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.































***Graphic****Genital cutting. Bad for both sexes

Warning warning warning! Contain vivid graphic-

Warning* horrible graphic below


Taken from a friend’s intactivtist postings on Facebook.



All children deserve better

Be they male or female children, All children deserve the rights to their whole body…. Not just the parts their parents or culture decide they can keep.
When the child grows up, that child can choose for themselves, as an informed adult, as to whether they are willing to lose a body part.
Body modification is an adult decision. The owner of the body should make the decision.


AAP on FGM and MGM

The AAP opposes all forms of FGM, counsels its members not to perform such ritual procedures, and encourages the development of community educational programs for immigrant populations.

Fgm and Mgm compared


-for more info-



Procedures vary throughout the world but the WHO classifies FGM2 into four types as follows:
Type 1: Excision of the prepuce with or without excision of the clitoris.
Type 2: Excision of the clitoris with partial or total excision of the labia minora.
Type 3: Excision of part or all of the external genitalia and stitching together of the exposed walls of the labia majora, leaving only a small hole (typically less than 5cm) to permit the passage of urine and vaginal secretions. This hole may need extending at the time of the menarche and often before first intercourse.
Type 4: Unclassified, covers any other damage to the female genitalia including pricking, piercing, burning, cutting or introduction of corrosive substances.

for more info-




A link to a blog post putting the aap stances on fgm and male circumcision side by side

I’m looking for a chart of the different types if male circumcision or make genital mutilation but its hard.
Some types are:
*Circumcision as we know it- removing various amounts of foreskin
*in some cultures it’s a simple dorsal slit

* in some cultures it’s sub-incision- where they actually cut the penis length-wise

An excellent slide show analyzing fgm and MGM as well as organ donation



Aap on male circumcision


So according to the AAP all forms of female circumcision are wrong and drs are not to perform them no matter parental beliefs or preference
However, there is no actual prohibition of any type of circumcision surgery for boys… And drs are to make circumcision readily available and to take into account parental beliefs and preferences.

According to AAP
Female circumcision- illegal since the 1990’s- any type- even a similar procedure to male circumcision of just “snipping” the female prepuce/foreskin.
Parental preference- not taken onto consideration.

Male circumcision- possible benefits outweigh the risks and although the AAP does NOT recommend all boys be circumcised. The AAP recommends that drs perform it on parental request alone even with no medical need.
In fact, recommends that insurances, should cover it for any reason.

***please remember that some of the risks of infant male circumcision can be penile loss of function or penile amputation or death. Although rare, the AAP says the possible benefits outweigh the possible risks.

So lets see- possible STI when having unsafe sex if the man is uncircumcised/intact/natural (which even a circumcised man can get having unsafe sex)
Possible death, or loss of penis when this medically unnecessary surgery is performed on a healthy infant with natural intact genitals purely for parental preference…..

Make sense?????

Moreover, it is illegal to cut juvenile female genital tissue due to medical issues like UTIs, yeast and bacterial infections
It’s perfectly ok to cut genital tissue from boys for the same reasons?

Huh? Come again? How do you treat female issues? Treat men the same!

any forced genital cutting of infant/child females, intersexed and infant/child males is wrong


One of the arguments you will hear trying to justify male circumcision and denounce female circumcision is that “Male circumcision has health benefits but Female Circumcision has no health benefits”. In actual fact there are at least 2 studies listed below that show a correlation between female circumcision and lower HIV infections, and medical practitioners in femcirc cultures report that clinical experience shows that female circumcision does indeed have health benefits (below).

My opinion is that health benefits or no health benefits, that human rights supercede any such health benefits.

There are 2 issues here.

1 Cultural values. Some western cultures value male circumcision, but most do not. All western cultures view female circumcision as a human rights violation.

2 Availability of data. The truth is there is very little reliable or valid data about the health benefits of female circumcision because no-one is interested if there are any benefits.

Given that cultural values determine where research money is put and what research is done, you’ll find lots of western research into male circumcision and virtually none except for 2 isolated studies on female circumcision, which follow. Since the rich west, in particular the USA has a culture of male circumcision, lots of money goes into trying to find or prove health benefits for male circumcision. Whereas female circumcision is unfamiliar, and seen as a human rights violation, therefore no money is placed to determine whether any such health benefits exist. Infact the opposite is true, Stallings (2005) were given research money to find that circumcised women had a greater susceptibility to HIV (Probably to confirm our moral superiority in the west vs the barbaric female circumcisers) But alas the researchers were devaststed when they found that circumcised women had half the rate of HIV infections compared to uncircumcised women.

“Stallings et al. (2005) reported that, in Tanzanian women,
the risk of HIV among women who had undergone FGC
was roughly half that of women who had not; the association
remained significant after adjusting for region, household
wealth, age, lifetime partners, union status, and recent ulcer.”

The disappointment of the researchers was palpable, no celebrations, no calls for funding to do RCT’s to further validate their findings, just disappointment “for better or worse” they stated. “Female circumcision and HIV infection in Tanzania:for better or for worse? (3rd IAS conference on HIV pathogenesis and treatment)”.
International AIDS Society.

Now instead of using this research to argue that female circumcision had health benefits afterall, the values of the researchers intervened, and they were at a loss to explain this unwanted finding. Note the difference to how the American researchers celebrated when they found male circumcision had a slight reduction in HIV infections. VALUES!!!!!!

However, Rightly so that no funding was then generated to conduct RCT’s on female circumcision and its protective effect for HIV. It was morals about human rights which prevailed, but only because it was female circumcision and foreign to American Culture. Imagine if well funded Egyptian researchers had found this, in a culture where female circumcision is common?

The 2005 Stallings research is not the only research to find this link between female circumcision and lower HIV infections. Kanki et al found the same:

Kanki et al. reported that, in Senegalese prostitutes,
women who had undergone FGC had a significantly
decreased risk of HIV-2 infection when compared to
those who had not.

Kanki P, M’Boup S, Marlink R, et al. “Prevalence and risk
determinants of human immunodeficiency virus type 2
(HIV-2) and human immunodeficiency virus type 1
(HIV-1) in west African female prostitutes”.
Am. J. Epidemiol. 136 (7): 895-907. PMID

Again no celebrations, and “NO” demand for RCT’s, WHY = Cultural Values!!!!!!!

So the issue here is that Cultural Values determine whether research money is devoted to finding health benefits for any procedure. Given female circumcision is rightly seen as a human rights violation, no research or money is devoted to investigating the health benefits of circumcision on women. Human Rights correctly trump health benefits when it comes to female circumcision, but certainly not when it comes to male circumcision.

So does female circumcision have health benefits? The truth is we dont really know, but there is some evidence to suggest that removing female genital skin has a correlation with reduced HIV infections. This would need to be confirmed by further study, but you and I know this isnt going to happen because of our western values against female genital cutting. Even if it was confirmed female circumcision had health benefits, it is still morally and ethically wrong. In some way yes if you remove genital skin you wont have problems with something that doesnt exist anymore, its just that ethics prevent western society from wanting to reduce female genital skin to achieve any health benefits because ethics and human rights are considered important in the case of women’s genitals…… more ….

— Stalling’s research on FC
4.Stallings RY, Karugendo E (2005) Female circumcision and HIV infection in Tanzania: For better or for worse? [poster] 3rd International AIDS Society Conference; 2005 24 July–27 July; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. International AIDS Society. Available:​.htm. Accessed 13 December 2005 .



“Fantastic paraphrasing of the AAP’s circumcision policy
by Norm Cohen {as found in NOCIRC of Michigan’s Spring Newsletter}:

“Someday, a boy may or may not get a disease if he is not circumcised, and he may or may not get a disease if he is circumcised, and the difference due to circumcising him is so small that we can’t even recommend that all parents should have it done, even after spending five years looking for the research findings that agreed with our preference, unless parents for whatever reason, also have the same preference, in which case the government or insurance companies should pay us doctors to do it.

Oh, and by the way, we don’t know the purpose of the foreskin that we’re cutting off, and we’re not sure how often the surgery goes bad.””

Another baby hemorrhaging… Lucky to be alive and yet supposedly the risks are worth it? How is almost dying worth it? How is almost dying because of a medically unnecessary surgery being performed on a healthy infant worth it?






If it’s not about the money…. Then why






Video- with soraya mire-







Results: A total of 45 children were operated for late complications, 16 cases were incomplete circumcision with redundant foreskin, 12 cases were with postcircumcision phimosis, nine cases had foreskin adherent to the glans, three cases had a completely buried penile shaft (concealed penis), four cases were with meatal stenosis and one case was with scar due to degloving of the penile skin.

Conclusion: The use of various techniques without proper knowledge and skills results in a significant number of complications that can be avoided if the operation is performed with adequate training in the technique and its postoperative care.

Bleeding out/ hemorrhaging

Is circumcision just a routine harmless procedure?









Before and after images:



So freaking sad that this happens and that the statistics on infant injury or death due to circumcision are not accurately reported.


Oh crap!

Please prayer for this little boy!!!!!!

I really should have stayed off of fb today. My heart aches for this family.





Oh God, the baby died. Please pray for this family in their time of grief and heartache.

“God, bring comfort and peace. Peace is your essence. Peace is your name. Bring peace to this family who has lost their precious child in death.
We come to you, God because we know that you sorrow, and are acquainted with grief. You too have endured the loss of a child. You empathize.
We can’t help but ask, “Why?” Forgive our insistence, our confusion, even our anger. We believe that you are just, and we ache to understand how this tragic death is an expression of that justice, how it expresses your love. We also know – in our minds at least – that you seldom answer the “why?” question. We press you, but on these matters you are mostly silent.
What we ask instead is “how?” How can we move forward? How can this bring us together and not tear us apart? How can we now live under the shadow of this untimely death? Answer this prayer with your comfort and guidance.
There is no way to remove the pain. The grief is real. The only sanity is to know, to believe, in a life beyond with you, when all the scales are righted and the sufferings are made good. We trust you and your promise that while this child’s life on earth is done, his life beyond has just begun. With that release we lose him and let him go into your arms, then by faith receive in return the boundless comfort of your presence. That is all, that is enough. In Jesus.”

Read more:


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)







Circumcision is normal?

Circumcision is normal. It’s just what we do.-
(says women in regards to female circumcision, says men in regards to male circumcision.)







Question circumcision!








the above arguments for female circumcision are used for male circumcision in the United States. Children should not be subjected to genital cuttings against their will.(please remember there are several types of female circumcision)

Breast ironing





Circumcision- practice and complications

Circumcision videos if you can’t watch them don’t subject your sons to them. If you can etch them and still have it done then I feel sorry for you and sympathy for your poor sons.

I know you love your sons. There is no reason for circumcising children. Let the adult choose circumcision if it is for cultural, religious or medical reasons.

Plastibell circumcision video

Listen with volume. The dr calmly explains the procedure while the baby screams in agony and in neglect.

Another plastibell circumcision. However, this dr was very liberal with the emla cream and used it pre-surgery and during the surgery in addition to numbing shots.

Just because this baby wasn’t screaming doesn’t mean it wasn’t in pain later and doesn’t mean he may not have complications later. Also emla cream is not recommended for infants or genital tissue.

Holy fhtbhthh
You can’t hear anything but you can see the baby struggling. This circumcision was done with an electrocautery device. (Foreskin cut off using a burning device)

electrocautery /elec·tro·cau·tery/ (-kaw´ter-e) an apparatus for surgical dissection and hemostasis, using heat generated by a high-voltage, high-frequency alternating current passed through an electrode.

I’m traumatized just watching this. Poor baby.


Gomco clamp



Female circumcision

Circumcision complications


Below: yes, this is an extreme complication. Yes, thus can be construed as a scare tactic. However, if this was your child wouldn’t you wish some one had scared you into sparing your child this hideous catastrophe


Maggots in circumcision wound



Complications from infant circumcision on the now mature man

History if circumcision for the non-Jewish, non-Muslim peoples of the USA.

Surprise! American Christians didn’t circumcise!




Adding this April 14, 2013

Another baby hemorrhaging… Lucky to be alive and yet supposedly the risks are worth it? How is almost dying worth it? How is almost dying because of a medically unnecessary surgery being performed on a healthy infant worth it?



Clitoral Hood Amputation Bad, but Glans Hood Amputation Good? ByBecomeInformed

YouTube video. CNN years ago

side note: not all Africans are for FGM just like not all Americans are for MGM.

Clitoral Hood Amputation Bad, but Glans Hood Amputation Good?
ByBecomeInformedFeb 2, 2009
64 likes, 7 dislikes
Would you ever cut off your infant’s clitoral hood? Even if it is considered healthier and more sexually attractive to do so by the culture you live in? How can we in the US alternately condemn or sanction the cutting off of the exact same body part with the only difference being the child’s gender?

Compare Cultural Rationales by pioneering FGM researcher Hanny Lightfoot-Klein:

In Africa they say:

“She loses only a little piece of the clitoris, just the part that protrudes. The girl does not miss it. She can still feel, after all. There is hardly any pain. Women’s pain thresholds are so much higher than men’s.”

In the USA we say:

“It’s only a little piece of skin. The baby does not feel any pain because his nervous system is not developed yet.”


In Africa they say:

“The parts that are cut away are disgusting and hideous to look at. It is done for the beauty of the suture.”

In the USA we say:

“An uncircumcised penis is a real turn-off. Its disgusting. It looks like the penis of an animal.”


In Africa they say:

“Female circumcision protects the health of a woman. Infibulation prevents the uterus from falling out [uterine prolapse]. It keeps her smelling so sweet that her husband will be pleased. If it is not done, she will stink and get worms in her vagina.”

In the USA we say:

“An uncircumcised penis causes urinary infections and penile cancer. It generates smegma and smegma stinks. A circumcised penis is more hygienic and oral sex with an uncircumcised penis is disgusting to women.”


In Africa they say:

“An uncircumcised vulva is unclean and only the lowest prostitute would leave her daughter uncircumcised. No man would dream of marrying an unclean woman. He would be laughed at by everyone.”

In the USA we say:

“An uncircumcised penis is dirty and only the lowest class of people with no concept of hygiene leave their boys uncircumcised.”


In Africa they say:

“Leaving a girl uncircumcised endangers both her husband and her baby. If the baby’s head touches the uncut clitoris during birth, the baby will be born hydrocephalic [excess cranial fluid]. The milk of the mother will become poisonous. If a man’s penis touches a woman’s clitoris he will become impotent.”

In the USA we say:

“Men have an obligation to their wives to give up their foreskin. An uncircumcised penis will cause cervical cancer in women. It also spreads disease.”


In Africa they say:

“A circumcised woman is sexually more pleasing to her husband. The tighter she is sewn, the more pleasure he has.”

In the USA we say:

“Circumcised men make better lovers because they have more staying power[becaues they lose sensitivity] than uncircumcised men.”


In Africa they say:

“All the women in the world are circumcised. It is something that must be done. If there is pain, then that is part of a woman’s lot in life.”

In the USA we say:

“Men in all the ‘civilized’ world are circumcised.”


In Africa they say:

“Doctors do it, so it must be a good thing.”

In the USA we say:

“Doctors do it, so it must be a good thing.”


In Africa they say:

Sudanese grandmother: “In some countries they only cut out the clitoris, but here we do it properly. We scrape our girls clean. If it is properly done, nothing is left, other than a scar. Everything has to be cut away.”

In the USA we say:

My own father, a physician, speaking of ritual circumcision inflicted upon my son: “It is a good thing that I was here to preside. He had quite a long foreskin. I made sure that we gave him a good tight circumcision.”


In Africa they say:

35 year old Sudanese woman: “Yes, I have suffered from chronic pelvic infections and terrible pain for years now. You say that all if this is the result of my circumcision? But I was circumcised over 30 years ago! How can something that was done for me when I was four years old have anything to do with my health now?”

In the USA we say:

35 years old American male: “I have lost nearly all interest in sex. You might say that I’m becoming impotent. I don’t seem to have much sensation in my penis anymore, and it is becoming more and more difficult for me to reach orgasm. You say that this is the result of my circumcision? That doesn’t make any sense. I was circumcised 35 years ago, when I was a little boy. How can that affect me in any way now?”



Copy/paste My Body, My Choice: Ban Non-Consensual Circumcision by Matthew A. Taylor November 22, 2011

My Body, My Choice: Ban Non-Consensual Circumcision
by Matthew A. Taylor
November 22, 2011

Like countless men who have been circumcised, I’m angry about what was taken from me. If I could go back in time to the moment before this was done to me, I would use any means necessary to stop it. I wish there’d been a law against it. I’ve spent many nights ruminating in grief. I know other men like me who have sunk into deep depression while wrestling with the pain of this violation.

“Circumcision is a matter of individual choice,” Lerner told the Jewish Week newspaper.

What about my choice? Shouldn’t my right to an intact body matter? Lerner doesn’t address the possibility that a man should have the right to make the choice for himself. Advocates of circumcision evidently believe the feelings of the human who is being cut are irrelevant. Anyone with an open heart who listens to the screams of a baby being circumcised cannot honestly believe that babies want to be circumcised.

While parents have to make tough decisions about many things concerning the health of their children, this is the only routinely made choice that involves an irreversible amputation that is not medically necessary. Why is this one body part of newborns of this one gender OK to forcibly amputate?

The United States has high rates of HIV and the highest rate of circumcision in the West. The “experiment” of using circumcision to stem HIV infection has been running here for decades. It has failed miserably. Why do countries such as New Zealand, where they abandoned infant circumcision 50 years ago, or European countries, where circumcision is rare, have such low rates of HIV?

Even if circumcision really did lower the rates of STD transmission, shouldn’t educated adults make their own decisions about their sex lives? Condoms and responsible sexual relationships prevent STDs, not circumcision.

Lerner refers to allegedly feminist arguments in favor of circumcision, lines of thought that strike me as misandry masquerading as feminism. For example, feminist-identified Rabbi Elyse Goldstein argues that men’s “phallic-centered power” must be decreased in order to teach men to respect and become more like women. “In ‘sacrificing’ a piece of the penis, in uncovering and revealing themselves in their most vulnerable part, in making themselves more like women, men can be made more whole,” Goldstein claims.

From where I sit, arguments like Goldstein’s sound like hate speech. If a man said he needed to cut off part of a woman’s genitals in order to make her “more like a man,” he’d rightly be ostracized. Why do we, as a progressive community, let this kind of dehumanization of men go unchallenged? Yes, male violence against women is a huge social problem and must be addressed. Inflicting irreversible harm onto our innocent sons’ genitals is not the answer.

Which part of your daughter’s body would you cut off to prevent a disease? Which part of her genitals would you cut off because you believe that God commanded you to do so? Well if you wouldn’t cut your daughter, why is it OK to cut your son?

Lerner argues that banning circumcision against nonconsenting minors undermines “the First Amendment rights of Jews” and creates “a slippery slope toward the abolition of all religious practices.” Such claims are unfounded. The First Amendment’s protections of speech and expression do not apply to harming other people. The First Amendment does not give you the right to sacrifice a virgin, punch someone in the face, or even cut off a tip of someone else’s finger because it’s part of a religion. Simply put, the First Amendment ends where someone else’s body begins.

Anti-circumcision protesters march in San Francisco Credit: Creative Commons/Mik Scheper
As for the supposed slippery slope, if circumcision is banned, will that lead to the outlawing of Passover Seders? Not in a million years. Not in this country. Let’s give the United States the credit it deserves for being a relatively free, open society.

As a corollary to his slippery slope argument, Lerner claims, “It’s not hard to imagine some who were sexually abused by Catholic priests as children attempting to ban Catholic educational institutions or even the Church itself, attacking the entire institution as sexually perverted or violently patriarchic.” This is as misguided as saying those of us who wish to abolish the U.S. imperial war machine seek to abolish the entire country, and yet another tactic to silence the voices of the abused. And what an eyebrow-raising Freudian slip! Doesn’t Lerner’s comparison point out that when we strip away the emotional tug of religious tradition, infant circumcision lands in the same ethical boat as institutionally shielded sexual molestation?

Speaking of the slippery slope, what if—God forbid—the Supreme Court one day were to rule that the First Amendment permits nonconsensual circumcision as a form of protected religious expression? Wouldn’t that create a slippery slope in which even more extreme forms of religious violence against defenseless children become legalized? Federal law prohibits all forms of genital cutting performed on nonconsenting minor girls. This includes female circumcision variants that are far less harmful than the typical male circumcision, for example, a small ceremonial nick of the clitoral hood (the female analogue of a foreskin). The U.S. Constitution provides for equal protection, and it’s hard to imagine a law that protects only girls from genital cutting withstanding a legal challenge that sought to extend such protection to boys.

To be clear, I have no objection to circumcision or any other form of body modification when it’s freely chosen by a consenting adult. Sensibly, the proposed San Francisco ban only applies to circumcision of nonconsenting minors.

rebuttal to the above clips

Taylor makes much of “the traumatizing event that takes place in early infancy” when the baby is “most vulnerable and sensitive to pain.” Granted there is pain, and granted that the baby does not like that feeling, as would no one, but how does Taylor know that infancy is the moment when humans are “the most” vulnerable and sensitive to pain? How would one measure this? Anyone who has attended such events (I have been to at least one hundred) will testify to the baby’s almost immediate pacification when some sweet wine is dipped on his lips after the brit. A good mohel (traditional circumciser) is very efficient, so the period of discomfort — judging from when the infant’s crying, which usually begins with the discomfort of his having his legs held firmly apart by the sandek (godfather) — is very short.

Rabbi Boruch Mozes, a certified mohel, writes on his website that “Jewish Mohelim take 10 seconds, with 1 second for excision, and 60 seconds on average for crying.”

For an observer, it is not easy to decide that the baby has intolerable “traumatizing” pain at the moment of the actual procedure. If one is nevertheless deeply concerned about this pain, one might even investigate the current halachic (Jewish law) discussion on the use of local anesthetics. More information on this is also available on Mozes’s website.

Taylor asks a very good question in his tirade against circumcision: “Which part of your daughter’s genitals would you cut off to prevent a disease?” If I had a daughter (I have a granddaughter) and I were told that she was at risk without a medical intervention on her genitals, I am sure that I would take this option very seriously. Fortunately, that is not the case.

I respect Taylor’s views but wish to offer these alternative perspectives, seeking to invite his reciprocal respect instead of the tone of his ad hominem response to Rabbi Elyse Goldstein, whose feminist argument he characterized as “hate speech” masquerading as feminism.

Taylor expresses the deepest objection at the heart of his vehement tirade against infant brit milah when he writes that “when freely chosen” he has “no objection to circumcision,” even if it were to entail substantively the issues that he rejected. The central problem for him is the imposition upon a completely dependent infant (or for that matter a relatively dependent teenage Muslim boy) of a permanent and irreversible mark. This he rejects as “a human rights violation.”

Were I to agree to his reasoning, I would have to conclude that not only should circumcision not be imposed upon a helpless infant, but even circumcision-free, his very Jewish identity, as subscribed to by Jewish law should not be imposed upon him. In the current world, being Jewish is a very dangerous state of being. We have only to take note of Jewish institutions worldwide that have had to implement special security measures to protect the lives of Jewish men and women. Jews are a target of hatred for a variety of reasons (no reason to go into this well-trodden arena) by millions of people who would dance with glee if even a “harmless” Jewish place of worship were blown up, or if a bomb were to go off in a shopping center filled with Jews. A reasonable person following Taylor’s concern might ask: Why not let children wait until they have grown into adults to decide whether or not to take on this identity? Why impose it upon them by providing a Jewish home with Jewish practices, “forcing” them to attend an expensive Jewish day school or summer camp, or even participate in a trip to Israel. Becoming a Jew is very dangerous and has been for thousands of years.

In Vught, the city where I live in the Netherlands, there was in 1943-1944 a work-oriented concentration camp, which today serves as a documentation and education center National Monument Kamp Vught. In 1944 there was a notorious child transport of all children up to the age of sixteen to the death camps: around 1,400 children. A memoriam is held every year to commemorate this infamy. On one occasion, I met a survivor of this transport who was able very shortly before departure to convince the SS officer in charge that he was mistakenly taken into that group because he was not even Jewish. He was asked to let his pants fall to check his alleged Jewish “passport.” To the dismay of the SS, he was indeed uncircumcised, his foreskin visible, and was allowed to return to the main barrack. He survived the camp, the war, and today has grandchildren.

So central is the precept of circumcision that the other key marker of Jewish practice — the eating of the pascal lamb at Passover — is dependent on it: “No uncircumcised person may eat of it” (Exodus 12:47). Nevertheless the Hebrew Bible says the practice was suspended during the forty years of wandering in the desert due to health risks. Credit: Creative Commons/Dauster.
I must confess that upon hearing this tale of fate and fortune, I was struck with a double feeling: happy for this Jew who survived the slaughter to thrive, and angry that he had gotten away by his parents copping out. His parents, communist devotees, disowned their Jewish heritage so radically that they gave up even the most fundamental Jewish tribal observance of belonging to this people.

It is that kind of feeling that is aroused by being part of the covenant ceremony of circumcision. Of course one could bring a child up as a Jew, even if the child is uncircumcised. This would not be the only precept that many Jews do not observe. There are, after all, 613 precepts from which to choose. Jews who only observe some precepts are Jews nevertheless. Some choose to emphasize the ethical precepts, some the moral, the social, the national (Israel), the liturgical (synagogue), or the family occasions. Some emphasize the intellectual while others the mystical (kabbalah). All are Jews.

But there are some symbols that have become tokens (not unconditional prerequisites) of basic belonging. Circumcision is one of them. By this we go public, so to speak. Our child is “openly” (even though his zipper is zipped) Jewish. Just as parents pierce their young children’s ears before they are of the age of consent, so do Jewish parents proudly pierce their male children with the covenant of Abraham to be signed in as bearers of this legacy, a monotheistic heritage that taught the world that all human beings without exception are created equal, having been “created in the image of God” (Genesis 1:27; 9:6).

rebuttal of the rebuttal in the comments

Matthew A. Taylor November 23, 2011 at 10:43 am

Tzvi Marx’s rebuttal to my critique of non-consensual infant circumcision is problematic. Following are 12 problems with his piece:

1. Dismisses men’s feelings of violation. Marx uses the fact that I’m angry about circumcision to imply that my logic is flawed. In so doing, he sidesteps the significance of my feelings, as well as the feelings of thousands of men like me. See:

2. Ignores a man’s right to make choices over his own body. Marx writes, “In a free society, freedom of choice includes the freedom of parents to choose how to raise their children.” Nowhere does Marx respond to my claim that I should have had the right to make this choice for myself, and that thousands of men like me say they should have had the choice, too:
Apparently, my right to choose – and the right of other men to choose — is irrelevant to Marx, just like it’s irrelevant to Rabbi Lerner.

3. Ignores those who have been disfigured and killed by circumcision. In my article, I referenced the fact that over 100 babies die every year in the U.S. in both religious and non-religious circumcisions. I also referred to David Reimer, who committed suicide as a result of a botched circumcision. Marx neither acknowledges nor responds to these inconvenient truths.

4. Dismisses circumcision as a “minor surgery” and the foreskin as a “defect.” To call a normal, healthy part of the male body a defect seems rather odd. In case you want to learn what a foreskin is and what its purpose is, please watch:

5. Ignores the impact of circumcision on a grown man’s sexual pleasure. My article referenced the fact that circumcision removes the most sexually sensitive parts of the male genitalia. I added that men who were circumcised as adults report substantial decreases in their capacity for sexual pleasure. Marx does not acknowledge the significance of these facts:

6. Conflates circumcision with other parental choices that do not involve irreparable amputation of a healthy body part. Marx argues, “Language, culture, religion, ideology, philosophy, literature, customs, and traditional diet are all irreversibly imposed upon children before they are capable of choosing.” Yes parents make these choices, but Marx is wrong about them being irreversible. Grown-up adults can leave behind their childhood diets, ideologies, religious dogmas, and so on, and make new choices. However, circumcision is different from all of these, as it involves the irreversible amputation of a healthy body part in a demonstrably harmful act.

7. Implies that if circumcision is relatively less traumatic for some babies, that makes it okay for all babies. Marx talks about the Mohels who use wine to pacify the victims of circumcision. How helpful is the wine for the over 100 babies who die every year as a result of circumcision? Marx is silent about these deaths. Furthermore, anyone who watches a video of a typical circumcision can see how traumatic it can be — check out:


Even if circumcision could be performed without the risk of death or trauma to the baby, which I don’t think it can, there still remains the ethical question of amputating a healthy body part that contributes to the grown man’s sexual fulfillment.

8. Selectively cites medical sources in favor of circumcision while ignoring all the Western medical organizations that actively oppose circumcision or do not recommend it. In my article, I wrote, “Most Western medical associations recommend against circumcision. For example, the Royal Dutch Medical Association released the world’s most up-to-date national policy statement on circumcision in 2010. Their well-footnoted policy recommended that doctors aggressively counsel families against circumcising due to the ‘absence of medical benefits and danger of complications.’” Marx’s response is to dig up one Canadian doctor (whose last name is Schoen) who claims that circumcision’s advantages outweigh the surgical risks. If this were true, why is it that no Western medical association in the world recommends the procedure?

9. Ignores the question of whether educated adults should make decisions about STD prevention for themselves, as opposed to their parents amputating a healthy body part at birth without the consent of the amputee. In my article, I wrote, “Even if circumcision really did lower the rates of STD transmission, shouldn’t educated adults make their own decisions about their sex lives? Condoms and responsible sexual relationships prevent STDs, not circumcision.” Marx offers no response.

10. Claims I ignored studies showing a health benefit of circumcision, when in fact I both acknowledged and rebutted those studies. Marx wrote: “Were [Taylor] less personally angry over his having been circumcised, he would have to admit the existence of arguments by responsible health authorities in support of circumcision, as well.” But in fact I both acknowledged those studies and rebutted them in my piece: “Reputable members of the medical community have argued that the studies that show any such benefit [of circumcision] are flawed and suffer from selection bias. According to Doctors Opposing Circumcision, all claims that circumcision provides any protective benefit against sexually transmitted diseases, male and female cancers, and urinary tract infection have been disproved.”

11. Claims that circumcision both is and is not a requirement to be Jewish. On one hand, Marx says: “[Circumcision is] the most fundamental Jewish tribal observance of belonging to this people.” But then Marx contradicts himself and admits, “Of course one could bring a child up as a Jew, even if the child is uncircumcised. This would not be the only precept that many Jews do not observe. There are, after all, 613 precepts from which to choose. Jews who only observe some precepts are Jews nevertheless.” So which is it? Really what Marx is saying here is, “Circumcision is not a requirement to be Jewish, however, I strongly recommend it.” My rebuttal to Marx: Instead, parents can choose Brit Shalom, a Jewish baby-welcoming ceremony without the irreversible body part amputation and ritualized child abuse:
As I mentioned in my article, over 50% of Swedish Jewish parents leave their baby boys intact –– and they’re still Jews!

12. Uses a Nazi Holocaust story as a justification to harm baby boys. Why should Marx’s anecdote be a rationalization to continue to harm infants, put them at risk of death, and permanently diminish the sexual functioning of grown men? The lesson to be learned from the Nazi Holocaust in this context is: protect the innocent and defenseless!


a commentor

The second sentence of Matthew’s original article beautifully states that one of the holes of Rabbi Michael Lerner’s pro-circumcision arguments is the hole in his heart. Here a man bravely has offered as evidence his own experience, his personal truth. To have done this is not without risks, given the social stigma against men showing emotions, the fierce cultural pressure not to question b’rit milah, and the deplorable tendency in our society to snicker at the mere mention of anything penile (which, combined with the profound discomfort surrounding the topic, sophomorically impedes constructive discourse about circumcision). And yet, Rabbi Marx says that Matthew is too emotional about this subject for his commentary to be useful or valid. To say that the intensity and pain of Matthew’s experience renders his contribution unreliable is to miss the point entirely. Matthew’s experience is the heart of the case against ritual mutilation: it is because many circumcised men feel similarly to Matthew (and, because of the stigma and ridicule described above, one may be certain that there are many more such men than those who have come forward) that the practice must be abandoned. There are other reasons as well, such as the inherent misogyny of inscribing the covenant in a body part unique to males, but the pain inflicted by circumcision, both of the cutting itself and of its lasting impact, is the primary reason.

Rabbi Marx’s statement that he would be concerned by Matthew’s pain in “a pastoral situation” sadly rings hollow, and from the perspective of one being told that his feelings are irrational and insignificant may even have a ring of condescension. By implying that Matthew’s essay belongs in a therapeutic session and not in serious and “learned” discourse, Rabbi Marx insidiously dismisses the legitimacy of the voices of all circumcised men who wish to be intact. Clearly, he is uncomfortable with the admirable candor with which Matthew articulates his feelings. His words at least suggest greater sensitivity than those of the ghoulish Edgar Schoen, the putative medical authority whom he cites, who has stated that stories like Matthew’s are balanced out by stories of positive experiences relating to circumcision in some sort of zero-sum game. This calls to mind Merrell Markoe’s recent observation that there are “so many socially acceptable ways to exhibit a pathological lack of empathy.” Alas, the only way for circumcision advocates to maintain their position in light of testimony such as Matthew’s is to minimize or dismiss as unimportant that which it is impossible to refute or deny. Compassion and respect for the individual’s subjectivity must be sacrificed: how ironic for a Jew to be adopting this line of reasoning, which is the philosophy the anti-Dreyfusards and their fellow authoritarians. In his excellent Questioning Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective, Dr. Ronald Goldman eloquently writes that the sacrifice made in circumcision is not just to the baby who is being harmed, but to the humanity of the Jewish community.

Rabbi Marx demonstrates the concede-and-minimize tactic of the pro-circumcision advocates when he admits that circumcision constitutes disfigurement, but so is the removal a child’s molar. Does Rabbi Marx really believe that it is remotely acceptable to remove a healthy molar from a child’s mouth!? Such are the lengths to which one must go to justify circumcision. (A more common analogy is having babies’ ears pierced, which is fair enough: that too is an unethical encroachment upon a child’s bodily integrity.) The rabbinical justification he cites is intellectually tortured: the only way for these scholars to reconcile the circumcision covenant with Jewish laws against bodily modification was to declare that the foreskin is not part of the body, and that the male body must be perfected through subtraction. This absurd statement is echoed today by those who consider the foreskin “extra skin” or compare circumcision to cutting the umbilical cord (a dreadful analogy given that the umbilical cord is not a part of the body and the foreskin is). No one can expect that the risible and observably false claim that the foreskin is not a part of the body will allay the concerns of any man experiencing dysphoria about his circumcision. As the intactivist bumper sticker reads, “The foreskin is not a birth defect,” and this the Midrash cannot change.

How Rabbi Marx considers the Abrahamic covenant a declaration of human equality is a mystery to me given the unequivocal misogyny (as noted above, only males are inducted into the covenant) and egregious tribalism of the Hebrew Bible. In Genesis 15:18–21 (a mere two chapters before the circumcision covenant, which again involves promising land to the People of Israel), God promises to give Abraham the land presently inhabited by ten different tribes, which is only equality in the sense of George Orwell’s Animal Farm. I highly value my Jewish heritage in many ways, especially the intellectual tradition, but even if I did not believe that the Abrahamic covenant is entirely fictive, still I would reject it. It unfairly confers privilege upon one tribe of people, and this is not an idea I want anywhere on my body. Certainly I agree with teaching children about their Jewish heritage, but to mark it upon their bodies goes too far. What about the child’s religious freedom? Ultimately, when children of Jewish heritage grow up it is their prerogative to decide what to do with their Jewish identities, and this is a matter over which their parents have no control. A culture only has validity if its members are all willing participants.

I have heard the bizarre claim that circumcision is essential to the survival of Judaism, as though one will forget one’s identity without its being branded onto one’s body. Miriam Pollack has astutely observed the cruel irony, which is attested by the story Rabbi Marx includes in his article, that circumcision has made it far easier for Jewish men to be identified by their persecutors. To say that circumcision is a unique marker of Judaism is astoundingly false, given its prevalence, in various forms, in a large number of other cultures (including among American gentiles!). To assume that circumcising a man will make him take his Jewish heritage seriously is fatuous (especially as those of us who abhor the practice may feel alienated from Jewish culture as a result). Could this irrationality be a sign that this custom is being perpetuated, even as more and more Jews eat shrimp and cheeseburgers and ignore the Sabbath, as a cycle of abuse? Whatever the reason, it is an insult to Judaism to say that it can only survive through a barbaric, misogynist Bronze Age ritual: the survival of Jewish culture through so many centuries of persecution is a testament to the strength of our people, not the mutilation of our penises. As we go forward, the only way for Judaism to maintain its relevance is to recognize the dignity, autonomy, and inherent rights of the individual. This involves actually listening to what the Matthew Taylors have to say, and acknowledging that the bodies of children belong only to themselves, not to their parents, their communities, or anyone’s holy book.


YouTube: A Question For Circumcised Men ByLatumWay

I have not a rurally watched this video yet but other recommended it.

A Question For Circumcised Men

A long read. Slightly anti-religious but makes valid points

A bit if a rant but has a lot of links


KENYA: Plea to ICC over forced male circumcision

Dean wrote: When a child is held down forcibly and genitally mutilated he (or she) experiences a sense of powerlessness and a complete lack of control that is unimaginable. Worse still, there is no way for them to rationalise the procedure into a positive experience, like many of the men who are circumcised as young adults or teens within cultural settings. The whole process of torture removes any concept of being able to exert control over ones body.

When the child is so young that they can’t rationalise, nor ultimately remember the experience, the lack of control registers deeply within the unconscious. It is for that reason that I believe men circumcised as infants can often aptly be described as ‘control-freaks.’ And if you look at the consciousness of the nations that circumcise as infants there is often an underlying obsession with control – a way to balance out the complete lack of control experienced during the mutilation and never fully processed in order to allow for healing. When we feel powerless as children we seem to grow into adults that once in a position to exert control and power do so with a great ferocity

Bride fattening and female circumcision fgm


Emma Bonino: FGM op piece in NYTimes

Another disturbing trend has been the medicalization of female genital mutilation, following campaigns that focused on its health implications rather than the fact that it is a violation of human rights regardless of the degree of hygiene with which it is perpetrated.

Far from being a first step toward the elimination of female genital mutilation, this trend has only served to legitimize it, by suggesting that the problem lies in the undesirable “side effects” rather than in the violation of the bodily integrity of girls and women. The resolution firmly refutes this, unequivocally condemning any medicalization.

sounds familiar…. I feel sorry for all the children (female and male) subject to genital cutting and mutilation against female and male genital mutilation

Clitoraid ( is the international, non-profit organization founded by Rael, spiritual leader of the Raelian Movement (, to end Female Genital Mutilation by offering free clitoral repair surgery to victims of this barbaric act. Now the organization is urging a worldwide end to genital mutilation of male children as well.

On Nov. 28, the United Nations passed a resolution that condemns all cultural and religious arguments in favor of FGM because the act constitutes a gross violates of children rights,” Gary said. “But how can the U.N. ban Female Genital Mutilation and not denounce Male Genital Mutilation as well? Is it exempting certain religions from respecting the fundamental right of baby boys?”

“It’s been done for centuries under the pretense that a god requested it, but no religion should be allowed to harm infants or children who can’t give informed consent,” she said. “We’re setting up a hospital in Africa that’s due to open next year, where female victims can go to have genital repair surgery for free. “And, thanks to Clitoraid, thousands more can find relief at several clinics in North America. But we’ve also been getting e-mail from hundreds of circumcised men who want to have their own mutilation undone. They need help too! So, as Rael has repeatedly stated, it’s urgent to have all the old scriptures reviewed by an independent committee on human rights so that all religious group practices are in agreement with the Declaration of Human Rights.”



Male penile subincision just as bad as female Infibulation

Recently, Lea wrote an amazing post on female genital mutilation. For years, I read about the issue among tribes in Africa and felt shocked. But at the same time, in the back of my mind, I wondered: if it’s unacceptable to us for tribes elsewhere to cut off perfectly good body parts from women as a cultural rite of passage, then why is it acceptable to us, in America, to do the same thing to men?

Unfortunately, we’re all taught to believe that male circumcision is OK — it’s completely ingrained as culturally normal and acceptable. In fact, even suggesting that male circumcision should be questioned causes people to question whether you are anti-Semitic. In a sociology class, I asked if anyone saw that male and female circumcision were basically the same thing and my professor asked me if I really just wanted to repress Judaism. Um, what?

When you really think about the details, male circumcision just as horrific and terrible as female genital mutilation… and as we’ve said about African tribes, it doesn’t have be a part of a culture or religion. It’s nothing I want to subject my future son to. It’s a socially accepted double standard to have your son circumcised, but to be repulsed by female circumcision in other cultures. Really, when you think about it, bias aside, is there any difference?

I suppose my main issue is that, if I want other cultures to stop a practice that bothers me as a woman, then shouldn’t I ask my own culture to stop a practice that I think is just as harmful to men’s sexuality?

My comment in response to the comments on this linked blog post (I couldn’t sign in to comment. Glitch or something)

FYI: there are several types of female circumcision from removal of all external genitalia, to the removal of only the inner labia and clitoral hood, or to just a pin prick in the clitoris.

There are also various types of male circumcision. From splitting the penis length wise , to cutting off the entire foreskin or to just a small cut in the foreskin.
In many places girls are circumcised in hospitals or dr offices just like boys are… And in many places boys are circumcised in homes, huts and unhygienic places just as girls are.
Neither is right. Both are mutilation. Many women and men are happy with their circumcised genitalia but that doesn’t mean we should be allowed to cut children.

Male sub incision:

Pic of penile subincision: this is mutilation just like female Infibulation.

Related modifications

Splitting the urethra only to the base of the glans is called meatotomy.
Some people split the top of the penis as well, to achieve genital bisection.
Splitting the glans, but not the shaft, is known as headsplitting.
Splitting of the top of the penis only is known as superincision.

Female genital mutilation link
<;;;;;;a href="http://“>;;;;;;

Female link

A photo gallery… No actual circumcision shown

I have not looked at these particular links yet but I know they are pro-female circ. I have only placed these here to show that cultures who minimally circumcise girls use the same reasoning as American insistence on cutting boys.

I’ve found a few good blog posts by mothers from that region talking about their daughter’s circs. It’s eerily similar to boy circ posts, except that the actual procedure seems to be far less severe (at least as it’s done by these particular cultures). Here’s some samples.

a photo comparison of male and female circumcision of the shock it bestows on its victims.



although male penile sub incision and female genital mutilation are NOT practiced in the USA…. I just wanted to draw attention to the fact that men can be genitally mutilated as well. I just want to bring awareness that just as some forms of circumcision only remove the female clitoral hood or the male foreskin, although not as damaging or horrific as the total removal of the labia and/or clitoris or male penile sub incision both are still a human rights violation when performed on infants, children and other unconsenting minors and unconsenting individuals. People who choose to be circumcised (from a pin prick to amputation) should be well informed of all possible complications.

TWN: dangers of plastibell circumcision

***WARNING: this article contains very graphic material that is not intended to be viewed by children. Some adults may be offended by it, as well. Viewer discretion is advised.***

please go to the link. Pictures of plastibell complications are in the link provided above

All circumcisions involve cutting, tearing and blood (even Plastibell methods). From birth, the foreskin is fused to the head of the penis (like a fingernail is fused to a finger). Before any circumcision begins, the foreskin must be ripped away from the glans. With a Plastibell circumcision, typically the foreskin is slit down the top to allow the insertion of the Plastibell. When in place, a string is tightly tied to necrotize the foreskin. After everything is secured, the excess skin is removed with scalpel or scissors.
………look at the pictures here
As you can see, the Plastibell procedure is not painless. It’s not safer than other circumcision methods. It’s not without its own unique set of risks and complications. All methods of circumcision have risks. All methods of circumcision remove a normal, healthy part of the male genitalia. ,

this video is of a plastibell circumcision. it is surprisingly bloodless, abnormally so, (wondering if this is a live baby or a corpse for medical study)-

For a video of a live child click the link below:




Copy/paste: circumcision and common sense

And yet, despite all this point-counterpoint in the learned journals, there are some aspects of circumcision that desperately need the light of plain common sense shined upon them. Advocate and foe alike overlook some issues that are matters of common sense, and debate others without making some commonsense observations that would provide clear guidance. This article discusses four such aspects: circumcision’s effect on the experience of sex, the question of whether there is a right to circumcise, keeping clean, and circumcision’s potential effect on the parent-child relationship.


Circumcision is, in fact, nothing less than the amputation of a major component of the penis. This touches upon an important point: contrary to what many people assume, the foreskin is more than just a “flap of skin.” It is (as many articles explain in more detail) a major functional part of the penis, replete with sexually sensitive nerve endings. A circumcised penis, therefore, is not a normal penis. It is a penis from which a major part is missing. It is an incomplete penis. If you remove a boy’s foreskin, we must assume that he will never experience sex as nature intended, which is his birthright.


A right to circumcise? Since when has it been acceptable to amputate healthy, well-formed parts of a baby? Many people have trouble with ingrown toenails; should we prophylactically rip out all of a baby’s toenails to prevent this potential problem? If not, why not? Because nobody has a right to remove normal, healthy parts of a baby. This seems self-evident and unarguable, yet most Americans have a blind spot when it comes to circumcision.

A thought experiment may help clarify this concept. Imagine that an uncircumcised man in his forties has minor genital surgery. When he awakens, he discovers that in addition to the expected surgery, he has been circumcised. When he asks the surgeon for an explanation, the reply is, “I figured that as long as I was operating in that area, I’d go ahead and do a circumcision. It’s best for you. Don’t worry; it’s on the house.”

Would this be grounds for a lawsuit? You bet! And most people would be shocked at the surgeon’s gall. Yet I too am a man in his forties, and like the imaginary man, I was circumcised without being consulted. The only difference is that in my case it was done over forty years ago. But the result today is the same: a man in his forties, missing an important piece of his sex organ as a result of actions taken without his permission. The imaginary man at least had a complete penis for over forty years; I had one for no more than a few days.


We in America have to ask ourselves why, if circumcision is such a good thing, the rest of the world doesn’t follow our example. Other than in countries where most of the population practices circumcision for religious purposes, neonatal circumcision has never been widely practiced in the population as a whole outside of the predominantly Anglo countries, and all of those countries except the United States have to a large degree dropped it. Why?

The Journal of Sexual Medicine-on circumcision

“New Study: Circumcision Increases Likelihood of STI & HIV Infections
08/20/20120 Comments

Just published a few days ago in The Journal of Sexual Medicine: “We assessed the association between circumcision status and self-reported history of STI/HIV infection using logistic regressions to explore whether circumcision conferred protective benefit…

Compared with uncircumcised men, circumcised men have accumulated larger numbers of STI in their lifetime, have higher rates of previous diagnosis of warts, and were more likely to have HIV infection. Results indicate that being circumcised predicted the likelihood of HIV infection.”


Introduction.  Circumcision among adult men has been widely promoted as a strategy to reduce human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) transmission risk. However, much of the available data derive from studies conducted in Africa, and there is as yet little research in the Caribbean region where sexual transmission is also a primary contributor to rapidly escalating HIV incidence.

Aim.  In an effort to fill the void of data from the Caribbean, the objective of this article is to compare history of sexually transmitted infections (STI) and HIV diagnosis in relation to circumcision status in a clinic-based sample of men in Puerto Rico.

Methods.  Data derive from an ongoing epidemiological study being conducted in a large STI/HIV prevention and treatment center in San Juan in which 660 men were randomly selected from the clinic’s waiting room.

Main Outcome Measures.  We assessed the association between circumcision status and self-reported history of STI/HIV infection using logistic regressions to explore whether circumcision conferred protective benefit.

Results.  Almost a third (32.4%) of the men were circumcised (CM). Compared with uncircumcised (UC) men, CM have accumulated larger numbers of STI in their lifetime (CM = 73.4% vs. UC = 65.7%; P = 0.048), have higher rates of previous diagnosis of warts (CM = 18.8% vs. UC = 12.2%; P = 0.024), and were more likely to have HIV infection (CM = 43.0% vs. UC = 33.9%; P = 0.023). Results indicate that being CM predicted the likelihood of HIV infection (P value = 0.027).

Conclusions.  These analyses represent the first assessment of the association between circumcision and STI/HIV among men in the Caribbean. While preliminary, the data indicate that in and of itself, circumcision did not confer significant protective benefit against STI/HIV infection. Findings suggest the need to apply caution in the use of circumcision as an HIV prevention strategy, particularly in settings where more effective combinations of interventions have yet to be fully implemented.

Rodriguez-Diaz CE, Clatts MC, Jovet-Toledo GG, Vargas-Molina RL, Goldsamt LA, and García H. More than foreskin: Circumcision status, history of HIV/STI, and sexual risk in a clinic-based sample of men in Puerto Rico. J Sex Med”

Direct source for abstract:

below is a link to pictures of a circumcision…. Look at it and realize this torture is happening to a child