Circumcision Sucks: The Uncut Version

Opinions_Wilson_365 #2 Blake_Rick McQuinlan_flickr

Flickr / Blake Rick McQuinlan

Brianna Wilson
Staff Writer

When a baby with a penis is born in this country, the majority of doctors automatically assume the parents will want their child to have a circumcision, regardless of whether the parents’ religious beliefs require the practice or not. The doctor walks into the room and straps down the newborn’s arms and legs, fully prepared to cut off part of a baby’s body.

Circumcision is a topic that is too often avoided, especially in America. The practice of non-religiously motivated circumcision is so pervasive in our society that we often forget it is not practiced as widely in any other country. Any time it is brought up, the responses are “isn’t it cleaner,” “isn’t it healthier,” “well, I want my child to look like me,” “would you rather them feel it when they are older,” or “won’t it look weird if you don’t?” All of these excuses are utterly ridiculous.

Circumcision is not cleaner unless you aren’t practicing good hygiene, which everyone should be doing. In the case of cleaning your baby, you should be making sure to clean them thoroughly whether they have a foreskin or not.  Throughout childhood, your child should be learning good hygiene practices.

Many recent studies indicate that the supposed health benefits of circumcision may not be as beneficial as had been previously believed. Proponents claim that urinary tract infections (UTIs) are more prevalent in uncircumcised boys. While this is true, the rate of UTIs in uncircumcised boys younger than one year is only 2.15 percent, while it is 0.22 percent in their circumcised counterparts, according to a study published in 2000 by the American Academy of Pediatrics. This means the risk of a UTI is very low whether they are circumcised or not. Newborns should be cleaned properly anyways to prevent UTIs.

Another study claims it helps prevent HIV. While there are studies that dispute this, even if circumcision helps prevent HIV, young adults should be using condoms anyway. Plus, condoms are a much more effective way to prevent STIs without having to chop off part of a baby’s penis. Rather than enduring a procedure without consent, this child can eventually have consensual, safe sex to prevent STIs.

Fathers of babies claim they want their children to “look” like them, as if an uncircumcised penis looks completely alien compared to a circumcised one. However, the reason babies started looking like this was because circumcision became popular in America in the early 1900s around the time that John Harvey Kellogg, of cereal fame, was telling people that circumcision for both sexes was necessary to keep children from masturbating. As many of us know, circumcised men still masturbate, so that obviously wasn’t effective.

When bringing up how circumcision may not be as good of an idea as many believe, supporters often say, “would you rather them feel it when they’re older,” as if it is necessary. As if many people cannot imagine an America where people aren’t cutting off parts of people’s genitals.

Many men are concerned that a penis will look weird if it is not circumcised, as if they are worried what their female partners will think of it. Our society has this ridiculous obsession with genitals which we need to get over. I have shocking news. All genitals look weird, including penises, whether they are circumcised or not.

Circumcision is a procedure that is incredibly painful, unnecessary in most cases, and performed without pain medication on newborn babies. It is performed without consent from the person experiencing the procedure, and the foreskin is something that person can never get back. These babies endure this procedure before they can ever give consent or even say no. They have no choice in what happens to their bodies.

Nature created the foreskin for a purpose. It protects the glans of the penis. It provides lubrication to the penis during sex. It contains approximately 10,000 to 70,000 nerve endings according to the extreme results of various studies. By removing the foreskin, you take away a significant portion of a person’s ability to experience sexual pleasure, which they may have decided to keep had they been asked. In America, it is time we stop cutting pieces off of the bodies of babies without their consent. It is time we challenge this pervasive social norm for the sake of our children.



Categories: Columns, Opinions

111 replies

  1. BloodstainedMen.com will protest on Friday, April 6, 2018 in Greensboro, NC!!! See you there, great article!!!

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Finally! An unapologetic look at normalcy. This article would be perfect if the author had used the un-biased, correct term “intact.”

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Genital mutilation is a human tragedy of epic proportions. Only ignorance, xenophobia and blatant sexism prevent Americans from seeing the horror of their social norms, especially the routine sexual maiming of newborn boys. It’s enough to make you despair of being human.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. The author states that: “Newborns should be cleaned properly anyways to prevent UTIs.” Unfortunately, proper cleaning of the genitals of an intact newborn depends on what is considered “proper”. The American Academy of Pediatrics, for years, has instructed parents to wash only the outside of the males genitals and never retract the foreskin of the infant. They state that: “premature retraction can cause pain, bleeding, and adhesions”. Premature retraction by an uneducated physician or parent can also cause bacterial colonization of the preputial space – which then migrates up the urethra, causing a urinary tract infection. The child did not develop a UTI because he had a foreskin, but because there was an ignorant health care provider advising premature retraction.

    The studies that claim an increase in UTI’s in intact boys do not correct for this iatrogenic etiology, nor do they correct for a host of other confounding factors. Dr. Martin Altschull, a pediatric urologist with an advanced degree in statistical analysis, claims that if one corrects for all of the confounding factors that are left out of these studies there is no increase of UTI’s in intact male infants.

    Little girls develop UTI”s at a rate much greater than little boys, but prophylactic amputation of parts of a girl’s genitals to possibly prevent a future infection that can be treated with antibiotics is absurd and would be considered unethical and illegal.

    Liked by 1 person

    • As a long-standing public health advocate of EVERYTHING, not just infant male circumcision, I have advocated consistently for application of the conclusions of the highest quality scientific evidence to reduce disease, adverse medical conditions, suffering and premature avoidable death. The claims to the contrary by opponents are frankly ludicrous, and should be dismissed by any intelligent person.

      Like

    • UTIs are far higher in UNCIRCUMCISED male infants than female infants of the same age. Only AFTER infancy does UTI prevalence in females begin to exceed that in males. The claim attributed to Dr. Altschull is not supported by publication in a peer-reviewed journal, so without peer-review is an ad hoc opinion at odds with the bulk of research, including meta-analyses by anti-circ and pro-circ researchers.

      Like

  5. No qualifiers. This is the best article I have read on circumcision in years!
    It takes courage to tell the truth.

    Like

  6. The consensus of strong medical evidence shows infant male circumcision confers a lifetime of benefits making it akin to childhood vaccination. While it correctly conveys the 10-fold lower risk of urinary tract infections during the first year of life, it fails to mention that 1 in 4 uncircumcised males will get a UTI over their lifetime compared with only 1 in 12 circled males.

    When taken together, the net benefits of infant male circumcision exceed the risks by over 100 to 1. Over their lifetime, half of uncircumcised males suffer a medical condition caused by their foreskin (see article in Mayo Clin Proc in May issue 2014):
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24702735

    Many men will die as a result of their foreskin, as will their sexual partners …. from genital cancers, HIV/AIDS and syphilis. Cervical cancer is a major killer disease and is strongly associated with lack of circumcision in the male partner.

    Given the benefits and very low risks early infant male circumcision is in many ways similar to vaccinations. In fact it would be unethical now to recommend the procedure to parents of baby boys: http://www.circinfo.net/pdfs/Rivin_IntJChildrensRights_2016.pdf

    Beware of comments posted by anti-circumcision activists on Internet sites. It is their usual practice to use the Internet to promote their dangerous fallacies.

    Multiple large systematic reviews and a meta-analysis have debunked the myth that the foreskin improves sexual pleasure. See work in the USA, Denmark, Australia and China, all published in peer-reviewed journals:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=morris+bj+2013+sexual

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=tian+circumcision+meta-analysis

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=circumcision+2016+dan+med+j

    Men circumcised as sexually experienced adults report better sex after being circumcised. This was the finding of a large high quality randomized controlled trial:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=krieger+2008+circumcision

    Sexual sensation resides in the head of the penis, not the foreskin:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=cox+g+2015+circumcision

    All well-designed unbiased research studies, including high quality randomized controlled trials, find that the overwhelming majority of women prefer a circumcised man for sexual activity and pleasure.

    A study of 1.4 million males by CDC researchers found adverse events from circumcision to be 0.4%, virtually all being minor and easily treated with complete resolution.

    The reader it advised to consult PubMed or reputable sources such as the website of the Mayo Clinic for reliable advise, not opinion pieces that appear in the lay news media.

    Brian Morris Professor Emeritus in Medical Sciences, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney

    Like

    • Complete hogwash and you know it Brian Morris. Your own research established the variety of live nerve endings in the foreskin. You wrote that the foreskin contains Meissner’s corpuscles which are fine-touch nerve endings that allow the blind to read by running their fingertips over bumps on paper. You also wrote that the foreskin contains free nerve endings which detect pain, touch and temperature, and Krause’s end bulbs which, as you wrote “may be involved in sexual sensation.” (Like there are nerve ending which are not involved in sexual sensation?) You also wrote that the foreskin contains Pacinian corpuscles which respond to pressure and vibration.

      You wrote that the foreskin contains all of those nerve endings and then reach the fantastical result that “there is no biological basis for ascribing any sexual function to the prep use.”

      SOURCE: “Histological Correlates of Penile Sexual Sensation: Does Circumcision Make a Difference?” Cox, Krieger and Morris.

      You, sir, are a bald-faced, pants-on-fire liar. You might be a retired professor, but your expertise is in shoveling horse shit.

      Like

      • You have not understood our article. What you say is a complete distortion of the histological data on nerve endings in different parts of the penis. The reader should ignore your false statements and read our article, first author being Assoc Prof Guy Cox a very experienced micro-anatomist with a detailed knowledge of the interface between neurostimuli, neuroreceptors and sensation, including sexual pleasure. See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=cox+morris+2015+circumcision

        Like

      • Wrong Brian Morris, your conclusions are complete hogwash. Your own studies establishes the numerous types of nerve endings in the foreskin which are fine-touch, heat and pressure, and vibration sensitive. Then, you reach the absurd conclusion that “loss of the prepuce by circumcision wold appear to have no adverse effect on sexual pleasure.” This conclusion is absurd on its face and and I would say academically fraudulent to even make such a claim. The foreskin contains live nerve endings which send sensation to the man’s brain. To claim it’ removal has no adverse effect on sexual pleasure is just a bald-faced lie.

        Like

      • gravester presents a muddled understanding of sensory receptors in the penis, specifically the foreskin. Those receptors are the same as ones in skin elsewhere in the body. Foreskin nerve endings detect touch, pain, heat, cold, etc. They DO NOT contribute to sexual pleasure. The nerve endings that do are the genital corpuscles located in the head of the penis and ventral shaft. Perhaps you might like to actually read the evaluation by Assoc Prof Cox, a micro anatomist, Prof John Krieher, a urologist, and me: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4498824/
        Sex Med. 2015 Jun; 3(2): 76–85.
        Histological Correlates of Penile Sexual Sensation: Does Circumcision Make a Difference?

        Like

      • Brian Morris, I’ve read your study. I quoted your study. And your conclusions are complete hogwash. Just so you understand, let me repeat: You conclusions are complete hogwash.

        Let’s quote your comment: “Foreskin nerve endings detect touch, pain, heat, cold, etc. They DO NOT contribute to sexual pleasure.” COMPLETE HOGWASH. THEY ARE NERVE ENDINGS! They feed sensations to the brain. To say they do not contribute to sexual pleasure is just hogwash.

        And don’t forget Brian Morris, An intact man lives his life with his glans encased inside a foreskin with all those nerve endings you know exist. Every day of his life, pleasurable sensations flow through the man’s body as a result of those nerve endings. A circumcised man has a denuded, dried-out, desensitized glans, and will never have the constant feelings of comfort and well-being felt by intact men.

        Like

      • You appear to have absolutely no biomedical understanding. The histological evidence we presented in our detailed expert review is consistent with the findings of all systematic reviews (in Denmark, nine, the US and Australia), a meta-analysis by Chinese researchers, and randomised controlled trials in Africa and Central America.
        The Abstract of our article in Sexual Medicine is as follows:
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=cox+morris+2015+circumcision+histological
        Sex Med. 2015 Jun;3(2):76-85. doi: 10.1002/sm2.67.
        Histological Correlates of Penile Sexual Sensation: Does Circumcision Make a Difference?

        Cox G1, Krieger JN2, Morris BJ3.
        Author information
        1. School of Medical Sciences, Discipline of Anatomy & Histology, University of Sydney Sydney, NSW, Australia.
        2. Urology, School of Medicine, Urology VA Puget Sound Health Care System, University of Washington Seattle, WA, USA.
        3. School of Medical Sciences, Discipline of Physiology, University of Sydney Sydney, NSW, Australia.
        Abstract
        INTRODUCTION:
        The question of whether removal of sensory receptors in the prepuce by circumcision affects sensitivity and/or sexual pleasure is often debated.
        AIMS:
        To examine histological correlates relevant to penile sensitivity and sexual pleasure.
        METHODS:
        Systematic review of the scientific literature on penile structures that might affect sensitivity and sexual sensation. Articles were included if they contained original data on human male penile histology or anatomy. Individual articles, including reference lists, were evaluated. They were then considered in relation to physiological data from articles retrieved by a previous systematic review.
        RESULTS:
        We retrieved 41 publications on penile structure. Considered in the light of 12 reporting physiological measurements, our evaluation finds that sexual response is unlikely to involve Meissner’s corpuscles, whose density in the prepuce diminishes at the time of life when male sexual activity is increasing. Free nerve endings also show no correlation with sexual response. Because tactile sensitivity of the glans decreases with sexual arousal, it is unrelated to sexual sensation. Thermal sensitivity seems part of the reward mechanism of intercourse. Vibrational sensitivity is not related to circumcision status. Observations that penile sexual sensation is higher post circumcision are consistent with greater access of genital corpuscles to sexual stimuli after removal of the prepuce. This is based on the distribution of these corpuscles (which are located in the glans) and, in uncircumcised men, the position of the retracted prepuce during intercourse, rather than any change in the number of genital corpuscles. The scientific literature suggests that any sexual effect of circumcised men may depend solely on exposure of the glans and not on the absence of the prepuce.
        CONCLUSION:
        Based on histological findings and correlates of sexual function, loss of the prepuce by circumcision would appear to have no adverse effect on sexual pleasure. Our evaluation supports overall findings from physiological measurements and survey data.
        KEYWORDS:
        Circumcision; Free Nerve Endings; Genital Corpuscles; Glans Penis; Male Sexual Pleasure; Meissner’s Corpuscles; Neurophysiology; Orgasm; Penile Sensation; Prepuce; Sexual Satisfaction
        PMID: 26185672 PMCID: PMC4498824 DOI: 10.1002/sm2.67
        Free PMC Article

        Like

      • I told you Morris. I read your study. I quoted your story. Your conclusions are complete hogwash. You need me to repeat it again? Okay – this is what you said:

        “loss of the prepuce by circumcision would appear to have no adverse effect on sexual pleasure.”

        That’s the best you could do? “Would appear?” Doesn’t’ sound very reliable to me when we are talking about amputating nerve endings from somebody else’s penis! Your conclusion is complete hogwash.

        The foreskin is packed with nerve endings! Fine-touch! Heat and pressure sensitive nerve endings! Vibration sensitive nerve endings! You cannot amputate them without reducing sensitivity in the male. But you just reach an opposite conclusion. Why? Because you want to. Nothing more. The exact opposite conclusion can and should be reached.

        It is physically impossible to achieve complete sexual satisfaction when when one-third to one-half of the nerves in the penis have been amputated. That’s why 59% of circumcised men say they require excess stimulation to achieve orgasm. Thirty-one percent report erectile dysfunction. And 25% report compulsive sexual practices as a compensatory behavior. SOURCE: “Long-term adverse outcomes from neonatalcircumcision reported in a survey of 1,008 men: an overview of health and human rights implications” By Tim Hammond & Adrienne Carmack, published Feb. 21, 2017.

        Don’t bother telling me you don’t find the study reliable. That goes without saying.

        Like

      • So you think you know better than an Assoc Prof of Histology who is expert in micro-anatomy and headed the Electron Microscope Unit at the University of Sydney for decades? I think the majority of readers would take Guy Cox’s expert advice, not your highly biased opinion. It supports the conclusions from all systematic reviews, a meta-analysis and randomised controlled trials. These show, consistently that male circumcision has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity or pleasure.
        Instead, you refer to a biased, one-sided internet survey by Hammond & Cormack in a low rated social science journal is full of flaws in design and should be ignored. It surprises me that even a low-ranked journal would publish the nonsense by these well-known anti-circumcision campaigners.

        Like

      • Looking at the leg of an Ant does not tell you the full details of the Ant.
        Likewise being an expert on the causes of hyper-tension does not also include the necessity of circumcision.
        Brian – you have qualifications but until you get a medical degree in Urology I am afraid your opinions are just that. Opinions.

        Now – considering how many women die each year of Breast cancer – perhaps a more suitable avenue for your passions should be the removal of prepubescent breast buds in girls to prevent subsequent cancer in women. The incidence which far more prevalent than penile cancer.

        Like

      • The 1st author and major writer for the systematic review was not me, but Goy Cox, an Assoc Prof of Histology who is expert in micro-anatomy and headed the Electron Microscope Unit at the University of Sydney for decades. The 2nd author was John Krieger, a Professor of Urology at University of Seattle and practicing clinician with decades of clinical and research experience. I think the majority of readers would take their expert advice, not your highly biased opinion. It supports the conclusions from all systematic reviews, a meta-analysis and randomised controlled trials. These show, consistently that male circumcision has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity or pleasure.
        Read the article, available as a free download (Abstract shown below):
        Sex Med. 2015 Jun;3(2):76-85. doi: 10.1002/sm2.67.
        Histological Correlates of Penile Sexual Sensation: Does Circumcision Make a Difference?
        Cox G 1, Krieger JN 2, Morris BJ 3.
        Author information
        1 School of Medical Sciences, Discipline of Anatomy & Histology, University of Sydney Sydney, NSW, Australia.
        2 Urology, School of Medicine, Urology VA Puget Sound Health Care System, University of Washington Seattle, WA, USA.
        3 School of Medical Sciences, Discipline of Physiology, University of Sydney Sydney, NSW, Australia.
        Abstract
        INTRODUCTION:
        The question of whether removal of sensory receptors in the prepuce by circumcision affects sensitivity and/or sexual pleasure is often debated.
        AIMS:
        To examine histological correlates relevant to penile sensitivity and sexual pleasure.
        METHODS:
        Systematic review of the scientific literature on penile structures that might affect sensitivity and sexual sensation. Articles were included if they contained original data on human male penile histology or anatomy. Individual articles, including reference lists, were evaluated. They were then considered in relation to physiological data from articles retrieved by a previous systematic review.
        RESULTS:
        We retrieved 41 publications on penile structure. Considered in the light of 12 reporting physiological measurements, our evaluation finds that sexual response is unlikely to involve Meissner’s corpuscles, whose density in the prepuce diminishes at the time of life when male sexual activity is increasing. Free nerve endings also show no correlation with sexual response. Because tactile sensitivity of the glans decreases with sexual arousal, it is unrelated to sexual sensation. Thermal sensitivity seems part of the reward mechanism of intercourse. Vibrational sensitivity is not related to circumcision status. Observations that penile sexual sensation is higher post circumcision are consistent with greater access of genital corpuscles to sexual stimuli after removal of the prepuce. This is based on the distribution of these corpuscles (which are located in the glans) and, in uncircumcised men, the position of the retracted prepuce during intercourse, rather than any change in the number of genital corpuscles. The scientific literature suggests that any sexual effect of circumcised men may depend solely on exposure of the glans and not on the absence of the prepuce.
        CONCLUSION:
        Based on histological findings and correlates of sexual function, loss of the prepuce by circumcision would appear to have no adverse effect on sexual pleasure. Our evaluation supports overall findings from physiological measurements and survey data.
        KEYWORDS:
        Circumcision; Free Nerve Endings; Genital Corpuscles; Glans Penis; Male Sexual Pleasure; Meissner’s Corpuscles; Neurophysiology; Orgasm; Penile Sensation; Prepuce; Sexual Satisfaction
        PMID: 26185672 PMCID: PMC4498824 DOI: 10.1002/sm2.67
        Free PMC Article

        Like

    • Yes, Brian Morris, I know more than an “Assoc Prof of Histology who is expert in micro-anatomy and headed the Electron Microscope Unit at the University of Sydney for decades.”

      Why? Because I am not an intellectual fraud. Any unbiased researcher would have concluded that the foreskin is packed with fine-touch, heat and pressure and vibration sensing nerve endings that enhance the sexual experience. Only a researcher biased in favor of circumcision could ever conclude that the foreskin does not have a sexual purpose.

      And as I’ve said before, all your conclusions says is circumcision “WOULD APPEAR TO HAVE NO ADVERSE EFFECT ON SEXUAL PLEASURE.”

      That’s it, Brian Morris? It “would appear?” Doesn’t sound very definitive to me. In fact, it sounds to me like intellectual fraud, which it is.

      Like

      • You misunderstand the nuanced language always used by scientists when publishing their research in journals. You clearly fail to distinguish between general nerve sensation in skin from the neuroreceptors involved in sexual sensation (genital corpuscles). The latter are in the head and underside of the penis. The foreskin does not contain these. If it did a man might experience an organism when he rubbed himself with a bath towel after showering. You clearly either do not understand or do not want to understand because the facts would undermine your devotion to the failed intactivist “cause”.

        Like

    • Did you really write that? Did you really say “You clearly fail to distinguish between general nerve sensation in skin from the neuroreceptors involved in sexual sensation (genital corpuscles).”?

      Really Brian Morris? You really believe that? That the nerve endings in the foreskin are not sexual because they are not “genital corpuscles”? Really? Really? Really?

      Is there no end to your mendacity? You think you can split the sensations sent to the brain based upon the type of nerve endings? It’s hard for me to even conceive how anyone would be so brain dead. But I know you’re not brain dead. You’re just an academic fraud.

      Let me tell you something Brian Morris – Every day when I wake up with an erection, I think that if I had a foreskin, I could masturbate by pulling my foreskin back and forth across my glans. But I don’t have a foreskin. So all I can do is jerk the taut shaft skin back and forth about a 1/2 to 1 inch, and my hand gets nowhere near my glans. I need to add lube to do that, and even then, I don’t have my foreskin, with all its nerve endings, between my hand and my glans.

      I have been deprived of my experience of life on this planet with my complete body as God designed because someone as stupid as you thought he knew better than God how to design a penis. My experience of my own body has been altered. My experience of sex has been altered. My experience of love itself has been altered. And I know what I lost.

      When you attack intactivists, it reminds me of slave-owners who condemned abolitionists because they didn’t understand that slaves are too stupid to be free and they needed someone to care for them.

      You can set a slave free. But you can never give a man back the part of his body you cut off.

      Like

      • I can understand your ignorance. You clearly have no scientific training, nor biomedical understanding. You seem to think that your personal belief trumps scientific facts. And that, if you huff and puff when you promote your false opinion, that others will believe you. Sorry gravester, but science does not work that way. Your belief is wrong. Indeed is delusional. If you opened your mind to the expert scientific knowledge published in peer reviewed journals your quality of life might improve. I feel sorry for you. It seems you have been duped by intactivist propaganda. As a result you have been adversely affected psychologically.

        Like

      • You understand my ignorance? Really Brian Morris? That’s your “go-to” argument when you can’t bury me in bullshit like many of your comments. Yes, bury them in bullshit. Write reams and reams of bullshit and quote your own studies incessantly. Like I said, you are an intellectual fraud, and your peers know it:

        “To the Editor:
        As a physician without a strong opinion about male circumcision (MC), I found the article by Morris et al1 in the May 2014 issue of Mayo Clinic Proceedings initially convincing, but on closer inspection, it is marred by bias. The authors make no mention of position statements against MC2, 3 or strong international critique of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) position,4 and they omit the AAP’s own conclusion that “health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns.”5 Ignoring this equipoise, they claim that MC benefits “vastly exceed” risks and suggest that parents who do not authorize MC are unethical and violate the rights of children. The bias does not stop there. Morris et al claim that important analyses were published since the AAP report, but the reference citations are to Morris’s own work—one article that is unavailable on PubMed and one without any references likely to affect the AAP policy. Table 4 in their article suggests the risk of penile cancer from nonreceipt of MC is 1 per 1000.1 However, the AAP notes that up to 322,000 circumcisions and 644 complications may be needed per cancer avoided—possibly more, because the rate is falling and human papillomavirus vaccination (likely to attenuate other benefits of MC) should further lower it, and, in the absence of phimosis, retention of the foreskin may be protective.2 They entirely dismiss potential harms of MC on male sexual experience, ignoring male self-report of MC harm that makes MC controversial to begin with. Is the distress of these men irrelevant? Morris has previously claimed that the statement “the foreskin has a functional role” is not “supported by research,”3 which would surely perplex many men who value or miss their foreskins. Although I do not feel strongly about MC, I do believe that any issue deserves a dispassionate review of the facts. Morris et al, who note potential “cosmetic” advantages of infant MC over adult MC while claiming correction of harelip has “no medical benefit,” did not provide a dispassionate review,1 and readers may want to consider alternative viewpoints.2, 4”

        Ian Jenkins, MD. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, Nov. 2014, Vol. 89, Issue 11.

        Like

      • On the same page, immediately after the Letter by Jenkins, you should have read our reply:
        In replydBias and Male
        Circumcision
        We thank Dr Jenkins for his letter but disagree with his comments. The position statement by the Canadian Paediatrics Society he cites is nearly 2 decades old and will shortly be replaced by a new policy1 reported to be in line with the affirmative American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) policy.2 Jenkins also refers to a dated, noneevidence-based policy placed on the Internet by the pediatrics division of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP), but then cites as a reference a withering critique of that flawed policy by Fellows of the
        RACP and other professional medical bodies that was published in an official journal of the RACP after peer review.3
        Jenkins seems unaware that the so called strong international critique of the AAP position by European doctors was convincingly rebutted by the AAP’s Task Force, who argued persuasively that cultural bias was evident in Europe, not the United States.4
        Contrary to Jenkins’ quote, the AAP concluded that “evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks,” “significant complications are rare,” and the benefits “justify access to this procedure for families who choose it.”2 The AAP also stated that “parents should weigh the health benefits and risks in light of their own religious, cultural, and personal preferences, as the medical benefits alone may not outweigh these other considerations for individual families.”2 When added to the AAP’s recommendation that there be unbiased parental education, sterile technique, adequate physician training, effective pain management, and third-party coverage, the policy is as strong a recommendation as might be possible in the current era of autonomy in which even vaccinations can be refused by parents.
        Our conclusion that benefits vastly exceed risks is based on a detailed riskbenefits analysis, not an ad hoc “claim.” Given this, it would indeed be unethical for parents to deny the right of their male children to the protection afforded by male circumcision against adverse medical conditions, some of which are quite serious or even fatal.
        The AAP report considered the literature to early 2010, meaning numerous studies were not cited, not just our own in peer-reviewed journals.
        In his discourse on penile cancer, Jenkins refers to the AAP but cites the Canadian Paediatrics Society policy. The AAP’s policy states, “909 circumcisions to prevent 1 penile cancer event” and “2 complications.for every penile cancer event avoided.”2 The study the AAP cites is of higher quality than the one Jenkins “cherry picks.” The former accords, moreover, with our 1 in 1000 figure in Table 4 for lifetime prevalence in uncircumcised males. Although the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine will help lower the rate of penile cancer, the vaccine is directed at only the 2 most common oncogenic HPV types, and only half of penile cancers contain HPV. Thus, vaccination and MC should be seen as complementary.5 Phimosis, balanitis, and smegma are also risk factors.6 It is inconceivable that “retention of the foreskin may be protective.”
        Jenkins’ claim of “potential harms of
        MC on male sexual experience” has no scientific support. Self-report is not evidence. Any “controversy” likely stems from misinformation placed on the Internet by lobby groups who dupe gullible men into believing that their sexual problems stem from their infant circumcision. A recent methodologically impeccable systematic review and meta-analysis has established that MC has no adverse effect on male sexual function, sensitivity, or satisfaction.7
        The “other viewpoints” Dr Jenkins wants us to consider have been dismissed by the AAP Task Force on Circumcision.4 Arguments used to discredit the AAP policy have been
        exposed as spurious.8
        Brian J. Morris, DSc, PhD
        University of Sydney Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
        Stefan A. Bailis, PsyD
        St Paul, MN
        Thomas E. Wiswell, MD
        Center for Neonatal Care, Orlando, FL
        1. Kirkey S. Canada’s pediatricians set to reveal new policy on circumcision. canada.com website. http:// o.canada.com/2013/03/03/canadas-pediatricians-setto- reveal-new-policy-on-circumcision/. Published March 3, 2013. Accessed August 5, 2014.
        2. American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision. Male circumcision. Pediatrics. 2012; 130(3):e756-e785.
        3. Morris BJ, Wodak AD, Mindel A, et al. The 2010 Royal Australasian College of Physicians’ policy statement ‘Circumcision of infant males’ is not evidence based. Intern Med J. 2012;42(7):822-828.
        4. Task Force on Circumcision. Cultural bias and circumcision: the AAP Task Force on circumcision responds. Pediatrics. 2013;131(4):801-804.
        5. Morris BJ, Mindel A, Tobian AA, et al. Should male circumcision be advocated for genital cancer prevention? Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2012;13(9):4839-4842
        6. Morris BJ, Gray RH, Castellsague X, et al. The strong the penis. Adv Urol. 2011;2011:812368.
        7. Morris BJ, Krieger JN. Does male circumcision affect sexual function, sensitivity, or satisfaction?da systematic review. J Sex Med. 2013;10(11):2644-2657.
        8. Morris BJ, Tobian AA, Hankins CA, et al. Veracity and rhetoric in paediatric medicine: a critique of Svoboda and Van Howe’s response to the AAP policy on infant male circumcision. J Med Ethics.
        2014;40(7):463-470.
        http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2014.09.002

        Like

      • Wrong again, Brian Morris. I did read your reply. But Ian Jenkin’s letter is more credible than your bellowing nonsense. Unethical NOT to circumcise? Wow! Where does the AAP say that?

        Like

      • Jenkins has no academic history of circumcision knowledge. The evidence in favour of infant male circumcision is now so strong that it falls into the same category as childhood vaccination. While parental consent is required for each, it would indeed be unethical not to circumcise. You should read the recent evaluation by professors of law and ethics at University of Washington:
        http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/15718182/24/2

        Like

      • I asked you Brian Morris, where does the AAP say it would be unethical not to circumcise an infant boy? I know the AAP said:

        “Physicians who counsel families about this decision should provide assistance by explaining the potential benefits and risks and ensuring that parents understand that circumcision is an elective procedure.”

        Elective procedure? Hmmmmm! That sounds like the parents get to make a choice. But where does it say it is unethical not to circumcise? Also, please direct me to the location the AAP discusses the risks of adhesions developing after the circumcision, and the pain and trauma to both the child and parent of having to rip out the adhesions over and over while the wounded penis heals, and the development of skin bridges and skin tags?

        Let me know.

        Like

      • The AAP, CDC and other medical bodies that use scientific evidence for policy development support infant male circumcision. They examined the claims by anti-circ lobby groups and dismissed them (just as they have for the claims of other extremist lobby groups such as antivaxxers, etc). Your emotive rhetoric and false claims fail to impress those in authority.

        Like

  7. You ignored a very important fact re keeping babies boy’s clean. The foreskin is naturally adhered to the glans and will separate naturally over a period of time. IT SHOULD NEVER BE FORCED BACK!!!!!
    Doing so will create just the effect where a circumcision IS required.

    Liked by 1 person

    • The main reason American parents get their baby boy circumcised is tradition, not religion. These days that choice has been proven to be a good one based on the review of all studies rated by quality undertaken by the American Academy of Paediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that found benefits exceed risks and that parents receive unbiased education early in a pregnancy in order that they can make an informed decision should they have a boy.

      Like

      • Yes.. the choice has been proven to be a good and PROFITABLE one. Let follow the money trail for a bit. The charge of the actual operation, followed by the sale of the tissue to various groups. One can understand stem cell research and skin grafts. But the beauty industry for making face cream.

        It’s also interesting that once the medical insurance industry stopped covering circumcision the number of circumcision dropped significantly. Is there a subsequent report on babies dying in their thousands due to phimosis or UTI. Research has not found that correlation..

        The American Academy is only ONE of the few groups still pushing for circumcision. Most of the European groups have decided that the harm outweigh the few benefits – which can easily be controlled without surgical intervention. The absence of mass circumcision in the European countries (where it has not been practiced for centuries) still does not show a significant rise in the above mentioned afflictions.

        Liked by 1 person

      • The main reason parents circumcise their daughters is tradition.

        Everyone knows that the AAP and the CDC are the only medical organizations that thing the “benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks.” All the other civilized countries know that is complete hogwash.

        Liked by 1 person

      • gravester fails to reveal that only the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Circumcision Academy of Australia have produced EVIDENCE-BASED policies, i.e., policies arising from an extensive, detailed evaluation of the medical evidence, with emphasis on high quality research findings. British, European and Canadian policies are fatally flawed, being opinion pieces replete with bias. The 2015 Canadian Policy was shown to be based on an erroneous risk-benefit analysis:
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27705739
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28263140

        Like

      • marcwolf1960 fails to appreciate that it is normal for doctors to be reimbursed for their work. Yes, doctors do aim to make a profit, just as any other professional or other worker. Up to 18 states stopped Medicaid coverage of parent-approved infant male circumcision in the false assumption that it would save money. Unfortunately it led to an increase in more expensive circumcisions later, not to mention, the cost of treating a wide array of medical conditions that infant male circumcision protects against. As a result of the evidence Medicaid coverage has begun to be re-instituted. See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24702735

        Like

      • Brian Morris, LMFAO! You write: “British, European and Canadian policies are fatally flawed, being opinion pieces replete with bias.” I can’t stop laughing. Of course you think those studies are fatally flawed because they disagree with your conclusion. Just as you reject the studies that show that people are more sexually satisfied with an intact partner. Just as you reject the study that found an association between circumcision and autism. Any study that finds circumcision is good, you adore. Any study that finds circumcision is bad, you abhor. Simple.

        Sorry, pal, you’re a one-trick pony who had devoted his life to perpetuating the mutilation of boys.

        Like

      • gravester seems to think that the major US medical bodies who base circumcision policy on a systematic review of the medical literature should be ignored. Instead gravester thinks policies based on navel gazing should be believed! The evidence-based policies by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control trump the opinions by UK, European and Canadian bodies. In Australia, the only evidence-based policy was produced by the Circumcision Academy of Australia: https://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=17415
        The outdated policy by the RACP is not evidence-based, as shown in a detailed critique published by a peer-reviewed RACP journal: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1445-5994.2012.02823.x/abstract
        You refer to seriously flawed “research” by Frisch in Denmark. His claims about autisms have been universally debunked by experts in the UK and elsewhere, not just by me.
        The randomised controlled trial that examined sexual satisfaction in the female partners found their preference for men after circumcision: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19522862
        Time you accepted the evidence and desisted from your foolish belief in anti-cidc/intactivist nonsense.

        Like

  8. I was destroyed by circumcision.

    There is no escaping the psychological hell it creates on the victim (other than blocking, which is fairly common among victims).

    Just making sure someone hears it. Hopefully, a young girl out there who will maybe one day have the chance to protect her newborn son.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Was there a physical reason? e.g., a botched circumcision? Or was it the psychological effect of intactivist propaganda, which can affect a minority of men with sexual problems who might be vulnerable to intactivist propaganda?

      Like

      • Circumcision is a cure desperately trying to find a disease or affliction.
        It has been brought up as a cure-all for..
        Paralysis, masturbation, excitability, HIV, premature ejaculation etc.

        If circumcision was effective at preventing HIV then all we can do is to look at the statistics of gay men dying of AIDS in the US.. and remember that the US is one of the countries that routinely circumcised infants.
        If it was such a wonder-cure then why was the morality so high.

        Liked by 1 person

      • More hogwash from Professor of Hogwash Brian Morris. This is the new line of attack against intactivists: When men commit suicide because of their circumcision, like Jonathan Conte and Kevin Cagle (“Today, I’m choosing to end my life. Why? Circumcision.”) the baby butchers, like Brian Morris, blame the messenger.

        Liked by 1 person

      • marcwolf1960 makes claims that fail to withstand scrutiny. For example, male circumcision does not prevent acquisition of HIV from receptive anal intercourse, which is the primary means of HIV infection in the USA, involving men who have sex with men (MSM). Male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection during heterosexual intercourse with an infected woman by approx. 60%. It also reduces the risk of infection in MSM who are insertive only.
        marcwold1960 refers to “morality” (a typo perhaps?), but most would agree that it is immoral to discourage a practice that can reduce infection and save lives.

        Like

      • gravestar fails to relay that the REAL reason Jonathan Conte committed suicide was infection of his thinking by intactivist propaganda. In May 2016, Jonathan Conte, who became psychologically affected and depressed after succumbing to intactivist propaganda, committed suicide [1,2]. By his own account, it is clear that while Conte was perturbed on discovering he was circumcised, he, “felt that it hadn’t impacted me. I felt that the effects of it were not significant.” It was only after he, “began to look into the procedure further, and the ramifications of removing that part of the penis, it began to really take its toll on me.” Years of depression followed. He cut off ties with his family in Florida, moved to the Bay Area of San Francisco and became very active in intactivism. His partner said he spent much of his time and money on it. In short, although initially taken aback at being circumcised (indicating a lack of education about MC and that his parents should have explained it to him), he accepted it had not had a significant effect on him. It was only after reading anti-circumcision materials (what he called looking into it further) that he became distressed and depressed over being circumcised. Had he read materials that were evidence-based he would perhaps have been less likely to have become distressed. Conte founded the “Bay Area intactivists” website, where news of his suicide appeared [3].
        1. Jonathan: Motivations of an Intactivist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUE_t_khAAI (accessed Aug 23, 2016). 2011
        2. Conte J. Jonathan Conte: Motivations of an Intactivist. Intact News. http://intactnews.org/node/134/1318099689/jonathon-conte-motivations-intactivist (accessed Aug 23, 2016). 2011
        3. Bay AI. Bay Area Intactivists. Incredibly sad news: Jonathon Conte has taken his own life. http://www.bayareaintactivists.org/node/334 (accessed Aug 23, 2016). 2016

        Like

      • Breastfeeding? Really Morris? You say there are no adverse neuropsychological consequences of circumcision based upon one study involving breastfeeding?

        What nonsense.

        Childhood trauma is associated with every mental illness in the DSM V, including, but not limited to major anxiety disorder, major depression disorder (which is why people kill themselves), bipolar disorder, paranoia, autism, psychosis and schizophrenia. You need me to cite the peer-reviewed studies, or will it just be a waste of time because none of them mention circumcision?

        Major anxiety disorder:
        http://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/S0006-3223(01)01157-X/fulltext

        Major depression disorder:
        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306453008000693

        bipolar disorder:
        http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/182/6/543.short

        psychosis and schizophrenia:
        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0447.2005.00634.x/full

        We haven’t even scratched the surface of the neuropsychological damage done to boys due to circumcision. The reason is that most of the adverse consequences do not manifest themselves for years or decades later. After puberty. When boys are becoming sexually active and all the adverse consequences begin to manifest.

        The suicides of Jonathan Conte and Kevin Kagel are just the tip of the iceberg. Here’s another one for you to consider. Ever hear of Robin Williams. He was one of the world’s most successful and talented comedian/actors in the world until he hung himself in his closet in his home in Marin County, California in 2014. His wife told the coroner’s investigator Williams had suffered from depression for most of his adult life. He had also struggled with anxiety and paranoia, but it had gotten worse in the year prior. The autopsy report notes:

        “The external genitalia are of a normal, circumcised, adult man.” Page 3. You can Google the autopsy report yourself.

        Notice that the coroner considers circumcision “normal.” That’s how twisted the American medical profession is. They can’t even identify a victim of sexual torture.

        Now maybe you can tell me how I could ever prove that Robin Williams killed himself because he was circumcised? Please Brian Morris – tell me how anyone could prove such a thing 63 years after the fact?

        Or maybe you should demand, like me, that all suicides be noted for circumcision status. And every male admitted to a mental hospital or psychiatric ward. And every male sentenced to a prison. Only when we have complete information will we be able to determine the extent of damage being done to boys.

        Until then, we’ll just keep mopping up the blood.

        Like

      • Breastfeeding was in the title, but the study covered multiple psychological outcomes. Circumcision is not a childhood trauma when performed using local anesthesia as stipulated by the AAP. Take a look at this video and tell me whether this boy is experiencing trauma while being circumcised: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1555969/Boy-plays-video-games-circumcision-surgery.html
        (Boy plays video games as he has circumcision surgery).
        A stated objective of intactivists is to try to make 600,000 men in the US miserable about having been circumcised.(NotYoursToCut 2014) The man in the photo on this web page is the late Jonathon Conte.(Conte 2011; Jonathan 2011) By his own account, it is clear that while he was perturbed on discovering he was circumcised, he “felt that it hadn’t impacted me. I felt that the effects of it were not significant.” It was only after he, ‘began to look into the procedure further, and the ramifications of removing that part of the penis, it began to really take its toll on me.’ Years of depression followed. He cut off ties with his family in Florida, moved to the Bay Area of San Francisco and became very active in intactivism. His partner said he spent much of his time and money on it. In short, although initially taken aback at being circumcised (indicating a lack of education about MC and that his parents should have explained it to him) he accepted it had not had a significant effect on him. It was only after reading anti-circumcision materials (what he called looking into it further) that he became distressed and depressed over being circumcised. Had he read materials that were evidence-based he would unlikely have become distressed. Conte founded the Bay Area intactivists’ website, where news of his suicide appears.(Bay 2016) There are other examples of the adverse impact of intactivist beliefs on a circumcised men.(Anonymous 2010; Anonymous 2013) The latter involves a young man who discovers he is circumcised and expresses resentment against his parents. Besides pseudoscientific and unfounded claims about foreskin function, the replies by intactivists include:
        • “Your parents tortured you, mutilated you and left you with a dysfunctional penis”
        • “Your penis will never work properly”
        • “You have no foreskin, a keratinized glans, and you are missing over 20,000 nerve endings from the most sensitive part of your penis.’
        • “You can never enter a woman’s vagina smoothly, nor will your penis protect her from chafing and the infections that can result from having sex with a circumcised man.’
        Comments such as these by intactivists are common and recited like a mantra. Circumcised adolescents and men are routinely told they are sexually crippled, missing the best part of their penis, robbed of 20,000 erogenous nerves and left desensitized.
        Rather than the technical literature, most of the general public turn to the Internet for their information. Unfortunately, the Internet is awash with fallacies such as the ones above, backed up with ‘cherry-picked’ references and scientific-sounding speculations passed off as fact, which most will not have the technical knowledge or training to see through.
        Such pseudoscientific tactics are reminiscent of those deployed by opponents of vaccination and those who deny HIV causes AIDS (many of whom are also intactivists). All of this is highly damaging to individuals and to public health. An article in Slate ‘How circumcision broke the Internet’ explains how, when it comes to MC, intactivists dominate the Internet, wreaking havoc.(Stern 2013)
        Earp wrote a reply to this article.(Earp) This contained the same fallacies as in his current article with Frisch, together with other distortions and an ad hominem misinformed attack on Morris.
        Intactivist propaganda is high on emotion and emphasizes ‘ethics’ and ‘autonomy,’ but low on factual content. Earp’s statement that, ‘I want to know what it feels like first hand to have all the nerve endings, to feel the gliding motion of the skin, to feel natural lubricant instead of rough dry skin,’ is reminiscent of intactivist propaganda of nerves, gliding and lubrication claims. It illustrates why parents should explain circumcision to their sons as soon as they are old enough to understand. This may prevent avoidable shocks when they are older and may be exposed to intactivist lies. Sex education classes should do the same. There is, moreover, a need for accurate information to be made available on the Internet, together with rebuttals of unsubstantiated claims by intactivist such as lubrication.
        Not all testimonials by intactivists honestly relate the personal experience of the individual. In one example, recently exposed on social media, a ‘David J Bernstein’ for years complained on the Internet that being circumcised had caused him endless misery, only for it to turn out that his real name was Christian Wimmer and that he was making it all up.(Naji 2014) He was not actually circumcised. High profile intactivist Brian Herrity defended such lying and said others were doing it too. Any commentary on intactivists complaining about being circumcised should be accompanied by a caveat that at least some of these stories are exaggerated or even completely fabricated. Moreover, if taken at face value, reports of suicidal feelings, or obsessing about the matter (as was the case for Jonathan Conte, but also others) is indicative of mental instability, which necessarily casts doubts on the reliability of their stories.
        REFERENCES:
        Anonymous A. A. (2010)). Should I hate my parents for circumcising me? Yahoo.answers https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110227140835AAsZGfE
        Anonymous A. A. (2013)). The POD delusion. http://poddelusion.co.uk/blog/2013/03/08/episode-177-8th-march-2013/ – comments
        Bay A. I. (2016)). Bay Area Intactivists. Incredibly sad news: Jonathon Conte has taken his own life. http://www.bayareaintactivists.org/node/334
        Conte J. (2011)). Jonathan Conte: Motivations of an Intactivist. Intact News. http://intactnews.org/node/134/1318099689/jonathon-conte-motivations-intactivist
        NotYoursToCut N. Y. (2014)). Notyourstocut.com. The biggest risk factor and the quickest path to change. http://notyourstocut.com/2014/12/06/the-biggest-risk-factor-and-the-quickest-path-to-change/
        Earp B. D.). An open letter to the authorof ‘How circumcision broke the Internet’. The Good Men Project. http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/an-open-letter-to-the-author-of-how-circumcision-broke-the-internet/
        Stern M. J. (2013)). How circumcision brosk the Internet. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2013/09/intactivists_online_a_fringe_group_turned_the_internet_against_circumcision.html
        Naji N. J. (2014). The case againt intactivism. https://thecaseagainstintactivism.wordpress.com/2014/08/10/thank-you-naji/

        Like

    • More hogwash from Brian Morris. He blames intactivism for Jonathan Conte’s suicide. That argument is borderline evil. Blaming the messenger because there is no way you can deny that Jonathan Conte was circumcised and he committed suicide. But even Brian Morris cannot deny that Jonathan Conte would not be dead if he had not been circumcised.

      And what about Kevin Cagle. He left a suicide not explaining “Today, I’m choosing to end my life. Why? Circumcision.” Did intactivism drive him to kill himself? Or maybe it was because he was a victim of a horrific trauma at birth that removed part of the one thing in the world that brings men the most pleasure.

      Maybe Brian Morris should do a little research into the effects of childhood trauma. Brian Morris, try doing a PubMed search for childhood trauma and mental illness. You will learn that childhood trauma is associated with every mental illness in the DSM V, including major depression disorders, major anxiety disorders, paranoia, psychosis, and schizophrenia. In fact, childhood trauma has been found to triple the chances a person will be schizophrenic.

      How many extra psychos do we have in this world because of circumcision? Men like Baruch Goldstein, Yishai Schlissel, Omar Mateen, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.

      Like

      • More ridiculous claims by gravester. All of the research published in medical journals shows no adverse effect of infant male circumcision on psychological outcomes. Read the following, although there are others as well:
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17803666
        J Paediatr Child Health. 2008 Jan;44(1-2):44-9. Epub 2007 Sep 4.
        Neonatal circumcision: effects on breastfeeding and outcomes associated with breastfeeding.

        Fergusson DM1, Boden JM, Horwood LJ.
        Author information
        Abstract
        AIM:
        There have been recurrent claims made that neonatal circumcision disrupts the development and maintenance of breastfeeding in infants. The aim of the current study was to use a longitudinal birth cohort study to examine the associations between neonatal circumcision status and both breastfeeding outcomes, and health and cognitive ability outcomes associated with breastfeeding.
        METHOD:
        Data were obtained from the Christchurch Health and Development Study, a longitudinal study of over 1000 individuals born in Christchurch New Zealand in mid 1977. Data were obtained for male cohort members (n = 635) on circumcision status, breastfeeding outcomes, health outcomes in infancy and cognitive ability outcomes later in life.
        RESULTS:
        Circumcision status was not significantly associated (P > 0.05) with breastfeeding outcomes in infancy, even following adjustment for covariate factors, including maternal age, family socio-economic status, ethnicity and birthweight. Also, circumcision status was not significantly associated (P > 0.05) with health in infancy and cognitive ability outcomes in later childhood, even after adjustment for covariate factors.
        CONCLUSIONS:
        There was no evidence of an association between neonatal circumcision status and breastfeeding outcomes, or between circumcision status and health and cognitive ability outcomes associated with breastfeeding, and the findings do not support the view that neonatal circumcision disrupts breastfeeding.

        Like

      • So Brian Morris, did you watch the entire 31 second video of the baby boy screaming? Do you think the screams are fake?

        Years ago, I attended a bris in Beverly Hills. I still remember the screams and they still haunt me. If the mohel wasn’t singing real loud the only sound in the room would have been the baby screaming. It was easily the most sickening thing I’ve ever seen, and was the moment I realized the same thing happened to me. You know that before 1978, anesthetic was rare for circumcision because the quacks thought (like many still do), that babies feel no pain and even if they do, they won’t remember it. Nice, huh?

        Did you watch the young mother talking about the adhesions her son developed? Did you hear her describe the screaming when she had to rip out the adhesions? You’re the expert, Brian Morris, how does a young mother deal with the adhesions on her son’s penis? Any suggestions?

        I’m sure you do tell yourself videos are fake and the comments of the mother invented. It helps you sleep at night.

        Like

      • I have seen Dr Terry Russell simply resolve adhesions. A parent simply has to ask the doctor, and should never do it themselves. I only advocate medical male circumcision where aesthetic is now routinely advocated. There were no screams in the video. If you were a parent as I am you would know all-out kids and screaming. A constant occurrence that parents have to get used to and deal with.

        Like

    • Okay Brian Morris, I did watch the video of the boy being circumcised while playing a video game. THAT VIDEO IS 18 SECONDS LONG!

      Is there no end to your mendacity? Where it the entire video? Where is the video of the boy six hours later when the anesthetic wears off? Where is the video of the boy the next day when the bandages are removed from his bloody penis?

      But I watched your video. Now you watch mine. It’s only 31 seconds long:

      “Baby inconsolable after circumcision”:

      LIsten carefully to the sounds of the baby’s cries from the pain of having his penis needlessly mutilated. And tell me, Brian Morris, what impact does the experience of pain have on an infant’s developing brain?

      For more fun, watch “20- Weeks Pregnant/Circumcision/My thoughts” where a young mother talks about why she would not circumcised her second son after she had her first son circumcised. This video is longer but you can skip to minute 11 for the good stuff:

      “You have to rip the skin off the head of the penis.”
      “We dealt with this for over a year.”
      “It was the worst experience I can even explain.”
      “Because every time we changed his diaper, . . . it would adhere. We would have to rip it all back.”
      “We had to do this every day for over a year. He was in so much pain. I can’t even tell you what his screams were like when we had to rip that skin back. I have so much guilt about.”
      “Why was I so stupid.”

      Like

      • I have observed infant circumcisions. With effective local anaesthesia there is no pain and no screaming. That applies afterwards as well because the nerves do not work post-circumcision.
        Your videos posted by intactivists are either ancient (no anaesthesia) or have sounds dubbed in, i.e., are fake.
        And the comments by parents also seem to be fictional.

        Like

    • Intactivists, such as Robert Goldman, have long-term psychological effects, NOT infant male circumcision.

      Like

      • “Pot calling the kettle Black” I think. Considering Prof Morris’s almost fanatical interest in promoting circumcision I wonder who does the most harm. Those who prefer not to cut.. and those who insist on the cut.

        Like

      • I am keen to promote all evidence-based interventions that improve public health. That includes anti-smoking, anti-illicit drug use, pro-seatbelt and airbags, pro high vegetable and fruit intake, anti-sugar, anti-red meat (for the health of the planet as well), pro-exercise, anti-obesity, pro-childhood vaccination and pro-infant male circumcision. It is amazing that in this day and age that anyone could oppose any of these very sensible public health interventions.

        Like

      • There you go again Brian Morris. Blaming those trying to put a stop to the sexual torture of infants by claiming they are at fault for the adverse neuropsychological consequences of strapping a baby boy to a circumstraint and skinning him alive.

        The beginning of wisdom is calling things by their proper names: Circumcision is sexual torture.

        Liked by 1 person

      • gravester — as the name suggests — seems more interested in putting people in the grave than trying to protect their health. It is utterly ridiculous to call male circumcision “sexual torture” when the opposite is the case, as supported by the consensus of strong medical evidence. All that intactivists such as gravester have left is outrageous lies and emotive propaganda. They are a menace to public health.

        Like

      • Methinks.. Brian Morris – upon finding his own circumcised status – was so devastated that he decided not to depose the practice.. but to democratically try and bring all other males down to his level.

        Like

      • How utterly ridiculous marcwold1960. What you say is desperate. The anti-cidc (intactivist) “cause” has been lost. Time for you to find another cause, one that might actually improve the health of all, not the opposite!

        Like

  9. Great article! All children, regardless of gender, culture or parental religion, have a fundamental right to keep all their healthy, functional genitalia. Since an infant is incapable of religious beliefs, imposing an irreversible body alteration on him violates the freedom to choose his own religion as an adult. It differs from education, which can be changed. My body belongs to me!

    Like

    • No religious reason is needed to support circumcision of boys. Just as childhood vaccination, the health benefits are massive. Vaccination and male circumcision save lives and reduce suffering. Benefits of newborn male circumcision start straight away with a 10-fold reduction in risk of urinary tract infection over the first year, accumulating to a 5-fold reduction over the lifetime, where 1 in 3 uncircumcised males suffer a UTI compared with only 1 in 12 circumcised males. Circumcision eliminates the risk of phimosis and paraphimosis, greatly reduces risk of balanitis, balanoposthitis, lichen sclerosis, penile cancer, prostate cancer, cervical cancer in the female sexual partners, HIV, high-risk (cancer-causing HPV), genital herpes, syphilis, canchroid, trichomonas, mycoplasma genitalium, candida, and inferior hygiene accompanied by a could genital odour. Sexual function, sensation and pleasure are all the same or better in a circumcised male. The circumcision procedure is very low risk and there are no long-term complications. The scientific evidence in favour is now overwhelming, which is why it has been endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American College of Obstetrics and Gtnecology, the World Health Organisation, the Gates Foundation, the World Bank and all other organisations that support evidence-based policy development.

      Like

    • More hogwash from Brian Morris. You claim there is no religious reason to support circumcision of boys, but you in fact know that jews and muslims only circumcise their boys for religious and cultural reasons. There was never, in thousands of years, any medical reason for the procedure. Those reasons were dreamt up to rationalize a barbaric torture ritual that has been condemned by civilized societies for thousands of years.

      As for the medical benefits, they are complete hogwash. You do not amputate healthy tissue from unconsenting patients to prevent an illness the child may never encounter. And you don’t amputate a health foreskin to prevent a urinary tract infection. How can you ever write such nonsense. The rest of the civilized world has already pointed out the stupidity of such an argument.

      All of the organizations you claim endorse the procedure are all fundamentally biased in favor of this barbaric procedure.

      I also will note that you deny that an infant has the human right to experience life on earth with the body designed by his creator. You dismiss this right for one simple reason – If the child has the right to his intact body, you lose. It’s game over for the circumcisers. That’s the only reason you argue children do not have the right to genital integrity. How despicable can you get?

      Like

      • It is likely that circumcision was used to prevent foreskin inflammation, phimosis and other problems especially in hot sandy environments such as would have been experienced by many human populations worldwide. The intervention became part of the culture and even the religion of some of these people. That is why circumcision is so common is diverse human populations from the Middle east to Australian indigenous people.
        Doctors inject children with vaccines to prevent diseases. Same with circumcision of boys to prevent disease.
        All evidence-based policies on male circumcision support the procedure. That includes not juts the AAP, CDC and CAA, but the WHO, UNAIDS, etc, etc.
        You seem to be religious, referring to a “creator”. This illustrates your rejection of science and the enormous benefits scientific knowledge has brought to humanity. That includes modern understanding of infant male circumcision.

        Like

    • More hogwash from Brian Morris. Your explanation of circumcision resulting from “hot, sandy environments” is nothing more than rationalizations dreamt up by people trying to defend a sadistic sexual torture ritual. It has nothing to do with health and never did until the civilized people int he world tried to put a stop to the barbaric practice.

      If foreskins are so horrible, why don’t we circumcise goats, dogs, horses, and yes, camels too? They live in the desert.

      Like

      • During World War II, particularly during the North African desert campaign, the combination of sand and lack of hygienic conditions proved disastrous to uncircumcised men. The loss of these soldiers to active duty in combat areas resulted in prophylactic circumcision being performed on many recruits at training centers. A World War II medical report from the U.S. Army referred to the “enormous man-hour loss from disease peculiar to the uncircumcised man,” and stated that “hospital admission from paraphimosis, phimosis, balanitis and condyloma accuminata during 1942 – 1945 totaled 146,793. Had these patients been circumcised before induction, this total would probably have been close to zero”. A similar though less well-documented loss to active duty occurred in uncircumcised servicemen in Operation Desert Storm during the Gulf War. (http://ww2f.com/threads/circumcision-the-operation-that-wins-the-war.7600/)
        Male circumcision was also practiced in Europe in the Paleolithic, 38,000-11,000 BCE
        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0090429509000831
        It looks like your denial is, once again, questionable!

        Like

      • World War II? Really Brian Morris.

        Did you really just refer me to a page that quotes Edgar J. Schoen? Really Brian Morris?

        I always knew you were an intellectual hack and a fraud, but that one takes the cake. Your mendacity is nauseating.

        Here’s a quote on the page you linked:

        “As for the Germans and British, I’ve never heard of any “equipment” failures of this sort from either of those sides. Clicking on the original link to the story I notice that it is produced by a pro-circumcision website and the specific part about WWII is not provided with any citations. Frankly, I’m about as convinced of the validity of this story as I am that Hitler’s still sipping pina coladas down in Argentina.”

        Brian Morris, you are a world-class fraud.

        Like

      • Edgar Schoen was Professor of Pediatrics and has published widely in the field of infant male circumcision.

        Perhaps you would prefer the superior knowledge of Cox:

        Why Circumcision: From Prehistory to the Twenty-First Century:
        https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4471-2858-8_21

        And for the military issue, this comment too might be of interest:

        Like

  10. As a European I feel the need to point it out: Male genital mutilation has never ever been part of euopean culture. We haven’t stoped practicing it because WE HAVE NEVER EVER PRACTICED this barbaric cruel ritual. It has no health benefits whatsoever. It is genital mutilation and child abuse. A world wide ban on it is well overdue!

    Like

    • Unfortunately for you and other Europeans who might think the same, the health benefits to males of all ages and their female sexual partners when mature, are massive, reduce adverse medical conditions and save lives by protecting against penile, prostate and cervical cancer and deaths from HIV/AIDS and syphilis. Infant male circumcision is a simple, quick, low risk, safe procedure with no adverse consequences on sexual function, sensitivity and pleasure, if anything the reverse. It is definitely NOT “mutilation”. Go to http://www.pubmed.com for the thousands of scientific studies that support what I am saying.

      Like

      • Brian, I would like to give you a report from Sweden. It is not offered to parents here, no one is asking for it and foreskin problems are virtually unheard of at all ages. Please stop promoting genital surgery on healthy infants, you only make a fool of yourself.

        Like

      • Those who deny the medical evidence that now overwhelmingly supports the benefits of male circumcision, especially when performed in infancy, are akin to those who deny the health benefits of childhood vaccination, climate change deniers, pro-gun lobbyists, opponents of water fluoridation and others who live in the dark ages. The world has moved on. About time deniers in northern Europe did the same when it comes to male circumcision. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/452630/circumcision-good-womens-health

        Like

  11. No buddy you are wrong! I am a medic myself coming from a medical dynasty I know exactly what I am talking about. This whole health benefits fairytale is a complete lie as it is. Penile cancer is one of the most rare of all cancers in the human body and whether or not someone is mutilated has no effect on it whether they are going to get it or not. It is down to genetics. The only penile cancer patient I have seen in my whole life was a philipino who got mutilated as a baby. The cervical cancer claim has been debated several times btw a mutilated men can get with HPV too and can pass it on…
    Btw if genital mutilation has such great benefits why don’t you try to convince women to get themselves mutilated? The labias are about 3x bigger skinfold compared to the male foreskin they produce smegm just like men do on top of that blood, urine, the excrete of the Bartholin glands provide excellent milieu for patogenic bacterias and fungi. HPV can also happily thrive there.. So why are you so obsessed about mutilating only men? Why do you think that men don’t deserve the same rights as women?
    HIV claim… The last so called study that was done to promote male genital mutilation has failed despite the fact that they have manipulated it badly. They had to terminate it because despite all of their efforts the infection rate was getting higher and higher in the mutilated group so they started to mutilate the control group too to cover up.
    Saying that MGM is simple and low risk is a barefaced lie! Yes it has significant impact on sensitivity too.
    How come that despite fact that in the 80’s when almost all sexually active american men were genitaly mutilated HIV / AIDS took most of its victimes in america? Btw till these days we have less infected than america.

    Long story short MY BODY IS MINE! ONLY MINE! NOBODY I MEAN ABSOLUTELY NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO MAKE SUCH AN INTIMATE AND PERSONAL DECISION ABOUT MY BODY!!!! What part of this do you not understand?
    ‘Doctors’ like you are a huge shame and insult on the medical profession.

    Like

    • You need to go back to medical school and catch up. The scientific evidence disproves your personal opinion. We live in the era of evidence-based medicine, not opinion-based medicine nor ignorance-based medicine. You also fail to understand that female labia are the embryological equivalent of the scrotum, whereas the female equivalent of the foreskin is the clitoral hood, that too can suffer from phimosis and its medical removal has been used in the past to alleviate sexual difficulties in women, improving enjoyment: http://www.circlist.com/glossaryfemale/f-anatdetail/femcirc.html

      Just as childhood vaccination, the health benefits are massive. Vaccination and male circumcision save lives and reduce suffering. Benefits of newborn male circumcision start straight away with a 10-fold reduction in risk of urinary tract infection over the first year, accumulating to a 5-fold reduction over the lifetime, where 1 in 3 uncircumcised males suffer a UTI compared with only 1 in 12 circumcised males. Circumcision eliminates the risk of phimosis and paraphimosis, greatly reduces risk of balanitis, balanoposthitis, lichen sclerosis, penile cancer, prostate cancer, cervical cancer in the female sexual partners, HIV, high-risk (cancer-causing HPV), genital herpes, syphilis, canchroid, trichomonas, mycoplasma genitalium, candida, and inferior hygiene accompanied by a could genital odour.

      Sexual function, sensation and pleasure are all the same or better in a circumcised male. The circumcision procedure is very low risk and there are no long-term complications.

      The scientific evidence in favour is now overwhelming, which is why it has been endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American College of Obstetrics and Gtnecology, the World Health Organisation, the Gates Foundation, the World Bank and all other organisations that support evidence-based policy development.

      The benefits of infant male circumcision exceed the risks by over 100 to 1. Over their lifetime, half of uncircumcised males suffer a medical condition caused by their foreskin. See article in Mayo Clin Proc in 2014:
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24702735
      and recent article in World J Clin Pediatr
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28224100

      Many men will die as a result of their foreskin, as will their sexual partners …. from genital cancers, HIV/AIDS and syphilis.

      The benefits of male circumcision to women are substantial, and along with cosmetic appearance, hygiene, better sex with less pain, and lower risk of disease and infection is why women prefer a circumcised male partner:
      http://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(17)30386-8/fulltext
      THE LANCET Global Health Volume 5, No. 11, e1054–e1055, November 2017
      Effect of male circumcision on risk of sexually transmitted infections and cervical cancer in women

      Given the benefits and very low risks early infant male circumcision is in many ways similar to vaccinations. In fact, it would be unethical now not to recommend the procedure to parents of baby boys: http://www.circinfo.net/pdfs/Rivin_IntJChildrensRights_2016.pdf

      Multiple large systematic reviews and a meta-analysis have shown that circumcision has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensation or sexual pleasure. See systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the USA, Denmark, Australia and China, all published in peer-reviewed journals:

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=morris+bj+2013+sexual

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=tian+circumcision+meta-analysis

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=circumcision+2016+dan+med+j

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28653427

      Men circumcised as sexually experienced adults report better sex after being circumcised. This was the finding of two large high quality randomized controlled trials in Africa and Central America:
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=krieger+2008+circumcision
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28258953

      Sexual sensation resides in the head of the penis, not the foreskin:
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=cox+g+2015+circumcision

      All well-designed unbiased research studies, including high quality randomized controlled trials, find that the overwhelming majority of women prefer a circumcised man for sexual activity and pleasure.

      A study of 1.4 million males by CDC researchers found adverse events from infant circumcision in the USA to be 0.4%, virtually all being minor and easily treated with complete resolution.

      Failure to recommend circumcision is akin to failure to recommend vaccination.
      http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/15718182/24/2

      The reader is advised to consult PubMed or reputable sources such as the website of the Mayo Clinic for reliable advice, not anti-circ websites and opinion pieces that appear in the lay news media.

      Brian Morris, Professor Emeritus in Medical Sciences, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney

      Like

  12. I do know what the labia is. The argument wasn’t what it is. I said it is a ca 3 times bigger skinfold where patogenic micobes can happily grow so if you are so keen on mutilating boys to reduce the number of microbes on their penises then you should consider the same for girls for the same reason. I did not argued what the labias are equal to in men…
    You are arrogant, ignorant and full of Bullshit. I am not waisting any more time on you.

    Like

    • Good riddance. Your emotive, irrational, unscientific contributions will not be missed.

      Like

      • Good riddance to references written by the author, promoted by the author and/or friends of the author.

        Talk about circular back patting.

        Like

      • The world of science is against you. I only 94 academic publications on male circumcision, but there are several thousand in total. Virtually all attest to the benefits and very low risk. That makes infant male circumcision akin to childhood vaccination. These days it would be unethical to deny either of these powerful public health interventions.
        How about you read this systematic review then, published in the Danish Medical Journal by Danish researchers.
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=circumcision+2016+dan+med+j

        It reached the same conclusion twosystematic reviews and a meta-analysis by researchers in China, which is also a non-circumcising country:
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=tian+circumcision+meta-analysis
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28653427

        and by my own systematic review in the world’s top sexual medicine journal:
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=morris+bj+2013+sexual

        The anti-circ/intactivist “cause” is a lost one. The scientific evidence has prevailed over the fallacies and propaganda desperately promoted by the extremists with an agenda.

        Like

      • Something interesting about those links and references.

        Most of them are from the NCBI which is the “US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health” US being one of the few countries that seem to vigorous fight for circumcision. Why only one for the Lancet, and none from other countries that do not promote circumcision.

        Now lets consider the authors of these linked articles. Oh – to my surprise (not..) Most of them were authored by Morris BJ. Several by his good friends with whom he co-authored Krieger JN, and C Cox.

        Talk about circular references of people patting each other on the back.

        C Cox expertise seems to be in Microscopy.. which is some distance from Neonatal care.

        Krieger JN likeswise writes a lot about circumcision – but at least his qualification are in the area of Urology.. Something that neither of the other two author are.

        For 3 odd articles referred note that ‘Further study should be done” and ‘Although the reduction of sensitivity may be in doubt” does not push concept of mass circumcision.

        Australia Physicians say
        https://www.racp.edu.au/docs/default-source/advocacy-library/circumcision-of-infant-males.pdf

        “After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand. However it is reasonable for parents to weigh the benefits and risks of circumcision and to make the decision whether or not to circumcise their sons. ”

        Like

      • The RACP’s policy is almost a decade out of date. It would have been worse if I hadn’t tried to correct the errors. The committee did not agree with the chairperson, a paediatric gastoenterolgist no less! He was reprimanded by the RACP for multiple breaches of procedure. The RACP’s policy was a web placement, lacking peer review by a medical journal. A critique of the policy was published in a peer-reviewed official journal of the RACP. I suggest you read it: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1445-5994.2012.02823.x/abstract
        Your understanding of NCBI’s pubmed.com service is pitiful. NCBI merely assembles publications — from just about every journal worldwide, NOT merely articles published in the US and presents them on the pubmed.com website.
        I think it is time you moved on and thereby avoid embarrassing yourself any further.

        Like

      • I believe the common term we are both looking for is.. Quid Quo Pro

        Like

  13. Whitout knowing it himself, Brian Morris is probably the Intactivist Movement´s greatest asset. His claims are rejected by every Medical body around the World, not even the AAP or Mayo Clinic states that there are convincing Medical evidence for routine infant circumcision. If you compare USA where 80% of males are cut to Scandinavia where non religious circumcision is zero, you will find that the rate of diseases that circumcision is supposed to prevent are significantly lower in Scandinavia. Face it Brian, strapping down a healthy new-born baby boy to a circumstraint, stimulete his penis to be erect and put clamps on it is sexual perversion, not medicine.

    Like

    • So then, why did the Mayo Clinic invited me to write an article in Mayo Clinic Proceedings on the new AAP infant circumcision policy? See: http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(14)00036-6/abstract
      The AAP and the Mayo Clinic both have affirmative evidence-based statements on infant male circumcision. No European country or medical body in Europe has even attempted to develop an evidence-based policy on male circumcision. And as for your statement that circumcision rate in Scandinavia is zero, well then that if disproven even by Denmark’s fanatical anti-circ activist Morten Frisch! The non-religious circumcisions are mostly in Lutheran and atheist Danish males, no doubt mostly for penile problems caused by their foreskin. You also seem unaware of the high incidence of foreskin problems in Denmark, as revealed by Sneppen et al at University Hospital of Copenhagen: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/early/2016/04/04/peds.2015-4340.full.pdf
      And that study did not capture the various diseases attributable to possession of a foreskin, even one that is not suffering from inflammation, phimosis or paraphimosis.
      I am a medical scientist and do not perform circumcisions. But I am very familiar with the medical literature on male circumcision.
      It is time that Scandinavia accepted the strong medical evidence in favour of infant male circumcision (IMC) and instituted evidence-based affirmative IMC policies such as the AAP and CDC have in the USA.

      Like

      • Brian, please stop it. What I wrote was that parents and doctors in Scandinavia, unlike USA, don´t mutilate new-born baby boys. You are going to have a hard time changing that. Regarding Professor Morten Frisch of Seruminstitutet, University of Copenhagen, he sure can answer for himself, just want to remind you that he is a World renown expert on Sexual Health and Disiease Prevention with highest possible credibitlity in those fields. His opinion on infant circumcision is mainstream while you stand all alone in your nihilistic extremism.

        Like

      • Frisch is only “mainstream” in Scandinavia. Elsewhere he is a joke. Did you hear the interview on BBC radio in which a Professor of Sexual Health Medicine rubbished his research from a clinical expert viewpoint?
        Frisch’s other claim of that infant male circumcision causes autism-spectrum disorder his been ridiculed, the fatal flaws in his work have been exposed, his misunderstanding of the field generally, his emotive bias, and of course a comparison with Wakefield who fuelled the anti-vaccination “cause” by claiming via fraudulent “research” that childhood vaccination causes autism, leading to many deaths and much suffering in the UK and elsewhere. Frisch is a propagandist, not a person who approaches his research with an objective, dispassionate frame of mind.I recommend you read the following:
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=morris+CDC’s+Male+Circumcision+Recommendations+Represent+a+Key+Public+Health+Measure

        Your emotive totally fallacious use of “mutilate” to refer to male circumcision shows just how out of touch you are with reality. The true mutilation is to leave the foreskin in place where it will cause penile damage and disease. As just one example, you might like to read this recent research study:

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29016638

        PLoS One. 2017 Oct 10;12(10):e0185917. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0185917. eCollection 2017.
        Penile coital injuries in men decline after circumcision: Results from a prospective study of recently circumcised and uncircumcised men in western Kenya.
        Westercamp N1, Mehta SD1, Jaoko W2, Okeyo TA3, Bailey RC1.
        Author information
        1 Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America.
        2 Department of Medical Microbiology, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya.
        3 Nyanza Reproductive Health Society, Kisumu, Kenya.
        Abstract
        BACKGROUND: 
        Penile coital injuries are one of the suggested mechanisms behind the increased risk of HIV among uncircumcised men. We evaluated the prevalence and correlates of self-reported penile coital injuries in a longitudinal community-based cohort of young (18-24 years old), newly circumcised and uncircumcised men in Western Kenya.
        METHODS: 
        Self-reported penile coital injuries were assessed at baseline, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months of follow-up, and were defined as scratches, cuts or abrasions during sex, penile soreness during sex, and skin of the penis bleeding during sex. Associations between penile coital injuries, circumcision, sexual satisfaction, and other covariates were estimated with mixed effect models.
        RESULTS: 
        Between November 2008 and April 2010 3,186 participants were enrolled (1,588 into circumcision group and 1,598 as age-matched controls). Among 2,106 (66%) participants sexually active at baseline, 53% reported any penile injury, including 44% scratches, cuts or abrasions; 32% penile pain/soreness; and 22% penile bleeding. In multivariable modeling, risk was lower for circumcised men than uncircumcised men for scratches, cuts and abrasions (aOR = 0.39; 95% CI 0.34-0.44); penile pain/soreness (aOR = 0.58; 95% CI 0.51-0.65), penile bleeding (aOR = 0.53; 95% CI 0.46-0.62), and any penile coital injuries (aOR = 0.47; 95%CI 0.42-0.53). Other significant risk factors included increasing age, history of STIs and genital sores, and multiple sex partners, while condom use was protective. Coital injuries were significantly associated with lower levels of sexual satisfaction in longitudinal analyses (scratches, cuts or abrasions: aOR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.76-0.98; penile pain/soreness: aOR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.72-0.93; and penile bleeding: aOR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.55-0.76).
        CONCLUSIONS: 
        Self-reported penile coital injuries were common and decreased significantly following circumcision. Improving sexual experience through the removal of a potential source of sexual discomfort may resonate with many men targeted for circumcision services. The role of penile coital injuries in sexual satisfaction, HIV, HSV-2, and as a motivator for seeking circumcision services should be explored further.
        PMID: 29016638
        DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0185917
        Free full text

        Like

  14. Thank you Per, that is what I was trying to communicate.

    Like

  15. The wast majority of european males are intact and don’t feel the need to get mutilated because they don’t have any problem with their foreskins. Even if few idiots follow the american fashion it doesn’t mean that you could talk about big numbers. Btw if someone as an adult is stupid enough to undergo this absolutely needless surgery that is THEIR DECISION ABOUT THEIR BODY. This doesn’t mean that you and your friends can start mass mutilating babies who are incapable to defend themselves. ONCE AGAIN MY BODY IS MINE AND ONLY I CAN MAKE A DECISION ABOUT IT AT ANY AGE! No doctor no judge no relegious leader no parents absolutely nobody else has any right to make such a personal decision for anybody.
    Europe’s evidence is the fact the majority of us is whole, intact and perfectly happy this way. And our infection rates are lower than america’s. You can bring your false claims and statistics it doesn’t change anything you just make yourself looking even more ridiculous. The more I read your comments the more I see how totally out of touch you are. You want to look very scientific but when you claim that women prefer mutilated penises and when you claim that MGM can prevent any kind of cancer or HIV you just prove right the opposite of it. You are desperate to advocate and defend something than is completely undefendable and unacceptable in modern medicine. You are a real embarrassment for the medical profession.

    Like

    • Please desist with the mindless rhetoric Olaf. Male circumcision is **NOT** mutilation. A mutilated penis is a penis that has undergone surgery for penile cancer, a disease seen almost exclusively in uncircumcised men. Over their lifetime 1 in 1,000 uncircumcised men will get penile cancer. Treatment can include partial or complete removal of the penis. You are free to remain uncircumcised, just as you are free to get penile cancer. You are also free to get prostate cancer, oncogenic HPV, HIV, syphilis, genital herpes, trichomonad, chancroid, mycoplasma genitalium, candida, balanitis, balanoposthitis, phimosis, paraphimosis, urinary tract infections and other medical problems that are all much higher or only seen in uncircumcised males over their lifetime. You female sexual partner, having chosen to have sexual intercourse with an uncircumcised man, is free to increase her risk of cervical cancer, chlamydia (causing pelvic inflammatory disease, pelvic pain and infertility), and other STIs. No wonder that all research except that of Frisch in Denmark and by intactivists shows that women prefer a man who is circumcised: better appearance, better hygiene, lower risk of infection, and better, less painful, sex.

      Like

  16. Dear Brian, IT IS MUTILATION! Removing a healthy and functional body tissue IS MUTILATION! End of argument.
    They way you are trying to fight people in order to convince them is ridiculous and completely unprofessionell. European males are intact and happy the way they are. If we had all those problems you just listed do you really think that we would just sit and wait? Our only Problem is that people like you think that we have a problem.
    The prevalence of penile cancer is extremely low. The lowest of all kind of cancers in the human body. Whether you get it or not is down to genetics and has nothing to do with ones MGM Status.
    Most UTI is treatable with antibiotics exactly the way it is treated in females.
    Since the infamous ‘study’ in Malawi the number of newly infected males rocketed. These men got mutilated during this ‘study’ but somehow HIV doesn’t know that these people supposed to be protected against HIV.
    I can’t wait to read how MGM could protect against ingrown toenails….

    Like

    • You and other Scandinavians are living in denial. The medical evidence does not support your claims.
      Penile cancer (at 1 in 1,000 uncircumcised) is uncommon, but NOT rare. There are numerous other cancers that are rare. Penile cancer is NOT “The lowest of all kind of cancers in the human body.” And any medical expert will confirm the medical literature that unequivocally demonstrates that being uncircumcised is one of the highest risk factors. Another is smoking, a practice that Europeans have been very slow to reduce, unlike the rest of the developed world.
      You misunderstand that in areas where male circumcision has increased, treatment of those already infected has also increased, so of course more people will be living with HIV. You have to understand the “big picture”. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the large scale male circumcision programs continue to be extremely effective in reducing the number of men becoming infected with HIV. Less infected men also means fewer infected women.
      Time you read the medical literature. You could start by doing a search on pubmed.com using the keyword “circumcision”.

      Like

  17. Real life supports the fact that having a foreskin doesn’t mean any kind of disadvantage. I don’t know any men who would want to get mutilated but I know good few americans who are suffering physically and mentally because some ignorant doctor semi-god mutilated them without their consent.
    If MGM was able to protect against HIV the US wouldn’t have the problem they have. Their infection rate is the highest in the western world. That by itself says everything. The only thing that can protect against HIV is education, responsible behaviour and condom. MGM not only cannot protect against HIV but it gives a false sense of security and encourages irresponsible behaviour.

    Like

    • You obviously have no understanding of epidemiology. If you did then you would not have embarrassed yourself with the ignorant comments you made. “Real life” does not trump epidemiology as medical evidence. All you have are anecdotes of your friends, which is meaningless. Even worse you refer to men duped by anti-circ propaganda into believing their sexual problems have something to do with their infant circumcision. Completely untrue, as shown by the large number of high quality research studies I have cited on this comments facility. As for HIV in the USA, that country was one of the first to experience HIV after Africa, via Haiti, and most infections are in men who have sex with men. Obviously circumcision does not prevent HIV infection from receptive anal intercourse. I support education, behaviour, condoms and circumcision. In any public health campaign ALL effective measures are promoted to reduce infections, not just a few. Circumcision is as effective as condoms when used consistently. But, like seat-belts to reduce fatalities in road accidents, condoms are partially protective ONLY when used consistently. In contrast, circumcision is a kin to airbags, which are always in place.
      Like I said, time you studied the medical literature. …. not the trip posted online by anticirc/intactivist propagandists.
      I suggest you start with this one:
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=morris+bj+aids+care+circumcision

      Like

  18. I Think that every one who follows this thread is apalled by by the agressiveness of former Professor Brian Morris.. I repeat, your views have been rejected by every Medical body around the World including USA, where infant circumcision is considered cosmetic or social surgery and not essential for the well-being of boys or men.

    Like

    • Your misinformation fools no-one except those who have swallowed the lies of the inactivity “cause”. I am simply the messenger. You and your friends cannot change the medical evidence, nor can you alter the path of history as health bodies and governments progressively embrace the strong proven benefits and apply such knowledge as policies for the good of humanity.

      Like

      • Brain Morris, I’m still waiting for you to explain why men seem to have difficulty living in the desert with their nasty foreskins but camels, goat, dogs and horses seem to do just fine. I don’t get it, Brian Morris. What is wrong with men – at the top of the intelligence scale, but they can’t seem to keep their penises clean when a dog can. Maybe it’s because a dog can lick his penis? LMFAO!

        And what about women? How can they live in the desert with their filthy genitalia? They’ve got more nooks and crannies than men? How do they survive in such filth? Maybe they should be circumcised too?

        Like

      • Read Guy Cox’s expert review on the history of male circumcision for all of the answers you seek:
        https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4471-2858-8_21
        Why Circumcision: From Prehistory to the Twenty-First Century

        Like

      • Ok Brian.
        Here is my empirical evidence that Circumcision does reduce sexual sensation.
        There are two ways to gather evidence like this. The first is to run large studies and use ‘non sexual’ techniques like touch receptors. Histology reports etc.
        Or you can go to the best whore house in town and ask the Madam which guys are easiest to get off. Circumcised or Non. Remember – she is in the business of getting guys off and every lay is money and the faster she can get the guy in and out means more money. She has a vested interest.

        As for myself. ‘Ahem’ I am a gay male in my early 60’s. I have a fetish that I am not that proud of but I enjoy (Very much like your own circum-fetish). You see I love to give oral sex to guys.
        I came out from the UK in the mid to late 60’s. And at that time the trend for circumcision was dropping of so I am intact.
        It also ties in well with the same events in Australia where circumcision was very common. When I hit puberty I found what I enjoyed.. and likewise found that my friends enjoyed receiving it. As teen boys are generally oversexed and the offer of a sexual activity with no requirement to return the same – I got a lot of experience with different males.

        I never needed to use a lubricant for masturbation – but often my friends did. This would indicate that the rolling action of the foreskin plus it’s various nerves is a vital part of male stimulation. Without them on my partners I found that it took longer for me to bring a circumcised male to climax than an intact. This also correlated to the degree of remaining skin. Those who still had a full foreskin were easiest, those with a ‘low cut’ were next, and finally ‘high cuts’ where all the foreskin plus frenulum had been removed took the longest to bring to climax.

        Also of interest were the various degree’s of ‘issues’ my friends had. Skin tags, tightness of the shaft skin due to too much being removes, or scrotal skin being pulled up the shaft during arousal. Also there were a number of different scar shapes and ‘nicks’ to the edge of the glans. This went well beyond the diversity of penes – but indicated a surgical accident.

        Although I continually refined my techniques through the years it was not until the past 15 years or so when the younger generation of gay men started to explore their sexuality. Here I found most of them to be intact, and as such much easier to bring to climax. Those that were circumcised generally took longer and involved some level of ‘thrusting’. Intact guys did not seem to need this level of stimulation infact one could bring an intact guy to climax just by stimulating the frenar band ( edge of the foreskin) and not retracting.
        Yes – there were some guys with phimosis – however creams and manual manipulation was able to cure this. Worse case required a dorsal slit but that did not require the full remove of the foreskin.

        Cleanliness – most intact guys kept themselves clean however as the natural glands were still working they did have a musky scent. This was due to pheromone production and had nothing to do with hygiene. The few women I have been with likewise generate a sexual scent during arousal.
        The very few guys that I found with larger quantities of smegma either did not know how to clean properly (spit and a hanky worked and instruction for future reference) or that the build-up was a personal choice.

        So – that is my evident that circumcison reduces sexual function.

        Like

      • I agree that the foreskin might assist masturbation as it would substitute for the moist vagina.

        Like

      • Brian Morris,

        You wrote:

        “Read Guy Cox’s expert review on the history of male circumcision for all of the answers you seek:
        https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4471-2858-8_21
        Why Circumcision: From Prehistory to the Twenty-First Century

        I clicked on your link and guess what I found! The article was written by Guy Cox and YOU! Whoo Hoo! Citing to yourself again!

        LMFAO! I asked you a simple question: Why don’t dogs, goats, horses and camels have to be circumcised in the desert? A simple question that you should be able to answer since YOU WROTE THE ARTICLE!

        But I did try to read the article you wrote but I have to pay $149 for the eBook, or $29. 95 for the chapter.

        Thanks, but I ain’t sending you one dime! It was a rhetorical question anyway intended to prove the absurdity of your comments.

        There is nothing unhealthy about a man’s foreskin. Every male mammal on the planet is born with a sheath on his penis. Your demonization of this essential part of a man’s anatomy is nothing more than a symptom of your mental illness. Yes, Brian Morris, you are the one who is mentally ill. You suffer from a delusion disorder known as circumcision. It’s very common.

        Like

      • You can read Guy Cox’s history of circumcision on this web page: http://www.circlist.com/history/history.html
        Seems that when you are proven wrong your comeback is slander to the person who communicates the facts. Guy Cox wrote the book chapter. My role was minor. Neither of us received a single cent for our invited contribution to the book.
        I have no interest in foreskins on domestic or wild mammals.

        Like

  19. Sounds like someone is in a desperate need of a good and very patient psychiatrist….

    Like

  20. You should be treated exactly the way you think it is acceptable to treat helpless children who can’t defend themselves against monsters like you.

    Like

    • Do children need defending against doctors with needles who will inject them, causing fear and pain. No! Same with infant male circumcision. In each case massive health benefits and extremely low risk.
      Circumcision is trivial and painless with local anaesthetic. This video attests to this:
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1555969/Boy-plays-video-games-circumcision-surgery.html
      Boy plays video games as he has circumcision surgery

      Like

      • Circumcision is trivial and painless? There you go with your 18 second video of a boy playing a video game while his body is mutilated. But where is the complete video – start to finish? And I’m wondering if the sound has been altered because I think I can hear screaming in the background.

        You are intentionally lying about the pain involved during circumcision. Even assuming that anesthetics are used during the procedure, no one knows how much pain an infant experiences during the procedure. The AAP knows this and you should too.

        In January, 2016, the AAP issued it’s “Prevention and Management of Procedural Pain in the Neonate: An Update” – COMMITTEE ON FETUS AND NEWBORN and SECTION ON ANESTHESIOLOGY AND PAIN MEDICINE.

        It says:

        “[T]here are major gaps in knowledge regarding the most effective way to prevent and relieve pain in neonates, proven and safe therapies are currently underused for routine minor, yet painful procedures.”

        “Despite recommendations from the AAP and other experts, neonatal pain continues to be inconsistently assessed and inadequately managed.”

        “[T]he effective management of pain in the neonate remains problematic because of the inability of the infant to report his or her own pain and the challenges of assessing pain in extremely premature, ill, and neurologically compromised neonates.”

        You get it? Doctors don’t know how much pain an infant experiences during medical procedures. But that wasn’t enough for the AAP to re-think it’s position of needless circumcision of baby boys. Nope. Not even for a second.

        And don’t forget:

        “The use of pharmacologic treatments for pain prevention and management in neonates continues to be hampered by the paucity of data on the short- and long-term safety and efficacy of these agents.”

        And:

        “At the same time, repetitive pain in the NICU has been associated with adverse neurodevelopmental, behavioral, and cognitive outcomes, calling for more research to address gaps in knowledge.”

        Brian Morris, I wonder what the “adverse neurodevelopment, behavioral, and cognitive outcomes” are? What is the AAP talking about?

        And finally, the AAP says:

        “Preventing or minimizing pain in neonates should be the goal of pediatricians and other health care professionals who care for neonates.”

        If you want to prevent pain in neonates, the first thing to do is stop circumcising baby boys.

        Like

      • You confuse pain relief via general anaesthesia with the kind of pain relief advised by the American Academy of Pediatrics for circumcision … namely LOCAL anaesthesia!
        Male circumcision is NOT mutilation. It is beneficial cosmetically, medically, sexually and is healthy for males of all ages, and their female sexual partners as adults.
        Have you read the article in the International Journal of Children’s Rights in 2016 by Beth Riven et al.?
        Dr Rivin is a professor of Law at University of Washington.
        Co-authors include one of her colleagues, another professor of law, and a professor of bioethics.
        They rightly argue that in the current era of medical knowledge it should be deemed unethical not to advocate circumcision for a baby boy and for males of all ages.
        http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/15718182/24/2

        Tell me, how many articles on male circumcision have you published in peer-reviewed journals?
        Your answer may make readers question your credentials to post comments on this webpage facility.

        Like

  21. You are a chronik liar desperately trying to sell your semi science. I am absolutely disgusted with you. You don’t care what happens to all those boys what do you put them through. The only thing you care about is to push your will through anything and everything regardless of what impact it has on their lives.
    On the other hand monsters like you remind us every day that we have to work even harder and we can never rest.

    Like

    • I have always cared passionately about public health and individual well-being. So does the AAP and CDC. That’s why they and all others like me who base policy recommendations on strong scientific evidence support infant male circumcision (as well as vaccination, water fluoridation, promotion of healthy diet, exercise, anti-smoking, etc, etc). You seem to want to believe the non-science perpetrated by anti-circs and those who are ignorant. That is a big mistake as it will lead to enormous harm and many deaths. It is the anticirc/intactivist lobby that are monsters.

      Like

  22. Monsters are people like you who force their will on others. You don’t even consider what that boy would want to do to HIS OWN body. The only thing matters is that you beat your will through. You talk about genital cutting like if it was just cutting paper. You are unable to see that removing a completely healthy and functional body tissue IS MUTILATION. Yes it is! Whether you like it or not.
    MGM should be banned world wide once and forever!
    You should try to get it in your tight head that you cannot mess with others body without their consent! If it wasn’t clear enough to you nobody is capable to give consent before they reach adulthood. Absolutely nobody has the right to take this right away from any child.
    All of your claims are DATED and REJECTED by all decent professional organisations around the world. The majority of men around the globe are intact and happy that way!

    Like

    • I support evidence-based education of parents as espoused by the AAP. It is a parent’s decision. But that decision must be based on unbiassed scientific evidence, as stated by the AAP. The Monsters are members of anti-circumcision lobby groups intent on distorting the evidence, lying to others and using emotive propaganda to perpetrate an agenda that increases risk of suffering and disease, including death. Is that you? All decent medical organisations base their policies on evidence. Those are the AAP, CDC, CAA, WHO, and others, but not any in Europe or the UK, whose outdated policies are mere opinion pieces developed by navel-gazing or worse.
      Parents have many important decisions to make for their children, many of which concern what is in the best interests of their health. Those decisions include circumcision for boys, vaccination, drinking water that contains fluoride, eating adequate vegetables and fruit, avoiding of soft drinks and junk food, and so the list goes on.
      You seem not to have been a parent like me, nor have a broader view of health like I am passionate about.
      Instead, your tone and choice of words such as mutilation makes me think you are a fanatic.

      Like

  23. Btw anaesthesia…. let’s try it on you! Jump on the table I give you that painless injection…. it is everything but painless. Its not only just the punctures but the local anaesthetic causing tension between the tissues is actually painfull! And it is well researched fact that babies are more sensitive to pain.
    Talking about cosmetic reasons… MGM leaves an ugly scar for a life so how can you even mention cosmetic reasons? and the lack of foreskin… if I only look at a mutilated penis is gives me the bad shiver thinking how horrible it would feel having no protection against the rubbing of the underwear.

    Like

    • More nonsense from Mr Olaf I’m afraid. Early infant male circumcision results in an imperceptible “scar”. But alike time of protection from myriad of adverse medical conditions, infections, cancers and risk of death. Given that over 1 in 2 uncircumcised males succumb to at least one of these over their lifetime, the decision by a parent to ensure their baby boy receives the benefit of a circumcision is an easy decision.

      Like

  24. Dear ‘professor’ you are full of bullshit! The evidence in Europe shows clearly that your claims are totally unfounded.
    You are trying to use / manipulate the fear of people from various kind of diseases in order to convince them.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: