Because I was a boy, it was legal for medical practitioners to restrain me, separate my foreskin from my glans and remove my foreskin. This is known medically as circumcision. It is also mutilation as it removed functional, healthy tissue and left a scar on my penis.
As an infant, I could not consent. As an adult, I have taken back control of my body and restored my foreskin.
Circumcision has a long history, with no definitive starting time or purpose. Various forms of genital cutting have been recorded in cultures from around the world: some cultures only cut boys, though all cultures that cut girls also cut boys. Genital cutting is also done on children who are born intersex, most often with the goal of ensuring the child fits into the gender binary.
Male circumcision, most commonly practiced by those of Abrahamic faiths, differs today from its origins. Named milah, this cutting involved the removal of the skin that extended beyond the glans. Today, circumcision involves the removal of the inner foreskin, the outer foreskin, the ridged band (the interface between the inner and outer foreskins) and, often, the frenulum (the band connecting the foreskin to the underside of the penis—similar to the connective tissue beneath the tongue).
Foreskin restoration—or even foreskin lengthening—also has a long history. In ancient Greece, men would sometimes tie a kynodesme (a piece of leather cord) around a short foreskin to pull it forward over the glans. In ancient Rome, a man might attach a ring to the end of his penis for the same purpose. Jewish men used both of these methods, as well as the method known as pondus judaeus: a weight that was tied to the penile shaft skin, with the goal of stretching the skin over the glans.
There is also a surgical procedure known as epispasm, in which the skin around the base of the penis is cut, the skin on the shaft of the penis is moved forward over the glans and the wound is covered until such a time as new skin forms. This procedure was also used by those who had foreskins that were shorter than they wanted them to be. This procedure is described by Aulus Cornelius Celsus in De Medicina in 47 CE.
I began restoring my foreskin over five years ago, as I was becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the way my penis looked and functioned. I have never been happy with the visible scar from the circumcision, which I could see when urinating, showering, having sex or merely being in the nude. As I grew older, my glans was becoming less sensitive due to the chafing that the foreskin would normally prevent. The majority of my sexual interactions as an adult have been with men who are intact. As a result of my sexual experiences, I knew that I was missing out on what my intact partners experienced. Having always admired the foreskins of my partners, I had investigated and knew that foreskin restoration was possible. Now that I have begun restoration, my only regret is that I wish I had started earlier.
Modern foreskin restoration can involve a number of methods: from manual and taping methods to the use of various devices, colloquially referred to as tugging devices, as well as surgical procedures. I started with manual methods, found that the taping methods irritated my skin too much and then moved onto using a number of tugging devices. Initially, I also used silicone o-rings as a retainer, so as to keep what skin I had restored in place over my glans, protecting it from chafing; now that I have enough skin that my glans is covered, I rarely use o-rings.
The first few weeks of using a tugging device were interesting: applying the device to my penis was easy—the feeling of having something attached to my penis was the more difficult part. It took time to get used to that new sensation. Now that I have been restoring for a number of years, I can apply the devices that I use without looking and I no longer feel discomfort when I have a device attached to my penis. I now use two devices other than o-rings: a dual-tension device, which applies tension to the skin so as to promote cell growth and increase the skin on my outer foreskin and an inflating device that does the same but for the inner foreskin.
Now that I have a foreskin that is long enough to protect my glans from chafing, I am certainly enjoying sex more. Now that my glans has recovered some sensitivity, receiving oral sex is better than it has ever been for me. One of my partners assures me that my movements when I’m doing the penetration have changed for the better.
There are other benefits, not related to sexual gratification, too: I cycle regularly and I now feel my glans moving around in its protective sheath as my legs move up and down instead of being chafed against my clothing; when it’s cold, my penis has a hoodie which keeps my glans warm; and, importantly for me, I no longer see the scar from circumcision on my penis when I am in the nude.
The nerves that were severed when I was circumcised as an infant cannot be replaced, though my foreskin restoration has provided me with protection for my glans and improved my appreciation of sex. I was born with a foreskin and I shall die with a foreskin.
74 comments
I was circumcised before I could form a memory of it happening, and as a result… I really don’t care. haven’t had any problems as a result, and haven’t dwelled on the matter enough to convince myself I have.
There is much variability in circumcision surgery on a baby. There is no dotted line on which to cut. While it is a small area on a baby, it represents 10-15 square inches of missing tissue on an adult male. Some who perform this surgery go out of their way to gouge out all traces of the sensitive nerve-rich frenulum, while some practitioners leave much of the frenulum intact. Some males are cut tight and some cut loose. With such variability, one man cannot say he is fine with his neonatal circumcision and speak for other men who got a botched job and are NOT fine with it. Yet, American society seems to expect all men to be fine with it and keep quiet. Why should we?
As an uncircumcised urologist, trained in a country where there was little circumcision and working in a country where there is a great deal of circumcision the following observations could be entertained.
1) General data suggests that circumcision has only drawbacks in areas with good access to hygiene (clean water)
2) Circumcision is protective against the spread of a number of STD’s when hygiene access is compromised (see sub Saharan Africa)
3) Based on the above if I lived between the tropics I would want a circumcision as a matter of risk reduction
Having said this. A community needs an experience with managing uncircumcised males. There are pockets in the US where the circumcision rates have fallen dramatically (to do with insurance – its complicated). In these areas mothers, fathers and other relatives have no knowledge how to care for preteen boys who are not circumcised. This leads to a number of avoidable scenarios.
There are other scenarios where a circumcision is worthwhile. The one that jumps to mind is middle-aged diabetic men who suffer a number of complications regarding foreskins.
From a urologists perspective in an uncircumcised male the frenulum is the most sensitive area. There are some theories about why this would be. There appears a connection from the frenulum down the penile rhaphe to the peno-scrotal junction. With each thrust of an erection the scrotum is pulled back and the frenulum stretched on the underside of the penis stimulating the glans. Now there can be too much of a good thing and cases of premature ejaculation have been linked to a tight frenulum.
I have seen and examined thousands of penises. While every individual has their own penis and their own penis story, the experience of the collective has to be given sufficient weight. All I can say is the majority of circumcised men do not seem to have a problem with being circumcised, and the majority of uncircumcised men do not seem to have a problem being uncircumcised. A few adult uncircumcised men seek circumcision and a few circumcised men seek foreskin reconstruction . As stated earlier on balance, if you live with good access to hygiene, circumcision offers minimal benefit and only downside risks.
I’m not against circumcision for adults who choose or need to be circumcised. Adults can do what they wish or need to do with their bodies. Leave children alone.
Mr. Srebor, I can’t begin to imagine the guilt trip you put your parents through since it was decided as a good intention to provide a baby boy with a healthy start in life.
If you’re wondering where all the downvotes suddenly sprang, it’s from a coalition of women in a group which knows firsthand the real mutilation which is occurring to women—unfortunately, by women—in certain cultures which most certainly do allow a gouging out by a blunt instrument of a girl’s clitoris.
It’s not true that medically circumcised males are “multilated” because their penis can still function. It’s extremely rare —and still more painfully brutal—for a girl to go through removal of the clitoral hood and anybody can read about the stats for themselves and find most clitorectomies and labialectomies are performed outside medical hospital by a person using a spoon or blunt instrument devoid of any anesthesia or medical training.
Usually family members hold the young girl child down and the procedure is performed without anesthesia by a blunt instrument. Years ago, PBS showed an explicit video of a young girl who underwent such a process and it was horrific. Many girls have died by non-medical digging out of the clitoris. Have you ever heard of a boy infant dying by receiving a medical circumcision?
When the clitoris is removed it is equal to removing a man’s penis. A female who has been mutilated by clitorectomy—the most common form—will never know the joys of sex. She will also become frigid and may experience more difficulty in conceiving.
Mr. Strebor, by your own account, your penis was still a functioning part of your body, it was still intact. However, your anger over a safe medical procedure which offers more health benefits—especially for gay men—is something you personally feel passionate about because of your not being able to give consent. That’s fair enough. However, you were never mutilated because your penis still functions and is intact.
“If you’re wondering where all the downvotes suddenly sprang, it’s from a coalition of women in a group which knows firsthand the real mutilation which is occurring to women…”
This is not a zero-sum game. Opposition to male circumcision does not diminish opposition to female genital mutilation. I personally believe that it is wrong to amputate parts of anyone’s genitals without consent, unless there’s a clear medical need.
However, this article is about male circumcision. It is counterproductive to dismiss arguments against male circumcision because female genital mutilation is considered more egregious by most accounts.
Upvoting and downvoting is really, really important because those votes alone determine the validity of the arguments being presented. This is how it works, Vini. We all know this to be true.
Unfortunately you’re wrong, Mr, Strebor because any one person can hit either the thumbs up or thumbs down button on this site as many times as they please.
Maybe you and the your friend—the Vini you keep chastising—are wrong about other notions you both mistakenly hold on to as well.
It seems futile to try to educate in a commentary section which someone on Areo edits despite their claiming free speech.
Mr. Strebor, I am educated and have a passion about our bodies, human anatomy, our sexuality and the differences of male/female as well as the sameness shared.
It seems Areo allows editing which deletes or stops posts, from contributors which impedes free speech and allows bias to occur. I’m done reading or commenting on Areo because of this reason.
Miriam B. You seem to be saying that if a man can ejaculate and urinate, i.e. “their penis can still function” then he has no basis to complain. That’s ignorant. In fact, some boy infants die as a result of circumcision. A person can complain about a partial loss of hearing. A partial loss of sight. A partial loss of taste. But not an involuntary loss of mechanical sexual function and partial loss of erogenous sensitivity when up to 50% of the penile skin is amputated? Of course, FGM is bad, too, but this article is not about FGM.
It’s telling that you choose to speculate on what didn’t happen.
More concerning, though, is that your information on male and female genitalia is sadly inaccurate. I hope you are able to find information that enables you to learn.
Stop cutting those who cannot consent.
Talk about calling the kettle black. Completely amputating the most erogenous part of a (infant) males body by forcefully strapping him down is gential mutilation any way you look at it. People justify it for BS reasons because that’s how bad it is, and the only way they can make themselves feel better about doing it to someone. You talk about how painful FGM is, do you think MGM is any worse? People just hide behind the fact that it’s done before a baby can remember it so that makes it ok. Well god forbid a man said the same thing about removing female sexual parts, you would all have fit. Get real.
Miriam B. You ask: “Have you ever heard of a boy infant dying by receiving a medical circumcision? Yes, of course. Google it. It does happen, although it is rare. But if you are the parents of a baby boy who dies as a result of a medically unnecessary circumcision it doesn’t matter how rare it is. You also state that circumcision offers health benefits ”especially for gay men.” Where is your proof or citation? The studies cited by proponents of circumcision were on heterosexual men in Africa who contracted HIV from women. The results of that study are hotly contested but, more importantly, cannot be applied elsewhere or to gay men.
Yes actually, hundreds of boys die from medical circumcisions every year, and those are the ones done in a hospital, how many more die in the Xhosa bush rituals, a jewish bris or islamic circumcision?
Partial clitoridectomy does not at all equal the full removal of the penis, for many reasons, but it’s an inflamatory way to put it, it sparks images and gets sympathy to your cause. Sympathy that you may well deserve, but NOT at the expense of the billion and a half men who have been cut, offering possible minor heath benefits that the studies on keep disagreeing about, which by the way offers LESS benefit to gay men, there is no benefit to gay men for HIV found, the studies into that were on straight men, for straight sex, all studies into gay men, like most studies into straight men found no benefit, in fact some studies are starting for find the tight skin, and the friction that causes, is raising not lowering STI risk.
I could also point out there were two studies that found a 60-70% reducition in HIV among FGM victims, should that be an excuse to cut little girls? What if we do it in clinics and hospitals not in huts in Africa? After all that’s how it’s done in Malaysia, just like how boys are cut not infants but boys, in the bush in Africa too, but those get ignored, they don’t fit your story.
Your coalition is the problem, your coalition is here literally admitting to sabotaging our fight against what was done to us because of what was done to you. Your coalition could have just shut up and kept to yourself, your coalition could have joined forces and decided to try and end all childhood genital mutilation, regardless of gender, but instead you decided to delight in the pain of men and boys, to say you deserve what you got because we have it worse (often not true, more forms of FGM do less damage and are less invasive than forms that do more and are more invasive, though more harmful forms do exist sure)
If base functionality is your measuring stick, then all these women are too, they can still bear children, FGM would never have been done if it sterilized women, the tribes that did it would have died out. Studies into FGM have shown that most victims still want sex, still are capable of orgasm, and are still functioning, it’s harder, it’s not as enjoyable, but then that’s exactly what we’re saying here.
And since you asked, here’s just one example of a death from medical circumcision, if you want I can find hundreds more.
https://nationalpost.com/health/ontario-newborn-bleeds-to-death-after-family-doctor-persuades-parents-to-get-him-circumcised
I stumbled across this forum while looking for something else, and felt an unrelenting urge to comment. I never contribute to any of these forums, but I can’t help but respond to this comment. I see that this is from February, so I’m not even sure people will see this comment.
When I was two days old, I was strapped to a table, and the most sensitive parts of my genitalia were cut, and literally torn from my body. I was not given anesthetic, as babies were not in 1971 in the southern states, so it was literally the most painful experience of my life. Research shows that this kind of trauma can alter a baby’s brain permanently, and that infants enter a state of dissociation during this experience. They scream violently during the procedure, then finally just stop moving, barely breathing. Nurses who witness this have vowed to not circumcise their sons. I can add links if anyone cares to see them.
I always felt something was missing, and not until I saw and intact male did I truly understand what had happened. The structure, the sensitivity, the moisture! Why would anyone ever do this? From early on I felt strongly that this is truly a human rights violation – no one should ever have this done without the choice.
Now it seems widely accepted that the frenulum is the equivalent of the female g-spot, as a strong erogenous zone. I wouldn’t know, I have NO frenulum remaining. I have nothing but a dry, wooden stick. I have tried restoring, and will continue to try, but it’s a long, often uncomfortable endeavor – but it would be absolutely worth it to restore the sensitivity which I am starting to feel above the scar line, as the mucosal tissue becomes protected again.
So – in response to the comment above, I find it INCREDIBLY OFFENSIVE to take such a parallel situation of constraint and non-consensual mutilation, and to call it a “good intention to provide a baby boy with a healthy start” on the male side of the fence, and yet on the female side of the fence it’s a crime against humanity. Both are equally horrific, and I’m AMAZED, confused, and incredibly saddened that your group is not completely against genital cutting in general. Who is going to protect the baby boys, if their mothers have no issue with this barbaric practice.
AB – I’m sorry to read that you, too were mutilated.
The commenter to which you are replying is best ignored: uninformed with many axes to grind.
Thank you, for posting a fair and intelligent observation.
Thank you, Dr. Ber, for your objective comments. You state, “the majority of circumcised men do not seem to have a problem with being circumcised, and the majority of uncircumcised men do not seem to have a problem being uncircumcised.” I would postulate that society in general, is not amenable, i.e. open and responsive, to complaints from circumcised men. Case in point is the quote in the documentary film American Circumcision, where Dr. Edgar Schoen, former head of the American Academy of Pediatrics task force on circumcision, was asked what he would say to a man who is unhappy with his neonatal circumcision. Dr. Schoen said on camera, “I’d tell him to get a life.” With that kind of attitude from spokespersons from the medical community, it should not surprise anyone that men are reluctant to entertain the idea that their sexual function has been diminished in any way by their newborn circumcision, let alone come forward publicly and subject themselves to mockery and ridicule. Some of the callous and dismissive comments from doctors in this comments section prove that circumcised men’s reluctance to come forward is not unfounded. The fact is that all the way back to antiquity there is ample historical acknowledgement that the purpose of circumcision was to diminish and desensitize the male sexual organ to make sex and masturbation more difficult and less enjoyable, yet still allow for the basic functionality of ejaculation and procreation.
That particular documentary is the most biased and skewed information source ever conceived—and cheaply done.
It falsely reports so many things like the worst segment showing a map and the narrator claiming America has the most cases of HIV/AIDS. Not true! Africa still remains the highest in HIV/AIDS pandemic but education and circumcision is lowering the numbers.
When the film focuses on protesters, it does not pan, it says still on a two or three people in each shot. The nurse is from the U.K. and is of an age whereby she witnessed a medical circumcision whereby anesthesia was not used back in the day.
There were numerous discrepancies and false reporting in that documentary which also pointedly focusses the camera while he’s talking on the retired, aging doctor’s shaking hands as if to further undermine his intelligence and past skills knowledge about circumcision.
Before the doctor states, I’d tell him to get a life, he offered much much more information which truthfully validates the safety and health benefits of circumcision. To jump to that one statement is to take his words out of context. Very unfair.
Miriam B. The particular doctor you mention, Dr. Edgar Schoen, is perhaps the most notoriously biased and skewed proponent of circumcision ever conceived. The American Academy of Pediatrics says that circumcision evidence is not great enough to make a universal recommendation in favor of it. In fact, no medical association in the world recommends it and most flat out recommend AGAINST it. I cannot imagine any context in which it would be acceptable for a medical doctor to tell a man who is unhappy with his circumcision: “Get a life.” That is callous and insensitive in any context for a doctor who has pledged, “First do no harm.”
If anyone cares to do research, male circumcision predates religions. But isn’t it ironic that someone stated in this commentary that being uncircumcised is “God given” considering both the Christian and Muslim God commanded instuction to circumcise men?
It really is amazing how so many folks are devoutly religious yet can make one cringe when saying remarks which show they don’t read, study the very religion they’re brought up in.
In my experience, the devoutly religious are often devoutly uninformed about their religion.
Indeed, even Shavon who says the christian god demands it, while it’s true that it’s in the old testament (and there are many claims that it was added in by others, not in the original genesis) the new testament is very much against circumcision. The Jewish god arguably demands it, Christianity does not, and in fact the bible goes so far to say in the NT that circumcision, as a mark of the old covenant (judaism) means you have chosen the old covenant, and must follow that one, if you do it you’re Jewish not Christian.
The essay and comments are personal opinions by people who are not aware or ignore medical science which if one were to take the time to read sources other than cultural and personal opinion essays will better educate on the pros and cons of circumcision.
It’s clear if you’re uncircumcised there’s more need for cleanliness because the accumulation of smegma can cause two kinds of infections only associated with being uncircumcised.
Many cultures do not practice circumcision because of their ideas about a man-made-up God as well as a another culture claims their God instructed such a procedure. Medical science studies prove circumcision proves much more positive effects because keeping the foreskin intact causes much more adverse conditions.
The glans penis, the tip of the penis, is where concentrated nerve endings are and is NOT associated whatsoever with extra folds of skin which cover a flaccid penis.
But I’m curious as to why a second essay which promotes uncircumcision in a personal opinion essay format which is devoid of medical science is again presented on Areo Magazine.
Many uncircumcised males exist in the world (quite a few are Areo Magazine readers according to upvotes) but it’s certainly not a God given condition. An educated person is able to acknowledge many medical advances in the future will allow gene editing which can eradicate many diseases. It’s a futuristic consideration: Promoting being uncircumcised is like being proud of holding on to a defective gene which can be edited to maintain better health.
Intact males. That’s the word you are looking for.
“Promoting being uncircumcised is like being proud of holding on to a defective gene”
This is one of the most outrageous statements regarding circumcision I think I’ve ever heard..
Even if, EVEN IF, the foreskin was a vestigial organ like the appendix, why do we forcibly remove it from an infant? We don’t remove infants appendix’s unless they are causing trouble, so why remove the foreskin if it’s not causing trouble?
That being said, the foreskin IS NOT a vestigial organ. It serves a clear purpose. You are so misinformed.
M Patel’s knowledge of anatomy is concerning. I’m glad he had the choice of removing his foreskin as I believe adults should be able to do whatever they wish with their own bodies.
Children, though?
Leave them alone.
This is both a well-informed account of the early history of circumcision (as a ritual procedure customary in certain religious/cultural groups) and a moving personal story about how injured the author felt by what had been done to him. It is significant that it is possible to buy foreskin restoration devices, reflecting the fact that literally thousands of men are sufficiently distressed by the loss of their foreskin that they are willing go to the immense and tedious trouble of laboriously trying to restore it. The author’s comments about loss of sensitivity are confirmed by scientific studies of foreskin tissues showing that it has one of the highest concentration of pleasure-detecting nerves of any part of the body, similar to the finger tips or lips; indeed, the tissue conveying its inner surface is a mucous membrane very similar to the lips. Further information:
http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/
While the most common reason for circumcision on a world scale is the religious/cultural affiliation of the parents, medically rationalised (“health”) circumcision is still prevalent in the United States and lingers in Canada and Australia. The practice was introduced into the British and American world in the late 19th Century as a preventive health and hygiene option, largely out of the belief that it would promote moral hygiene – i.e. discourage boys from playing with themselves – masturbation at that time being regarded as a both a serious disease and a wicked moral failing. The practice began to die away in the 1970s as child health authorities recognised that these fears were groundless, and that the subsequent discovery of “health” reasons were invalid or insufficient. As a result, routine circumcision has largely disappeared in Britain and Australia, though it remains common (even normal) in the United States, where the relevant authority show great reluctance to acknowledge relevant research on the anatomy and functions of the foreskin, much less the bioethical and human rights aspects of the question.
Some more useful references:
http://www.historyofcircumcision.net
http://www.circinfo.org/index.php
https://www.academia.edu/35001238/False_beliefs_predict_increased_circumcision_satisfaction_in_a_sample_of_US_American_men
https://www.academia.edu/32691464/Cultural_bias_in_American_medicine_the_case_of_infant_male_circumcision
https://www.academia.edu/12035421/Risks_benefits_complications_and_harms_Neglected_factors_in_the_debate_on_non-therapeutic_circumcision
I think that the material here will prove an adequate response to the misleading remarks by Mr Patel. It is significant that no child health authority anywhere in the world recommends routine circumcision of boys (not even the American Academy of Paediatrics, which states merely that the benefits exceed the risks), and that all other child health authorities (Europe, Britain, Australia, New Zealand) that have issued policies on the subject are actively opposed to the practice as medically unnecessary, harmful and contrary to accepted principles of medical ethics.
Thank you, Robert.
The first site cirp.org is anti-circumcision and is not a medical site offering unbiased information. Other sites listed offer a history about circumcision or only focus on the rare negative consequences as given in a medical journal (which also would list the benefits not supported by the biased commentator).
I shared my story, too, yet get pushback because the before and after experience of circumcision chosen later in my life holds no merit to males who simply can’t relate. It is a far more uncomfortable procedure to go through as an adult because I do not have any memory of my birth.
As to the author of the essay, I’m sorry to hear you feel the way you do and it must be disappointing to realize there is no such thing as restoring foreskin. The best non-surgical treatments can do is stretch skin but it is missing the frenulum and therefore cannot really restore what you place certain focus. I tried to share a positive experience in which I do not miss or feel less of a man—and don’t think many guys bother to talk about.
Currently there’s much misinformation on the internet and a huge frenzy about male infant circumcision. It’s very much related to the vaccine fear mongering going on and cases of measles and chicken pox rising. Circumcision and becoming vaccinated against diseases has become more of a personal choice issue than a medical service which helps people live a more healthy life.
I could list valid sites which offer unbiased research that men who are uncircumcised are more apt to suffer cancer and infections than circumcised men but it’s doubtful with all the down votes and digging in that anyone in this comment section would read them.
You commented about choosing to have your foreskin removed.
I’m glad you had the choice of removing your foreskin. I did not.
C R Strebor, it’s possible you might sound like someone in the future who complains about gene therapy and laments about it, no?
Gene therapies hold promise for many advancements in science – mutilating children is not gene therapy.
Circumcision is NOT mutilation. That is a ridiculous and backward mindset.
What the author chose to feel and do to try and reestablish a foreskin is his prerogative and his own personal desire by which he is not being honest with himself as there is absolutely no way whatsoever to regain foreskin tissue. Medically removing the foreskin in sage, sterile conditions by a competent physician in infancy has many more benefits both in health and sexuality than keeping a foreskin that if not kept constantly clean can harbor, cause and magnify disease.
However, must respect a person’s feelings about being denied the choice of circumcision and further understand their psychological feelings or cultural biases which may be adverse to a medical procedure which again has more pros than cons.
The issue which is not being addressed or talked about in an honest way is the fact no amount of skin stretching or surgical procedure can take a man back to square one because specific kinds of skin tissue cannot be reconstructed but can only mimic the look of an uncircumcised penis.
It takes much time and years to go through a dubious procedure to only achieve the look of being uncircumcised. It’s hopeful counseling was sought before undergoing a procedure which cannot restore but only mimic a physical structure.
Circumcision is the procedure that results in mutilation.
I hope you have had the the choice of whether or not to have your genitals altered.
Be well.
“The issue which is not being addressed or talked about in an honest way is the fact no amount of skin stretching or surgical procedure can take a man back to square one because specific kinds of skin tissue cannot be reconstructed but can only mimic the look of an uncircumcised penis.”
That is all the more reason not to perform an amputation procedure that is not medically necessary on those who cannot consent to it.
You are right that circumcission cannot genuinely be reversed. What the author describes simply mitigates and reduces the damage done to him.
This is why circumcission is mutillation and a horribly abusive procedure. There are no genuine health benefits and many possible negatives up to and including death even if performed in a medical facility. All operations even minor ones have risks. That sexual function is impacted is clear and often quoted as the justification in early sources.
It is a stain on our western society that those who perform this disgusting practice are not prosecuted as the child abusers they undoubtedly are.
> I shared my story, too, yet get pushback because the before and after experience of circumcision chosen later in my life holds no merit to males who simply can’t relate. It is a far more uncomfortable procedure to go through as an adult because I do not have any memory of my birth.
You are the one who can’t relate, as evidenced by remarks like this. You got to make that decision for yourself; I, and many of us didn’t.
I started life debased and violated. I wasn’t given the basic human right to my own natural, healthy body. My whole life I have had to live with the shame of that violation, and the shame that my parents were too ignorant not to question the prevailing notion in the United States that says circumcision is what you’re supposed to do to infant boys, because otherwise people might think their natural penises look weird, and men certainly don’t have the sense to practice basic hygiene.
I have also had to come to terms with the growing realization that circumcision is a cause of sexual dysfunction, a fact that circumcising cultures seem to be in staunch denial of. How can amputating part of a functioning organ NOT impair its function? I don’t want to completely lose sensation by the time I turn 40. That is why I have also started the process of foreskin restoration. I will never get back what was forcefully taken from me, but I can at least regain some of my dignity this way.
There is no such thing as foreskin restoration and it’s clear this is a shill kind of essay and rigged consequential commenting forum which is promoting a procedure which is dubious and non-existtant.
The internet is rife with anti-circumcision, false testimonials and sites which claim foreskin restoration at cost which does more damage than help a person who ridiculously believes their “manhood” was denied by a medical procedure which has far more benefits for men than the so-called false call-out that it decreases male “manhood”.
C R Strebor by his account is surrounded by males who are not circumcised and seems more brainwashed by their narrow knowledge of being uncircumcised and, of course, their bias.
This essay received no commentary whatsoever until Patel stepped up then all bias broke loose. Aero should place this as an advertisement for foreskin restoration like those false ads for gizmos like AccuJack which claim to make small penises grow larger.
There is no known remedy which can restore male foreskin—and why the hell would a man want to???
It’s a fallacy to assume circumcision is mutilation because many medical procedures are best performed in infancy. Being born with a cleft palette is certainly not God given and operations were initially delayed until a adulthood which caused unnecessary suffering. Nowadays, medical doctors go to great lengths to visit countries and work for free to operate on and correct cleft palettes in infancy.
Women endure breast cancer which may cause complete removal of their breast and seldom do you hear a woman say it affected their womanhood like the author does about a beneficial procedure to eradicate penile cancer and stop inflammatory infections.
Because you’re a boy, medical science is doing it’s best to make sure you live a healthy life. If you live in a cultural environment whereby your penis looks different than everybody else’s doesn’t mean a damn thing. If you’re experiencing issues go seek medical or counseling advice.
The essay serves to strangely promote a false ideal and sounds even stranger to focus manhood on a body part called penile foreskin. As if a woman is only defined by her breasts a man is “manly” because of having extra folds of penile foreskin?
I am curious why Areo would allow such a blatant topic which shills as a false advertisement for penile foreskin restoration and lists this as “Politics”.
Oh, the absurdity in this world is rife on net forums!
I am sorry that your unable to experience that the pleasure that is my restored foreskin.
Be well!
> It’s a fallacy to assume circumcision is mutilation because many medical procedures are best performed in infancy. Being born with a cleft palette is certainly not God given and operations were initially delayed until a adulthood which caused unnecessary suffering.
A healthy, intact penis is not a malformation. There is no humanely-sound reason for amputating part of it in infancy.
Reading your comment was tiring, but I did it! And I easily came to a conclusion: you’re a brainwashed idiot. Especially after this doozy: “Women endure breast cancer which may cause complete removal of their breast and seldom do you hear a woman say it affected their womanhood”
Do you realize how ignorant you sound? It’s tragic that people this stupid exist.
The AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) is the only medical community in the world that endorses circumcision. Let that sink in.
Comparing foreskin, which 100% of males are born with, to a cleft pallet is just truly bafflingly ignorant.
You’d do society a big favor by not weighing in on issues that you clearly have no knowledge about.
“Women endure breast cancer which may cause complete removal of their breast”
We could remove those in infants too, it would eliminate breast cancer, something far more common and more dangerous than all the issues blamed on the foreskin, combined. Yet that would be seen as abusive and mutilation wouldn’t it? Removing any other healthy and normal part of the body would be seen as mutilation and abusive, and would be a violation of medical ethics, the principles of least intervention, the very same reasons why surgeries are not the first option for other issues, cancer is treated with chemo, with radiation, and if it absolutely must be, with surgery, with circumcision they don’t even wait for an issue, they allow it to be done on fully healthy natural bodies.
You mention cleft palate and you are right there, that’s something done to infants, however there is a diagnosis there, a condition to treat, that is therapeutic medicine, having a prepuce is not a condition, it is not an aberration, it is not unnatural and it is not something that requires treatment. It is the one prophylactic surgery we allow parents to ask for without the consent of the person to be operated on, when the body is completely healthy, and it is a violation of the boys rights to bodily integrity, and done for no actual benefit, I could site as many studies that find no benefit as those that say there are, and I could list the hundreds if not thousands of other conditions circumcision was said to prevent or treat, things like tuberculosis, blindness, gangrene, epilepsy, even erectile dysfunction which it has been shown to cause. Circumcision is not medicine, it is social, cultural ritual masquerading as medicine and that mask needs to be ripped away.
“I started life debased and violated. I wasn’t given the basic human right to my own natural, healthy body. My whole life I have had to live with the shame of that violation, and the shame that my parents were too ignorant not to question the prevailing notion in the United States that says circumcision is what you’re supposed to do to infant boys, because otherwise people might think their natural penises look weird, and men certainly don’t have the sense to practice basic hygiene.”
Shame? You’ve really carried shame about this? Most boys in America around the time of your birth were circumcised, and you have carried the heavy weight of that shame with you for your whole life?
I find that ridiculous at face. I was circumcised, probably around the time you were. There’s no shame in it. There would be no shame had my parents chosen otherwise.
What a massive burden it is for me to be circumcised. Add me to the victimhood hierarchy. From now on, don’t see my whiteness or my maleness, see my victimhood and mourn my foreskin.
I change the things I cannot accept.
You could, too.
If you tried.
I’m not sitting here saying, “Give me special consideration and privileges because I am a victim.”
I have felt from an early age that I was violated as an infant, which has had a lasting impact on me. I don’t want that to happen to other people.
I am not a victim: I change the things I cannot accept.
Robert,
Having restored, I agree with the general gist of your information: circumcision is a harmful procedure and the foreskin is a critical part of male sexual vitality. However, I think your historical analysis has a few oversights in it (ones that I repeatedly see in the Inactivist community).
1.) You state that, “The practice was introduced into the British and American world in the late 19th Century…” This is not true. Jews have lived in New York since 1655 (then it was called New Amsterdam). The first synagogue in New York dates back to 1730. There were also numerous Jewish communities throughout the United States in the 18th century: Georgia (1730s), Philadelphia (1740s) and Rhode Island (1750s). Some of these Jews were also Orthodox and would have been practicing Mitzvah B’peh, the act of sucking the blood out of the child’s penis.
So in short, Jews were mutilating children and sucking the blood out of their penises before the late 19th century.
Source regarding Jewish community:http://americanjewisharchives.org/education/timeline.php
Source regarding penile blood sucking:https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/18085/is-metzitzah-bpeh-a-must/18783
2.) The circumcision rate was still relatively low in both Britain and the US after the Puritanical push. Foe example, in 1900 the US rate of circumcision has at 18% (source: http://www.boystoo.com/history/statistics.htm). So what explains the fact that 70 years later, this rate skyrocketed to 90%? The answer to this is more complex than “let’s just blame the cereal guy”. Again, we see Jewish involvement via the GOMCO clamp (short for the Goldstein Manafacturing Company) and the Mogen Clamp (made by the Jewish man Bronstein). We also see the work of Benjamin Spock, whose book “Baby and Child Care” in 1946 was very influential in encouraging the average American to mutilate their son: his parents were of Dutch ancestry.
In short, I think it’s important to present an honest representation of history. We have several culprits for circumcision in the US and we should have the courage to name the perpetrators.
“Major” anti-Jewish propaganda.
I’m with you on this, DTK – Major Styles, and others, need to stop blaming Jews for what non-Jews do to their children.
http://beyondthebris.com
Cut pomegranates, not children.
Who invented the GOMCO and the Mogen clamp? Do you disagree with those facts?
Since when are facts considered propaganda. Are you telling me that Jews do not practice circumcision?
Jewish people are the front of the bodily integrity movement – stop blaming Jews for what non-Jews do in far greater numbers.
“Jewish people are the front of the bodily integrity movement.”
I applaud those individuals and give credit where it’s due. Even Theodore Hertzl – the father of the state of Israel – did not circumcise his son. And yet, the circumcision rate in Israel is estimated to be between 95%-98%.” .Source: https://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/top-10-countries-with-highest-circumcision-rate-in-the-world-599346/11/
Just because there are Jewish individuals that are fighting for inactivism, this does not negate the factual data: i.e. the vast majority of Jewish babies are subjected to genital mutilation. They have no say in this and they never gave their permission. This is a human rights violation. I was one of those babies – funny how you accuse one of anti-semitism with zero understanding of that individual’s history.
If you really care about the “Jewish people” (as you suggest that you do) then you will defend the rights of their children as opposed to the egoistic sensibilities of their adults.
I defend the rights of all children whether male, intersex or female.
Regardless of the religion of their parents.
Your posting is suggesting otherwise. You keep responding with a “protect the Jewish people at all costs” type of reasoning.
You seem to hear what you want to hear.
Cut pomegranates, not boys.
http://beyondthebris.com
Ok, Strebore…You keep re-posting the same irrelevant link. How successful has Brit Shalom if Israel’s circumcision rate is still at 98%.
Be well, Major Styles, be well.
Cut pomegranates, not boys.
http://beyondthebris.com
I have to say that the only reason that circumcision is done “in far greater numbers” to non Jews is the low percentage of the population following that faith. Judaism makes up 0.2% of the world’s population, Muslims, which make up 70% of the world’s circumcision. are 24%of the world’s population, 120 times as many people. A relative comparison would be interesting, but comparing raw numbers like that doesn’t mean much when the population base is so vastly different.
It is most distressing the ignorance which continues to this day and age about male and female genitalia let alone the misunderstanding that some things about our body are not conducive for our health and longevity.
Foreskin has little if no nerve tissue and is a known contributor for harboring bacterial components within its folds to escalate infections and STDs.
Because we’re human and make mistakes it is likely the author of this essay is the recipient of a an unfortunate botched circumcision which took off too much tissue and is the cause of over sensitivity, tightened skin leading to chaffing.
It is common for uncircumcised men to exhibit pride in being so yet they cannot fathom the enhanced pleasure circumcision allows during sexual pleasure as well as acknowledge the difference in cleanliness by the ridding of extra skin folds.
Uncircumcised males face the demand of constant cleanliness of those excess skin folds. Men who undergo circumcision later in life will attest to the positive differences. However, it’s more painful to wait than undergo as an infant.
I underwent circumcision later in life because of ongoing infections which also led to chaffed areas and despite the longer recovery can vouch sex is far more pleasurable.
It makes no sense when men boast about their cultural affinity for being uncircumcised or think it’s better when they have no idea whatsoever how it feels.
Again, the author must have endured a botched circumcision which happens but is overall very rare.
M Patel – I’m not sure where you got your information, but it is flat out wrong. The foreskin has upwards of 20,000 nerve endings, possibly more. It is the most sensitive and erogenous part of the male body.
Perhaps you are pleased with your circumcision-good for you, you got to make that decision as an adult. I wish that I would have been given that option. Restraining an infant and amputating off their sexual nerve centers for cultural, religious or aesthetic reasons is barbaric and just plain wrong. It needs to stop. If a man wants to alter his sexual organ let him make that decision on his own when becomes an adult and can consent on his own.
Please show medical evidence of the foreskin’s number of nerve endings you claim exist. Perhaps you confuse the tip of the glans penis which lies UNDER many folds of skin.
Not confused at all. I know the difference between the foreskin and the glans, thanks. You can use any search engine you’d like and type in “nerve endings in foreskin” and you’ll find all the information needed to back me up. Why am I not bothering to link anything directly you may ask? Well honestly, because after reading your other comments I know it’s not worth the time. Anything I, or other say will not change your tone or opinion. Ignorance can be fixed by education and information. Brainwashed cannot. You sir are I am afraid brainwashed. Good luck.
Are you actually retarded? You seem to think skin blocks feeling, when in reality it’s where nerves are located and transmits feeling. Not blocks it. Your idea foreskin blocks or restricts feeling is so stupidly unintelligent it shows the desperation of you pro circ pedophiles to force your disfigurement on others. If you’re so happy with your mutilated broken cock why the need to lie and try force it on children? Can’t be too happy or confident in your position if you need to force your opinion on children.
Martin, one can debate issues without calling someone retarded. Have a look at other comments on my article and you’ll see where the technique of using words instead of slurs has been used quite effectively.
Take a look at Sorrells study here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847
They found that the most sensitive parts of the penis are all in the foreskin, the frenulum, the ridged band, etc, all reacting to lighter forms of stimulation than anywhere else and that the glans of the penis was the least sensitive part of the penis, requiring the most pressure to feel touch of any kind. If there were no, or few nerves in the foreskin this would not be the case. It’s also telling that their results find the circumcision scar to be the most sensitive part of the cut penis, as enervation increases as you move closer to the acroposthion, the end of the foreskin.
This is nothing but lies and pro-mutilation propaganda. Literally, every single thing you wrote is false. The idea that there is such thing as a “botched circumcision” spreads the lie that a properly-performed circumcision is not in itself harmful and damaging.
Stop. Mutilating. Infants’. Genitals.
Male circumcision does not mutilate but rare occurrences can happen whereby the procedure may be botched. However, genital mutilation is done to young girls in which their their clitoris is gouged out. A clitoris is NOT foreskin but is very much like a tiny penis and is consists of many nerve endings much like the tip of a male penis.
For you uncircumcised males: A female’s labia is like male foreskin. The labia occur at left and right sides of female genitalia. Imagine the head of your penis (which lies under the folds of male labia-like skin) being lopped off by a blunt instrument—THAT’S what is happening to young girls in certain parts of the world and IS mutilation and is not the same as medically performed circumcision.
Go ahead and downvote because it shows how many ignorant people think circumcision is on any level whatsoever to female clitoral mutilation.
Your information on male and female genitalia is sadly inaccurate. I hope you are able to find information that enables you to learn.
Stop cutting those who cannot consent.
That’s totally beside the point. Out of respect for human dignity, we need to stop debasing our children with amputation practices whose origins stem from barbaric blood rituals.
MD, the harmfulness of FGM is not a justification to stay silent about male circumcision. Surgical, irreversible, non medical removal of foreskin is mutilation as well as a human rights violation. Did you also know that certain types of FGM (type IV in WHO classification) are actually less mutilating than male curcumcision? (ofc they’re still non justifiable).
Your anatomy description is a bit off the mark as well. The equal of male foreskin (prepuce) in females is the clitoral hood (also prepuce) which indeed is part of labia minora but not on the left or right side (actually labia minora and majora are part of genitals so on the left and right you can find…thighs).
Your whole analogy is irrelevant and off topic. And before you start imagining things, I think FGM is horrible practice and should be eradicated in all its forms.
First only 4/12 forms of what is called FGM involve partial clitordectomy, are you saying girls who go through FGM IA, FGM IIA and all the subtypes of FGM IV are not mutilated? Also the clitoris is not “gouged out” but the glans clitoris is cut off in those other 4 forms.
Second, most circumcision is not done the way people assume, the average circumcision is not an infant in a clean US hospital, it’s a 7 year old boy at home or in a room in the Mosque with other boys being circumcised. FGM done in Singapore (type I) is done in a clinic with sterile tools, and the traditional male circumcision of the Xhosa tribe in Africa has a higher complication rate than FGM, to say nothing of aboriginal pacific island practices of subincision, where the entire penis is slit along the length of the urethra.
Third circumcision meets the definition of mutilation, as defined by Encyclopaedia Britannica “Mutilation or maiming is cutting off or injury to a body part of a person so that the part of the body is permanently damaged, detached or disfigured.” As defined by the Cambridge English Dictionary “to damage something severely, especially by violently removing a part” granted most surgery meets these criteria, but all other surgeries are done with therapeutic medical need, to fix a problem that already exists, or at the very least with the consent of the patient, as being born male is not a pathology, circumcision meets neither of these qualifications.
So I will indeed downvote you, because you have shown your ignorance of both sides of this issue,
It’s rather simple to note but so difficult to achieve: stop cutting children.