Live Science...

[Julymommy]

http://www.livescience.com/humanbiol...cumcision.html

Here is the link to an article on circumcision. I hope some of you will write in.

[ShaggyDaddy]

if you don't want to bother reading the article here is a nice summery:

"I am a big bad manly man and my circumcision is awesome. Also anyone who says my penis has problems is crazy. Also I would love to kill my father and marry my mother."

[SammyJr]

This article was reprinted elsewhere. I sent in an email and got this reply.

Hello. This is a blanket reply to the gentlemen who
wrote to me this past week about the circumcision
column. This was a bad week to travel, because the
column has generated far more mail than usual and I
have limited access to email until September.

The point that I was hoping to relay is that
circumcision in the United States is not that
important, but you cannot call the procedure useless.
I was also hoping to relay some of the excitement
coming from the Toronto AIDS meeting.

The comparison of the anti-circumcision movement to
the white student union came from a conversation with
anti-FGM activists at a meeting last year who remain
annoyed by the comparison of circumcision to FGM,
because many men in regions where FGM is practiced are
circumcised and thus think that FGM is no big deal.
The anti-circumcision movement was not born of
oppression, like the anti-FGM movement.

Indeed, despite the 27 angry letters, I was supported
by about a dozen positive messages, mostly from
doctors (ah, the establishment) and anti-FGM groups.

Clearly we have different opinions on the issue, and I
don't think it will be useful to engage in a debate.
Please know, though, that I read each of your messages
from start to finish and went to some of the links...
despite the foul language and violent suggestions.

Sincerely,

christopher wanjek

p.s. You'll be happy to know that no one reads my
column, so the damage will be minimal.

Personally, I don't know why anti-FGM groups would be on the side of the MGM advocates. I'd like to think they would be supportive of our side or at the very least, neutral.

[SleeplessMommy]

Here is my email...

A disturbing article you wrote.

"Granted, circumcision is not a life-saving procedure in the United States, where much of the anti-cut sentiment is based."
This is because 80% of the world does not circumcise.
Canada: 9.2%
Finland: 0%
Australia 12%
India: near zero
USA: 50% and falling

"A new study, highlighted at last week's XVI International AIDS Conference in Toronto, has found that circumcision is almost as good as a high-quality vaccine at preventing HIV infection in South Africa. " Perhaps the vaccine is not very effective? I have chosen to decrease my son's risk of HIV-infection (and other sexually transmitted diseases) through education, not via circumcision. I think promoting circumcision as "reducing the risk of HIV infection" is a dangerous idea, considering how many circumcised males in the US are HIV infected. And considering that needle-sharing is a major source of infection.

Some points I ask you to consider:

* Medical studies (and reports of circumcised adults) indicate significant skin changes in the glans of the penis after circ. This causes reduced sensitivity.
* Circumcision in infants is essentially a cosmetic surgery procedure. You can argue that it will reduce the risk of HIV infection, but condoms are more effective in this. And in 14+ years, when today's infant males are sexually active, there may be other ways to prevent HIV infection.
* Informed consent. An intact male can choose to be circumcised as an adult. A circumcised male cannot choose to be intact.
* Even with anesthesia, infants suffer considerable pain, and often go into a state of shock from the procedure. They are then reported to have "slept through the procedure". Many doctors do not use any anesthesia. Videos here: http://www.circumcisionquotes.com/video.html
* Circumcision interferes with the breast feeding relationship.
* And finally, babies have died from circumcision and its complications. Why risk it?

Best regards,
SleeplessMommy

[SleeplessMommy]

I got a nice reply back... and by the way, the author of this article is a "freelance science writer and author." ANY of you MDCers, with a little time on your hands, can write an anti-circ article and get it published ... somewhere... on the web. Your article will have the same weight as Mr Wanjeks, even more if you get published on a parenting web site. (By the way, Mothering the magazine pays $300-500 for articles published there, but the Mothering readers are already "on our side".)

Mr Wanjek stated (in part)

.....At the
time of the column I was inundated with profane letters and two messages that were essentially death threats. A dozen more were violent and anti-Semitic.

What is the point of hostile emails to a freelance writer? He is not a key decision maker in the medical industry, insurance industry, or government. He is a freelance science writer trying to earn a buck and feed his family. In fact, what is the point of hostile emails to anyone? This kind of response does not look good for the pro-intact community. In fact, it greatly works against our attempts to rationally encourage parents and doctors to leave little boys intact.
Please ladies, stick to the facts. Share personal experiences. If your son is intact and just fine, share that. If a child or relative was circed and there were complications, share that. If your husband is circed and unhappy about it, share that. Where a person makes an incorrect statement about the "benefits of circ", give them some facts. Always point out that the circ rate is 50% and falling in the US, and less in other countries.
If you work in the medical or insurance industries, or govenrment, you may be in a better position to influence future parent's decisions. If you teach sex ed. in high school (or Sunday School), you are in a position to carefully influence the activities of the next generation of parents.

But think about it, the pro-intact movement is not a cause that benefits from threats of violence.

- sleeplessMommy

[Telle Bear]

Originally Posted by SleeplessMommy

What is the point of hostile emails to a freelance writer? He is not a key decision maker in the medical industry, insurance industry, or government. He is a freelance science writer trying to earn a buck and feed his family. In fact, what is the point of hostile emails to anyone? This kind of response does not look good for the pro-intact community. In fact, it greatly works against our attempts to rationally encourage parents and doctors to leave little boys intact.
Please ladies, stick to the facts. Share personal experiences. If your son is intact and just fine, share that. If a child or relative was circed and there were complications, share that. If your husband is circed and unhappy about it, share that. Where a person makes an incorrect statement about the "benefits of circ", give them some facts. Always point out that the circ rate is 50% and falling in the US, and less in other countries.
If you work in the medical or insurance industries, or govenrment, you may be in a better position to influence future parent's decisions. If you teach sex ed. in high school (or Sunday School), you are in a position to carefully influence the activities of the next generation of parents.

But think about it, the pro-intact movement is not a cause that benefits from threats of violence.

- sleeplessMommy

I totally agree. I feel like some "intactavist" are actually stopping people from giving us a chance...they come across like crazy, judgemental, extremist. It really hurts the movement ( and I am guilty as well..I have said somethings that were uncalled for).