Circumcision anathema?

[Mulligan2]

Immunological Protection

The mucous membranes that line all body orifaces are the body’s first line of immunological defense. Glands in the foreskin produce antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as lysozyme. (5) Lysozyme is also found in tears and mother’s milk. Specialized epithelial Langerhans cells, an immune system component, aboud in the foreskin’s outer surface. (6) Plasma cells in the foreskin’s mucosal lining secrete immunoglobulin’s, antibodies that defend against infection. (7)

Rigorously controlled studies have also demonstrated that the foreskin plays a protective role in shielding the rest of the penis and thus the rest of the body from the contagion of common sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) encountered during sexual activity. (8)

In infancy, antibacterial substances, such as the complex sugars (glyconutrients) in breastmilk, the oligosaccharides, are passed from mother to child during breastfeeding and are secreted in the baby’s urine. (9) The penis retains these substances in the foreskin. Universy studies have shown that these substances protect against urinary tract infections (UTIs), as well as from infections of other parts of the body. (10) Babies excrete in their urine 300-500 mililgrams of oligosaccharides every day. These compounds prevent virulent strains of Escherichia coli (e.Coli) from adhering to the mucosal lining of the entire urinary tract, including the foreskin and glans.

Researchers conducting immunological experiments with the foreskins of bulls have found that plasma cells in the mucosal lining of the foreskin secrete immunoglobulin. (11) The researchers hypothesize that this provides immunity from bacteria and other germs. This is likely to work the same in other mammals, including humans.

Antibacterial Function

To help fight harmful bacteria, the foreskin supports a rich flora of beneficial bacteria. Friendly bacteria exist in a symbiotic relationship with the body and are found on all body surfaces and through the gastrointestinal, genitourinary tract (the urinary system that runs from the kidneys, through the bladder, and out the penis), and the mouth. Friendly bacteria also thrive in the eyes. Without the presence of friendly bacteria, the human body would be vulnerable to attack from pathogenic bacteria.

The good bacteria that live in the inside of the foreskin are similar to the bacteria found in the mouth, nose, the female genitals, and the skin in general. It must be stressed that this good bacteria is both harmless and highly beneficial. Without these friendly bacteria, the urethra would become an easy entry point for germs and harmful stains of bacteria, which could cause disease.

Coverage During Erection

During erection, the penile shaft becomes thicker and longer. In some males, the penis can extend to twice its flaccid length. Sometimes, it can become even longer. The double-layered foreskin provides exactly the right amount of skin necessary to accommodate the expanded organ and to allow the penile skin to glide freely, smoothly, and pleasurably over the shaft and glans.

It is important to consider the fact that every penis is unique. By looking at an infant’s penis, it is impossible to predict how big his penis will become when he is an adult. Heredity does play a role in determining the ultimate shape, size, and configuration of the penis, but it is still difficult to predict the adult size and shape of an infant’s penis even if one looks at the penises of his father, brothers, and other male relatives.

What we can say with certainty is that your baby’s penis will develop and mature according to his own unique genetic coding. Thus, the amount of foreskin he is born with is exactly the amount he will need for his penis to develop properly and experience comfortable, pleasurable erections throughout life. As a result, the idea that any amount of penile skin can be cut off without affecting the later function of the penis is false. In nature there is no surplus, only economy. Everything provided is required.

In the natural penis, as the shaft elongates during erection, the lips of the foreskin slowly expand. The glans begins slowly to protrude through the widening opening. Since the foreskin is soft, elastic, and pliable, it can easily and comfortably stretch to allow the passage of the glans. The stretching process elicits pleasurable sensations as the foreskin gently unrolls (everts) over the glans and shaft. Eventually, in most males, the glans can be fully exposed.

Some males, well endowed with a generous foreskin, have the glans fully covered even when the penis is fully erect. Most, however, if they choose, can manually roll the foreskin all the way back to expose the glans.

During full erection, the sensitive inner sleeve of the foreskin is turned inside out, exposing it. In this position it receives and transmits pleasurable sensations. The natural penis is a marvelously engineered organ for receiving and giving natural pleasure.

Needless to say, circumcision destroys all these functions and imposes a diminished, scarred, immobile, dowel-like penis that has permanently lost the ability to experience normal levels of sexual sensations. A circumcised male, or his partner, for that matter, can never know the intimacy of the normal penis and the ability of the foreskin to open and glide up and down the shaft. An entire dimension of sexuality has been lost to both the male and his sexual partner.

 

[thistle]

Immunological Protection

The mucous membranes that line all body orifaces are the body’s first line of immunological defense. Glands in the foreskin produce antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as lysozyme. (5) Lysozyme is also found in tears and mother’s milk. Specialized epithelial Langerhans cells, an immune system component, aboud in the foreskin’s outer surface. (6) Plasma cells in the foreskin’s mucosal lining secrete immunoglobulin’s, antibodies that defend against infection. (7)

Rigorously controlled studies have also demonstrated that the foreskin plays a protective role in shielding the rest of the penis and thus the rest of the body from the contagion of common sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) encountered during sexual activity. (8)

In infancy, antibacterial substances, such as the complex sugars (glyconutrients) in breastmilk, the oligosaccharides, are passed from mother to child during breastfeeding and are secreted in the baby’s urine. (9) The penis retains these substances in the foreskin. Universy studies have shown that these substances protect against urinary tract infections (UTIs), as well as from infections of other parts of the body. (10) Babies excrete in their urine 300-500 mililgrams of oligosaccharides every day. These compounds prevent virulent strains of Escherichia coli (e.Coli) from adhering to the mucosal lining of the entire urinary tract, including the foreskin and glans.

Researchers conducting immunological experiments with the foreskins of bulls have found that plasma cells in the mucosal lining of the foreskin secrete immunoglobulin. (11) The researchers hypothesize that this provides immunity from bacteria and other germs. This is likely to work the same in other mammals, including humans.

Antibacterial Function

To help fight harmful bacteria, the foreskin supports a rich flora of beneficial bacteria. Friendly bacteria exist in a symbiotic relationship with the body and are found on all body surfaces and through the gastrointestinal, genitourinary tract (the urinary system that runs from the kidneys, through the bladder, and out the penis), and the mouth. Friendly bacteria also thrive in the eyes. Without the presence of friendly bacteria, the human body would be vulnerable to attack from pathogenic bacteria.

The good bacteria that live in the inside of the foreskin are similar to the bacteria found in the mouth, nose, the female genitals, and the skin in general. It must be stressed that this good bacteria is both harmless and highly beneficial. Without these friendly bacteria, the urethra would become an easy entry point for germs and harmful stains of bacteria, which could cause disease.

Coverage During Erection

During erection, the penile shaft becomes thicker and longer. In some males, the penis can extend to twice its flaccid length. Sometimes, it can become even longer. The double-layered foreskin provides exactly the right amount of skin necessary to accommodate the expanded organ and to allow the penile skin to glide freely, smoothly, and pleasurably over the shaft and glans.

It is important to consider the fact that every penis is unique. By looking at an infant’s penis, it is impossible to predict how big his penis will become when he is an adult. Heredity does play a role in determining the ultimate shape, size, and configuration of the penis, but it is still difficult to predict the adult size and shape of an infant’s penis even if one looks at the penises of his father, brothers, and other male relatives.

What we can say with certainty is that your baby’s penis will develop and mature according to his own unique genetic coding. Thus, the amount of foreskin he is born with is exactly the amount he will need for his penis to develop properly and experience comfortable, pleasurable erections throughout life. As a result, the idea that any amount of penile skin can be cut off without affecting the later function of the penis is false. In nature there is no surplus, only economy. Everything provided is required.

In the natural penis, as the shaft elongates during erection, the lips of the foreskin slowly expand. The glans begins slowly to protrude through the widening opening. Since the foreskin is soft, elastic, and pliable, it can easily and comfortably stretch to allow the passage of the glans. The stretching process elicits pleasurable sensations as the foreskin gently unrolls (everts) over the glans and shaft. Eventually, in most males, the glans can be fully exposed.

Some males, well endowed with a generous foreskin, have the glans fully covered even when the penis is fully erect. Most, however, if they choose, can manually roll the foreskin all the way back to expose the glans.

During full erection, the sensitive inner sleeve of the foreskin is turned inside out, exposing it. In this position it receives and transmits pleasurable sensations. The natural penis is a marvelously engineered organ for receiving and giving natural pleasure.

Needless to say, circumcision destroys all these functions and imposes a diminished, scarred, immobile, dowel-like penis that has permanently lost the ability to experience normal levels of sexual sensations. A circumcised male, or his partner, for that matter, can never know the intimacy of the normal penis and the ability of the foreskin to open and glide up and down the shaft. An entire dimension of sexuality has been lost to both the male and his sexual partner.

Sorry but that does not outweigh the health benefits of circumcision.

 

[Rau]

Sorry but that does not outweigh the health benefits of circumcision.

Over the years, the medical advice has shifted, a bit like fashion. Fifty years ago, circumcision seemed more favoured than not, as a means to reduce certain medical issues from arising.

In more recent times, that view faded, and circumcisions became much less commonplace. Of course, many parents will adopt whatever position was applied to the father of the household - the sons may as well look the same as dad.

I “am” but my son is “not”. Why? Honestly, it just never came up at the time, and when we asked the doctor about it at some point (down the track), he just replied - “oh, we don’t really recommend that these days anyway”.

While we have had the odd minor complication with small children managing foreskins (getting a bit sore and so on), I do struggle to see the logic in our bodies being flawed in such a manner that suggests we are better off with a systematic practice of surgically removing a piece of them.

 

[Mulligan2]

Over the years, the medical advice has shifted, a bit like fashion. Fifty years ago, circumcision seemed more favoured than not, as a means to reduce certain medical issues from arising.

In more recent times, that view faded, and circumcisions became much less commonplace. Of course, many parents will adopt whatever position was applied to the father of the household - the sons may as well look the same as dad.

I “am” but my son is “not”. Why? Honestly, it just never came up at the time, and when we asked the doctor about it at some point (down the track), he just replied - “oh, we don’t really recommend that these days anyway”.

While we have had the odd minor complication with small children managing foreskins (getting a bit sore and so on), I do struggle to see the logic in our bodies being flawed in such a manner that suggests we are better off with a systematic practice of surgically removing a piece of them.

Your last sentence makes a lot of sense. We are created in God’s image. Yet the very first thing some people want to do to baby boys is to remove something. God did not make a mistake.

 

[thistle]

Your last sentence makes a lot of sense. We are created in God’s image. Yet the very first thing some people want to do to baby boys is to remove something. God did not make a mistake.

The Church permits circumcision provided its not done for religious reasons. I think the Church’s position trumps your one. The Church speaks for God.

 

[Rau]

The Church permits circumcision provided its not done for religious reasons. I think the Church’s position trumps your one. The Church speaks for God.

Where is this permission expressed? Why does the Church need to address the matter at all? I note circumcision is merely a preventive measure, and one upon which medical evidence is somewhat divided.

I presume the church opposes other preventative measures, such as removal of a healthy appendix?

 

[Mulligan2]

Where is this permission expressed? Why does the Church need to address the matter at all? I note circumcision is merely a preventive measure, and one upon which medical evidence is somewhat divided.

I presume the church opposes other preventative measures, such as removal of a healthy appendix?

Rau, your son will thank you for leaving him intact, as will his spouse.

This is an emotional issue, and cognitive dissonance often prevents people from viewing this rationally, as people don’t want to believe they did something harmful to their sons. So it’s difficult to convince someone if they don’t want to be convinced.

Thank you again for your posts.

 

[andrewstx]

Sorry but that does not outweigh the health benefits of circumcision.

In the majority of cases, nothing is accomplished by male genital mutilation that cannot be done painlessly with just soap and water.

 

[Rau]

This is an emotional issue, and cognitive dissonance often prevents people from viewing this rationally, as people don’t want to believe they did something harmful to their sons. So it’s difficult to convince someone if they don’t want to be convinced.

I don’t think there is so much emotion involved. People go with the flow on this issue, and I’m yet to hear of anyone experiencing much regret one way or the other.

 

[4Squarebaby]

Ok. Circ for religious reasons: No.

Circ for medical reasons: Yes

I got it now. Thank you.

What about cultural reasons? Many Americans have their newborn sons circ’ed because everyone else does. Neither medical nor religious.

I would disagree most Americans and South Koreans after exposure to the US Army had it done for medical reason as that is what doctors at the time recommended. Now that the recommendation is being dropped so are rates of infant circumcisions.

Cultural reasons point to the Philippines. Pacific Islanders being among the last non Jews or Muslims where the majority is being circumcised . The boys, not just the 6% of the Muslim population but the 85% who are Catholic voluntarily step forward to be circumcised as infants are not cut generally.

 

[Blacksword]

I don’t think there is so much emotion involved. People go with the flow on this issue, and I’m yet to hear of anyone experiencing much regret one way or the other.

Really, you aren’t aware that there are many, many thousands of men who deeply regret being circumcised as children, are angry about it, are speaking out, and that the number is growing all the time? You must not be looking very hard then. A number of famous people have even spoke out and said as much, including Ben Affleck and Howard Stern off the top of my head. There is now a whole cottage industry of devices being sold as skin stretchers that will, hopefully, over a period of several years of diligent use, slowly stretch remaining skin so that a man can obtain coverage and a sort of facsimile foreskin, though the erogenous nerves, structures and such will of course remain gone forever. There’s even a company called Foregen that’s trying to perfect a process to grow a new foreskin for the many men who would want back what they lost by means of gene therapy and grafting.

But if you’d like something more personal to drive it home: Hi, I was cut as a baby, and I have hated it every day of my life from the moment I became aware of what was done to me and what it meant. I did not consent, I am not thankful, and I wanted to keep my whole body. So yeah, I’m upset by it. And no, it’s not fun to talk about, but now you most certainly cannot say you’ve never heard of anyone experiencing regret over it. Many men do, some are celebrities even, and so do I.

And please, people should read the Catechism Section 2297, it’s directly on point here.

 

[PhiloMed]

Really, you aren’t aware that there are many, many thousands of men who deeply regret being circumcised as children, are angry about it, are speaking out, and that the number is growing all the time? You must not be looking very hard then. A number of famous people have even spoke out and said as much, including Ben Affleck and Howard Stern off the top of my head. There is now a whole cottage industry of devices being sold as skin stretchers that will, hopefully, over a period of several years of diligent use, slowly stretch remaining skin so that a man can obtain coverage and a sort of facsimile foreskin, though the erogenous nerves, structures and such will of course remain gone forever. There’s even a company called Foregen that’s trying to perfect a process to grow a new foreskin for the many men who would want back what they lost by means of gene therapy and grafting.

But if you’d like something more personal to drive it home: Hi, I was cut as a baby, and I have hated it every day of my life from the moment I became aware of what was done to me and what it meant. I did not consent, I am not thankful, and I wanted to keep my whole body. So yeah, I’m upset by it. And no, it’s not fun to talk about, but now you most certainly cannot say you’ve never heard of anyone experiencing regret over it. Many men do, some are celebrities even, and so do I.

And please, people should read the Catechism Section 2297, it’s directly on point here.

Have you seen a therapist regarding your anger issues over this? The vast majority of men really don’t think about it from day to day.

 

[Nupalse]

Well I am one of the men that Blacksword is talking about. I am trying to regrow what was taken from me without my consent! So yeah I also think about this everyday!

 

[Havard]

Well I am one of the men that Blacksword is talking about. I am trying to regrow what was taken from me without my consent! So yeah I also think about this everyday!

Incoming class action lawsuit against mommies and daddies of America. Let’s not let them get away with this injustice!

 

[Blacksword]

Incoming class action lawsuit against mommies and daddies of America. Let’s not let them get away with this injustice!

See, your response is the kind of callous reaction that serves to keep men quiet in public about this. Would you say the same to a female from Indonesia who had been subjected to medicalized type 1 female genital cutting (doctors do it there in hospitals in a “safe, sterile” environment FYI) and was upset about it? I realize that humor is a classic defense mechanism of the psyche, as is denial, but seriously let me ask you this: if your son came to you one day in his late teens, 20’s, or later still, and said “why did you do this to me? I wanted my whole body and it was my human right to have and keep it the way it was meant to be” what would you say? Would you laugh derisively at him too? Do the feelings and the opinions of the OWNER of the body, and the genitals in question, matter more than those of their parents, culture or society? One more question for thought: we are fundamentally talking about thing down a baby and amputating the most sensitive parts of their genitals from them without ANY medical actual need…how is that NOT a serious ethical and moral issue?

You should think about your above response more carefully, it’s insensitive and callous in the extreme.

 

[Blacksword]

Have you seen a therapist regarding your anger issues over this? The vast majority of men really don’t think about it from day to day.

I don’t spend every day thinking about it but when I do it does upset me, as it should. And I have talked about it with a therapist before, who actually said she’s heard this from many many men before (her exact words), so yes it’s out there and growing as more people learn what the actual functions and purposes of the intact prepuce provide that we have lost to the cut.

 

[Havard]

See, your response is the kind of callous reaction that serves to keep men quiet in public about this. Would you say the same to a female from Indonesia who had been subjected to medicalized type 1 female genital cutting (doctors do it there in hospitals in a “safe, sterile” environment FYI) and was upset about it? I realize that humor is a classic defense mechanism of the psyche, as is denial, but seriously let me ask you this: if your son came to you one day in his late teens, 20’s, or later still, and said “why did you do this to me? I wanted my whole body and it was my human right to have and keep it the way it was meant to be” what would you say? Would you laugh derisively at him too? Do the feelings and the opinions of the OWNER of the body, and the genitals in question, matter more than those of their parents, culture or society? One more question for thought: we are fundamentally talking about thing down a baby and amputating the most sensitive parts of their genitals from them without ANY medical actual need…how is that NOT a serious ethical and moral issue?

You should think about your above response more carefully, it’s insensitive and callous in the extreme.

No one’s silencing anyone. Men can talk all they want about it, and I can respond dismissively if I think it merits dismission.

I know you believe there is such a thing as a mountain out of a molehill. Whelp, that’s how most of us feel.

I’m not going to try to change your mind, clearly this is a big issue for you. But don’t get upset if the rest of us think you’ve gone way into off-base-land for comparing it to female circumcision.

 

[Rau]

Really, you aren’t aware that there are many, many thousands of men who deeply regret being circumcised as children, are angry about it, are speaking out, and that the number is growing all the time? You must not be looking very hard then. A number of famous people have even spoke out and said as much, including Ben Affleck and Howard Stern off the top of my head. There is now a whole cottage industry of devices being sold as skin stretchers that will, hopefully, over a period of several years of diligent use, slowly stretch remaining skin so that a man can obtain coverage and a sort of facsimile foreskin, though the erogenous nerves, structures and such will of course remain gone forever. There’s even a company called Foregen that’s trying to perfect a process to grow a new foreskin for the many men who would want back what they lost by means of gene therapy and grafting.

But if you’d like something more personal to drive it home: Hi, I was cut as a baby, and I have hated it every day of my life from the moment I became aware of what was done to me and what it meant. I did not consent, I am not thankful, and I wanted to keep my whole body. So yeah, I’m upset by it. And no, it’s not fun to talk about, but now you most certainly cannot say you’ve never heard of anyone experiencing regret over it. Many men do, some are celebrities even, and so do I.

And please, people should read the Catechism Section 2297, it’s directly on point here.

I’m cut to. It doesn’t worry me, and I certainly don’t have anger over it or need therapy or anything else. Parents did this because it was the medical wisdom of the day. Parents are still doing it, believing there is no harm, maybe some good, and because little Johnny resembling his dad seems reasonable. Indignation is not warranted in the circumstances. If you feel a sense of “loss”, fair enough.

 

[Mulligan2]

Really, you aren’t aware that there are many, many thousands of men who deeply regret being circumcised as children, are angry about it, are speaking out, and that the number is growing all the time? You must not be looking very hard then. A number of famous people have even spoke out and said as much, including Ben Affleck and Howard Stern off the top of my head. There is now a whole cottage industry of devices being sold as skin stretchers that will, hopefully, over a period of several years of diligent use, slowly stretch remaining skin so that a man can obtain coverage and a sort of facsimile foreskin, though the erogenous nerves, structures and such will of course remain gone forever. There’s even a company called Foregen that’s trying to perfect a process to grow a new foreskin for the many men who would want back what they lost by means of gene therapy and grafting.

But if you’d like something more personal to drive it home: Hi, I was cut as a baby, and I have hated it every day of my life from the moment I became aware of what was done to me and what it meant. I did not consent, I am not thankful, and I wanted to keep my whole body. So yeah, I’m upset by it. And no, it’s not fun to talk about, but now you most certainly cannot say you’ve never heard of anyone experiencing regret over it. Many men do, some are celebrities even, and so do I.

And please, people should read the Catechism Section 2297, it’s directly on point here.

Thank you for your post. This is a basic human rights issue. A newborn boy’s first few days should not consist of their genitals being forcibly cut. A foreskin is a birth right - it is not a birth defect.

 

[Mulligan2]

No one’s silencing anyone. Men can talk all they want about it, and I can respond dismissively if I think it merits dismission.

I know you believe there is such a thing as a mountain out of a molehill. Whelp, that’s how most of us feel.

I’m not going to try to change your mind, clearly this is a big issue for you. But don’t get upset if the rest of us think you’ve gone way into off-base-land for comparing it to female circumcision.

There are varying degrees of male genital cutting and female genital cutting. I have pasted a list below from most severe to least severe. The most common male genital cutting, MGC Type II, would be comparable to a similar prepuce removal in the female, FGC Type I. There would be outrage if any doctor attempted FGC Type I on any newborn females. Yet somehow this is perfectly acceptable for newborn males? As you noted above, you’re certainly free to respond dismissively if you wish. However, I applaud those who are speaking out on this as a human rights issue.

MGC Type III Removal of all Tissues - Including Scrotum
FGC Type III(a) Infibulation and Partial Clitoris Removal
FGC Type III Infibulation
FGC Type II(c) Partial Clitoris Removal and Labiaplasty - Minora and Majora
FGC Type II(b) Partial Clitoris Removal and Labiaplasty - Minora
FGC Type I(b) Partial Clitoris Removal
MGC Type IV Subincision
FGC Type IV Cauterization
MGC Type II Complete Prepuce Removal (Most common form of RC in the US)
MGC Type I Prepuce Removal Beyond Glands
FGC Type I(a) Prepuce Removal (aka “Hoodectomy”)
FGC Type II(a) Labiaplasty - Minora
FGC Type IV Scraping
FGC Type IV Incising
FGC Type IV Piercing
FGC Type IV Pricking (referred to as a “ritual nick” in the US)