The First Rule of Circumcision Deaths Is: Don’t Talk About Circumcision Deaths

So let’s see:

A baby with a serious heart condition is circumcised, bleeds profusely, and dies. But we’re not supposed to blame it on circumcision, because the baby had a heart condition.

A toddler is put under general anesthesia to be circumcised, and he dies shortly after he wakes up. But we’re not supposed to blame it on the circumcision, because it was probably just the anesthesia.

A hemophiliac baby is circumcised, bleeds profusely from his circumcision wound, and dies. But we’re not supposed to blame circumcision, because the baby was hemophiliac.

A healthy baby is circumcised, an artery is nicked, he bleeds out and dies. But we’re not supposed to blame circumcision, because it was the severing of the artery that caused the blood loss.

A healthy Jewish baby receives a “metzitzah b’peh” circumcision, contracts herpes due to the oral suction, and dies.  But we’re not supposed to blame circumcision, because it’s tradition and not all mohels have oral herpes.

A healthy baby is circumcised, the Mogen clamp slips, and a large portion of his penis is amputated. But we’re not supposed to blame circumcision, because it’s the fault of the clamp, which has caused similar injury in the past.

A healthy baby is circumcised and the doctor takes “too much” skin off, causing buried penis. But we’re not supposed to blame circumcision, because it was probably just the fault of the doctor.

If someone shoots you, and you have a heart condition, and the blood loss causes your heart to race and you die, is it fair to say your death was caused by nothing but your heart condition?

If you are hemophiliac, and someone stabs you, and you bleed profusely, is it fair to say your death was caused by nothing but hemophilia?

Circumcision is 100% unnecessary. The toddler should have never been under anesthesia without true medical emergency. The hemophiliac baby and the baby with the heart defect never should have been circumcised. If it wasn’t for circumcision, they would very likely still be alive.

If a medical procedure is 100% unnecessary and could kill your child, DON’T DO IT.

Screen Shot 2013-03-09 at 1.43.52 PM

http://www.drmomma.org/2010/05/death-from-circumcision.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/brooklyn-toddler-dies-circumcision/story?id=13544632

http://healthland.time.com/2012/06/07/how-11-new-york-city-babies-contracted-herpes-through-circumcision/

http://www.examiner.com/article/new-study-estimates-neonatal-circumcision-death-rate-higher-than-suffocation-and-auto-accidents

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/07/20/Faulty-clamp-causes-loss-of-penis-head/UPI-46771279637719/

http://www.circumstitions.com/death-exsang.html

http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html

Tags: , ,

Categories: Kristen

Author:Kristen Tea

Hello Wise Mamas! I am Kristen Tea; I’m a 29-year-old artist, activist, feminist, eternal student, free spirit, radical human, and proud former single parent. I practice attachment parenting, radical parenting, gentle discipline, and unschooling, among other things. I have been interested in alternative, conscious, compassionate living since I can remember, so transitioning into natural parenting was an easy process for me. I had a surprise pregnancy that was full of uncertainty due to several issues, including my status as a low-income single parent, but I have turned it into the most empowering, liberating situation possible. I am now married to a wonderful partner and expecting my second child in April 2014. My goal is to empower parents and non-parents alike with information that can better their lives. We have enough suffering in our world; it’s time to do something about it, and we can start with our children.

Subscribe

Subscribe to our RSS feed and social profiles to receive updates.

92 Comments on “The First Rule of Circumcision Deaths Is: Don’t Talk About Circumcision Deaths”

  1. March 9, 2013 at 4:12 pm #

    Unfortunately, that is the way out society looks at it.

  2. March 9, 2013 at 5:37 pm #

    Thank you <3

  3. March 9, 2013 at 10:44 pm #

    Precisely. Well said. One day (hopefully soon) the absurdity of this will be exposed and we’ll look back ashamed at ourselves for denying it for so long.

  4. Erica Wijenayaka
    March 10, 2013 at 6:18 am #

    Brava

  5. March 10, 2013 at 1:08 pm #

    Well spoken. You might be interested in this post. http://ripe-tomato.org/2013/02/16/cock-ups-happen/

  6. March 10, 2013 at 2:00 pm #

    I follow on Facebook and am on board with the things you advocate for. I am a mother to a 6 year old and a 9 month old. We co sleep, eat organic, didnt vaccinate or circumcise and believe in enjoying and connecting with our children.
    Im commenting because I get curious about the difference between using fear or using love to get a point across.
    It is terrible that babies die unnecessarily and our maternity care system is broken as you know. But is fear mongering and angry diatribes the best answer? What if instead you wrote supportive stories of people who chose not to circumcise or extolled the virtues and benefits that your family has experienced.
    There is a place for anger and the outrage is just, I merely question how we may best support eachother as parents on a journey that has many missing cultural road signs. In yoga there is a saying that what we focus on we become. As a reader and an advocate, I invite you to call upon the -wise-mother whos name you use, move from your head in to your heart and ask if the commentary above is the best way to serve those you hope to teach. Love and light to you.

    • March 10, 2013 at 2:05 pm #

      A baby just died due to circumcision, so I thought it was appropriate to record and publish some circumcision deaths. I’m not sure what “fear mongering” or “angry diatribes” you’re referring to. But I suppose I’d rather rant angry diatribes than be apathetic. Yes, I definitely do think this post is the best way to serve those I hope to reach, among the many, many other posts we make.

      • concerned cynic
        January 17, 2014 at 4:49 pm #

        I agree with Hilary that your post is not the best way to convince American parents to break with 20th century tradition and to not circumicise their newborn sons.

        But I also agree with Tea that the problem she has put your finger on, namely that American medicine and organised Judaism have many ways of rationalising away botched and lethal circumcisions, is a very serious one. Fear of liability in tort and of loss of career, and the connivance of medical examiners, mean that botched and lethal circumcisions are gravely underreported. The only cases we know of for sure are when the mother goes to the press. It is very understandable if the parents do not want to put their family’s circumcision tragedy in the public domain.

      • Charlie Herbst
        January 17, 2014 at 6:00 pm #

        Are you all serious? Doctors could lose their licenses for life not reporting a death. They’re not gonna risk the money they would lose. Don’t be ridiculous.

      • January 17, 2014 at 6:08 pm #

        You’re the one acting ridiculous. No one said they don’t ‘report’ the death. But the deaths are often ‘officially’ blamed on other causes, effectively covering up the fact that the child’s unnecessary circumcision was the real reason for the death.

      • Charlie Herbst
        January 17, 2014 at 6:18 pm #

        Blah blah. The numbers don’t lie. WHO and CD do recommend circumcised organs. I would go with them.

  7. CircEsAdreim
    March 10, 2013 at 7:56 pm #

    “But is fear mongering and angry diatribes the best answer?”

    Many people are ignorant about the dangers of circumcision. This sort of warning is absolutely necessary.

    • charlie herbst
      April 23, 2013 at 5:51 am #

      That’s probably because the percentages aren’t their. There is a better chance of a kid dying of RSV than circumcision. No one on here talks about that though.

      • April 23, 2013 at 7:29 am #

        There’s a better chance of a child dying from circumcision or having a complication from circumcision than ever needing a circumcision later in life. Yes, that’s correct. The statistics show that circumcision complications like meatal stenosis, scarring, desensitization, buried penis, painful erections, and death are more likely than a boy ever needing a circumcision later in life. You would know this if you ever stopped to do some actual research. There is a better chance of a neonate dying from circumcision than from SIDS. We talk about that often, yet people like you refuse to recognize it. You’re saying that it’s ok for babies to die for a COSMETIC, unnecessary, useless procedure. Sick, sick man.

        Please watch this. It seems that reading is not working for you, so perhaps watching a video will help?

      • circesadreim
        April 23, 2013 at 9:46 am #

        Now Charlie’s just getting desperate. Infant circumcision is an immoral and medically unethical act committed against a non-consenting human being that results in partial amputation of someone’s healthy, functional genitalia, as well as countless other problems that arise from that violating act. RSV is a naturally occurring virus. There is no comparison.

      • Donna
        June 29, 2013 at 11:54 am #

        Do we purposely infect our kids with RSV?

        Circumcision is unnecessary and kills!

        Foreskin is not a disease it’s a functioning part of our bodies that only the owner of should be able to consent to the risk of life and limb for himself, not some ignorant parent and money hungry doctor!!!

      • charlie herbst
        June 29, 2013 at 11:19 pm #

        Really lady. You can’t debunk any of the facts I have stated on here. Your government bases it’s laws and regulations on the findings I have previously mentioned. With that in mind and with the info I have stated kept in mind, foreskin has no function and the risks of disease are too great. If you are having great sex, it’s not because of the foreskin, you may have finally met a guy who can use his equipment. Poor thing

      • June 30, 2013 at 10:09 am #

        Everything you’ve blathered on about has been debunked. Like many other Americans, you have been thoroughly brainwashed into believing it’s acceptable to cut healthy body parts off non-consenting human beings, despite the violations of human rights and medical ethics involved.

      • charlie herbst
        June 30, 2013 at 11:03 am #

        There are medications for people like you. You need to get you some. You can’t “debunk” what the WHO states. It’s that simple.. You just can’t and not be a dumbass. The WHO is the top medical organization.

      • circesadreim
        January 17, 2014 at 6:13 pm #

        Medical organizations are perfectly capable of being culturally – and financially – influenced to disregard medical ethics and human rights. The WHO is no exception. The cognitive dissonance is strong with you, Charlie; not a surprising reaction from a rapid pro-cutter. I recommend counseling.

      • Charlie Herbst
        January 17, 2014 at 6:46 pm #

        Yeah, and you’re one of those who hides in a bomb shelter cuz you think the government is gonna come take you away. Really? Good luck with all that. People like you are the reason marijuana should be legalized.

  8. March 11, 2013 at 3:00 am #

    “We [...] didn’t vaccinate [...].”

    I’m shocked. Partly that you are prepared to leave you child at risk of serious disease, but also that you’re so open about it. In Britain what you’re doing would be a matter for shame!

    If you’ve been misled by the Wakefield controversy Wikipaedia provides a pretty good summary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield

    • March 11, 2013 at 10:58 am #

      Judging by your comment, it sounds like you’re not very informed about the safety or efficacy of vaccines. Did you know that vaccinated people regularly contract and spread so-called “vaccine preventable” diseases? The vast majority of recent whooping cough cases have been in fully vaccinated people. Billions of dollars have been paid out by the vaccine courts to vaccine-injured people.

      The Wakefield issue is a total crock– it has been nothing but a witch hunt. He has been torn to shreds by the media– some of which have ties to the vaccine industry. His work is still valid and has been duplicated many times. Consider the following:

      “Two landmark events -a government concession in the US Vaccine Court, and a groundbreaking scientific paper – confirm that physician, scientist, and AMC Director, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, and the parents were right all along.

      In a recently published December 13, 2012 vaccine court ruling, hundreds of thousands of dollars were awarded to Ryan Mojabi,[i] whose parents described how “MMR vaccinations,” caused a “severe and debilitating injury to his brain, diagnosed as Autism Spectrum Disorder (‘ASD’).”

      Later the same month, the government suffered a second major defeat when young Emily Moller from Houston won compensation following vaccine-related brain injury that, once again, involved MMR and resulted in autism.

      The cases follows similar successful petitions in the Italian and US courts (including Hannah Poling[ii], Bailey Banks[iii], Misty Hyatt[iv], Kienan Freeman[v], Valentino Bocca[vi], and Julia Grimes[vii]) in which the governments conceded or the court ruled that vaccines had caused brain injury. In turn, this injury led to an ASD diagnosis. MMR vaccine was the common denominator in these cases.

      And today, scientists and physicians from Wake Forest University, New York, and Venezuela, reported findings that not only confirm the presence of intestinal disease in children with autism and intestinal symptoms, but also indicate that this disease may be novel.[viii]

      Using sophisticated laboratory methods Dr. Steve Walker and his colleagues endorsed Wakefield’s original findings by showing molecular changes in the children’s intestinal tissues that were highly distinctive and clearly abnormal.

      From 1998 Dr. Wakefield discovered and reported intestinal disease in children with autism.[ix]Based upon the medical histories of the children he linked their disease and their autistic regression to the Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR vaccine). He has since been subjected to relentless personal and professional attacks in the media, and from governments, doctors and the pharmaceutical industry. In the wake of demonstrably false and highly damaging allegations of scientific fraud by British journalist Brian Deer and the British Medical Journal, Dr. Wakefield is pursuing defamation proceedings against them in Texas.[x]

      While repeated studies from around the world confirmed Wakefield’s bowel disease in autistic children[xi]and his position that safety studies of the MMR are inadequate,[xii]Dr. Wakefield’s career has been destroyed by false allegations.X Despite this he continues to work tirelessly to help solve the autism catastrophe.

      The incidence of autism has rocketed to a risk of around 1 in 25 for children born today. Meanwhile governments, absent any explanation and fearing loss of public trust, continue to deny the vaccine-autism connection despite the concessions in vaccine court.

      Speaking from his home in Austin, Texas, Dr. Wakefield said,“there can be very little doubt that vaccines can and do cause autism. In these children, the evidence for an adverse reaction involving brain injury following the MMR that progresses to an autism diagnosis is compelling. It’s now a question of the body count. The parents’ story was right all along. Governments must stop playing with words while children continue to be damaged. My hope is that recognition of the intestinal disease in these children will lead to the relief of their suffering. This is long, long overdue.”

      Dr. Andrew Wakefield is a best selling author,9founder of the autism research non-profit Strategic Autism Initiative (SAI), and Director of the Autism Media Channel.

      See:

      “Identification of Unique Gene Expression Profile in Children with Regressive Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Ileocolitis” PLOS ONE March 8, 2013, available online at: http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0058058

      To see an exclusive interview with one of the study’s key authors Dr. Arthur Krigsman, go to Autism Media Channel

      [i] http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/CAMPBELL-SMITH.MOJABI PROFFER.12.13.2012.pdf

      [ii] http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20015982-10391695.htmland http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/CAMPBELLSMITH.%20DOE77082710.pdf

      [iii] http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Abell.BANKS.02-0738V.pdf (see footnote 4)

      [iv] http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/06/eveningnews/main3915703.shtml

      [v] http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/HASTINGS.Freeman.pdf

      [vi] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2160054/MMR-A-mothers-victory-The-vast-majority-doctors-say-link-triple-jab-autism-Italian-court-case-reignite-controversial-debate.html

      [vii] http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/MORAN.LAWSON011211.pdf

      [viii] Walker S., Fortunado J, Krigsman A., Gonzalez L. Identification of Unique Gene Expression Profile in Children with Regressive Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Ileocolitis. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0058058

      [ix] Wakefield AJ. Callous Disregard: Autism and Vaccines– The Truth Behind a Tragedy. 2010. Skyhorse Publishing, NY, NY. Chapter 1, footnotes 1 & 4, p.20

      [x] For Affidavits see http://www.DrWakefieldJusticeFund.org

      [xi] Wakefield AJ. Waging War on the Autistic Child. 2012 Skyhorse Publishing NY, NY. Chapter 2, footnotes 2-11, pp.255-256

      [xii] Jefferson T et al, Unintended events following immunization with MMR: a systematic review. Vaccine 21 (2003) 3954–3960″

  9. March 11, 2013 at 4:51 pm #

    I understand. I fear we’ll just have to agree to differ.

  10. annoyed
    March 18, 2013 at 8:43 pm #

    You all should be ashamed of youryourselves!! Jump off those soap boxes. You go ahead and not circ so when your son is older and has had so many infections, he has to get circ’d then…..which by the way is more painful at an older age. I know I’ve taken care of several older men who have had to have it done!!
    As for not vaccinated……there really should be a law against being that ignorant!!!!
    I say “slap stupid”

    • March 18, 2013 at 8:48 pm #

      Wow! Your ignorance is really impressive. It is incredibly rare for an intact man to need a circumcision later in life. If you had any idea what you were talking about, you’d know that circumcision causes far more complications than being left intact. I don’t believe for one second you’ve taken care of “several older men” who had to be circumcised later in life, because it’s so rare. Regarding vaccines, the evidence shows us that they are neither effective nor safe, nor have they been correctly or thoroughly studied.

      I have a question for you– is it uncomfortable being so uninformed yet having such strong opinions about stuff? Or do you somehow manage to be at ease with this amount of ignorance?

      • charlie herbst
        March 19, 2013 at 8:45 am #

        Hey Kristen, no offense, but you, and the numerous soccer moms out there who cry about circumcision, need to get your heads out of your butts. Here’s a question for you. Can you give me the exact purpose of the piece of skin that is circumcised? You can’t and be honest. There’s no proven purpose.
        How about this for information miss “informed”. 1. It is a psychological and physiological fact babies don’t have the memory capacity to remember the surgery, or any surgery for that matter, that may occur during infancy. 2. That flap of skin that has no proven purpose causes a higher rate Stds, infections, and causes ridicule for the sole reason that not being circumcised is unacceptable in most societies. 3. Because of what I have stated in #2, the U.S. military will not accept a man unless he has been circumcised. These are some cold hard truths. This is why the fathers should step in and shut you women, and all other soccer moms like you, up.

      • March 19, 2013 at 10:14 am #

        Your comment is so inaccurate I barely know where to start. I see that you are OBSESSED with this blog, due to your multiple creepy comments. It really upsets you that you were circumcised against your will, huh? Very sad. If only someone had been there to inform your mother. Everything you said is a myth and proves how ignorant you are about this topic. I am SO fascinated by people who form such strong opinions on a topic they clearly know nothing about. You talk so loudly, but you know so little. How are you comfortable with that?

        The foreskin has MULTIPLE sexual and immunological functions. WOMEN get more infections and STDs than intact men. The U.S. has one of the highest circumcision rates AND one of the highest STD rates in the world. “not being circumcised is unacceptable in most societies” <— LOL! Oh really? You know that 80% of men in the world are intact, right? You know that circumcision is virtually non-existent aside from in Jewish populations and in America, right? You know that almost all of Europe is intact, right? You are so silly :) Oh, and that part about the U.S. military not accepting intact men is FALSE. And ridiculous. Do you know that you're lying, or do you actually believe yourself?

        Here are some of the functions of the foreskin, since you clearly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about:

        The Protective and Hygienic Function of the Foreskin

        The foreskin, like the eyelid, also serves an important protective and hygienic function. The foreskin protects the delicate glans of the penis and puts the urethra at a distance form its environment, protecting it from foreign contaminants of all kinds while simultaneously shielding the penis from injury. It is a double fold of skin which offers two layers of protection.
        Natural secretions of oil are achieved by sebaceous glands which are abound in the foreskins inner lining, these are not present in the glans. [1] They are also present in the eye lid and perform the same function in both places. They secrete the oils necessary to keep the glans surface soft, moist, smooth, warm, sensitive, and with a healthy glistening red or purple colour. This moisturizer also maintains PH balance, and optimal cleanliness. This is required to keep the surface of the glans healthy and clean via the cleaning effects of mucous secretions. Again, this function is analogous to the eye lid. The glans are meant to be an internal organ covered and protected from the outside world.
        In the genitally intact penis the urine stream flushes out the urethra and foreskin of foreign microbes. In healthy individuals, urine is sterile and has a disinfectant quality. Researchers have demonstrated that the swirling action of urine as it rushes through the foreskin flushes it out effortlessly and naturally. [2] Though urine passes through the foreskin every day, the inner foreskin is remarkably free of urea–a by-product of liver metabolism that is secreted in urine. Studies demonstrate that washings from the foreskin are rich in fructose, acid phosphatase, and mucin, but never urea. It appears that the secretions of seminal vesicles, prostate, and urethral mucous glands, collectively or individually, keep the foreskin clear and clean as well. [3] At birth, the foreskin is usually attached to the glans(head) of the penis, akin to how a fingernail is attached to a finger. [4] At infancy the foreskins tubular neck(prepucial orifice) is often long and narrow while the sphincter muscle in the tip of the foreskin keeps its opening closed. This acts as an extension of the urethra. [5] [6] Together, these properties prevent the entry of contaminants. The idea that the foreskin is "dirty" or "unclean" is a scientifically unfounded superstition. The intact penis is naturally clean and maintains a level of hygiene that is optimal when compared to a penis that has been altered by circumcision.
        Due to the open wounds and raw bleeding flesh, the circumcised penis needs much more care after circumcision. The surgically externalized glans is dirty rather then clean because of constant exposure to dirt, abrasion and contaminants. [7] Circumcised boys are also found to be more likely to develop balanitis, meatitis, coronal adhesions and meatal stenosis. [8]

        The Immunological Function of the Foreskin

        The foreskins inner fold and the glans of the penis are comprised of mucous membrane tissue. These are also present in your eyes, mouth, and all other bodily orifices including the female genitals. These are the first line of immunological defensive for the body's orifices. These mucous membranes perform many immunological and hygienic functions. Certain components such as Langerhans cells [9] plasma cells [10] apocrine glands, [11] and sebaceous glands, [12] [13] [14] [15], collectively secrete emolliating lubricants. [16] Apocrine glans perform a crucial function by secreting enzymes such as lysosomal enzymes, cathepsin B, chymotrypsin, and neutrophil elastase. [17] There is also strong research to suggest that lysozyme can protect against HIV infection [18] Apocrine glands also produce cytokine, [19] which is a very important nonantibody protein that generates immune response when in contact with specific agents. Plasma cells which increase in number in response to pathogens levels, secrete immunoglobulin. [20]
        It is also very important to note that Langerhans cells that are present in the foreskin produce Langerin, a substance that has been proven to kill the HI-virus on contact. [21] All of these function to sequester and “digest” foreign pathogens. All these substances play an important role in protecting the penis from viral and bacterial pathogens. The immunological functions of the human prepuce have been extensively documented by respected researchers for quite some time. [22]

        In infancy, simple sugars in breast milk, like antibacterial oligosaccharides, are acquired from the mothers milk and excreted in urine. University studies have shown that these substances cling to the mucosal lining of the inner foreskin and protect against urinary tract infections [23] , as well as infections in other parts of the body. [24] Babies excrete in their urine about 300-500 milligrams of oligosaccharides each day. These compounds prevent virulent strains of Escherichia coli from adhering to the mucosal lining of the entire urinary tract, including the foreskin and glans. For these reasons breast-milk is highly efficacious at preventing UTI. [25] Rigorous study's have repeatedly demonstrated that breast feeding protects against urinary tract infections. [26] [27] [28] Researchers have shown that premature foreskin retraction can expose the penis to hospital strains of Escherichia coli and can result in UTI. [29] Hence the protective function of the foreskin is in the child's best interest especially during chemically treated diaper wearing years where feces mixed with urine can not only contaminate the permanently exposed urinary meatus but also the amputation wound from the circumcision surgery itself.
        It is important to note that women have a higher risk of UTI. This is because the shorter urethra offers less protection via the immunological function of the urethra's mucosal lining. By the same observation we see that the tubular tip of the foreskin and its mucosal lining act as an extension of the urethra, hence providing more of that same protection via mucosa immunology and the adherence of antibacterial substances in breast milk. Understandably, removal of the foreskin destroys all this functionality.

        References

        ↑ Hyman AB, Brownstien MH. Tyson's "glands": ectopic sebaceous glands and papillomatosis penis. Arch Dermatol 1969 Jan;99(1):31-6
        ↑ Parkash S, Jeykumar S, Subramanyan K, Chaudhuri S. Human Subpreputial collection: its nature and formation. J Urol 1973 Aug 110(2):211-2
        ↑ Parkash S. Penis: some facts and fancies. Journal of Physician's Association pf Madras June 1982: pp.1-13
        ↑ Diebert GA. The separation of the prepuce in the human penis. Anatomical Record 1993 Nov;57(4):387-99.
        ↑ Hunter RH. Notes on the development of the prepuce. Journal of Anatamy 1935 Oct;70(1):6875.
        ↑ Glenister TW. A consideration of their process involved in the development of the prepuce in man. Br J Urol 1956 Sep;28(3):243-9
        ↑ Van Howe RS. Variability in penile appearance and penile findings: a prospective study. Br J Urol 1997; 80: 776-782.
        ↑ Van Howe RS. Variability in penile appearance and penile findings: a prospective study. Br J Urol 1997; 80: 776-782.
        ↑ Weiss GN, Sanders M, Westbrook KC. The distribution and density of Langerhans cells in the human prepuce: site of diminished immune response? Isr J Med Sci 1993 Jan;29(1);42-3
        ↑ Flower PJ, Ladds PW, Thomas AD, Watson DL. An immunopathologic study on the bovine prepuce. Vet Pathol 1983 Mar;20(2):189-201.
        ↑ Ahmed A, Jones AW. Apocrine Cystadenoma: a report of two cases occurring on the prepuce. Br J Dermatol 1969 Dec; 81(12):899-901.
        ↑ Hyman AB, Brownstien MH. Tyson's "glands": ectopic sebaceous glands and papillomatosis penis. Arch Dermatol 1969 Jan;99(1):31-6
        ↑ Delbanco E. Über das gehäufte Aufreten von Talgdrusen an der Innerflähe des Präputium. Monatshefte für praktishe Dermatologie 1904; 38:536-8.
        ↑ Piccinno R, Carrel C-F, Menni S. et al. sebacous glands mimicking molluscum contagiosum Acta Derm Venerol1990;70:344-5.
        ↑ Krompecher St. Die Histologie der Absonderung fur Smegma Praeputi. Anatomischer Anzeiger 1932; 75:170-176.
        ↑ Parkash S, Jeykumar S, Subramanyan K, Chaudhuri S. Human Subpreputial collection: its nature and formation. J Urol 1973 Aug 110(2):211-2
        ↑ Frohlich E Shamburg-Lever G, Klesses C. Immunelectron microscopic localization of cathepsin B in human apocrine glands. J Cutan Pathol 1993 Feb;20(1):54-60
        ↑ George Hill Summary of evidence that the foreskin and lysozyme may protect against HIV infection.7 September 2003 http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/hill1/
        ↑ Ahmed AA, Nordlind K, Schultzberd M, Liden S. Immunohisto chemical localization of IL-1 alpha-, IL-1 beta-, IL-6- and TNF-alpha-like immunoreactivities in human apocrine glands Arch
        ↑ Flower PJ, Ladds PW, Thomas AD, Watson DL. An immunopathologic study on the bovine prepuce. Vet Pathol 1983 Mar;20(2):189-201.
        ↑ de Witte L, Nabatov A, Pion M, et al. Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1 transmission by Langerhans cells. Nat Med 2007 Mar;13(3):367-71 http://www.cirp.org/news/healthday2007-03-05/
        ↑ P M Fleiss, F M Hodges, R S Van Howe. Immunological functions of the human prepuce. SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED INFECTIONS (London), Volume 74, Number 5, Pages 364-367, October 1998.http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/fleiss3/
        ↑ Hanson LA, Karlsson B, Jalil F, et al. Antiviral and antibacterial factors in human milk. In: Hanson LA, ed. Biology of Human Milk. New York Raven Press; 1988. pp. 141-57
        ↑ Coppa GV, Gabrielli O, Giorgi P, Catassi C, Montanari MP, Veraldo PE, Nichols BL. Preliminary study of breast feeding and bacterial adhesion to uroepithelial cells. Lemcet 1990 Mar 10;335(8689):569-71.
        ↑ Gothefors L, Olling S, Winberg J. Breastfeeding and biological properties of faecal E. coli strains. Acta Paediatr Scand 1975 Nov;54(6):807-12
        ↑ Mårild S. Breastfeeding and Urinary Tract Infections. Lancet 1990;336:942
        ↑ Pisacane A, et al. Breastfeeding and urinary tract infection. The Lancet, July 7, 1990, p50
        ↑ Pisacane A, Graziano L, Mazzarella G, et al. Breast-feeding and urinary tract infection. J Pediatr 1992;120:87-89.
        ↑ Winberg J et al. The Prepuce: A Mistake of Nature? Lancet 1989, pp.598-99.

      • Circesadreim
        March 19, 2013 at 10:35 am #

        Charlie’s ignorance just got exposed – big time – with that question. It’s clear he has no idea what he’s yapping on about …

        Not only is he CLEARLY misinformed about the importance and function of foreskin, but he also seems to think that just because a person *might* not remember something it makes a violation against them OK. Not.

        He also seems to have fallen for the myth and misconception about genital mutilation being some sort of ‘solution’ for STDs (when America – a country that routinely cuts baby boys – actually has HIGHER rates of such things than other developed countries that do NOT).

        And he is fully wrong about the military part. There is no such requirement for joining.

        So much ignorance in this country about the subject … and the barbarity of genital mutilation against baby boys continues because of it.

    • CircEsAdreim
      March 18, 2013 at 10:45 pm #

      The people who need to be ashamed of themselves are those who think they’ve got some sort of ‘right’ to amputate part of their child’s healthy body.

      This practice is medically unethical when performed non-therapeutically by force.

      It is also a human rights violation.

    • Donna
      June 29, 2013 at 12:02 pm #

      You are a moron…Only brainwashed Americans believe this crap!
      Did you not know the rest of the world is intact with no issues? Did you know your country is the sexually sickest developed country, even most intact third world nations are healthier than you!
      The rest of the world is appalled by the US and your lack of common sense of basic human anatomy!

  11. KElizMom
    March 19, 2013 at 6:03 am #

    I’m assuming that you’re against abortion too, right? That is 100% unnecessary and kills every child. Just wondering.

    • March 19, 2013 at 10:16 am #

      Red herring alert! Thanks for playing :)

  12. charlie herbst
    March 19, 2013 at 9:00 am #

    Hey Kristen, where’s the father? Was he circumcised? What are his views? You do realize the radical hippy movement died in the 70s, right? You’re kind of a hypocrite when you call yourself an eternal student, but aren’t educating your kid.

    • March 19, 2013 at 10:16 am #

      Your defensiveness is incredibly transparent. I feel so bad for you :( My son’s father had a botched circumcision, in fact. He hated his penis because his circumcision wound didn’t heal correctly and left adhesions and skin bridges (a common side effect of circumcision). I’m just going to LOL at the notion that I’m not educating my child :) Keep on taking your rage out on me; I can handle it!

      • charlie
        March 19, 2013 at 5:04 pm #

        That’s a one in a million occurrence, but I can give stories where a man was ridiculed or had infection set in. The same odds will give you SIDS and RSV. The facts are what they are. The flap of skin being circumcised is nothing other than an annoyance that can cause problems. I’m not defensive. I’m married and I have two boys. Matters such as this should be left to men in my opinion because you women cannot possibly know what goes on with a man’s anatomy, and you should find a subject you know about.

      • March 19, 2013 at 7:05 pm #

        I may be a woman, but I’m the one with a foreskin :) Betchya didn’t know that women have foreskins, right?? It’s called the prepuce, or clitoral hood, and it serves the exact same functions as the male foreskin; it is the exact same thing in the womb. I am the one in this conversation who knows what it’s like to have intact genitals– you don’t, unfortunately. You keep claiming that the foreskin is just an annoyance– how would you know? You haven’t had one since birth. Once again, you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about and it’s painfully obvious. Your comments are embarrassingly ignorant– everyone who has researched circumcision knows you’re full of shit.

    • Circesadreim
      March 19, 2013 at 10:37 am #

      Doesn’t matter what anyone’s ‘views’ are. There is no valid moral or medically ethical argument for forced non-therapeutic amputation of body parts.

  13. Nicole Donald
    March 19, 2013 at 10:45 am #

    What is up with all of the attacks?!! If you don’t like the content posted on this website then don’t read it! There are plenty of pages dedicated to supporting your ignorant and uninformed views on these topics. Seriously, do some actually research before you argue with facts and make yourself look so extremely ignorant. This is ridiculous. Thank you for sharing Kristen! This information is so important. <3

    • charlie
      March 19, 2013 at 5:11 pm #

      Really. I’m a 37 year old male with 2 boys and a degree. I think when it comes to man’s anatomy, you should leave those decisions to men and stay out of it. You don’t know what you are talking about and it shows. The numbers are quite clear.
      Muslims have the highest circumcision rate in the world. Islam also is the most sexist religion and the most clean. I’m not religious. Just saying. Coincidence?
      I’m ignorant, but you can’t even type. Really? I have researched the subject. I think you women on here have a baseless argument. Show me some numbers.

      • March 19, 2013 at 7:15 pm #

        Oooh you have a degree?! Wow, that’s so impressive! It’s sooooo hard to get a degree these days– you must be so proud! Yes, that is sarcasm. Having a degree obviously does not prevent rampant ignorance, as you are proving. You are correct that Muslims also circumcise, but that doesn’t take away your absurdly ignorant statement that most other cultures around the world circumcise– that is utter bullshit. And more proof that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

        You want numbers? Will you actually read if we provide them? Here is a bunch of info; good luck! The truth hurts sometimes. Read, and try to form a factual response rather than fling pathetic insults:

        -Cut vs. Intact Outcome Statistics:

        Out of 100 Circumcised boys:

        75 will not readily breastfeed post-op

        55 will have adverse reactions from the surgery

        35 will have post-op hemorrhaging to one degree or another

        31 will develop meatal ulcers

        10 will need to have the circumcision surgery repeated to fix prior surgical problems/error
        8 will suffer infection at the surgical site

        3 will develop post-operative phimosis

        2 will have a more serious complication (seizure, heart attack, stroke, loss of penis, death)

        1 will require additional immediate surgery and sutures to stop hemorrhage

        1 will develop fibrosis

        1 will develop phimosis

        1 will be treated with antibiotics for a UTI (urinary tract infection)

        1 will be treated with antibiotics for surgical site infection

        Of those who do receive pain medication for the surgery (about 4% of those boys undergoing circumcision in the U.S.) some will have adverse reactions to the pain medication injected

        Out of 100 Intact boys:

        2 will be treated with antibiotics for a UTI (fewer if the foreskin is never forcibly retracted)

        1 will be told to get cut later in life for one reason or another (fewer if the foreskin is never forcibly retracted)

        -The Dutch Circumcision Policy:

        “The Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) has condemned non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors and urged its members to discourage the practice. The statement points out that prophylactic or preventive circumcision of normal male infants and boys confers no health benefit; carries many risks of harm and damage; has an adverse effect on sexual function and bodily appearance; and is a violation of the child’s right to physical integrity.”

        -Functions of the Foreskin: http://www.drmomma.org/2009/09/functions-of-foreskin-purposes-of.html

        -Myths About Circumcision You Likely Believe: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/myths-about-circumcision-you-likely-believe

        -Circumcision, Ethics, and Medicine: http://www.circumcision.org/ethics.htm

        -More Circumcision Myths Debunked: http://www.mothering.com/community/a/to-not-circumcise-or-to-not-circumcise-there-is-no-question

      • charlie herbst
        March 19, 2013 at 9:05 pm #

        Still not convinced? here are some more cold hard facts.

        Carcinogenic subtypes of human papillomavirus (HPV)—which are believed to cause 100% of cervical cancers, 90% of anal cancers, and 40% of cancers of the penis, vulva, and vagina —have also been associated with lack of circumcision in men. A Ugandan RCT found a lower prevalence of high-risk HPV subtypes among men in the circumcised group [ . In a South African trial, circumcision was also associated with a lower prevalence of high-risk HPV subtypes. These prevalence associations may result from an effect of circumcision on HPV acquisition by men, its persistence, or both. The Ugandan RCT also found incidence of high-risk HPV infection among women to be lower among those with circumcised male partners .

        The lifetime risk for a U.S. male of ever being diagnosed with penile cancer is 1 in 1,437. In a retrospective analysis of 89 cases of invasive penile cancer diagnosed from 1954 through 1997, 98% were in uncircumcised men; of 118 cases of carcinoma in situ, 84% were in uncircumcised men. Schoen published a retrospective review of 5 studies with 592 cases of invasive penile cancer in the United States; none of the cases were in men who had been circumcised in infancy.

        In a meta-analysis of male circumcision status and cervical cancer in female partners, data from 7 case-control studies were pooled [33]. Circumcision was associated with significantly less HPV infection in men. In an analysis restricted to monogamous women, there was a nonsignificant reduction in the odds of having cervical cancer among women with circumcised partners (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.49-1.14). When the couples with men with 5 or fewer lifetime partners (40% of the study population) were excluded, there was a significantly reduced odds of cervical cancer in female partners of circumcised men compared with the female partners of uncircumcised men (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.23-0.79).

        Studies have consistently demonstrated decreased incidence of urinary tract infections (UTIs) among circumcised compared with uncircumcised boys. A meta-analysis including 18 studies found a pooled UTI prevalence of 20.1% among febrile uncircumcised boys <3 months of age and a prevalence of 2.4% among febrile circumcised boys <3 months of age. Another systematic review included 12 studies and over 400,000 children and concluded that male circumcision was associated with a significantly reduced risk of UTI (OR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.08-0.20; p<0.001). CDC

      • March 19, 2013 at 10:07 pm #

        Charlie, I read everything you wrote here, and it’s all stuff that has been thoroughly debunked by the plethora of information I’ve already left for you. There are two sides to this story, and you have yet to read the other side. There is a much greater chance of a woman getting breast cancer than any of the issues you listed, so does that mean you believe baby girls should get their breast tissue removed at birth? If you are advocating for “preventative” surgery for a rare health issue that is unlikely to ever exist and is easily treated by non-surgical means, surely you must think that preventing large numbers of breast cancer is worth the surgery? Or, as I said before (not that you’re actually reading any of this), what about amputating the labia and clitoral hood to prevent UTIs in women? Penile cancer is incredibly rare, in fact men have a higher chance of getting breast cancer– yes BREAST cancer– than penile cancer. So, since men are more likely to get breast cancer than penile cancer, and men don’t lactate or need their breast tissue, every baby boy should have that surgery as well?

        Try to think critically. You can do this. I believe in your critical thinking skills. Open your mind for a minute, read the information I have posted here, and don’t comment any more until you’ve become informed. You have to at least be willing to consider the other side in order to have an effective debate. I have engaged you this far, but it’s ridiculous if you refuse to understand where we are coming from and why we are against circumcision. You seem kind of crazy and like you are completely unable to fathom the possibility that cutting a child’s genitals for NO REASON is unethical, so this conversation is pointless. Read or find something better to do.

      • charlie herbst
        March 19, 2013 at 9:07 pm #

        the dutch policy is not very reputed. ugly for you.

      • March 20, 2013 at 8:30 pm #

        LOL says who? You’re just fabricating stuff in order to stay comfortable in your denial.

      • Donna
        June 29, 2013 at 12:18 pm #

        You are a circumcised man who has had no experience with a foreskin to base any of your gum flapping on…Me on the other hand am an intact female, I had issues with my foreskin at one point and let me tell you having my parts exposed, even for the very short time it was, decreased my sensitivity so I know very well what is happening to your glans and I pity you :(

        Secondly, as a sexually active female, I have more experience with penises than you do. The difference for me is immense! I’m talking knee knocking explosive multiple orgasms with intact and sore mindless jackhammering that leaves me blood spotting with a circumcised man.

        Also, the orgasms and reactions from an intact and circumcised men are like night and day. The things I do to an intact man has him climbing walls but, honestly, I have had circumcised men outright tell me the can’t feel what I’m doing!

  14. Jackie
    March 19, 2013 at 11:43 am #

    I feel bad for Charlie. You can tell he is hurting, and lashing out on Kristen over his circumcision. I would be pretty upset to if my foreskin was removed, and I found out later that my parents had made a horrible mistake, and I actually needed it for genital protection, and sexual satisfaction.

    Its hard to take that all in at once, BUT that is why we do what we do! To stop this from happening to other children!

    • charlie
      March 19, 2013 at 4:59 pm #

      You can tell you are a blond because you aren’t very bright. You’re a woman. What do you know about a man’s penis, because if you were a man, you’d know that when a man is erect, the skin doesn’t cover the penis head. You are the main reason women should not decide male anatomy issues. You don’t know what you are talking about. The skin increases infection and STD risks by 20%. Not a lot, but enough. Do your homework

      • March 19, 2013 at 6:58 pm #

        It’s interesting how you attempt to insult people rather than stick to the facts. It’s very transparent– you obviously don’t actually believe in your words at all. You’re just mad. Jackie’s husband is intact, ya fool :) She knows very well the foreskin’s sexual benefits, and she never claimed that the foreskin covers the head of the penis while erect. Reading comprehension skills again! YOU have no idea what you’re talking about. As I said before, WOMEN get more infections and STDs than intact men– so I suppose you think all baby girls should have their labia trimmed off at birth? If not, you’re a hypocrite. You’re all about cutting genitals to prevent infection and STDs, right? You’ve just made a great case for female circumcision. And before you insist that female circumcision is so different than male circumcision, please take a moment to research Type I, the most common form of female circumcision, which is LESS invasive and LESS harmful than male circumcision. Many of us commenting here have been researching circumcision for several years, and we can clearly see that you are ignorant. It’s embarrassing for you :(

  15. Jackie
    March 19, 2013 at 11:46 am #

    “1. It is a psychological and physiological fact babies don’t have the memory capacity to remember the surgery, or any surgery for that matter, that may occur during infancy.”

    ^^ You subscribe to this school of thought?

    So if I was drugged, and rapped that is acceptable to you? You think it is A OK to violate another human being as long as we make sure they can not remember the act of violence?

    • charlie
      March 19, 2013 at 4:55 pm #

      Really. That’s all you got. Comparing being “rapped”, I’m assuming you mean raped, and drugged to circumcision is ridiculously stupid. We are talking about a piece of skin that is annoying in a way a mole might be. It poses no significant use, and the skin can cause health problems.

      • March 19, 2013 at 6:42 pm #

        “It poses no significant use” <– FALSE. When you say stuff like that, you are saying "I have no idea what I'm talking about whatsoever." Do you having reading comprehension issues? I already explained several of the sexual and immunological functions of the foreskin. Did you not read it, or are you in denial? It's one or the other. I understand why you'd want to convince yourself that you're not missing anything, but you're clearly uninformed.

        Here is further info:

        Protection

        Just as the eyelid protects the eye, the foreskin protects the glans, keeping its surface soft, moist, warm and sensitive. It also maintains optimal warmth, pH balance, and cleanliness. The glans itself contains no sebaceous glands – glands that produce the moisturizing oil that our skin needs to stay healthy.(2) The foreskin produces the moisturizer that keeps the surface of the glans glistening, smooth, soft, and a deep healthy red or purple color.

        The foreskin will protect the entire penis when accidents happen, such as contusions, abrasions, lacerations, and burns. The foreskin is the first layer – a double layer – of defense from injury to the rest of the penis.

        Self-Cleansing Function

        The intact penis is naturally clean. The common view of the penis or the foreskin as ‘dirty’ is unscientific and irrational. The penis, however, does provide an entry point into the body, and it is exposed to foreign microbes every day, especially during sexual intercourse. The immunological functions of the foreskin and the self-cleansing functions of the penis protect the body from harm.

        Every time a genitally intact male urinates, the urine stream flushes out the urethra and foreskin of foreign microbes that may have strayed inside. In healthy individuals, urine is sterile and has a disinfectant quality. Researchers have demonstrated that the swirling action of urine as it rushes through the foreskin flushes it out effortlessly and naturally.(3) This function is especially efficient when the foreskin is long and the preputial orifice is narrow.

        Though urine passes through the foreskin every day, the inner foreskin is remarkably free of urea – a by-product of liver metabolism that is secreted in the urine. Studies demonstrate that washings from the foreskin are rich in fructose, acid phosphatase, and mucin, but never urea. It appears that the secretions of seminal vesicles, prostate, and urethral mucous glands, collectively or individually, keep the foreskin clear and clean as well. (4) These self-cleansing functions of the penis are analogous to the self-cleansing functions of the eye, which similarly maintains its cleanliness through fluid washings (tears) and mucus secretion. Therefore, you never need to worry about the foreskin being ‘unclean.’

        Self-Protecting Functions

        The urinary meatus (the opening of the glans through which urine and semen flow), is an entry point into the body. From infancy to adulthood, the foreskin ensures optimal protection of the glans and urinary meatus from contaminants of all kinds. During childhood, the foreskin is also usually firmly attached to the glans to prevent contaminants from invading the urethra. The neck of the foreskin places the vulnerable urinary meatus at a distance from the external environment and defends it against invading contaminants. The fusion of the foreskin and glans and the nonexpandability of the preputial orifice in the child’s penis are therefore necessary for the health of the child. Even after the foreskin separates from the glans and becomes retractable, it continues throughout life to cover the glans and meatus in order to protect these delicate structures from dirty, contamination, abrasion, or bacterial invasion.

        Immunological Protection

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

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

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

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

        Apocrine glands are important glands found in the skin. They are found in the foreskin and elsewhere on the body. (12) They secrete the important lysosomal enzymes cathepsin B, lysozyme, chymotrypsin, and neutrophil elastase. (13) All of these enzymes help protect the body from many kinds of bacteria. These enzymes are also found in tears and other bodily fluids. Human apocrine glands also produce cytokine, a nonantibody protein that generates an immune response on contact with specific antigens. (14) All these substances have immunological functions and protect the penis from viral and bacterial pathogens. This natural protective function has been destroyed in circumcised males.

        Antibacterial Function

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

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

        Coverage During Erection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        Erogenous Sensitivity

        The foreskin is more sensitive than the fingertips, the glans (head) of the penis, or the lips of the mouth. It contains a richer variety and greater concentration of specialized nerve receptors than any other part of the body. (15) These specialized nerve endings can discern motion, subtle changes in temperature, and fine gradations of texture. (16) This function enables genitally intact males to experience a superior dimension of sexual pleasure, compared to males who were circumcised. Intact males can be more tender, gentle, relaxed, and loving during sex because the slightest and subtlest gesture or motion evokes deeply satisfying sensations. Circumcised males have to work harder just to feel sensations. This is an unhealthy situation for both the male and his partner.

        Self-Stimulating Sexual Functions

        The intact penis has moving parts. The foreskin’s double-layered sheath enables the penile shaft skin to glide back and forth over the penile shaft. The foreskin can usually be slipped all the way, or almost all the way, back to the base of the penis, and also slipped forward beyond the glans. This wide range of motion stimulates the orgasmic triggers in the foreskin, frenulum, and glans.

        This is the natural way that the penis is erotically stimulated. The movement of the foreskin over the glans and the pressure of the glans pressing against the foreskin is pleasurable. Sadly, males circumcised at birth can never imagine the pleasure of this natural sensation.

        In the natural penis, the foreskin is the most important source of erotogenic, orgasm-inducing sensations. As we learned in the previous chapter, the foreskin contains a highly organized erotogenic sensory nerve-receptor system. It transmits special sexual sensations to the central nervous system and brain. The glans also has erotogenic sensory nerve receptors along its rim (the corona glandis), but far fewer than the foreskin. The massaging action of the foreskin against the glans produces sexual stimulation in both organs – something else that the circumcised male will never experience.

        Some genitally intact males can even stimulate themselves to orgasm without touching their penis. They simply clench the groin muscles that help fill the penis with blood. Each voluntary contraction of the muscles forces more blood into the erectile tissues. This causes the shaft and glans to engorge even further and pushes the glans through the lips of the foreskin. Each dilation of the lips of the foreskin stimulates the specialized nerve receptors in the foreskin. In addition, the tension exerted on the foreskin stimulates the nerve receptors in the glans. The resulting sensation can lead to orgasm. A circumcised male would never be able to accomplish this natural feat.

        The Foreskin Enhances Forepleasure

        Forepleasure is the pleasurable stimulation of the genitals with or without the intention of eliciting orgasm. Forepleasure takes place during foreplay. Forepleasure of the penis stimulates the brain to release beneficial and health-giving hormones into the bloodstream. These hormones improve overall bodily health, improve the emotional state, and can even reduce pain in any part of the body. Forepleasure, as the name implies, feels great.

        Orgasm and ejaculations are usually the smallest part of sexual activity. They take only a few seconds and generally signal the end of sex interest. The period devoted to forepleasure is the greatest component of sexual activity and can continue as long as there is interest to do so. The intact penis is masterfully designed to give and receive forepleasure. Its many surfaces, structures, and moving parts lend themselves to pleasurable exploration. Unrolling the foreskin and exposing the glans is an intimate discovery that provides fascination and delight, since different parts of the penis respond to different kinds of pleasurable attentions. The exploration and discovery of these differences provide a lifetime of intimate enjoyment and satisfaction.

        Sexual Functions of the Foreskin During Intercourse

        One of the foreskin’s functions is to facilitate smooth, gentle, and slow movement between the two partners during intercourse. The foreskin enables the penis to slip in and out of the vagina nonabrasively inside its own slick sheath of self-lubricating, movable skin. The female is thus stimulated by moving pressure rather than by friction only, as when the males’ foreskin is missing.

        The foreskin fosters intimacy between the two partners by enveloping the glans and maintaining it as an internal organ. The sexual experience is enhanced when the foreskin slips back to allow the male’s internal organ, the glans, to meet the female’s internal organ – a moment of supreme intimacy and beauty.

        You may have heard circumcision promoters allege that the foreskin is ‘dangerously thin and delicate; and that it ‘rips and tears easily during intercourse.’ This is unscientific nonsense and has no basis in anatomical fact. I am sorry to say that it is a deception calculated to provide false reassurance to anxious circumcised males and to frighten parents into letting their children be circumcised. The simple truth is that the foreskin is perfectly designed to function effortlessly and pleasurably during sexual activity. Its double-layered integument is strong, flexible, and resilient. The foreskin is a durable and vigorous organ that enhances and facilitates sexual intercourse. If it didn’t, it would have atrophied years ago.

        Self-Lubricating Function

        Analogous to the eyelid, the foreskin protects and preserves the sensitivity of the glans by maintaining optimal levels of moisture, warmth, pH balance, and cleanliness. The glans is an internal organ. The glans itself contains no sebaceous glands and relies on the foreskin for production and distribution of sebum to maintain proper epithelial lubrication. Lubrication is naturally secreted by Cowper’s glands in the urethra. This clear fluid begins to flow out of the meatus as the male becomes sexually aroused.

        During intercourse, this natural lubricant assists the male in inserting the penis in to the vagina. Because the fluid is sheltered under the foreskin of the erect penis it is less likely to dry up. Instead, it keeps the penis well lubricated and prevents the vagina from drying out.

        In the circumcised penis, the Cowper’s gland fluid quickly evaporates. When the circumcised male inserts his dry penis into the vagina, it soon uses up all the female’s natural lubricants, causing friction and pain for both partners. This can lead to small tears and painful bleeding in the organs of both partners. It comes as no surprise that in the United States today, where a large majority of sexually active adult males have been circumcised, painful vaginal dryness is the biggest complaint women have about sex. This is also the reason that there is such a large industry in the United States that manufactures artificial sexual lubricants. I doubt there has been a study to determine the longer-term effects of using these chemicals on such delicate organs.

        Genitally intact males are free of the need for lubricants of any kind either for manual stimulation of the penis, or for vaginal intercourse.

        Many circumcised males must also resort to using these artificially factory-made lubricants to masturbate. Other circumcised males research orgasm by friction of their hand over their externalized glans. They have been deprived of the gliding movement of the foreskin to stimulate themselves naturally. The penis is a different organ without a foreskin, and a sexual function is altered when the foreskin has been amputated.

        Many circumcised men will think they are normal because they are able to function sexually to their satisfaction, never realizing that their sexual functioning as an adult was changed forever by a medically unnecessary and extremely painful procedure done to them as an infant.

        In my practice, I have examined little boys how have had so much foreskin removed that there is hardly any loose skin on their penis. The skin on their flaccid nonerect penis is taut. I wonder what will happen to a boy with such a radical circumcision when he gets an erection: Will he be able to have as much pleasure from his penis as he would have had if the circumciser had amputated less of his prepuce organ? This most unfortunate situation is all too common in the United States.

        Production, Retention, and Dispersal of Pheromones

        The sense of smell is one of the oldest, most precise, and most important senses in humans. Smells convey vital information to the brain. Pheromones are hormonal chemical messengers secreted by an individual and perceived by another individual of the same species. They create sexual arousal and attraction in the person perceiving the pheromone. These glands are found in the armpits, breasts, and in the genital area. The penis itself is a specific site for these glands. Pheromones are secreted by the apocrine glands in the foreskin. These glands are present at birth, but during puberty they develop in the presence of testosterone.

        Although pheromones themselves are odorless, they are released by the foreskin into the air where they are perceived by the vomeronasal organ, a small tubular structure in the mucosa of the nasal septum. This organ is a component of the accessory olfactory system. The olfactory area of the cerebral cortex is closely associated with the limbic system, the part of the brain that organizes emotional responses, mood, memory, and sexual arousal. Although most complex smells and their emotional associations are learned, the identification of pheromones is hardwired into the brain. The automatic sexual arousal elicited by the perception of pheromones is as certain as the automatic pleasure reflex elicited by a caress.

        The perception of any scent associated with pheromones varies from individual to individual and depends largely on bacteria. The bacteria itself may be needed to chemically interact with the pheromones to make them active. (17) Diet, bathing habits, and general health also impact the quality of these scents. The predominant odor associated with male pheromones is musk. Nearly all human cultures esteem the rich, earthy, musky, pheromone-rich scent produced by the glands in the foreskin. Perfume makers obtain musk from the foreskin glands of the musk deer. The nonhuman pheromones contained in this muck are unable to elicit sexual arousal in humans, but the fragrance of the musk itself may, bay association, elicit a pleasant response in humans that evokes a sympathetic erotic arousal. (18) This is, at least, the effect that the perfume industry hopes to create.

      • March 19, 2013 at 6:47 pm #

        P.S. YOU are the one who suggested that circumcision is ethical because babies cannot remember it. That gives the impression that you believe it’s ethical to harm someone, as long as they can’t remember. Jackie made an excellent point; you’re just too far in denial to see it.

      • CircEsAdreim
        March 19, 2013 at 7:47 pm #

        No, that’s not ‘all’ we’ve got, which you would realize if you took the time to remove the cultural blinders.

        YES, non-therapeutic infant circ is comparable to rape – it is a violent assault on the sex organs of a non-consenting person.

        Your comments here reveal how little you truly know about the importance and function of foreskin, which isn’t surprising coming from a victim like yourself who is in deep denial.

  16. Franco
    March 19, 2013 at 6:52 pm #

    Charlie please leave…..this is a blog that men and women both frequent to support each other in raising their children the best they possibly can. I remember my mother and father would always say I wish there was a manual to raise kids. Well that doesn’t exist, this is the next best thing. If you do not agree fine. I and most of the world believe that this is a choice to be made by the individual. Why is that so hard to swallow? I am a man and wish that I had the option to make the informed decision about the body that god gave me. I invite you to man up and OPEN YOUR MIND!!!

    • charlie herbst
      March 19, 2013 at 8:54 pm #

      You don’t like what I hafta say Franco, piss off.

  17. charlie herbst
    March 19, 2013 at 8:50 pm #

    Ok Kristen, you want some real numbers from reputed sources, here are some facts for ya.

    “Compared with the dry external skin surface of the glans penis and penile shaft, the inner mucosa of the foreskin has less keratinization (deposition of fibrous protein) and a higher density of target cells for HIV infection . Some laboratory studies have shown the foreskin is more susceptible to HIV infection than other penile tissue, although others have failed to show any difference in the ability of HIV to penetrate inner compared with outer foreskin surface. The foreskin may also have greater susceptibility to traumatic epithelial disruptions (tears) during intercourse, providing a portal of entry for pathogens, including HIV. In addition, the microenvironment in the preputial sac between the unretracted foreskin and the glans penis may be conducive to viral survival. Finally, the presence of other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), which independently may be more common in uncircumcised men, increase the risk for HIV acquisition.”

    1. A 2009 Cochrane meta-analysis of studies done on sexually active men in Africa found that circumcision reduces the infection rate of HIV among heterosexual men by 38–66% over a period of 24 months.

    2. The WHO recommends considering circumcision as part of a comprehensive HIV program in areas with high endemic rates of HIV, such as sub-Saharan Africa, where studies have concluded it is cost-effective against HIV.

    3. Circumcision reduces the incidence of HSV-2 infections by 28%,and is associated with reduced oncogenic HPV prevalence[a] and a reduced risk of both UTIs and penile cancer, but routine circumcision is not justified for the prevention of those conditions.

    4. A 2010 review of literature worldwide found circumcisions performed by medical providers to have a median complication rate of 1.5% for newborns and 6% for older children, with few severe complications.

    5. World-wide 33% are circumcised according to the WHO, BUT, and these are the numbers that count. 75% of Americans are circumcised as of 2007. Mid-westerners are more prevalent with numbers in the 80% and higher range.

    Yes, I will concede the fact Europe and other countries have lower numbers, BUT you, and any other who reads this, cannot argue with these numbers. The reason I write on this site is mainly your facts are garbage and unsubstantiated, and women shouldn’t be blogging on concerns of male anatomy, especially when you cannot give a substantial reason as to why my son should not have been circumcised.

    Your sources are ancient and they they aren’t anything compared to the CDC and WHO. I mean, some of your sources are from the 30s. Really.

    Other than a moral obligation, that’s all you have. No real numbers or facts, which would persuade me to not have circumcised my son.

    Oh, btw, my step-son is “intact,” as you say. And yes, it is annoying, and he hates it. He is 6. Your foot is getting deeper and deeper in your mouth.

  18. March 20, 2013 at 7:12 am #

    Kristen

    What a great webpage you have here.

    Your patience with the silly and uninformed is admirable and extraordinary.

    Much Love and Hugs to you.

    • March 20, 2013 at 8:29 pm #

      Thank you for your support!

      • Donna
        June 29, 2013 at 12:25 pm #

        I am in awe of your patience!

      • charlie herbst
        June 29, 2013 at 11:26 pm #

        Patient huh. You people are so naive. This is a scam site. The women who run this site are no different than a David Karesh. Anyone can throw out a bunch of facts and figures, but when organizations such as the WHO not only back circumcision, but recommend it in 3d world countries.. Hello? Ask the ladies what their credentials are. They have none.. Keep on donating to the “cause”. Have fun with that.

      • circesadreim
        June 30, 2013 at 10:11 am #

        Yes, patience. It takes a lot to deal with the level of willful ignorance displayed by pro-cutters. Like many other Americans, you have been thoroughly brainwashed into believing it’s acceptable to cut healthy body parts off non-consenting human beings, despite the violations of human rights and medical ethics involved.

      • charlie herbst
        June 30, 2013 at 11:00 am #

        Ya know, I can respect the decision to not circumcise even though I feel it’s an ignorant decision your kids will pay for later in life, but the whole “non-consenting” statement is flat out stupid. Did I need consent from my son to place a trach tube in his throat, or have the pull-through surgery done, or to have him decide what hospitals I place him in. I’m sure he hasn’t enjoyed any of it. As a parent, I don’t need “consent” to do anything regarding my kids health and well-being, and it is irresponsible and dumb to say I do.You followers and crazies need to get your heads out of your asses and realize what you are doing to your kids.

      • circesadreim
        June 30, 2013 at 12:52 pm #

        No, the whole ‘non-consenting’ statement is not stupid and you’re intentionally mis-interpreting the comment.

        As you well know – but are choosing to disregard – we’re talking about the removal of healthy, functional body parts from someone without their permission (which occurs in almost all cases of infant/child circ).

        It is medically unethical to do something like that. It is also a violation of human rights.

        You are the one who needs to needs to pull your head out of your tail hole. You’re ignorantly trying to justify something that has no justification and you’re on the wrong side of this argument.

      • charlie herbst
        June 30, 2013 at 1:24 pm #

        there’s no different. As a parent, I decide consent; hence the word parent. As for my argument, it’s only backed by the biggest health organization in the world and the biggest pediatric organization in the U.S. I have backing. You have mouth

      • circesadreim
        June 30, 2013 at 12:56 pm #

        Doctors Opposing Circumcision:

        This Genital Integrity Policy Statement is quite comprehensive; please take the time to look through the information. It should be required reading for all medical students and parents.

        http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/statement0.html

        The policy statement covers many topics, including why non-therapeutic circumcision is a violation of human rights:

        http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/statement09.html

        http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/statement10.html

        As well as why it’s medically unethical:

        http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/statement11.html

      • circesadreim
        June 30, 2013 at 1:01 pm #

        The links I just posted as well as the general request to “please take the time to look through the information” comes from information I often copy/paste for use in these discussions and isn’t directly aimed at Charlie.

        Like many willfully ignorant pro-cutters, he has his blinders fully on and I suspect he would rather doing anything else than to face the reality that what he supports is wrong on so many levels. But clearly he is bothered by the information, or he wouldn’t keep coming back to try to justify the barbaric practice.

      • charlie herbst
        June 30, 2013 at 1:22 pm #

        stupid, stupid, stupid

  19. CircEsAdreim
    March 20, 2013 at 3:47 pm #

    Charlie’s behavior here is indicative of someone in deep denial. Maybe one day he will drop the blinders and realize he’s been a sheeple like so many others who bought into the appalling misinformation and myth that has been perpetuated against a perfectly normal, natural, functional part of the male anatomy.

  20. CircEsAdreim
    March 20, 2013 at 3:58 pm #

    While it’s clear certain people aren’t interested with exploring information that disputes their deeply held conviction that forcibly cutting off healthy body parts is somehow a good thing — for those who would like to get a better perspective about the claims regarding circ and HIV/AIDS, here is a link to several studies that reveal something different than what we’ve been told by our American medical community and media:

    http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html

    Some studies to note:

    Contrary studies
    Bailey – no protection to men in Kenya
    Connelly – no protection to black South Africans
    Auvert – no protection to young South Africans
    Gust – no protection to gay men
    Grulich – no protection to insertive Australian gay men (though it has been reported as if there is)
    Doerner – no protection to insertive gay men in Britain
    Jozkowski – no protection to US gay men
    Jameson – no protection to men who have sex with men
    Millett – no protection to US Black and Latino men
    who have unprotected insertive sex with men
    McDaid – no protection to Scottish men
    who have sex with men
    Wawer – no protection (and maybe increased risk) to women
    Turner – no protection to women
    Baeten – no protection to women
    Chao – greater risk to women
    Thomas – no protection in a high-risk population
    Shaffer – no protection by traditional circumcision
    Mor – no protection to men (weaselly-worded and data-mined to look as if there is)
    Thornton – no protection to men who have sex with men in London
    Moiti – circumcised youth at greater risk in Uganda
    Brewer – circumcised youth at greater risk in Mozambique
    Darby – no benefit in Australia

  21. March 25, 2013 at 7:38 am #

    You could add A healthy baby with a patent ductus arteriosis is circumcised and excruciating pain overstresses his heart so much it ruptures and he dies. It wasn’t the circumciser that killed him it was the patent ductus.
    Explanation: before birth a small vessel transfers blood from one great vessel of the heart to the other. In 98/100 babies it closes automatically after birth when the lungs begin to work. If it doesn’t close the heart muscle has to work more and is stressed. It’s easy to hear the murmur of the PDA with a stethoscope. No serios additional stressor should be imposed on a baby with PDA; circumcising is surely the worst of all stressors.

  22. Stereo
    March 25, 2013 at 2:56 pm #

    I can confirm what Kristen says about the sexual function of the foreskin.. actually any intact man can feel the difference between uncut and cut just by pulling down the skin
    I tried to pull down the foreskin and i just didn’t feel almost anything till the orgasm…. probably that’s why people say that cut men last longer.

    And what does HIV have to do with foreskin anyway.. are you that dumb to not use a condom while you have sex with a stranger?

  23. April 18, 2013 at 7:16 am #

    outstanding information in the comment feeds, thank you so much! oh and may i add that your paitence and responses are admirable :)

  24. April 19, 2013 at 1:24 pm #

    You might also be interested in this shocking trial. http://ripe-tomato.org/2013/03/31/bostonbotswana-circumcision-trial-2/ 3 deaths out of 300. But it’s Africa, so they probably died of something else! It makes me ashamed to be a doctor.

  25. CircEsAdreim
    April 19, 2013 at 9:40 pm #

    Charlie says, “Pro cutting bias? Man, that’s just dumb.”

    I agree. The pro-cutting bias is dumb, especially coming from medical professionals who are supposed to know better. So much for ethics, right?

  26. circesadreim
    April 19, 2013 at 9:42 pm #

    Charlie says, “Dude, don’t be a douche. You can site all the publications you want. They still don’t carry near the weight the findings of CDC and WHO. Really? C’mon man.”

    C’mon yourself. No medical organization in the world recommends infant circumcision. Not even the CDC and WHO.

    • charlie herbst
      April 23, 2013 at 6:09 am #

      Really? Do you actually read the comments on here. Evidently not because if you did, you would have read the numerous sites stating the CDC and WHO have specifically stated they not only back circumcision, but RECOMMEND circumcision, especially in third world countries where disease is rampant. Not to mention the Pediatrics Ass. backs it, which is why the ban on circumcision did not and will not occur in any state in this country. You people on here have a choice just like religious persons have a choice not to treat their kids in hospitals or vaccinate. You also have the choice to be a follower of a lady who hasn’t shown any reason to be followed. Absolutely none. David Karesh was followed and look how that ended.

      • April 23, 2013 at 7:25 am #

        No, Charlie, they do NOT recommend routine infant circumcision. Not the CDC, not the WHO, and not the AAP. They both claim there are some “benefits”– but there are also benefits to female circumcision (less bacteria trapped, less UTIs, less yeast infections), and benefits to removing the breast tissue from every baby girl at birth (less chance of breast cancer– a REAL epidemic). But the CDC, the WHO, and the AAP all admit that those benefits are NOT enough to recommend routine infant circumcision. You also need to take a look around the world at other countries and their circumcision policies, several of which denounce circumcision all together.

        One important issue to understand is that the AAP, WHO, and CDC are largely made up of circumcised men, Jewish doctors with cultural bias, and pediatricians/OBs who profit financially from circumcision. THAT is why there is a hint of pro-circumcision stance from them. Even though, if you actually read their information, they DO NOT recommend routine infant circumcision.

        So, since they are the only information you’ll consider, take your own advice and leave your kid intact if you happen to have another. You made a serious mistake cutting your child, and you are clearly defensive about it. Obsessive about it, even. It’s sad.

      • April 23, 2013 at 9:39 am #

        You are quite incorrect, Charlie. There is no medical organization that recommends infant circumcision.

  27. Marc
    April 23, 2013 at 11:31 pm #

    THANK YOU KRISTEN FOR TAKING A STAND! I am AMAZED at the ignorance of the comments from those who try to argue with you. They clearly don’t do any research at all before they speak. Igno-reactionsim. THANK YOU.

  28. June 30, 2013 at 8:02 pm #

    Charlie, I’m truly sorry about your penis. I understand the cognitive dissonance that is required by men with mutilated genitals – having grown up in a Jewish household it was hard for me to let it go too. Men with mutilated genitals need t believe that they are the best kind of genitals. It’s physiologically difficult to wrap your head around the fact that you will never experience normal sexual relations and that your package could have been so much better had your parents not decided to have someone take a knife to them. I do hope that someday you find peace and get over your understandable anger. There are support groups available for men like you and restoration, though not perfect by any means can help you get some sensation back as well as the wonderful guiding action of an intact penis. It may also help a bit with your penis envy.

  29. July 2, 2013 at 1:34 pm #

    lol @ “fear mongering”
    What are the reasons that non-religious parents use to validate cutting off a normal and healthy parts of a child’s genitals in the first place?

    All the fear mongering that goes on daily in the Media suggesting a part of a man’s genitals is somehow going to result in his or his partner’s death.

    THAT’s the true fearmongering.

    And Religious blood rituals have no place in civilized society. True followers of Judaism already renounce circumcision anyways, Only the nutjobs would want to harm their children as a sign of their faith in the first place.

  30. July 17, 2013 at 5:50 am #

    These discussions often bounce between a binary point of view which is natural given the topic. But one of the most damaging parts about circumcision is how bereft our society is of intelligent discourse. It’s a taboo of sorts. And it ends with our sons becoming disillusioned with their own dicks whether they’re hearing how unnatural/mutilated theirs is or how weird-looking/undesirable theirs is.

  31. concerned cynic
    January 17, 2014 at 5:08 pm #

    Ms Tea, you are a good example of what I mean when I say that American women are often today’s foreskin experts. I am 65, intact, and been married 25 years. You have a far better command of the facts about the tip of the natural penis than I do.

    Mr Herbst, talk to women who have had at least one long term relationship with a man of each circ status. Or read what they post in social media. You will soon discover that the purpose of the foreskin is to make foreplay and penetrative sex work better and be more enjoyable, for both genders. When I was in college 45 years ago, quite a few tough, smart and sophisticated women were openly sarcastic about the supposed joys of the bedroom. I then thought the problem was male ignorance about foreplay. I now suspect that the problem was in fair part caused by the circumcised men they dated thrusting too fast, too hard and too deep, in a way which left them orgasm-free and feeling date raped. Plus sore on Mondays and Tuesdays.

    When I pay my marital respects to my Missus, nearly everything I feel, I feel thanks to male bits that I would lack had I, like nearly all men of my place and time (baby boom, midwest) been circumcised shortly after birth. The tip of the foreskin, the inner lining of the foreskin, the frenulum, and the frenular delta are the sexiest bits a man has. They are the bits my wife plays with when she does foreplay on me. And yes, men my age need foreplay.

    Cut and uncut look a lot alike, when both are erect. However, the loose moving skin of the natural penis makes handjobs and intercourse a lot easier and more enjoyable. Experienced women have attested to this.

    • Charlie Herbst
      January 17, 2014 at 6:14 pm #

      By experienced you mean old. A poll was taken in a mens health mag where women between 25 and 35 were asked if a circumcised organ was preferred. The numbers were like 3 to 1 in favor of a circumcised organ. My wife almost gagged when I told her what you said. Although I applaud your sex life and that you still have one, circumcised organs are cleaner. Cleaner is sexier. The hippy era is long gone.

  32. AromaMom
    May 8, 2014 at 5:47 pm #

    This is a great post and I think it’s very valid, and quite real. I used to live overseas and I lived there quite a long time and this issue never came up. Circumcising wasn’t a concern with doctors nor with the parents. I’m not saying health issues don’t arise but I do know that when reading the health magazines and watching the interviews about this topic, that it seemed favorable to be uncircumcised. Most men reported that they still had high sensitivity around the area, unlike men who weren’t. In addition, one of the things that were stressed in this country was proper hygiene and cleanliness as to prevent any discomforts. In the same type of women’s and men’s magazines over there, the preference was in favor of the uncircumcised organ. I guess it depends a lot on what type of education one is receiving on the matter and what the health officials say. It was only an issue if the male did not have proper cleaning habits.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,007 other followers

%d bloggers like this: