Anti-Circumcision Groups Discussion

One frequent point of interest that is intimately tied up with FR is the affects and necessity of circumcision in the first place.

Ever since developing an interest in this topic I have researched on the internet, and as anyone else who has done so will not be shocked to learn, nearly all of the information on the internet is hosted and distributed by staunchly anti-circumcision activist groups. These groups range from more moderate organizations, to some that are very radical in nature (a quick search on google concerning circumcision and jewish tradition will reveal that they frequently flame jewish discussion boards and have mounted vast letter writing campaigns across the nation attempting to outlaw the procedure).

I feel that because of the proliferation of these groups many men are easily persuaded that they speak for a majority of people and that all of their information and claims are objective fact. I have posited all along that this is often not the case. Following are some quotes from a website that claims to be neutral on circumcision, but is in reality promoting the view that there are health benefits associated with the procedure.

While I do not personally see any valid reason to circumcise a child, I do believe clinical study has shown that there are minor health benefits associated with the procedure, and that the amount of time that it causes serious injury or damage to men is very low. I support a parent's choice to choose the procedure for their children for a number of reasons, religious liberty prime amonst them.

I'd like for there to be some serious discussion on the nature if the anti-circumcision movement and it's goals on this board, as a large amount of the post anti-circ posting here seems to come from these specifically anti-circ activist sources. Some feel that it is basically a harmless human rights organization, I personally see it quite differently. Please have a read if you're interested and give it some thought.



"The current anti-circumcision crusade can be attributed to a concatenation of factors old and new. From a phylogenic viewpoint the oldest of these factors is man´s high valuation of the genitals and the guilt-induced anxiety leading to a fear of genital injury. Since the individual´s dread of genital injury or castration is usually resolved by relegation to the unconscious, it may later emerge as a sincere effort to have every penis remain intact. Potentiating this primordial anxiety is a quite understandable backlash against the originally unscientific origins of circumcision and against the lavish claims that were made regarding the benefits accruing to those who underwent the procedure. Like all backlashes, the reaction has been excessive and the anti-circumcision camp now attempts to demolish fact as well as fancy. The analogy of throwing out the baby with the bath water was never more applicable."
Taken from:
R. Dagher, M.L. Selzer and J. Lapides, Carcinoma of the Penis and the Anti-Circumcision Crusade, J. of Urology 1973; 110: 79-80.

------------------------------------------------------------------------


* "The anti-circumcision craze has developed because groups of conservative, sensitive, medically misinformed individuals, some with fanatical emotionalism, have not seen the consequences of a society where males are not circumcised. While medical prophylactic measures are readily accepted by our society, surgical prophylaxis is in danger of being discarded by an overemphasis on the return to the "natural". The intense pain of natural childbirth is seen as a reward while the minor discomfort, if any, of circumcision is magnified beyond reason."
Taken from:
G.N. Weiss, MD, Neonatal Circumcision Is Necessary, Information Sheet available online at ICIRC: http://www.circinfo.com.

------------------------------------------------------------------------


* "At the height of the anti-circumcision sentiment during the early 1980's formal groups opposed to the procedure were formed. These incude BUFF (Brotherhood United for Future Foreskins). INTACT (Infants Need To Avoid Circumcision Trauma), and the largest organization, NOCIRC (National Organization of Circumcision Information Resources Center). The latter group sends out a newsletter periodically to its members and to physicians. In addition, it has sponsored several symposia on circumcision. These latter meetings have been forums for anticircumcision advocates to vocalize their positions. Members of the anticircumcision movement generally refer to the procedure as "rape, butchering, amputation, or torture." During the past decade, the literature and letters I have received from these organizations have made many claims. These include: that circumcision encodes the brain with violence...which is why America is the "murder capital" of the world; that long-term effects of the procedure include suicide, sudden infant death syndrome, and homosexuality; that male circumcision should be considered equivalent to elective removal of the clitoris and labia in female children: that men without prepuces feel a loss, relive the violence, are not "whole" and have a "diminished penis"; that the loss of erotic tissue in the prepuce diminishes sexual pleasure and function; and that the reasons physicians advocate neonatal circumcision are twofold-to make money and to "pay back" for the pain they had when they were circumcised themselves. There is no scientific foundation for any of these claims or for the myriad other assertions of these organizations. The groups attempt to support their conjectures with a handful of testimonials."
Taken from:
T.E. Wiswell, Neonatal Circumcision: a Current Appraisal * Focus & Opinion Pediat 1995; 2:93-9.

I have posted this personal commentary before, but I think it also gives an interesting and different perspective on the nature of many of these groups. I feel it is important to discuss them at large, because the vast majority of information circulated on the internet is either referenced by or originates from these groups. Also I forgot to link the page where the previous quotes come from: http://www.circumcisioninfo.com/circ_medquotes.html



Why I Have An Interest In this Issue


I developed this page because I felt there was a need to help balance some of the negative information (at times fanatical) presented by the anti-circ groups and individuals on the Internet.
I believe parents and individuals should have access to information on both sides of every issue, since the anti's only express their own biased views I realized I should do something about it.

Another factor which helped motivate me to create this page is because of knowledge I have of these anti-circ groups. I started developing this knowledge at a young age (17 years old), after writing to a group who was advertising in a magazine as an unbiased information source on this topic.

Curiosity about the circumcision issue can be overwhelming for many boys, circumcised or not. I was no exception. Ever since I was 15 years old I wanted to find answers to some of the questions I had, Who was circumcised? Why was it done? How was it done? etc.

Since it was a difficult issue to talk to parents about (just as all sexual related issues are) and since most of them never make a point to talk about it, I was left with no choice but to go searching for this information on my own. I searched every medical and sexual related book or magazine I could get my hands on, I learned a lot about this issue but still did not find all the answers I was looking for.

It wasn't until I was 17 did I come across a magazine article that spoke of an organization who claimed to be a leading information source on this topic. Eagerly I wrote to this group asking some questions, telling them my age, circumcision status and that I was happy about being circumcised.

Within a few weeks I received a letter and a large package of anti-circ information written by a number of anti-circ individuals. The letter or articles didn't contain any answers to my qestions but rather comments of how "damaged" I was supposed to be because I was circumcised at birth.

The letter basically tried to convince me I was ruined sexually, physically, psychologically and that I would probably develop uncontrollable urges to commit suicide later in life, more chances of becoming homosexual and more prone to becoming a rapist, pervert etc. They also tried to convince me that I should sue my parents and doctor for allowing me to be "mutilated" and "tortured", and I should consider getting a foreskin reconstruction if I wanted to be sexually functional by the time I reached my 30's.

Needless to say I was a bit confused and didn't know which way to turn ( at this time I thought these people were experts in this field representing the medical and scientific community. Boy was I wrong!). For the next three years this group continued sending me such material as well as the same type of information from a number of other related groups who had the same agenda.

Luckily by the time I reached my early 20's I came in contact with a doctor who was aware of the anti-circ groups and their tactics and spoke out against them regularly. He put me in contact with a few other people who were also aware of the anti-circ tactics, and taking a stand against them. They helped open my eyes to the truth about this issue so I could put aside all of the garbage that the anti-circ groups had been filling my head with for so long. I was now able to realize just who these people were and what they were trying to accomplish.

Since this time I have followed a number of these groups and kept a close eye on the tactics they have used over the years. Periodically I would write to them posing as young as 15 years old to see what type of information they would send such a young circumcised child. Not to my surprise the same type of material was sent and the same tactics used.

You must ask yourself, Why would anyone (especially adults) send this type of information to such a young child? Was it to help him in some strange way? Or was it to try and make him feel so bad about himself that he would become enraged at the world for allowing him to be "ruined" because he was circumcised at birth.

Many of the anti-circ individuals like nothing more than to convince circumcised males that they are ruined in every possible way. This in turn will give them an opportunity to try and convince some to speak out against circumcision via protests, demonstrations, appearing on television shows, radio etc. This is one of their main goals, and they will stop at nothing to try and achieve it.

Unfortunately these groups have succeeded a number of times over the years and will probably continue doing so. Now that they have saturated the Internet and libraries with much of their anti-circ literature, they will continue filling the minds of many with negative thoughts and unproven claims.

The reasons they have had success in convincing some circumcised males that they are ruined is because of the lack of knowledge many have on this topic. Also, there are those who are unstable and insecure about many things (especially their sexuality) and are therefore more easily effected by the brainwashing tactics of these groups.

One brief example is that of a 23 year old New Yorker who was arrested after attempting to steal circumcision board (board used to secure child while undergoing the procedure) from a local hospital. After he was caught, he told the security guards he was "radicalized" by contacts he made over the internet with such anti-circumcision groups as NORM, NOCIRC, and INTACT.
(Penthouse, August issue, page 106, 1996.)

The lesson I have learned from all of my years involved with these groups is to do my best to try and help educate others and make them aware of the true colours of some of these anti-circ individuals. Also to encourage parents to educate their circumcised sons about the many advantages and benefits of being circumcised as well as explaining to about the anti-circ groups and what their motives are.

This will give the child the knowledge he needs so he won't have to go on a blind search and run into all kinds of negative biased information put there by these groups. If he does run into such information, he will at least know that there is another side to this issue and that the anti-circ information is provided by people who have little concern about other people's views and feelings.

Many of these groups and individuals may act and appear to be fighting for the rights of others but in reality they are most often concerned with their own feelings and beliefs and don't really care a great deal about the rights of others.
It seems their only true desire is to try and convince and demand that everyone share their views and beliefs. If you don't then you are considered evil, barbaric and uneducated. I am sure any of you who have expressed your positive views toward circumcision on news groups and chat lines, know exactly what I am talking about.

All in all, I hope parents and individuals will have equal opportunity getting appropriate information regarding this issue for their own personal quest and during the time when they are making the decision on whether or not to have their son circumcised. If they are properly informed on both sides and they take into account their own personal feelings toward it, then whatever decision they make, either to have it done or not, should be respected and carried out without any strong persuasion from their doctor or other health care providers.
If the anti-circ activists could get off of their emotional rollercoasters for a while they might be able to deal with this issue on a more respectable level, then people such as myself wouldn't have to be concerned with the preachings of these groups and web pages such as this wouldn't be needed.

http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings...estimonial.html

After being exposed to these groups through internet research, I have become of the mind that they do in fact, for the most part, represent something of an extremist perspective. It is certainly one-sided if nothing else.

As explained in the personal anecdote above, I believe they use scare tactics to recruit for their cause and gain support. These range from more mild insinuations like "you've been cheated out of a more fulfilling sex life," to the bizarre theories regarding male aggression and depression.

I find it unfortunate thar the anti-circ dogma and perspective is so often associated with the practice of FR. I believe FR should be approached as fairly standard body modification - just as MOS has tried to make a more clearly defined and practiced approach to Penis Enlargement. When the claims and opinions of anti-circ groups are so deeply integrated into information about FR, the distinction becomes difficult for those just seeking basic information, and it seems that in some cases FR is used as a way to sell others on the anti-circ agenda. That being said, I think some have interest generated in FR by the unsupportable and unscientific claims made by these groups that are deisgned to foster insecurity and discontent. In this case I think they're getting into something for the wrong reasons.

Men can get into FR for a variety of reasons, many of which need not have anything to do with anti-circ opinions and the groups that create them. In the case of this forum, one of my main criticisms is that the practice of FR and anti-circ feelings have become intertwined to a degree that the two have been called virtually the same thing. This, in my opinion, is a serious error.

Maybe there shouldn't be unneccessary surgical procedures on infant boys? Could it be as simple as that? All of the arguments beyond that are really meaningless, aren't they?

Besides, isn't this forum for discussing FR techniques? Not for debating circumcision?

Actually, if you have a look down the line, multiple threads concerning circumcision have been started before with no questioning of their place here. All men interested in FR are assumably circumcised, hence I think it seems reasonable that it comes into discussion.

I also am attempting to outline some distinction between anti-circ ideas and FR itself. It involves FR, just tangentially. Feel free to elaborate on your thoughts about unnecessary surgery and such.

I'd like this thread to be more focused on the issues I felt I articulated above, but any comments are welcome.

Swank said:

Men can get into FR for a variety of reasons, many of which need not have anything to do with anti-circ opinions and the groups that create them. In the case of this forum, one of my main criticisms is that the practice of FR and anti-circ feelings have become intertwined to a degree that the two have been called virtually the same thing. This, in my opinion, is a serious error.

Click to expand...

I know Kong thinks you're smart, but sometimes you have trouble with 1+1. Of course men who restore are anti-circ. Men restore because they found that having a foreskin is better. So why in the world would they want baby boys circumsized?

Kong made radical posts before and was reprimanded. He's chilled out.

You've posted all this before.

Now what's your point?

How would men have found that having a foreskin is superior before they have one? My particular interest with this thread is the interplay between radical, internet-based FR groups and their claims, and how many men come to be interested in FR or its proposed benefits.

I don't think that FR and anti-circ feelings, especially the type of claims often made by these internet based groups, necessarily go hand in hand. There are also a cariety of reasons why a person could support circumcision while not being a particular advocate of it.

The purpose of my thread, as is the purpose of most other threads here, is to express an opinion and invite commentary.

The second senetence of the above post was mean to contain the phrase "radical, internet based anti-circ" groups, rather than "FR groups."

Both uncircumcised and circumcised male genitals function. They are benefits and negatives to each condition. But the fact of the matter is, circumcision is unnecessary and slightly dangerous toward infants. I despise unnecessary medical procedures. I find circumcision on an infant, especially when its not necessary to be unethical. It violates the grounds of informed consent. An individual has the right to do what he wants with his own body, including the right to die. If a person later in his life decides he wants to go through with the procedure thats his liberty to do so. However circumcision has been peddled by hospitals as a popular procedure because like the 500 dollar aspirin someone has to pay for it and its profitable. As for religious liberties who is to say that I wish to practice Jewish or muslin faiths my entire life. The assumption that an infant will be automatically of one faith and a practitioner could be argued as unethical on the grounds that religious practices forced on that individual violates his liberty.

I find your point about religious liberty very interesting, I would be curious to hear more.

I personally feel that the issue of religion is an important factor when considering circumcision. Though I am not religious myself, I do believe that religious customs ought to be respected and protected from interference. I am unfamiliar with Arab doctrine, but in Judiasm the Brit is a very important ritual and represents a millenia old covenent with god.

It is my understanding that Circumcision is a tribal ritual in many parts of Africa from before antiquity. When this is combined with the Jewish and Arab traditions, there is a significant percentage of the population worldwide that circumcise for religious purposes.

I am also of the opinion that circumcision offered some hygene benefits in regions of the ancient world where water was more scarce or regular cleaning was difficult, and this is probably how it found its way into culture.

I often get the feeling from some anti-circ material that they wish to convey the notion that circumcision was virtually unknown in the world recent times, and they love to bring up the notoriously quacky Dr. Kellogg as a proxy for its supposed bizarre Victorian origins.

I understand the argument that the state should stay out of the affairs of those who wish to practice their religious rights. But even a practitioner of a religious faith is a willing individual who has his own informed opinion about his or her beliefs and is free to act accordingly within the guidelines of that religion. However they are limitations to what many would construe as religious beliefs. Basically speaking if a religious act harms another individual against his or her will. We have various laws against such behavior and it gets really fuzzy, more so when you approach the area of cults. As a personal belief I feel an individual who has his own informed opinion and knows what he or she is doing is free to do what he or she wants to their own person. However I feel children are not individuals who can give informed consent, much less newborn infants. So I find religious practices as circumcision unethical in those regards. The other point is circumcision IS a medical procedure. Furthermore circumcision isn't reversible
as of yet.

In many countries of the western world we have laws that grant religious liberty. However the main reason for these laws were so that we would have freedom from religious persecution. This is why we have separation of church and state. Which is one of the bests things thought up. Now the question is should the govt tell parents how they should raise their children? Even if it goes against religious liberty? I would say yes. They are many laws in existence today that in someway intrudes on someones personal religious liberty. Many of them good and sound. I understand that the whole circumcision rite is a "sacred" act and has deep religious meaning. But IMHO it still doesn't give a parent the right to say hey my kid is Jewish/muslin etc so go right ahead doc.
The other thing is theres nothing preventing someone getting circumcised for religious reasons later on in life. Heck alot of converts do it by their own free will.

I became interested in FR because of another member in the forum. I simply tried taping for a week and realized that there was definitely something to it. I believe it was the same for Kong. The difference is that Kong continued to research circumcision almost to point of obsession.

I've read your concerns about radical groups before, this is the opposite of what you think. Like I stated before, FR came first, and then the anti-circ opinions. You spend alot of time and effort posting here, but I honestly think that your mission is better served elsewhere. The main focus of the section of the forum has been to restore, as much as possible, the foreskin that was cut off. I think the focus should remain on that. You claim to all for us restoring, yet you continue to cast doubt on its benefits.

"How would men have found that having a foreskin is superior before they have one?" - Swank

Its a simple simulation that takes 2-4 weeks to show the possibilities. Just keep it covered and you'll see for yourself.

Quite right, raffiki.

Well, on the subject of religious practices...wow, that's a big one. Like enkie said, it's not reversible. I think anyone who wants to have themselves circumcised have the right to do it. That's freedom. Should we have the right to do it to newborn children? Sigh...I don't know. I see both sides of the issue there. What if the child grows up and decides he doesn't believe and wishes he wasn't circed? It's really a question of children's rights vs religious freedom of parents. What would you think if we veer away from an orthodox religion and substitute, say, a cult who believes in facial scarring or the removal of eyelids or something...? This question is so big it's scary. My personal view is this: why can't it be done at a later age? Why does it have to be done in early childhood? Answer: to physically enforce the beliefs on the child. Should anyone have that right?

Finally, I do not understand this fear of the anti-circ movement. Alot of big words are used to condemn their tactics, but what should be so frightening about campaigning and distributing information? Oh my gawd, they're handing out leaflets! Hide the kids! :D I think it's pretty weak. However, I certainly understand why the medical industry would fear this, as circumcision thrives on ignorance and complacency. The anti-circ movement may use information that is emotionally hurtful, but I do not believe personally that the information is deceptive or dangerous. It all comes down to money, and circumcision is highly profitable. Of course they don't want the truth to come out!

Thanks to everybody who has chipped in so far, interesting reading.

On the issue of religous liberty the opinions are well-supported and I certainly understand the perspective. One thing that I think factors in, is whether a person considers circumcision to actually be a mutilation and particularly damaging. I do not believe that facial scarring or eyelid removal (this is probably an inaccurate analogy as your eyes cannot physically function without constant attention with no eyelids) are necessarily the same thing as circumcision so far as most people are concerned. Simply put, our courts would not allow those things as they may have seriously detrimental effects throughout life. A circumcision on the other hand, is something many people are quite happy with.

So far as physically forcing your beliefs on a child, that is sticky as well. How many of you would attempt to stop your young son from wearing a pink dress to school everyday if he so desired? Forcing your beliefs on a child is almost an entirely different argument, and something that I think all parents do to an extent anyway. Once again it is a person's feelings on circumcision which color one way or the other in this example.

So far as allowing it later in life, I see the logic here as well, but I know the tradition in the Jewish faith is 8 days old for a specific reason. Once again, thought it seems like a no-brainer to those severely opposed to circumcision, the quagmires are almost endless. In this case I am still on the side of a parent's choice, but I would be thrilled to discuss this in more detail.

In reference to Kong's second comment - I object to the groups on the grounds that I believe they're unethical, fanatical, and use false information to recruit for their cause. In my opinion, this is a problem. I find something rather disagreeable about a group sending information to 15 year old boys that tells them they're going ot have a miserable life because they're circumcised. These groups, in my opinion, rely on facile arguments and quick emotional trips to recruit for their causes.

There are many more sensible ways to achieve awareness and interest than recruiting children by making them loath their bodies and parents, or by flaming relgious discussion groups. Who are these people that dedicate their lives to this cause anyway? If you don't circumcise your own children and expressed your views when asked, have you not done your part? Who are these people that publish magazines and write newsletters on the topic I wonder? Certainly there are one or two circumcision information sites on the web that support the continued option of circumcising, but nothing near the same ferocity or proliferation as anti-circ stuff.

I think the answer to this is that the majority of people out there don't care or give it much thought. The logical tactic against this by anti-circ groups is to make it appear as though it were a near crisis situation. In reality I think anti-circ is a fairly small, highly vocal online based community of myab several tens of thousands of individuals. That's just a guess however.

That doesn't change my view that what they do is unethical, unprofessional, and though they claim to be 'human rights' organizations, essentially self-serving.

I'm sorry. Maybe I am dense or too biased. Could you explain how they are behaving unethically or in a self-serving manner? Are there some examples you could cite or is this just an opinion?

Is circumcision, mutilation? I think it would be better to ask is foreskin a physical defect?

The mutiliation question is an interesting proposal. To make clear, I am not advocating circumcision for anybody, I am defending a parent's continued right to choose it. The most encompassing dictionary defenition of mutiliation I found listed three descriptions:


1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

So you see, it is very much tied in with how a person feels that circumcision affects you in the first place. I think that many men, including myself, would argue that we are in no way crippled by circumcision, but nobody would argue that they haven't been physically altered (imperfect is an interesting choice of words, if a man wants or likes being circumcised, he might consider his circed penis as perfect). With any argument there is a danger of letting things shift towards semantic quibbling, but in this case I think it may help flush out the argument.

Kong, in response to what I find unethical: sending a 15 year old boy material that suggest he will become a homosexual, suicidal, and can never have a real sex life because he has been circumcised in order to recruit his opinions for your cause is unethical in my book. So is falming religous message boards that are privately conducting a discussion of thier faith a fairly unforgivable act in my book.

As you know, I already have a serious problem with people perhaps not being fully honest or masquerading half-truths and assumptions as solid fact and science. These groups are not professional or ethically restrained organizations from what I have seen and read. Perhaps reread the posts I started the thread with if you have difficulty understanding why I find their behavior, message, and and methods to be unacceptable. They are very much self-serving in that they are willing to mislead people in order to add to their rnumbers. Simple as that.

Hi,

There are nutballs and both sides of any wide-ranging debate. I am by no means a rabid, radical, or irrational anti-circ activist.

>> Is circumcision, mutilation? I think it would be better to ask is foreskin a physical defect? <<

YES, it is mutilation. There is absolutely no reason to cut off wonderful specialized pleasure receptors at birth. Three-fourths of the world's men enjoy intact genitals. They have no unusual health, hygiene, or social problems.

No national medical organization in the world recommends circumcision for any medical reason. As such, it is a cosmetic procedure and the only one with the moral right to give consent is the adult informed owner of the genitals in question.

Millions of years of evolution have given earth's mammals foreskins. A few thousand years of religious/mystic fanaticism have robbed countless males of sensual pleasure and even life.

This is not an anti-semitic thing. I deride all religions equally. There are today roughly:
500 million muslims
150 million christians
10 million jews
millions of "others"
living with genitals altered before adulthood. They have been denied the basic human right of enjoying the body they were born with.

I am a restorer. Please have a look at my before and after pics:
http://TLCTugger.com/prodTLC.htm. I can tell you that intimacy is certifiably better with slack skin rolling up and down my shaft and with a moist and supple glans. It's maddening to think about what was stolen from me when my frenulum - the closest thing to a clitoris a man might ever experience - was crushed and severed in my first week of life, but I've done about all I can about it, and it's not bad.

I'm really quite insulted that someone would say I work to end genital mutilation because I'm motivated by anything other than a wish to defend the helpless from mutilation and help the mutilated enjoy life more.

-Ron Low
TLCTugger.com
TLCTugger@Juno.com

PS - free bumper/window stickers - white or baby blue background:
"A Foreskin is not a Birth Defect"
"Bring home your WHOLE baby. Say NO to circumcision"
"Circumcision? HIS body, HIS decision"

Whoa. Our debate has attracted people selling stuff. That's kinda neat . . .