| Jerry Sturdivant 2006-03-22, 12:33 pm |
|
Get off your damn, bullshit, anit-circumcise crusade; we've had enough of
it.
Jerry of ASI
"Dr. Lippshitz" <lippz@thehospital.isl> wrote in message
news:HgmSf.12687$%e1.8594@trnddc05...
When it comes to sex, Mother Nature knows best. Endowing males with a
highly erogenous sheath (the foreskin) and giving females a pleasure button
(the clitoris) ensures enjoyable, long-lasting sex for everyone.
Unfortunately, millions of North American males have been deprived of a full
sexual experience by a pointless medical exercise: circumcision.
Beginning around 1870, circumcision was viewed as a way to discourage
masturbation. The idea was that the less sensation a boy had in his penis,
the less inclined he would be to play with himself. John Harvey Kellogg, an
influential American physician (and inventor of Kellogg's Corn Flakes) led
the ensuing movement in the 1880s to have baby boys routinely circumcised.
Fanatically anti-masturbation, he also recommended that girls who
masturbated have their clitorises burned with acid.
Ignorance and greed combined to make circumcision a routine medical
practice for the better part of this century. During the 1960s and 1970s,
circumcision rates peaked in Western countries. Medical studies at the time,
now shown to be seriously flawed, pointed to it as a way to prevent
illnesses like cancer and urinary tract infections.
"In Canada, circumcisions were covered by provincial health insurance
until the 80s," explains John Antonopoulos, president of Montreal's
Circumcision Information Resource Centre. "Now, the United States is the
only country in the world that still routinely circumcises male infants for
non-religious reasons."
Nearly 90 per cent of American males are circumcised, even though new
evidence reveals the practice to be unnecessary and harmful. Doctors,
ethicists and activists worldwide have deemed it inappropriate, unethical,
traumatic and invasive.
Tim Hammond, a leading opponent of circumcision and founder of
NOHARMM, the U.S. National Organization to Halt the Abuse and Routine
Mutilation of Males, believes that circumcision in the U.S. is perpetuated
by arrogance and the radical American health environment.
"Circumcised males make up the power structure, and they're defensive
about their penises," says Hammond. "They're not interested in knowing about
the harm done to their penises. That would require them to admit to being
wrong."
The physical, sexual and psychological harm caused by circumcision
begins from the moment a baby is strapped into the Circumstraint, a board
designed especially for the surgery. Usually performed without anaesthetic,
the operation is excruciating for the baby. Research published in medical
journals like The Lancet shows that circumcision causes overwhelming pain,
traumatic shock and behavioral changes. It also alters babies' sleep
patterns, feeding habits and activity levels, and disturbs the mother-infant
bond.
"What is disturbing is that circumcision affects the individual for a
lifetime," says Dr. Ronald Goldman, author of Circumcision: The Hidden
Trauma and founder of Boston's Circumcision Resource Center. "The foreskin
is essential to healthy functioning of the penis, protecting it and
facilitating intercourse. On the average adult male, the foreskin is 12
square inches of extremely erogenous tissue with unique zones of specialized
nerves. That makes it extremely valuable for optimal sexual feeling."
Goldman adds that the circumcised penis loses sensitivity over time,
possibly causing impotence.
"When the penis is in constant contact with clothing and other
environments, it becomes callused. The loss of sexual sensation may be part
of the reason so many American men in their 40s (40 per cent of them) have
experiences of impotence. U.S. impotence rates for all ages are well above
those in other countries."
In Canada, only 25 per cent of the male population has been
circumcised, less than 2 per cent for religious reasons. In Europe, less
than 10 per cent are circumcised.
"I don't understand this thing about circumcision," says Marco Prella,
an Italian engineer working in Montreal. "In Europe, we can't even imagine
doing this. There is no reason for it, so why do they do it? It makes no
sense."
In 1996, the Canadian Paediatric Society's position statement
declared: "The Committee does not support recommending circumcision as a
routine procedure for newborns." Without therapeutic value, the surgery now
cost parents $100 - $400 and it cannot be performed without written consent
from at least one of them.
Margaret Somerville, Founder of McGill's Centre for Medicine, Ethics
and Law and an outspoken critic of circumcision in recent years, calls upon
doctors and parents to categorically stop performing circumcisions.
"Since it is clearly not a health benefit, circumcision would be
considered a non-therapeutic intervention," says Somerville. "Ethically and
legally, parental consent is irrelevant in such a situation. Circumcision
removes sexually functioning tissue and causes substantial pain. That makes
it a very serious intervention - definitely not one to be consented to by
anyone but the individual."
People's attitudes about circumcision depend on their sexual
experience and knowledge of the issue. While many women have been socialized
to believe that uncircumcised males are less clean, ideas are changing.
"I can't believe some guys think it's cleaner to be circumcised," says
Anne, a 22-year-old student. "I'm the one with my face in their crotch and I
don't notice a difference. Who had the stupid idea that washing under the
foreskin is a chore? I brush my teeth every day. I also wash my labia. Big
deal."
A Montreal woman who gave birth to her first child, a son, three
months ago, said she was disturbed when she started to find out about
circumcision.
"The idea of cutting off a piece of my newborn baby's body off is
violent and weird," she said. "He's so perfect and fine the way he is."
"Anybody who cuts a boy's genitals knows it isn't quite right," argues
Antonopoulos. "In my work, I talk to people every day about it. The more
they know about it, the more upset they become. In 15 to 20 years this
practice will be obsolete and viewed very badly. It may even be a precarious
legal issue."
TRUDY GOLDENBERG
|