It could have been done when he reached the 4 pound limit
they normally use.  My son was born 12 weeks premature and weighed a 
whopping 2 pounds 5 ounces (and he was the bigger twin!), and didn't
get big enough to have it done til he was about 16 weeks old, but he was
still in the hospital, so it was done then.  

    
    Seeing how this subject has already gotten out of hand:
    
    I am due with my 2nd child Aug 3rd. And I am carrying a boy, we do
    intend on having him circumcised after birth. We did not dig deep on
    this subject to make our decision. And we are not doing it just because
    it's common practice in the US. We both have had males in our families
    who have suffered some affects of not being circumcised and that is
    what made us opt for the procedure. What, you may ask did they suffer?
    
    Well, bad skin infections to be exact from not being properly cleaned.
    Sometimes it is uncontrolable even when a person keeps themselves
    cleaner than clean it can still happen. I think it should be done at
    birth.
    
    So, to the basenoter. You have heard many sides to the situation in here. 
    Based on that you and only you can decide what is in the best interest of 
    the child. But whatever your decision, DO NOT feel inhumane.
    Circumcision is not illeagal and you have the choice
    
    Feel lucky you do have a choice.....
    
    Sandy

    I think that the key to whether a procedure is mutilation or not has to
    do with whether it is 'necessary'.  Surgery to remove a diseased
    appendix is not mutilation because it is required to save the persons
    life.  But few would argue that the resulting scar and trauma to the
    body is FAR worse than circumcision is.  Piercing ones ears IMO is not
    necessary, it is ornimental (as putting those huge brass rings in your
    lips is ornimental) and also IMO is mutilation.  So we come down to 
    the DEFINITION the word NECESSARY.  To me, reducing the risk of penile
    cancer and easing cleansing is necessary, therefore it is not
    mutilation.
    
    My point is we can bat about mutilation till hell freezes over and we
    will ALL be right by our OWN definition.
    
    You don't mention how recent it was or roughly the geographic location
    where the Dr.'s and nurses were horrified at the thought of
    circumcision.  My wife and I had no problem having our son circumsized
    as far as staff reaction was concerned.
    
    As I said before parents make LIFE CHANGING decisions for their sons 
    routinely.... some with far more serious consequences than whether to
    circumsize or not, since its necessary to some parents, (see my
    definition) whats the big difference here.  We (the pros) are virtually
    getting accused of child abuse by having their sons circumsized!
    Give us a break!
    
    Jeff

    
    RE:38

    My son had further medical problems for the first four years of his
    life. Whenever he went in for some surgery, I asked the doctors if
    he should be circumcised at the same time. They all said no, because
    they didn't want to put more stress on him than what was absolutely
    necessary. 


    BTW, he was born at 27 weeks. He weighed 2.7 lbs. He's 12 years old
    today and is doing great! 

    Jim

    re .40
    
>    definition) whats the big difference here.  We (the pros) are virtually
>    getting accused of child abuse by having their sons circumsized!
>    Give us a break!
    
    No.

    Dave:
    
    You've made your point of view eminently clear -- repeatedly.
    
    Please keep in mind that the base note asked for information, not
    opinions.
    					andrew

Though David has not had the courtesy to respond to your request,
Jeff, I'll tell you that he hails from Australia, though I've no
idea if that is where his son was born.

DougO

    	In general, something that serves no useful purpose and may even be
    a survival disadvantage degenerates. Darwin and all that. There is some
    indication that this may be the position of the appendix. At one stage
    it may have been useful in the digestion of cellulose, but with man
    moving to a meat and grain diet the cellulose component of his diet os
    no longer essential.
    
    	I have seen no indication that the foreskin is vanishing, or even
    decreasing in size, so I can only conclude that at this stage of
    evolution it is probably an advantage rather than a disadvantage.
    
    	My opinions against circumcision should be taken in the context of 
    "if it works, don't fix it", and "don't mess with nature unless you are
    *very* sure of what you are doing". Against that, social acceptance, or
    a *real* medical reason in an individual case have both been mentioned,
    and are both valid.
    
    	Given the very strong opinions that have been shown here I would be
    very wary of accepting medical evidence on either side. The doctors
    who are providing the evidence are human too. I might trust them on a
    diagnosis and solution for an individual for this subject, but I would 
    be much more wary of surveys and statistics.
    
    	Dave, who hasn't seen a dentist in 30 years, and who only sees a
    doctor when the law requires him to have a certificate for sick
    leave absence.

    re .45, you haven't seen a dentist in 30 yrs.?  !!!!  And, I've been
    feeling guilty because it's been a year since I had my teeth cleaned.
    I can only imagine the scolding my dentist's dental technician would
    give you!  
    
    Lorna
    

    I think its Dave in Australia.  Ok, you say no regarding the
    implications of mutilation so I take that as face value.  Not
    to rat hole it here I am dropping the mutilation issue.
    
    I thought Australia, along with the U.S. was a Country where circum
    cision was routinely practiced?  Was or is that the case?
    
    The Darwin argument is an interesting point.  I suppose having the
    organ more protected is an advantage.... except for cancer and clean-
    liness.  But the dang thing works fine either way. 
    
    Jeff

    We had both of our sons circumcised mostly because at the time it
    was almost automatic.  However, If I had it to do over again I
    would not have it done.  The chances of problems of complication due 
    to infection, etc, from the circumcision far outweigh the chances of 
    problems of non-circumcision.  There are cases of little boys ending
    up as little girls because of circumcision.  Not that I have anything
    against little girls, but......

    fred();

    I thought Dave was an Australian now living in England.  
    
    Perhaps he will tell us what the real truth is.  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    Dave is currently working on UTROP1, in Utrecht, The Netherlands.

    I can speak from both sides of the fence.
    
    My mother decided to not mutilate her little boy.  (My father had no
    immediate input because he was fighting in the South China Sea - 1944.)
    I respect her decision as it was well thought out.
    
    However, I wish to hell she had decided the other way.  I suffered for
    years and finally HAD to be circumcised when I was 34 (I'm 48 now).
    It was by far the most painful thing I have ever had done to me; and
    I've had hernia and other assorted abdominal surgery since.
    
    After a week, I was at the point where I could walk with pants on but I
    really had to tighten my jaw.  After a month I was starting to think
    about becoming sexually active again.
    
    My advice is to request to have it done to your male children unless
    you really have strong feelings against it.  If you did have strong
    feelings against, you probably wouldn't have asked for opinions in the
    first place.
    
    Just a side note.  As far as sexual feelings/sensitivity goes before
    vs. after there is no question, at least in my case.  MUCH better
    after!
    
    If the base noter (or anyone else for that matter) wants to chat about
    it, I'm at MKO1-2 pole M25 or 264-2990.
    
    Regards,
    Lou Snider
    

    re .44
    
>Though David has not had the courtesy to respond to your request,
    
    I have replied twice and been deleted twice.

    My wife and I were told by various people that there were 'no medical
    reasons' to have our first son cimcumcised.  We therefore chose not to
    do it.  As it turned out, by the time he was 2, there were compelling
    medical reasons for cimcumcision.  We were forced to take our 2 year
    old to the hospital and put him under the knife.  It was most
    upsetting.  When the urologist asked why we had chosen not to have him
    circumcised in the first place, we reiterated our understanding that
    there was no necessity for it. He laughed and said '30% of males who go
    uncircumcised at birth develop medical conditions related to the
    presence of the foreskin in later life'.  I got the distinct impression
    that quite often the 'treatment' involved cimcumcision. If we had known 
    those statistics _before_ the birth of our first son, we would most 
    certainly have chosen circumcision.  When our second son arrived the 
    decision was obvious, he was circumcised. From direct experience, I can
    tell you that our youngest boy seemed to suffer much less from his
    experience at birth than our oldest at age 2.  You may complain all you
    want about mutilation, but try holding your 2 year old little boy in
    your arms all night because it hurts too much to sleep.  You may not
    think of circumcision at birth as quite the atrocity you make it out to
    be.  
    
                                jt

    Sounds like it might be a good idea to check with a urologist
    about whether there are medical reasons for/against circumcision.
    
    					andrew

Dear Ann Landers:

I was very much interested in the letters about circumcision in a recent
column.  In addition to the benefits of circumcision discussed in those
letters, there is another advantage that should be noted by your readers.

Studies over the past several years have shown that women whose partners
have been circumcised tend to have a lower incidence of cervical cancer,
as well as lower rates of acute and chronic infections.  This important
information should not be overlooked.  No name please.  Just

				OLD DOC IN KENTUCKY

Several "Young Docs" wrote to point out the same thing.  The following letter
should be of interest to the parents of boys.

Dear Ann Landers:

Please, please urge your readers to circumcise their sons at birth.  We didn't.

When our son was 13 years old, he sat my husband and me down and informed us
that we had been very unfair to him because we failed to have him circumcised.
He then told us that he was very embarrassed because he and "another kid"
were the only two in their entire gym class who had not been circumcised, and
the other guys thought they were freaks.  He begged us to have the
circumcision done, and we did.  It was a very painful operation, and he was
angry with us for several weeks because we didn't have it done when he was
an infant.

I hope you will print this letter and spare other parents (as well as their
sons) what we went through.  Thank you.

				HELL IN MASSACHUSETTS

You spoke for a great many people today - especially the uncircumcised males
who get recurrent urinary tract infections and are putting off the procedure
because they dread the pain of surgery.

I should tell you that not all authorities applaud circumcision.  Some say
it is "barbaric and unnecessary".  I support the other group, however.

    "Don't mess with Mother Nature,"

    You hear that a lot, but let's face it, Moms make mistakes once in a while.
    The foreskin is just one of many body parts that serves no purpose, and
    occasionally causes problems. I can imagine if removing the tonsils or
    appendix were simple procedures, (like circumcision,) those would be
    removed at birth too.

    And if you allow yourself to ignore the Old Testament aspects of
    circumcision for a second, I'd be willing to bet that circumcision was
    done at first out of pure common sense, and only got passed along as a
    religious act so that people would remember to do it.

    One man's mutilation is another man's preventive medicine.

    - Jim

    re .55
    
    The information presented in that column is very much out of date and
    is part of the obsolete studies I mentioned way back in .2x. 
    
    Subsequent studies show that the rate of cervical cancer in women and
    other problems traditionally associated with being uncircumcised have
    nothing at all to do with the presence per se of the foreskin, but have
    a lot to do with the man's lack of personal hygiene, which can be
    exacerbated by a foreskin.
    
    The second item is just weak.  Allowing a 13 year old to have medically
    unnecessary surgery for vanity reasons is a pathetic collapse of
    parental responsibility and should be soundly condemned.

    	I was not circumsized at birth. At 12 I began to have difficulty
    pulling the foreskin back over the meatus. My body was growing, I'm
    starting to shave every other day, and I began to have this "problem".
    I don't tell anyone for awhile and the tip of the foreskin lost its
    elasticity and I could not pull it back. The penis became enlarged,
    actually began to fold down making urination extremely difficult. I
    told my dad and we went to the doctor's. That was Monday. Tuesday I was
    in the operating room, the first child to have a complete spinal block
    for a circumcision. 
    	There was no pain during surgery (of course). It took an hour. I
    stayed in the hospital overnight. I wore my father's boxers home. I
    couldn't wear pants. I was on my back for 8 days. I was swollen to
    about 5X normal. I had a "conestoga" tent-like device to keep bedding
    from contact with my groin.
    	The doc said that what happened to me was not abnormal, especially
    during puberty.
    
    	When my son was born, there was no hesitation on our part...he was
    circumsized at 30 minutes old.
    
    	Ken

    RE: .57

    In one breath, you say that a "lack of personal hygiene, which can be
    exacerbated by a foreskin," is a factor in the cervical cancer rate,
    yet you also say that it has "nothing at all to do with the presence
    per se of the foreskin."

    If an uncircumcised penis is more difficult to keep clean, and that lack
    of cleanliness causes somebody to get cancer, then it sounds like the
    presence of the foreskin has very much to do with it.

    Also, if you had a huge wart on your forehead and people made fun of you
    because of it, and it made you look like a freak, would you consider it
    mutilation to have it removed? If your son had the same problem, and he
    was miserable because of it, would you allow him to have it removed?
    Would you be a bad parent if you did?

    - Jim

    re .59
    
    An uncircumcised penis is not 'more difficult' to keep clean.  A man
    who is habitually clean has no extra or undue problems.
    
    If my sons get any adverse reactions from their school friends I'll
    just explain that it is they who are normal and unscarred.  I have no
    doubt about their ability to cope.  Medically unnecessary surgery will
    not be an option.  I regard that as good parenting.

    .57  That attitude is exactly the attitude that discourages appropriate
    circumcision of boys at birth...not that ALL should be... but some
    should.  Other noters have given reasons why.
    
    You 'cite' studies.  Please name them.  The one I refer to was in
    the June 1991 issue of the New England Journal of Mecicine. It
    recommended circumcision... what are YOUR souces, by name.  Not
    vague references to articles you have read.  Not that The New
    England Journal of Medicine is the last word, but I can cite my
    source, can you?
    
    Jeff

    re .61
    
    I have consistently attacked circumcision that is *medically
    unnecessary*.  Those minority of cases which are medically necessary
    are obviously appropriate, so your charge against me is unfounded.
    
    Hunting for sources will be fun.  I still haven't unpacked all the
    boxes.

    As I tried to state before, problem of the number of boys who get
    infection from the procedure far outweighs the number of boys who
    have a medical necessity for being circumcised.  If they really
    need to be circumcised later, that can be taken care of.  But
    there are a lot of cases, albeit not widely publicizes,  of mutilation
    not only from the procedure but from the infection.  Some of those
    cases, again I do not have numbers and I read the article so long
    ago that I can't site the footnote, the problems were so sever
    that the only solution was to do a sex change on the child.

    Also in recent years, there has been a lot of discussion around sex
    not being as enjoyable for those who are circumcised because the 
    head of the penis is desensitized due to being circumcised.  

    Therefore, IMHO, the possibility of problems caused by circumcision
    outweigh the necessity of automatically curcumcising boy children.
    Also the problems caused by non-circumcision are correctable later,
    whereas the problems caused by circumcision nearly always irreversible.

    fred();

    I always thought it was just a bad joke or old wives tale, that some
    baby boys were turned into girls because the doctor slipped doing a
    circumcision.  Now are you, .63, saying there are actual documented
    cases of this happening?  Frankly, this sounds highly doubtful to me.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .63, .64, since there's more to being female than just not having a
    penis, you know?
    
    Lorna
    

    Re the "sex change" scenario: there was a news program on a few weeks
    ago in which this topic was mentioned, and it startled me so much that
    I was going to post a note about it, but put it aside while I pondered
    how best to broach the subject.
    
    In the news broadcast, a Dutch doctor was being interviewed (the topic
    was euthanasia, but it segued into the discussion of the circumstances
    under which a severely-malformed newborn might be left to die rather
    than operated on). He described the case of such a newborn, who had two
    main birth defects, one potentially fatal (but surgically correctible,
    though it would leave the child with some disabilities) and the other a
    severe, non-surgically-correctable (or so the doctor claimed)
    malformation of the penis. The doctor said that if the fatal defect had
    not existed, the child would have been given "sex-change" surgery and
    raised as a girl; I believe he mentioned cases in which this had
    actually been done, so he wasn't just speculating. In this case, he
    said that he advised the parents not to request surgery to correct the
    fatal defect, since even if it was corrected the child would suffer
    the accumulated disabilities from the first defect and from the
    sex-change.
    
    Now, since some noters have commented on how rough it can be on a young
    boy whose circumcision or lack thereof marks him as different from his
    companions, I can imagine that the lack of the entire penis could be a
    very rough difference to deal with indeed. But rough enough that
    doctors, parents and all should state, "Heck, he can't be a boy without
    it; better make him a girl"???
    
    I've also read that, in cases where babies are born with both male and
    female genitals, the doctors - sometimes after consulting with the
    parents, sometimes, it would seem, not - basically "choose one" and
    remove the "extra set". It's an interesting extension of some of the
    earlier discussions about mutilation; if it isn't medically necessary,
    but if experience leads us to believe that it will cause the child
    fewer problems integrating with society, should this decision be made
    by parents and doctors as soon as possible, or should they wait until
    the kid's old enough to decide?
    
    -b

    re .64

>    I always thought it was just a bad joke or old wives tale, that some
>    baby boys were turned into girls because the doctor slipped doing a
>    circumcision.  Now are you, .63, saying there are actual documented
>    cases of this happening?  Frankly, this sounds highly doubtful to me.

    Not saying the doctor snipped too much.  Am saying that the infection
    caused due to the circumcision left he penis and other sexual organs
    so deformed that the only "fix" was a sex change operation.  Again
    it's been so long since I saw this article that I no longer remember
    where I saw it.  I do know that our family doctor used to recommend
    circumcision almost routinely for the "cleanliness" factor.  He
    stopped recommending the procedure in cases where there was no specific
    necessity due to malpractice possibilities.  

    I also know of one case several years ago, again I no longer have the
    references, where a son sued his parents for mutilation because they
    had had him circumcised.  Again if I remember right there was some
    complications in the process that had left him deformed.

    As for the "pain factor" I think that most men just forget the pain
    they suffered as an infant.  I know my sons suffered some significant
    discomfort due to the circumcision.  Urine on healthy skin burns bad
    enough,  let alone urine on an open wound.

    fred();

    Re .63 et seq.
    
    URBAN LEGEND ALERT!!
    
    Provide some real documentation, please, instead of things like "a
    doctor said" or "a news program."
    
    -dick

    re .69

>        Provide some real documentation, please, instead of things like "a
>    doctor said" or "a news program."

    I've already stated that I no longer have access to the documentation.
    If you want documentation that bad.  You find it.  I already have a
    life.  I also have already stated that if it was _my_ decision to 
    make again I would not have it done.

    Lets look at this from a logical standpoint:

    If someone is not circumcised the worst thing that can happen is that
    they may have to be circumcised for whatever reason later on when
    they will remember the pain.  At that time the decision and the risk
    is his.

    If someone is circumcised, the worst thing (or the second worst
    depending on how you look at it) is that the child could die
    as a result of infection from unnecessary surgery.  Documentation
    or not, it will take a lot to convince _me_ (whether or not it
    does anyone else) that this risk justifies the questionable
    benefit to be derived from the procedure.  

    If you go to have your child circumcised, just see if they don't
    make you sign a form stating that there is risk of infection and
    that you understand and release them from that risk.

    fred();

    I saw the program too... and the noter relayed accurately I think.
    
    Yeah, there is more to being a female than not having a penis. I
    would think that the 'oh well, snip it off, lets make him a girl
    instead' approach understates the issue rather significantly.  There
    are certain mental attitudes which would have to be changed too,
    and as is so well documented is not an easy thing to do that is 
    assuming the boy WANTED to become a girl.
    
    A few back:  I didn't charge you with anything.  It was a request 
    to better document some of your opinions.
    
    It seems that for each person that relates a non circumcision horror
    story somebody else comes back with a circumcision horror story.
    
    I was glad to see that some others could relate to a point I made
    much earlier about being 'different' from the other boys does matter
    to some kids, and matters alot.
    
    As I said earlier I underwent circumcision at age 12.  For me it was
    not particularly painful afterward.  For others it was VERY painful.
    So obviously ones mileage may vary.
    
    I have noticed that the trend of agreement is that if your going to
    have it done to your son, try to have it done when he is a newborn
    infant.
    
    Jeff
    

    Re .69 and "real documentation": Sure, if I can find the old TV
    listings. (Or if someone remembers the presentation. Big thing, major
    network, couple of hours in prime time, some time within the last two
    months. Multi-media presentation with a core discussion panel, guest
    speakers, taped interviews, etc. Main theme was euthanasia, right-to-
    die legislation, American attitudes about terminal illnesses compared
    to those of other countries, etc. Ring any bells with anybody?)
    
    Of course, even if one verified without doubt that this particular
    doctor thought it a matter of course to perform such surgery on male
    infants with non-correctible genital defects, it would not prove that
    this is done anywhere else, and would not indicate the frequency with
    which it is done. I'd be interested in finding out what, if any,
    policies the U.S. medical profession has about such things.
    
    What I also wondered was whether, in this doctor's view, it boiled down
    to "He'll have to pee sitting down for the rest of his life, he'll look
    different from all the other boys, and he'll never have 'normal' sexual
    relations; therefore he couldn't possibly grow up to be a well-adjusted
    male [he actually used the "couldn't be a well-adjusted male" phrase],
    so we won't even try." Apparently, the odds that "he" might not grow up
    to be a well-adjusted female, either, weren't worth discussing...
    
    -b

    There is a minute chance that a baby could be disfigured or die from a
    circumcision mishap.

    There is a better chance that the baby could be killed in a car accident
    on the drive home from the hospital.

    I think any parents who drive their child home from the hospital are
    irresponsible creeps. Driving is not necessary; they should take their
    newborn home on the train.

    - Jim

    re .71
    
>    I have noticed that the trend of agreement is that if your going to
>    have it done to your son, try to have it done when he is a newborn
>    infant.
    
    This trend is only evident amongst those already well-disposed towards
    the procedure anyway.  Those of us against needless surgery urge
    waiting until it becomes necessary, which for the huge majority of men
    will be never.

    When my son was circumsized at 9 days old, he received a general
    anesthetic (surgery was performed by a urologist.)  His circumcision
    was delayed since he spent the first 4 days after birth in the
    intensive care nursery of Children's Hospital.  The surgery at 9 days
    old was given at the same hospital (5 days after he was released in
    my care.)
    
    I'm kinda miffed now that the hospital didn't warn me that some guy
    named Dave Simpson existed (who would later say that parents who have
    their sons circumsized are some sort of infant-mutilating monsters,
    or whatever.)  :-}
    
    My son's circumcision definitely didn't hurt him while it was done.
    He didn't seem bothered afterward, either.  He did sleep quite a bit
    that day, but I figured it was exhaustion from having been mostly
    awake (and keeping me awake) for the first few days after we got home
    from his birth.

    re .75

>    When my son was circumcised at 9 days old, he received a general
>    anesthetic (surgery was performed by a urologist.) 

    Most circumcisions take place under local anesthetic (if at all).
    As I recall, the doctor used no anesthetic at all other than a
    salve like stuff afterward and then a bandage.

    I recall the big hoopla about breast implants that might leak and
    cause problems.  There were a lot of women asking whether or not
    they should have them removed.  The recommendation I heard then was
    that there was more risk from the general anesthetic than there was
    from the implants.

    I don't mean to be critical of anyone personally.  I just want to
    point out that any surgery,  and especially surgery that involves
    general anasthetic, is no laughing matter.  There is risk.  In
    many cases the the risk is small, but the consequence can be large.
    
    fred()=;

    Normally, obstetricians do circumcisions on newborns.  Since my son
    was taken to Children's Hospital within a hour or two after his birth,
    it was impossible to do this.  (My obstetrician wasn't 'on staff,' or
    whatever, at Children's so he couldn't go there and do it.)
    
    Only a urologist could perform the procedure at my son's age of 9 days
    (and he insisted on the general anesthetic, I believe.)  They did it
    at Children's, as I mentioned, where the operating room staff were most
    accustomed to operations involving newborns/infants.  My son was fine
    afterward.

    re: social acceptance.
    
    	You might want to consider the likelihood that you would move to
    another area in a few years time.
    
    	Up till the recent elections the local representative to the French
    parliament was a fascist, who is on public record as stating that he
    doesn't believe the gas chambers of the last war existed, but if they
    did they were a minor matter. In the latest elections he started
    favourite, but was just beaten by a representative of another right
    wing party.
    
    	There are schools in this area to which I wouldn't send a
    circumcised child, and it wouldn't be just a matter of mockery, it
    would be more a question of survival.
    
    	They do a nice job of desecrating Jewish cemetaries round here,
    too.

    I assume your in France.  Correct me if I am wrong on the following:
    
    It sounds as if in that area of France, circumcision = being Jewish?
    
    If that is the case, it might interest them to know that the majority
    of circumcised males in the U.S. are not Jewish.
    
    Circumcision is hardly a test for a specific religious faith, Muslems
    circumcise too.
    
    I have heard that in Nazi Germany being circumsized was one of their
    tests for being Jewish.
    
    Infections:  I agree, circumcizing must increase the risk since it
    involves creating an open wound.  As another noter said, driving home
    from the hospital involves risk too.  So does having a urinary infection
    which resulted from NOT being circumsized, or developing penile cancer,
    or having your partner develop cervical cancer because your not
    circumsized.  The risk is small I know, but its there.
    
    Everything is relative.  IMO BOTH the pros or cons are right.  Right
    or wrong in this decision depends on preference, medical issues, and
    religion.  To each their own, I am FOR routine circumcision.
    
    Jeff

    re non circumcision causing increased possibility of cervical cancer

    Again I am probably going to take a hit for not being able to site
    chapter and verse of documentation.  I didn't know I would need it
    when I read this several years ago, but I don't consider references
    to DEAR ABBY to be "documentation" either, so....

    Cervical cancer is caused by a virus.  The number of sex partners
    a woman has in her lifetime and the age that a woman becomes 
    sexually active have a *lot* more to do with a woman's chances
    of containing cervical cancer than whether or not her partner
    is circumcised.

    Some risks are necessary.  Some are not.
    
    fred();
    

    Both my boys came back to the hospital room asleep.  Evidently it
    wasn't that painful.
    
    -Jack

    	In France circumcision is rarely done for anything other than
    religious reasons.
    
    	I was aware that Muslims were also circumcised, but I was in a
    hurry to get off to the office. Otherwise I would have mentioned the
    hundreds of thousands of Muslims in this area, many of them illegal
    immigrants from North Africa, forming themselves into very poor
    ghettoes. Le Pen and his National Front party have as one of their
    items of policy moving them all back to Africa, even the legal
    immigrants, and if they can terrorise them into going, so much the
    better.
    
    	Since there are 5 million Muslims in France as a whole I would
    expect that the majority of circumcised males in France are not
    Jewish either, but the local fascists are not interested in the
    difference.

    Sounds like the old joke about tight pants and knowing the religion
    is still true in some parts of the world!
    
    Marc H.

    Update on my reply .66, in case anybody wants to track down the info.
    The euthanasia documentary "Choosing Death" aired on PBS in late March,
    as part of a "Frontline"/"Health Quarterly" special presentation; the
    documentary which included the segment I described was credited to John
    Zaritsky (co-produced by "Frontline"). I would expect that WGBH (or any
    other PBS station that aired the program) would be able to provide
    additional information. (Transcripts are offered for some documentaries,
    but I don't recall if they were available for this one.)
    
    [Now I can recycle that stack of old program guides!]
    
    -b

    
    Dave,
    
    
    You are off the deep end on this subject for some reason.  To suggest
    that some (if not most) people would mutilate their children is cold
    and pure BS.  
    
    
    Mike

    
    >> Also in recent years, there has been a lot of discussion around sex
    >> not being as enjoyable for those who are circumcised because the 
    >> head of the penis is desensitized due to being circumcised.  
    
       Crap. Whats your source ?
    
    -Tony

    Frankly, I can't imagine it any more sensitive than it is.

 Sure, circumcised penises have glans which are less sensitive. The good news
is premature ejaculation is less of a problem. :-)

    
    re .86
    
>       Crap. Whats your source ?
    
    What's yours?
    
    fred();

    
    You made the statement, I assumed you had a detailed knowledge of the
    feeling of intercourse with AND without a circumcised penis.
    
    Now answer the question.
    
    -Tony

    My, aren't we grumpy?

    Not at all, what gives you that impression ? 
    
    -Tony

	he wasn't being grumpy, just circumspect....

    re back a few.

    One of my pet peeves of this conference is those who demand
    documentation without providing any of their own.  I call it
    the "unless you can prove your point to my satisfaction, you're
    wrong" syndrome, or Political Correctness.  As I've said before, 
    if you want documentation, you go find it.  I already have a life.

    The only "documentation" that I've seen here so far in support 
    of circumcision is some vague references to medical journals
    and Dear Abby.  I don't consider Dear Abby an expert on
    circumcision.  Also I've already stated  that the information
    I'm working with I didn't know at the time I saw it that I'd
    be required to site chapter and verse.

    fred();

    
    >> As I've said before, if you want documentation, you go find it.  
    >> I already have a life.

    My friend, if you can't stand the heat ...
    
    Seriously, I asked for a source because I was curious. As stated, I
    can't possibly imagine mine to be any more sensitive than it already 
    is. I wanted to know if this was a medical fact or merely something
    you made up and threw in for good measure. Not calling you a liar, I
    merely wanted to clarify the fact (or not, as the case may be).
    
    And thanks, me and my penis already do have a healthy life with our
    other friends and we don't have to waste time wondering if everyone else 
    is as sensitive as we are - maybe thats a by product of not being
    circumsised; sexual paranoia.
    
    -Tony

    
    re .95
    
>    is. I wanted to know if this was a medical fact or merely something
>    you made up and threw in for good measure. Not calling you a liar, I
    
    
    As I recall there was some discussion in mennotes_v1 about this.
    I've also seen the same information in other places, but off the
    top of my head can't reacall exactly where.
    
    fred();

    It doesn't make 'sense' to me that it would be more sensitive
    circumcized.  The foreskin protects the glans from being toughened
    up by rubbing on clothing.  BUT, I will have to take the word of those
    who have specific experience on this.  THAT 'design' part makes sense,
    i.e. protecting the end of the penis with foreskin.
    
    Jeff

    The following entry has been contributed by a member of our community
    who wishes to remain anonymous.  If you wish to contact the author by
    mail, please send your message to QUARK::MODERATOR, specifying the
    conference name and note number. Your message will be forwarded with
    your name attached  unless you request otherwise.

				Steve






   I have recently become aware of information about circumcision (aka Male
   Gentalia Mutilation) and its horrendous effects on men. As a middle-aged
   male who has become aware of the loss of penile sensation as I have
   gotten older, I started to investigate the effect of being circumcised,
   aging and loss of sensation.  I learned sadly that circumcised men do
   indeed lose a great deal of sensation both as young men and definitely
   as they get older.

   Circumcised men, however, do not even know how much they have lost
   because they have of frame of reference. A short description of one loss
   is only needed.  On the under side of the penis is a piece of skin
   called the Frenulum, the most sensitive part of the penis.  When
   circumcised, it is removed, so men without this skin do not even know
   what they have lost. The glans also becomes more toughened over the
   years, rather than being soft, moist and very, very thin in skin layers. 
   Then there's the mucosa, the  inner lining of the foreskin, which is
   also highly sensitive.

   Circumcision is akin to removing the eyelid of the eye.  It is almost a
   totally unneeded medical operation that affects the male for the rest of
   his life, including his wife. The complaint of women is the rush of men
   to get to orgasim, the lack of sufficient lubrication and the
   disinterest in foreplay.  Could the lack of a foreskin be the reason?

   A California organization, headed by a OR nurse, called NOCIRC, produces
   literature explaining the barbarism of this practice in the hopes to
   stop the practice.  Already circumcisions, both in Calif. and in
   America, have been decreasing.  Europeans, of course, for years have
   stopped the practice.

   NOCIRC's phone number is 415-488-9883.

   After a short talk with them and some reading, I have learned of the
   horror of this operation.  Sadly I had my sons cut only because of the
   pressure of my wife and doctor, so junior would look like dad and the
   rest of the boys. And so he does and is as deprived as they.

   On another note, there is a growing movement among men to restore the
   foreskin to bring back some of the lost sensitivity.

   If you are going to have a boy child, I strongly urge you to leave him
   alone.  WE would never expect to circumcise women's gentalia, so why do
   the males endure it.

***  WE would never expect to circumcise women's gentalia, so why do
   the males endure it.


    Maybe not in the US of A except in those pockets of culture that
    mutilate pre-pubescent girls in order to make them highly prized
    in the marriage field.  Usually in the countries of their origin
    this operation is done with no anesthesia and non-sterile razors.
    The mutilation is extensive and there is absolutely no feeling 
    left and any penetration at later times is overtly painful.  

    There was recently a case of a woman with two young girls who
    fought for them to remain in her custody in the US of A and not
    be sent to their father's country.  She won her case.  In the 
    US of A where female circumcism is practiced, it is usually done
    under sanitary, hospital conditions.  It does nothing to aleviate
    the outcome of not even allowing the female to even tolerate any
    penetration without great pain.  

    The act of male circumcism has its roots in the ORTHODOX Jewish
    culture and the biblical laws.  It is for cleanliness.  The pain
    a male experiences is brief, but some are now stating that this
    pain is experienced throughout their life.  I hope that males 
    are not trying to denigrate the pain circumsized women continue
    to feel.  Just from the description and watching a partially 
    edited tape of the procedure done on pre-pubescent girls, it 
    is ghastly and in no way compares to male circumcism.  

    Pre-mature ejaculation in males is in no way connected to being
    circumcized as a baby.  It is know to be found in un-circumsized
    males for years before the practice of routinely circumcizing
    babies of non-Jewish descent came into practice.

    I can understand the dilema you are facing.  A way for you, your-
    self, to gain more feeling is to slow down and integrate other 
    techniques into your love making to increase the pleasure and 
    sensitivity you feel you have lost.  This will also increase the
    pleasure for your partner if this behavior is mutually used.  Mourn
    for what you feel you have lost and then get on with finding ways
    to channel that energy into productive practices between yourself
    and your partner.  Instill in your male child the pride of mutual
    sexual satisfaction and do not dwell on what you feel he has lost.
    If, as an adult, he brings the issue up on his own, then is the 
    time to share your feelings of loss.  Face what has been done with
    a positive energy which will benefit your first male off-spring.
    Do not mutilate his psyche.  

    justme....jacqui

    

    So Justme, does this mean, if you had a choice. You would not date a
    clean shaven man cause he is insencitive??:)

    RUAH,

    Going on my 32nd Wedding Aniversary this year, I doubt very
    much I need to consider dating.

    justme....jacqui

    Thank you jacqui for entering .99

    Justem,
    
    I was asking if you had the glorous change. Not what your age and
    marrital status was. But, then again, it must have been my knucle
    dragging rasputian spelling or what ever heavy air logic that you
    failed to see the humor in that.:) 
    
    Peace
    

    Here's a web page for people interested in this topic:
       http://mail.eskimo.com/~gburlin/circ.html

    WWW
    
    sickening
    
    
    and we call ourselves civilized...?
    
    I remember reading about deaths from this needless procedure. 

    The following entry has been contributed by a member of our community
    who wishes to remain anonymous.  If you wish to contact the author by
    mail, please send your message to QUARK::MODERATOR, specifying the
    conference name and note number. Your message will be forwarded with
    your name attached  unless you request otherwise.

				Steve






Last Spring I entered a brief note about some of my preliminary findings
about the issue of involuntary infant circumcision (some call it MGM Male
Genital Mutilation).  Since then I have been doing a lot more readings and
even conducted a little research of my own, with my wife, friends, my doctors, 
etc.

I was surprised by the amount of misinformation, ignorance, apathy and outright
anger I encountered. It appears people don't want to know about the 
effects of circumcision, a practice/custom which has been abandoned by
all of the industrialized nations except the US.  I found that even a visit to 
my urologist showed I had more information than he. 

HERE ARE THE FACTS (NOT OPINIONS)

	Circumcision is an unnecessary operation on infants that can
	and often does inflict pain, mutilation and in some cases
	accidental removal of the glans. or even death.

	Circumcision removes THE MOST SENSITIVE PARTS, the mucosa and
	the frenulum.

	Circumcision results in a thickening of the skin from two to three
	cells thick to 14-16 cells thick. This process is called
	kerotinaztion and is similar to what happens on hands and feet. 

	Circumcision accounts for 30-70% loss of sensitivity.

	The foreskin is a vital and important part of this organ for
	its protection, lubrication, and sensual functioning. It is not
	a useless piece of skin without a function to be lobed off at will.

	Circumcision was started by the English in the 1800's as an attempt to 
	thwart masturbation.

	Circumcision does not prevent cancer of the penis, cancer of the cervix
	or veneral disease.  These are the claims doctors have used to
	justify the operation, but they have been proven false.

	Circumcision is a painful operation, which can cause babies to
	go into shock, excessive bleeding,  and infection, and 
	suffer surgical mistakes (like total removal of the organ).

	
NOW FOR THE REAL REASON FOR CIRCUMCISION:

	Doctors get $200 for doing it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  

	Since insurance companies now classify the operation as optional and 
	won't pay, the incidence of doctors recommending the operation is 
	diminishing.
 

WHAT ABOUT THE JEWS?

	A quick study of Jewish history turned up the fact that the original
	form of circumcision as given to and practiced by Abraham was a slight
	removal of a small piece of the skin. Later, Romans and Greeks 
	considered the practice barbaric and even refused to do business
	with Jews.  The result was that Jewish men stretched and restored
	their foreskins.  Zealous rabbis of the first century interceded and
	instituted the practice of full removal of the foreskin.  The orignal
	practice was called "Milnah". There are 2 other forms of circumcision.

REACTION FROM MOST MEN TO THIS INFORMATION

	Surprise, apathy, and ignorance. I have read that if circumcized men
	could experience what they have lost, they would storm the hospitals
	to stop the practice.  Try this short quiz.  Describe or identify
	the following anatomical parts of this organ:

	Glans
	Mucosa
	Frenelum
	Meatus

SO WHAT CAN I DO?

	If you are expecting a child, get more information about this
	unncesssary operation.  I learned most of my info from the
	Internet by searching under circumcision. Make an informed
	decision, not just because eveyone is doing it, or because
	to be like daddy. Removal of this foreskin due to some possible
	future problem has been compared to removing a child's teeth for
	fear he/she will get cavities. 

	You can even find information about skin restoration, which can be
	done cheaply and easily without surgery.

AND FINALLY THIS NEWS

	A movement called NOCIRC (California based) was started by a
	group of operating room nurses who had experienced the "horror"
	of many infant circumcisions.  They have founded a national movement
	to stop the practice.  Their phone number is 415-488-9883.

	More and more groups of men and women are forming and becoming
	more and more vocal about this issue. In some cases they are
	trying to get legislation sponsored calling involuntary infantile
	genital mutilation (both for males and females) a form of child abuse.

LASTLY

	Had I known the above information before the births of my sons I 
	would have not had them cut.  I feel guilty that I have inflicted
	upon them a loss that I have known only too well.
 

	My recommendation would be to "leave alone what Mother Nature
	placed there."