VAST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADULT AND INFANT CIRCUMCISION
[A Commentary from NOHARMM, the National Organization
to Halt the Abuse and Routine Mutilation of Males.]
For men circumcised as adults who might not understand
why those circumcised as infants are so vehemently
opposed to this routine newborn surgery, it helps
to understand that infant circumcision is a vastly
different procedure from adult surgery.
The infant foreskin is naturally non-retractable
(to protect the sensitive glans, or head, from urine,
feces and abrasion).
The natural separation of the foreskin and glans has not
yet happened and infant circumcision, almost always
done without anesthesia, tears the adherent foreskin
from the glans and exposes the raw mucosal tissue of the glans.
It is an excruciatingly painful procedure (during and after)
that the infant cannot understand or escape from.
While the average male circumcised in infancy may not
consciously remember the experience, the somatic trauma
alters brain chemistry, as well as interferes with
normal penile development.
Those circumcised as an adult suffer less trauma because
the man has consented to the surgery, the foreskin
has already separated from the glans, anesthesia
and post-operative pain management are used, and
any pain may be rationalized as worth the price
paid to accommodate his motivations.
Surgical mishap is far more common in infancy than adulthood.
Also, when the foreskin is removed from an infant or an
adult, the glans keratinizes (forms extra layers of skin)
to protect itself.
This is a lifelong process resulting in progressive sensitivity loss.
In an infant,this process begins immediately and those
circumcised as infants are subject to many more years
of keratinization than those circumcised as adults.
Progressive sensitivity loss for the man circumcised in
infancy becomes more noticeable in his thirties and forties.
The average male circumcised as an infant however, cannot
imagine the extent of his deprivation.
[This is true for females in some African cultures who
have had their foreskin (clitoralhood) removed in the "mild"
form of mutilation known as Sunna.]
Combine this ignorance with fear, embarrassment and
homophobia and it's easy to see why few men circumcised
in infancy speak out.
A COMMENT FROM AUSTRALIA.
The situation seems to be quite different as far as my
experiences go.
I have three children (2 girls, 1 boy) and had never
even considered having my son circumcised.
Having all three children in different hospitals...
(Mercy Hosp.Melbourne;
Woden Valley Hosp., Canberra,
and Queen Adelaide Hosp. Hobart).
I found that circumcision was strongly discouraged.
I remember one mother in myroom who had the senior
midwife and the surgical registrar both trying to talk her OUT
of having her son circumcised.
This was during the mid 1980's.BTW, I have 4 brothers,
born in the 1960's and all of them were circumcised as
a matter of routine! interesting subject for a newsgroup!
--An AustralianReader.
WHY INTACT IS CLEANER.
This brings up some interesting thoughts... In the dark ages,
circumcision was a necessity in the desert kingdoms like Judea.
For lack of water, perhaps removal of the foreskin kept the
glans clean and not let smegma accumulate.
Today - especially in America - we have running
water and have learnt to washand bathe regularly.
Circumcision is a paradigm at best! --An AmericanReader
CIN: Actually, circumcision was never necessary.
The following informationis from a nationally famous,
distinguished pediatrician, Dr. Leonard J.Marino of
Plainview, LI, NY, and excerpted from a bulletin
distributed byNorthport Circumcision
Information Research Center of New York:"An intact
man who is in a war trench, desert, or jungle, without water
to bathe, merely has to pinch shut the orifice of his
prepuce when he urinates,trap a small balloon of urine
inside, and swish it around for ablutions.
"Urine is sterile, suitable to prevent irritation and for cleanliness."
This simple technique shows that in hardship situations,
circumcision is doubly unwise; the prepuce is a versatile
portable gadget for intimate hygiene, as well as protection.
"It is vital that this be publicized, as many circumcisions
are done because doctors, parents and most men do not
realize the importance and usefulness of the prepuce.
The above is only one example of its hygienic functions.
"Indeed, it is easier for an intact male to keep himself
clean than a female to keep herself clean
(they produce more smegma than men do!)
.... yet Westerners do not advocate female "circumcision"
for cleanliness.
"WHAT'S WRONG WITH CIRCUMCISING GIRLS?"
I really don't see anything wrong with circumcision...
if it is done at birth or in a religious ceremony soon
afterwards, the girl will in no way remember the pain...
millions upon millions of girls have been circumcised,
and lived happy, happy lives.
True, if a woman wishes to become circumcised, it will be quite
painful and will require days in the hospital.
"I don't know... I just think a circumcised vagina looks
better than an uncircumcised one.
Go figure." -- M.T. of Utah.
CIN: Actually the original letter referred to male circumcision.
The gender has been switched to put the issue in perspective.
The revised letter actually resembles what a man from
certain cultures might actually say.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ooOoo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ooOoo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
