Pomp & Circumcision

San Francisco, not content with its claim to Rice-a-Roni, has leapt to the forefront of the foreskin protection movement. Next November, the city with more dogs than children will vote on an initiative to ban male circumcision.

Lloyd Schofield has come one step closer to achieving his mission to ban circumcision -- the surgical removal of the penile foreskin -- in the City by the Bay…

"The foreskin is there for a reason," said Schofield, who is retired from a career in the hotel industry. "It's not a birth defect. It serves an important function in a man's life, and nobody has a right to perform unnecessary surgery on another human being."

I can't help noting that Mr. Schofield isn't concerned with female circumcision, a procedure that, in its extreme form, involves the permanent mutilation of the female sex organs. I also can't help wondering what "important function" the penile foreskin serves. Protection against sunburn on a nude beach? I don't hesitate to point out that Mr. Schofield's principle would prevent a parent from having her children's teeth fitted for braces.

Let us allow that this is a sensitive issue involving sensitive tissue. Male circumcision is an ancient religious practice among Jews and Muslims. Prohibiting these groups from the practice would very probably run afoul of the Free Exercise Clause in the First Amendment. Generally the Court has required that infringement of a central religious practice be justified by a compelling government interest. I doubt that Mr. Schofield can meet that stringent standard.

Male circumcision is more widely practiced for medical reasons. It is at least as safe as ear piercing and seems to prevent urinary tract infections. That looks like a judgment call to me.

There is something wrong with Mr. Schofield. He is an intactivist, something he has every right to be. He has no business trying to impose his idiosyncrasy on parents and their doctors who do not share it. There is something wrong with a ballot system that allows him to put this ridiculous measure to a vote. I expect this measure will be voted down. Should it pass, it will be struck down by the courts.

I am happy to play this for amusement. What is not so amusing is that there are innumerable Schofields out there who are ready to tell you what soft drinks to drink and what fast food to feed on. If you think you should be able to choose whether or not to have fries with that, tell the lot of them to mind their own damn business.

Comments

[Stan Gibilisco]

This Schofield fellow needs a vacation. The fact that I'm actually commenting here suggests that I need a vacation too.

[Ron Low]

How ignorant. The ban isn't about FGM because girls are already protected. The ban only seeks EQUAL protection under the law as required by the 14th amendment.

Circumcision is NOT "as safe as ear piercing." Hundreds die every year; 66 times as many boys die from circumcision as died due to recently banned drop-side cribs.

People who have no idea what the foreskin is or does should get educated before commenting. The foreskin includes about half a male's specialized pleasure-receptive nerve endings. It protects the mucosal glans from drying and abrasion, and it affords an exquisite frictionless rolling/gliding mode of stimulation. Circumsision dramatically changes sex. Only the (future) man whose sex life will be directly affected should make this cometic choice.

Girls get more urina urinary tract infections than any group of boys, and we treat those with antibiotics, not a drastic last-resort solution of amputation.

And for your information, 20% of the anti-circumcision movement is Jewish and thousands of Jewish-born men are enduring a tedious multi-year process of non-surgical foreskin restoration to undo just some of the sexual damage of circumcision.

It's just so simple. NOT ONE national medical association on earth (not even Israel') endorses routine circumcision. HIS body, HIS decision.

[Ken Blanchard]

I believe that Ron's comments about "foreskin restoration" procedures gives the reader some idea of the relationship between the intensity and origin of the passions behind the intactivist movement and the importance of the issue.

[Stan Gibilisco]

For the first time in memory, I actually got an e-mail from a reader of this site, evidently in response to my comment above.

If my previous comment offends anyone, I apologize.

I'd never really given this issue serious thought. I was circumcised when I was an infant, and I have no memory of it. When I was a kid, my parents told me that the process was routinely done to prevent infections under the foreskin. (My mother, in particular, explained all the "birds and bees" stuff to me and my sisters in quite literal terms -- all except the emotional and sensual parts, yes, all except that 99 percent of it, which I, as a pre-adolescent, would not have understood anyway.) I also read, when I was a somewhat older kid, that circumcision enhances the sensitivity and therefore the gratification that a man gets from sex. I never questioned the accuracy of any of these tales.

One might make the point that the human appendix serves no apparent purpose, except to cause complications for some people later in life. Would it follow, therefore, that all infants should undergo appendectomies? One can only imagine the territory we'll get into if we start to extrapolate on ideas like that.

I wonder how and why the practice of circumcision ever got started? Could it have something to do with practical experience (e.g., frequent infections under the foreskin)?

[Ken Blanchard]

I am making you famous, Stan. No charge. Whether circumcision is worth doing or not is not something I am vitally interested in. I just think that this a decision that parents should be allowed to make for their sons. I am certainly prepared to defend the right of Muslims and Jews to continue their tradition. I think that the intactivists are busybodies who will tell us what we can eat for breakfast if we let them. That was the serious point of this otherwise light post.

[Frank OHara]

@ Ken Blanchard: “I can't help noting that Mr. Schofield isn't concerned with female circumcision, a procedure that, in its extreme form, involves the permanent mutilation of the female sex organs.”

Haven’t you heard? Female circumcision was banned by Congress 15 years ago. Schofield is just trying to get the same protection for boys. They should already have this protection. The Equal Protection Clause of The 14th amendment to The US Constitution forbids any law that excludes any demographic.

“Mr. Schofield's principle would prevent a parent from having her children's teeth fitted for braces.”

How exactly is that? Braces are to address a specific issue that affects oral health and sometimes general health. Male circumcision addresses no such issue. It removes healthy normally formed tissue.

“ Prohibiting these groups from the practice would very probably run afoul of the Free Exercise Clause in the First Amendment.”

Nope, The 1996 Female Genital Mutilation act would also run afoul and it hasn’t. Female circumcision is practiced by Muslims as a religious act. However, this law (1996 FGM Law) runs afoul of another Constitutional law, The Equal Protection Clause in The 14th Amendment.

“Male circumcision is more widely practiced for medical reasons.”

Wrong! All the US medical associations categorize it as a cultural practice, not a medical procedure.

“It is at least as safe as ear piercing and seems to prevent urinary tract infections.”

Nope! Every year, more than 100 neonates die from the procedure and that number has falled in recent years as the infant circumcision rate has fallen from the mid 60% range to 32.5% in 2009. Before there were 228-230 deaths annually. Both figures represent 1 death in 7,000 procedures. How many girls have died from ear piercing?

“There is something wrong with Mr. Schofield. He is an intactivist, something he has every right to be. He has no business trying to impose his idiosyncrasy on parents and their doctors who do not share it. There is something wrong with a ballot system that allows him to put this ridiculous measure to a vote.”

Nope! This is exactly how “government of the people and by the people” should work. Mr Schofield got the requisite number of signatures on his petition indicating that “The people” supported this measure and wanted to vote on it. They indicated an interest in having a law like this and they’re getting what they wanted. That’s exactly how democratic government should work. “Of the people and by the people.”

“I expect this measure will be voted down.”

Don’t count on it. With 12,000 signatories on the petition that can be expected to vote FOR it, it already has a large head start. Also consider that The West Coast region has the lowest male circumcision rate in the nation with fewer than 30% of newborns being circumcised. Those parents who decided not to violate their sons in the most personal and private way possible are likely to vote for this.

[Frank OHara]

@ Ken Blanchard: “I also read, when I was a somewhat older kid, that circumcision enhances the sensitivity and therefore the gratification that a man gets from sex. I never questioned the accuracy of any of these tales.”

Actually, just the opposite is true. Male circumcision removes the five most sensitive tissue areas. You should have questioned that information because it is false.

Additionally, many circumcised men will retort “I couldn’t stand it if I were any more sensitive” What they are really saying is that they suffer from premature ejaculation meaning they reach orgasm too quickly. In reality, this is actually caused by a too tight circumcision. The abbreviated skin sleeve holds the penile skin shaft against the prostate gland over stimulating it causing this vexing problem. The skin sleeve of the uncircumcised penis is of ample length and free to move up and down the shaft so that the shaft does not impact the prostate gland to over stimulate it. Makes for better sex for the man and doesn’t disappoint his partner.

“I wonder how and why the practice of circumcision ever got started? Could it have something to do with practical experience (e.g., frequent infections under the foreskin)?”

Nope. The ancient origins seem to indicate that the Egyptian priests started it in order to make them appear to be at the ever ready. When an uncircumcised man produces an erection, the foreskin automatically slips behind the glans making the intact penis have the appearance of being circumcised. The theory is that it made them look as they always had an erection ie. sexual power.

In more modern times in The US, it was believed circumcision would desensitize the penis thus discouraging masturbation by young boys. Masturbation was thought to be a cardinal sin and was also thought to be the source of all kinds of disease and malfunctions of the body. It was also recommended that the boys be circumcised without pain management as a further deterrent to the solitary pleasure. When it was discovered (1916) that circumcised males masturbated 40% more than genitally intact males it was too late. The medical profession had found a highly profitable procedure and set out to invent other diseases and maladies that circumcision would prevent. They were all false and lies. Circumcision prevents nothing except normal sex.

[Frank OHara]

@ Ken Blanchard: "I believe that Ron's comments about "foreskin restoration" procedures gives the reader some idea of the relationship between the intensity and origin of the passions behind the intactivist movement and the importance of the issue."

Indeed, at last count, more than 200,000 men are trying to undo or have undone the damage done to them.

[Frank OHara]

@ Ken Blanchard: "I just think that this a decision that parents should be allowed to make for their sons."

Why is that? It affects no one other than the victim so why shouldn't this be reserved for him? The parents do not urinate with the boy's penis, don't have sex with it or anything else. Why should it be the parent's decision and not the boy's decision when he can consider what he wants his penis to look like and how it should function?

Should parents also be allowed to make this decision for their daughters? What if they only want the clitoral hood removed? This would be most similar to male circumcision. Why is that not a valid parental decision?

[Bill Fleming]

Frank's arguments are most compelling. I think he's trying to tell parents not to be such insensitive dick heads.

[Ken Blanchard]

Mad hatters.

[Bill Fleming]

A jewish friend of mine (whose name I won't mention) tells the story of a mohel who kept lovely displays of fabric, flowers, and lamps in his little shop, even though he merchandised any of those items. When a customer inquired as to why he displayed these things, if they were not representative of his craft, he replied, "Well, what do YOU think I should display?"

Barum-pum.

[Bill Fleming]

"...even though he NEVER merchandised any of those items..." sorry. Nothing quite as embarrassing as blowing a dick joke.

[Ken Blanchard]

That's great, Bill. Asked if they would like to make love to Silvio Berlusconi, 33% of Italian women "yes". 67% said "again?"

[Tom Tobin]

How quickly they forget.

http://community.babycenter.com/post/a15516735/another_senseless_circumcision_death_in_south_dakota

Yep. Those intactivists and San Franciscans are crazy.

[Samia]

What do you say in response to these mcadeil organizations statements against infant male circumcision? 2004 College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, Infant Male Circumcision: “Current understanding of the benefits, risks and potential harm of this procedure no longer supports this practice for prophylactic health benefit. Routine infant male circumcision performed on a healthy infant is now considered a non-therapeutic and mcadeilly unnecessary intervention.”2003 British Medical Association, The Law and Ethics of Male Circumcision: Guidance for Doctors: “The mcadeil benefits previously claimed have not been convincingly proven… The British Medical Association considers that the evidence concerning health benefits from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it.”2002 Royal Australian College of Physicians, Policy Statement on Circumcision:“There is no mcadeil indication for routine male circumcision.”2002 American Academy of Family Physicians, Position Paper on Neonatal Circumcision: “Evidence from the literature is often conflicting or inconclusive… A physician performing a procedure for other than mcadeil reasons on a nonconsenting patient raises ethical concerns.”2000 American Medical Association (AMA), Report 10 of the Council on Scientific Affairs: “Virtually all current policy statements from specialty societies and mcadeil organizations do not recommend routine infant circumcision…The AMA supports the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics.” 1999 American Academy of Pediatrics, Circumcision Policy Statement: “Existing scientific evidence … [is] not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.”1996 Canadian Paediatric Society, Neonatal Circumcision Revisited: “Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed.”1996 Australian Medical Association, Circumcision Deterred: “The Australian College of Paediatrics should continue to discourage the practice of circumcision in newborns.”1996 British Medical Association, Circumcision of Male Infants: Guidance for Doctors: “To circumcise for therapeutic reasons where mcadeil research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate.”1996 Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons, Guidelines for Circumcision: “The Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons does not support the routine circumcision of male neonates, infants, or children in Australia. It is considered to be inappropriate and unnecessary as a routine to remove the prepuce [foreskin], based on the current evidence available… We do not support the removal of a normal part of the body, unless there are definite indications to justify the complications and risks which may arise. In particular, we are opposed to male children being subjected to a procedure, which had they been old enough to consider the advantages and disadvantages, may well have opted to reject the operation and retain their prepuce.”

[Milena]

My husband was csrucmciied six months after we got married due to my yeast infections. I had never had yeast infections or any other problems until we got married. My Ob/Gyn recommended that he be checked and get csrucmciied. I also experienced a couple of bad pap smears which showed cervical dysplasia which is a condition in which the cells of the inner lining of the cervix have precancerous changes before my husband was csrucmciied. After his circumcision have not experienced any other problems and he was csrucmciied 25 years ago.Before my husband was csrucmciied, he had an excessive amount of foreskin which resulted in some problems for us. During sex, there was so much foreskin that glans stayed covered, creating frustration and not much feeling for me. This situation had a negative impact on our sexual relationship.Since my husband has been csrucmciied his penis is cleaner, and is more aesthetically pleasing. The glans on his penis is permanently externalized and exposed the appearance of the skin looks better, and I find the penis more attractive. I feel increased internal stimulation, the entire glans and, particularly the rim during intercourse. I am also able to feel the full length of his penile thrusts without loose foreskin impeding my pleasure. His circumcision ultimately gives me more sexual pleasure and helps me to achieve orgasm more easily. This procedure has definitely improved our sexual experience. In my opinion, the circumcision has been a vast improvement in every way.I love my husband's csrucmciied penis and think that all males should be csrucmciied at birth. Based on my experience I feel women should be the strongest advocates for universal male circumcision.