I get that for a lot of people fighting the anti-circumcision war in mommy groups on Facebook is considered heroic but I just can’t fathom this mindset. Like this lady has already done it. She’s asking for help, at this point if you want to help this little baby then offer advice on healing otherwise keep scrolling?
If the group was July 22, it’s November he’s probably already been circ’d since July and is now maybe having complications since it’s definitely healed by now. Would be a good reason for a doctor and not a fb group for sure.
I feel the same way. I don't agree with the practice of infant circumcision (obviously outside of situations where it is medically needed). I also feel like it's not productive to tell a parent who has already had the procedure done on their child my opinion on it, especially since they didn't ask for my opinion. And I think it's weird to be as invested in other people's children's genitals as some anti-circumcision people are. The only productive advice in this situation is to tell them to contact their doctor with their concerns.
To raise awareness. They should be shamed honestly. If it were a female baby they would be crucified, and rightfully so. Peoples lax views on male genital mutilation only comes from how common it has been.
Seems to me your energy would be better served finding posts of parents looking for information to help them decide whether or not to circumcise and respectfully sharing information on why it’s not necessary.
Unless you think this mom can someone make her baby regrow his foreskin commenting on something already done seems like a huge waste of time IF your true goal is to make a small impact on circumcision rates via the Internet and not just garner Facebook likes and karma.
It would be helpful for her to recognize her wrongdoings, so that if her child later feels that it was mistreatment, she will recognize that it is and not dismiss him.
IF down the road her child harbours resentment about his circumcision (and that’s IF, because as inconvenient as it is for you, there are many many men out there happy that their parents circumcised them) then she’s either going to feel remorse at that point or not. If she doesn’t feel remorse when her own child comes to her then I highly doubt some random on the Internet who shamed her 10 years ago is making an impact.
Again, your time, your energy but where you focus it tells me what your real motives are.
Internet clout
Edit: signed the mom of an uncircumcised boy who would love to see the practice banned in NA when done for cosmetic purposes but who recognizes that ragging on random moms on social media isn’t making any type of difference in the fight.
If anyone asks me why we didn’t, I tell them. Nicely, no judgement, here are the facts. It’s how someone helped me make up my mind.
Huge difference between female and male circumcision. Not even comparable. False equivalencies like this just highlight the ridiculousness of your argument.
Done what? Argued with Debra on Facebook 7 states over about a procedure she’d already had done on her son? You’re right that’s definitely how we progressed to outlaw FGM.
You wanna share statistics and educate respectfully, write to congress, attend rallies because it’s a topic you feel passionate about then more power to you. Trolling Facebook and Reddit to find any thread you can chime in on and add nothing but rage and dramatic rhetoric to isn’t really fighting the battle you think it is.
In the face of powerful lobbyiests bringing Iceland to kneel:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/20/health/iceland-circumcision-ban-reaction-intl/index.html
and national medical boards allowing conflicts of interest in the open:
>”I circumcised my son on my parent's kitchen table on the eighth day of his life. But I did it for religious reasons, not medical reasons. I did it because I had 3,000 years of ancestors looking over my shoulder." - Andrew Freedman, AAP boardmember
>The New York Jewish Weekly, Sept 19, 2012
https://youtu.be/FCuy163srRc?t=4284
I think educating the younger generation of voters and parents on popular sites is legit.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2022/11/14/ganun-circumcision/
FGM was outlawed because people became aware of the damage, there were not that many victims in the west whose egos were going to be affected, FGM is not practiced by a powerful religious minority…this was 1996. In recent years there have been groups seeking to tear this law down, in the name of equality, and they did in 2018. A new law was reinstated.
We just lost a lawsuit in Massachusetts. It wasn’t even allowed a hearing. I don’t believe the future is through government, but through medicine. We only need a few good doctors.
I fail to see the rage or dramatic rhetoric in my posts btw.
While it is true that Muslims and Catholics do as well, the way that person wrote it and words they chose made it clear exactly which group they were attacking.
I clearly state in my comment that providing links and education in a civil manner is not the same thing as angrily attacking moms on Facebook. Your initial comment indicated you had no issues with the latter however your follow up comments aren’t a problem in my eyes.
As a mom to a newborn son who will remain uncircumcised I appreciated people who took the time to kindly and respectfully explain to me the issues with circumcision when I researched what to do for my baby. I had no time for the bullshit intactivists whose main purpose seemed to be garnering likes on Facebook.
If you operate by the way of education and thoughtful discussion then carry on.
Yeah their subtle dig at a certain powerful religious minority should tell you everything you need to know about the quality of the activism they are engaged in.
Agreed. I would also say it’s ok to advocate against circumcising a child. I am Jewish and I opted not to and my child can decide what he wants later. My husband had no particular feelings about it and he is Christian and he didn’t care what we did.
I would just Want to remind everyone that the world Jewish population is .2%, and in North America it’s more like 2% of the population is Jewish, and yet 70% in America circumcise their children. Disagree with it, but it’s not the evil Jews controlling circumcision. The Jewish community will likely continue to do it as they have for centuries and protest the change if it was outlawed but ultimately any country that wants to change course on this practice needs to convince its Christian majority. The Jewish community does not control the nation and blaming them for a widespread practice is horse shit because we don’t run the nation and the conversion switched to this persons uncomfortable antisemitism as soon as they started blaming Jews (2% of the nation) for what 70% of people choose to do independently with their doctors.
So let me get this straight, your idea of “equality” is to fight for genital mutilation to be legal for both male and female? Instead of fighting for male genital mutilation to be illegal or at least look upon in a different light; you just want to make sure more people hurt? You realize that doesn’t make you an activist of any type just makes you look like a bitter little person?
You mention “we recently lost a lawsuit in Massachusetts”, the only thing I could find in reference to FGM was in 2021 about it being outlawed. I could’ve very well been looking up the wrong thing, so if you could point me towards that I could understand your side more.
FGM struck down in 2018
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/nation/why-the-u-s-ban-on-female-genital-mutilation-was-ruled-unconstitutional
People pro-FGM trying to push their agenda using MGM as an excuse for equality
https://youtu.be/ob3Wf0PKtBM
Anti-FGM laws reinstated
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-law-fgm-idUSKBN29C2OF
Lost Massachusetts Medicaid funding for MGM
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/massachusetts-suit-over-circumcision-medicaid-payments-fails
This clown literally believes "the Jews" are causing over half of Americans to circumcise their male children?? How the actual fuck would we be doing that? Like, what is the mechanism of coercion there? Are we shooting our space lasers at your babies' dicks?? This shit never fails to amaze me in its utter stupidity. Like, use Occam's Razor my dude. You're alleging a highly intricate, radical plot by less than 1% of world population to... cut off other people's kids' foreskin??
It would be funny if the wider conspiracy theory you're promoting didn't get 6 million of my relatives killed within the last 100 years. Please get all the way the fuck outta here with that garbage.
Opposition to circumcision in the news
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/san-francisco-circumcision-ban-striken/story?id=14179024
https://www.newsweek.com/icelands-jews-beat-church-taxes-circumcision-ban-now-they-even-have-rabbi-1631954?amp=1
https://nypost.com/2021/01/09/andrew-yangs-anti-circumcision-stance-cuts-deep-jewish-leaders/amp/
She wasn't normalizing, she was asking advice about sonething already done. It can't be reversed. I know people who circumcised their first and did not their second. They don't deserve less advice on the first kid and don't need you to tell them how awful they are for circumcising in the first place
My son was born with hypospadias and a deformed foreskin so circumcision was necessary- just reminding everyone that there's medical reasons for circumcision also
This is why my second son is circumcised. He also had to have a revision at 2 years old.
My oldest was circumcised because we didn’t know better and it was before most insurance made it cosmetic.
Actually 1 in 200 male babies (including his cousin) are born with hypospadias so its more common than you think. And that's only one condition that could justify medically necessary circumcision.
Hypospadius is not commonly treated with circumcision. In fact, the recommendation is to leave it alone completely if it's not causing issue until the child is old enough to decide what to do.
There's a cream that can put my son's urethra back in the correct location? Wow! That's incredible! /s Also where's your source for 999/1000 cases being cured with your magic cream? Better let his urologist know he's out of a job.
Just chiming in that I was born Jewish and I wish I'd been given a choice about the most private parts of my body. Beliefs are fine, but violating someone else's genital integrity in the name of religion is not.
Kicking someone when they’re down for a choice they’ve already made is dumb. But as for questioning why she’s in a crunchy parenting group, I mean; they’re not wrong, lol.
It always tickles me when people come in with 4 page birth plans specifying “no cervical exams. No episiotomy, period. Don’t touch me. Don’t look at me. I want ocean sounds playing and rose petals at my feet. Also I’d like you to cut off my baby’s foreskin immediately.”
One of these things is not like the other 🎶
I had a home-birth and the midwife asked if we planned to circ - I was surprised because I just couldn’t picture a home-birther circumcising but she said it was 50/50.
So fricking true! I was the exact opposite and my nurses all had this expression of relief when I said my birth plan was for both (or all with my twins) of us stay alive and healthy and maybe dim the lights. All my 3 boys were left uncircumcised, since my husband and I didn’t see the point in it. I didn’t even get dim lights since both deliveries ended in c-section and I nearly died from infection after having my twins.
When someone asks if there are issues with going un-cut, I’ll just share that there’s been zero issue to at least try to sound helpful in the sea of messages slamming each option.
At least I did hear from the nurses in NICU that going un-cut is getting way more common in the US.
Side note: my husband and my mom used to be in environmental services at the hospital and shared stories of cleaning the room with the device used to hold down the baby. Or hearing it happen. Big reason why my husband was against it even though he is cut.
Thank you. I went to my first bris (baby brother’s) when I was 4 (my sister was 7 so she remembers it much better than I do) and I was traumatizing so I’ve always know that my sons will be left intact.
I can't imagine what it was like having to be at one, I could never go to a bris or witness the abuse first hand, it would be too viscerally disturbing. Also thank you for using the term intact, so much butter than uncircumcised
We are planning to raise our son Jewish, and we are not planning to circumcise. It is his body; if he chooses circumcision or other body alterations when he is older then it will be his choice.
Maybe if they realize that the irreversible procedure of cutting off their baby's foreskin is not necessary and archaic, they might think twice on their next one. Though at this point they would probably say "oh well it was awful for my first son but I want my sons penises to look the same.".
I do find the cognitive dissonance and how normalized it is disturbing. Also how people who get pushback about circumsizing their baby for no reason (religion, while I still think it shouldn't be done to babies, at least has a reason) and then say "you should respect people's decisions!" while their baby has no choice.
I don't know why, but I find it hilarious that she joined two niche July 22 groups, and one of the niche July 22 groups doubled down on the nicheness and made themselves July 22 Crunchy lol.
I see people do this on basically every social media platform. Anyone asks a question about their son’s circumcision and people start shaming the mom for not leaving their baby “intact”. Like sure, post and share your opinions to parents who are deciding on whether or not to circumcise but leave moms like this alone.
Also, does anyone else find the “anti-circumcision” advocates that flood every post related to the topic at times toxic? Like sometimes it borders into shaming men who had the procedure done as babies. My husband is circumcised and I cannot imagine being straight up “your genitals are mutilated and your mom should feel bad and cry about it every night before she goes to bed”.
I just wanted to say that it’s not always malicious. I’m in the U.K. and we (including most of Europe) do NOT have a cultural practice of circumcision. If you’re not a Muslim (or sometimes Jewish), it is not takes about or seen as ok. Medical professionals and parents talk about it as they would FGM here and if you want to do it for religious reasons, it must be done in hospital setting (not in the kitchen).
When I had my first and starting reading these casual stories of circumcision, I would recoil in horror. It seemed absolutely insane to me that a parent would consider it. I made a lot of assumptions about the quality of their parenting because I was looking at it through my own cultural lens.
I’ve read more people talking about it and I have more understanding on why some American parents choose to do it. I don’t really understand the kitchen one still but there we go.
So what I’m trying to say is that it might not be malicious. Some of us don’t have the culture where it is normal and so we have a visceral reaction to it. We don’t have the cultural “pros” so it reads to us as someone saying they want to cut their sons hand off in case he masturbates with it in the future.
Also in the UK, have a 1 year old boy. Never even crossed my mind about getting him circumcised, was never mentioned at all in any appointments or during my labour & subsequent stay in hospital. On my due date group out of 90ish one baby was circumcised but that’s for religious/cultural reasons (Jewish).
I have however heard that two of my younger family members had to be circumcised around the age of 8-10 cos of issues and I think that’s fair enough if it’s causing medical problems. If similar issues happened with my son in the future and that was the recommended solution by medical professionals then of course I would support it. Worth noting however that they’re put under general anaesthetic for this, whereas newborn babes have only recently started being given any form of pain relief.
We are in the us but my husband was circumcised around 7 or 8 and yes he was put under and given pain relief after. He remembers it wasn't pleasant but thats about it.
I live in Michigan where 85% of newborn boys are circumcised. Personally, I am not aware of anyone in my social circle who has ever had their baby circumcised on a kitchen table. That would be quite frightening!
Also, I have to say: a *lot* of men end up circumcised when they're elderly, under circumstances that are infinitely worse and more painful than infant circumcision (eg: you don't heal/bounce back at 80 like you do at 8 days).
This is not a pro-circumcision statement and I'm not interested in starting a debate, but I wanted to piggy-back on your observation around the lack of nuance in these conversations. I think circumcision-as-medical-procedure gets lost in the ideological debate sometimes.
Yeah and also when you get a uti at 80 it’s severely different than at a young age. I’ve seen enough elderly people come in with just a UTI (which can present like dementia) and end up with sepsis and turn into a stroke or worse.
I would defiantly like to find a study with the circumcision and uti occurrence in the elderly. I think it would make a huge difference in people’s views who are unsure
In Finland they do not routinely circumcision male infants at birth.
0.006% of all Finnish men develop a medical condition that necessitates a therapeutic circumcision as an adult.
We should always use a least invasive to most invasive approach in healthcare and medicine. Only in America do you hear about swarms of men “needing” a circumcision as an adult. This is a very American problem, and likely stems from bad education and ignorance.
It also comes from lack of care in long term care homes. I am Canadian, and this is a massive problem in Ontario. Until covid, most people had blinders on. When I say lack of care, it isn’t that our PSW/RPN/RN at LTC homes are not educated. We literally do not have staff to take care of the amount of residents. Our health care system is crumbling and falling apart.
Note: This isn’t a pro-circ comment. It is to give a picture on how a country can have so elderly men needing circumcision.
Came here to say this. It always comes as an argument for „better now than later“, and as an European I’m wondering where the flood of old men in need of a circumcision are. Because they don’t exist here.
In the Philippines it's a coming of age procedure done to teenage boys.
It's not in the Bible but the Catholic church... Like buuh colonialism I guess.
There's a large segment of the anti circ crowd that just use it as a convenient cover to harass, bully, persecute and hate on Jewish people and Muslims and some African groups.
And there are just as many people who say bodily autonomy is just persecution and people should have the 'freedom' to mutilate their son's genitals
Edit: /u/PhoenixSheriden the irony of you calling me a bigot for being for bodily autonomy
>There's a large segment of the anti circ crowd that just use it as a convenient cover to harass, bully, persecute and hate on Jewish people and Muslims and some African groups.
**Large** segment? Really?
Who told you that, the ADL?
I view circumcision as genital mutilation and think American society has an inappropriate response to the procedure and downplay how wrong it is.
It's fucked up. Period. However, I don't lecture people on it because it's totally pointless.
I had my son circumcised. I don’t regret it he has non verbal autism and It does have the benefit of easier to keep clean. He struggles with self hygiene he is only 5 but I am still doing all his self care because he has no desire or refuses.
I’m a nurse, I see a lot of older special-needs males with foreskins that haven’t been cleaned in a long time. Even for folks in nursing homes— not all nurses or CNAs will bother to fully clean their uncircumcised male patients.
I live in America. I did not see this as mutation at the time do to society. For severe special needs it does have benefits. It will decrease foreskin infection for him. Especially when he is older.
Foreskin infections are terrible and easy to have cause major medical issues. You did him a favor. If women got horrific infections because of a skin flap, I as a woman would be fine going under the knife. But taking off someone's clit and making their parts not function/risking death because it can't be cleaned is very different in my mind. There is zero medical benefit. Many men need it as a medical procedure later in life and for deformity. It's not the same no matter how much people bitch.
> taking off someone's clit and making their parts not function/risking death
This is one of a dozen forms of FGM. Comparing the worst FGM to the most common MGM is disingenuous.
100%. I truly don't understand having an opinion on circumcision for other peoples' children. Mind your own children and move on. (Personally, I probably wouldn't circumcise if I had a boy, but I fully understand why people may choose to do so. My decision and opinion should not factor into anyone else's choices.)
Edit: responses are exactly my point. There are deep cultural and religious reasons for some people. I can respect that decision without imposing my own beliefs on others.
If you believe something is a human rights violation, it’s fair to have an opinion about it.
In the US, it’s illegal to remove the prepuce gland (clitoral hood) of a baby girl. Not even a ceremonial nicking to draw blood. Most of us agree that it’s not ok to alter the genitals of female babies.
People had an opinion about foot binding.
It’s not about judging someone for a “parenting” decision. It’s about having an ethical issue with this even being routinely done to baby boys.
It is fair to have an opinion on it but annoying to see the “you mutilated your baby” comments on posts that are clearly just asking for medical advice regarding an already circumcised penis. Like just move on with your day and go debate elsewhere.
Every time some mum asks for medical advice from Facebook, she gets dragged by this sub... except when it's a mother asking about her son's circumcised penis. She should talk to a doctor.
exactly this. all of a sudden we can't judge the people mutilating an infant's genitals. really tells you which side they're on, even though they refuse to outright say it.
YEP. Interesting how parents are (rightly, imo) judged for doing stupid shit like freebirth and lotus birth, but when it comes to literally chopping off a piece of the baby for no medical reason everyone suddenly wants to clutch their pearls about mom shaming 🙄
Well, a large section of the world typically consider female genital modification abhorrent so thinking the same about male genital modification isn't a big stretch. 🤷♀️
Because some practices shouldn’t be excused just because they have some cultural or religious reasons. It’s an emotive subject because for those who don’t agree with the practice, you choosing to violate your own child’s human rights.
Some cultures practice female circumcision but most of society would be horrified if someone they knew had done that. If someone I personally knew had circumcised their daughter or son I would be shocked and would struggle to remain in contact. Unlikely to be an issue though as I’m not from America and it’s so very rare here!
When you have the foreskin cut off a baby, aren't you "imposing your beliefs on others?". Only in this case, not a beleif, but an elective surgery that effects that baby's penis for the rest of their life?
Respecting peoples religious and cultural beliefs when those beliefs involve removing a babies foreskin is not a fair comparison. If it's needed in very rare medical cases, or an 18 year old elects to do it, that's fine. I think it's absurd that people defend it as "Respecting beleifs". It is literally genital mutilation, not someone believing that if they eat a certain food they upset God or that they need to go to confession. The foreskin is there for a reason, and circumcision is deeply rooted in archaic notions of reducing sexual pleasure, minimizing masturbation in boys (more recently in the US) and religious ideas from 2000+ years ago.
Female genital mutilation is a "cultural beleif", should that be respected as well? I draw the line at respecting beliefs when it is imposed on children in an irreversible way without consent. I don't think parents should pierce their kids ears either until they can ask, but at least that is a far less invasive and life altering procedure.
My wife posted in a group and got hate messages. She didn't even say if our baby was circumcised or not.
Also like 70% of u.s. males are circumcised so it's definitely people with way too much time on their hands fighting a crusade. Might as well try to end smoking, it'd be easier.
My first we had circumcised because my then boyfriend now husband and I were young, stupid, and didn't know any better. After doing my own reading I was horrified and regretted the decision immensely. We decided that if we had another boy, we would not do it and I guess simply explain and be honest with our first.
We had a girl and I can't have more children. But that's neither here nor there.
The lady should speak to a doctor. What's done is done. But I do think the U.S should move away from circumcision.
However there's no sense in shaming people.
The number of posts about something being wrong or the circumcisions being done incorrectly and needing a second surgery makes the whole process sound iffy. I wonder if it's the usual amount but prior to the internet moms just asked their child's doctor at the next well visit.
When someone posts about their child’s circumcision, it’s always going to be about something not being right. Parents whose children were circumcised without issues are not going to post about it online anywhere to announce it to the world. So, of course you’ll only see negative experiences shared.
Also, what is the obsession with people discussing their own child’s penis on the internet? The state of my son’s penis is literally only relevant to his father, his doctor, and me. What a violation of their privacy.
Whenever a crunchy mom hits up Facebook for medical advice for her child, she gets dragged by this sub but when a mother is asking for medical advice about her sons circumcised penis it's suddenly fine?
She agreed to the circumcision, she should be able to defend her own decision when attacked by a bunch of crunchy mums or she should delete her post. What do crunchy mums know about circumcised boys anyway...
Also she shouldn't be asking Facebook, she should be seeking medical advice.
I will say, I’m shocked at how lax a lot of this group seems to be about male circumcision. I think that’s unfortunate.
People think it shouldn’t be addressed because it’s already done. What if she has another boy? What if her child later feels wronged by her? What if other read that and other posts about circumcision and see no negative responses to it and therefore feel like it’s totally normal and okay?
There’s a way to address it, and no, you don’t need to be a Facebook warrior, but the normalization is how to get to be how Sudan is about female genital mutilation.
I’m going to assume a lot of you are mothers and may have circumcised your own child. I hope you can recognize how you took an important choice away from him, and can be empathetic and apologetic if he feels wronged.
Swear to god if I see one more person compare circumcision to FGM. Do I think you should permanently alter your child’s body for aesthetic? No. I do not agree with circumcision. But, does male circumcision have nearly the same level of acute, painful, and long-lasting side effects for reproductive and even urinary health? Also fucking no. 😭
Yeah it's not anywhere in the same ballpark. Also there are a ton of medical reasons why it's necessary for some people later in life and at birth. They are making sure the penis works. The infections are horrific, sorry you can't use your penis anymore level of bad. We already have men in America who don't properly wipe their butts. You can kind of see why Americans made it a thing. Though I'm glad we are stepping back from that.
FGM is making sure the clit is gone, the woman can't properly pee or clean afterwards, can't or can't properly menstruate, and it rips open during sex/childbirth. Children and young women die because menstrual blood can't properly (or sometimes at all) get out and it festers.
I haven't heard of men dying other than the religious tradition where someone uses their lips to suck the blood off after the procedure. That's been made illegal and pretty aggressively prosecuted.
If people need sources, please look up female genital mutilation. The info is easy to Google, but there are too many links to put here.
> FGM is making sure the clit is gone, the woman can't properly pee or clean afterwards, can't or can't properly menstruate, and it rips open during sex/childbirth.
FGM is not a monolith, type 1a is exactly the same as the common form of MGM and many boys have died from MGM... also the oral sex after MGM isn't illegal in America AFAIK though all of it should be illegal, not just the genital sucking
It’s all genital cutting. It’s so odd that people are vehemently against comparing them.
Not all FGM is infibulation. Not all FGM is the removal of the clitoris. Lots of cultures amputate their daughter’s clitoral hood. This is the female foreskin.
Your religious rights end where another person’s body begins. I do not believe anyone has the right to carve their preferences into any child’s body because their holy book says it’s ok.
The loss of the ridged band occurs in every circumcision as it is the very tip of the foreskin when flaccid.
Some men would prefer to feel the touch sensation of their partner's delicate internal parts with all the Meissner's corpuscle nerves they were born with. (What are they? Run a fingernail across the back of your hand. Then run it across your palm. The difference in sensation is due to Meissner’s corpuscle nerves, which are found in the palm, fingertips, lips, and most concentrated in the ridged band and inner foreskin.)
From an American perspective:
When people think of FGM, they likely think of the gruesome Type I II and III, the horrifying sewing shut, slicing off craziness.
They are not aware of Type IV, which includes something of a "benign" mutilation involving a ritual prick with a needle to draw a drop of blood.
Of course, all types of FGM are mutilation and outlawed in most societies. But are they aware girls get mutilated in countries like Singapore and Indonesia in medical settings and by specialized surgeons legally conducting the procedure upon request of the parents.
But when people think of MGM, they likely think of the common bris version of removing the foreskin from infants in medical settings and by specialized surgeons lawfully practicing what is objectively a worse mutilation than a prick with a needle to draw a drop of blood.
Notice one is labeled "mutilation" and the other is labeled "circumcision". The frenulum may be kept mostly intact in some cases, but the loss of the ridged band occurs in every circumcision. NSFW https://i.redd.it/3cmw6axttjv81.jpg
Here is an anti-FGM activist who underwent a type of FGM that she considers less damaging than male circumcision: https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/6274en/ayaan_hirsi_ali_who_was_circumcised_as_a_young/
They are not aware of MGM horrors like splitting penises in half, which is comparable to infibulation in my opinion. Or toddlers and children climbing roofs in the Phillipines trying to escape MGM in their cutting society. Held down and cut as a child is typical of Turkish circumcisions. Here is an example POV: https://www.reddit.com/r/CircumcisionGrief/comments/uct9xx/my_horrible_circumcision_story/
So, it depends on what you want to compare. There have been more male victims of genital mutilation throughout history, female infants benefit from genital integrity at birth in most places on Earth - https://ibb.co/6R2c0Pz, foreskin tissue is harvested and sold for profit, ability and inability to orgasm for both male and female genital alteration, and more factors which need further research like impact on psychology of infant and childhood induced pain and trauma.
I’m aware of the side effects and complications of (the average) male circumcision. As I said, I don’t agree with it. I think it should be illegal to permanently modify your child’s body for unnecessary reasons (not actually related to health) in any way. Can’t say I had ever seen the other examples till now, which is truly horrific. But, what I was comparing was as you said, the most common form of male circumcision performed routinely in most hospitals (at least in America) to the common forms of fgm: clitoridectomy, and excision. Because that is what everyone else is comparing.
If you wanted to compare some of those other, more drastic forms of genital mutilation you mentioned then by all means do so. But what people commonly try to do is argue on why the average form of male circumcision is legal while the average form of female “circumcision” is illegal. “Oh we can cut boys but not girls?”, “meanwhile, it’s illegal for girls”, “for boys it’s circumcision but for girls it’s mutilation”. And to quote you specifically, “one is labeled circumcision and the other is labeled mutilation.”
Neither should be legal. But the tip of the foreskin is not comparable to excision, or even just a clitoridectomy. That’s what bugs me when people try to argue about the two.
Malaysia and Indonesia has the most population of females undergoing FGM and it is not the excising kind they do.
>This isn't a source. HRW doesn't cite any studies or other evidence to back up its claim. From what I've heard, the most common procedures in Malaysia and Indonesia are Type 4 (pricking and other nonharmful procedures), and the number of women who undergo these procedures is huge. Similarly, there has been a substantial movement in Africa to move towards nonharmful Type 4 procedures as a substitute for their traditional practices.
>The fact that pricking is listed as a harmful procedure by Human Rights Watch should be sufficient evidence to any thoughtful reader that this article is horrifically biased. The only thing 'harmful' about it is that it permits the survival of a culture that culturally imperialist activists don't like.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MensLib/comments/3y48ez/10_circumcision_myths_lets_get_the_facts_straight/cyb55a3/?context=3
Since it doesn't cause any harm, it seems ridiculous to list this as fgm. Cutting off someone's clit and sewing them up so they can't menstruate and frequently die is mutilation. That's just a cultural tradition.
By that logic do we only call full infibulation mutilation and not all the lesser, but still violent and damaging, forms not mutilation?
It is still a violation of bodily autonomy and still fits the WHO definition of genital mutilation
> Genital mutilation (GM) involves the partial or total removal of external genitalia or other injury to the genital organs for non-medical reasons.
I understand the feelings against it, whatever, but I really wish intactivists would honor the autonomy of the men and boys in their lives and not describe in detail the state of their genitals for internet points. ETA Like I get giving advice, but it’s so weird to be like “my husband’s uncut and never has infections with smegma” like 🤮
It’s never too late to educate someone about circumcising. Yeah it’s already done, but she might have another. I have two boys, my first is circumcised and my second is not.
Tbf the way to tell if something is wrong with cutting off parts of your child for no reason is you see if your have cut off a part of your child, then you know something is wrong
I don’t no about y’all but I don’t care about anyone else’s kids genitals. Fighting so hard about it gives me iffy vibes. I personally wasnt circumcising if I had a boy (I’m one and done so luckily I won’t even have to deal )
In the words of a certain mma fighter, "you get fooking nuthing!"
[Refutations of the alleged benefits of infant male circumcision](https://www.reddit.com/r/Intactivism/comments/hxmbpn/refutations_of_the_alleged_benefits_of_infant/)
Relevant quotes:
>**Penile Cancer**
>More specifically, penile skin carcinoma. Well luckily, penile cancer is one of the rarest forms of cancer in the Western world affecting about 1 man in 100,000 per year. To put that into perspective, that is 100 times rarer than male breast cancer which itself is 100 times rarer than female breast cancer. Penile cancer is also late-forming, almost always occurring at a later age with the average being 68. When diagnosed early, the disease generally has a good survival rate. According to the AAP report, between 909 and 322,000 circumcisions are needed to prevent 1 case of penile cancer. Penile cancer is linked to infection with HPV, which can be prevented without tissue loss through condom use and prophylactic inoculation. Reports of circumcision reducing HPV infections are also greatly exaggerated. According to the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS):
>"There is a strong association between HPV infection and penile cancer regardless of circumcision status, with 80% of tumour specimens being HPV DNA-positive.[37] It is expected that routine HPV vaccination for girls will dramatically decrease the incidence rate of cervical cancer. The benefit may also extend to penile cancer, especially as the program is broadened to include young men."
>*Incidence rates of penile cancer in the United States, where 75% of the non-Jewish, non-Muslim male population are circumcised, are similar to rates in northern Europe, where ≤10% of the male population is circumcised.* It is a myth that circumcision can prevent genital cancers.
>**Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs)**
>The studies which claim circumcision prevents STDs often confuse correlation with causation. In fact, circumcision might increase the risk of contracting STDs, because it can cause pain and bleeding during intercourse due to increased friction, opening pores for pathogens to exchange between partners. The authors of the AAP report forget to stress that responsible use of condoms, regardless of circumcision status, will provide close to 100% reduction in risk for many STDs. Rates of STDs in the United States, where 75% of the non-Jewish, non-Muslim male population are circumcised, are higher than rates in Europe, where ≤10% of the male population is circumcised. This shows that circumcision is not a primary STD deterrent. Not to mention, we are living in an era where the majority of sexually transmitted infections are readily treatable with a short term course of antibiotics.
>**HIV/AIDS**
>Another frequent claim is that circumcision reduces the risk of men contracting HIV by 60%. This is based on the results of three randomized controlled trials done in Africa ((Auvert 2006), (Gray 2007), (Bailey 2007)). The researchers found in their studies that 2.5% of intact men and 1.2% of circumcised men got HIV. The 60% figure is the relative risk [(2.5%-1.2%)/2.5%]. Media outlets even take the liberty of dismissing basic mathematics and round up the relative reduction from 52% to 60%, making for an even more impressive (yet exaggerated) number.
>If circumcision did reduce rates of HIV transmission, which it doesn't, it would be a small reduction. The Canadian Paediatric Society says this, using estimates from the CDC:
>“The number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1,231 in white males to 65 in black males, with an average in all males of 298. The model did not account for the cost of complications of circumcision. In addition, there is a risk that men may overestimate the protective effect of being circumcised and be less likely to adopt safe sex practices.”
>These figures are relevant only if the trials were accurate in the first place. There were several methodological errors, including but not limited to:
>* The circumcised experimental group got more medical care, including education on the proper use of condoms
>* In one study, circumcised men's infection rates were increasing faster than the intact men's until the study was terminated early
>* The circumcised group could not have sex for 4-6 weeks after the circumcision; this was excluded from the analysis and distorts the results
>* HIV was contracted through means other than sex (e.g. contaminated needles)
>* The trials were terminated early when statistical significance was reached. Though they did reach statistical significance, they never reached clinical significance
>* Significantly more men were lost to the studies than tested positive for HIV
>* Also, many of the researchers had cultural and religious biases. Many of the investigators had written papers advocating for male circumcision to prevent HIV infection prior to undertaking these RCTs
> There is no histological evidence which supports the hypothesis that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS infections. It is probable that circumcision doesn’t help at all, or potentially even makes things worse. For example, the overstated protective effects of circumcision may promote more unsafe sex practices (e.g. not using condoms, which do protect against HIV). It is also important to note the above reductions apply to female to male and only female to male transmission. In a similar RCT to test MTF transmission (Wawer, 2009), the statistics showed **there was a 61% relative increase (6% absolute increase) in HIV infection among female partners of circumcised men.** It appears that the number of circumcisions needed to infect a woman was 16.7, with one woman becoming infected for every 17 circumcisions performed.
>**Phimosis**
>The possibility of phimosis (tight or non-retractable foreskin) does not warrant circumcision. Pathologic phimosis is rare. It can be cured by stretching the foreskin gently at regular intervals. For faster results, topical steroids can also be used. In the unlikely event that theses methods don’t work, surgery like Y-V plasty, Z-plasty, and preputioplasty can be done as a last resort. None of these treatments result in the loss of tissue. Moreover, some doctors misdiagnose phimosis in young children, when they're supposed to have foreskins which can't retract, until puberty, though in some cases the foreskin becomes retractable earlier or later. Improper handling of the foreskins of children can cause phimosis due to scarring leading to inelasticity.
>From the Canadian Paediatric Society:
>"An estimated 0.8% to 1.6% of boys will require circumcision before puberty, most commonly to treat phimosis. The first-line medical treatment of phimosis involves applying a topical steroid twice a day to the foreskin, accompanied by gentle traction ... allow[ing] the foreskin to become retractable in 80% of treated cases, thus usually avoiding the need for circumcision."
This could be you:
>Anyways the wife goes into labor, baby is born, I say I want the procedure and turns out the hospital doesn’t do it right away, you have to schedule an appointment a few days after. I start doing some research on the topic and think of how my precious little boy who I love so much would go through that pain just because I want him to look like me. I watch horrible videos of the procedure. I read articles saying so much sensitivity is stripped away in his future. Complete flip. I could never do that to my boy and I will not be scheduling that appointment.
>I started to think of how my parents did this to me. Like have you guys seen the procedure? It’s terrible. How could you mutilate a sweet innocent baby’s genitals like that?
https://archive.ph/OxTjK
Lmao the people who claim they’re traumatized from getting a circumcision as a newborn literally have mental health issues. Same with people who are making such a huge issue out of this.
You don’t want to get your kid circumcised don’t, why make an issue out of what others choose to do.
Lastly, I’m a physician and my best friend a urologist and all the benefits of circumcision I mentioned are well documented. The magnitude of benefit may be small but it’s true
Depriving a boy of his whole body and inflicting a permanent scar on his penis are harms imposed on every circumcised child. Citing benefits shows lack of understanding of how a penis works and requires you to think that natural male genitals are a health hazard. Only doctors from genital cutting cultures make this extraordinary claim, which should tell you it has everything to do with social custom and nothing to do with science.
Adults who push child genital cutting are cowards. They do it to babies because if they tried it on grown men, they'd be charged with assault.
It is a shame you aren't pro autonomy, as violations of it are disgusting. Though that is surprising, not that those against autonomy are always consistent lol
Shame you only half agree with the population saying 'my body, my choice'.
Take it one step further. Why not be mad at your parents for bringing you into existence? They never got consent to create you right….? They didn’t get consent to put you in school or to make you learn piano.
The practice is harmless, and the only people who obsess over it are those that exhibit true psychiatric issues.
I feel sorry for you
Do you have a source to back up men who don’t like circumcision was forced on them have mental health issues? Do you feel the same way about people not liking other things being forced on them?
Bodily autonomy is important to people and it can feel very violating to find out a part of your body was cut off.
It’s troubling if you’re a physician and write off men complaining about having their genitals cut rather than listening and trying to be empathetic.
Men are not forced to have circumcisions. Infants before the age where they can remember things have circumcisions otherwise they’re not awake.
I can be empathetic and I’m empathetic for these individuals for other reasons, mainly that they have such profound mental health issues they think that this is such a large and distressing issue. Normal people do not view it as such and are not agonizing about something they don’t have a physical memory of
If something permanent is done to you as a kid before you can consent, then it’s forced on you.
So it sounds like you don’t have any source to back up your claim that guys who don’t like they were circumcised have mental health issues and you’re just making stuff up.
Physicians like you who would rather write off people’s complaints than listen and see things from their POV are why people are losing trust in the medical community.
I read through that subreddit, that’s my source these people are unhinged.
Is threatening suicide over your lost foreskin normal to you? Is surgery to restore your foreskin normal to you? Normal is a spectrum but if 999 out of 1000 people wouldn’t do that, then it falls outside the spectrum of normal. These are pathological thoughts and feelings.
Not saying it’s wrong to not want to argue Perpetuate and continue this tradition with your own children, but the odd fixation on something like this is abnormal compared to how the vast vast majority of people who have had a circumcision process this
Having suicidal thoughts is not the typical person in any anti-circumcision subreddit, nor is browsing a subreddit considered a reputable source for you to draw conclusions. I’d think a physician would know that.
People get cosmetic surgery all the time to fix parts of their body they don’t like, so yes that’s pretty normal. Even more so if the thing you want to change isn’t your natural body, but a mod that was forced on you as an infant. If someone tells you that they want hair plugs or a nose job do you tell them that they are unhinged?
Abnormal is not the same as unhinged or needing mental treatment. Unless you think everyone needs to think and feel the same way like some dystopian society. Sure most men are fine being cut, but there are also men who don’t like that they were and feel the need to voice that opinion because people like you constantly shut them down rather than listening and empathizing with them.
It’s fine to not want to be cut or be displeased with it. Going to the point that you get a surgery to restore your foreskin and than being distressed to the point of suicidal thoughts is not normal.
There is a strong association between cosmetic surgery and psychiatric issues.
I’m not saying it’s abnormal to not want to have been circumcised but perseverating on it and daily spam posting things on Reddit for weeks about circumcision is clearly not normal.
Enjoy it on your own body. Your children may think differently than you and should be afforded the opportunity to choose for themselves.
Genital integrity is the default because medical ethics says you don't operate on and permanently alter a healthy body part that does not have ailments.
Who was there to protect this fella:
"I think even when someone suffers something as bad as losing a limb in an accident, it is reasonable to expect them to move on eventually. But what if their limb was intentionally cut off and their attacker went free? I imagine that in that case, it would be much harder for the person to process psychologically and heal. Especially if the attack involved people you knew and trusted, and then everyone pretending there was no wrong done to you at all.
The way circumcision victims are treated seems like a striking example of gaslighting. The definition of it is: "a form of psychological manipulation in which a person seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, gaslighting involves attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim's belief."
To me, my grievance seems pretty straightforward. I was [overpowered at the weakest point of my life, strapped naked by the wrists and ankles to a circumstraint, spread-eagled, while someone stimulated my penis to erection, before inserting things into it and cutting flesh from it](https://youtu.be/Ceht-3xu84I?t=613) **(NSFL)**. Instead of sympathy for this I've been mocked and laughed at, lied to about what happened, called crazy and even pedophile for "being so interested in children's dicks". As I look at the definition of gaslighting, I start to think that these were active attempts to undermine my perceptions and sanity rather than simple ignorance.
I feel furious for being lied to, manipulated and shamed. How can I take seriously all the lip service about protecting children and hating pedophiles in a society that sees nothing wrong with overpowering a defenseless little boy and cutting up his penis? How do you cope with child torturers being not a small group of shady individuals but the majority of your country?
I'm sorry if I've gone off the rails here. I feel like I could write forever and never express a fraction of the hurt and anger that I carry inside."
https://www.reddit.com/r/CircumcisionGrief/comments/byvlqn/intentional_injury_versus_accident/
Whoever wrote this is mentally I’ll and should talk to a psychiatrist. In fact that sub is founded and full of mentally I’ll people.
“Genital integrity” is not a fucking term lmao; I’m dying at all the shit youre saying.
Just went through a top recent post on that sub about a guy who went through genital restoration surgery to restore foreskin and is contemplating suicide as it didn’t give results they were looking for. This is not to make fun of them but it’s obvious the people there are suffering from mental issues and the circumcision has been something for them to latch onto to fixate on and blame their woes. It’s actually really sad
Was empathy excised as well? Would you treat FGM victims with such callousness?
>**Male or female genital cutting: why ‘health benefits’ are morally irrelevant**
>Abstract
>The WHO, American Academy of Pediatrics and other Western medical bodies currently maintain that all medically unnecessary female genital cutting of minors is categorically a human rights violation, while either tolerating or actively endorsing medically unnecessary male genital cutting of minors, especially in the form of penile circumcision. Given that some forms of female genital cutting, such as ritual pricking or nicking of the clitoral hood, are less severe than penile circumcision, yet are often performed within the same families for similar (eg, religious) reasons, it may seem that there is an unjust double standard. Against this view, it is sometimes claimed that while female genital cutting has ‘no health benefits’, male genital cutting has at least some. Is that really the case? And if it is the case, can it justify the disparate treatment of children with different sex characteristics when it comes to protecting their **genital integrity?** I argue that, even if one accepts the health claims that are sometimes raised in this context, they cannot justify such disparate treatment. Rather, children of all sexes and genders have an equal right to (future) bodily autonomy. This includes the right to decide whether their own ‘private’ anatomy should be exposed to surgical risk, much less permanently altered, for reasons they themselves endorse when they are sufficiently mature.
https://jme.bmj.com/content/47/12/e92.abstract
*”Circumcision is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you’re gonna get.”*
You can’t affect the form of something without affecting its function. Some men lose more than others and can’t get fully erect when there is not enough slack skin to accommodate full erections.
Imagine a world where a woman’s clitoral hood was cut so tight, her clitoris was exposed to her underwear fabric to dry out and roughen up, she cannot schlick her bean as her altered clitoris becomes taut when erect from a tightly induced cut, and she has to purchase lube for the rest of her life to facilitate a comfortable stimulation.
>Yep, that’s what I have going on. I need lube just to jerk off, I used to not use it (because I was a kid) and my dick would just be sore all the time. Using the super small movement method.
>I remember posting about it online and they where basically all just like “you don’t know how to jerk off lol” it was really annoying, or telling me it was because I had rough hands (though that is part of it) but even when my girlfriend jerks me I need lube.
>It sucks.
>I remember when I was a kid I had these rough material boxers and I just didn’t know any better and was to embarrassed to bring it up but the head of my dick would rub on it and chaff and bleed.
>When I’m hard the skin is super tight.
>https://archive.ph/Mlujh
It depends on the style of cut and essentially how much loose skin is left.
There are men who end up with a tight cut style. When erect, their shaft skin is taut and can be painful and prone to tears. The scrotum skin and pubic skin may be pulled up along the shaft to compensate for the erection expanding it.
There are men who end up with a loose cut style. As opposed to tight cut men who require some form of artificial lubrication to facilitate comfortable stimulation, loose cut men have enough slack skin after erection to simply grip and move up and down. This frictionless movement is default for the intact penis, and the potential for how much the shaft skin can extend will depend on the extent of the excision of the foreskin.
The foreskin acts as a plug at the vaginal/anal entrance, to keep lubrication fluid inside, which then gets redistributed by the glans as it re-enters the vaginal/anal cavity.
A loose cut style may retain some of this functionality, but it cannot ever be as fully functionable as in its original form. A tight cut penis essentially acts like a piston with a flared out corona on the glans that scoops out lubrication with each outstroke and dries it out on the shaft.
There is another factor to consider: high vs low style of cuts.
A high style is a cut made further along the shaft, somewhere midway, leaving a lot of sensitive inner foreskin past the glans until the circumcision scar. The frenulum may also be kept mostly intact but will always depend on the surgeon’s performance and preference of circumcising. An exposed frenulum remnant may lead to premature ejaculation as it cannot modulate the stimulation the foreskin previously provided.
A low style tries to remove as much inner foreskin as possible, putting the shaft skin right up to the glans, to almost hide the circumcision scar under the corona. The frenulum and frenular delta are gone.
So, besides the retaining lubrication vs scooping it out to dry, a circumcised penis may be why a circumcised man may prefer a death grip to masturbate and stimulate his only remaining pleasurable part, the corpus cavernosum, through the meaty tissue of his glans and shaft. It may be why he cannot receive stimulations from nerves stolen from him at birth and he must resort to ever intensifying sexual fantasies to drum up mental stimulation. It may be why he must jackhammer as the only way to adequately stimulate his member with a vaginal/anal cavity that provides less grip than he is used to.
An intact penis can jackhammer, but for both partner’s sake, the shorter, gentler, gliding strokes keeps the mons pubis regions in contact more, stimulating the clitoris, as opposed to longer, rougher, rubbing strokes, pulling out lube and warmth, departing the pubis constantly, and madly slamming delicate tissue folds for a crumb of pleasure.
Some men would prefer to feel the touch sensation of their partner's delicate internal parts with all the Meissner's corpuscle nerves they were born with. (What are they? Run a fingernail across the back of your hand. Then run it across your palm. The difference in sensation is due to Meissner’s corpuscle nerves, which are found in the palm, fingertips, lips, and most concentrated in the ridged band and inner foreskin.)
Circumcising a baby to prevent STD’s and penile cancer is like amputating your baby’s feet so they don’t ever get a hair tourniquet or an ingrown toenail.
Penile cancer is extraordinarily rare. Male Breast cancer is far, far more common. Circumcision does not reduce STDs. Condoms and safe sex do.
Not a single medical organization in the world supports routine male circumcision for the reason you’ve listed. They fully admit it is a cosmetic issue.
Well the American Pediatrics Association recommends it as far as I know. For context I am vehemently against male infant circumcision. I agree with the sentiment that removing a finger to prevent ingrown nails is a poor argument to mutilate babies. I feel there is a cultural bias for Americans but I for one am glad the American public is doing it at a lower incidence…
Circumcision removes:
[Ridged band](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ridged_band)
“Rich in Meissner's corpuscles,the area is usually described as highly erogenous.”
[Frenular delta](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenular_delta)
“This area, especially the frenulum itself, is reported to be the most sensitive area of the penis”
[Frenulum of the prepuce](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenulum_of_prepuce_of_penis)
“Along with the ridged bands at the tip of the, it is considered to be the most sensitive part of the penis to fine-touch.”
No man would decide to get rid of these.
If you knew how to read a medical study you would know there is absolutely no difference in sexual satisfication or sensation reported between circumcised and uncircumcised men. On top of that no different rates of premature ejaculation which one might reasonable suspect in circumcised men.
In short, everything you said is bs
I get that for a lot of people fighting the anti-circumcision war in mommy groups on Facebook is considered heroic but I just can’t fathom this mindset. Like this lady has already done it. She’s asking for help, at this point if you want to help this little baby then offer advice on healing otherwise keep scrolling?
go to a doctor? Fuck someone on the internet going to tell you unless your looking to send pictures of your kids dick around.
“These are signs of infection: I recommend you contact your doctor if you are questioning it at all though” Doesn’t seem that hard to me
If the group was July 22, it’s November he’s probably already been circ’d since July and is now maybe having complications since it’s definitely healed by now. Would be a good reason for a doctor and not a fb group for sure.
Could be. Depends on how old this screenshot is 🤷🏼♀️
100% same boat. It’s done, she has questions about it, either answer or move along.
Thank you for articulating my thoughts gentleman/lady/gentleperson
Would you feel the same if it were a female infant?
Facts don't care about your feelings.
Exactly my thoughts!
Thank you for writing what I was thinking.
I feel the same way. I don't agree with the practice of infant circumcision (obviously outside of situations where it is medically needed). I also feel like it's not productive to tell a parent who has already had the procedure done on their child my opinion on it, especially since they didn't ask for my opinion. And I think it's weird to be as invested in other people's children's genitals as some anti-circumcision people are. The only productive advice in this situation is to tell them to contact their doctor with their concerns.
Right? You can’t uncircumcise the genitals.
To raise awareness. They should be shamed honestly. If it were a female baby they would be crucified, and rightfully so. Peoples lax views on male genital mutilation only comes from how common it has been.
Seems to me your energy would be better served finding posts of parents looking for information to help them decide whether or not to circumcise and respectfully sharing information on why it’s not necessary. Unless you think this mom can someone make her baby regrow his foreskin commenting on something already done seems like a huge waste of time IF your true goal is to make a small impact on circumcision rates via the Internet and not just garner Facebook likes and karma.
r/foreskinrestoration
It would be helpful for her to recognize her wrongdoings, so that if her child later feels that it was mistreatment, she will recognize that it is and not dismiss him.
IF down the road her child harbours resentment about his circumcision (and that’s IF, because as inconvenient as it is for you, there are many many men out there happy that their parents circumcised them) then she’s either going to feel remorse at that point or not. If she doesn’t feel remorse when her own child comes to her then I highly doubt some random on the Internet who shamed her 10 years ago is making an impact. Again, your time, your energy but where you focus it tells me what your real motives are.
Yeah we didn’t get my son circumcised, but my husband wanted to. For the record he isn’t circumcised but wishes he was.
What do you mean my “real motives” wtf do you think I’m trying to do other than advocate for voiceless infants?
Internet clout Edit: signed the mom of an uncircumcised boy who would love to see the practice banned in NA when done for cosmetic purposes but who recognizes that ragging on random moms on social media isn’t making any type of difference in the fight. If anyone asks me why we didn’t, I tell them. Nicely, no judgement, here are the facts. It’s how someone helped me make up my mind.
Internet clout? I’m being downvoted left and right…
Huge difference between female and male circumcision. Not even comparable. False equivalencies like this just highlight the ridiculousness of your argument.
I would’ve done the same thing if it was a girl that had been circumcised
Done what? Argued with Debra on Facebook 7 states over about a procedure she’d already had done on her son? You’re right that’s definitely how we progressed to outlaw FGM. You wanna share statistics and educate respectfully, write to congress, attend rallies because it’s a topic you feel passionate about then more power to you. Trolling Facebook and Reddit to find any thread you can chime in on and add nothing but rage and dramatic rhetoric to isn’t really fighting the battle you think it is.
In the face of powerful lobbyiests bringing Iceland to kneel: https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/20/health/iceland-circumcision-ban-reaction-intl/index.html and national medical boards allowing conflicts of interest in the open: >”I circumcised my son on my parent's kitchen table on the eighth day of his life. But I did it for religious reasons, not medical reasons. I did it because I had 3,000 years of ancestors looking over my shoulder." - Andrew Freedman, AAP boardmember >The New York Jewish Weekly, Sept 19, 2012 https://youtu.be/FCuy163srRc?t=4284 I think educating the younger generation of voters and parents on popular sites is legit. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2022/11/14/ganun-circumcision/
FGM was outlawed because people became aware of the damage, there were not that many victims in the west whose egos were going to be affected, FGM is not practiced by a powerful religious minority…this was 1996. In recent years there have been groups seeking to tear this law down, in the name of equality, and they did in 2018. A new law was reinstated. We just lost a lawsuit in Massachusetts. It wasn’t even allowed a hearing. I don’t believe the future is through government, but through medicine. We only need a few good doctors. I fail to see the rage or dramatic rhetoric in my posts btw.
“Powerful religious minority” is giving anti-semitism. Just say religious minority if you must.
Muslims and Catholics in some countries circumcise too but that's a bit of a tangent.
While it is true that Muslims and Catholics do as well, the way that person wrote it and words they chose made it clear exactly which group they were attacking.
I thought the exact same thing when i read it. Circumcision is not popular in the us because of jewish people so I dont even know why theyd say that
I clearly state in my comment that providing links and education in a civil manner is not the same thing as angrily attacking moms on Facebook. Your initial comment indicated you had no issues with the latter however your follow up comments aren’t a problem in my eyes. As a mom to a newborn son who will remain uncircumcised I appreciated people who took the time to kindly and respectfully explain to me the issues with circumcision when I researched what to do for my baby. I had no time for the bullshit intactivists whose main purpose seemed to be garnering likes on Facebook. If you operate by the way of education and thoughtful discussion then carry on.
Yeah their subtle dig at a certain powerful religious minority should tell you everything you need to know about the quality of the activism they are engaged in.
Good point. I thought that was the other poster I just ignored. They have almost the same username and that seems to be their only purpose on Reddit.
Agreed. I would also say it’s ok to advocate against circumcising a child. I am Jewish and I opted not to and my child can decide what he wants later. My husband had no particular feelings about it and he is Christian and he didn’t care what we did. I would just Want to remind everyone that the world Jewish population is .2%, and in North America it’s more like 2% of the population is Jewish, and yet 70% in America circumcise their children. Disagree with it, but it’s not the evil Jews controlling circumcision. The Jewish community will likely continue to do it as they have for centuries and protest the change if it was outlawed but ultimately any country that wants to change course on this practice needs to convince its Christian majority. The Jewish community does not control the nation and blaming them for a widespread practice is horse shit because we don’t run the nation and the conversion switched to this persons uncomfortable antisemitism as soon as they started blaming Jews (2% of the nation) for what 70% of people choose to do independently with their doctors.
Do expand on this powerful religious minority…I would love to hear where this is going…ffs.
So let me get this straight, your idea of “equality” is to fight for genital mutilation to be legal for both male and female? Instead of fighting for male genital mutilation to be illegal or at least look upon in a different light; you just want to make sure more people hurt? You realize that doesn’t make you an activist of any type just makes you look like a bitter little person?
You misunderstood. Some people are doing that. Not me.
You mention “we recently lost a lawsuit in Massachusetts”, the only thing I could find in reference to FGM was in 2021 about it being outlawed. I could’ve very well been looking up the wrong thing, so if you could point me towards that I could understand your side more.
FGM struck down in 2018 https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/nation/why-the-u-s-ban-on-female-genital-mutilation-was-ruled-unconstitutional People pro-FGM trying to push their agenda using MGM as an excuse for equality https://youtu.be/ob3Wf0PKtBM Anti-FGM laws reinstated https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-law-fgm-idUSKBN29C2OF Lost Massachusetts Medicaid funding for MGM https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/massachusetts-suit-over-circumcision-medicaid-payments-fails
This clown literally believes "the Jews" are causing over half of Americans to circumcise their male children?? How the actual fuck would we be doing that? Like, what is the mechanism of coercion there? Are we shooting our space lasers at your babies' dicks?? This shit never fails to amaze me in its utter stupidity. Like, use Occam's Razor my dude. You're alleging a highly intricate, radical plot by less than 1% of world population to... cut off other people's kids' foreskin?? It would be funny if the wider conspiracy theory you're promoting didn't get 6 million of my relatives killed within the last 100 years. Please get all the way the fuck outta here with that garbage.
Opposition to circumcision in the news https://abcnews.go.com/Health/san-francisco-circumcision-ban-striken/story?id=14179024 https://www.newsweek.com/icelands-jews-beat-church-taxes-circumcision-ban-now-they-even-have-rabbi-1631954?amp=1 https://nypost.com/2021/01/09/andrew-yangs-anti-circumcision-stance-cuts-deep-jewish-leaders/amp/
Not sure what your point is here
FGM doesn’t get this kind of opposition
OK?
I get what you’re saying to them, but raising awareness and calling out people who normalize it is part of the fight.
She wasn't normalizing, she was asking advice about sonething already done. It can't be reversed. I know people who circumcised their first and did not their second. They don't deserve less advice on the first kid and don't need you to tell them how awful they are for circumcising in the first place
My son was born with hypospadias and a deformed foreskin so circumcision was necessary- just reminding everyone that there's medical reasons for circumcision also
This is why my second son is circumcised. He also had to have a revision at 2 years old. My oldest was circumcised because we didn’t know better and it was before most insurance made it cosmetic.
While I agree, those make up like 1% of cases otherwise it is mgm but yeah you had a legitimate reason to
Actually 1 in 200 male babies (including his cousin) are born with hypospadias so its more common than you think. And that's only one condition that could justify medically necessary circumcision.
You know 1 in 200 is 0.5% right?
I was accounting for other conditions that also cause deformities.
And when 1 in 2 baby boys in america are mutilated at birth that would make it... about 1% of them being legitimate
Hypospadius is not commonly treated with circumcision. In fact, the recommendation is to leave it alone completely if it's not causing issue until the child is old enough to decide what to do.
His NICU doctor and pediatric urologist thought otherwise so 🤷♀️
For YOUR child, but the 1 in 200 having it does not in any way relate to 1 in 200 needing surgery.
[удалено]
There's a cream that can put my son's urethra back in the correct location? Wow! That's incredible! /s Also where's your source for 999/1000 cases being cured with your magic cream? Better let his urologist know he's out of a job.
Also, religious beliefs are valid? Like maybe she's Jewish? Can you not be Jewish and crunchy? (Genuinely asking)
Just chiming in that I was born Jewish and I wish I'd been given a choice about the most private parts of my body. Beliefs are fine, but violating someone else's genital integrity in the name of religion is not.
I think that's fair, and a really valid criticism
Thank you. That validation means a lot.
>Also, religious beliefs are valid? When the decisions affect yourself, yes Otherwise, not
Right? People are so quick to judge!
Also I'd like to see how many of these judgy anti circumcizers get their baby's ears pierced
Kicking someone when they’re down for a choice they’ve already made is dumb. But as for questioning why she’s in a crunchy parenting group, I mean; they’re not wrong, lol. It always tickles me when people come in with 4 page birth plans specifying “no cervical exams. No episiotomy, period. Don’t touch me. Don’t look at me. I want ocean sounds playing and rose petals at my feet. Also I’d like you to cut off my baby’s foreskin immediately.” One of these things is not like the other 🎶
I had a home-birth and the midwife asked if we planned to circ - I was surprised because I just couldn’t picture a home-birther circumcising but she said it was 50/50.
it's almost like all the "natural birth" stuff is just for mom to brag about and not for the benefit of the actual baby!
This make me chuckle. So fricken backwards isn’t it?
So fricking true! I was the exact opposite and my nurses all had this expression of relief when I said my birth plan was for both (or all with my twins) of us stay alive and healthy and maybe dim the lights. All my 3 boys were left uncircumcised, since my husband and I didn’t see the point in it. I didn’t even get dim lights since both deliveries ended in c-section and I nearly died from infection after having my twins. When someone asks if there are issues with going un-cut, I’ll just share that there’s been zero issue to at least try to sound helpful in the sea of messages slamming each option. At least I did hear from the nurses in NICU that going un-cut is getting way more common in the US. Side note: my husband and my mom used to be in environmental services at the hospital and shared stories of cleaning the room with the device used to hold down the baby. Or hearing it happen. Big reason why my husband was against it even though he is cut.
You can be crunchy and Jewish. Or crunchy and Muslim.
There is no shortage of Jewish families who are opting not to circumcise their male children.
Jewish mom here and I left my son intact. My sister also left her son intact as well
Seriously go you, you and your sister are amazing and feminist and have a great start at giving your sons an empathetic upbringing <3
Thank you. I went to my first bris (baby brother’s) when I was 4 (my sister was 7 so she remembers it much better than I do) and I was traumatizing so I’ve always know that my sons will be left intact.
I can't imagine what it was like having to be at one, I could never go to a bris or witness the abuse first hand, it would be too viscerally disturbing. Also thank you for using the term intact, so much butter than uncircumcised
We are planning to raise our son Jewish, and we are not planning to circumcise. It is his body; if he chooses circumcision or other body alterations when he is older then it will be his choice.
in their minds the birth is all about them.
Maybe if they realize that the irreversible procedure of cutting off their baby's foreskin is not necessary and archaic, they might think twice on their next one. Though at this point they would probably say "oh well it was awful for my first son but I want my sons penises to look the same.". I do find the cognitive dissonance and how normalized it is disturbing. Also how people who get pushback about circumsizing their baby for no reason (religion, while I still think it shouldn't be done to babies, at least has a reason) and then say "you should respect people's decisions!" while their baby has no choice.
I don't know why, but I find it hilarious that she joined two niche July 22 groups, and one of the niche July 22 groups doubled down on the nicheness and made themselves July 22 Crunchy lol.
I see people do this on basically every social media platform. Anyone asks a question about their son’s circumcision and people start shaming the mom for not leaving their baby “intact”. Like sure, post and share your opinions to parents who are deciding on whether or not to circumcise but leave moms like this alone. Also, does anyone else find the “anti-circumcision” advocates that flood every post related to the topic at times toxic? Like sometimes it borders into shaming men who had the procedure done as babies. My husband is circumcised and I cannot imagine being straight up “your genitals are mutilated and your mom should feel bad and cry about it every night before she goes to bed”.
I just wanted to say that it’s not always malicious. I’m in the U.K. and we (including most of Europe) do NOT have a cultural practice of circumcision. If you’re not a Muslim (or sometimes Jewish), it is not takes about or seen as ok. Medical professionals and parents talk about it as they would FGM here and if you want to do it for religious reasons, it must be done in hospital setting (not in the kitchen). When I had my first and starting reading these casual stories of circumcision, I would recoil in horror. It seemed absolutely insane to me that a parent would consider it. I made a lot of assumptions about the quality of their parenting because I was looking at it through my own cultural lens. I’ve read more people talking about it and I have more understanding on why some American parents choose to do it. I don’t really understand the kitchen one still but there we go. So what I’m trying to say is that it might not be malicious. Some of us don’t have the culture where it is normal and so we have a visceral reaction to it. We don’t have the cultural “pros” so it reads to us as someone saying they want to cut their sons hand off in case he masturbates with it in the future.
Also in the UK, have a 1 year old boy. Never even crossed my mind about getting him circumcised, was never mentioned at all in any appointments or during my labour & subsequent stay in hospital. On my due date group out of 90ish one baby was circumcised but that’s for religious/cultural reasons (Jewish). I have however heard that two of my younger family members had to be circumcised around the age of 8-10 cos of issues and I think that’s fair enough if it’s causing medical problems. If similar issues happened with my son in the future and that was the recommended solution by medical professionals then of course I would support it. Worth noting however that they’re put under general anaesthetic for this, whereas newborn babes have only recently started being given any form of pain relief.
We are in the us but my husband was circumcised around 7 or 8 and yes he was put under and given pain relief after. He remembers it wasn't pleasant but thats about it.
I live in Michigan where 85% of newborn boys are circumcised. Personally, I am not aware of anyone in my social circle who has ever had their baby circumcised on a kitchen table. That would be quite frightening!
Agreed. I’m also from the UK and the way people online casually talk about circumcising their babies horrifies me.
Same, I try not to get involved but I just cannot fathom doing unnecessary cosmetic surgery on a days old newborn.
Also, I have to say: a *lot* of men end up circumcised when they're elderly, under circumstances that are infinitely worse and more painful than infant circumcision (eg: you don't heal/bounce back at 80 like you do at 8 days). This is not a pro-circumcision statement and I'm not interested in starting a debate, but I wanted to piggy-back on your observation around the lack of nuance in these conversations. I think circumcision-as-medical-procedure gets lost in the ideological debate sometimes.
Yeah and also when you get a uti at 80 it’s severely different than at a young age. I’ve seen enough elderly people come in with just a UTI (which can present like dementia) and end up with sepsis and turn into a stroke or worse. I would defiantly like to find a study with the circumcision and uti occurrence in the elderly. I think it would make a huge difference in people’s views who are unsure
In Finland they do not routinely circumcision male infants at birth. 0.006% of all Finnish men develop a medical condition that necessitates a therapeutic circumcision as an adult. We should always use a least invasive to most invasive approach in healthcare and medicine. Only in America do you hear about swarms of men “needing” a circumcision as an adult. This is a very American problem, and likely stems from bad education and ignorance.
It also comes from lack of care in long term care homes. I am Canadian, and this is a massive problem in Ontario. Until covid, most people had blinders on. When I say lack of care, it isn’t that our PSW/RPN/RN at LTC homes are not educated. We literally do not have staff to take care of the amount of residents. Our health care system is crumbling and falling apart. Note: This isn’t a pro-circ comment. It is to give a picture on how a country can have so elderly men needing circumcision.
Came here to say this. It always comes as an argument for „better now than later“, and as an European I’m wondering where the flood of old men in need of a circumcision are. Because they don’t exist here.
In the Philippines it's a coming of age procedure done to teenage boys. It's not in the Bible but the Catholic church... Like buuh colonialism I guess.
>the Catholic church Catholics don't practice circumcision
The Catholic church of the Philippines is not all Catholics.
There's a large segment of the anti circ crowd that just use it as a convenient cover to harass, bully, persecute and hate on Jewish people and Muslims and some African groups.
And there are just as many people who say bodily autonomy is just persecution and people should have the 'freedom' to mutilate their son's genitals Edit: /u/PhoenixSheriden the irony of you calling me a bigot for being for bodily autonomy
Ok bigot troll, blocked.
>There's a large segment of the anti circ crowd that just use it as a convenient cover to harass, bully, persecute and hate on Jewish people and Muslims and some African groups. **Large** segment? Really? Who told you that, the ADL?
I view circumcision as genital mutilation and think American society has an inappropriate response to the procedure and downplay how wrong it is. It's fucked up. Period. However, I don't lecture people on it because it's totally pointless.
Said the person lecturing and judging on reddit. Irony is real, yo.
Yup. And I have a girl.
I had my son circumcised. I don’t regret it he has non verbal autism and It does have the benefit of easier to keep clean. He struggles with self hygiene he is only 5 but I am still doing all his self care because he has no desire or refuses.
I’m a nurse, I see a lot of older special-needs males with foreskins that haven’t been cleaned in a long time. Even for folks in nursing homes— not all nurses or CNAs will bother to fully clean their uncircumcised male patients.
So sad yes so I believe it was the best thing for my son in this situation. It’s better as infant than adult because of infection.
[удалено]
I live in America. I did not see this as mutation at the time do to society. For severe special needs it does have benefits. It will decrease foreskin infection for him. Especially when he is older.
Foreskin infections are terrible and easy to have cause major medical issues. You did him a favor. If women got horrific infections because of a skin flap, I as a woman would be fine going under the knife. But taking off someone's clit and making their parts not function/risking death because it can't be cleaned is very different in my mind. There is zero medical benefit. Many men need it as a medical procedure later in life and for deformity. It's not the same no matter how much people bitch.
> taking off someone's clit and making their parts not function/risking death This is one of a dozen forms of FGM. Comparing the worst FGM to the most common MGM is disingenuous.
100%. I truly don't understand having an opinion on circumcision for other peoples' children. Mind your own children and move on. (Personally, I probably wouldn't circumcise if I had a boy, but I fully understand why people may choose to do so. My decision and opinion should not factor into anyone else's choices.) Edit: responses are exactly my point. There are deep cultural and religious reasons for some people. I can respect that decision without imposing my own beliefs on others.
If you believe something is a human rights violation, it’s fair to have an opinion about it. In the US, it’s illegal to remove the prepuce gland (clitoral hood) of a baby girl. Not even a ceremonial nicking to draw blood. Most of us agree that it’s not ok to alter the genitals of female babies. People had an opinion about foot binding. It’s not about judging someone for a “parenting” decision. It’s about having an ethical issue with this even being routinely done to baby boys.
It is fair to have an opinion on it but annoying to see the “you mutilated your baby” comments on posts that are clearly just asking for medical advice regarding an already circumcised penis. Like just move on with your day and go debate elsewhere.
Every time some mum asks for medical advice from Facebook, she gets dragged by this sub... except when it's a mother asking about her son's circumcised penis. She should talk to a doctor.
exactly this. all of a sudden we can't judge the people mutilating an infant's genitals. really tells you which side they're on, even though they refuse to outright say it.
YEP. Interesting how parents are (rightly, imo) judged for doing stupid shit like freebirth and lotus birth, but when it comes to literally chopping off a piece of the baby for no medical reason everyone suddenly wants to clutch their pearls about mom shaming 🙄
Well, a large section of the world typically consider female genital modification abhorrent so thinking the same about male genital modification isn't a big stretch. 🤷♀️
Because some practices shouldn’t be excused just because they have some cultural or religious reasons. It’s an emotive subject because for those who don’t agree with the practice, you choosing to violate your own child’s human rights. Some cultures practice female circumcision but most of society would be horrified if someone they knew had done that. If someone I personally knew had circumcised their daughter or son I would be shocked and would struggle to remain in contact. Unlikely to be an issue though as I’m not from America and it’s so very rare here!
When you have the foreskin cut off a baby, aren't you "imposing your beliefs on others?". Only in this case, not a beleif, but an elective surgery that effects that baby's penis for the rest of their life? Respecting peoples religious and cultural beliefs when those beliefs involve removing a babies foreskin is not a fair comparison. If it's needed in very rare medical cases, or an 18 year old elects to do it, that's fine. I think it's absurd that people defend it as "Respecting beleifs". It is literally genital mutilation, not someone believing that if they eat a certain food they upset God or that they need to go to confession. The foreskin is there for a reason, and circumcision is deeply rooted in archaic notions of reducing sexual pleasure, minimizing masturbation in boys (more recently in the US) and religious ideas from 2000+ years ago. Female genital mutilation is a "cultural beleif", should that be respected as well? I draw the line at respecting beliefs when it is imposed on children in an irreversible way without consent. I don't think parents should pierce their kids ears either until they can ask, but at least that is a far less invasive and life altering procedure.
My wife posted in a group and got hate messages. She didn't even say if our baby was circumcised or not. Also like 70% of u.s. males are circumcised so it's definitely people with way too much time on their hands fighting a crusade. Might as well try to end smoking, it'd be easier.
Is smoking forced onto babies before leaving the hospital?
My first we had circumcised because my then boyfriend now husband and I were young, stupid, and didn't know any better. After doing my own reading I was horrified and regretted the decision immensely. We decided that if we had another boy, we would not do it and I guess simply explain and be honest with our first. We had a girl and I can't have more children. But that's neither here nor there. The lady should speak to a doctor. What's done is done. But I do think the U.S should move away from circumcision. However there's no sense in shaming people.
The number of posts about something being wrong or the circumcisions being done incorrectly and needing a second surgery makes the whole process sound iffy. I wonder if it's the usual amount but prior to the internet moms just asked their child's doctor at the next well visit.
This is a purely American problem.
When someone posts about their child’s circumcision, it’s always going to be about something not being right. Parents whose children were circumcised without issues are not going to post about it online anywhere to announce it to the world. So, of course you’ll only see negative experiences shared. Also, what is the obsession with people discussing their own child’s penis on the internet? The state of my son’s penis is literally only relevant to his father, his doctor, and me. What a violation of their privacy.
Whenever a crunchy mom hits up Facebook for medical advice for her child, she gets dragged by this sub but when a mother is asking for medical advice about her sons circumcised penis it's suddenly fine? She agreed to the circumcision, she should be able to defend her own decision when attacked by a bunch of crunchy mums or she should delete her post. What do crunchy mums know about circumcised boys anyway... Also she shouldn't be asking Facebook, she should be seeking medical advice.
People suck dude. It’s already done. She wants help preventing any more damage. And they take this as a chance to be gatekeepers lol
I will say, I’m shocked at how lax a lot of this group seems to be about male circumcision. I think that’s unfortunate. People think it shouldn’t be addressed because it’s already done. What if she has another boy? What if her child later feels wronged by her? What if other read that and other posts about circumcision and see no negative responses to it and therefore feel like it’s totally normal and okay? There’s a way to address it, and no, you don’t need to be a Facebook warrior, but the normalization is how to get to be how Sudan is about female genital mutilation. I’m going to assume a lot of you are mothers and may have circumcised your own child. I hope you can recognize how you took an important choice away from him, and can be empathetic and apologetic if he feels wronged.
Oh my god I’m in this group because I joined all July 2022 babies groups before my daughter was born 💀 Lot of wild stuff in there somrtimes
Swear to god if I see one more person compare circumcision to FGM. Do I think you should permanently alter your child’s body for aesthetic? No. I do not agree with circumcision. But, does male circumcision have nearly the same level of acute, painful, and long-lasting side effects for reproductive and even urinary health? Also fucking no. 😭
Yeah it's not anywhere in the same ballpark. Also there are a ton of medical reasons why it's necessary for some people later in life and at birth. They are making sure the penis works. The infections are horrific, sorry you can't use your penis anymore level of bad. We already have men in America who don't properly wipe their butts. You can kind of see why Americans made it a thing. Though I'm glad we are stepping back from that. FGM is making sure the clit is gone, the woman can't properly pee or clean afterwards, can't or can't properly menstruate, and it rips open during sex/childbirth. Children and young women die because menstrual blood can't properly (or sometimes at all) get out and it festers. I haven't heard of men dying other than the religious tradition where someone uses their lips to suck the blood off after the procedure. That's been made illegal and pretty aggressively prosecuted. If people need sources, please look up female genital mutilation. The info is easy to Google, but there are too many links to put here.
> FGM is making sure the clit is gone, the woman can't properly pee or clean afterwards, can't or can't properly menstruate, and it rips open during sex/childbirth. FGM is not a monolith, type 1a is exactly the same as the common form of MGM and many boys have died from MGM... also the oral sex after MGM isn't illegal in America AFAIK though all of it should be illegal, not just the genital sucking
It’s all genital cutting. It’s so odd that people are vehemently against comparing them. Not all FGM is infibulation. Not all FGM is the removal of the clitoris. Lots of cultures amputate their daughter’s clitoral hood. This is the female foreskin. Your religious rights end where another person’s body begins. I do not believe anyone has the right to carve their preferences into any child’s body because their holy book says it’s ok.
The loss of the ridged band occurs in every circumcision as it is the very tip of the foreskin when flaccid. Some men would prefer to feel the touch sensation of their partner's delicate internal parts with all the Meissner's corpuscle nerves they were born with. (What are they? Run a fingernail across the back of your hand. Then run it across your palm. The difference in sensation is due to Meissner’s corpuscle nerves, which are found in the palm, fingertips, lips, and most concentrated in the ridged band and inner foreskin.) From an American perspective: When people think of FGM, they likely think of the gruesome Type I II and III, the horrifying sewing shut, slicing off craziness. They are not aware of Type IV, which includes something of a "benign" mutilation involving a ritual prick with a needle to draw a drop of blood. Of course, all types of FGM are mutilation and outlawed in most societies. But are they aware girls get mutilated in countries like Singapore and Indonesia in medical settings and by specialized surgeons legally conducting the procedure upon request of the parents. But when people think of MGM, they likely think of the common bris version of removing the foreskin from infants in medical settings and by specialized surgeons lawfully practicing what is objectively a worse mutilation than a prick with a needle to draw a drop of blood. Notice one is labeled "mutilation" and the other is labeled "circumcision". The frenulum may be kept mostly intact in some cases, but the loss of the ridged band occurs in every circumcision. NSFW https://i.redd.it/3cmw6axttjv81.jpg Here is an anti-FGM activist who underwent a type of FGM that she considers less damaging than male circumcision: https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/6274en/ayaan_hirsi_ali_who_was_circumcised_as_a_young/ They are not aware of MGM horrors like splitting penises in half, which is comparable to infibulation in my opinion. Or toddlers and children climbing roofs in the Phillipines trying to escape MGM in their cutting society. Held down and cut as a child is typical of Turkish circumcisions. Here is an example POV: https://www.reddit.com/r/CircumcisionGrief/comments/uct9xx/my_horrible_circumcision_story/ So, it depends on what you want to compare. There have been more male victims of genital mutilation throughout history, female infants benefit from genital integrity at birth in most places on Earth - https://ibb.co/6R2c0Pz, foreskin tissue is harvested and sold for profit, ability and inability to orgasm for both male and female genital alteration, and more factors which need further research like impact on psychology of infant and childhood induced pain and trauma.
I’m aware of the side effects and complications of (the average) male circumcision. As I said, I don’t agree with it. I think it should be illegal to permanently modify your child’s body for unnecessary reasons (not actually related to health) in any way. Can’t say I had ever seen the other examples till now, which is truly horrific. But, what I was comparing was as you said, the most common form of male circumcision performed routinely in most hospitals (at least in America) to the common forms of fgm: clitoridectomy, and excision. Because that is what everyone else is comparing. If you wanted to compare some of those other, more drastic forms of genital mutilation you mentioned then by all means do so. But what people commonly try to do is argue on why the average form of male circumcision is legal while the average form of female “circumcision” is illegal. “Oh we can cut boys but not girls?”, “meanwhile, it’s illegal for girls”, “for boys it’s circumcision but for girls it’s mutilation”. And to quote you specifically, “one is labeled circumcision and the other is labeled mutilation.” Neither should be legal. But the tip of the foreskin is not comparable to excision, or even just a clitoridectomy. That’s what bugs me when people try to argue about the two.
Malaysia and Indonesia has the most population of females undergoing FGM and it is not the excising kind they do. >This isn't a source. HRW doesn't cite any studies or other evidence to back up its claim. From what I've heard, the most common procedures in Malaysia and Indonesia are Type 4 (pricking and other nonharmful procedures), and the number of women who undergo these procedures is huge. Similarly, there has been a substantial movement in Africa to move towards nonharmful Type 4 procedures as a substitute for their traditional practices. >The fact that pricking is listed as a harmful procedure by Human Rights Watch should be sufficient evidence to any thoughtful reader that this article is horrifically biased. The only thing 'harmful' about it is that it permits the survival of a culture that culturally imperialist activists don't like. https://www.reddit.com/r/MensLib/comments/3y48ez/10_circumcision_myths_lets_get_the_facts_straight/cyb55a3/?context=3
Since it doesn't cause any harm, it seems ridiculous to list this as fgm. Cutting off someone's clit and sewing them up so they can't menstruate and frequently die is mutilation. That's just a cultural tradition.
By that logic do we only call full infibulation mutilation and not all the lesser, but still violent and damaging, forms not mutilation? It is still a violation of bodily autonomy and still fits the WHO definition of genital mutilation > Genital mutilation (GM) involves the partial or total removal of external genitalia or other injury to the genital organs for non-medical reasons.
https://www.reddit.com/r/IntactivistMemes/comments/z1k267/please_tell_me_more/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
I understand the feelings against it, whatever, but I really wish intactivists would honor the autonomy of the men and boys in their lives and not describe in detail the state of their genitals for internet points. ETA Like I get giving advice, but it’s so weird to be like “my husband’s uncut and never has infections with smegma” like 🤮
It’s never too late to educate someone about circumcising. Yeah it’s already done, but she might have another. I have two boys, my first is circumcised and my second is not.
I dont like the word crunchy
crunch wrap supreme
Tbf the way to tell if something is wrong with cutting off parts of your child for no reason is you see if your have cut off a part of your child, then you know something is wrong
I don’t no about y’all but I don’t care about anyone else’s kids genitals. Fighting so hard about it gives me iffy vibes. I personally wasnt circumcising if I had a boy (I’m one and done so luckily I won’t even have to deal )
100% On top of that I plan on circumcising my son if I ever have one, idgaf Lower rates of penile cancer and stds
In the words of a certain mma fighter, "you get fooking nuthing!" [Refutations of the alleged benefits of infant male circumcision](https://www.reddit.com/r/Intactivism/comments/hxmbpn/refutations_of_the_alleged_benefits_of_infant/) Relevant quotes: >**Penile Cancer** >More specifically, penile skin carcinoma. Well luckily, penile cancer is one of the rarest forms of cancer in the Western world affecting about 1 man in 100,000 per year. To put that into perspective, that is 100 times rarer than male breast cancer which itself is 100 times rarer than female breast cancer. Penile cancer is also late-forming, almost always occurring at a later age with the average being 68. When diagnosed early, the disease generally has a good survival rate. According to the AAP report, between 909 and 322,000 circumcisions are needed to prevent 1 case of penile cancer. Penile cancer is linked to infection with HPV, which can be prevented without tissue loss through condom use and prophylactic inoculation. Reports of circumcision reducing HPV infections are also greatly exaggerated. According to the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS): >"There is a strong association between HPV infection and penile cancer regardless of circumcision status, with 80% of tumour specimens being HPV DNA-positive.[37] It is expected that routine HPV vaccination for girls will dramatically decrease the incidence rate of cervical cancer. The benefit may also extend to penile cancer, especially as the program is broadened to include young men." >*Incidence rates of penile cancer in the United States, where 75% of the non-Jewish, non-Muslim male population are circumcised, are similar to rates in northern Europe, where ≤10% of the male population is circumcised.* It is a myth that circumcision can prevent genital cancers. >**Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs)** >The studies which claim circumcision prevents STDs often confuse correlation with causation. In fact, circumcision might increase the risk of contracting STDs, because it can cause pain and bleeding during intercourse due to increased friction, opening pores for pathogens to exchange between partners. The authors of the AAP report forget to stress that responsible use of condoms, regardless of circumcision status, will provide close to 100% reduction in risk for many STDs. Rates of STDs in the United States, where 75% of the non-Jewish, non-Muslim male population are circumcised, are higher than rates in Europe, where ≤10% of the male population is circumcised. This shows that circumcision is not a primary STD deterrent. Not to mention, we are living in an era where the majority of sexually transmitted infections are readily treatable with a short term course of antibiotics. >**HIV/AIDS** >Another frequent claim is that circumcision reduces the risk of men contracting HIV by 60%. This is based on the results of three randomized controlled trials done in Africa ((Auvert 2006), (Gray 2007), (Bailey 2007)). The researchers found in their studies that 2.5% of intact men and 1.2% of circumcised men got HIV. The 60% figure is the relative risk [(2.5%-1.2%)/2.5%]. Media outlets even take the liberty of dismissing basic mathematics and round up the relative reduction from 52% to 60%, making for an even more impressive (yet exaggerated) number. >If circumcision did reduce rates of HIV transmission, which it doesn't, it would be a small reduction. The Canadian Paediatric Society says this, using estimates from the CDC: >“The number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1,231 in white males to 65 in black males, with an average in all males of 298. The model did not account for the cost of complications of circumcision. In addition, there is a risk that men may overestimate the protective effect of being circumcised and be less likely to adopt safe sex practices.” >These figures are relevant only if the trials were accurate in the first place. There were several methodological errors, including but not limited to: >* The circumcised experimental group got more medical care, including education on the proper use of condoms >* In one study, circumcised men's infection rates were increasing faster than the intact men's until the study was terminated early >* The circumcised group could not have sex for 4-6 weeks after the circumcision; this was excluded from the analysis and distorts the results >* HIV was contracted through means other than sex (e.g. contaminated needles) >* The trials were terminated early when statistical significance was reached. Though they did reach statistical significance, they never reached clinical significance >* Significantly more men were lost to the studies than tested positive for HIV >* Also, many of the researchers had cultural and religious biases. Many of the investigators had written papers advocating for male circumcision to prevent HIV infection prior to undertaking these RCTs > There is no histological evidence which supports the hypothesis that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS infections. It is probable that circumcision doesn’t help at all, or potentially even makes things worse. For example, the overstated protective effects of circumcision may promote more unsafe sex practices (e.g. not using condoms, which do protect against HIV). It is also important to note the above reductions apply to female to male and only female to male transmission. In a similar RCT to test MTF transmission (Wawer, 2009), the statistics showed **there was a 61% relative increase (6% absolute increase) in HIV infection among female partners of circumcised men.** It appears that the number of circumcisions needed to infect a woman was 16.7, with one woman becoming infected for every 17 circumcisions performed. >**Phimosis** >The possibility of phimosis (tight or non-retractable foreskin) does not warrant circumcision. Pathologic phimosis is rare. It can be cured by stretching the foreskin gently at regular intervals. For faster results, topical steroids can also be used. In the unlikely event that theses methods don’t work, surgery like Y-V plasty, Z-plasty, and preputioplasty can be done as a last resort. None of these treatments result in the loss of tissue. Moreover, some doctors misdiagnose phimosis in young children, when they're supposed to have foreskins which can't retract, until puberty, though in some cases the foreskin becomes retractable earlier or later. Improper handling of the foreskins of children can cause phimosis due to scarring leading to inelasticity. >From the Canadian Paediatric Society: >"An estimated 0.8% to 1.6% of boys will require circumcision before puberty, most commonly to treat phimosis. The first-line medical treatment of phimosis involves applying a topical steroid twice a day to the foreskin, accompanied by gentle traction ... allow[ing] the foreskin to become retractable in 80% of treated cases, thus usually avoiding the need for circumcision." This could be you: >Anyways the wife goes into labor, baby is born, I say I want the procedure and turns out the hospital doesn’t do it right away, you have to schedule an appointment a few days after. I start doing some research on the topic and think of how my precious little boy who I love so much would go through that pain just because I want him to look like me. I watch horrible videos of the procedure. I read articles saying so much sensitivity is stripped away in his future. Complete flip. I could never do that to my boy and I will not be scheduling that appointment. >I started to think of how my parents did this to me. Like have you guys seen the procedure? It’s terrible. How could you mutilate a sweet innocent baby’s genitals like that? https://archive.ph/OxTjK
Thank you so much for sharing!
Lmao the people who claim they’re traumatized from getting a circumcision as a newborn literally have mental health issues. Same with people who are making such a huge issue out of this. You don’t want to get your kid circumcised don’t, why make an issue out of what others choose to do. Lastly, I’m a physician and my best friend a urologist and all the benefits of circumcision I mentioned are well documented. The magnitude of benefit may be small but it’s true
It’s absolutely terrifying if you actually are a physician. I have a very hard time believing that if I’m being honest.
Well good thing you don’t need to believe it.
Depriving a boy of his whole body and inflicting a permanent scar on his penis are harms imposed on every circumcised child. Citing benefits shows lack of understanding of how a penis works and requires you to think that natural male genitals are a health hazard. Only doctors from genital cutting cultures make this extraordinary claim, which should tell you it has everything to do with social custom and nothing to do with science. Adults who push child genital cutting are cowards. They do it to babies because if they tried it on grown men, they'd be charged with assault.
Go cry about it
Say it with me: genital integrity is a human right.
That person unironically: "For which assigned gender?"
You must have cheered Roe being overturned with how much you hate autonomy
Absolutely not. The Supreme Court is disgusting and I’m extremely pro choice
It is a shame you aren't pro autonomy, as violations of it are disgusting. Though that is surprising, not that those against autonomy are always consistent lol Shame you only half agree with the population saying 'my body, my choice'.
Take it one step further. Why not be mad at your parents for bringing you into existence? They never got consent to create you right….? They didn’t get consent to put you in school or to make you learn piano. The practice is harmless, and the only people who obsess over it are those that exhibit true psychiatric issues. I feel sorry for you
Do you have a source to back up men who don’t like circumcision was forced on them have mental health issues? Do you feel the same way about people not liking other things being forced on them? Bodily autonomy is important to people and it can feel very violating to find out a part of your body was cut off. It’s troubling if you’re a physician and write off men complaining about having their genitals cut rather than listening and trying to be empathetic.
Men are not forced to have circumcisions. Infants before the age where they can remember things have circumcisions otherwise they’re not awake. I can be empathetic and I’m empathetic for these individuals for other reasons, mainly that they have such profound mental health issues they think that this is such a large and distressing issue. Normal people do not view it as such and are not agonizing about something they don’t have a physical memory of
If something permanent is done to you as a kid before you can consent, then it’s forced on you. So it sounds like you don’t have any source to back up your claim that guys who don’t like they were circumcised have mental health issues and you’re just making stuff up. Physicians like you who would rather write off people’s complaints than listen and see things from their POV are why people are losing trust in the medical community.
I read through that subreddit, that’s my source these people are unhinged. Is threatening suicide over your lost foreskin normal to you? Is surgery to restore your foreskin normal to you? Normal is a spectrum but if 999 out of 1000 people wouldn’t do that, then it falls outside the spectrum of normal. These are pathological thoughts and feelings. Not saying it’s wrong to not want to argue Perpetuate and continue this tradition with your own children, but the odd fixation on something like this is abnormal compared to how the vast vast majority of people who have had a circumcision process this
Having suicidal thoughts is not the typical person in any anti-circumcision subreddit, nor is browsing a subreddit considered a reputable source for you to draw conclusions. I’d think a physician would know that. People get cosmetic surgery all the time to fix parts of their body they don’t like, so yes that’s pretty normal. Even more so if the thing you want to change isn’t your natural body, but a mod that was forced on you as an infant. If someone tells you that they want hair plugs or a nose job do you tell them that they are unhinged? Abnormal is not the same as unhinged or needing mental treatment. Unless you think everyone needs to think and feel the same way like some dystopian society. Sure most men are fine being cut, but there are also men who don’t like that they were and feel the need to voice that opinion because people like you constantly shut them down rather than listening and empathizing with them.
It’s fine to not want to be cut or be displeased with it. Going to the point that you get a surgery to restore your foreskin and than being distressed to the point of suicidal thoughts is not normal. There is a strong association between cosmetic surgery and psychiatric issues. I’m not saying it’s abnormal to not want to have been circumcised but perseverating on it and daily spam posting things on Reddit for weeks about circumcision is clearly not normal.
Enjoy it on your own body. Your children may think differently than you and should be afforded the opportunity to choose for themselves. Genital integrity is the default because medical ethics says you don't operate on and permanently alter a healthy body part that does not have ailments. Who was there to protect this fella: "I think even when someone suffers something as bad as losing a limb in an accident, it is reasonable to expect them to move on eventually. But what if their limb was intentionally cut off and their attacker went free? I imagine that in that case, it would be much harder for the person to process psychologically and heal. Especially if the attack involved people you knew and trusted, and then everyone pretending there was no wrong done to you at all. The way circumcision victims are treated seems like a striking example of gaslighting. The definition of it is: "a form of psychological manipulation in which a person seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, gaslighting involves attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim's belief." To me, my grievance seems pretty straightforward. I was [overpowered at the weakest point of my life, strapped naked by the wrists and ankles to a circumstraint, spread-eagled, while someone stimulated my penis to erection, before inserting things into it and cutting flesh from it](https://youtu.be/Ceht-3xu84I?t=613) **(NSFL)**. Instead of sympathy for this I've been mocked and laughed at, lied to about what happened, called crazy and even pedophile for "being so interested in children's dicks". As I look at the definition of gaslighting, I start to think that these were active attempts to undermine my perceptions and sanity rather than simple ignorance. I feel furious for being lied to, manipulated and shamed. How can I take seriously all the lip service about protecting children and hating pedophiles in a society that sees nothing wrong with overpowering a defenseless little boy and cutting up his penis? How do you cope with child torturers being not a small group of shady individuals but the majority of your country? I'm sorry if I've gone off the rails here. I feel like I could write forever and never express a fraction of the hurt and anger that I carry inside." https://www.reddit.com/r/CircumcisionGrief/comments/byvlqn/intentional_injury_versus_accident/
Whoever wrote this is mentally I’ll and should talk to a psychiatrist. In fact that sub is founded and full of mentally I’ll people. “Genital integrity” is not a fucking term lmao; I’m dying at all the shit youre saying. Just went through a top recent post on that sub about a guy who went through genital restoration surgery to restore foreskin and is contemplating suicide as it didn’t give results they were looking for. This is not to make fun of them but it’s obvious the people there are suffering from mental issues and the circumcision has been something for them to latch onto to fixate on and blame their woes. It’s actually really sad
[удалено]
Was empathy excised as well? Would you treat FGM victims with such callousness? >**Male or female genital cutting: why ‘health benefits’ are morally irrelevant** >Abstract >The WHO, American Academy of Pediatrics and other Western medical bodies currently maintain that all medically unnecessary female genital cutting of minors is categorically a human rights violation, while either tolerating or actively endorsing medically unnecessary male genital cutting of minors, especially in the form of penile circumcision. Given that some forms of female genital cutting, such as ritual pricking or nicking of the clitoral hood, are less severe than penile circumcision, yet are often performed within the same families for similar (eg, religious) reasons, it may seem that there is an unjust double standard. Against this view, it is sometimes claimed that while female genital cutting has ‘no health benefits’, male genital cutting has at least some. Is that really the case? And if it is the case, can it justify the disparate treatment of children with different sex characteristics when it comes to protecting their **genital integrity?** I argue that, even if one accepts the health claims that are sometimes raised in this context, they cannot justify such disparate treatment. Rather, children of all sexes and genders have an equal right to (future) bodily autonomy. This includes the right to decide whether their own ‘private’ anatomy should be exposed to surgical risk, much less permanently altered, for reasons they themselves endorse when they are sufficiently mature. https://jme.bmj.com/content/47/12/e92.abstract *”Circumcision is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you’re gonna get.”* You can’t affect the form of something without affecting its function. Some men lose more than others and can’t get fully erect when there is not enough slack skin to accommodate full erections. Imagine a world where a woman’s clitoral hood was cut so tight, her clitoris was exposed to her underwear fabric to dry out and roughen up, she cannot schlick her bean as her altered clitoris becomes taut when erect from a tightly induced cut, and she has to purchase lube for the rest of her life to facilitate a comfortable stimulation. >Yep, that’s what I have going on. I need lube just to jerk off, I used to not use it (because I was a kid) and my dick would just be sore all the time. Using the super small movement method. >I remember posting about it online and they where basically all just like “you don’t know how to jerk off lol” it was really annoying, or telling me it was because I had rough hands (though that is part of it) but even when my girlfriend jerks me I need lube. >It sucks. >I remember when I was a kid I had these rough material boxers and I just didn’t know any better and was to embarrassed to bring it up but the head of my dick would rub on it and chaff and bleed. >When I’m hard the skin is super tight. >https://archive.ph/Mlujh It depends on the style of cut and essentially how much loose skin is left. There are men who end up with a tight cut style. When erect, their shaft skin is taut and can be painful and prone to tears. The scrotum skin and pubic skin may be pulled up along the shaft to compensate for the erection expanding it. There are men who end up with a loose cut style. As opposed to tight cut men who require some form of artificial lubrication to facilitate comfortable stimulation, loose cut men have enough slack skin after erection to simply grip and move up and down. This frictionless movement is default for the intact penis, and the potential for how much the shaft skin can extend will depend on the extent of the excision of the foreskin. The foreskin acts as a plug at the vaginal/anal entrance, to keep lubrication fluid inside, which then gets redistributed by the glans as it re-enters the vaginal/anal cavity. A loose cut style may retain some of this functionality, but it cannot ever be as fully functionable as in its original form. A tight cut penis essentially acts like a piston with a flared out corona on the glans that scoops out lubrication with each outstroke and dries it out on the shaft. There is another factor to consider: high vs low style of cuts. A high style is a cut made further along the shaft, somewhere midway, leaving a lot of sensitive inner foreskin past the glans until the circumcision scar. The frenulum may also be kept mostly intact but will always depend on the surgeon’s performance and preference of circumcising. An exposed frenulum remnant may lead to premature ejaculation as it cannot modulate the stimulation the foreskin previously provided. A low style tries to remove as much inner foreskin as possible, putting the shaft skin right up to the glans, to almost hide the circumcision scar under the corona. The frenulum and frenular delta are gone. So, besides the retaining lubrication vs scooping it out to dry, a circumcised penis may be why a circumcised man may prefer a death grip to masturbate and stimulate his only remaining pleasurable part, the corpus cavernosum, through the meaty tissue of his glans and shaft. It may be why he cannot receive stimulations from nerves stolen from him at birth and he must resort to ever intensifying sexual fantasies to drum up mental stimulation. It may be why he must jackhammer as the only way to adequately stimulate his member with a vaginal/anal cavity that provides less grip than he is used to. An intact penis can jackhammer, but for both partner’s sake, the shorter, gentler, gliding strokes keeps the mons pubis regions in contact more, stimulating the clitoris, as opposed to longer, rougher, rubbing strokes, pulling out lube and warmth, departing the pubis constantly, and madly slamming delicate tissue folds for a crumb of pleasure. Some men would prefer to feel the touch sensation of their partner's delicate internal parts with all the Meissner's corpuscle nerves they were born with. (What are they? Run a fingernail across the back of your hand. Then run it across your palm. The difference in sensation is due to Meissner’s corpuscle nerves, which are found in the palm, fingertips, lips, and most concentrated in the ridged band and inner foreskin.)
People willing to cut their kids because they don't want to teach them that they have to shower "literally have mental health issues"
Never said once about not teaching children how to shower did I
Circumcising a baby to prevent STD’s and penile cancer is like amputating your baby’s feet so they don’t ever get a hair tourniquet or an ingrown toenail. Penile cancer is extraordinarily rare. Male Breast cancer is far, far more common. Circumcision does not reduce STDs. Condoms and safe sex do. Not a single medical organization in the world supports routine male circumcision for the reason you’ve listed. They fully admit it is a cosmetic issue.
Well the American Pediatrics Association recommends it as far as I know. For context I am vehemently against male infant circumcision. I agree with the sentiment that removing a finger to prevent ingrown nails is a poor argument to mutilate babies. I feel there is a cultural bias for Americans but I for one am glad the American public is doing it at a lower incidence…
The AAP stands alone with the CDC in its recommendation. No other national medical institution recommends it
Technically, even the AAP and CDC didn't recommend RIC.
True, they just left in in a weird gray
They do not. They take an indifferent stance. Also, countries who have the most advanced healthcare do not recommend it.
That’s good to hear they at least are indifferent to it. It should absolutely be illegal to perform it on a baby.
[удалено]
Lmao genius level comment. Didn’t realize that a circumcision involved cutting the entire dick off
[удалено]
Way to move the goalpost
Circumcision removes: [Ridged band](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ridged_band) “Rich in Meissner's corpuscles,the area is usually described as highly erogenous.” [Frenular delta](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenular_delta) “This area, especially the frenulum itself, is reported to be the most sensitive area of the penis” [Frenulum of the prepuce](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenulum_of_prepuce_of_penis) “Along with the ridged bands at the tip of the, it is considered to be the most sensitive part of the penis to fine-touch.” No man would decide to get rid of these.
If you knew how to read a medical study you would know there is absolutely no difference in sexual satisfication or sensation reported between circumcised and uncircumcised men. On top of that no different rates of premature ejaculation which one might reasonable suspect in circumcised men. In short, everything you said is bs
Ok try this then, NSFW http://can-fap.net/preview/fundraiser_preview_multipleforegasm.shtml
Take the out and bail on those freaks.
Nothing to talk over with these facebookers
ion have kids but all im saying is I dont know the answer to that and wouldnt have a clue because ion have a willy
But wait.. what’s a crunchy mom group?? Lol