For Beginners

[admin]

Here is a brief introduction to foreskin restoration:



Want to know your CI (coverage index number)? Go to http://www.newforeskin.biz/CI/CIchart.htm

[under construction]

If you have something to add, post a reply. The moderator will roll your contribution into the main entry, delete your posting, and add your name to the list of contributors (unless you ask not be mentioned). Please give it a week before griping that your work has not been incorporated.

Cheers,
-Ron


[U]Thanks to contributors:
Toveri

[greg_b]

You can use this in any way you think will help. I wrote it for the same purpose.

Getting started is easy. The most common method has been simple cross taping, which involves using tape to hold the foreskin remnant over (or partially over) the glans. Another way to begin is to simply pull on the foreskin remnant, a method called manual. Pull hard enough to stretch the skin to its limit, then hold for a few seconds, then release and repeat. Many variations, but that is the gist of it. As you progress, you will need to change from cross taping to another method. There are many methods: taping and its variations, o-rings, manual, and a variety of devices.

The process is not always well understood. The tension caused by the tape or pulling (or any other method) creates conditions in the skin that induce more cell division than normal. As the cells divide, they add new cells. These new cells then create new skin. It seems that the growth occurs mostly very close to the point of tension, not across the whole penis shaft. This is why restoring does not cause hair to "creep" out on the shaft, a common worry. Putting the skin under tension like this does cause some irritiation and stress. This usually resluts in the skin swelling slightly, getting red, and sometimes slightly tender. A few hours after stopping this should start going away, and after a few days disappear. But because of this stress, at least in part, the skin may take up to a full year to completely get back to normal after you are finished restoring, so that is why many see restorers and become conserned that the resulting foreskin will be baggy and odd looking. The experience of myself and others is that this will not be the case, and after the skin recovers, it will look so normal that doctors will even have trouble recognizing that you were circumcised.

The process is time consuming for a number of reasons. First you are growing more than skin. The foreskin has muscles, nerves and connective tissue as well as two layers of skin. In addition it is hightly mobile and specialized skin, and the penis itself changes size dramatically over the course of a day. And everyone has different skin, most likely with different properties related to stretching and cell growth. Finally, there are a lot of hard to measure variables such as how much skin you start with, how effectively you can apply tension, how long you actually apply this effective tension, etc that can make a marked difference in how long it takes.

Fortunately, our bodies seem to be able to regrow foreskin with a variety of methods. So the best method is the one that works for you and your lifestyle. You will have to experiement to see how to use whatever method you choose, but any of them seem to work. If the first doesn't you can try another. And you can take time off as well. The only caution is to not use too much tension, or try leaving the tension on at night until you have first tried it while awake and with a full erection to make sure the tension does not get too high while you are asleep.

And the reward for all this trouble and time is a big improvement is sexual function and feeling. For both partners. For me the improvements came early, in the first month or so. My wife actually noticed it enough to remark on it first. Hard to say what was different, but she could feel it, and I could as well, but not so apparent. And the feelings continued to improve as we went along. So you will probably get benefits along the way that you will enjoy. Later, as the skin became long enough to easily cover my glans, the whole body orgasms started becoming common. And we no longer needed lubricant. And the feelings were fantastic at any stage in arousal, so much that I liked wherever I happen to be on the path to orgasm and there was no rush to get to the endpoint. And it turns out my wife finds the foreskin so much fun to play with...

A lot more could be said, and I am sure I missed a lot, but hopefully this can help get people started in thinking about whether foreskin restoration is right for them. Keep in mind that there are no gaurantees, that everyone is different, and that results will vary, just as normal, original equipment foreskin varies from person to person.

[Unregistered]

Most helpful to this ancient Aussie newbie. Thanks.

{mod: Thanks. Let's see what else we can get added here before July 1, when I'll consolidate again.}

[cobra]

WHAT IS SKIN EXPANSION?

Skin expansion is the physiological response of the epidermis to tension. By keeping an area of skin under tension, our bodies react to alleviate that tension by growing new skin cells. This response evolved as a way to accomodate growth, pregnancy and weight gain. The new skin grown mimics the type of skin that was placed under tension. If you tension your scalp, you grow scalp skin... and if you tension the remnants of your circumcised foreskin tissue, you grow foreskin tissue.

Skin expansion is commonly employed by plastic surgeons to grow skin to cover an adjacent wound or reconstruct surgical losses, such as a breast that has been removed due to cancer treatment. It is usually done by implanting an inflatable device under the skin, which is slowly filled with saline over the course of weeks or months. The tension created by the implant causes the skin to expand. When enough skin has been grown, the implant is removed and the extra loose skin is employed for whatever the surgeon is trying to repair.

The expanded skin contains all the nerves, circulatory and glandular structures needed to maintain the health and normal function of the newly minted skin. Expanded skin can sweat, blush, sense touch, etc. The only thing that is not copied from the original skin is hair follicles. Hair follicles simply move apart as expanding skin cells propagate.

Although the exact mechanisms of skin expansion are not completely understood, scientific research indicates that skin cells sense the tension placed on them on an individual basis and split in the direction they are being deformed. There are also chemical signaling mechanisms between the cells as a group, and other complex biological processes involved.

Only moderate tension is necessary to trigger skin expansion. Too little tension and nothing will happen. Too much tension and you can trigger apoptosis, programmed cell death, and damage and possibly cause the skin to reduce or scar. The correct amount of tension will cause your penis to feel warm, flush and more sensitive, as blood flow is increased to supply the expanding skin with oxygen and nutrients. Pain, coldness or numbness is a sign that you are using too much tension. Everyone is different so you will have to experiment with tension until you find the "sweet spot" for yourself that will render the quickest and healthiest expansion.

Skin expansion has one failing. It will not restore structure. If you tension your frenelum remnant, you will create a larger area of sensitive frenelum tissue, but the frenelum will not restructure itself and reattach itself to the glans. Skin expansion only creates similar skin types, not structure, and you will not be able to totally and structurally recreate your frenelum or ridged band.

[Tally]

Here are some general hints on starting foreskin restoration (http://www.restoringforeskin.org/beginners-guide-foreskin-restoration).

There are several different restoration methods that you can use. Some, like me, prefer manual tugging (http://www.restoringforeskin.org/public/foreskin-restoration-manual-tugging-routine-blog). If you were cut tight, there is the cannister method (http://www.tlctugger.com/downloads.htm) and cross-taping (http://adult.eskimo.com/~gburlin/restore/image.html). Some do t-tape (http://www.restoringforeskin.org/public/foreskin-restoring-methods/t-taping). And others like to jump right in and use a device like the TLC Tugger (http://www.tlctugger.com).

There are lots of choices on how to start restoring. You can start manual tugging right now and then investigate the other methods for something that you find comfortable and that fits into your lifestyle.

To measure your progress, many like The Real Coverage Index (http://www.restoringforeskin.org/public/foreskin-restoration-real-coverage-index-rci), which is a realistic way of determining where you are on the road to being restored.

Remember, every day you wait to start, is one more day longer it will take you to finish.

[AshSW]

The first link at the top is no longer working.

[admin]

The first link at the top is no longer working.

Please, anyone who has something to add, feel free to flesh out this section.

[keith-g]

One thing worth bearing in mind when you first start out on this process, is that there will be an initial period of 'loosening' of the skin. This will seem like growth and appeared in the first few weeks of my first restoration attempts. What I believe is happening in reality is that your shaft skin is gaining some mobility that it previously didn't have and also becoming a little more elastic, having been dormant for a long time. The effect of applied tension is allowing the skin to free itself from the shaft and become more free to move. This naturally results in a brief period of elation where you will think your restoration process will be short and sweet. Sadly this is followed by the realisation that it isn't real growth and there will be a long road to recovery. Just keep tugging.

[dannyboy]

Hello. I just ordered my tugger today. I am still unsure how this will be for me. But I am glad I am doing something about this.One thing worth bearing in mind when you first start out on this process, is that there will be an initial period of 'loosening' of the skin. This will seem like growth and appeared in the first few weeks of my first restoration attempts. What I believe is happening in reality is that your shaft skin is gaining some mobility that it previously didn't have and also becoming a little more elastic, having been dormant for a long time. The effect of applied tension is allowing the skin to free itself from the shaft and become more free to move. This naturally results in a brief period of elation where you will think your restoration process will be short and sweet. Sadly this is followed by the realisation that it isn't real growth and there will be a long road to recovery. Just keep tugging.

[want it back]

hi, i am just waiting for my TLC tugger to arrive.. i was cut at birth and have no loose skin. so i am hopping this will work for me . can some one te;ll me if they stsrted off cut and no loose skin and now have a good foreskin? and the best methode to start have posted pic of my dick on here so u can just see how it looks now and no skin

[jd1990]

I've just got the dtr through the post... I think you need a bit of slack skin before you can use it. even I'm struggling and I've got a bit of slack skin!

[Unregistered]

I can pull my skin over my glans comfortably, but it doesn't look like anything in the pictures, and i am definitely circumsised. Can i have some help?

[Jamie]

I can pull my skin over my glans comfortably, but it doesn't look like anything in the pictures, and i am definitely circumsised. Can i have some help?

We would have to see what you mean. Im not sure you can post pictures if you're not registered, so either register and let us see, or try an explain in detail why yours looks different.

[emetz81]

For the T-Tape method, do you have to be erect to apply the tape?

[freddys]

No. At the beginning, it makes it easier, but soon you will be able to do it under all conditions.

[twogowis]

I lost all my friends/buddys where did the list go?

[admin]

I lost all my friends/buddys where did the list go?

Can you explain to me exactly how to see your issue?

-Ron

[twogowis]

Can you explain to me exactly how to see your issue?

-Ron

I had a few buddys and was able to communicate. where is the list?

[admin]

I had a few buddys and was able to communicate. where is the list?

I'm not aware of any reason that might have happened. Sorry. I don't use the friends feature. Maybe the other friends deleted their accounts here.

-Ron

[bythesea]

Hello. I have decided to begin restoring my foreskin. I was wondering if anyone has any suggestions for me since I am just beginning the process. Any thoughts on what methods work, what equipment, etc. I do have some slack skin, but not alot. I can pull my skin over the glans with some tension, but no over hang. I would appreciate any suggestions and encouragement.

[Frederike]

Dear all,

I was interested to read your story, as well as that of many others. I come from the other side of the pond (Netherlands) and I am a woman. I have until recently not known what (the American form of) circumcise really is. When I got there by chance behind came I literally had nightmares. I can very much alive imagine how lousy you know you must feel. Inconceivable that this happened on such a large scale in a modern country. America calls itself the land of the free. Well, at least not the freedom to have the most intimate part of the body!

To this, I have somewhat in matter deepens. I'm not a doctor, but a biologist. Experiments I don't need to understand some things. Common sense will do just fine.

From this place I are you trying to say something, which I hope you can.

* It will be clear that I forced circumcision abhor. What a grown man with his body does he must! But not operate at defenseless children. Still, I'm not for banning. This will just resistance calls. Advocates and practitioners of religious practices are convinced that they are a good thing. That idea can be very strong. Just think of the gentlemen who 10 years ago flew some planes into buildings. Those were not idiots, but people who are absolutely convinced that they were a good thing. Talked him out of it makes no sense. I strongly support information. Knowledgeable parents will make the right choice. Viva NOCIRC!

* Research has shown that medical benefits to circumcision and medical cost savings. That will be very good. If the teeth are pulled in all children, caries will be eliminated. And dental costs billions of dollars can be saved. To know this, for this is no research is needed. Why don't we massively pulling teeth. If you know you may say.
It seems like it only but money is what in America counts. What I miss in the statements of the AAP is the emotional aspect. A screwball should understand that circumcision is destroying something? But well, from an imperfect sex life you will not die and it will cost the company any money.

* However, there are also good business to circumcision. If it is so horrible there would not be so many circumcised men are happy with their life. Even if I become completely horrible as I see a picture of a circumcision (video I dare not having a look), to the positive stories I do not come back. I know also sure there are negative opinions and that these are not made up. The fact that various allergy organizations may exist and that there is a market for resources to recover says me enough.

* About some pro circumcision arguments I do have what to say:
- Son should look like dad. Bizarre, I have never compared myself with my mother. I would if I would have to undergo a breast reduction. I thought every parent wanted to see his or her child happy.
-Later in life does it more pain. Perhaps, but that's pain for which itself is chosen. That gives a very different experience than pain that is imposed. Later in life have no foreskin to be pulled off (I am already all the way to that idea). In addition, it happens then under general anesthesia. Anyone who says that babies feel no pain? Why choke them sometimes, until coma follows? Dear help, where's the sense? Screaming they sometimes for fun?
-We choose also to vaccinate our children. Yes, but there are having no one affected by later in life. I have at least none hear complain about this. In addition, the pain of a prick to overlook. In addition I see clearly the benefits here. The eradication of smallpox.
-It is necessary because God this will. This is right, Jews are connected with God and not with people. Jews are persecuted for centuries, they had soldiers needed, no mothers children. When African tribes is circumcised later in life. The soft female flesh is cut away in order to break the bond with the mother; the boy is now a man. Scientific research has shown that circumcision disrupts the binding with the mother, even in later life. Hm, they understand in America only now what other peoples know for centuries? Use intuition, a child loses trust as mother does not protect him. Or is it sometimes the duty of the mother to protect him against animal feelings, which aren't part of a civilized nation?

OK, this is my opinion. Maybe you have already heard this more often. Nevertheless, I try also to give an opinion as a biologist.

On various sites is written about the loss of 20,000 nerve after circumcision. The brain have tens of billions of nerve cells. The number mentioned is a laughing stock. Enables really nothing for. Same story for frenulum, which is attachment and no more than that. At least, that says my common sense and it is consistent with the stories of the satisfied circumcised men.

Where the actual physical loss is, is the fact that the head of the penis is stripped of protection. The dehydration and rubbing against other materials than the foreskin destroy more than you would like. Hang a few hours your tongue out of your mouth and it will be clear what happens. And I am not talking about the emotional loss (mistrust in the people around you) by the imposed pain, what I can only guess.

Put everything in order, I believe in manuel foreskin restore. No, I am not a seller and I have no shares in companies that offer recovery materials. But I know as a biologist that cut off nerves can grow back. Please note, I have done no research. But my common sense says that the enthusiastic stories of recovering men and their partners are absolutely true. As the protective casing there again, then the nerves do their work again. Maybe even some of the original nerves cut off skin.

I write you this, because I certainly believe that there is hope. The horrible feeling that I had (even I am woman) disappeared to a large extent when I read about recovery. I live with you and I recommend you you even experts.

You are free to forward my message to stakeholders, with a better translation.

Kind Renards,
Frederike

[Comicking45]

Dear all,

I was interested to read your story, as well as that of many others. I come from the other side of the pond (Netherlands) and I am a woman. I have until recently not known what (the American form of) circumcise really is. When I got there by chance behind came I literally had nightmares. I can very much alive imagine how lousy you know you must feel. Inconceivable that this happened on such a large scale in a modern country. America calls itself the land of the free. Well, at least not the freedom to have the most intimate part of the body!

To this, I have somewhat in matter deepens. I'm not a doctor, but a biologist. Experiments I don't need to understand some things. Common sense will do just fine.

From this place I are you trying to say something, which I hope you can.

* It will be clear that I forced circumcision abhor. What a grown man with his body does he must! But not operate at defenseless children. Still, I'm not for banning. This will just resistance calls. Advocates and practitioners of religious practices are convinced that they are a good thing. That idea can be very strong. Just think of the gentlemen who 10 years ago flew some planes into buildings. Those were not idiots, but people who are absolutely convinced that they were a good thing. Talked him out of it makes no sense. I strongly support information. Knowledgeable parents will make the right choice. Viva NOCIRC!

* Research has shown that medical benefits to circumcision and medical cost savings. That will be very good. If the teeth are pulled in all children, caries will be eliminated. And dental costs billions of dollars can be saved. To know this, for this is no research is needed. Why don't we massively pulling teeth. If you know you may say.
It seems like it only but money is what in America counts. What I miss in the statements of the AAP is the emotional aspect. A screwball should understand that circumcision is destroying something? But well, from an imperfect sex life you will not die and it will cost the company any money.

* However, there are also good business to circumcision. If it is so horrible there would not be so many circumcised men are happy with their life. Even if I become completely horrible as I see a picture of a circumcision (video I dare not having a look), to the positive stories I do not come back. I know also sure there are negative opinions and that these are not made up. The fact that various allergy organizations may exist and that there is a market for resources to recover says me enough.

* About some pro circumcision arguments I do have what to say:
- Son should look like dad. Bizarre, I have never compared myself with my mother. I would if I would have to undergo a breast reduction. I thought every parent wanted to see his or her child happy.
-Later in life does it more pain. Perhaps, but that's pain for which itself is chosen. That gives a very different experience than pain that is imposed. Later in life have no foreskin to be pulled off (I am already all the way to that idea). In addition, it happens then under general anesthesia. Anyone who says that babies feel no pain? Why choke them sometimes, until coma follows? Dear help, where's the sense? Screaming they sometimes for fun?
-We choose also to vaccinate our children. Yes, but there are having no one affected by later in life. I have at least none hear complain about this. In addition, the pain of a prick to overlook. In addition I see clearly the benefits here. The eradication of smallpox.
-It is necessary because God this will. This is right, Jews are connected with God and not with people. Jews are persecuted for centuries, they had soldiers needed, no mothers children. When African tribes is circumcised later in life. The soft female flesh is cut away in order to break the bond with the mother; the boy is now a man. Scientific research has shown that circumcision disrupts the binding with the mother, even in later life. Hm, they understand in America only now what other peoples know for centuries? Use intuition, a child loses trust as mother does not protect him. Or is it sometimes the duty of the mother to protect him against animal feelings, which aren't part of a civilized nation?

OK, this is my opinion. Maybe you have already heard this more often. Nevertheless, I try also to give an opinion as a biologist.

On various sites is written about the loss of 20,000 nerve after circumcision. The brain have tens of billions of nerve cells. The number mentioned is a laughing stock. Enables really nothing for. Same story for frenulum, which is attachment and no more than that. At least, that says my common sense and it is consistent with the stories of the satisfied circumcised men.

Where the actual physical loss is, is the fact that the head of the penis is stripped of protection. The dehydration and rubbing against other materials than the foreskin destroy more than you would like. Hang a few hours your tongue out of your mouth and it will be clear what happens. And I am not talking about the emotional loss (mistrust in the people around you) by the imposed pain, what I can only guess.

Put everything in order, I believe in manuel foreskin restore. No, I am not a seller and I have no shares in companies that offer recovery materials. But I know as a biologist that cut off nerves can grow back. Please note, I have done no research. But my common sense says that the enthusiastic stories of recovering men and their partners are absolutely true. As the protective casing there again, then the nerves do their work again. Maybe even some of the original nerves cut off skin.

I write you this, because I certainly believe that there is hope. The horrible feeling that I had (even I am woman) disappeared to a large extent when I read about recovery. I live with you and I recommend you you even experts.

You are free to forward my message to stakeholders, with a better translation.

Kind Renards,
Frederike

I'm not quite sure how I feel about you. You say you laugh at the fact that the foreskin has 20k nerve endings, but did you know the clitoris has 8K? Unless my math is wrong 20k is 12k more than 8k. Why aren't you for banning circumcision? Your justification being that people think there good, and will circumcise babies because there good, and banning it will do good makes no sense. If you ban it than these "good" people will be forced to stop. My parents were fucking stupid, and made the wrong choice so don't tell me that if I have stupid parents that means i'm not entitled to my whole body. Well you know I am not for banning female circumcision either because good parents will make the right choice. Imagine if you put that on a FGM forum. Double standards...

[Frederike]

I'm not quite sure how I feel about you. You say you laugh at the fact that the foreskin has 20k nerve endings, but did you know the clitoris has 8K? Unless my math is wrong 20k is 12k more than 8k. Why aren't you for banning circumcision? Your justification being that people think there good, and will circumcise babies because there good, and banning it will do good makes no sense. If you ban it than these "good" people will be forced to stop. My parents were fucking stupid, and made the wrong choice so don't tell me that if I have stupid parents that means i'm not entitled to my whole body. Well you know I am not for banning female circumcision either because good parents will make the right choice. Imagine if you put that on a FGM forum. Double standards...

Thanks for your reply. I think the problem is that my English is so bad that I can't explain exactly what I mean. There is nothing wrong with your mathmatics. I compared 20K with billions of nerves in the brain. I think that restoring will repair much more than is written down in several sites. I tried to explain that I feel really sorry for who hate their circumcision, but that it is possible to get nearly all back what is taken from them.

About banning, if I could rule the world, then cirumcising would be banned instantly. But some (or even many) people are so fanatic in thinking that they are doing the right thing, it is not possible to ban it. That is what I meant to say. Even in the Netherlands, where female circumcision is strikly forbidden, there are about 30K circumcised woman! A ban will promote illegal activities, whith more bothing or even deaths as a result.

In the Netherlands it is possible for woman to restore (chirurgy, and on a small scale), and also these woman got their feelings back. For me is this a prove that restoring whipes out much pain.

I think information and educating will ban circumcision. Even some Jews are against these practises, and this group of people is growing.

Well, at least I did absolutly not mean to offend some men. I really mean that I abhor circumcision. That is the reason why I will do a donation to NOCIRC.

Kind regards,
Frederike

[Comicking45]

Thanks for your reply. I think the problem is that my English is so bad that I can't explain exactly what I mean. There is nothing wrong with your mathmatics. I compared 20K with billions of nerves in the brain. I think that restoring will repair much more than is written down in several sites. I tried to explain that I feel really sorry for who hate their circumcision, but that it is possible to get nearly all back what is taken from them.

About banning, if I could rule the world, then cirumcising would be banned instantly. But some (or even many) people are so fanatic in thinking that they are doing the right thing, it is not possible to ban it. That is what I meant to say. Even in the Netherlands, where female circumcision is strikly forbidden, there are about 30K circumcised woman! A ban will promote illegal activities, whith more bothing or even deaths as a result.

In the Netherlands it is possible for woman to restore (chirurgy, and on a small scale), and also these woman got their feelings back. For me is this a prove that restoring whipes out much pain.

I think information and educating will ban circumcision. Even some Jews are against these practises, and this group of people is growing.

Well, at least I did absolutly not mean to offend some men. I really mean that I abhor circumcision. That is the reason why I will do a donation to NOCIRC.

Kind regards,
Frederike

I think we got off on the wrong foot, and had a miscommunication. If you write in your native language I can translate it with google, and I could write in your language to you. I welcome you to the intactivist community! Thank you for not being a bimbo that like these american girls who won't touch an intact penis with a 50 foot pole, because its "yucky". In case you don't know quotations around a certain word mean sarcasm not sure if thats American or worldwide.

[Frederike]

I think we got off on the wrong foot, and had a miscommunication. If you write in your native language I can translate it with google, and I could write in your language to you. I welcome you to the intactivist community! Thank you for not being a bimbo that like these american girls who won't touch an intact penis with a 50 foot pole, because its "yucky". In case you don't know quotations around a certain word mean sarcasm not sure if thats American or worldwide.

Hello,
In fact I did translate my original dutch tekst with google .... But google translates only words, not the message. Your first reaction got me to think. There was a lot of sarcasm in my first post, but now I have learned not to write like that. My knowledge of language and culture of the USA is not good enough to mock about pro-circumcision.

It saddens me to read about the many man who are so angry and full of hate against their parents. On the other site, the more people speak out their grief, how sooner forced circumcision will stop. No parent wants the risk of losing a child, even the circumcision 'fans'.

Although it's rare, forced circumcision also occurs in Holland. A friend of mine circumcised her son. At that time I already disliked it, the same way as I dislike the cutting of tails from animals. Before I knew wat circumcision really means, I was struck by the worse relationship between my friend and her son. She loved her son, but he did not love her. Now I understand why.

I understand your feelings too. When I had to discover that my body was altered, and there was no medically need for that, I would also be in rage.

I whish you good luck with your restoring activities and that the (emotional) pain will fade away.

Bye bye,
Frederike

[Purist]

Hello, Frederike

I had a question,

In United States culture, you very often hear a double standard when comparing female circumcision (as practiced in African, Muslim cultures) with male circumcision. So, in America, if you try to condemn male circumcision by comparing it to female circumcision, the person you're talking to will very often say, "but that's totally different! Female circumcision is WAY WORSE!"

In Holland, is there the same double-standard when comparing female circumcision (as practiced in African, Muslim cultures) with male circumcision?

Bedankt!

[Frederike]

Hello, Frederike

I had a question,

In United States culture, you very often hear a double standard when comparing female circumcision (as practiced in African, Muslim cultures) with male circumcision. So, in America, if you try to condemn male circumcision by comparing it to female circumcision, the person you're talking to will very often say, "but that's totally different! Female circumcision is WAY WORSE!"

In Holland, is there the same double-standard when comparing female circumcision (as practiced in African, Muslim cultures) with male circumcision?

Bedankt!

Hello Purist,

As there are different types of male circumcision (tight ore loose), there are also different types of female circumcision. The most 'friendly' type of female circumcision is comparable with male circumcision. However, if the most common type of female circumcision was subjected to men, they would not only lose their foreskin and frenulum, but also their glans and corona. Thereby some men would have their scrotal sac pinched. This in comparision with woman who have their crotch sewn.

More worse is the reason why female circumcision exists. The only purpose is to make it impossible to have sex and/or to take away the sexual pleasure. This happens to make sure that a future husband will marry a woman who is a virgin and/or who is chaste.

After marriage the husband personally will cut open his wife (of course without anesthesia), so they can intercourse and she can bear his childeren.

There are absolutely no benefits for the women involved. There is only pain, discomfort and the risk of infections. The reason why it goes on, is that the family wants the girl to get married and have childeren. In Africa a woman without childeren is worthless. A woman who can't bear childeren is just a fruittree which bears no fruit, it should be chopped down (an African saying).

I think you won't need much imagination to define what is worse.

The reason why many man speak of double-standard is that they don't see the great benefits for men to be circumcised. It is healthier, cleaner, the cut penis will not look 'yucky', you will fit in, you will look like daddy, the saving of 4.4 billion dollar health care and the cutting of a few days old infant is a spiritual event. The crushing pain and degradation of sexual pleasure later on life of many men is just a side effect, but who cares?

Note, this was sarcasm. All of the pro-reasons mentioned above, in particular the last two ones, are sickening me to the stomach. Even if the chance of HIV infection in intact men was a hundred times higher then in circumcised men, the decision to chop off an intimate part of a body should be a decision of the owner of that body.

But as long as the AAP declares that the benefits of forced circumcision outweigh the disadvantages, there is no question of double-standard. Forced circumcision has benefits for men and not for woman, in the eyes of politicians.

In Holland the sitiuation is just a little bit different. Circumcision here has mostly to do with religion or medical urgency. In Holland the freedom of religion is very important, so our government too has not a double-standard.

I hope this answer explained something.

Frederike

[Frederike]

Hello, Frederike

I had a question,

In United States culture, you very often hear a double standard when comparing female circumcision (as practiced in African, Muslim cultures) with male circumcision. So, in America, if you try to condemn male circumcision by comparing it to female circumcision, the person you're talking to will very often say, "but that's totally different! Female circumcision is WAY WORSE!"

In Holland, is there the same double-standard when comparing female circumcision (as practiced in African, Muslim cultures) with male circumcision?

Bedankt!

Hi Purist,

I have thinked your question over and I have to admit there is some double-standard. But I think that efforts to ban the practice by comparing male circumcision to female circumcision won't be succesful. This is because the different intention of female circumcion. I think that it makes more sense comparing it to tattooing. Why is it forbidden to tattoo a baby? You know the answer.

Still I don't think that the government of the USA has a double-standard. Rather there is something wrong with the AAP (and doctors who persuade parents to have their son circumcised). What strikes me is that the AAP (and doctors) completely ignore the emotional effects of circumcision. In my opinion this is a kind of double-standard.

I have visited American pro-circumcise sites too. People argue that there are hardly no complaints about male circumcision. At large the men are supposed to be satisfied with their circumcised penises. And they state also that the surgery itself is painless. It's difficult for me to believe that these people submit what they are saying. The cause of the double-standard in the USA seems to be in the folk itself.

In the Netherlands our government had to choose between the rights of childeren and freedom of religion. But the KNMG (the Dutch AAP) is against circumcision and discourages it.

What also plays a role is that most of the circumcisions in Holland are done in 'the Muslim way'. I have seen this on television and in this cases not all the foreskin is removed. The result is a C-4 or C-5 cut. It is true that in Holland hardly no men complains about his circumcision. Moreover it is mostly done on 6-8 month old babies or young kids, so adequate sedation can be administered.

The reason why I was so horrified when I read the stories of American men and witnesses, is that the USA (and Jewish) cuts are so tight that the most of sensitivity is destroyed (at later age) and that the surgery is done without sedation on a helpless newborn. Probably the severeness of the USA cut has to do with the feelings of double-standard in many American men.

Frederike

[Frederike]

Hi Purist,

I have thinked your question over and I have to admit there is some double-standard. But I think that efforts to ban the practice by comparing male circumcision to female circumcision won't be succesful. This is because the different intention of female circumcion. I think that it makes more sense comparing it to tattooing. Why is it forbidden to tattoo a baby? You know the answer.

Still I don't think that the government of the USA has a double-standard. Rather there is something wrong with the AAP (and doctors who persuade parents to have their son circumcised). What strikes me is that the AAP (and doctors) completely ignore the emotional effects of circumcision. In my opinion this is a kind of double-standard.

I have visited American pro-circumcise sites too. People argue that there are hardly no complaints about male circumcision. At large the men are supposed to be satisfied with their circumcised penises. And they state also that the surgery itself is painless. It's difficult for me to believe that these people submit what they are saying. The cause of the double-standard in the USA seems to be in the folk itself.

In the Netherlands our government had to choose between the rights of childeren and freedom of religion. But the KNMG (the Dutch AAP) is against circumcision and discourages it.

What also plays a role is that most of the circumcisions in Holland are done in 'the Muslim way'. I have seen this on television and in this cases not all the foreskin is removed. The result is a C-4 or C-5 cut. It is true that in Holland hardly no men complains about his circumcision. Moreover it is mostly done on 6-8 month old babies or young kids, so adequate sedation can be administered.

The reason why I was so horrified when I read the stories of American men and witnesses, is that the USA (and Jewish) cuts are so tight that the most of sensitivity is destroyed (at later age) and that the surgery is done without sedation on a helpless newborn. Probably the severeness of the USA cut has to do with the feelings of double-standard in many American men.

Frederike

Affix:
The only man in Holland I have heard complaining about his circumcision was a Jew. My friend who has a bad relationship with her young son is Jewish too. This strengthens my opinion that the tightness of the cut has to do with the sad feelings of many man in the USA.

[Purist]

However, if the most common type of female circumcision was subjected to men, they would not only lose their foreskin and frenulum, but also their glans and corona. Thereby some men would have their scrotal sac pinched.

Not sure I agree with these types of analogies. And it is this type of comparison that those promoting the double standard are using to promote it with. Many infant-circumcised males have lost most of their inner mucosal tissue, the remnants of which are inverted and now lie in an inside-out position relative to the shaft. What form of female circumcision excises most of the woman's mucosal tissues and turns the vulva inside-out?

[Frederike]

Not sure I agree with these types of analogies. And it is this type of comparison that those promoting the double standard are using to promote it with. Many infant-circumcised males have lost most of their inner mucosal tissue, the remnants of which are inverted and now lie in an inside-out position relative to the shaft. What form of female circumcision excises most of the woman's mucosal tissues and turns the vulva inside-out?

Hi Purist,

Perhaps I was wrong by comparing tissues and private parts. I understand that it is difficult to convince a man, who has lost so much, that female circumcision is worse. The INTENTION of female circumcision is preventing woman from having (the joy of) sex. It is an ultimate degradation of womanhood. Nobody in the western world is questioning this. That the EFFECT of male circumcision is probably almost the same, is another matter. In any case, it is not accepted as the truth by the people who are pro circumcision. That's the problem which the intactivist groups have to face.

Still, we are on the same side of the line.

On a pro circumcision site I read an explanation of a doctor. He deliberately removes tissues as much as possible, especially the frenulum. He did so to prevent complications in the future. How is it possible that a man, who is supposed to be educated, can act like this? Did he never read a recent scientific article about this subject?

On this site I read the story of a father who had a doctor who said that the penis of his newborn son needed a cut. If the father did not agree, he wouldn't be a good parent. My first thought was that the throat of this doctor needed a cut (figuratively, I'm not a killer). In Holland this is impossible, he would be fired instantly. A doctor has not to interfere with a decisicion which parents have to make.

This week I read a posting of a mother who experienced the circumcisioning of her son as one of the most wonderful moments of her life. This woman was not Jewish, she was American, no religion was involved. You have to believe me, this goes beyond my comprehension. Ten or fifteen years ago not every parent had access to internet. They had to believe what the doctor said about circumcision. But this mother had the ability to get well informed. This has nothing to do with health or hygiene, rather it is taking possession of somebody. This mother represents the worst cases. Absolute disgusting.

I agree with you that the only possible way to stop this people is the banning of forced male circumcision. Education doesn't help here. This people don't want to hear arguments against circumcision.

However, I strongly believe that banning will rise a religous war. No politician wants to risk his neck for this. But it is possible to ban the payments of health insurance companies for circumcions. And/or to put heavy taxes on the doctors fee for circumcision (in Holland this is the case with alcohol drinks and sigarets). It will be a matter of time before circed men will be the minority. In the end routine circumcision will be history. I hope this story will run as this.

Frederike

[sams77]

Hello every one. This is Sams. A new member here. Hope you all are well, and passing a great time with this forum. I also joined here to share my news and views.

No more this time. Will be back soon with more.

Thanks.

[w.o.f.]

On a pro circumcision site I read an explanation of a doctor. He deliberately removes tissues as much as possible, especially the frenulum. He did so to prevent complications in the future. How is it possible that a man, who is supposed to be educated, can act like this? Did he never read a recent scientific article about this subject?

On this site I read the story of a father who had a doctor who said that the penis of his newborn son needed a cut. If the father did not agree, he wouldn't be a good parent. My first thought was that the throat of this doctor needed a cut (figuratively, I'm not a killer). In Holland this is impossible, he would be fired instantly. A doctor has not to interfere with a decisicion which parents have to make.

This week I read a posting of a mother who experienced the circumcisioning of her son as one of the most wonderful moments of her life. This woman was not Jewish, she was American, no religion was involved. You have to believe me, this goes beyond my comprehension. Ten or fifteen years ago not every parent had access to internet. They had to believe what the doctor said about circumcision. But this mother had the ability to get well informed. This has nothing to do with health or hygiene, rather it is taking possession of somebody. This mother represents the worst cases. Absolute disgusting.
Everything you read on a pro-circumcision site, especially accounts of "women" are suspect. Circumcision fetishists (or "circumfetishists" as we call them) often pose as women online in forums (stressing how much more they like circumcised penises etc), or they write circumfetishist erotic literature from the imagined perspective of women, boys, witnesses to the circumcision... and so on, you get the picture. Always take anything you read on pro-circ sites with a grain of salt. Such stories are often just jerk-off material written by lonely trauma-bombed perverts for lonely trauma-bombed perverts.

As to your point about the 20,000 lost nerve endings. Comicking is right about the clitoris, it is estimated to have "only" 8,000 nerve endings. Isn't it a bit arbitrary to put that number up against the number of neurons in the brain? In short, I don't agree that the only or main damage is in the exposed glans. The main damage is in the removal of the sensitive structures. See the Sorrells study (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06685.x/full) for more information. The frenulum, especially its forward third (which is practically always amputated in circumcisions) and the tip of the prepuce (where it normally folds from inner to outer skin) are the most sensitive parts of the intact penis. Their loss poses the greatest --and permanent, regardless of restoration-- loss in sensitivity for circumcised men.

Also, tight circumcisions are by no means exclusive to the USA. Hospital circumcisions here in Europe are often just as tight, with the main difference (as far as I'm aware) that in Europe the frenulum remnant is usually not excised (for which I'm thankful, because it's easily the most sensitive part I have left!).

[Frederike]

...

As to your point about the 20,000 lost nerve endings. ... In short, I don't agree that the only or main damage is in the exposed glans. The main damage is in the removal of the sensitive structures. See the Sorrells study (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06685.x/full) for more information.

...

Checkmate! I thought I had quite well educated myself before entering this forum. But if I had read this work I didn't write like that. I have to withdraw my words.

Still I have a question. How can you adjust the outcome of this research to this succes story? http://www.moralogous.com/2012/05/16/real-stories-couple-repairs-circumcision-damage-through-foreskin-restoration/

It seems to be contradict to the outcome of the research you linked. This is not the only succes story on internet. I based my opinion partially on these stories. The only explanation I have for this phenomenon is that the loss of 20.000 nerve endings is not so devastating as suggested and that damaged nerves can grow back. Or even replaced by other ones. A human has namely billions of nerves.

At school I have learned that people who suffer from paraplegics in some cases get their lost feelings and powers back. When a nerve ending is cut, it doesn't mean that the nerve itself is dead. A doctor said in an interview that it is impossible for circumcised man to get his lost feelings back, but I am not sure about this.

[w.o.f.]

Still I have a question. How can you adjust the outcome of this research to this succes story?
Lilli Cannon refers to repairing the sexual act mostly from her own female perspective. For the female, the most frequent difficulty with circumcised penises is in the soreness which Lilli vividly describes. This type of damage, the loss of gliding action of the foreskin and basically all of the main problems women have with circumcised penises, can be reversed through restoration. However, the loss of densely innervated structures and several other aspects aren't reversible through restoration.

From the male perspective, restoration greatly increases sensitivity in the glans and inner foreskin/frenulum remnant and helps in many different ways. But it can still not get one anywhere near the original equipment with its specialized tissue and structures. Both is true.

[Frederike]

Lilli Cannon refers to repairing the sexual act mostly from her own female perspective. For the female, the most frequent difficulty with circumcised penises is in the soreness which Lilli vividly describes. This type of damage, the loss of gliding action of the foreskin and basically all of the main problems women have with circumcised penises, can be reversed through restoration. However, the loss of densely innervated structures and several other aspects aren't reversible through restoration.

From the male perspective, restoration greatly increases sensitivity in the glans and inner foreskin/frenulum remnant and helps in many different ways. But it can still not get one anywhere near the original equipment with its specialized tissue and structures. Both is true.

I won't contradict you. The story is written by a woman indeed. And I can not compare with own experience, for I am not a restoring man.
Perhaps this story should be better, it is written by a man.
http://www.restoringtally.com/blog/2009/11/benefits-foreskin-restoration-part-1-sensitivity
But this is just one of the many positive stories I read. It is clear that restoring will reverse some damage, no doubt about that. But you already confirmed that, by saying 'Both is true'.

[w.o.f.]

Restoration is defintely beneficial for both partners. The point (assuming this is a bit of a response to that) in my thread about female intactivists is that the circumcised man is the one who has to make the decision to restore.

Some women apparently believe it is their right to expect from her partner that he should restore. But many men don't restore even though they do resent the fact that they have been circumcised against their will. For some, it's because they don't want to wear awkward contraptions on their penis for years. For others, it's because they have a job that makes it difficult. Some just can't make it work, they make no real progress restoring. And for yet others, it may simply be that it's not that big of a deal for them and they don't want to think about it. Which is their best right, but some women would disagree. They're not putting themselves in the man's shoes, never acknowledge the amount of anguish the average man has to go through in order to consider and start restoration. The decision to restore is not a trivial one and doesn't come easy. In most cases, it is preceded and guided by horrible feelings of loss and anger and so forth. Women should appreciate those facts and respect whatever the man decides to do or not to do with his penis.

So, yes, if the man decides to restore, it is to both partners' benefit. But restoration is the man's decision, and his alone. His body, his choice. I find it highly awkward that some women (and I don't think you're one of those) would deny the man this right for a second time in his life.

[Moralogous]

Lilli Cannon refers to repairing the sexual act mostly from her own female perspective. For the female, the most frequent difficulty with circumcised penises is in the soreness which Lilli vividly describes. This type of damage, the loss of gliding action of the foreskin and basically all of the main problems women have with circumcised penises, can be reversed through restoration. However, the loss of densely innervated structures and several other aspects aren't reversible through restoration.

From the male perspective, restoration greatly increases sensitivity in the glans and inner foreskin/frenulum remnant and helps in many different ways. But it can still not get one anywhere near the original equipment with its specialized tissue and structures. Both is true.

Hey, it's actually not my story. It's my blog, but the story is by my friend Amy about her husband Jeff. Apparently they are both really happy with his restoration for many reasons.

[w.o.f.]

Hey, it's actually not my story. It's my blog, but the story is by my friend Amy about her husband Jeff. Apparently they are both really happy with his restoration for many reasons.
My bad, sorry. I believe they're both happy with it, but can you see where I'm coming from when I say it is the man's decision to restore, and his alone?

[John Barrat Scapegoat]

Checkmate! I thought I had quite well educated myself before entering this forum. But if I had read this work I didn't write like that. I have to withdraw my words.

Does that mean you do agree now that female
circumcision is as bad as male circumcision?

[Frederike]

Does that mean you do agree now that female
circumcision is as bad as male circumcision?

No, I wrote that the loss of 20.000 end nerves and the frenulum probably isn't so terrible as it seems to be. Now I know what the real damage is that is caused by circumcision.

About female circumcision, I have to admit that male circumcision is nearly as bad. However, after the most variants of female circumcision the victim has lost ALL her sexual feelings. Males still have some sexual feelings left, after the surgery, even after the most tight cuts.

However, what makes male circumcision potentially even worse than female circumcision, in my point of view, is that male circumcision is mostly performed on very young infants. Often without adequate sedation. If it is true that this affects the emotional development, than it is very dangerous.

Nevertheless, I believe that it isn't possible to ban forced male circumcision by law. It was possible to protect females, because female circumcision has nothing to do with religion. But male circumcision does in (too) many cases. In a free country it isn't possible to suppress freedom of religion. To achieve that goal a dictatorship is needed.

The only way to stop male circumcision is to convince rabbies (Jews) and imams (muslims) that circumcision is a bad practice. They can instruct their followers not do this anymore. Only when all forms of circumcisions are not related to religion anymore, then it is possible to ban it by law.

Anyway, we are on the right path. Several rabbies are against circumcision and the group of non-cut Jews is growing. So there is hope.

[w.o.f.]

I believe that it isn't possible to ban forced male circumcision by law. It was possible to protect females, because female circumcision has nothing to do with religion.
Female genital cutting is exclusively religious. What gave you the idea that it isn't so?

[Frederike]

Female genital cutting is exclusively religious....

Tell that to politicians and judges ...

Female circumcision is family tradition. No imam or rabby requires females to be circumcised. Those who perform willingly blaze abroad the opposite. Whisful thinking.

[w.o.f.]

Tell that to politicians and judges ...

Female circumcision is family tradition. No imam or rabby requires females to be circumcised. Those who perform willingly blaze abroad the opposite. Whisful thinking.
FGM is not part of Jewish or Western Muslim tradition. But FGM is religious, or religio-cultural. The Abrahamic religions aren't the only religions, even if Western legislators act like it. Also, Muslim male circumcision is not actually religious, but cultural. It isn't in the Quran.

[Frederike]

FGM is not part of Jewish or Western Muslim tradition. But FGM is religious, or religio-cultural. The Abrahamic religions aren't the only religions, even if Western legislators act like it. Also, Muslim male circumcision is not actually religious, but cultural. It isn't in the Quran.

When Germany tried last year to ban male circumcision rabbies as well imams went into rage. Why didn't they when female circumcision was banned in the USA in 1985? That was not so long ago.

[AnonL]

About female circumcision, I have to admit that male circumcision is nearly as bad. However, after the most variants of female circumcision the victim has lost ALL her sexual feelings. Males still have some sexual feelings left, after the surgery, even after the most tight cuts.

However, what makes male circumcision potentially even worse than female circumcision, in my point of view, is that male circumcision is mostly performed on very young infants. Often without adequate sedation. If it is true that this affects the emotional development, than it is very dangerous.

Nevertheless, I believe that it isn't possible to ban forced male circumcision by law. It was possible to protect females, because female circumcision has nothing to do with religion. But male circumcision does in (too) many cases. In a free country it isn't possible to suppress freedom of religion. To achieve that goal a dictatorship is needed.

The only way to stop male circumcision is to convince rabbies (Jews) and imams (muslims) that circumcision is a bad practice. They can instruct their followers not do this anymore. Only when all forms of circumcisions are not related to religion anymore, then it is possible to ban it by law.

Anyway, we are on the right path. Several rabbies are against circumcision and the group of non-cut Jews is growing. So there is hope.

I agree that religion is a very important aspect, and that cutting infants is particularly heinous. Regarding FGM, there are actually 4 different types grouped by severity. The most severe forms are not the most commonly practiced. It is debated whether the majority of FGM victims lose all sexual feeling. The amount of girls subjected to FGM each year is supposed to be around 2 million, and we don't know how many in fact undergo the most severe forms and lose all sexual feeling. There is no classification for the severity of damage due to circumcision, which affects around 13 million boys each year. Some boys lose their penises, some die, and we don't know how many.

[w.o.f.]

When Germany tried to ban male circumcision rabbies as well imams went into rage. Why didn't they when female circumcision was banned in the USA in 1985? That was not so long ago.
Because it wasn't about male circumcision, and consequently Jews and Muslims didn't care.

"Religious" vs. "secular" is not the demarcation line in any meaningful sense when it comes to avoidable circumcisions (i.e. virtually all circumcisions). Some lawmakers try to make it out as an issue of "religious tolerance", but that's just deliberate distraction.

Also, there were religious protests over the outlawing of FGM. Just not from Jews and most Muslims, and these protests were not propelled by a mainstream media machinery that shares their ideology.

[Frederike]

I agree that religion is a very important aspect, and that cutting infants is particularly heinous. Regarding FGM, there are actually 4 different types grouped by severity. The most severe forms are not the most commonly practiced. It is debated whether the majority of FGM victims lose all sexual feeling. The amount of girls subjected to FGM each year is supposed to be around 2 million, and we don't know how many in fact undergo the most severe forms and lose all sexual feeling. There is no classification for the severity of damage due to circumcision, which affects around 13 million boys each year. Some boys lose their penises, some die, and we don't know how many.

Maybe your information is true. I have to do with information on the internet. So far as I know the worse forms of female circumcision are practiced in Holland: including the removal of the clitoris. With only one purpose: to make woman chaste. I have read several recent articles about this topic. Never I have read about expecting American parents saying they want to make their son chaste. That is an important diffence, besides religion.

[Frederike]

Because it wasn't about male circumcision, and consequently Jews and Muslims didn't care...

Exactly. Jews and muslims didn't care, because female circumcision is not part of their religion. Which religion demands female circumcision? Please, give a link of a relevant article. I am interested.

Besides, for me religion is a very clear demarcation line. How about a government which demands me to circumcise my children, because my religion of 'nature' is overruled by laws? I should not think about this. Have you seen the youtube story of the adult man who was circumcised by force?
View this: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K1QBWWbXWck
Do you like scenes like this happen in the USA or in Europe? No way!

[AnonL]

Maybe your information is true. I have to do with information on the internet. So far as I know the worse forms of female circumcision are practiced in Holland: including the removal of the clitoris. With only one purpose: to make woman chaste. I have read several recent articles about this. Never I have read about expecting American parents saying they want to make their son chaste. That is an important diffence, besides religion.

Does it make a difference for the little girl what her parents intentions were? What if they believed removing her clitoris was for her health and well-being? What if there were studies published that supposedly proved the health benefits of cutting off the clitoris?

[w.o.f.]

Which religion demands female circumcision? Please, give a link of a relevant article. I am interested.

Google is your friend.

[John Barrat Scapegoat]

... About female circumcision, I have to admit that male circumcision is nearly as bad. However, after the most variants of female circumcision the victim has lost ALL her sexual feelings. Males still have some sexual feelings left, after the surgery, even after the most tight cuts. ...

Well, from what I understand, it seems
to be unclear whether the clitoris really is
removed and not "just" mutilated and
even whether women necessarily cant regain
some sexual pleasure.

There is lots to search on the net on this man
- I found out about him from a German magazine.

" (clitoris)... is much larger than originally thought, with nerves surrounding the vagina and extending down the thighs. 'It’s about ten or 11 centimetres long, like a penis, and changes shape when erect,' he explains. "

"To reconstruct a clitoris, Dr Foldes removes all scar tissue that has grown over the excised tip and snips the ligaments that support it, hence allowing more of the clitoral body to slip down so that it is exposed as a small tip like the original. The ligaments are then repaired. 'After six weeks the area starts to look normal, but my patients tell me that it takes four to six months for them to feel anything,' he says."
http://www.scotsman.com/news/dr-foldes-and-the-women-1-529993

[Frederike]

Does it make a difference for the little girl what her parents intentions were? What if they believed removing her clitoris was for her health and well-being? What if there were studies published that supposedly proved the health benefits of cutting off the clitoris?

This is exactly the problem which intactivists have to cope. No study has proven the benifits of removing female intimate parts. No western government has questioned the proposition that female circumcision is purely unhealthy.

As long there exists an AAP who states that male circumcision has benefits that outweigh the risks, politicians aren't able to ban male circumcision. There are research reports with the conclusion that male circumcision does NOT affect sexual live. Even in Dutch language. The pro circ movement is of course very happy with these publications and uses these outcomes for their interests.

[Frederike]

Well, from what I understand, it seems
to be unclear whether the clitoris really is
removed and not "just" mutilated and
even whether women necessarily cant regain
some sexual pleasure.

There is lots to search on the net on this man
- I found out about him from a German magazine.

" (clitoris)... is much larger than originally thought, with nerves surrounding the vagina and extending down the thighs. 'It’s about ten or 11 centimetres long, like a penis, and changes shape when erect,' he explains. "

"To reconstruct a clitoris, Dr Foldes removes all scar tissue that has grown over the excised tip and snips the ligaments that support it, hence allowing more of the clitoral body to slip down so that it is exposed as a small tip like the original. The ligaments are then repaired. 'After six weeks the area starts to look normal, but my patients tell me that it takes four to six months for them to feel anything,' he says."
http://www.scotsman.com/news/dr-foldes-and-the-women-1-529993

Yep, I know about this. In Holland too there is a docter who can perform restoring surgery for women.

A circumcised man doesn't need surgery (or tugging) to preserve his sexual feelings. At least according to the AAP. Sexual life is considered not to be affected by male circumcision. That the reality for many man is the contrary, that is the issue.

Intactivists have to fight the AAP, not the USA government.

[John Barrat Scapegoat]

Yep, I know about this. In Holland too there is a docter who can perform restoring surgery for women.

A circumcised man doesn't need surgery (or tugging) to preserve his sexual feelings. At least according to the AAP. Sexual life should not be affected by male circumcision. That the reality for many man is the contrary, that is the issue.

Intactivists have to fight the AAP, not the USA government.

My point is that according to this article,
the clitoris is not actually removed as is often
said, nor is it a forgone conclusion that
the woman never regains sexual pleasure.

[Frederike]

My point is that according to this article,
the clitoris is not actually removed as is often
said, nor is it a forgone conclusion that
the woman never regains sexual pleasure.

Sorry, with these arguments no politician or judge will be persuaded to ban forced male circumcision.

[John Barrat Scapegoat]

Sorry, with these arguments no politician or judge will be persuaded to ban forced male circumcision.

I really am not sure why you would
think I have or had such ambitions.

Somehow, we seem to be misunderstanding
one another.

I am simply reacting to your claims
of one form of mutilation being worse
than another. Before it had seemed
you had agreed that one is not worse
than the other, however then it appeared that
you had changed your mind because
men supposedly can regain some feeling
whereas women cant.

I simply want to know is the one as
bad as the other, seeing as how
Dr Foldes proves there is a chance
for regaining sensation? The clitoris
being mutilated and not entirely extracted.

About female circumcision, I have to admit that male circumcision is nearly as bad. However, after the most variants of female circumcision the victim has lost ALL her sexual feelings. Males still have some sexual feelings left, after the surgery, even after the most tight cuts.

Checkmate! I thought I had quite well educated myself before entering this forum. But if I had read this work I didn't write like that. I have to withdraw my words.

[AnonL]

This is exactly the problem which intactivists have to cope. No study has proven the benifits of removing female intimate parts. No western government has questioned the proposition that female circumcision is purely unhealthy.

As long there exists an AAP who states that male circumcision has benefits that outweigh the risks, politicians aren't able to ban male circumcision. There are research reports with the conclusion that male circumcision does NOT affect sexual live. Even in Dutch language. The pro circ movement is of course very happy with these publications and uses these outcomes for their interests.


Thanks for recognizing the difficulty we face. I don't mean to minimize the severity of FGM, only fight against the unfair prejudice that all circumcision is much less harmful than all FGM, and so the reasons we protect girls genitals with laws cannot be applied to males.

[Frederike]

I really am not sure why you would
think I have or had such ambitions.

Somehow, we seem to be misunderstanding
one another.

I am simply reacting to your claims
of one form of mutilation being worse
than another. Before it had seemed
you had agreed that one is not worse
than the other, however then it appeared that
you had changed your mind because
men supposedly can regain some feeling
whereas women cant.

I simply want to know is the one as
bad as the other, seeing as how
Dr Foldes proves there is a chance
for regaining sensation? The clitoris
being mutilated and not entirely extracted.

Personally I qualify male circumcision equally disgusting as female circumcision. Especially when a men gets numb, there is no difference. Both forms are in my opinion a kind of slavery. The reason why parents do this are also the same: they are willing to modify their beloved child, in order to fit in.

It is not the child who wants to fit in, the parents do. By sacrificing their parental instinct to protect their childeren, they show the community they are prepaired to adapt. It is a age-old surviving mechanism. In the past people who didn't fit in were doomed. This is the reason why it is so difficult to eliminate forced circumcision. Female circumcision is banned, but this does not mean it won't happen anymore.

Note, this is my point of view. However, there is one mayor difference. There are many men who claim that they are happy with their (adult) circumcision and dislike a foreskin. I have read their stories. They strongly believe that cutting improved their sexual live. Compared to that female circumcision is much, much worse. Never a girl was circumcised in order to give her a better sexual live. Moreover, some studies reveal that male circumcision does no harm, in contrast to female circumcision.

Therefore I seriously believe that sticking to the thesis that male circumcision is equal worse to female circumcision will harm the intactivism movement. I think that the goals will more easily be achieved when intactivists admit that female circumcision is worse, but that the suffering of many men, who are unhappy with their circumcision, is enough motivation to do something against it. For example by stopping payments of health insurance companies for circumcision surgery.

[w.o.f.]

Compared to that female circumcision is much, much worse. Never a girl was circumcised in order to give her a better sexual live. Moreover, some studies reveal that male circumcision does no harm, in contrast to female circumcision.
Every single "scientific" "study" ever published that even plays down the sexual effects of circumcision was produced by a rather small band of fervent procircers.

Moreover, there are quite a few circumcised women who are outspoken and adamant about how much cleaner a circumcised woman is, and how it doesn't affect their sexual life "at all". Of course, you rarely ever hear those voices in our Western mainstream media. You only ever hear from those women who suffer from it. It's quite revealing then when some women who are personally affected by and vigorously opposed to FGM decidedly speak out against not only FGM, but also MGM. E.g. Ayaan Hirsi Ali (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFNhM-F089E) and Patricia Robinett (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QTfrLWfl6k) have both spoken out strongly against male circumcision, correctly identifying the damages it does. It's highly interesting that even those opinions are aggressively suppressed in the mainstream media, even when it comes to an otherwise very high-profile person like Hirsi Ali.

[John Barrat Scapegoat]

It's funny, I read your posts and I am on your side,
but you contradict yourself each time.

Personally I qualify male circumcision equally disgusting as female circumcision.


Compared to that female circumcision is much, much worse.

Anyway, to say the one is not so bad because
men have found a psychological defence mechanism
that helps them avoid their fears
regarding betrayal, feeling whole, sexual feeling,
lack of self-esteem, etc., does not make it better.
It only adds another layer to the situation - the
psychological - i.e. living in denial. The physical
stays the same.

Anyway, Fredericke, I gather from
your posts that in your heart of hearts
you dont really believe MGM is as bad
as FGM. Or at most its perhaps its close
but not equal for you.

I have tried to use the sources but somehow
we arent really communicating.

We do appreciate your input here though!

[John Barrat Scapegoat]

I honestly believe that the more
people give female genital mutilation
some special place - the more male
genital mutilation will continue
with its common-place status.

People need to be shocked into
seeing something in a different way.

That is why to say that MGM is not
as bad as FGM, and to believe it will
help MGM causes, are deluding themselves
and harming the cause.

FGM should not be some exotic practice,
while MGM the common one and therefore
"ok".

The principle and effects stay the same.

[w.o.f.]

Ayaan Hirsi Ali presents quite the simple and compelling reasoning in response to the AAP's recent consideration to re-legalize some minor forms of female genital cutting (namely, a "token" ritual nick into the clitoral hood and/or clitoris, which doesn't amputate any tissue).

The proposal --which was well-intended, in that its aim was to offer some form of less invasive token ritual to those who (as it happens all the time!) ship their daughters off to their homecountry to get gruesomely mutilated by some villlage elders-- was nevertheless met with huge outrage, because of the total taboo the mainstream has created around FGM.

However, Hirsi Ali correctly points to the fact that a non-amputative nick into the clitoris, while painful and wrong, is far less invasive than the average male circumcision. So how can it be that the former is outlawed as "female genital mutilation" while the latter remains perfectly acceptable?

[John Barrat Scapegoat]

I should probably add that its
exactly those arrogant mothers
who are circumcising their sons
everyday, who believe that MGM
is not as bad as FGM.

I am beginning to find this
whole belittling of MGM as
quite upsetting. I cannot help
detecting here in this thread.

"...its bad, but really not that bad.."

Sigh.

[John Barrat Scapegoat]

However, Hirsi Ali correctly points to the fact that a non-amputative nick into the clitoris, while painful and wrong, is far less invasive than the average male circumcision. So how can it be that the former is outlawed as "female genital mutilation" while the latter remains perfectly acceptable?

Exactly! And I thought my link earlier
had made that point clear.

[w.o.f.]

And I thought my link earlier had made that point clear.
It did. It's just that much more powerful when this precise reasoning comes from a woman who was herself mutilated and who is an active campaigner against FGM.

[John Barrat Scapegoat]

I say, if you are going to go
on the streets and in the media,
then do it with both FGM and MGM
in mind.

When FGM activists finally take
MGM seriously and as part
of their cause, then we can
stop wasting our time
on needless debates about
who has it worse.

We can join forces.

Also, these mothers who think
FGM is wrong, need to be shocked
out of their minds. They need
a dose of reality of what
it is they are really supporting.

Until then, it will just be two disparate
groups - male solidarity on the one
side, female on the other. Both believing
they are somehow "special" and not related.

[w.o.f.]

John, your posts look a bit like poems or lyrics from afar due to your line breaks. To be honest, it doesn't help the readability either.

[Frederike]

It's funny, I read your posts and I am on your side,
but you contradict yourself each time.
...



No, I don't think that I am contradicting myself. I compared female circumcision with two groups of males. In the eyes of males who are damaged by circumcision and who are unhappy with it, it is equally worse. When I was in the shoes of an unhappy circumcised man, it's clear that I would notice no difference. I would say that MGM is the same as FGM.

But there is also a group of men who are happy with their circumcision and who are thankful to their parents for circumcising them as a baby. Also some men did a circumcision at later age and regret that they waited so long. I have read their stories. Some statistics reveal that about 50% of American men is happy with his circumcision. Comparing to these cases it is impossible to state that female circumcision is equally wrong.

Besides this, why is it so important to determine MGM equal to MGM? The indisputable fact that many men suffer from their circumcision is alarming enough.

The internet is full of warnings against the bad practice of male circumcision. Moreover there are many stories of suffering men and mothers who regret the cutting of their sons. Don't underestimate this phenomenon. Expectant parents read this stories.

I read a comment of a pro-circer. He (or she) was very afraid of this phenomenon on the internet. Be happy with that! This will do your goal far more good than insisting that MGM is as worse as FGM.

[w.o.f.]

But there is also a group of men who are happy with their circumcision and who are thankful to their parents for circumcising them as a baby. Also some men did a circumcision at later age and regret that they waited so long. I have read their stories. Some statistics reveal that about 50% of American men is happy with his circumcision. Comparing to these cases it is impossible to state that female circumcision is equally wrong.
I wonder where you have all that information from. Regardless, you're overlooking contributing factors, such as circumcision being a social norm in the USA and among Jews and Muslims. Of course many men will publically state their "happiness", and maybe even believe in it. But it cannot be ignored that they have a vested interest in viewing circumcision as beneficial: it already happened to them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias).

Plus, there are circumcised women (mostly living in places where some variant of female circumcision is the social norm) who similarly claim they're "happy" about being circumcised.

Most crucially, one cannot quantify the "badness" of MGM vs FGM based on a self-reported basis. A comparison based on the average percentage of amputated nerve endings is far more revealing.

Imho, that whole debate about which is "worse" is entirely beside the point. FGM and MGM are different, but equal. That's all that matters.

[Frederike]

Here are some statistics. Not the original study I read, but these are from an intactivist site. So I assume this figures are correct.

http://www.noharmm.org/bodyimage.htm

[w.o.f.]

Here are some statistics. Not the original study I read, but these are from an intactivist site. So I assume this figures are correct.
Regardless:

Regardless, you're overlooking contributing factors, such as circumcision being a social norm in the USA and among Jews and Muslims. Of course many men will publically state their "happiness", and maybe even believe in it. But it cannot be ignored that they have a vested interest in viewing circumcision as beneficial: it already happened to them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias).

Plus, there are circumcised women (mostly living in places where some variant of female circumcision is the social norm) who similarly claim they're "happy" about being circumcised.

Most crucially, one cannot quantify the "badness" of MGM vs FGM based on a self-reported basis. A comparison based on the average percentage of amputated nerve endings is far more revealing.

Imho, that whole debate about which is "worse" is entirely beside the point. FGM and MGM are different, but equal. That's all that matters.

[Frederike]

...

Anyway, to say the one is not so bad because
men have found a psychological defence mechanism
that helps them avoid their fears
regarding betrayal, feeling whole, sexual feeling,
lack of self-esteem, etc., does not make it better.
It only adds another layer to the situation - the
psychological - i.e. living in denial. The physical
stays the same.

...

I have tried to use the sources but somehow
we arent really communicating.

...

Uhm, about communication I think you are right. At first I didn't understand what you meant to say.

If it is true that men misuse the discussion about MGM and FGM to stay in denial, this is a bad thing. But if I make statements, which I don't believe myself, just to convince someone else, it seems to me worse.

Men who stay in denial don't serious damage the intactivistm movement in my point of view. Intactivists who proclaim alleged falsehoods do. The group of intact men in the USA is growing. If the man in circumcision coma doesn't awake by himself, then his environment or even his son will do. The real danger comes from doctors and researchers who won't believe what circumcision does to many men (or stay in denial, as you said). The only way to fight them is using arguments why forced male circumcision is bad. Fighting them by stating that female circumcision is equally bad has no use, for they will never accept that as the truth and will use it against you instead.