PDA

View Full Version : 2011-03-31 MedCity News - The Case for Circumcision


Kyle
April 2nd, 2011, 17:15
http://www.medcitynews.com/2011/03/the-case-for-circumcision/

The author may benefit from hearing your opinions.

MelancholyLogic
April 2nd, 2011, 17:36
http://www.medcitynews.com/2011/03/the-case-for-circumcision/

The author may benefit from hearing your opinions.

If the author, Samantha Gluck, is clearly not interested in researching a topic before she writes about it then I don't have much hope for our englightening her. I shall write to her nonetheless but it may be better to contact the news outlet directly to express how incredibly biased and callous this article is.

http://www.medcitynews.com/contact-us/

I cannot express how profoundly shocked and disgusted I am to read that article on a site that is supposedly a source of medical news.

MelancholyLogic
April 2nd, 2011, 17:46
There are already a lot of great comments on the article, but this astute observation caught my eye:

Unsurprisingly, the mistakes in this article begin in the first sentence. The foreskin does not cover the tip of the penis, it IS the tip of the penis. Definining the foreskin off the penis is the first step in making circumcision acceptable.

MelancholyLogic
April 2nd, 2011, 22:23
Meet Lisa Cruz, CMT (aka ladydove). She is a self-described "writer of senior care, medical, and mental health Issues. Advocate for seniors, and caregivers. A believer that respect and dignity should not be compromised." She has earned Continuing Education Certificates in many important areas including elder abuse prevention, rights of senior citizens, wound care, infection control, and last but definitely not least medical ethics. From her profile (http://www.brighthub.com/members/ladydove.aspx): "[Ms. Cruz] has experience in upholding her belief that respect and dignity should not be compromised."


She left this charming reply to the comments on the article "The Case for Circumcision":

This is a very well written article. Of course, you will always get a response from men when you are talking about their best friend. I had my son circumcised shortly after his birth and there were no problems. I personally do not apologize or feel like I have to defend my actions when it comes to making a parental decision. I discussed it with the health professionals before I had the procedure done to my son and had his best interest at heart. It is a fact that most men do not even take the time to wipe after they urinate, and I for one think that is a nasty habit. This can cause more damage to their penis, because of the bacteria that can cause infections. Some of these infections can cause problems for their sexual partners later on in life as well. What I am seeing in a lot of the post here is “ego” rather than facing the fact that what was done was done. It sounds like some of you are angry over something YOU did not have control over in making the decision in the first place. I say get over it, move on, and appreciate the fact that someone cared enough to make the decision and had your best interest at heart. I suggest that if a man has a problem with the decision that their parents made, then maybe they should discuss it with the parents. I would love to be a fly on the wall, and be able to hear that discussion.
Comment by Lisa Cruz — April 2, 2011 @ 8:49 pm

Please consider sharing your thoughts with her via the contact page (http://www.medicalexpertwriter.com/contact) on her website.

Kyle
April 3rd, 2011, 07:57
Meet Lisa Cruz, CMT (aka ladydove). She is a self-described "writer of senior care, medical, and mental health Issues. Advocate for seniors, and caregivers. A believer that respect and dignity should not be compromised."

...




People like this make me want to pull my hair out. It never ceases to amaze me how fucking dumb some people can be.

MelancholyLogic
April 3rd, 2011, 12:17
People like this make me want to pull my hair out. It never ceases to amaze me how fucking dumb some people can be.

Indeed. She, like Barbara Kay and the writer of this article, Samantha Gluck, seems to be completely entrenched in furthering circumcision at any cost. I wonder what can trigger such a vast amount of denial. It reminds me of a religion in that it seems completely faith based. They pick and choose information and sugar coat it like some pick and choose stories from the bible.

It's very disturbing to me to read how much control over men's genitals these women want. What they are proposing is an assault on men's sexuality, taking away the right of men to have their own sexual destiny.

Kyle
April 3rd, 2011, 14:39
Indeed. She, like Barbara Kay and the writer of this article, Samantha Gluck, seems to be completely entrenched in furthering circumcision at any cost. I wonder what can trigger such a vast amount of denial. It reminds me of a religion in that it seems completely faith based. They pick and choose information and sugar coat it like some pick and choose stories from the bible.

It's very disturbing to me to read how much control over men's genitals these women want. What they are proposing is an assault on men's sexuality, taking away the right of men to have their own sexual destiny.

Agreed. I tried to point this out, in my own way, but my comment was deleted. I suppose that I was too offensive and snarky.


The Case for Female Circumcision

Female circumcision involves the surgical removal of the clitoral prepuce, and labia minora. This simple surgery is often performed on pre-pubescent girls, but should ideally be performed the first or second day after birth. There's no better way to welcome your baby girl into the world than performing unnecessary surgery on her genitals. Religious or cultural traditions may prompt many parents to arrange for the circumcision of their daughters, but female circumcision has unparalleled health benefits as well.

*** Is It Safe? ***
Many people associate female circumcision with ritual genital cutting in unhygienic conditions, but when performed in a sanitary environment by a trained professional, the risks associated with female circumcision are miniscule. These risks are so minute, so infinitesimal that I'm not going to bother listing a single one.

*** What Are the Benefits? ***
Although the majority of pediatricians consider female circumcision to be a human rights violation, the procedure has many undeniable medical benefits. Surgical removal of the clitoral prepuce prevents phimosis, with the added benefit of greatly reducing clitoral smegma. Surgical removal of the labia minora prevents or reduces a host of problems which affect this non-essential body part, such as cysts, adhesions, vaginitis, furunculosis, eczema, fibroepithelial polyps, papillomatosis, cancer, and many, many other problems. STD infections are also be reduced by this simple principle: when the area available to be infected is reduced, the number of infections are also reduced.

*** Why Newborns? ***
Because newborns are unable to say no, and too small to stand up for themselves, so parents can safely ignore their human rights and perform any irreversible, non-therapeutic surgery they like on their children.


Wow, I can see why someone would be attracted to writing articles like this - it's quite easy when you don't have to cite sources or mention any of the downsides.

Dasher
April 3rd, 2011, 14:45
Why is Samantha Gluck writing this article in the first place? Circumcision became so widespread in the U.S. that the rate reached nearly 90% at its peak in the 1960s -- thanks to the various government health agencies promoting it with millions of taxpayer dollars. The U.S. Army got the "more effective" (i.e., more violent) fighting force it wanted. Thousands of doctors and hospitals got to ring their cash registers from the windfall profits of all these circumcision procedures. Everyone became fat and happy. So why does Samantha Gluck feel she has to proselytize for routine infant circumcision at this particular time? Is it because the circumcision rate is dropping like a rock?

Here's the money quote from her article:
"The newborn days represent what physicians call the ’window of opportunity’ for circumcision."

Besides truthfully revealing the circumcisers as opportunists, Ms. Gluck has to mention the "window of opportunity" because if the boy isn't circumcised when he is born, he is unlikely to want to get circumcised later on -- like after he turns 18. So the only chance to nail him is when he is a defenseless baby and can't say much about it -- except to scream his lungs out as part of his body is sliced off.

Ms. Gluck doesn't mention the dark side of circumcision, such as the culture of violence it creates. The U.S., which has the greatest number of circumcised males in its population of all the countries on earth, is also the most violent. We lead the world in serial killers, nearly all of whom had been circumcised. We have 10,000 murders per year in the U.S.; there are only about a hundred per year in Germany, and only 15 in Japan -- both countries where boys are not circumcised when they are born.

Did you see the Book TV program on C-Span this weekend about violence in America? It was an interesting program, but no one mentioned that circumcision might have something to do with it. As for the rather high number of murders in the U.S. and other violence, some people -- but not the author -- blamed it on the National Rifle Association, gun shows, or kids watching too many Wily Coyote cartoons. Of course, the author never considered circumcision might be to blame, or even partly to blame, either.

There are even some on this forum, who may still be in denial to some extent about circumcision, who don't want me mentioning the connection between infant circumcision and violence in America. Or between RIC and divorce. Or between RIC and you name it. We can't even discuss these connections, they say, because we don't have any data, and all the research isn't in yet. This might be a logical concern if the national discussion of RIC were on a level playing field. But it's not. The U.S. government, through its public health agencies, has consistently promoted RIC since as far back as the late 1940s. It backed off slightly after Congress banned FGM in 1997, fearing that MGM might be next. But it has never changed at heart. It is now spending over a billion dollars (including millions in stimulus funds) to either promote the notion that circumcision prevents AIDS or to spread other disinformation, such as foreskins are dirty and dangerous and need to be washed in a special way. You are never going to have truthful research and data about circumcision if the U.S. government's public health agencies have anything to say about it. Thinking otherwise is naive and harmful to the cause of intactivism, because in waiting for "official data" and "research" about the connection between RIC and violence in America, we would be waiting for a bus that will never arrive.

The decision to circumcise should not be based on phonied up and rigged "science". It should be based on common sense.

MelancholyLogic
April 3rd, 2011, 17:27
Agreed. I tried to point this out, in my own way, but my comment was deleted. I suppose that I was too offensive and snarky.

Loved your comement, Kyle! The first comment that I posted was something similar but it was removed as well. Nice to see they are not just omitting important information like the complications (both physical and psychological) from the article but censoring feedback about the article as well.

Pedantic Nuts
April 3rd, 2011, 19:02
My comment was deleted. That doesn't bother me. Our goal should be to get more people to oppose or at least question circumcision, which we aren't going to accomplish on the comments page of an article like that one.

hastur
April 4th, 2011, 02:58
they delete things that aren't remotely offensive....they promote strapping a baby down and tearing apart his foreskin and glans and then clamping and slicing on his genitals but disagree with that and somehow that must be deleted.

MelancholyLogic
April 4th, 2011, 09:54
they delete things that aren't remotely offensive....they promote strapping a baby down and tearing apart his foreskin and glans and then clamping and slicing on his genitals but disagree with that and somehow that must be deleted.

Agreed. We're the so-called "foreskin fetishists" for wanting people to grow up naturally and intact. But they are rational and thoughtful for wanting to amputate healthy tissue in a painful, risky way without diagnosis or consent despite the fact that the vast majority of the world's men have not had part of their penis sliced off and live happy, healthy lives.

It's that entire article that should be deleted.

rtnt
April 4th, 2011, 10:35
I've had posts deleted by that bitch also, so I'm not going to go on there any more. What an evil bitch she is. She is dedicated to promoting infant male circumcision, and she deletes posts only because the poster is not for infant circumcision.

hastur
April 4th, 2011, 13:36
my post was deleted yet again so now I have posted the following....
Well...someone keeps deleting the pro-foreskin posts.That illustrates just how weak the case for foreskin removal is.If one must keep deleting non-offensive posts in support of not using surgery on non-consenting children that is quite telling.

hastur
April 4th, 2011, 13:45
I've had posts deleted by that bitch also, so I'm not going to go on there any more. What an evil bitch she is. She is dedicated to promoting infant male circumcision, and she deletes posts only because the poster is not for infant circumcision.

Please...don't let the bitch win...that what she wants...be as persistant as the damn scars on our bodies....fight the mutilators to the last.Tell freinds to post,swamp her until her delete finger bleeds like a cut penis.

hastur
April 4th, 2011, 14:32
got deleted again...posted two more

rtnt
April 4th, 2011, 16:37
my post was deleted yet again so now I have posted the following....
Well...someone keeps deleting the pro-foreskin posts.That illustrates just how weak the case for foreskin removal is.If one must keep deleting non-offensive posts in support of not using surgery on non-consenting children that is quite telling.

That would be a good posting on there hastur, and good luck with not having your posts deleted. Most of my posts on there weren't deleted, but some were. I wonder why many anti-circumcision posts on there are deleted while many aren't deleted. Anyways that is really bad to delete non-offensive responses to an article that disagree with the article, so I'm done with going on there.

hastur
April 4th, 2011, 17:17
here is her facebook wall...
http://www.facebook.com/samantha.gluck3?sk=wall

hastur
April 4th, 2011, 18:47
It's really sad.Her facebook wall makes her look like a nice lovely normal person until you see her promoting that travesty promoting taking knives to the penises of baby boys.What leads otherwise normal healthy loving people to such evil?She keeps deleting posts and blocking posts on her vile pro-mutilation article.What turns someone that sick,that deranged that they have no capacity for compassion for those harmed by this barbarism.
Our species is capable of such horror....it's just so sad.What a waste.

Joseph
April 4th, 2011, 20:40
My posts (Joseph4GI) are still up there, but I notice that a particular post of mine is gone, one where I put up a couple of links.

Perhaps posts with links are withheld for moderating purposes? Because I notice there are other posts with links...

If your posts had links, it's probably why.

peterpink
April 4th, 2011, 21:16
It's really sad.Her facebook wall makes her look like a nice lovely normal person until you see her promoting that travesty promoting taking knives to the penises of baby boys.What leads otherwise normal healthy loving people to such evil?She keeps deleting posts and blocking posts on her vile pro-mutilation article.What turns someone that sick,that deranged that they have no capacity for compassion for those harmed by this barbarism.
Our species is capable of such horror....it's just so sad.What a waste.

I would describe her as shallow and poorly educated.

hastur
April 4th, 2011, 21:44
My posts (Joseph4GI) are still up there, but I notice that a particular post of mine is gone, one where I put up a couple of links.

Perhaps posts with links are withheld for moderating purposes? Because I notice there are other posts with links...

If your posts had links, it's probably why.

I have posted zero links,no foul language,no name calling.This one has been deleted 4 times.

Well...someone keeps deleting the pro-foreskin posts.That illustrates just how weak the case for foreskin removal is.If one must keep deleting non-offensive posts in support of not using surgery on non-consenting children that is quite telling.

this one has been deleted twice

The foreskin is NOT a birth defect.
Stop deleting pro-foreskin posts!
Face the fact that some men are harmed.
I wish I could delete the pain I have felt since the early 80′s.
Before the internet,when books in the outdated libraries still claimed circumcision “cured” masturbation.
I can’t delete that pain.I can’t delete the scars on my penis.I can’t delete the wasted years of my life.
Have the RESPECT to leave pro-foreskin posts.
Have the courage to face my words.
Quit adding insult to injury.


and several others..even just one that said nothing but,"the foreskin is not a birth defect"...nothing else,just those words enclosed in quotes,I added nothing else.... have been deleted.

She must be in bed or away from the computer...things are staying up for a while.

rtnt
April 4th, 2011, 22:49
My posts didn't have any links, and I didn't say anything offensive. But my last posts were deleted and I was blocked from posting. Apparently she was tolerating pro-foreskin posts at first, but then with new posts that she read that were pro-foreskin she started deleting them and blocked the posters from posting again.

rtnt
April 4th, 2011, 22:53
hastur, I was blocked from posting again, but you weren't blocked?

hastur
April 4th, 2011, 23:03
I was blocked twice...I've used 3 email addresses....hotmail gives free ones.

alwayspuzzled
April 26th, 2011, 14:12
Has anyone else ever gotten this kind of response before? It seems a uniquely female response, in my experience. I have heard this type of thing a few times in discussing this with women. In some cases, they have even seemed somewhat opposed to circumcision, then they finally get angry and shut off the conversation with almost a smug "what's done is done, get over it, there's absolutely nothing you can do to change it, and that was the decision that was made, so it's final" sort of statement. It's not unlike the response I got from my mom or even my wife.

I have in the past had discussions with women about this issue, and thought I was winning them over. In many cases, they have been opposed to the procedure itself and the pain the baby suffers (many of these conversations took place back when I was in college 25 years ago, when doctors incorrectly believed babies felt no pain), but when it came down to it, they were opposed to the procedure, not the results.

Back during my first attempt at restoration, I had a dear female friend who I'd discussed the matter with in college, and she had always seemed opposed to circumcision. About 10 years ago, we got into a discussion about the issue again, and I excitedly told her that at last there was something that could be done about it, and started telling her about restoration. She got a little angry and dismissed it and said she just saw that as further mutilation in order to correct a mutiliation. It was such a huge setback to me emotionally, since I trusted this friend and her opinions, that I quit restoring and didn't go back to it for a number of years.

I have had discussions with guys about the issue, and have never gotten that sort of smug response. At best, they might joke about it or say something along the lines of "yeah, well, we just have to make the best of it." But never that sort of spiteful-sounding answer that seems to imply that they had the last word about it.

What's that all about?


Meet Lisa Cruz, CMT (aka ladydove) ... "What I am seeing in a lot of the post here is “ego” rather than facing the fact that what was done was done. It sounds like some of you are angry over something YOU did not have control over in making the decision in the first place. I say get over it, move on, and appreciate the fact that someone cared enough to make the decision and had your best interest at heart. ..."

Pedantic Nuts
April 26th, 2011, 15:11
It looks like they've been inundated with so many anti-circumcision posts that the author/moderator/whoever has simply given up.

chrish555
May 3rd, 2011, 21:18
Has anyone else ever gotten this kind of response before? It seems a uniquely female response, in my experience. I have heard this type of thing a few times in discussing this with women. In some cases, they have even seemed somewhat opposed to circumcision, then they finally get angry and shut off the conversation with almost a smug "what's done is done, get over it, there's absolutely nothing you can do to change it, and that was the decision that was made, so it's final" sort of statement. It's not unlike the response I got from my mom or even my wife.

I have in the past had discussions with women about this issue, and thought I was winning them over. In many cases, they have been opposed to the procedure itself and the pain the baby suffers (many of these conversations took place back when I was in college 25 years ago, when doctors incorrectly believed babies felt no pain), but when it came down to it, they were opposed to the procedure, not the results.

Back during my first attempt at restoration, I had a dear female friend who I'd discussed the matter with in college, and she had always seemed opposed to circumcision. About 10 years ago, we got into a discussion about the issue again, and I excitedly told her that at last there was something that could be done about it, and started telling her about restoration. She got a little angry and dismissed it and said she just saw that as further mutilation in order to correct a mutiliation. It was such a huge setback to me emotionally, since I trusted this friend and her opinions, that I quit restoring and didn't go back to it for a number of years.

I have had discussions with guys about the issue, and have never gotten that sort of smug response. At best, they might joke about it or say something along the lines of "yeah, well, we just have to make the best of it." But never that sort of spiteful-sounding answer that seems to imply that they had the last word about it.

What's that all about?

With me, because of all the things I read about circumcision and people being upset about it, I really was messed up mentally because of what people said. Their words convinced me that I was missing something but it also created a lot of madness and sadness in my mind and I was even afraid I would hate my sister for doing it to her son when she had him. I can understand what the person is saying, didn't say it in a nice way though. I was able to get over the feelings that made me so upset every day that tormented me and gave me nightmares, I would rather focus on helping people instead of being upset, it doesn't do any good. It's something you need to be at peace with, even if you're protesting against it you can still be at peace with what happened to you, it was never meant to be harmful, have the right perspective about it too. And please, don't get mad at me for suggesting people be at peace with it. I know you're upset but trust me, being upset only makes your life worse and give you more stress and can make you depressed too. Instead, have positive feelings looking forward to what life will be like with your foreskin restored.

alwayspuzzled
May 7th, 2011, 18:44
"Being at peace with it" is open to a lot of interpretation. I am not sure what you meant by that. But then it's not like a light switch you can just turn off anyway. If I knew how to do that, I'd do it. I think our cases are substantially different, though. Unlike you, these feelings are not something new that cropped up when I accidentally stumbled upon something people were saying on the Internet. I am 45 and from the moment I learned about circumcision when I was 8 or 9 years old, I knew it was wrong and felt it was a violation of my rights -- and I vocalized that. (I didn't even know about sexual sensation and all that, at that age; this was simply a matter of body rights.) This continued for many years, although I only voiced this to trusted friends due to the fact that at the time, you'd be laughed at. And the conversation would pretty much end when the conclusion was reached that nothing could really be done about it. Plus there's the "code of silence" about it among guys -- that basically you are a crybaby if you dwell on it, and that's not something to be admired in a guy in the U.S. -- which is a pretty effective curb on free expression. I think that's pretty much the game Ms. Cruz was playing in her post. And that's why it's offensive. In any case, over the years, as far as I knew, I was the only person in the world who felt that way so deeply. So when the Internet did come along and I began to realize that there are other people who also feel this way, then I began to feel not so alone.

I do understand that solace can be found by taking the view that no harm was meant. And while no specific malice may have been meant, I don't think specific good was meant, either. Like some guys, I struggle more with the issue of circumcision as practiced 45 years ago than today, because that's what applies to me. A parent today can at least look their son in the eye and say that they studied the issue, the pros and cons, thought about it long and hard, and reached the conclusion that they thought was best at the time.

For guys of at least a two or three generations (including mine), parents couldn't say that. Circumcision was on such autopilot that no one knew why it was being done, really. And parents were so trained by society that it wasn't even a decision that was made. And as a guy, you just didn't question it for more than half a second (and you had to keep it all in your mind or you were ridiculed). Aside from vague ideas of cleanliness, the only justification given was so the boy would look like dad or the other boys, which basically became a self-fulfilling prophecy -- the more boys were circumcised, the greater the need to circumcise even more boys to make them look like the rest so they would not feel like an outcast. And so it continued. (Sadly, this justification is still being used even though in 2011 when only 33% of boys are circumcised, the reverse should be true.)

If I'd ever gotten any mileage out of that, I might feel differently. But in my 45 years, I've only been in a gang shower once or twice, so I hardly feel like that was justification for someone to have altered my body for life. Yes, I am trying to restore because that's the best I can do, but I know that I will never really truly get back what was lost. Because for me, what was lost is more than physical. It was a loss of autonomy. A loss of a sense of security. A loss of the belief that my private parts are mine and not a piece of public property for society to make decisions about. A loss of a sense that things happen for a reason and for the greater good.

Some people think there's some kind of great societal wisdom and that if something so deeply ingrained as circumcision continues, that it does so for a good reason. I am not one of those people. I think that sometimes, societies just do stupid things that become self-perpetuating. As an example, take slavery, which has been around for most of the existence of civilization. Just because it kept happening for so many thousands of years didn't make it right.

Blockades in my struggle to "be at peace" with circumcision come down to inconsistencies and untruths that make it difficult for me to believe much of anything. I say untruths because many things, while not promulgated knowingly as lies, may not also be true, either.

I do think parents, and society at large, do a much better job these days of discussing these issues and being open about their conclusions and decisions. But the fact remains that my struggle at reaching peace is shaped by issues of 35 to 45 years ago.

I struggle with the fact that I believe that even if something turns out OK in the long run, if it was done for the wrong reasons -- or for no reasons -- then it is ethically wrong. I struggle with the fact that circumcision was done at the time on the basis of no studies whatsoever into the ultimate effects. Even now, studies of the foreskin and effects of circumcision are few and far between, with each side disputing the findings so much that it's unclear what to believe. So imagine the fact that circumcision was performed on upon millions upon millions of guys like me with very little evidence either way, just because it's what we did as a society. If my parents had been able to tell me that it was a decision they made weighing all the evidence, and reached a conclusion that I may not have liked but they did it with the best of intentions, then I might be at peace with it.

As it is, my experience with my parents was marked by inconsistencies that make it hard to know why it was done or what the truth is. And that's a reflection of society's justifications at the time.

My parents made a range of statements over the years from a very firm view that circumcision was required out of medical necessity just like cutting the umbilical cord, to the revelation that my mom's dad and two brothers were not circumcised -- so in fact my parents should have known darn well that it wasn't required. There was also revelation of a great family debate before I was born over whether my older cousins should be circumcised (they were). All of this indicates to me in retrospect that it was quite clear to my parents that it was something they could have decided about.

My parents took responsibility in the sense that they said it was done and I should get over it. But they never would distinctly say that they decided it and try to defend that decision. They defended the practice in a societal sense but not in a personal sense. And it's all personal. A parent doesn't get to blame society for decisions they made or chose not to make.

Ultimately, in my last conversation with my parents about it (as an adult) before they died, my dad seemed to indicate that he knew it was an option and he didn't know why the practice continues. So I asked why they'd decided to do it and he sort of ducked the issue and I asked if he'd signed consent papers, and he said he must have, but he honestly didn't remember.

I guess my point is that if my parents had been unwavering in their views that this was the decision that was made and that it was done for reasons X, Y and Z, then I could come to peace that there was a reason. As it was, they sort of straddled the fence and absolved themselves of personal responsibility. Now they are both dead, so I will never find personal closure. But ultimately, I have decided that it would be considered a case of negligence. I believe that they knew that it wasn't necessary and that they could have intervened to stop it. But when the circumcision machine (which hospitals were in those days) set up the procedure and said it was going to be done, instead of weighing the options and making a decision, they probably just wanted to bask in the glow of being new parents and just not think disturbing thoughts. So they allowed it to happen, without forcing themselves to think about it. And that, to me, is the greatest travesty, and I have found that's a common theme for guys who were circumcised from the 1950s to the 1980s.

As an analogy, imagine a situation where your mom runs over and kills your dog. Of the two following scenarios, which would you find it easier to be at peace with?

A: She's driving down the street and a kid and your dog both run into the street. There's no time to stop, but she's able to steer the car away from hitting the kid and plows into the dog. You may be upset, but she tells you that in the split-second decision, she had to weigh the options and do the least harm. You could come to peace with that, just as you could come to peace with parents saying they chose circumcision after weighing the options and choosing the least harm, based on information they had at the time.

B: Your mom is off in la-la land daydreaming while she's driving down the street, not paying attention to the surroundings, and plows into your dog when he runs into the street. She should know from training and driving experience to be watching for situations like this but chose to disengage her attention while driving. This is like the new parent who just lets the circumcision machine roll onward, which I think is what my parents did.

I'm not sure I'll ever be at peace with it. I doubt I'll be at peace if circumcision is outlawed. I doubt I will be at peace if I were to sprout a new foreskin that regained every little bit that I lost in the amputation. And I doubt that I will be at peace when I am restored. I would not be at peace if every study inconclusively proved that circumcision saved my life and that I didn't actually lose anything from it and in fact it enhanced my sex life. Because as I said above, the harm for me was the act of circumcision, and the lack of reason behind it based on information at the time, the lack of any justification for it or justification given to me, the fact that I was just another faceless number thrown into the circumcision machine. I can't find meaning and purpose in that, and I can't gain back what it carved out of me emotionally, the time that I have spent thinking about it and feeling hurt and trampled upon without regard to my own personal autonomy.

I just don't know how you come to peace with that. If you know the secret, please let me in on it. I don't mean that in a snide way. I am sincere. I would love to just disengage my own brain and brush aside the whole issue. But for me, seeing the patterns and reading between the lines of society when it comes to circumcision, is something like looking at one of those "Magic Eye" posters that were so popular a few years ago, with the hidden pictures in them: At first you don't see the hidden picture, but when you do see it, it's extremely hard to ignore, and it just won't go away.



With me, because of all the things I read about circumcision and people being upset about it, I really was messed up mentally because of what people said. Their words convinced me that I was missing something but it also created a lot of madness and sadness in my mind and I was even afraid I would hate my sister for doing it to her son when she had him. I can understand what the person is saying, didn't say it in a nice way though. I was able to get over the feelings that made me so upset every day that tormented me and gave me nightmares, I would rather focus on helping people instead of being upset, it doesn't do any good. It's something you need to be at peace with, even if you're protesting against it you can still be at peace with what happened to you, it was never meant to be harmful, have the right perspective about it too. And please, don't get mad at me for suggesting people be at peace with it. I know you're upset but trust me, being upset only makes your life worse and give you more stress and can make you depressed too. Instead, have positive feelings looking forward to what life will be like with your foreskin restored.

Terato
May 7th, 2011, 20:11
Meet Lisa Cruz, CMT (aka ladydove) ... "What I am seeing in a lot of the post here is “ego” rather than facing the fact that what was done was done. It sounds like some of you are angry over something YOU did not have control over in making the decision in the first place. I say get over it, move on, and appreciate the fact that someone cared enough to make the decision and had your best interest at heart. ..."

What a crock of reeking, self-serving SHIT. I would fucking loooove her to look intersex people in the eyes and tell them that they should "get over" having their genitals sliced up and numbed at birth or during childhood so that they look like one sex or the other. I would loooove her to look the women who were forcibly sterilized in the eyes and tell them that they should "get over it" since someone cared enough about them to make that decision for them. I would looove her to look the American women in the eyes who have had their clitorises cut off by their parents to "get over it" since their parents cared enough about them to make that choice for them -- I mean, after all, a girl who has a large clitoris might have it mistaken for a penis, and we all know what a disaster that is.

Except I doubt this person would, since she doesn't have the gonads to do so.

I am 45 and from the moment I learned about circumcision when I was 8 or 9 years old, I knew it was wrong and felt it was a violation of my rights -- and I vocalized that. (I didn't even know about sexual sensation and all that, at that age; this was simply a matter of body rights.) This continued for many years, although I only voiced this to trusted friends due to the fact that at the time, you'd be laughed at. And the conversation would pretty much end when the conclusion was reached that nothing could really be done about it. Plus there's the "code of silence" about it among guys -- that basically you are a crybaby if you dwell on it, and that's not something to be admired in a guy in the U.S. -- which is a pretty effective curb on free expression. I think that's pretty much the game Ms. Cruz was playing in her post. And that's why it's offensive. In any case, over the years, as far as I knew, I was the only person in the world who felt that way so deeply. So when the Internet did come along and I began to realize that there are other people who also feel this way, then I began to feel not so alone.

I completely, completely agree with this, and I regret trimming your post, but in one respect, alwayspuzzled, I don't quite agree with you, though I may be incorrect on this. I would personally give someone who had had their child circumcised decades ago more leeway (not total absolution, of course) for this, because it was, as you pointed out, such an "autopilot" procedure -- many parents literally were not given a choice, it was just done to their child. And when it was presented as a choice, it wasn't really a choice at all -- everyone said that a foreskin would give you cancer, cause infections, etc.

Now, however, I think that a parent who "weighs the options" and then chooses to circumcise IS more at fault, since there's resources like the Internet and there is more open questioning and anger at the practice of circumcision. Now, you can't escape the fact that there is more knowledge about what the foreskin does (knowledge that our society forgot in the first place, it seems) and there is information about why we started to circumcise -- which isn't cleanliness or safety, but to prevent masturbation. I think that parents have fair less excuse now when they choose to mutilate their sons -- or their daughters (we can't forget that FGM still goes on in America under the guise of intersex genital mutilation, and transwomen, of course, are generally born with penises).

chrish555
May 8th, 2011, 08:46
I don't know if I am fully at peace with it. I remember being about 12 wishing the head was covered but not realizing that's how I was born. I have a memory that I always thought was a dream/nightmare but it always felt so real, one day I realize it must've been my circumcision because it felt real but I just remember people hurting me, doing something to me, talking and it was dark. I think I didn't understand anything and my eyes couldn't take light well since I was a baby if this memory really is from my circumcision. I grew mine back, took me years, and got circumcised twice last year because someone I know said he got it done when he was 18 and is happy with it and basically convinced me that foreskins are bad. When I first grew it back when I was a teenager I did it because I read things on the internet that said sex will only be painful for the woman and she won't feel any pleasure if you are circumcised. It basically scared me into it. The person I talked to that told me circumcision is good had never had sex before getting circumcised, he also said it's good to not have so much sensation so you can last longer. I regret getting circumcised again now and have just started restoring again. I admit though, I still have never had sex so I don't know the feeling either way. I just remember the feelings I had when I was younger after reading what other people said with how upset they were and how miserable they were. I began to have those feelings myself and they consumed me. I would rather be circumcised than have those feelings the way I did again. I know people are upset about it being taken from them but I don't understand being so upset with your parents or doctor, it doesn't do you any good and you need to have a good relationship with your parents, you don't need to even ask them why because that still won't change anything. What's done is done. The reason why for yourself doesn't help, not at all. Moving forward is what helps. After everything I still won't call it mutilation, I know people would be upset with me for saying that but I just think that if it can be a religious thing then God wouldn't tell people to do something that would be so evil and be mutilation. It was a temporary thing for some people that weren't obedient, but still, I did have issues with why God would have that done to people but I'm okay with it, I'm not going to be upset. There's times in my life I had grudges against people and I told them I was sorry, even over random things but it helped me to get over the grudge for things they did to me and it helped me had more peace in my life. People can write a letter to their parents if they've had frustrations with them over this just to say they're sorry for blaming them and being upset but still love them and don't want to bring it up again. You can also say that doctors do it for the money but if it was for the money it would cost more, they really don't make much. At the same time though, yes, they do make some money, but you yourself don't know why. Maybe it's just because it was the normal thing to do. I had asked my dad and I'm pretty sure he said they didn't even ask him. I get sick of people wanting to sue their parents or doctor instead of just focusing on restoring. I'm curious about how people are doing on the forum but have a hard time reading posts because there's so much negative and hateful emotions on here, plus a lot of blaming when none of those things will do any good. I can tell what happened to me when I was younger is happening to others and it makes me sad to see people being consumed with the negative feelings about circumcision like I was. Obviously, being upset about it won't bring it back. I remember when I was younger actually buying a time travel book hoping to prevent my circumcision. I was that desperate. I don't get upset with other people if they have it done to their son, it won't do me or them any good, only create contention. You can tell them your thoughts and feelings but it doesn't mean they're bad people. There's doctors on both sides of the argument anyway so you really can't blame them in many ways considering even if they do the research, there's a lot of research/doctors on both sides. You can say that the research isn't valid but the people reading often wouldn't assume something like that. People tend to assume if something is common then it's good and safe and that they should trust their doctor over stuff they find on the internet. Even if somebody says the research isn't valid, they would likely trust their doctor more than the person saying the research isn't valid. I just don't want all the blaming to keep happening, no good comes out of it. Stop asking why about what happened and focus on the future, let it go.

peterpink
May 8th, 2011, 15:08
After everything I still won't call it mutilation, I know people would be upset with me for saying that but I just think that if it can be a religious thing then God wouldn't tell people to do something that would be so evil and be mutilation. I just don't want all the blaming to keep happening, no good comes out of it. Stop asking why about what happened and focus on the future, let it go.

God, by which I suspect you mean the Bronze Age god called Yahweh, since no other god is quite so anti-sex and foreskin-obsessed as Yahweh, is well known for his bad temper and for doing extremely nasty things to people - especially killing or demanding the killing of humans innocent animals, woman and children. Check out the myths in Genesis. Bible scholars say that it was the priests who introduced circumcision to the Jews under the influence of the Egyptians.

It is very normal to ask why circumcision happened as you go through the grieving process. A woman who has been raped will ask similar questions. My mother said I had been mutilated because the doctor said I would get infections because that was his experience in the war, and he was too old to know that antibiotics were already available. He also got his money. Focusing on the future comes at the end of grieving.

Mutilation is the correct term because it is used for female circumcision in cases (types 1 & 2) which are far less damaging that in medical male circumcision.

alwayspuzzled
May 8th, 2011, 21:26
I think we fundamentally disagree on a number of ways of approaching this issue. If your method works for you, then go for it.

As it happens, I believe that in fact it's quite productive to blame and ask why. I believe NOT asking why and NOT blaming is exactly why circumcision went on so long without being questioned. I think for decades, millions of guys thought they just had to get over it and move on because that's what they were told by their parents and society -- a sentiment most crudely made by Ms. Cruz's smug little posting, which started this whole discussion. Why wouldn't routine circumcision continue for all those decades when parents like Ms. Cruz would shut down their sons' after-the-fact protests and shame them into silence? When parents would feel as if they could impose their vision with impunity, never having to suffer repercussions?

At some point, someone has to stand up and say "no more." They have to let the world know how deeply hurt they were by this issue so it will stop being swept under the rug. It may mean personal unhappiness when they might have been happier by just forgiving and forgetting. But while finding an inner contentment may make life feel pretty and happy, but isn't necessarily going to change the world.

Quite frankly, I do think parents should be held accountable. I'm not necessarily talking about in court (I just don't think such a case would go very far in the present legal system). But a grown son is certainly in control of how much of a relationship he wishes to have with his parents. And if a parent made the decision to circumcise or was negligent by not stopping it from happening, and the son disagrees and doesn't get a satisfactory answer/defense/accounting/apology from his parents as to the reasons why this decision was made, then it's certainly up to him how close he wishes to be to his parents for the rest of his adult life. Parents need to live with the fact that they may well have hurt their relationship with their son. The extent to which they experience that is totally up to their son. But I think, sadly, parents experiencing damaged personal relationships is one of the ways society is going to change. It's a shame that some parents will have to live with these types of consequences over a decision that in many cases they spent zero time thinking through (and not intervening to stop circumcision from happening, or succumbing to doctors' pressure, does count as a decision). Stopping to think about the consequences could save them -- and their son -- from decades of pain. The consequences for the son are lifelong; why would that not be the case for the parents, as well?

Bitter? Perhaps. But it's not a situation I chose.


I don't know if I am fully at peace with it. I remember being about 12 wishing the head was covered but not realizing that's how I was born. I have a memory that I always thought was a dream/nightmare but it always felt so real, one day I realize it must've been my circumcision because it felt real but I just remember people hurting me, doing something to me, talking and it was dark. I think I didn't understand anything and my eyes couldn't take light well since I was a baby if this memory really is from my circumcision. I grew mine back, took me years, and got circumcised twice last year because someone I know said he got it done when he was 18 and is happy with it and basically convinced me that foreskins are bad. When I first grew it back when I was a teenager I did it because I read things on the internet that said sex will only be painful for the woman and she won't feel any pleasure if you are circumcised. It basically scared me into it. The person I talked to that told me circumcision is good had never had sex before getting circumcised, he also said it's good to not have so much sensation so you can last longer. I regret getting circumcised again now and have just started restoring again. I admit though, I still have never had sex so I don't know the feeling either way. I just remember the feelings I had when I was younger after reading what other people said with how upset they were and how miserable they were. I began to have those feelings myself and they consumed me. I would rather be circumcised than have those feelings the way I did again. I know people are upset about it being taken from them but I don't understand being so upset with your parents or doctor, it doesn't do you any good and you need to have a good relationship with your parents, you don't need to even ask them why because that still won't change anything. What's done is done. The reason why for yourself doesn't help, not at all. Moving forward is what helps. After everything I still won't call it mutilation, I know people would be upset with me for saying that but I just think that if it can be a religious thing then God wouldn't tell people to do something that would be so evil and be mutilation. It was a temporary thing for some people that weren't obedient, but still, I did have issues with why God would have that done to people but I'm okay with it, I'm not going to be upset. There's times in my life I had grudges against people and I told them I was sorry, even over random things but it helped me to get over the grudge for things they did to me and it helped me had more peace in my life. People can write a letter to their parents if they've had frustrations with them over this just to say they're sorry for blaming them and being upset but still love them and don't want to bring it up again. You can also say that doctors do it for the money but if it was for the money it would cost more, they really don't make much. At the same time though, yes, they do make some money, but you yourself don't know why. Maybe it's just because it was the normal thing to do. I had asked my dad and I'm pretty sure he said they didn't even ask him. I get sick of people wanting to sue their parents or doctor instead of just focusing on restoring. I'm curious about how people are doing on the forum but have a hard time reading posts because there's so much negative and hateful emotions on here, plus a lot of blaming when none of those things will do any good. I can tell what happened to me when I was younger is happening to others and it makes me sad to see people being consumed with the negative feelings about circumcision like I was. Obviously, being upset about it won't bring it back. I remember when I was younger actually buying a time travel book hoping to prevent my circumcision. I was that desperate. I don't get upset with other people if they have it done to their son, it won't do me or them any good, only create contention. You can tell them your thoughts and feelings but it doesn't mean they're bad people. There's doctors on both sides of the argument anyway so you really can't blame them in many ways considering even if they do the research, there's a lot of research/doctors on both sides. You can say that the research isn't valid but the people reading often wouldn't assume something like that. People tend to assume if something is common then it's good and safe and that they should trust their doctor over stuff they find on the internet. Even if somebody says the research isn't valid, they would likely trust their doctor more than the person saying the research isn't valid. I just don't want all the blaming to keep happening, no good comes out of it. Stop asking why about what happened and focus on the future, let it go.