Barbaric, mutilation, child abuse, freaks, nutters, obsessives. The language
on both sides of the debate about infant male circumcision is not always
temperate. Put together new-born boys, their penises, knives and two of the
world's oldest religions and passions are likely to run high.
While last month saw the fifth International Day of Zero Tolerance to Female
Genital Mutilation, marking a fairly united global campaign against the
practice in females, the arguments about the removal of a male infant's
foreskin seem mired in misinformation, accusations and despair.
What is clear is that there are very few medical indications nowadays for
choosing circumcision over other procedures.
Writing in the BMJ (British Medical Journal) last December[], Padraig Malone
and Henrik Steinbrecher, of Southampton University Hospital, found only two
absolute indications for circumcision: a chronic skin condition called
balanitis xerotica obliterans, which may have links with penile cancer, and
some specific abnormalities and scarring on the foreskin. Beyond that, they
say, problems such as phimosis, when the foreskin is too tight to be pulled
back over the glans, and inflammation of the glans and foreskin caused by
bacterial infections - both of which often see the surgeon reaching for
their scalpel - can usually be treated non surgically.
Yet infant male circumcision continues on a wide scale. According to Malone
and Steinbrecher, one male in six worldwide will be circumcised at some
point in his life. In the UK, rates have dropped significantly since the
1930s and 1940s, when it was almost de rigueur for boys of a certain class
to be circumcised. But today the NHS still performs about 10,000
circumcisions a year on boys aged up to 15. Add to that hard-to-count
religious circumcisions carried out at home and, say campaigners against it,
you end up with a lot of unnecessary trauma and risk.
“Many men are damaged by it,” says David Smith, general manager of Norm-UK,
which campaigns against male circumcision, “both physically and
psychologically. The physical harm includes problems with sensitivity -
either they have no sensitivity or too much ‘bad' sensitivity. The
psychological damage is that men who are circumcised feel very different and
can even suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder.”
However, circumcision does appear to offer some important health benefits,
particularly with sexually transmitted infections. Research published last
year from Kenya showed that circumcision had a significant protective effect
against HIV infection - at least in countries where HIV is extensive and
spread predominantly through heterosexual intercourse. Penile cancer also
appears to be less common among circumcised men. And a 1999 review of past
research, published in the British Journal of Urology, indicated that
uncircumcised males were more prone to diseases such as syphilis and herpes
simplex. Which is enough to persuade some doctors that circumcision is the
right course.
“When my boys were born,” says Dr Kirsten Patrick, a former hospital doctor
and now an associate editor at the BMJ, “I did an enormous search of the
literature and I thought [circumcision] was a good thing. It is much easier
to do when they are small and less traumatic than waiting till later. I knew
as a doctor that there was a way that they could go through this pain-free.”
Patrick has no truck with circumcision away from the medical establishment.
“Holding a baby down, with no anaesthetic, that's dreadful,” she says.
“There's no way anyone should do that. But I am in favour of saying that
there is benefit to circumcision and it should be regulated.”
One part of the country that is moving quickly in this direction is Walsall,
where the local hospital now offers a weekend male-circumcision clinic. “We
have a large Muslim community here,” says Dr Sam Ramaiah, director of public
health for Walsall Primary Care Trust, “and we wanted to provide local
children with a service that is safe and secure. The procedure takes place
in hospital with local anaesthetic and is done by a trained surgeon. The
advantage is that there is care available in case of complications and, if
necessary, the child can stay in.”
Programmes such as this are unlikely to satisfy anti-circumcision campaigners
- who say that the physical effects of circumcision on an infant are only
part of the story. Norm-UK's argument is that, for many men, circumcision
reduces sexual pleasure and that the trauma of childhood circumcision can
last a lifetime. “Circumcision is not like having your tonsils out,” says
Smith. “You are physically different from a normal man and you start to shy
away from using changing rooms or undressing in public. It affects men []in
relationships. They feel inferior.”
As evidence, he e-mails me the transcript of a lecture he gave last year[],
entitled “Circumcision: The Hidden Damage”, which includes a range of quotes
from men blaming parents and doctors for the “mutilation” that they were
subjected to as children. Yet his sample is inevitably self-selective, being
made up of men who had already contacted Norm-UK for help.
“The psychological side of this debate is not easy to pin down,” says Andrew
Samuels, professor of analytical psychology at the University of Essex and a
psychotherapist. “If it were possible to generalise accurately about the
impact of infant circumcision you should be able to research it and find
evidence of trauma in the circumcised population. But the research has not
been done. So we are in a kind of not-knowing state.” But, he says, “it may
well be a bigger act, more problematic, more potentially upsetting, not to
circumcise in a culture that circumcises. I don't think many Jews, for
example, would deny the physical pain [of circumcision] but they might say
that not to do it could lead to a psychologically distressing situation in
which an uncircumcised boy might be denied a place in the group.”
Jonathan Romain is Rabbi of Maidenhead Synagogue and chairman of the Assembly
of Rabbis, which oversees Reform Judaism in the UK. (No one from the more
orthodox branches of Judaism or Islam responded to requests to be
interviewed for this piece.) “Even the most lapsed Jew will circumcise his
or her son, but there have been changes in the past 20 years,” he says. “In
the wider society, circumcision is going out of favour. In the Jewish
community there has been an increase in intermarriage and sometimes the
non-Jewish partner has objections.” Romain, however, has no doubts about the
safety of the procedure.
“If there was any hint that there was a physical or psychological problem it
would have been suspended centuries ago, something that has happened to
other practices in Judaism. And indeed things have changed already. Nowadays
we will use only mohelim [people who perform ritual Jewish circumcision] who
are doctors. We always use anaesthetic cream. If there is anything that
indicates that we should delay the circumcision we will delay it,” he says.
Samuels, who is Jewish, feels it is time for a discussion within Judaism about
how central circumcision is to Jewish identity. But he acknowledges that to
get a frank discussion will need people to stick their necks out.
“Things will change,” he says, “but over a fairly long time scale. In 25 years
there may be plenty of uncircumcised Jews who will identify as Jews and be
accepted as Jews and that won't depend on their being circumcised or not.”
Others are not so sure. Ritual circumcision stretches back before the origins
of Judaism and Islam and is so entrenched in those religions that it will
take a lot to shift it.
“It can come as a surprise to many how custom and tradition are still powerful
forces in liberal, secular societies,” says Justin Woodman, a lecturer in
anthropology at Birkbeck College, University of London, who specialises in
the anthropology of religion. “Circumcision is part of the politics of
identity in a diverse and multicultural world. The act of cutting literally
makes a line of division.”
Reversing the operation
John Turner (not his real name), a 60-year-old training manager from
Birmingham, felt so affected by the fact that he had been circumcised as a
boy that he is now taking steps to reverse the procedure. “I discovered I
was circumcised when I was 4 and from that moment on it felt wrong,” he
says. “As an adult I experienced a lack of sensitivity in my penis during
sex. Then one day I saw an article on foreskin restoration in my son's Maxim
magazine and I thought, ‘Whoa!'”
Restoration of the foreskin takes many forms, but one of the most popular -
the one that Turner is now using - involves stretching the skin of the shaft
of the penis up over the glans and securing it there to encourage new
growth.
The idea, according to Norm-UK's Peter Ball, a former GP who himself has
undergone foreskin restoration, is that skin under tension produces new
skin. “It's a long process,” he says, “perhaps two to three years, and it
requires dedication, but it results in a new foreskin, the glans becomes
shiny, thinner and much more sensitive and sex is much more pleasurable.”
For Turner, there is still some way to go but, he says, “you have benefits as
soon as you have some coverage. I don't blame my parents or anything and I
don't think I have had psychological problems over it. I just lost of lot of
sensitivity and now the glans is becoming sensitive again and intercourse is
a lot better.”
I decided I wanted to be circumcised when I was five. It took another twenty-one years to organise it (and be able to afford it!). I absolutely love it, and I'd love everybody to be able to have the choice. The only thing I regret is that I wasn't circumcised sooner!
Simon Collis, York, UK
Islam obliges a Muslim woman to take a Muslim spouse. Muslim marriages are still often arranged. If a Muslim bride discovers on her wedding night that her groom is intact, you have a marital crisis, big time. This is the main reason why Muslim parents in Europe have their sons cut.
Ekrin, Ballarat,
The American Cancer Society does not list being intact as a risk factor for any cancer.
It doesn't matter AT ALL if it protects against sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV, because children are simply not at risk! If a grown man wants the questionable protection being circumcised offers, he can get it himself. STDs are no reason to perform a dangerous and damaging operation on an infant!
J Brown, Wooster, USA
Circumcision does seem to reduce HIV, UTIs, penile cancer and HPV (linked to uterine cancer in female partners). It also reduces male sensitivity, which potentially gives them greater 'staying power' - no bad thing :-).
I'm British but moved to the States to study in my early 20s, which exposed me to (overwhelmingly circumcised) American men. What can I say except that I never looked back :-). Am now married to a lovely American man, most definitely circumcised, and am the mother of two circumcised sons.
Emma Braun, London, UK
Male circumcision affects the sexual act adversely for the women & the man. Cicumcision causes sensory deprivation and as a result the circumcised man has to work harder during intercourse to achieve sexual satisfaction;he doesn't experience the wide spectrum sensations that lead to orgasm. He constantly seeks a better quality of intercourse and climax and ultimately increases his demand on his partner.Frequent sex can be seen as beneficial early on in a relationship but not as time goes on. What should be a pleasurable activity soon becomes a painful one, physically and emotionally. I know this from personal experience. A loving relationship soon becomes unloving: the problems of the bedroom extending into other areas of family life. Luckily we found NORM-UK and my husband has now restored his foreskin. Our relationship has improved, intercourse is better, more fulfilling, just as nature intended but the pyschological & emotional damage that circumcision had will be with us forever.
Felicity Milner, Bingham, Nottingham Uk
Great that you're happy Ted, but it's rather unfortunate that your implicit criticisms of the intact male genitalia could also be used to justify excision of the labia and female foreskin.
Many excised women also find sex very pleasurable (see Ayaan Hirsi Ali's story in Infidel as an example). They are also clearly less prone to tearing in rough sex, don't have to worry so much about unpleasant smells, and don't need to wash so often (perhaps an advantage in some regions of Africa or the Middle East).
Surely you are not implying that if a child has a delicate body part that requires to be washed daily the best solution is to amputate it?
Laura MacDonald, London,
As a happily circumcised man I can confirm that sex is simply amazing and I don't have to worry about tearing, unappealing smells or the constant need for cleaning.
To each his own but I am very happy to be cicumcised!
Ted, Redvale, Australia
UK legislation exists to outlaw many forms of discrimination based on grounds of race,sexual difference,age,gender and disability. By providing infant male circumcision within the NHS, discrimination is being practised against whole healthy boys who are in no need of surgery nor anaesthesia whatsoever! But they are being rendered into suffering post-operative patients. Children reared in the religion of their families may keep that particular faith,or change to another or choose none. Those who are circumcised will always be marked upon their flesh. Any discrimination that causes distress to intact males by their exclusion from the group is to be abhored, not excused as ethical behaviour. The short and long-term harm of circumcision is denied, ranks are closed with silence against men's complaints and the signs of the babies' trauma are ignored for they cannot be articulated. What is the problem for people who cannot view an intact penis without distress? Leave beautiful babies alone!
Iris Fudge, London, United Kingdom
SIR,
Our international physicians’ charity has no problem with circumcision for fully informed adults, who may do as they please. However, we deeply oppose the amputation of healthy, highly nerve-supplied, protective, and erogenous tissue from infants and minors allegedly to address the superstitions, medical or otherwise, of adults. The promise of health has proved illusory in a huge population —the United States— which has the highest STD rates in the West despite a high circumcision rate driven by a medical marketplace. We urge Britons to resist any call to revive this ancient barbarity, especially for reasons of misplaced multiculturalism. Protect your children, male and female, from both medical and cultural perverts. Let children choose for themselves at majority.
John V. Geisheker, J.D., LL.M.
Executive Director,
General Counsel,
Doctors Opposing Circumcision
DoctorsOpposingCircumcision.org
Seattle, WA USA
John Geisheker, Seattle, Washington, USA
The problem with the HIV prevention hypothes is that circimcised men are less likely to wear condoms - not only because of a mistaken belief that they no longer need to do so, but more importantly because (especially as they get older) they have very little feeling left in that part of their anatomies (I speak from experience). Condoms take away even the small sensitivity that they have left.
I also wonder whether any research has been done into whether the frequency of sexual intercourse is lower in the circumcised population than in the normal population? I would expect it to be much lower.
Robert Bley, Bicester, UK
Men’s genitals should be extended the same protection as women’s. To not protect men and women equally is just discrimination of an unjustifiable nature. The Human Rights Act is quite clear on the religious point, the right to practice your religion is limited, it must not infringe any other rights namely the right to freedom from degrading, cruel and inhuman treatment, which is an unlimited right as is the right to life. Yes circumcision does kill, rarely maybe, but how many dead babies do you need before this nonsense stops. It beggars belief that a society that would lock up anyone posting a photo of a naked boy on the internet can ignore the obvious abuse of cutting a piece from a baby boy’s penis for no good reason.
Richard Duncker, London, UK
Let us not forget that the foreskin is an organ in its own right which we now know has at least 10 functions. We are still learning at a cellular level that there are even more functions that we did not know about. There is nothing present in the miraculous human body that is not there for a reason. One simple and logical function that rarely gets mentioned is that the foreskin provides the penis with the extra skin needed when the member becomes erect (it can more than double in size). Removal of this causes the pubic skin to be pulled forward causing discomfort and friction as there is little movable skin left during an erection. In male mammals (animal and man included) the glans is an internal organ covered by the foreskin. There is a reason for this. Historically the foreskin has, and currently is, being blamed for a plethora of diseases by the pro-circumcisionists who need to justify their desire to cut. Interestingly, most of them have themselves been circumcised! Stop cutting!
Shelton K, Cape Town, South Africa
Babies die from circumcision as well. Anaesthetic is not always used. Whether a baby cries for one hour or one minute because of the torture, there is no justification for inflicting this kind of suffering and disfigurement on unconsenting human beings.
janice page, london,
The enormous medical, health and sexual benefits of this simple, safe procedure, best done soon after birth , are now well estabished. See: www.circinfo.net for details. This includes not only males from cradle to old age, but their sexual partners, who suffer from sexual transmission of HPV that causes cervical cancer, chlamydia that causes pelvic inflammatory disease, ectopic pregnancy and infertility, and genital herpes. HIV is the most well-publicised benefit, now endorsed by the WHO and UNAIDS.
This article in the Times simply regurgitates the misinformation and propaganda of the anti-circ movements, and as such will lead to much suffering and many deaths if taken seriously,
Prof Brian Morris, Sydney, Australia
Circumcision for the prevention of HIV infection is unethical in my opinion. At best circumcised men have a 60% reduction in the rate of HIV infection -just the rate is reduced. This means that it takes about twice as long as an intact man to become infected. In Africa, circumcision could be great at slowing the river of bad news at the population level and in reports to UNAIDS but at the personal level it is disastrous. In Western societies there is not a great predominance of uncircumcised men in the HIV statistics. There are however a lot of men who neglected to wear condoms consistently. Education, support and access to and respect for condoms can protect for a life-time.
Eric Glare, Melbourne, Australia
Our Founding Fathers got to keep their foreskins. Moses, who spent 40 years in the desert and lived past a hundred got to keep his foreskin. Abraham, the Founding Father of patriarchal infant male circumcision got to keep his foreskin until the ripe old age of 99---and then he only snipped off a bit of his manhood. How long will naive, ignorant American parents buy into the argument postulated by (Jewish?)obstetricians that their infant sons will die an 'early,' horrible death if their little boys aren't duly mutilated? Unfortunatly, in America, mutilated fathers are allowed to mutilate their sons so that there will be a resemblance---lets hope these same fathers aren't missing an arm or a leg for the child's sake. 1 in 100,000 uncircumcised male will develop penile cancer, yet we needlessly mutilate 99,999 infant males to protect that one unlucky fellow who will probably end up dying of something else at a very ripe old age. On the other hand, 1in 9 women will develop breast cancer...
Paul Gerard Zuppan, Walnut Creek, USA
The Kenya research claims only that circumcision protects men (not women) against HIV infection. If you were to circumcise a population of heterosexual men, justifying the circumcisions on the grounds of reducing the men's potential of becoming infected with HIV, would it also be possible to ensure that none of the newly circumcised men would then consider sex without a condom to be less risky, thereby increasing the chances of them having unprotected sex? If it isn't to ensure against this, and I don't believe it is, doesn't circumcision to protect men against HIV lead logically to a greater risk of women becoming infected, and might it therefore be unethical to promote circumcision as a HIV-infection rate reducing measure?
Furthermore, it has not been disproven that circumcision reduces sensitivity (I believe it did, and to a demoralising extent, in my case - I was circumcised at 16) - another factor which could contribute to a reduction in condom usage post-circumcision.
Brian, Preston, UK
No woman who takes an active interest in the pleasure of her man can fail to notice the super sensitivity of his foreskin. That Stephanie Tohill is determined do so speaks volumes about her personal prejudices.
Stephanie's own foreskin is protected by law, thanks to the fact that a minority of cut women have spoken out against genital mutilation. Most cut women approve their cutting, even now. As do many husbands and fathers.
It's astonishing that from this position Stephanie sees fit to demand majority rule in terms of forced male genital mutilation - individual men according to her do not have human rights.
Sorry to disappoint you Stephanie, but actually they do. The law is clear that every man - and boy - has a right to dignity, bodily integrity and personal autonomy.
Laura MacDonald, London,
One freedom enjoyed in the UK is the right to practise one's religion.Unfortunately,the law,at present,allows that religion to be practised upon another's body,the flesh of a boy child,but not upon a girl.
Children reared in the religious faith of their families may go on to keep that faith,or choose another,or none: their freedom! But, those who have been circumcised retain an irrevocable mark and body alteration without their consent.
Legislation exists to outlaw many forms of discrimination based on grounds of race,sex,age and disability.By extending the medical provision of infant male circumcision within the NHS in Scotland,discrimination is being promulgated against whole healthy boys who need no surgery nor any anaesthesia whatsoever and who will be rendered into post operative patients.
Andrew Samuels mentions the distress an intact male might suffer by being denied a place in his group.This is a discrimination within a group which is both immoral and inhumane.
Iris Fudge, London, United Kingdom
Justin Woodman speaks of the politics of identity and the act of cutting as literally making a line of division. What need is there now for such a line?
Jonathan Romain has no doubts about the safety of circumcision. However, when harm is cited there is a closure of ranks and men do not complain. He omits to mention the recent death of one baby in London, the inquest upon which is still to be carried out.
And, for Dr Kirsten Patrick's 'easy way', babies trauma cannot be articulated. Iris Fudge
Iris Fudge, London, United Kingdom
As a male who was circumcised in his late twenties to fit in with the norm of the day, I can tell you that I experienced a gradual reduction in the quality of sensations during sex. The head of your penis is not meant to be exposed to constant friction of underwear etc. like the skin on others part of your body. It is a highly sensitive, specialized skin that is rich in nerve endings, which is precisely why all men are born with foreskins. I cannot argue more against circumcision. It is no different than surgically removing a portion of a person's eyelid as it may, perhaps reduce the rate of eye cancer or infection or honor a biblical covenant. We have foreskins for a reason.
In terms of the circumcision of babies, I believe it to be dogmatic to surgically remove an infant's foreskin in order to honor individual beliefs, religious or otherwise. Once a child is born, it is an entity with unalienable rights, including that of growing to maturity with an intact human body.
Andrew, Montreal, Quebec
If a doctor makes an incision on a baby girl's genitals, even without removing any tissue, then a crime is being committed. Why don't boys have the same protection? Surely they should be able to decide for themselves whether they want the most sensitive part of their penis cut off.
Stuart Worthington, Manchester, UK
To Stephanie Tohill, I can only say that I am flabbergasted at the idea that circumcision is "...a choice for those parents to make".
Parents do not own their childrens' bodies, and have NO right to mutilate them. I have no problem with an adult making an informed decision about their own body. An adult making a decision to permanently alter their own offspring's body? Well - that's just beyond the pale. Certainly not civilized behavior. Words fail me.
As for the effects on sexual relations – all I can say is that the scientific research available so far seems to suggest your experience is atypical.
Robert Bley, Bicester, UK
If circumcision is necessary this surely suggests a 'design' problem.
Strange that God would make this mistake.
j obrien, surrey, uk
Stepanie Tohill's argumentum ad populum against the - "what of the many, many men who have not and have no problems with their sons undergoing the same procedure?" Then what of the many men who are adversely affected by being circumcised that would make any parental choice argument invalid?
Men who are adversely affected by being circumcised are likely the sons of the kind of men you mention. An individual is not "many, many men" they are an individual, who will have their own opinions and feelings on the matter. Their rights over there own body should be respected. It should be an individual choice, not a parental one. Religions have their own set of rules but I see no valid reason why medicine is not respecting this.
Dave, Dover,
Robert Bely talks about the 'effect on a man's partner'. As a woman I have never experienced any problems when having sex with circumcised men and would go as far as saying, I much prefer circumcised men as would a majority of my female friends.
That is not to say that I think all men should be circumcised but I think it is a choice for those parents to make. This article talks about those minority of men who have been adversely affected by having been circumcised but what of the many, many men who have not and have no problems with their sons undergoing the same procedure?
Stephanie Tohill, London, UK
Hugh Young is right when he says that ethics and human rights are missing from this article.
If there is a sexual health argument then the choice to opt for circumcision is available at the age of majority.
It is misleading to imply that sexual health benefits (if there are any) justify childhood circumcision.
Rob, Reading, UK
I was circumcised as was the norm when I was born in the late 1940's. As a 4 year old boy I was not preoccupied with the topography of my willy! The only other penis I had seen was my father's and mine was a small version of his! Hardly grounds for trauma. Later at school I relaised there were roundheads and cavaliers and never gave it much thought. I am sure the origins of male circumcision were totally practical - preventing infection in hot climates with rudimentary hygene standards. Becoming a religious ritual probably codified what seemed like good practice. Had it been available on the National Health when my three sons were born I might well have suggested it to my wife but it was no big deal either way. Do I feel violated by my parent's decision? Rubbish - life is too short. Has it affected my sex life - who knows. Unlike female circumcision, which is a male power issue and real physical abuse, male circumcision is not something that requires a big song and dance.
Kevin, Tonbridge,
I don't usually comment on news articles but felt i had to contribute to this topic. I was circumcised when i was 4 years old because my parents and doctor were concerned that my foreskin would not pull back and expose the head (something i have since learnt is normal for boys of that age). As a UK male i was definitely in the minority in my class where out of 25 boys only 1 other had been circumcised. This made me very shy and isolated because i was 'different'. In the 25 years since the operation i have gradually come to terms with it, but whilst it is no longer a big psychological issue for me, it does upset and anger me that this unnecessary procedure was done to me without my consent. Thankfully my younger brother who also had a supposedly tight foreskin at a similar age was spared from the same process - the doctor in his case choosing a "let's wait and see how it goes" approach.
If people choose this for themselves that's fine, but there should be a minimum age or something.
Roger, Leeds, UK
I can bottom-line it for you. Foreskin feels REALLY good. It's HIS body, and morally it's HIS decision.
Ron Low, Chicago, USA
One of the most under-reported side effects of circumcision is the effect on one's partner. Women also suffer from unsatisfactory sex, not only their circumcised male partners.
Everyone should read the book "Sex as Nature Intended It" by Kristen O'Hara for a full explanation of the long term damage to relationships that circumcision causes.
There is simply NO excuse for mutilating babies (or adults without their consent).
The effects cause unhappiness not only for the victim.
Robert Bley, Bicester, UK
Shall we men spare a thought for the victims of female circumcision (genital mutilation) - done, I believe, without anaesthetics?
On a par with male-child circumcision and infant baptism, it is either child abuse or, at the very least, an abuse of the child's rights.
Religion again.
Think about it, Chris from Yorkshire. Not really a subject for flippancy.
.
alan, germany,
When discussing circumcision there is a nasty underside to this practice. One is forced circumcision of adults and older children, which frequently happens in clashes between circumcising and non-circumcising groups <http://jme.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/31/8/463#449> <http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/33/6/357#1698>.
Another is the emotional involvement of some people in this procedure <http://jme.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/30/3/248?ck=nck#195>
People have different views about male circumcision but it is in nobody's interest to have such abuses go unchecked. Circumcision abuses must be stamped out.
Michael Glass, Sydney, Australia
I am Jewish and was circumsized on the eighth day of my life, as was my son. Naturally, I have no recollection of my own circumcision, but I do recall my son's: he cried -- for almost a minute. I can only laugh at the "controversy" over infant circumcision. It is non-traumatic. And it has no impact on one's sexual performance or enjoyment of sex.
S, NYC, USA
I am Jewish and I strongly resent having been circumcised. No one but I have the right to make a permanent change on my body. I am particularly incensed that it would have been done in the name of a religious belief that my parents never held (that it was commanded by God). I am not blaming them. They did not know any better. However, I blame Judaism. I can not forgive maintaining this barbaric practice in what is otherwise one of the greatest religious/cultural groups in world history.
Stephen, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA
Oh dear, just as I thought I was having a quiet run in to my fiftieth birthday I find that I'm shouldering the burden of yet another psychological trauma! Honestly, I don't know why I ever left the comfort of the womb. Perhaps I should sue my mother for that ultimate rejection? I suppose we should be grateful that almost everywhere and everything has now been discovered as the rate we are going about avoiding anything slightly outside of whatever "norm" has been defined is going to lead to total atrophy
Chris Tinkler, Kirkbymoorside, North Yorkshire
Missing from this article are two basic concepts - ethics and human rights. Whose penis is it? Non-consensual circumcision breaks several if not all the basic principles of medical ethics and several clauses of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. As a human rights issue, the sex of the child is irrelevant.
David Baker dismisses David Smith's complainants as being self-selected, but how many men must object to having had part of their most intimate organ cut off before they are listened to?
As for the "health benefits", the Numbers Needed to Treat are in the tens to hundreds, far higher than is generally considered good medicine. And the health claims made in the article are contradicted by other research. See www.circumstitions.com for details.
Hugh Young, Wellington, NZ