Circumcision complications

Drs say complications are rare. NewsMedia says complications are rare. Families say complications are rare. Consent forms say complications are rare. Medical books and websites say complications are rare.
However, rare complications are pretty scary to the parents and children they affect.
Rare is not rare enough when it is your child.
Infant/child Circumcision is unnecessary surgery on a healthy child. The foreskin is not an issue, disease or defect.































Circumcised men refusing condoms

Circumcision is not the answer to stopping the spread of sexually transmitted disease/infections.

Condoms and safe sex practices are key.


Ernest Dhlamini of Mbabane city, Swaziland, was circumcised in 2006, to enjoy what he calls a clean life.

Dhlamini says he is worried that a large number of men circumcised under current programs funded by international organizations, are now abandoning condoms and engaging in unsafe sex.

He says this is a blow to programs implemented in 2009 by some African nations in an effort to curb the spread of HIV.

“There are many circumcised men who think that by being circumcised they can now have unprotected sex at will. They think that they can no longer contract HIV.”


And in America

According to the study’s findings, one of four acts of vaginal intercourse are condom protected in the U.S. (one in three among singles).

“These data, when compared to other studies in the recent past, suggest that although condom use has increased among some groups, efforts to promote the use of condoms to sexually active individuals should remain a public health priority,” Reece said.


If we’re honest, many of us do see condoms as robbing us of pleasure, stealing some excitement and spontaneity from intimacy, and dulling the intensity of sexuality. It’s okay to say that. These factors are the primary reasons that still only 60 percent of teenagers claim to use condoms. These factors warrant acknowledging. From there, condom usage declines as people grow older. The number one reason we have seen given time and again for refusal to wear condoms is the reduction of pleasure.

It is natural for anyone of any sexual orientation to not only preserve, but maximize pleasure during sex. Bill Gates is one of the few public figures addressing “safe sex” in such a way that prioritizes pleasure, and his foundation appears alone in its work to honestly wrestle with the real reasons people don’t like or use condoms. That makes Gates one of the only committed and serious people fighting the HIV/AIDS crisis — in America and abroad.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the percentage of American students using condoms hit its peak at around 60% a decade ago, and has stalled since then, even declining among some demographics. A recent study released by the Sex Information and Education Council of Canada found that nearly 50% of sexually active college students aren’t using condoms. Other reports have found that while teenagers are likely to use a condom the first time they have sex, their behavior becomes inconsistent after that.

Even in places where there’s money and free condoms to go around, health departments haven’t necessarily seen safe sex go viral. New York City health officials are reporting that only 1 in 3 adult residents uses protection, despite years of PSAs and prophylactic handouts under Mayor Michael Bloomberg. While condom use among young people in New York City is slightly up since 2009, that puts it on par with the stagnant nationwide average.


Condoms Are Effective Barriers.
The condom—latex or polyurethane, male or female—is the only technology available to prevent the sexual transmission of HIV.[15]
Laboratory studies show that latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of HIV and other STI pathogens.[2] Studies show that polyurethane condoms also provide effective barriers against sperm, bacteria, and viruses such as HIV.[1]
Several studies clearly show that condom breakage rates in this country are less than two percent. Most of the breakage and slippage is likely due to incorrect use rather than to the condoms’ quality.[1]


No ears link

A couple of years ago I came across a blog that had a fictional story written from POV of a foreign friend and researcher or reporter who visited a fictional town that cut the ears off all the children at birth because they thought it was cleaner and nicer looking. It was a parody of pro-circumcision culture.
I thought I posted it on my blog but I can’t find it. A friend says I posted it a year ago on my personal fb page but I can’t find it…(I post too much)

Does anyone know the link address for that blog piece?
Can anyone post it in the comments section for me?
Thank you

Found it

Tail docking, Sounds like a circ argument…

This link here are people actually discussing the comparisons circumcision and tail docking

My 6 year old has been watching “too cute” which is a tv show about puppies and kittens. He asked why some dogs have no tails. I said some are born with them short and some are cut off.
This caused me to look for info and I can across this forum. I’m heart sick…

Sounds like the circumcision argument but about dog tail and ear cropping.

It is not painless, but it is not the huge deal that people make of it either. Tails and dewclaws are done by 5 days of age – if later, they have to be done by a vet with pain meds. Puppies are born with an incomplete nervous system – docking of tails and dews IS felt, but as soon as the puppy is returned to the whelping box, they are totally over it. Part of their issue is the fact that they are being restrained on their back and they really don’t like that.

Honestly, i am not exaggerating one single bit, but Ziva didnt seem to feel as much discomfort after her ears were cropped and posted than she did when she was spayed. That’s the truth. Maybe she was in a small percentage of pups that didn’t have any adverse reaction, I dont know. She didn’t have to wear a cone, because she didnt bother her ears. She played and ran and jumped and acted as if nothing at all had been done to her ears. When she was spayed, though, she layed around for almost two days, looking as pathetic as possible and walked in a way that I knew she was uncomfortable….she took pain meds for two days immediately after her spay surgery. No pain meds were needed after her ear crop. Yes, like mentioned already, tails and dewclaws are cut when the puppy is 3 – 5 days old (my vet prefers 3 days) before the nerve endings have completely developed in those areas. It’s quick and they heal fast, and momma dobe takes such good care of the babies, they forget about their little procedures almost immediately upon returning to their mother.

As Fitzmar said, being restrained is far more upsetting to little pups about to be docked than anything else. When I’ve had litters docked, it was noteworthy that very few of the puppies ever reacted at all at the actual moment of docking.

I’d never say that cropping was pain free, but I’ve never seen it slow a puppy down for a red hot minute, either. They’re back playing and being puppies almost as soon as you bring them home from the vet the day they get it done.

In this day and age, cropping is done for primarily cosmetic reasons, and I feel no need to justify that to anyone. It’s a decision that should be left to me and my vet.

I’m not interested in owning anything but a cropped/docked doberman.

Most surgeries are not pain free – but in young puppies, the pain is gone quickly and they forget quickly….. just as a baby boy does not remember being circumsized.

I’ve cropped two litters and seen them right after cropping – they are running around like a herd of shriners playing and eating within hours of being cropped. Getting used to the cup on their head takes about one day and then they pretty much ignore it. I use BFI powder for the edges of the ears – helps with itching and dries them up quickly.

It really amazes me that so many people make such a big deal about cropping and docking when they apparently think nothing of all the cosmetic enhancements the people all around them do…. tatoos, body piericing, nose jobs, boob jobs, etc, etc….. Done correctly, it is really not a big deal to the dog.

This is my last litter within a couple of days of being cropped:

A lot of the people who spout off about cropping and docking are totally clueless about the whole procedure.

It is not painless, but it is not the huge deal that people make of it either. Tails and dewclaws are done by 5 days of age – if later, they have to be done by a vet with pain meds. Puppies are born with an incomplete nervous system – docking of tails and dews IS felt, but as soon as the puppy is returned to the whelping box, they are totally over it. Part of their issue is the fact that they are being restrained on their back and they really don’t like that.

I am pretty neutral on this topic. Meaning, I don’t really care either way, and would never base any of my decisions around whether or not a dog was cropped/docked. If it is done properly, at the right age, it is so NOT cruel. I think most people don’t understand what’s involved, they just imagine someone taking a pair of scissors to a dogs tail. But the reason why it is done at 2-3 days old is because it is all soft, and it’s done before it hardens. Ears as well, are done at a young age, before the cartilage stiffens, so it’s a pretty minor procedure.

I guess what I’m saying is that tail docking and ear cropping are most important for working dogs. However, there are benefits to cropping/docking even our pets and that it’s not purely cosmetic. Also, the dog was envisioned at creation as being a dog with a bob tail and docked ears, that’s what the standard has called for for a hundred years. Therefore, if we want to have our dobes cropped or docked, people should leave us alone and let us do it.

oh I’m sick…. Heart sick even my 6 year old said it was cruel. He said “but it’s only a puppy, why?”





this link leaves me with a sick feeling. again I hear the pro-circumcision arguments in these statements about tail and ear docking..

I hope this isn’t a hot topic here. I really couldn’t care either way…. though a nubby is damn cute. I often wonder if these people shouting animal cruelty for cosmetic purposes, circumcise their human male kids.


Fully informed about circumcision?


I don’t think you can be fully informed about circumcision and its “possible, maybe, for some” pros and it’s very real cons.
I do think you can be fully informed about the purpose of the foreskin and its function in infancy and in adulthood.

If you take circumcision of infants or the act of cutting infant/child genitals out of their entrenched cultures and erased the cultural prejudices most people would be horrified at what circumcision entails.

With all that said. I post the question from opinionated moms and my answer. The analogies I use are not a 100% correlation…. But I’m sure you’ll get the point”20130409-082032.jpg20130409-082040.jpg






Babies hurting….. Poor babies






My heart breaks… These moms mean well but they are so mistaken. Poor babies.

The original poster in the previous discussion forum screen shots wrote this:




Hands off!!!!

Just as there is zero justification in performing vaginal exams on infant and young girls, so also is there never justification to retract and examine the inside of a baby boy’s or child’s penis when there is nothing wrong. Doing so is not alright for girls, and it is not alright for boys. The only time a physician should be handling your child’s genitals (gently!) is if the penis or vulva in question has a visible abnormality that requires examination. If this is not the case, then hands off!

– Martin Winckler, M.D.


Warning: there may be some anger/venting/venom and pictures below a reader may find offensive

(<– link)

‎”DEAR PRO-CUTTERS: Can you answer these questions?

Do you know who HJ Kellogg is?

What are the functions of the foreskin?

How did secular circumcision begin in America?

What did they believe it was going to prevent and why?

What are the statistical chances of a man needing it done later in life?

What year was it outlawed in America for baby girls?

How many nerve endings are in the foreskin compared to the female clitoris?

Do you know what Meissners corpuscles are? How about Langerhan cells? Ridged band?

What is smegma and what is it made up of? When does the foreskin usually retract?

Does circumcision reduce sensitivity in males? Who is Brian Morris?

What do they do with the foreskins after they cut it off?

What are all of the different methods of circumcision and how are they performed?

What are their complication rates?

What is in some cosmetics and facial creams? What problems can a man have from his circumcision statistically?

Until you can answer every single one of those questions DO NOT even try to fool us into thinking you know anything about circumcision. We WONT believe you!” ~Christine Martin


Are people really this stupid ignorant, uninformed?(taken from facebook pages motherhood:the truth and soggy mamas



















What moms from other countries think about infant circumcision

Retrieved from babycenter






From intact Hawaii on Facebook






from soggy mamas Facebook fan page status update:

‎”Let’s just say we have 10 men in a room. In walks someone who says, “Look, we’re gonna hack off a piece of your D*cks. It’s all the rage and women seem to love it”.

7 men say, “Cool, I want women to like me”, and the other 3 men say, “No Fuckin’ way!!! Your All F*ckin’ Nuts!!! I don’t want my D*ck Mutilated. And, it’s my d*ck. It belongs to me. What give you the right to make that choice? It’s my sexuality”

“Well, we asked your Parents and since you spent 9 mo in your Moms womb she says we can. She says your hers, you belong to her.”

“Well, I’m a Grown ass man, what does my Mother sexual Preference have to do with me? I’m never gonna have sexual relations with her, why should she dictate what happens to my Penis? She hasn’t even seen my penis since I was 10 years old”

“Well, we have seven other men here that say it’s a good idea. So we all think your just being a baby about it” “So, That’s them. Just because they like a mutilated d*ck doesn’t mean I want one. What gives any one the right to do that?”

“Well, Your Dads says He has every right to do what he wants with your penis because he’s your dad, and he wants you to look just like him.”

“I look Plenty like my parents, It’s my d*ck not my dads d*ck.” Parents, “Well, we listen to all the reasons you said not to do it, we weighed it all, and we decided that even though it’s your body, your Penis, your sexuality, and your choice, we’re still gonna forcefully hack off part of your Penis because we want to prove we have a Parental Right to do so.” ~Travis R Tippetts

Sound legit? (reposted by maria)







Copy: The AAP 2012 Circumcision Policy Statement and What I Have Learned from a Decade of Intactivism

Please click the link below to read the article in its entirety.

How do we get young people to leave their future children whole? We educate them about the anatomy and function of the foreskin. In all my years of face to face demonstration/education on this issue, I have never failed to get a young person to listen to me talk to them about normal sexual development and function of the sexual organs. Young people do not get this information from their parents, from school, from text books, from porn, from their peers or from pop culture. I cannot tell you how many people (of all ages) have said to me “No one has ever told me this.” (I get this same response from older adults too!)


The fact that the medical community is performing amputative surgery on a baby with no deformity or disease seems important (and wrong). The fact that the American government enacted federal legislation to protect girls from genital cutting but doesn’t protect boys seems important (and wrong).

It’s easy to counter the myths when you believe the foreskin has some importance. All of a sudden hygiene is easy to explain with a shower and “retract, rinse, replace” is easily understood.

All of a sudden infection is easily explained by the fact that girls get genital infections and we medicate them, we do not amputate their genitals. We can do the same for men. (Also, if penile infections were really such an issue, we’d have a section in the drug store for penile infection creams. We certainly have a female genital infection medication section – full of creams and products to “freshen” our nether regions. Ever wondered why we don’t have these products for men? Perhaps these infected penises are truly a myth!)


I know that so many of us are disheartened by the AAP’s new policy statement, but we have to realize that the AAP is a professional trade organization and it exists for the promotion of its members – pediatric doctors. It is not, and never will be, a patient advocacy group. They have a profit line to maintain and a drop in circumcision rates is not beneficial to them.

They will not stop soliciting circumcision until one of two things happens (or both):
1) The financial risk of performing this unethical surgery outweigh the profit to be made: lawsuits for botched circumcisions or bodily integrity violations cost too much.
2) The majority of parents staunchly refuse, forcing them to do an internal evaluation of the procedure. I suspect it would take 75% or so refusing before this happens.
Don’t lose faith. The truth has its own longevity. The human body is genetically programmed to form a foreskin. It will always do this. All we need to do is understand its function to give it value. That which we value, we care for. It’s all about education.

Should I circumcise- written by a father
It wasn’t like all the lights turned on at once that night but it was the beginning of a kind of awakening that culminated in my realization that I was not happy my parents had signed up for part of my dick to be removed and i was really pissed that the American medical community had encouraged them to do just this and had made a practice of doing it to people for all kinds of bizarre invented reasons since the 19th century. Now I was REALLY uncomfortable. I realized that what had been done to me was really, royally screwed up but I had no idea what the hell to do about it. Boy was I a miserable jerk for a few weeks there. Apparently the first mental breakthrough I had was that cutting in general was bad. I look back at pictures from that time in my life and I had allowed my beard to grow down almost the base of my neck. Coincidence? I kind of doubt it. By then my son had been born and I saw what a real, normal penis is supposed to look like. Um, yeah, it’s like the difference between going out to play in the snow with your coat on and walking outside naked. It’s like looking at one normal finger and than looking at a finger than has the fingernail ripped off and here’s this naked nail bed all dried out and fucking weird. That denial really started to fall apart after the first twenty or so diaper changes. But I’m glad of course. That’s a hell of a thing to live your life without realizing that a huge part of you has been missing since you were about 4 days old.

Now my son’s almost four and I look back on this time for me and I think how obvious it is why this cycle of circumcision perpetuates itself. We are hardwired for survival. It’s a hard thing to face this stuff when you can’t even remember it being done and your whole life everytime you hold your dick in your hands to take a piss you think it’s perfectly normal that it looks that way. You’re talking about rising up against decades of cognitive dissonance. I can’t imagine how difficult it would be to come to such a realization after you’ve already circed your child. Anyone who has the gumption to face a mistake like that and speak out about it deserves a frikkin’ medal in my book.




Robert Darby’s blog › Should the circumcision of boys be illegal? – Robert Darby

Home › Blogs › Robert Darby’s blog › Should the circumcision of boys be illegal? Ethics Customs Human rights Germany Health policy HEALTH & WELLBEING LAW SOCIETY Mon, 16/07/2012 – Robert Darby

As I have already remarked, when it comes to religiously motivated circumcision we are dealing with two sets of conflicting rights: of adults to practise their religion, and of children to bodily integrity and their own religious freedom. It is thus very difficult to find a legal formula that will protect the majority of boys while allowing those with strong convictions to follow their traditions. In view of the religious passions involved, a blanket ban is unlikely to be contemplated by politicians, and would not be accepted by the circumcising sub-cultures even if it were. A prohibition with exceptions for Jews, Muslims and certain Indigenous Australian communities would give rise to the paradox that their children enjoyed fewer human rights and legal protections than everybody else. A general law privileging the existing situation – unfettered parental choice – would be even worse, as it would allow any parents to circumcise their boys (and why not girls?) with no valid reason at all.

Given that NTC is already of borderline legality, what is needed is not so much a law prohibiting it, but a change of attitude. The prevailing “she’ll be right” approach holds that circumcision is always OK unless something goes disastrously wrong. This is such a contrast with the ultra-protective attitude to girls (with fierce laws against female genital mutilation in all states) that we can reasonably see boys as victims of sexist discrimination. This attitude must change to the point where NTC of male minors is regarded as generally unacceptable but permitted in certain circumstances for valid,
specified reasons.

unrelated to the article above
Yesterday, on a facebook parenting group, there was a picture saying circumcision, foot binding, ear piercing, intentional bodily scarring of children was wrong.
A responder/commenter to picture said that they had their son circumcised with anesthesia and it didn’t bother the boy at all and any future sons will be cut
Her daughter doesn’t have her ear’s pierced because she wants her daughter to ask and want them pierced….
What the hell! The total hypocrisy!


taken from the guggie daly on Facebook


Female circumcision is horrible, is it any less horrible for boys??

I am only a blogger, I am not a scientist or a doctor I am a mother who has read and researched this topic thoroughly

WHO says never ok to cut girl genitals <;;;/(disclaimer : these are my words and not WHO)

(warning this link has pictures)

WHO says boys don’t need protection, let’s slice up their genitals (disclaimer : these are my words and not WHO)

id circ harm:

warning picture of native African manhood circ ceremony

male and female circumcision pictures… Is there a difference






Reason: no right way

Reason: there is no right way to cut a baby
(for some reason the graphic I am trying to post wont upload)
It looks like a Reeses peanut butter cup package but instead of Reeses says reason…

Taken from the whole networks fb page graphic competition.


My response on a babycenter circumcision post:

We do not own our children. We guide them through childhood and advise them as they grow…
Circumcision is not a family or parental right.
It is his body, his penis, his choice.

In no other circumstance are you allowed to have healthy nondiseased/non deformed body parts amputated.

Your son has a right to his entire body, no just the parts the parents elect to keep.

Would you amputate the inner labia and clitoral hood of your Infant daughter? You cant… No matter your preference it is illegal in this country…. Girls are protected by law from even a ceremonial blood letting on their genitals (without amputation or permenant injury)
Girls are protected…. Why arent boys afforded the same protection?

br /br /a href= src= alt=20120109-065437.jpg class=alignnone size-full //a


Australian study of RIC

My link was taken from the whole network but the link to the original article is also Included.
I did not in anyway write this, only copy/paste


“Below is a recent study, published on October 4, 2011, by the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health. You can find the original paper here.

Objective: To conduct a critical review of recent proposals that widespread circumcision of male infants be introduced in Australia as a means of combating heterosexually transmitted HIV infection.

Approach: These arguments are evaluated in terms of their logic, coherence and fidelity to the principles of evidence-based medicine; the extent to which they take account of the evidence for circumcision having a protective effect against HIV and the practicality of circumcision as an HIV control strategy; the extent of its applicability to the specifics of Australia’s HIV epidemic; the benefits, harms and risks of circumcision; and the associated human rights, bioethical and legal issues.

Conclusion: Our conclusion is that such proposals ignore doubts about the robustness of the evidence from the African random-controlled trials as to the protective effect of circumcision and the practical value of circumcision as a means of HIV control; misrepresent the nature of Australia’s HIV epidemic and exaggerate the relevance of the African random-controlled trials findings to it; underestimate the risks and harm of circumcision; and ignore questions of medical ethics and human rights. The notion of circumcision as a ‘surgical vaccine’ is criticised as polemical and unscientific.

Implications: Circumcision of infants or other minors has no place among HIV control measures in the Australian and New Zealand context; proposals such as these should be rejected.”
“Medical ethics and human rights
Even if the circumcision proposal were relevant to the Australian situation, to be ethically acceptable a medical intervention must pass the five tests proposed by Beauchamp and Childress:

Beneficence – does the proposed procedure provide a net therapeutic benefit to the patient, considering the risk, pain, and loss of normal function?

Non-maleficence – does the procedure avoid permanently diminishing the patient in any way that could be avoided?

Proportionality – will the final result provide a significant net benefit to the patient in proportion to the risk undertaken and the losses sustained?

Justice – will the patient be treated as fairly as we would all wish to be treated?

Autonomy – lacking life-threatening urgency, will the procedure honour the patient’s right to his or her own likely choice? Could it wait for the patient’s assent?77
Cooper et al. ignore ethical and human rights issues, but their proposal would not be acceptable unless it was established that non-therapeutic circumcision of non-consenting minors was permissible within the above guidelines. It has been argued that in the absence of a life-threatening disorder, surrogate consent for non-therapeutic surgery of this type is ethically problematic and may not be legally valid.78–80 When there is no urgency to intervene, it is best to wait until the child can provide his own informed consent.”