I was born in 1967 and my family is Presbyterian (although not very religious).
I think circumcision was just de rigueur at the time.
I dunno…I certainly never asked my mom about it.
That’s the “medical” procedure. In the traditional procedure, the baby is held in an adult’s lap. It’s much quicker, and yes, they cry, but not nearly as much, and not for nearly as long.
Watching that surgeon poke, yank, and cut away as the baby screamed was one of the more uncomfortable experiences of my life. The most painful part appears to be removing the foreskin from the glans, something that happens on its own in due time, but they are loosely attached at birth. The surgeon shoved something between them, kinda slowly, and that was clearly extremely upsetting to the child. Then, with the baby bound up and this thing on his penis, slowly cuts around.
In the traditional Jewish procedure, the mohel kinda yanks the end of the foreskin to pull it up partially past the head of the penis, slides a guard (a little circle of metal with a slit about 80% through it) over the loose foreskin to protect the penis, does a quick slice with a scalpel, and says a blessing while handing the kid back to the mother to nurse. It’s all over in seconds.
My mother had a great deal of trouble preventing the Bethesda navel hospital from circumcising one of my brothers. She intended to wait for the 8th day and have it done by a mohel. They gave her the permission form to sign without telling her what it was for (she read it) and when she refused to sign, they gave it to her again and then a doctor came to lecture her on why she had to have this done. The second brother was born at a Jewish hospital, a year later, and it wasn’t a problem.
Huh. They gave me a lot more “must do” and "must not do"s for the umbilical cord, which i needed to carefully prevent the diaper from touching. I nursed my son to comfort him, and put some Vaseline on the head of his penis, and that was pretty much it. I’ve been told it’s a little less traumatic at 8 days than at birth, but I’ve never seen one done at birth, and that might just be a thing Jews say.
There are several scientific publications on that topic. Here are two:
Sorrels et al. 2007, DOI 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06685.x
OBJECTIVE
To map the fine-touch pressure thresholds of the adult penis in circumcised and uncircumcised men, and to compare the two populations.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS
Adult male volunteers with no history of penile pathology or diabetes were evaluated with a Semmes-Weinstein monofilament touch-test to map the fine-touch pressure thresholds of the penis. Circumcised and uncircumcised men were compared using mixed models for repeated data, controlling for age, type of underwear worn, time since last ejaculation, ethnicity, country of birth, and level of education.
RESULTS
The glans of the uncircumcised men had significantly lower mean (sem) pressure thresholds than that of the circumcised men, at 0.161 (0.078) g (P = 0.040) when controlled for age, location of measurement, type of underwear worn, and ethnicity. There were significant differences in pressure thresholds by location on the penis (P < 0.001). The most sensitive location on the circumcised penis was the circumcision scar on the ventral surface. Five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision had lower pressure thresholds than the ventral scar of the circumcised penis.
CONCLUSIONS
The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.
Bronselaer et al. 2013, DOI 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11761.x
What’s known on the subject? and What does the study add?
- The sensitivity of the foreskin and its importance in erogenous sensitivity is widely debated and controversial. This is part of the actual public debate on circumcision for non-medical reason. Today some studies on the effect of circumcision on sexual function are available. However they vary widely in outcome.
- The present study shows in a large cohort of men, based on self-assessment, that the foreskin has erogenous sensitivity. It is shown that the foreskin is more sensitive than the uncircumcised glans mucosa, which means that after circumcision genital sensitivity is lost. In the debate on clitoral surgery the proven loss of sensitivity has been the strongest argument to change medical practice. In the present study there is strong evidence on the erogenous sensitivity of the foreskin. This knowledge hopefully can help doctors and patients in their decision on circumcision for non-medical reason.
Objectives
- To test the hypothesis that sensitivity of the foreskin is a substantial part of male penile sensitivity.
- To determine the effects of male circumcision on penile sensitivity in a large sample.
Subjects and Methods
- The study aimed at a sample size of ≈1000 men.
- Given the intimate nature of the questions and the intended large sample size, the authors decided to create an online survey.
- Respondents were recruited by means of leaflets and advertising.
Results
- The analysis sample consisted of 1059 uncircumcised and 310 circumcised men.
- For the glans penis, circumcised men reported decreased sexual pleasure and lower orgasm intensity. They also stated more effort was required to achieve orgasm, and a higher percentage of them experienced unusual sensations (burning, prickling, itching, or tingling and numbness of the glans penis).
- For the penile shaft a higher percentage of circumcised men described discomfort and pain, numbness and unusual sensations.
- In comparison to men circumcised before puberty, men circumcised during adolescence or later indicated less sexual pleasure at the glans penis, and a higher percentage of them reported discomfort or pain and unusual sensations at the penile shaft.
Conclusions
- This study confirms the importance of the foreskin for penile sensitivity, overall sexual satisfaction, and penile functioning.
- Furthermore, this study shows that a higher percentage of circumcised men experience discomfort or pain and unusual sensations as compared with the uncircumcised population.
- Before circumcision without medical indication, adult men, and parents considering circumcision of their sons, should be informed of the importance of the foreskin in male sexuality.
The cord “must do”s have gone by the wayside, probably at least two decades ago. Not much circ aftercare though. If the “plastibell” is used, none, and if not then a dab of Vaseline with or without gauze, but even that is not a must do big deal requirement. Remember this has been done for thousands of years before either gauze pads or Vaseline ever existed.
In hospital circ is usually done with analgesia nowadays. Often a combination of Emla cream and a dorsal penile nerve block. Most of the screaming is associated with being strapped on the board than the procedure when I’ve seen it. Sometimes sucrose to suck on which works well actually. That’s similar to the ritual approach, sucking on a drop of sweet wine. But yeah a mohel is typically quick.
Our mohel gave our son sugar as well as wine, saying it had been found to reduce the pain.
IME the issue for most observant Jews is whether or not there’s some kind of bris ceremony for a boy baby. (There are “alternative bris” or “gentle bris” forms of ceremony for a newborn Jewish boy whose parents decide not to circumcise, but AFAIK they make it pretty clear that the cutting ain’t happening.) Families are going to weigh in.
Beyond that, there’s the issue of Jewish boys as they grow up, in any family that’s even moderately observant, getting the message that male circumcision is important to their religious/ethnic identity. Bris ceremonies for friends’ and relatives’ babies, scriptural references, and so on. Even if nobody except their parents has ever seen their private parts, they’re going to be exposed to the general mindset that Jewish + male = circumcised.
Eh, while “perfectly formed” is a value judgement, the claim that circumcision involves “cutting off” a “normal piece” of a body STM pretty factually accurate.
I like my pierced earlobes too, but I wouldn’t try to “reject” the assertion that they represent a medically unnecessary surgical alteration of a normal body part. If somebody wants to view that as “mutilation”, I’m not gonna argue.
Which “study cite above” was that, by the way? There have been a number of studies linked in this thread so far, and I don’t see exactly which one you’re referring to. Could you repeat the link, or link to the post that cited it? Thanks.
The link was in the post you quoted. But, here it is:
https://academic.oup.com/smoa/article/7/2/145/6956488?login=false
Oh, whoops, why so it was, sorry about that.
The study itself, now that you’ve kindly helped my stupid eyes out with a repetition of the link, looks a bit unconvincing, though. I mean, I’m sure that the surveyed women overall were reporting their honest preferences, but there’s a lot of room for uncorrected bias in the data collection. For example:
- influence of cultural norms in circumcision-dominant societies
- small and biased sample size in, e.g., the Mexico study, where the women surveyed reported their experiences with the same partner before and after adult circumcision (presumably undertaken in response to some kind of penile problem)
There also seem to be a whole lot of women in all the surveys stating no preference for one kind of penis over the other.
I think that is the main thing.
It has become…popular…for men these days to whinge about being circumcised. They call it mutilation. But it’s not. The men are fine. Women are not really fussed about it.
It is much ado about nothing.
I think it’s up to individuals to decide whether and why they consider medically unnecessary surgical procedures performed on them nonconsensually in infancy to be “mutilation” or not.
I strongly oppose anybody trying to shame or derogate a circumcised man for being circumcised, or trying to argue him out of being happy with his circumcised status.
But I also oppose anybody trying to argue a circumcised man out of dissatisfaction with his circumcised status, if that’s how he feels. Yes, people should get factual data about the negligibility of both positive and negative impacts of circumcision (in most cases). But beyond that, it’s up to them how they feel about it.
And I don’t think we ought to normalize the nonconsensual imposition of such procedures as “nothing”. As a committed civil-libertarian, I strongly support the right of religious communities to engage in practices that may be associated with slight increased risk of harm (e.g., alcohol consumption, smoking, fasting, etc.). But I don’t think we should try to shut down individual or societal objections to such practices on the grounds that they’re just “nothing”. People get to make their own choices about what they consider “nothing”.
This is what makes the world a worse place.
Most men in the US are circumcised. Most men enjoy their dicks. Masturbating, sex, something else…they are perfectly fine with their penis. Women like it too and seem more inclined to prefer a circumcised man (heterosexual I know…dunno about others).
Then you come along and tell them they are mutilated. Their lives would be better…somehow…if only this injustice was not forced on them when they were a baby. How much better could their life be if their parents didn’t cut them with knives!?
You make the world a worse place pushing stuff like this. Let men enjoy their penis with no added worry.
You are misunderstanding what the part you quoted means - it specifically doesn’t mean telling anyone else they are mutilated or how they should feel about being circumcised (or not)
Naw…I got it right.
Welp, that about wraps 'er up, folks. We’re approaching 100 posts in a thread about circumcision, and it’s juuust about arrived at it’s predetermined place among the pantheon of closed circumcision-related threads. Catch ya later on down the trail!
I’ve seen that argument several times. Funny that it always refers to US polls, and that it’s in the USA that non-jewish and non-muslim boys are routinely circumcised. Here in Europe where most non-jewish/non-muslim boys are intact, whether women prefer cut or uncut simply isn’t a question. Intact is the norm outside jewish or muslim communities; intact is just how dicks are.
And personally, if a woman would dump me because I still have my foreskin, fine. Bye, Felicia. My foreskin has brought me much pleasure, and, yes: I know how to wash my dick. No woman I’ve been with has ever had a reason to gag over dick cheese when I’ve been with her.
Well, routinely to the tune of ~60%. Maybe 70% as you get into older demographics. I’d guess that the average US woman has had more exposure to both conditions to have an informed preference than a woman in a nation where it’s rarely performed.
But, for all that, I agree that it’s probably not a big deal – much less a dealbreaker – for most partners by the time you’re getting naked.
No, you didn’t.
I think you’re being a bit too sensitive about statements of fact here. I’m certainly not calling anybody “mutilated” for being circumcised, and in fact I explicitly said that nobody should be trying to shame or derogate anybody for being circumcised.
But routine neonatal circumcision is a medically unnecessary surgical procedure performed nonconsensually on an infant. (That’s excluding the comparatively rare cases where some kind of penile pathology does make infant circumcision a medical necessity, of course.)
That’s not necessarily a condemnation of the practice. After all, pretty much everything that’s done to or for an infant is done nonconsensually, and plenty of it is medically unnecessary. Applying those qualifiers to circumcision as well is not unfair.
If we can’t handle that sort of factual description without assuming that the describer is calling circumcised men “mutilated” and victims of “injustice” and what-not, and ranting that such factual descriptions “make the world a worse place”, then I think we’re overreacting.
Speaking as a woman who has dated both intact and circumcised men… “Not Jewish” might be a deal breaker. I can’t imagine “intact” or “circumcised”, by itself, being a deal breaker unless the man had incredibly poor hygiene or something. It’s, um, a very small piece of the penis, which is a very small part of the overall package deal.
This is, IMHO, they key point. And sometimes parents mess up and make decisions their children ultimately are unhappy about. So long as parents are trying to act in their children’s interests, and doing some basic reality checks, I’m not inclined to condemn them for their choices.