37 comments/ 40960 views/ 4 favorites Circumcise Me! By: Selena_Kitt My oldest son is circumcised. He was nine months old before the surgery could be done (they had questions about his kidney function and tests to do before they could approve it) and although my ex insisted, I was hesitant. It meant general anesthesia. It meant a much greater risk to our baby. In fact, he did have a reaction to the anesthetic - and could have died. All for a piece of skin on the penis. My youngest son is uncircumcised. And if I have another boy, I won't have him circumcised either. There's a lot of research out there about it - you have to do a lot of reading and thinking for yourself to come to your own conclusions. But the American Pediatrics Association changed their stance on circumcision in 1999, stating there wasn't significant enough evidence to prove circumcision was a health benefit. And almost ten years later, we're still talking about it. Should boys be cut? Well, the evidence is clear - there's no proof that it's necessary for any medical reason. Culturally, there are other considerations to be made, of course. But for the majority of the U.S. population, the most prestigious and well-respected voice in children's' medicine has taken the stance that circumcision isn't necessary, and in fact, in itself, causes pain and a risk of infection in newborns who have immature immune systems. The U.S. tends to follow doctors like they were gods in white coats... so why is this still an issue? Why are we still debating? Because, like breast enlargement, vulva enhancement, anal bleaching and hymen repair, the medical community is now billing circumcision as a "cosmetic" procedure. Yes, there are cases when it becomes a medically necessary procedure (unlike the above), when the benefits outweigh the risks, even in adult men. But those cases are actually rare. For most, it is an unnecessary, cosmetic procedure to conform to perceived social norms. (The new African AIDS studies notwithstanding... still, no official position has been taken based on those... yet.) The thing is, nature is pretty good at weeding out the things we don't need when it comes to our body. Darwin wasn't wrong on that point. If men didn't need their foreskin, they'd be born without one. Over time, the foreskin would simply disappear. It clearly still serves some function - and we can guess as to what that is all we want - from sexual pleasure to simple protection. But ultimately, in terms of evolution and science, it makes sense that the foreskin serves some purpose. Many men lament the possibility that they, being cut, might have lost some sensation or sexual pleasure due to their circumcision. And I don't blame them. I know I'd be annoyed if someone told me I might be missing out on some sort of sexual pleasure, and it wasn't a decision that I either made for myself, nor one I could take back. As for whether circumcision leaves a man less sensitive and less able to experience full sexual pleasure... Certainly, it's a possibility. It's all relative. But considering what could have happened during a circumcision, the possible loss of a small percentage of sexual pleasure is the least of a man's worries when it comes to this procedure. Look at what happened to David Reimer. In case you haven't heard his story, David Reimer was born, along with his twin brother, in Canada in 1965. When he was eight months old, a doctor using an electric cauterizing device (instead of a scalpel) slipped during his routine circumcision and burned most of little David's penis off. His parents consulted a doctor at John's Hopkins, who wanted to use David as research material, and consequently they agreed to raise him as a girl, instead of a boy. That lasted until puberty, when David discovered what really happened. He later committed suicide in 2004. Live David Reimer's short, sad life, and then tell me that a circumcision is "worth the risk." It's still an operation. People with knives near your genitals? The brain boggles at the thought that any man or woman would say, "Oh... okay, sign my baby up!" What right do you have to make that choice about someone else's body? Your child may be of you, but they are not you. Until that child is old enough to say, "Circumcise me!" I think it should be a moot issue. That's one of the reasons I won't circumcise any of my sons anymore. I won't make a choice for them about their bodies that they can't take back. The same goes with my daughters (things like piercings, etc.) Unless it comes down to life or death, I won't make that choice. ----- >^,,^ ----- If you enjoyed this, remember to leave some feedback and don't forget to vote! Thanks for reading, ~*~*Selena*~*~ Circumcise Me 2 This essay is neither for or against circumcision, I just want to add some aspects of the custom which seem to have been lost over time. These are my own opinions which I thought were general knowledge but I see no mention of them in any of the essays on circumcision. If you do not agree with any of the claims I make, please state your corrections, objections in the comments section, for these are my opinions, drawn from my limited observations and I welcome your comments, be they good or bad. When the Israelites were enslaved by the Egyptians, some six thousand years ago, the pharaoh had all male slaves circumcised. According to the bible, he did this as a means to identify his slaves but that was not the primary reason. According to the ancient texts and I'm sorry, I cannot refer you to them as I don't remember where I read it, the pharaoh had his slaves circumcised as a means of making them acquiescent or rendering them gentle. It was a common practice in those days for the victors of war, to give their prisoners a choice; "Your foreskin or your life." Taking an enemy's foreskin reduces some of his aggression. Many victors returned from their battles, boasting of the number of foreskins hanging from their spears. When the circumcised prisoners returned to civilian life, they were referred to as gentleman. Consider the foreskin as a shield. A man with a shield can be overly aggressive; with out a shield, he must stop and think or plan his aggression. A circumcised man is more cautious and sensitive to his surroundings. One only needs to look at the prisons in the United States of today; of the convicted felons incarcerated for violent crimes, there is an overwhelmingly high number, maybe ninety percent of uncircumcised or natural men in relation to the over all male population of the U.S.. Again, I must apologize for not being able to prove my claim but there are no scientific surveys that I know of, as yet. Getting back to Egypt and the enslaved Israelites; along comes Moses and frees them. In leading them to freedom, Moses comes down from the mountain with the ten commandments. There is nothing in the commandments that I can see, that states, they must circumcise their new born males. Once the Jews are free, they are no longer required or forced to mutilate the genitals of their new born males but they continue the practice. They even go so far as to make it a celebration. Why? Did the elders discover; that there are more benefits to not having a foreskin? That sexual intercourse is more pleasurable for the male? That husbands and wives experience less genital infections? That the risk of pregnancy is reduced? That young boys going through puberty are much easier to control? When I was a young man, I had a very large circle of friends and I would say that half of them, like myself, were circumcised. It seemed to me at the time, that the natural boys, were more aggressive, more fool hearty, quick to do a double dog dare. In school they got into trouble more often then my circumcised friends. Boys going through puberty do stupid, dumb and dangerous things. In this country, women out number men, something like two and a half to one. At birth, we start out with an equal number of boys to girls but some how along the way; we lose a high number of boys, many of them are lost during puberty or before they reach the age of twenty five. If we reduce the number of circumcisions performed in this country, will the death rate of this age group increase accordingly? The young man who recklessly crashes his motorcycle; was he circumcised? I think not but we need to start asking that question. When I first saw a natural penis, I thought the boy was primitive and I was modern, after all; I cut my hair, shaved my face, clipped my nails and had shed my foreskin. I thought I was superior but now I'm not so sure. By not having a foreskin; my sexual pleasure is enhanced but it may be short lived, especially during sexual intercourse which could leave my partner unfulfilled and less likely to become pregnant. In development; the growth of the glans or head of a circumcised penis is not restricted by the foreskin so the head grows larger, giving the penis the appearance of a lolly pop, unlike a natural's growth which is more like a pencil; more suited to injecting it's sperm. The large round head of a circumcised penis has a greater area of sensitivity, giving the man far more pleasure than his natural counter part, however; the larger head serves as a suction device on the with-draw motions of intercourse thus, sucking the sperm away from the egg. A natural man with that extra layer of skin, can last much longer during intercourse thus giving the woman multiple orgasms. I know that my own wife prefers uncircumcised men but things are what they are. If I want to last a long time, I have always had the option, of putting on a condom. Am I a cuckold because I am circumcised? I don't think so but in comparing married women, I would say, in my opinion, that women who are married to natural men are more likely to remain faithful, however; they are more likely to be abused. My circumcision may be a contributing factor as to why I tend to be passive or submissive with my wife and yet; I can be very aggressive or dominating when meeting a woman who appeals to me. Two thousand years ago, the Romans embraced the Hebrew teachings of Jesus Christ and by doing so, they should have converted to Judaism but at the time, they would have had to undergo circumcision. Not wanting to sacrifice their foreskins, they formed the Roman Catholic Religion. We (note we) even have a holiday named, The Feast of the Circumcision, commemorating the circumcision of Jesus. If the Romans had converted to Judaism by submitting themselves to circumcision, then maybe today; Michelangelo's David would be circumcised and the past two thousand years of human history would have been a more gentle time?