Home / Culture and Society / Spirituality / Mr. Obama, Let’s Get to the Point About Circumcision

Mr. Obama, Let’s Get to the Point About Circumcision

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

A race absolutely alien to God has invaded the land of Christians … They have circumcised the Christians, either spreading the blood … on the altars or pouring it into the baptismal fonts.

Thus did Pope Urban II, in the year of our Lord 1095, launch what was to become The First Crusade, the holy war against that race God didn't know — the Muslims who inhabited the sacred, mystical, holy city of Jerusalem — and whose behavior against God-fearing Christians, well, cut to the quick.

Fast forward to Monday, March 30. History repeats itself. But this time, it's not some strange religious entity stealing our manhood, our sacred privates, our foreskin. No, it's America's doctors and parents, aided and abetted by federal and state officials.

As reported by Dan Zak in The Washington Post, a group of fifty dedicated, religious, knife-less men and women marched around the White House, calling for a federal ban on newborn circumcision. Mr. Zak is no doubt one whose willie remains whole. How else to account for his snide and dismissive account of this group's activities? Yet their signs make it clear that they're serious-type people, urging our new president to act with dispatch when it comes to this barbarous act:




These folks know when to poke it to the man. It's Genital Integrity Awareness Week as well as National Child Abuse Prevention Month. Female circumcision has become a cause celebre, but is it not time for an upwelling of support for men? Actually, newborn male-type babies. Who will speak up for their rights?

For 914 years, good people have spoken out against this mutilation of a man's best friend, confidant, and conscience — from Popes, to the American Academy of Pediatrics, to "Marilyn Milos, a former nurse and founder of the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers," who claims that circumcision causes "premature ejaculation."

And these people are just the tip of the iceberg. Thousands, nay, perhaps millions of American men are suffering.

Yes, I'll admit it. When I was very young, perhaps a few days or weeks old, my parents agreed to have my blessed foreskin — oh, this is so hard to say — whacked off. I don't know if they took me to a doctor or a mohel (a Jewish guy with a very sharp set of knives, steady hands, and a really, really bad attitude — some would call him a prick, but that might be going too far — anyway, these mohelim conduct the barbaric "off with his head" ritual… for a small fee).

Thanks to years of therapy, countless sessions in ashrams contemplating my loss, and the unwavering support of my close friends, I have forgiven them — Mom and Dad — for they knew not what they did. But those of us, as many as 85% of boys in 1965, thankfully down to 56% a couple of years ago, who have had to live as half a man, must join forces with the brave group who braved the scorn of the media on Monday to prevent our tragedy from being visited on the unborn males in this vast country.

How can one doubt the dangers of lopping off the most important part of a man's manliness? How else can one account for the 850 million doses of Viagra, Cialis, Levitra, and other pills swallowed in just the past few years by men desperate to restore their pride?

According to the highly-respected website, Impotence-Guide.Com, "Erectile Dysfunction is caused by a lack of blood flow or a misfiring of neural signals to the penis during sexual intimacy. This restriction leaves affected men unable to sustain a natural erection allowing for penetration. More than 50% of men over the age of 40 will experience some level of ED at one point or another during their life." [Emphasis theirs, don't point at me!]

Some have called circumcision "the trauma that haunts forever." (Well, I call it that, which isn't exactly "some.") Nevertheless, that trauma, embedded deep within the neurons in our brains, is what leads to the misfiring of those signals so essential to strength, length, and fortitude.

Consider that Extenze, the all-natural, male enhancement pill that is guaranteed to make a certain part of the male anatomy longer and wider, has been swallowed over one millions times. Would men seek extra length if their original size hadn't been tampered with?

The solution is simple. Mr. President, you must act. On behalf of a crippled nation, I call upon you to take whatever action is necessary to end this century-old attack on the male-type babies of our nation. It is not too early in your term to consider your legacy. Let it be known, that when confronted with a choice between mutilation and exaltation, you rose to the occasion.

In Jameson Veritas

Powered by

About Mark Schannon

Retired crisis & risk manager/communications expert; extensive public relations experience in most areas over 30 years. Still available for extraordinary opportunities of mind-numbing complexity. Life-long liberal agnostic...or is that agnostic liberal.
  • leighann


  • leighann

    OK now I see the “satire” tag. I was beginning to worry. You never know these days.

  • Damn! The unkindest cut of all. Have you, Sir, no circumspection?


  • One is led to wonder what they do with all the, um, offcuts.

    In my country there is a fried snack food known as pork scratchings, traditionally available at the bar of your favourite intoxication location. I’ve always regarded it with a great deal of suspicion but have never been able to follow the trail completely from rabbi to meat wholesaler to processing plant to distributor to pub.


    [frowns, fingers chin, jams meerschaum into mouth, whips out magnifying glass, gets on all fours, starts rooting around on floor muttering something about dogs that didn’t bark]

  • Cindy

    ‘condoms not circumcision prevent aids’

    What does that sign mean?


  • Cindy

    March 29, 2007 — Circumcised men are up to 60% less likely to get HIV, and now the World Health Organization and the UNAIDS program recommend adult surgery to slow the AIDS pandemic.

    Oh, nevermind then.

  • Cindy


    Pork Scratchings!!! haha that is ridiculous!

    What kind of name is that?

    They are called pork rinds here. Equally silly (but not nearly as silly sounding) as pigs aren’t melons.

  • STM

    Lol. You’ve gotta love some of the lunatics who come up with policy at the UN.

    You can just imagine blokes in the world’s poorest, AIDS-stricken countries queuing up in their droves at the front door of the medical centre to get a bit of sharp-knife knob surgery*, too, can’t you?

    (*With their eyes closed, their hands covering their crotches and one question on their lips: “Circumcision: What’s in it for me?”)

    That WHO recommendation is a load of bollocks (pun intended).

    Doc, I’ll never eat another fried pork rind again. Not that I do these days, as I don’t get drunk any more … but just in case, I’m swearing off.

  • Jack

    It may be for a laugh, but this is not so crazy. The loss of the most sensitive part, the main male pleasure zone is a real problem in the US. The bigger problem is the media and Medical community bias. They so much want there to be a reason for all of this mutilation.

    A first New Zealand study found differences between of STI between circumcised and intact men a second much larger study found STI with the split 23.4% circ and 23.5% “uncircumcised”. If you look on the web the second big real study got little press. The Uganda study with the low % difference is all over the media. The 30% or whatever is from about 10% risk to about 8% risk. A recent US cohort study published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases showed only the total number of lifetime sexual partners affected the risk of new (incident) HPV infections and there was no difference in the risk of new (incident) HPV between circumcised and natural men. In May of 2008 a medical survey showed Uncircumcised (natural) Fared Better as Circumcision appeared to have an effect on rates of genital warts: * 4 ½% of circumcised men reported having genital warts * 2.4% of uncircumcised men reported having genital warts– again in the US. How do they make such a big deal out of the Uganda Study? They want to keep the cut going in the US.

  • Jack–natural vs. circumcised? Natural? You are calling me, dare I say it, unnatural simply because the tip of my penis doesn’t look like the droopy ear of a bloodhound? Sir, it’s foreskins at 20 paces…hmm…way to far away, let’s try 1 pace.

    But interesting stuff on the science. In all seriousness–for as long as I can keep it up–epidemiology is a very weak science which is why they run study after study. Unless you have a 100%+ difference between two groups, most scientists will say the findings are suggestive rather than statistically significant differences. I only wish the media would understand that. When you hear of a 20 or 40% difference, you can ignore it.

    Dan–no. We have no circumspection, today.

    Dr. D. You’re on to something, Holmes. There’s a great joke about foreskins & moyles. I’ll do it in another comment because it’s too long. But to think that your pork scratchings are fried foreskins is not only gross–it’s an insult to those of us of the Jewish and Muslim persuasion. A fatwa on your head, sir. (Your country. Are you from Lithuania?)

    Cindy–love “pork aren’t melons.”

    STM–the poor blokes aren’t asking “what’s in it for me?” If you check the article, there’s a poster with a baby saying, “”You Want to Cut Off WHAT?”

    In Jameson Veritas

  • Some will say that it is the unkindest cut of all.

    Did anyone see the story on the tube about the kid who got his wang burnt off by a doctor with a lazer? In an attempt to repair the damage, as it were, they surgically altered him to make him a her. He was one of a set of twins.

    The boy/girl had all kinds of psychological problems as did his brother. I don’t remember any more of the details, but ultimately they both committed suicide. Great story, huh?

    Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to – uh – cut the wee.

    B :/

  • Cindy

    G20 Summit News:

    G20 to bulk up IMF in response to crisis

    56 mins ago
    Reuters David Ljunggren and Lesley Wroughton

    World leaders will triple the war chest of the IMF to fight the worst economic crisis since the 1930s and impose new curbs on financial markets, monetary sources at the G20 summit said.

    (P.S. I’m a little surprised that no one wrote about the G20 summit. I might do a story on the protest by tomorrow, if I have time.)

  • Baritone,

    Gosh, thanks for the news about the twins. Made my day.

    Cindy, what G20 summit. I wasn’t invited. Nobody asked my opinion. Why should I offer it for free?

    Actually, BC politics always has a weird selection of articles–not including mine, of course.

    BTW, I got an e-mail from one of the protesters thanking me for supporting their cause! He must have missed the Satire heading. I wrote him back what I hope was a nice e-mail…sigh.

  • Baronius

    This article may be a satire, but I checked, and it really is Genital Integrity Awareness Week. And thanks, Mark, now that’s on my Google history.

    And seriously, a whole week? Most guys can check their integrity in 5 seconds, even with other people in the room.

  • Baronius, I may distort, misrepresent, and twist…but I never lie. Although why you’d want Genital Integrity Awareness Week on your Google history is beyond me.

    And as for a week…some guys are very stupid.

    In Jameson Veritas

  • Rood Andersson

    We typically consider the United States to be at the forefront of modern life, but a society that mutilates the genitals of helpless infant boys, at the rate of one every 30 seconds, can only be horribly sadistic and terribly obsessed by morbid sexual impulses.

    Thank goodness we Americans are beginning to come to our senses, as we slowly learn to honour life in all its natural forms.

  • ^^ One is led to wonder what they do with all the, um, offcuts. ^^

    Wonder no more. An infant foreskin in a petry dish is worth about 40 bucks to research labs and commercial ventures like SkinMedica, maker of TNS Recovery Complex, an anti-wrinkle face cream featured on the Oprah Winfrey show. Google it.

    You won’t believe how the ladies are all atwitter when the company rep says: “and it’s made from little babies’ foreskin.”

    Is this Nazi Germany or what?

    About 200,000 men are enduring a tedious but painless process of tensioning the surviving skin to regrow enough to get back some foreskin pleasure. Google non-surgical foreskin restoration.

    Foreskin feels REALLY good. HIS body HIS decision.

  • Whoopee! We’ve finally hit upon a topic of general interest.

    After flirting with possible obsolescence, BC’s Politics section is showing signs of life.

  • Cindy

    Many people who would be appalled at the idea of female genital mutilation think there is nothing strange at all about male circumcision.

  • As a mother who allowed this to happen, it’s tough. You’re given one-sided info in the hospital, and then they take your boy away. I still cringe when I think about it, and it happened 22 years ago.

  • Cindy

    Circumcision, circumspection – what’s the difference.

    Double your pleasure, double your fun.

  • This may be satire, but so much of what he says is absolutely true that it’s not a bit funny.

    This just in: Atlanta, GA. A jury has awarded $1,800,000 to a boy and $500,000 to his mother after a doctor negligently removed half the boy’s glans penis while circumcising him.

    Many intact men would value their foreskins at no less.

  • But why is this a political issue?

  • Forget it. Everything can be politicized in America.

  • Cindy

    They marched around the White House calling for a federal ban on circumcision.

  • Do we need a ban? Just asking. Wouldn’t public education be sufficient to do the job?

  • Cindy

    I’m just explaining why it’s a political article, is all.

  • Well, one reason for the (past) popularity of this (inessential) procedure is that it rakes in the money.

  • Cindy

    #21 — April 2, 2009 @ 19:51PM — Cindy

    Circumcision, circumspection – what’s the difference.

    Double your pleasure, double your fun.

    I didn’t say this. I thought it was funny. But, it wasn’t me.

    There was another Jose afoot.

  • Mark,

    Hey, glad I could help.

    B :#)

  • I think the comment editor(s) erased all Jose references and the handles. Say it ain’t so, Doc?
    Well, it was fun for a short while.

  • Hey, #29 & #21: Somebody stole my quote. Is that what happened when Joses got erased?

  • Cindy

    I think the comments editor corrected my mistake when I forgot to change my name back and then inadvertently thought I was that other Jose. The comments editor must have a headache by now.

  • Cindy

    lol Roger. It serves us right. It was fun though. And now good night. 🙂

  • Same here. Except that I started this gig, can’t remember now why, and you got all the credit.
    Anyways, these were good ol’ times when you could have a good little laugh and nobody was too goddamn serious or too insulted. Memory lane.

  • Ladies and gentlemen, if this starts becoming a serious discussion about “the issue,” regardless of the poor lad who had half his Willie whacked by a stupid doctor, then I shall have to find another source for my inane ramblings.

    Cindy’s right–any word beginning with circum… should be treated as unanimous, such as circumference, which, as far as I know, is not affected by the swirling whirligigs of moylism.

    Contrary to public opinion, which I admit I fostered in this “satire,” my performance has always been hailed by women from here to there as the sine qua non of sexual pleasure. Although bereft of that silly slap o’ slop the uninitiated have to live with, I’ve ne’er had a complaint…if you ignore my first wife.

    The only comments that should appear here are those which compound the humor…not any that take this issue as serious. As the ancient Romans said so eloquently, “Auturos writments sont purififous in exremis absoluturarum.” Or…loosely translated, brilliant authors should not be taken seriously.”

    In Jameson Veritas

  • Spoken like Petronius himself.

  • Cindy

    Cindy’s right–any word beginning with circum… should be treated as unanimous…

    Well, I still didn’t write that (#21). But, I took it as irony not like Mark did at all. Funny how that works, we see what we want to see I guess.

  • Ain’t that always the case.

  • Jet

    Unless of course you’re trying to circumvent the subject…

  • Jet

    Of course that’d depend on the circumstance as well, I suppose

  • Don’t forget the circumference. It’s an asset in its own right, especially with the uncircumcised ones.

  • Mark,

    Your wrote this article as a joke, and to a degree it is a nice laugh. But even in Israel, there are pricks who protest that circumcision is a barbaric ceremony and they are backed by some bullshit “reform” rabbi with their protestations. And they are damned serious. Since nobody has the balls to publicly tell them that if they refuse to circumcise their sons they will not be recognized as Jews, these pricks continue with their bullshit. In addition, several European countries have active campaigns to ban all circumcision and kosher slaughter of animals as “inhumane”. Just like the Greek savages 2,200 years ago, they want to legislate Judaism out of existence!

    I’ve learned to rue jokes and to be careful of them.

    Around 35 years ago or so, when I needed some extra money, I’d join this actors troupe who would carry sandwich signs around 3:00 to 4:00 in the afternoon saying “the banks are closing!” It was slightly tough times then and folks still remembered 1929-30 when the banks actually did close, and people carrying signs warning \about it were rushed by those trying desperately to get their money out. Well, guess what, Mark?

    These days the banks are closing. ‘Taint funny anymore. And there ain’t no circumlocuting around that fact, dude.

  • I think we have aptly circumnavigated the
    Subject, yes?


  • Considering the circumstances, definitely so. Circa April 3, 2009.

  • What a circum – er, I mean – circus!


  • Mark Schannon

    Ruvy, I wrote this as satire…slightly different from a joke. Personally, I don’t care one way or the other, but I deeply appreciate the lengths to which our BC brethren have gone to extend the discussion long after it had expired.

    In Jameson Veritas

  • #23 — April 2, 2009 @ 20:31PM — Roger Nowosielski [URL]
    “But why is this a political issue?”

    Becuz, on 30 March 1997, 12 years and 5 days ago as I scribble this enlightening drivel, the federal Anti-Female Genital Mutilation Act became effective, making it a U.S. federal felony for any prick to so much as prick with a sterile pin the TINY foreskin of any female child in the USA (or any other part of her sex organs), regardless of the religious, cultural or medical superstitions of the girl, her parents, their doctor, or anyone else on this planet or any other. (Lots of girls and guys don’t even know that girls HAVE a foreskin.) Yet if you amputate, kill, murder and destroy a boy’s MANY times LARGER and MUCH more densely nerve-packed foreskin, US Medicaid will make your BMW payment for you for the month. This is called “Equal Justice Under Law”? The US constitution mandates equal protection of the law for all. The FGM bill is equal protection of the law? And you think I’ve almost gotten SERIOUS here, don’t you, Mark? WRONG! NO ONE takes the US Constitution seriously! Off with his head! On with the show!

  • I never realized, Van, that there was anything even approximating a mandate. I’m aware, of course, that there always was a vested interest in the procedure and money to be made, but I didn’t know the government offered any incentives. I thought it was always a matter of individual choice.

  • Cindy

    It’s not quite an incentive Roger. It’s paid for by medical insurance. If you qualify for medicaid then that is your insurance.

  • Sixteen U.S. states – 32% – do NOT fund medically unnecessary, elective circumcisions through Medicaid; Arizona, California,
    Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. Many private insurance policies do not. 68% of U.S. states do still fund it. Many private insurance companies do, too. It’s a crap shoot in this country as to whether they mutilate your penis when you are born, and whether you live or die from it. Your chances of winning (or losing, depending on your perspective) the U.S. circumcision death lottery are many thousands of times higher than winning the Florida Lotto with one ticket.

  • So what are you saying, Cindy, Van? That it ought to or ought not to be included on the medical insurance claims. Now I’m confused as to what your stand is.

  • Roger, for the infant sexually mutilated for life and whose life we recklessly endanger and sometimes destroy utterly at the very beginning of it by stealing and selling off his only prepuce for life to the highest bidder, it is NEVER a matter of individual choice. Duuuhhh. Did anyone ever tell you that dealing in stolen human body parts is a FELONY? And for anyone who DARES to think that I’m getting in the least bit serious here, PROVE IT! Like the rest of the country, I’m LAUGHING HYSTERICALLY about injuring, mutilating for life and killing outright babies and children for nothing. Aren’t you? Those protesters are such LOONIES!

  • Cindy


    “Many people who would be appalled at the idea of female genital mutilation think there is nothing strange at all about male circumcision.”

    Okay think about it for a minute…

  • Well, so you’re saying it’s much ado about nothing. I wasn’t certain at first where you were coming from.

  • For too many real belly laughs, go here and read the HILARIOUS stories of the babies and children killed and even an adult HACKED TO DEATH because of circumcision. Comedy Central has nothing on us! Death By Circumcision.

  • Cindy


    Much ado about nothing? I’m afraid not. I’ll explain.

    Why do people who would never dream of subjecting a female child to body mutilation, and who may even look at Africans with horror over this practice, think nothing of cutting off part of a male’s penis?

    Van supports the federal ban on male circumcision.

    The point about the insurance is…why would the fed in some cases of genital mutilation (male) pay for the procedure while in other cases (female) there is a federal ban on the practice itself.

    I am against circumcision (and so are my nephew’s parents).

  • okie dokie. But you had me confused at first. Your thoroughly satirical writing threw me off.

  • I support the federal ban on (in)human genital mutilation, so long as there is no provision in it prohibiting us from laughing at mutilators and mutilationists like that brainless idiot Brian Morris and at Mark Schannon and Roger Nowosielski and Barack Obama and George Bush and ourselves. LAUGH, damn it!

    The human race has only one effective weapon, and that is laughter.
    Mark Twain

    Against the assault of laughter nothing can stand.
    Mark Twain

  • Cindy, I never realized that it was an issue, so I stand corrected. I’ve been saying all along that there was a vested interest, and whenever that’s the case, there’s always a potential for abuse.

    As to Van, I have no idea why he chooses to group me in one camp or another. To tell the truth, I’ve never given this issue much thought (if only because I wasn’t aware that there was an issue).

  • Well, here’s another fine mess I’ve gotten me into. And I thought I was writing about something of little import but ripe for satire. Foolish me.

    Laugh away, Van.

    As for me, I’m off to try to figure out why Amazon hasn’t sent me my free Kindle2 yet.

    In Jameson Veritas

  • Gee, I’m glad I left the good old United States of America. Van, enjoy yourself. We Hebes have been around, genitally mutilating our sons for a good 3,800 years at least – we’ll be around long after idiots like you with your politically correct bullshit and your whinings about circumcision expire. So, laugh away, Van. The joke’s on you!

  • Except the thing is, Ruvy, even now I’m not certain where he really stands. His mode of expression leaves me scratching my head.

  • Just keep scratching your head Roger. Let me know if you strike oil…. Van’s agenda is plain for me to see.

  • Well, he kept on talking with riddles.
    So what’s the latest on the new Knesset?

  • This is what is new with the Knesset, Roger.

    But your country’s pecker is really getting trimmed by your new president, who saw fit to bow to the Saudi king and to kiss his ring. That is exactly what Protestants in America warned that Jack Kennedy would do with the pope if elected 49 years ago. What was that about B. Hussein Obama not being a Moslem?

    Greasy Chicago pol with plenty to hide as he rips you all off….

  • Cindy

    It’s not riddles Roger. It’s just irony. It is clear where he stands to him, me, Ruvy and probably other people who haven’t weighed in. Take our word for it. ‘We do irony.’

  • But Ruvy, I thought King Abdullah was the one who wasn’t a Muslim…

  • And the latest I heard from the Knesset is that several Orthodox Jewish newspapers photoshopped the women out of the latest picture of Netanyahu’s new cabinet. Something about it being blasphemous to make pictures of women. Of men it’s apparently OK. Not as extreme as the Muslim take on the subject, then. What do Orthodox Jewish men on national service put in their lockets? Do newspapers in Islamic countries even have photos*? How come Muslims are allowed to watch TV? And other awkward questions…

    * The copies of the Urdu-language papers the Daily Jang and al-Quds that we used to get in the library I worked at, as well as the Arabic paper al-Hayat, did have photos, but diabolically bad ones.

  • OK, I’m done with the pointed, cutting, angry jokes for the moment, out of respect for my Jewish Nobel Laureate Harvard biology professor, George Wald, not to Ruvy, who or whatever he/she/it is. There are Jews and then there are Jews. Read about a truly great one here.
    I work against genital mutilation of all children equally, regardless of the medical, cultural or religious superstitions of their parents. Circumcision kills Jewish babies, not I. It’s circumcision that’s the real anti-Semite here, not I. Anything that kills Jewish babies is anti-Semitic. If killing Jewish babies isn’t anti-Semitic, there’s no such thing as anti-Semitic.
    Thank God many Jews know better than to mutilate their own or anybody else’s babies.
    O sh*t. I got serious there for a moment. Sorry guys, but I figure saving babies’ lives, including Jewish babies’ lives, is worth getting serious about, for a moment anyway. Think you can stand it?
    So who’s the joke on, Ruvy?

  • Ruvy tells us more about himself than he intends or knows at his blog:

    “I’m a fellow who knows that behind every smile is a grimace, that behind all humor is pain, that behind all love is fear and that underlying all prosperity is insecurity.”

    Here’s a guy totally stuck in his original trauma, his primal wound, circumcision/genital mutilation. See what it does to people? For him, there ISN’T anything else, and he doesn’t even know it. Now let’s listen as he denies it.

  • Cindy #67.

    I realize it’s irony, Cindy, but it’s so thick with it that it defeats the purpose. Is he for it, against it, or just indifferent. Check his weblog, BTW.

    Personally, I’m indifferent, perhaps because I don’t know enough about the issue.

  • Roger, how can you be indifferent to injuring, mutilating for life, and sometimes killing babies and children with knives and clamps, unnecessarily? Tell me it isn’t so!

  • Clavos

    Hell, we kill babies on purpose.

    What’s so bad about killing ’em accidentally?

  • See, there you go again, Van. Cindy assures me that I’m the only one “not getting it,” that your irony is so transparent for everyone concerned except me. Well, I still don’t get it. As I said, I don’t know about the issue, and wasn’t aware of any kind of danger of the size you’re suggesting. So why don’t you give me a link to look it up.

  • It’s hard to find a clearer short statement of the basics that you need to know to have an educated opinion on the subject than this:

    “Mass involuntary circumcision has failed to achieve any of the public health benefits its advocates have claimed for it; but even if it had achieved them all, there can be no scientific or ethical justification for depriving anyone of sovereignty over his own sex organs. Neonatal circumcision violates bodily integrity and imposes on an unconsenting individual a diminished penis for life. In the wake of the Nuremberg trials, it is inappropriate for doctors to persist in performing or advocating involuntary penile reduction surgery on healthy, normal individuals. The totalitarian concept of involuntary prophylactic surgery espoused by circumcision advocates has no place in modern medicine or the civilized world. The key to decreasing the transmission of STDs is education, not amputation.”

    P M Fleiss, MD; F M Hodges, PhD; R S Van Howe, MD, in
    Immunological functions of the human prepuce
    Volume 74, Number 5, Pages 364-367,

  • Fair enough, Van, and thank you. I didn’t even know there was any connection between circumcision and immunity to STDs. Isn’t that connection a bogus one?

  • If you’d like something a little longer, try this.

    Want a comprehensive resource? Here.

    There’s lots more.

  • Well, I didn’t know you’re such an activist on this issue. But then I looked it up on your website.

  • BOGUS? How could you SAY such a thing, Roger?! (Irony there.)

    Since 1850 the US medical establishment has claimed, in writing, that circumcision would prevent or cure over 200 diseases or medical problems of one sort or another, every thing from masturbation to diarrhea to club foot. They’ve never proved the first one. There is a caveat. If you have no foreskin, you can have no disease of a foreskin. So let’s cut out all the babies’ teeth. Look Ma! No cavities! How about all the toes and fingers? No hang nails! Let’s cut to the chase here. Cut out all the brains and hearts: No heart attacks and no brain cancer! While we’re at it, lets just cut EVERYTHING off and out of the babies, then NOTHING can go wrong and they’ll all live FOREVER! (Damn. Irony again. Why do I make things so hard to understand?)

  • This is worth repeating, both to Van and to the rest of you –

    Gee, I’m glad I left the good old United States of America. Van, enjoy yourself. We Hebes have been around, genitally mutilating our sons for a good 3,800 years at least – we’ll be around long after idiots like you with your politically correct bullshit and your whinings about circumcision expire.

    One of the nice things is that I only have to see bullshit like Van’s in pixelated form and do not have to worry about some idiot banning circumcision here in Israel. Circumcision is our bond to the G-d of Israel, Van; us Hebes have been doing it for 3,800 years with no real losses. And we will be here long after you are dead. If G-d really wants us to change how we do that connection with Him, He’ll drop by and Let us know Himself. We do not need you to instruct us.

    Our REAL losses have come from you non-Jews trying to murder us off. Six million here, a few hundred thousand there, a pogrom here, a massacre there. Funny stuff, Van! You should read Jewish history sometime Van, instead of whelping about “genital sovereignty”. It’s a pack of belly laughs and thigh slappers! You’ll be rolling on the floor laughing at all those Jews getting shoved into gas chambers, thinkin’ they were going to get showers. It was funny enough to be on “Friends” or “Seinfeld” – along with the “Soup Nazi”. And now we have the American State Department trying to rectify the “historic error” of allowing a Jewish State to come into existence and quietly backing the Arabs who want to murder us off. That’s where our REAL losses come from, not from idiots like you or the fools you worship.

    And certainly not from circumcision!

  • J

    Ruvy – if you dropped all that communalist bullshit you’d be a far harder target for bigots to hit. Can’t you find a more important element for your identity than a genetic/cultural accident?

  • Can’t you find a more important element for your identity than a genetic/cultural accident?

    Another sheeple who believes in dumb luck.


  • I guess what we have here, ladies and gentlemen, is a theist vs. anti-theist debate.

    How are you doing, Ruvy?

  • My communalism, J – belonging to the Jewish People and being one of the Children of Israel – shapes who I am – as for the bigots who don’t like my views or my practices or beliefs – in addition to wishing them a nice trip to hell, I get the pleasure of slicing their arguments to bits. If I happen to slice them to bits to (verbally of course), hey, that’s just an added benefit.

    Jew-haters are used to Jews apologizing and trying to reason with them. Fuck that! You do not reason with a murderous heart; you condemn it and tell them to go to hell and put the SOB’s down using the coin of their realm. If that spills over a bit into ad-hominem attacks, I don’t really care.

  • I agree there is common ground with the wicked. I don’t think that Jet, however, falls into that category.

  • No common ground!

  • What does Jet have to do with this, Roger? He hasn’t opened his trap since I started swingin’ the big (trimmed) er… spear.

  • My mistake. You were responding to #82 by “J.” I misread it.

  • Hey Ruvy, I thought we didn’t have a hell. See, that’s why I’m confused about…Judaism, LOL.

    In Jameson Veritas

  • Mark – You might not have a hell. Unfortunately, Some people aren’t so lucky.

    Ruvy – Just for the record. I wasn’t planning to ask the fed to ban circumcision. I was just expressing my opinion. (also for the record, it wasn’t a judgment about you or your opinion or Jewish opinions). Just so you know.

  • Jet

    Trust me, there’s a hell, I’ve seen it.

  • Jet

    …The practice of circumcision is routinely done for hygienic and not medical reasons. Many people believe that it is more hygienic or at least it is easier to care for penis if it is circumcised. Infection or inflammation of the foreskin affects about 10% – 14% of uncircumcised boys, while inflammation of the “glans” or “balanitis” is twice as common in uncircumcised children as circumcised and greater than five folds in adults.

    On the other hand, urinary tract infections occur in about 1 in 100 uncircumcised boys in the first year of life, and 1 in 1,000 in circumcised boys. There is also an increased risk of inflammation and infections of the foreskin and glans in uncircumcised males. However, it all comes down to personal opinion whether the increased risks are significant enough to warrant circumcision.

    Aside from medical politics, the subject of circumcision also affects our sexuality. There are several advantages for circumcised men when it comes to sexuality. First is that circumcised male have no need to worry about daily cleansing of his foreskin. Meanwhile, men with an intact foreskin must take special care to move it up and down and clean it inside its covered areas to avoid odors or serious infection because of material buildup. Consequently, there might be some bacteria and germs that could surface thus affect their sexual health.

    Second advantage is that some women prefer a man with a circumcised penis because it may move inside them in a less friction-based manner. Once he is inside the vagina, the unhooded penis may easily slide up and down to create pleasure for both partners.

    Safe sex is an added concern for uncircumcised men and their partners. Men with foreskins occasionally have difficulty finding the right condom or keeping one on during penetrative sexual activity. That spells trouble in bed as well as generates unneeded anxiety. However, with a proper fit and ample lubrication, the problem can be quickly assuaged.

    When it comes to sexual pleasure, there is really no better or worse case because it all comes down to a matter of personal taste. Either way, both are medically acceptable conditions and may it be with either a covered or a clipped partner, you can still enjoy the ride.

  • Humans just like to justify what they do. Just like they used to routinely take out tonsils and justify that.

    Removing body parts so we don’t have to clean them?!!???

    Why is it that when one looks up circumcision it talks about female pleasure? Something is terribly wrong here. Destroy nerve endings in a man’s penis and the question is does it feel better for women?

    As a woman, let me say one thing about that part with the friction. Any woman who claims that will make any important difference is lying. It’s utter bullshit.

    For the record if cleanliness is a problem then why don’t women routinely get circumcised?

  • When it comes to sexual pleasure, there is really no better or worse case because it all comes down to a matter of personal taste.

    This is not what most males who got circumcised as adults say. Mostly they say there is a big difference from nerve damage. There is no reason to believe nerve damage is less in infants, merely because they don’t have a basis for comparison.

  • leighann

    My son had the procedure. I was told it was healthier for him because of some of the reasons that Jet listed above. I was not aware it killing any babies. The doctor asked if I would like for him to get a shot to numb him first but was told that the shot would hurt as bad or worse as the procedure.

    As a Christian, I have always wondered why God put it there if he wanted it taken off. Why did He just not make it in the first place? I decided to just take it as a matter of faith; one of those (many) things that I do not understand about Him but I accept becuase I know that He knows what He is doing. If you don’t have it (faith), this paragraph may seem silly to you.

    It did bother me when my son had it done but agian my reasoning was because of the health issues and not the religious aspect. It is not believed to be required for Christians.

    Something else that bothers me is to see people getting their babies’ ears pierced. It does not seem necessary.

  • I was told it was healthier…

    [I] was told that the shot would hurt as bad or worse as the procedure…

    A suggestion: don’t believe everything people tell you.

    Doctors are just people. They’re not magical fonts of knowledge. They are biased just like anyone else.

  • My sister and brother-in-law decided against circumcision for their son. My nephew has had no infections and no problems. He’s just fine.

  • leighann

    Why do I so often hear of grown males having the procedure?

  • leighann,

    I haven’t been in a loop that would hear about such things. I know only one uncircumcised male right now, my nephew. So, I’m just speculating, but maybe social pressure? Maybe feeling different? Or feeling a potential for rejection by women?

  • Jet

    Cindy, you could describe from now until doomsday what it’s like to have breasts, and no male would ever completely understand it.

    Unless you’ve grown a dick and had it circumsized, you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about… As you yourself have said, don’t believe everything you’re told.

  • Jet,

    Why would I have to be a male to listen to opinions of males who have been circumcised as adults?

    And what does listening to a human being about an effect something has on their own body have to do with trusting every opinion out of a doctor’s mouth?

    What you’re saying makes no sense at all to me.

  • Jet

    There are doctors that justify abortion, there are doctors who say it’s murder, there are doctors of every opinion in this world that you can find to support anything. The same can be said for men who are cut or uncut, it’s like the difference between Presbyterian and Protestant. Both opinions are valid.

    As in abortion, each man has his own choice, and no one else should presume to to force their opinon on any one else.

    The decision is totally up to the parents and should remain that way without selfrighteous interference.


  • Jet

    …oh dear, our first fight.

  • lol Jet. It’s not such a bad fight 🙂

    I see. Okay, well, like I clarified to Ruvy, I’m not interested in changing the law. That is Van’s position, not mine. I’m just expressing my own opinion.

  • Hey Jet, how’re you doing? (I refuse to engage in this debate any longer & I’m sorry i wrote the damn article) It’s good to see you on BC…although you may never have left since I’m rarely here, LOL.

    Hope you’re feeling better.

    and remember

    In Jameson Veritas

  • Jet

    All covered in my on-line diary blog Mark, thanks for asking.

  • Cindy,

    Ruvy – Just for the record. I wasn’t planning to ask the fed to ban circumcision….

    Who ever said you were? I was talking to Van – and J.

    Finally, I do not push circumcision for non-Jews. What the parents of non-Jews do with their childrens’ peckers (circumcision-wise) is entirely their own business. I keep my hands off the problem – in every sense of the word.


    I know you like to be the funny man – and that’s OK with me. But you really have to check this shit out further. The world needs badly to laugh – and doesn’t want to!

  • Who ever said you were?

    No one did. It’s why I made it a point to say “just for the record.”

  • Ruvy,

    The world needs badly to laugh – and doesn’t want to!

    No kidding! Truer words have rarely been spoken.

    However, a satirist has no responsibility to research the truthiness of his or her blatherings. [I just made that up, but it sounds good.]

    Actually, in a twisted way, I’m pleased that the story has generated so much interest.

    The highest reward for a satirist (save money) is to have his satire elevated to serious consideration.

    In Jameson Veritas

  • roger nowosielski: “I thought it was always a matter of individual choice.”
    It certainly should be, and who has more right to choose than the person on the other end?

  • Chrissy

    There’s nothing inherently wrong with the foreskin that would require it be removed, without question, from a patient who doesn’t consent to the procedure, period. Only the person who must bear any burden or benefits of a procedure should stand to make the choice to go through with it or not. It’s easy for parents to request the foreskin be cut off; why? Because /they/ don’t have to live with the consequences! It’s HIS body, therefore HIS choice alone.

  • Mine works perfectly fine and I’ve never had any complaints. In fact, they’ve all loved it.

  • physicist

    Being a physicist, I prefer to study empirical evidence through experimentation.

    The idea was to simulate operation of a natural foreskin. Being circumcised, I pulled the remaining skin over my own glans and taped it in place for two months. After several weeks, a light layer of skin similar to sunburn peeling sloughed off the glans and remaining mucous membrane. Both became substantially more sensitive to touch.

    My next experiment consisted of persuading an unaltered friend to tape his foreskin in a retracted position, exposing glans and inner foreskin lining. He was to go about his daily business, and report back any changes.
    He said he could not continue with the experiment after 15 minutes. He found underwear rubbing extremely uncomfortable and distracting. He compared it to “touching your eyeball with your finger.”

    I asked how much sensitive inner lining he had. He said most of the shaft during an erection if he pulled his skin back to the base. This is substantially more than the inch or less I have.

    This is only two data points, but experimental conclusions are:

    1) The foreskin acts as a protective sleeve, covering the glans and its inner lining, keeping them sensitive and vital.

    2) Foreskin inner lining contains nerve endings, providing sensitivity.

    Circumcision removes much of the inner lining of the sexually responsive foreskin.

    Circumcision deprives the penis of its protective sleeve, causing sensitivity loss.

  • It’s a sort of sad thing that we actually need an experiment to determine that chopping off parts of the body that seem designed to protect other parts will result in a loss of sensation to those now unprotected parts.

  • Ruvy


    Mark, you should be reading this too, you old agnostic!

    Perhaps you should look at this from more than mere sensitivity of the organ. There may be more to all this that how explosive an orgasm a guy gets in sex, and there may be a reason that only small selected groups of people chose to practice male circumcision.

    Only the Children of Abraham chose to practice this. And only one group (the Children of Israel) chose to do it in such a way that it would involve a minimum of pain for the child.

    This is where you need to consider that there may have been Another Point of View in all of this. It may be that according to that Other Point of View, that sexual ecstasy was not the primary thing to be sought in life – at least for this self-selected group of descendants of Abraham.

    I’ve repeatedly written here at this site that the Torah and the commandments in it were only for the Children of Israel, and nobody else. This lesser amount of sexual gratification (for guys, at least) may have a reason in terms of the Mission of the Children of Israel.

    There may be such a thing as Holiness, and being Set Apart. Those things are also possible considerations from the “physicist’s” experiment.

  • physicist

    I suppose we could cut off some fingers to be “Set Apart.” Overcoming that adversity would build character. Those things are also possible considerations from “Ruvy”‘s point of view.

  • physicist,

    If your “buyer’s remorse” is so bad, go have elective surgery to “fix” yourself. You already proved you would “benefit”, and since this is the benefit that matters to you, go for it!

  • physicist

    I didn’t come here to be hassled [personal attack deleted].

  • then you came to the wrong site

  • 117 – physicist

    That is an excellent point. Personally, I am in agreement with you. I appreciate your experiment and your raising awareness.

  • physicist

    Correct. This site is below me. Bye.

  • physicist

    Correct. Apparently, the moderator didn’t approve of my assessment of this site’s quality level and deleted. Bye.

  • physicist


  • Nobody can criticize a physicist for being correct. Someone’s remark must have been deleted. It doesn’t seem like a scientist’s neat mind to repeat correct after saying, “bye”.

  • amen

    hi ruvy my dear, you have been tought the obvious wrong.
    … i never have mad and never will make “a bond” with the “allready bondedpeace-park-planshalom be raama acheretevolutionary peace plannature-preserve-peace-proposal” that ive given in 1993 to be implemented and that is now being “re-vived” by the “obama administration” in respect of reaching an adequat peace also with the children in syria. … also the “wye peace memorandum” and in positive consequence to it: the prevention of the “second intifada” has my sig-nature. … so: be calm about it and allow yourself to not to be so “stubborn” when it comes that you “speak about me”.

    … lets check th learningprocess and correct also thousansofyearsold [setup]”mistakes”. love you too. amen.

  • sd

    whatb the

  • Karen Nurse

    I am looking for someone to do an expose’ on a custom. I am a nurse in newborn nursery. The pain that sweet tiny baby boys go through during a circumcision horrifies me. It is surgery without anesthesia. It is 10 minutes of pure hell. The pain is so horrendous that many babies go into shock immediately. They just stare and make gurgly noises. They are the lucky ones. The others remain perfectly aware of the pain that goes on and on. Their piercing screams haunt me.

    In history, the earliest surgery was done without anesthesia. Just tie them down and do it quick. Some people were willing to have surgery once. But I’ve read that people refused to endure surgery a second time – even if it meant death. They knew how severe the pain was, and decided they would rather die than endure that pain a second time.

    How can intelligent, educated people not realize that a scalpel causes a horrendous, sharp, excruciating pain that no human being should ever have to endure. Tell me how a custom can be so strong that it overpowers intelligence and common sense.

    For example, the Chinese custom of “binding” young girls’ feet. The toes were forced down under the foot [ breaking bones, I believe ] and tightly bound forever. So the feet couldn’t grow. Forever small. Big feet were considered UGLY. No one would marry a girl with big feet. Can you imagine the pain? Americans are not under the influence of Chinese customs and from a distance, we are apalled! But in China, even after a law was passed against foot-binding, some parents would still do it – knowing that they were going to prison. That is how strong a custom can be. It can cloud judgement.

    The pain of circumcision wouldn’t be quite as bad if the foreskin was fully developed at birth. But it is still adhered to the glans [ head of the penis ] and does not separate naturally for several years. Mother Nature may be slow, but it produces an exquisitely sensitive sexual organ.

    The first step of a circumcision is to rip the adhered foreskin off the glans using a metal probe. But the two skins are still fused as one. And patches of skin are ripped off the glans in the process. I see the glans of these tiny penises with skin missing and the tissue exposed every day. The pain is supposed to be comparable to having a metal probe forced under your fingernail and ripping it back and forth until the fingernail comes off. Imagine the pain! It is now recommended that a pain block be used. But it is not a law. So only a few babies get it.

    So why do we do it? Because it is what we are used to. A custom. Explain that to a baby that is enduring a pain that no human being should ever have to endure!

    There are many other reasons not to circumcise. It is removing the best skin of the penis. The foreskin contains approx. 20,000 specialized nerves that enhance sexual pleasure. The skin remaining is crude and has only a fraction of the sensation. The foreskin is NOT extra skin. It is there so that the penis can get longer during an erection. It is designed to unfold and stretch out, allowing the penis to grow. In the process, the foreskin is pulled off the glans. The glans is then uncovered and now the intact penis looks the same as a circumcised penis. They end up looking the same during an erection. But the intact penis is larger and has more sensation.

    Over the years, doctors have invented excuses for circumcision and the public latches onto them. These excuses are false and misleading. There is no reason good enough to inflict such sharp, excruciating pain on someone you love. To forever decrease his sexual pleasure. To amputate the best, most sensitive part of his penis. To violate his human rights.

    As I watch parents hug and kiss their new babies. Then insist that their babies endure a pain that is comparable to a fingernail being ripped off with a metal probe. And then a scalpel cuts – with no anesthesia. I want to scream, “Do you love your baby, or hate him?”

    There are many organizations that would help you with an expose’. They are easy to find on the internet. Please help! Babies are weak. This custom is strong.

  • Allan I

    What a load of complete bullshit. It would seem anything & everything is blamed on circumcision, one of these days you will be able to buy an underarm with a smegma fragrance, then they will tell you it is the in thing.

  • Craig

    Was this really a political issue in the UK?

    I’m from the UK and I couldn’t imagine that issue coming up here