The Daily Rocket

HOW WOMEN SEXUALLY OPPRESS MEN

2007-07-01T21:43:00.001-07:00

Intactivist is the word that has been adopted by those of us who oppose routine infant circumcision.

To most people the argument against male circumcision is a strange one. People laugh. People make snide remarks. They think strangely of anyone who has attaches importance to any conversation that even whispers of sexuality.

To me, the issue of genital cutting is a political one with global implications. But the political is rooted in the personal; anyone who fights for something must believe in what they fight for. Political change happens when individuals join their goals, for a variety of personal reasons, to achieve an end. What then can I do to reconcile relationships with friends who challenge the ideas on this blog - with those who know the strength of my conviction and still argue? Is it spite? Is it pride? Don't they see how clear this subject is? I do try to be open minded but there are times when debate seems so outlandish! Are we really going to debate sexual mutilation?

A lesbian friend recently visited my blog and stated that no matter what I or her other friends say, she will circumcise her child. The ironies are myriad.

If this were, say, 1970 and I were to argue that women should not receive equal pay for equal work, I’m sure it would cause a rift with my female friends. Let’s say I opened a business and proclaimed, “I’m going to pay women $4 less per hour than men in the same position. No matter what you say or believe, my dear girlfriend.” The matter would be up for debate and would cause no end of argument and probably end more than a few friendships.

But it seems with circumcision there is a double standard. Female Genital Cutting is seen as completely barbaric. This barbaric custom, practiced for a variety of socio-political reasons, has been argued my men AND women of the cultures who practiced it. When men argue in its favor, it is seen by some as a means of female sexual subjugation. When women of those cultures argue in favor of it, FGM is still viewed as a male means of female subjugation and women, the victims of the crime, are seen in the light of abuse: the abuser in turn abuses out of ignorance. But do we view a mother who would circumcise her son as abusive? It seems to me that male sexual needs are subverted by a woman in this instance.

The man has a right to his complete and intact sexual anatomy.

What does one make of a mother who would insist on cutting her son’s penis? Is she not an oppressor? What kind of person cuts off a part of their child’s genitals? Is there not irony in following only some of your religion’s customs and not the rest? How does a parent choose which religious customs are valid and which are not?

Circumcision is sexual mutilation. It is an unforgivable crime. Doesn’t everyone who commits a crime have a justification?

The world has outlawed Female Genital Mutilation and there isn’t a single good reason for childhood and infant circumcision to remain a custom in any culture. Let the child decide when he reaches adulthood. It is his right.

If you choose for him, you deny him the complete spectrum of his sexual pleasure and anatomical function.

http://www.mgmbill.org/safiyah.pps

Health Care Providers to Parents: We Don't Need Your Consent

2007-05-01T21:12:00.000-07:00

A May 2 article in CityPages.com states that after an infant boy required a second surgery because of complications from his circumcision, his parents sued the doctor and Allina Health Systems.

Allina Health Systems, according to their own website, is a "not-for-profit network of hospitals, clinics and other health care services, providing care throughout Minnesota and western Wisconsin."

The doctor in this case settled out of court but, according to the CityPages article, "Allina filed a motion for dismissal, arguing that it did not have a legal responsibility to get consent from the Nelsons. The motion was granted..."

The motion was granted???? A health care provider doesn't need consent from the parents to perform surgery on an infant?

Think about it.

Contrary Arguments from My Readers

2007-04-19T16:08:00.000-07:00

First off - just a thank you for reading my blog. If you are bothering to read it, it means you are probably interested in the topic so I'll keep posting your comments and responding to them here online.

Before I publish this reader's letter I just have a question for my other readers: Why does any parent want to argue for the right to cut off a part of their son's genitals?

SO my reader sent this long letter. My response follows.

"...What I read is an angry person about the fact his parents circumcised him, thereby preempting his freedom of choice in the matter. That anger has manifested itself away from what it should be (which is anger at YOUR parents) and became a crusade to force the rest of the world to change to what you think is right, in order to appease your anger for something that happened to you that you can not change. If a couple want to circumcise their male children, so what? They decided to bring children into the world, they are responsible for their children, they are perpetuating the human race and most especially they are creating an extension of themselves, to love, to teach to hopefully follow the same customs and traditions and beliefs that they have.
So far there is no solid, factual, irrefutable value in a foreskin staying attached or being removed, just like an appendix. There is no harm in removing it, nor leaving it
in place, the same with an appendix. Does it require surgery? Yes, just like anything else that is removed from the body. It is not "ripped" from the body, it is surgically but, just like many other things that are surgically cut from the body. Can it be lased [laser] off? I suppose so, like many other parts of the body that are lased, such as an ovary or tumor. Why does there have to be a crusade to stop people from doing what hey want with their children that presents zero harm and zero benfit either way just because you are pissed at your parents? Every question about its benefits or harmful effects is totally moot. This is a simple case of one person trying to change the world out of his/her own anger. BTW, we didn't have the right to choose who our parents are or what gender we will be either, but I am sure some pissed off human rights activist will try and force that on all of us too some day."

I see it this way: Angry human rights activitsts are responsible for, well, your human rights. Right? Our founding fathers were angry about England's tyrannical rule and created a new country. Anger is a force for positive change. Other successes in activism include desegregation, the right to vote for all people in the U.S., emancipation of American slaves, and the outlawing of Female Genital Mutilation which in various cultures may include anything from removal of the clitoral hood to much more horrific amputation.

It is precisely because I am "pissed at (my) parents" that I believe in this "crusade." If my parents had left me intact, I would be happier today. There are other men who grow up feeling the same way. There are also men who have been permanently disfigured and/or damaged by bad surgeries which were either poorly performed to begin with, or led to serious infection. There are cases of severe trauma to the penis, lacerations, even complete amputation due to cauterization accidents and infection leading to gangrene.

Even if there is only the slightest, most minute, fraction of a possibility that your child will be permanently damaged in an unnecessary procedure (you yourself, dear reader, have said: "zero harm and zero benefit either way") - don't you want to save yourself that worry? And save your child from the possibility of a lifetime's problems should anything go wrong?

It seems to me, dear reader, that my attempt to "force the rest of the world to change to what (I) think is right" is no different than your attempt to force your beliefs. I believe strongly that a parent has no more right to choose circumcision for a child than to choose cosmetic surgery - nose jobs, breast implants, etc. Operating on assumption, and one that I disagree with, that the foreskin is vestigial, its removal is unnecessary since it poses no threat.

Are questions about the effects of circumcision "moot" merely because the parents' rights are more important? Parents should have the right to make decisions that benefit their child - not fighting for the rights to do what they like with their child's body simply to prove ownership. "My child - so I can do what I like if it doesn't hurt him!" That seems to me a sin of pride. The parent is more concerned with his/her own rights. I disagree that the point is moot. It is precisely because of reported benefits that parents circumcise. If it were true that there were neither benefit nor harm in circumcision - why, then, are we even practicing this custom? If there is no benefit why subject your child to the pain - several weeks in infancy - or lifelong pain as an adult? An adult man will recover from a circumcision in less than a month, an infant in supposedly less time. But my closing argument is the same as always - once the choice is made, there is no going back. Parents know what it is to love their child and if a surgery might cause even a hint of unhappiness, physical pain, or any other kind of suffering, why do it? If the man is denied his right to choose, he can never have what was taken from him.

Dear reader, you argue for the parents' rights and I argue for the rights of the child. Let him decide when he is older. I would rather instill my child with the belief that his body is a sacred thing and it belongs only to him.

Circumcision as HIV Control

2007-04-15T18:00:00.000-07:00

Let's be clear on one thing - I believe that adult males may do whatever they like with their bodies. Choice is of the utmost importance. Having the ability to make a choice with regard to circumcision is determined by one factor - by your parents' choice for you.

As an infant, I was denied my right to choose.

An article in the Sunday New York Times, April 15, 2007, contains this language:

Pondering how to sell circumcision, a life-saving procedure, to the squeamish American male.

Before I cry ARE THEY KIDDING???? let me take a few deep breaths and explain why I want to blow my top. Circumcision is not saving anyone's life. Say it over and over to yourself "...a life-saving procedure." REALLY? Life-saving? So you're on death's door and the moyle comes to your place and slice, you're saved? No. Think again. It MAY reduce the risk of transmission. But that's all. Say it again to yourself: "It MAY (may may may may as in might, could possibly) reduce the risk of transmission." That's all - read on.

Within the past year there has been a tremendous amount of news regarding three African clinical trials which seem to indicate that female to male HIV transmission is reduced significantly by circumcision. I'm not buying it - but who am I to argue? I'm not a scientist. I only know that the foreskin is a maligned and misunderstood part of the body. So let's just say that HIV prevention through circumcision IS viable. Do you circumcise your infant based on a possibility? What if a cure or vaccine is found in the next 10 years? That's a possibility too. It seems unlikely that a child born today will become sexually active within 10 years. If he does start banging the neighbor girls (or boys) at age 10 - you're definitely doing something wrong as a parent and no form of surgery will correct THAT. Perhaps a parenting class would be a better option than circumcision.

It's also a possibility that the foreskin has a purpose you cannot know about unless you have one. It's also a possibility that removal of the foreskin reduces sensitivity. And a third possibility is that removal of the foreskin also removes a particular type of sexual stimulation which only this specialized mechanism provides. Another possibility is that your son could be permanently maimed by a botched circumcision. Remote? Yes - but still a possibility. Complications in surgery happen. Do you want to risk your son's genitals?

Even nose jobs are held off until after adolescence!
Circumcising a child, infant, teen or inbetween, is reprehensible. For one thing - the glans penis (the head of the penis) is attached to the foreskin at birth and sometimes well into the teen years. It does not become completely free until the child begins to grow - much like the hymen, it is in place throughough the child's youth and become dislodged through various means - including masturbation. Surgery on the penis within the first few days of birth means that the membrane must be ripped from the head of the penis. It's a horrible procedure and if you think it causes no damage to the penis, you should watch the surgery sometime. It is brutal.

But back to choice - the infant boy does not have fully developed sex organs, and must undergo a painful procedure based on someone else' will. Complications and circumcision accidents may be uncommon and may seem remote - except to those who are the victims of such trauma. On the slight chance that a child may suffer surgical trauma TO HIS GENITALS, shouldn't you consider allowing the child to grow through puberty, to full formation of the genitals, before a part of the penis is cut away? A part of the penis that will grow as the child grows. Complications of circumcision include infection, pain, genital trauma, scarring, accidental laceration of the penile shaft, accidental laceration of the glans penis, infection leading to gangrene, and in one very rare but famous case, the penis being accidentally BURNED OFF with a cauterization tool. (The last incident is the well--documented John/Joan case wherein the infant was subsequently castrated and raised as a girl. He committed suicide in 2004.)

No one has ever died of having a foreskin.
Are the chances of your child contracting HIV so great? Ask yourself - what are the other dangers of not being circumcised? Men in Europe seem to live just fine with their bodies intact. Most reasons for circumcision are superficial. Medical evidence of certain issues, while not false, are also not tremendously significant. No one has ever died of having a foreskin.

Weighing in the chances of infection in infancy (treatable), harrassment (superficial), hygiene (changeable through education) against the possibility of any kind of trauma to the unique organ of the male sex, shouldn't you think twice before taking a scalpel to your child's body? There is no recovery from a poorly performed infant circumcision.

Chances are that your infant will become a sexually active adult in a world where HIV has been eradicated or at least vaccinated away. Chances are, also, that the foreskin has a purpose you will never know about if you don't have one. Let your son decide for himself when he grows up. Give him a chance.

More Religious Arguments from Anonymous

2007-04-10T07:12:00.000-07:00

Perhaps I've been unclear in past blogs, Anonymous, it seems that you have either misunderstood or I have just been a little sloppy about my postings. Forgive me and let me restate my position before I respond to your comments.

I am not against circumcision for adult men who have chosen it for themselves. I am strongly opposed to infant circumcision. Please re-read my blog and you'll see all of that. Yes yes yes parents have the right - of course they do - to make decisions about health issues for their child but NO ONE HAS EVER DIED OF A FORESKIN. Studies do show, however, that removal of the foreskin reduces penile sensitivity. And have you ever seen photographs of a child being circumcised? Video of it? Seen it live? Ever heard of issues and problems in adulthood stemming from badly done circumcisions? Sorry but that's the beginning of a whole, new blog. More to discuss later.

I believe circumcision is a human rights violation.

Here's Anonymous' e-mail:

I happen to be Catholic, however, who said the old testament was Jewish. As far as circumcision goes, the Catholics do it, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, etc. I can understand questioning ones own religion in order to come to whatever comfort level is necessary, but if one doesn't have a religion or religious practices at all, why question others? why care? Why challenge what others believe if you don't even share their belief system?

Dear Anonymous - Why NOT challenge someone's belief system? Why accept blindly? Why not fight for the rights of children who have been or are currently or will be wronged by this practice? Why not learn to think for oneself? One challenges another's belief system BECAUSE one doesn't share it. That's what challenges are based on - a difference of opinion. So I have a different opinion about circumcision and, obviously, about religious doctrine. Having been raised Catholic, however, I do know that circumcision is not one of the Catholic rituals the way baptism, first holy communion, confession, confirmation, marriage and last rites are.

However, I will admit that you are correct - circumcision is practiced by many people for many different reasons but it is NOT a traditional Christian practice and, specifically, definitely not a Catholic one. Check your facts. Catholics are not required to circumcise.

I would definitely appreciate if you'll go back and carefully read my blog so as to note that I have no issue with ADULT circumcision. The issue is choice. I do not question a person's choice (or right) to be circumcised. Let me be more specific - I do not question an ADULT'S right to choose for himself. But routine circumcision of infants and young boys is unacceptable and barbaric. Female Genital Mutilation, now understood to be a human rights violation, has been and still is defended within certain cultures - so here I am questioning a belief system again (is that wrong?). I equate male circumcision with FGM. I will devote another column to the parallels between the defenses of FGM and MGM.

In any case, dear Anonymous, you didn't answer, acknowledge, or address the question I posed to you in the previous blog. Again, let me restate: If you are a Catholic and you are practicing old testament customs, which other old testament practices do you maintain? You'll find hundreds of old testament practices which are no longer followed by Christians (Catholics included) since customs began to change when Christ introduced the New Covenant. If you are able to pick and choose which customs you want to maintain (such as deciding to circumcise your child, but not to isolate your wife during her period), why not let a child decide for himself, when he reaches adulthood, whether he will seal the covenant with G*d through circumcision or through the New Covenant as laid out by Christ in the new testament - the covenant of his body and blood. Check your facts, then get back to me if you like.

If you'd really like to have a serious discussion about this, I hope you will re-read my blog more carefully and then get back to me with your e-mail address so we can discuss this in real time.

My Response to Your Responses

2007-04-03T17:46:00.000-07:00

Recently an anonymous reader sent me this comment:

You must not be religious. And I dare say most people who are religious do know the reason behind this practice. The clear statement of the Bible that circumcision was given to Abraham, as "a sign of the covenant" (Gen. xvii, 11) "And you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, that it may be for a sign of the covenant between me and you. Et circumcidetis carnem praeputii vestri ut sit in signum foederis inter me et vos." The fact this is even arguable is a result of the slow methodical destruction of the Christian foundations of this country.

Here's my response: I understand your belief in the bible. So if you believe circumcision is necessary, I suppose you are also isolating yourself for 7 days after nocturnal emmissions and/or isolating your wife during her menstrual cycle?

My question for you, O Anonymous Reader (thank you for bothering to read my blog, btw) is - do you continue to practice Jewish customs as laid out by the Old Testament as well?

God's Mistake

2007-03-15T11:29:00.000-07:00

People get very touchy when they think their rights are being denied. But in the case of circumcision, some parents are adamant about their right to cut off a part of their son’s genitals.

I’ve chosen not to be a parent but I am the owner of a functioning penis upon which surgery was performed BY my parents while I was an infant, so I think I have some right to enter into this discussion. I’m rigidly pro-choice (no penis jokes please). Many arguments in favor of the practice have little to do with the infant himself or with the sexually active, independent and responsible adult male he will become.

I am in favor of boys (like me) keeping their sexual body parts fully intact (unlike me) and being able to make decisions about their bodies for themselves when they grow up – unless it is a life-threatening situation, in which case the parent must make an executive decision. Having a foreskin is not life-threatening, as any intact male will tell you. I’m still not clear on why any mom feels it is her right to cut off a part of her son’s penis and why parents want to fight for that right. In the case of circumcision, some parents are more concerned about their own rights than the rights of the infant child.

Here are a series of opinions about circumcision, both pro and con, and my translations. Some of these quotes are from an MSNBC online article:

"I strongly favor circumcision not only for the health of the male but also for the health of the male’s female partners. Studies have shown lower cervical cancer rates in women whose male partners are circumcised versus those whose male partners are uncircumcised. I suspect STD rates are also lower for such women."
— Carol, Gainesville, Fla.
TRANSLATION
The possibility of my cervical cancer is more important than your penis.

"...I would point out, too, that God told the Hebrews to do circumcision because of the health benefits. … But, again, we need others to tell us all what to do. Certainly not enough of that these days, is there?"
— Jim, Huntsville, Ala.

TRANSLATION

God made a mistake so please cut off a part of your son's penis.

"… my husband and I never considered not circumcising our son. It was not a health issue that prompted our decision; it was the issue of imagining our son in the locker room in high school and being the only boy with an “odd-looking” penis. High school is tough enough without the added pressure of having an abnormality on your genitals. Circumcision has been going on for years and all men live through it. To us, there is no decision to be made."
- Nikki,
Peoria, Ill.

TRANSLATION

All men are born with an abnormality.
OR
Everyone is going to see my son’s penis.
OR
We should control nature through surgery.

"I am a physician and immediately see the benefits of circumcision. In dealing with the elderly who are not mentally intact, their hygiene is undesirable in that area, prone to infection … I am quite happy that my two boys were circumcised, one a few days after birth by the obstetrician, the other at 2 years of age because he was an overseas adoption. Of course, I was influenced by the fact that I am Jewish, but the circumcisions were not necessarily automatic for my wife and me."
— Dr. Jeffrey Bodack, Elkins Park, Pa.

TRANSLATION

Crazy old men don’t wash their dicks so cut off a part of your son’s penis.

Jewish customs should be mandatory for all infant boys

"Thankfully, here in Canada, there is no push by the medical profession to promote an unnecessary surgical procedure which comes with often overlooked hazards. No parent has the right to alter his child’s anatomy without permission."
— Marcia, Lynden, Ontario, Canada

TRANSLATION

My son's body is more important to me than my pride.

New Discovery Argues Against Circumcision

2007-03-06T05:22:00.000-08:00

My reasons for objecting to circumcision have more to do with personal choice than disease prevention. So many recent articles, however, about the perplexing African study which promotes circumcision as a means of preventing HIV have tied the issues the together. That study implies that somehow, mysteriously, circumcision is a good way to prevent viral transmission based on the facts of a study group being circumcised and then followed for two years.

The study was "so successful" that it was stopped before the end of the two-year trial. What most reportage fails to cover, however, is that the study group of men who were voluntarily circumcised for the experiment were also counseled in safer-sex practices and encouraged to use condoms even after their circumcisions. Hmmm. So what really did the trick? The condoms or the surgery?

According to an article published by the Foundation for AIDS Research.

Researchers have discovered that cells in the mucosal lining of human genitalia produce a protein that "eats up" invading HIV -- possibly keeping the spread of the AIDS more contained than it might otherwise be. Even more important, enhancing the activity of this protein, called Langerin, could be a potent new way to curtail the transmission of the virus that causes AIDS, the Dutch scientists added. Langerin is produced by Langerhans cells, which form a web-like network in skin and mucosa. This network is one of the first structures HIV confronts as it attempts to infect its host.

This would seem to contradict the small, recent study news since Langerhans cells are prevalent in the mucosal lining of the male foreskin.

Pro-circumcision Camp Argues for Parents Rights

2007-02-07T13:32:00.000-08:00

Here is my response to a recent blog deriding the MGM (Male Genital Mutilation) Bill which attempts to criminalize male circumcision in the U.S. in the same way female genital mutilation has become a worldwide crime.

A writer on the following site: http://blogs.townonline.com/parkwayBlog/?p=391 claims that the bill imposes on parents rights. This anonymous writer also spews arguments in favor of circumcision which have plagued this debate for decades: parents rights, fear of STD & infection, religious & cultural tradition. The writer states:

"The measure sticks itself right into the middle of parental rights... [intactivists] would do a lot better with an informative public education campaign and debate rather than going state-to-state trying to shove your will on everyone..."

My argument follows:

"There's a bit of inconsistency in logic here: '...rather than going state-to-state trying to shove your will on everyone...' Isn't it just as inappropriate then for parents to impose (or, to quote you, "shove") their will on an infant child who may grow up (like me) wishing he had had the opportunity to choose for himself? No other part of the body is amputated in favor of parental rights.

Isn't it foolish to think that the current HIV/circumcision studies should somehow be used as arguments in favor of subjecting infant boys to this procedure, since it is unlikely that an infant will be engaging in activities which will expose him to HIV or any other STD. No other part of the body is amputated for reasons of POTENTIAL infection and/or poor hygiene.

The foreskin is a functioning part of the male sexual mechanism. Amputation of sexual parts for religious and cultural reasons was argued by proponents of female genital mutilation for decades (often by women who had already been mutilated). Such arguments hold no water. The practice is barbaric and if, for cultural or religious reasons you wish to amputate, pierce or decorate, any adult is free to do so. But are we to defend cutting children who cannot make choices for themselves when the results of such a choice are permanent? Can't those things wait until adulthood when the individual can decide for himself?"

Response to Circumcision Article Published in Sunday Times Magazine

2007-01-28T07:54:00.000-08:00

In the January 14th New York Times Magazine, writer Tina Rosenberg claims that the recent studies about circumcision and HIV prove that the medical procedure is a "A Real-World AIDS Vaccine." Needless to say, my outrage about this grew with each sentence.

My letter, edited (as is their right) by the Times staff was published in today's Sunday Times Magazine. The complete letter is published here in my blog:

Tina Rosenberg nearly crosses lines of human rights violations in her article “A Real-World AIDS Vaccine.” This cited study has been questioned by major organizations, including the WHO. The foreskin is a vital part of the male sexual mechanism. It seems inappropriately easy for a woman to suggest that any man cut off part of his genitals when the opposite suggestion would be greeted with outrage. For centuries, circumcision has been said to cure everything from demonic possession to madness. John Harvey Kellogg (of Kellogg’s cereal) campaigned against masturbation in this way: 'A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision.' Circumcision, while not as horrific as female genital mutilation, which it nearly parallels, is a largely unquestioned practice most often perpetrated on infant boys at birth. RIC (Routine Infant Circumcision) has lately been called into question by the American Academy of Pediatrics and has been removed from Medicaid’s covered (read: necessary) list of medical procedures in 30 states. The foreskin is misunderstood and reasons for circumcision range from the selfish (it looks ugly, I want my son to look like his father) to the lazy (it’s dirty). Infant boys cannot make decisions for themselves and this practice is a crime against the men they will become. To equate circumcision with an HIV vaccine is irresponsible spin. Though it may reduce risk, it is NO kind of vaccine. I foresee worldwide disaster with hundreds of thousands of men failing to protect themselves (or their partners) during intercourse reasoning, “Don’t worry – I’m circumcised.” Someone should explain the results of this “miracle study” to the millions of circumcised men who have died from AIDS or are living with HIV."

Obviously, my objection to the procedure is about the human rights violation (specifically, male rights which seem to have no impact on mothers (and fathers) who are disgusted by their intact sons). The human rights issue goes both ways - can we protect each other from HIV by being circumcised? The answer is no. Is it POSSIBLE to reduce the POSSIBILITY of transmission? Only if you are talking about sex without internal ejaculation. News and media coverage about the recent African studies seems a 'slippery slope' and fails to take into account the following statistics:

"About 80 percent of men in the United States are circumcised, whereas only 15 percent are in Britain. In the United States, the prevalence of H.I.V. is 0.33 percent, compared with about 0.14 percent in Britain. Part of this difference may be attributed to a higher rate of intravenous drug use in the U.S.; however,
other factors are likely to play a role. In any case, these numbers do not support the notion that circumcision can have a significant impact on H.I.V. transmission." (Jonas Hannestad, M.D.New Haven)

Whether or not the HIV study is another in a long history of myths about circumcision, it seems the intactivist battle to maintain choice will go on until the issue of male genital integrity is taken seriously by both men and women, single or parent, who recognize that the issue of choice is paramount.

Circumcision and HIV - The Truth Please?

2006-12-17T20:54:00.000-08:00

In recent months there has been a lot of talk about circumcision helping to curb the spread of HIV. On December 14, 2006 The New York Times ran an article with the headline: "Circumcision Halves H.I.V. Risk, U.S. Agency Finds." Additionally, a Times editorial supported this crazy idea, despite the fact that the studies cited by this article were halted before complete data was taken AND several major groups have denounced the studies.

I cannot let my voice go unheard on this issue as I am radically opposed to routine infant circumcision. My feeling on the matter is that any part of my body belongs to me and I should have been consulted before a vital part of my sex organ was amputated.

Pros and cons of circumcision will be argued in another posting, but for now let's concentrate on this HIV issue. This is my response to The New York Times:

Since I am not a scientist (or even a trained medical professional) it is not my place to debunk a medical study such as the one referenced in the December 14, 2006 front-page headline: “Circumcision Halves H.I.V. Risk, U.S. Agency Finds.” But I would like the results of this study explained to the millions of circumcised men who have died from AIDS or are living with HIV. I foresee a worldwide disaster of even greater proportions: millions of parents circumcising their infants, then thousands of adult men refusing to protect themselves or their partners with the battle cry, “Don’t worry – I’m circumcised.”

In relation to the AIDS epidemic, this study is misleading and irresponsible. In relation to a centuries old practice (tribal, religious or cultural) this study could perpetuate a crime against men which robs them of a vital mechanism of their sexual organs designed (by nature? by G*d? by evolution?) for protection and pleasure.

Circumcision has been said to cure everything from epilepsy to possession by demons. It was also used to reduce sexual pleasure and keep boys from touching themselves. John Harvey Kellogg (of Kellogg’s cereal) campaigned against masturbation in this way: “A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision.”

Circumcision, while not as horrific as female genital mutilation, which it nearly parallels, is a largely unquestioned practice most often perpetrated on infants. The foreskin is misunderstood and reasons for circumcision range from the selfish (it looks ugly OR I want my son to look like his father) to the lazy (it’s dirty).

Infant boys cannot make decisions for themselves and this practice is a violation. If an adult male wishes to have his foreskin removed, that is certainly a choice – a cosmetic one and under very very rare circumstances (more rare than we are led to believe) a medical one. But this study will perpetuate the misconception that leads so many mothers (and fathers) to mutilate their infant boys’ before those children have even a chance to learn what their sexual organs are for.

If circumcision reduces the risk of contracting HIV, we should not be circumcising our infant boys since they may become adults in a world where HIV is no longer around, or can be prevented by a vaccine. Adults who wish to be circumcised should not be misled – the risk of HIV is still out there and having sex without a condom, just because you are circumcised, can still spread the virus. And if you’re using condoms, why amputate?