In Defense of Circumcision

Since Andrew is on one of his periodic anti-circumcision crusades, I thought I'd say a few words in the procedure's defense. Since this is a family blog, I've placed them safely below the fold.

First, there's the aesthetic issue: I'm sure there are people out there who disagree with Seinfeld's Elaine on the relative attractiveness of the uncircumcised versus the uncircumcised penis, but these people are frankly untrustworthy and possibly mad. Keep in mind, too, that this is not the most attractive feature of the male anatomy to begin with, so every little bit extra helps. Or doesn't, if you take my meaning.

Then there's the matter of hygiene. Opponents of circumcision insist that smegma, the white, smelly secretion that tends to accumulate beneath the foreskin, is actually beneficial to one's health - that it helps to clean the genitals, and so forth. Proponents, like myself, point out that even saying the word smegma is really disgusting. Again, I think we pretty much win the debate right there, without even getting into the whole HIV question.

Finally, there's the issue of pleasure. Andrew cites a study suggesting that "male genital mutilation" might dampen male enjoyment of sex. Well, something like sixty percent of American males are so mutilated, and I believe I have the weight of the American experience on my side when I say that any such dampening would have to be extremely negligible.

All of which is to say that I'm gratified that my parents took it upon themselves to have a procedure performed on my infant self that I would have been too much of a wimp to obtain as an adult. And as Ann Althouse might put it, I doubt if any blogger will disagree with this assessment.

Comments

I never thought I'd side with Andrew against you on an issue, but I do, and vehemently. On all counts.

I don't want to get in the details, but let me just say I -- and many girls I know -- disagree about the aesthetics.

As far as smegma is concerned, there is a very simple way to prevent it, it's called hygiene. I have never had smegma since I can remember, and that is because I, um, take regular showers.

And as regards pleasure, well, let me just say there are things one can do with a foreskin that just can't be done otherwise.

Posted by PEG | June 21, 2007 3:51 PM

I think this post falls under the TMI category.

But speaking of TMI....

As a gay man I appreciate the aesthetics of an uncircumcised penis and from personal experience with partners who were I know that they have a much greater sensitivity.

Posted by Joseph | June 21, 2007 4:23 PM

So because 60% of U.S. men are circumcised, it must be okay? Would those Jews who murdered in Concentration Camps in Europe be "right" because it was in the majority to do.

http://www.mothering.com/discussions/forumdisplay.php?f=44

You might learn something, Ross!

Also a gay male and fan of intact (aka uncircumcised/uncut). I'm intact.

Posted by McCaw Entertainment | June 21, 2007 4:28 PM

Male circumcision overstated as deterrent to global AIDS pandemic

http://www.newkerala.com/news5.php?action=fullnews&id=41145

You also might read the Mothering.com: The Case Against Circumcision" thread "My Daughter Has Smegma!". Do you know what she did? Lo and behold, she WASHED IT OFF! *shocked*

C.C. Intact male having never had smegma a day in his life. :p

Posted by Corey Carrier | June 21, 2007 4:40 PM

First, women have smegma, too.

Second, it isn't a quantative measure of pleasure, but a qualative. In other words- nuances.

The rest of your post is all personal opinion of aesthetics. *Shrug*

Posted by Jennifer | June 21, 2007 4:41 PM

The only people who can comment about this accurately seem to be the men who've been circ'ed in adulthood. It seems to me that they all agree that the pleasure is diminished significantly.

That said, the number of men who have had this done in adulthood is small. Additionally, Ross is right: gee -- it's not like it's not pleasurable for circ'ed men. Your local pizza joint is still pretty good, even compared to pizza in Naples.

Finally, the near-religious anger that people feel towards circumcision is odd and is more than a little off-putting. "Male genital mutilation"? The attempt at moral equivalence with FGM is unfortunate.

Posted by Klug | June 21, 2007 4:49 PM

Can we maybe refrain from comparing circumcision to the Holocaust? For like a million reasons, perhaps?

I'm in the TMI category, Ross. Though I liked the dig at Althouse.

Posted by Sam | June 21, 2007 4:55 PM

So one woman on a fictional sitcom has a negative opinion of a foreskin and you extrapolate that all women feel this way? Quite a stretch, but hey, what ever helps you feel good.

Personally, I think genitals are all pretty ugly, but in this case, I prefer form over function. Not that I had a choice in the matter, so instead of an ugly penis with hanging skin, I have an ugly penis with a large scar on it and less sensitivity. Thanks Mom and Dad!

Besides, any woman who rejects you because your foreskin or lack thereof is incredibly shallow. She deserves to be shown the door.

Hygiene? Have you ever heard of soap and water? I don't know about you, but I shower daily. Even though my parents decided to give away my foreskin, I still wash my crotch every time I shower. If I was lucky enough to have avoided Dr. Baby Cutter, I imagine I'd still have to wash. Big deal.

And I seriously doubt that if you were intact now, you'd be rushing to the doc to give him a BMW payment. And not because you are a wimp, either. Chances are excellent that you'd like being intact and would have long ago figured out the very tricky procedure of washing your penis.

There's a reason that circumcision is done to babies and small children. If the procedure was not done until adulthood, no one would do it. Its not like European and Japanese men are lining up around the block to get cut.

Posted by JorgeM | June 21, 2007 5:12 PM

Ross said that he was glad his parents has put him through a procedure that he would have been "too much of a wimp to obtain as an adult." That statement is very revealing. When grown men have the choice, they overwhelmingly choose to remain intact rather than to undergo circumcision. You don't see European men running out to get circumcised, though they presumably have comparable medical knowledge and healthcarefacilities available to them. Wherever genital cutting is practiced, it is done to defenseless children by adults who overpower them. To force something on days-old newborns that grown men would not allow to be done to themselves.....That's just cowardly.

Posted by SP | June 21, 2007 5:13 PM

75% to 80% of the male population on this planet are intact. Only Americans practice routine infant circumcise for cosmetic reasons. The Muslim countries and Israel do it for religious reasons. It is just minority opinion that the circumcised penis is more attractive, not a fact, and most of the world does not share that opinion.

Daily hygiene is more than sufficient keep any perceived smegma "problems" under control.

Regarding sensitivity, women also benefit from the increased sensitivity of an intact penis. It's simply more pleasurable. Kind of like the difference between plain home-style cooking (circumcised) and fine gourmet cuisine (intact).

Erectile dysfunction is not the huge problem in countries that don't circumcise as it is in the US. Circumcision may or may not affect a young man's sexual performance very much compared to an intact man, but it sure has a negative impact on quality and performance for middle-aged and older men.

Posted by peccadillo | June 21, 2007 5:16 PM

I am not an epidemiologist, nor am I a statistician. But I think it's worth looking at the article referenced above. The author is a former investment banker with training as a civil engineer. While his MBA may have provided him with the Excel-fu required for the paper, I'd like to hear a professional opinion.

I also don't wish to impugn PLoS One, 'cause I know that it does publish good science. But I would have liked to have the paper seen by professionals in the field. But when your reviewer is a Peruvian academic physician who does not seem to have a distinguished publishing record himself (2-6 papers), I gotta wonder.

What I'm saying is, don't get too excited about this paper.

Posted by Klug | June 21, 2007 5:16 PM

Hoooold on a minute! Circumcision is responsible for ED? You've got to be kidding me!

Physiological ED is primarily a matter of vascular quality. Smoking, diabetes and heart disease are far bigger factors. I call baloney.

Posted by Klug | June 21, 2007 5:25 PM

Ross,

It's fortunate that you like the body modification performed on your genitals. Many men, however, feel violated by it, and as you admit yourself, most men won't do it if given the choice.

How can this lead to any conclusion besides letting each person decide for themselves?

What you've written sounds like yet another male who had no choice rationalizing what he cannot change anyway.

While that attitude may be healthy for you personally (and in that sense a good thing), it's a tragedy when such logic is used to mutilate yet another defenseless young male.

Posted by respect | June 21, 2007 5:32 PM

It's not really surprising that Ross (and many other American men circumcised as infants) claim to be happy that they are circucmised. I mean, two entire generations were circumcised at birth. What were their parents going to tell them? "Yes, honey, we strapped you down when you were a beaby and cut off the most pleasurable part of your penis, even though there was really no good reason to"? Of course not! The adults who were complicit in introducing and allowing routine infant circumcision had to invent the myth of the dirty, diseased, and dangerous foreskin in order to rationalize what they did to all those children.

I'm a 30-year old white American woman and I have no preference regarding circumcision status when it comes to a lover. Yes, intact men seem more responsive, but circumcised men can make great lovers too. I had one boyfriend, though, who was cut so tight that his penis bent down at an angle and it was not very comfortable for either of us. When it comes to babies and children, though, I prefer to see intact little ones, because to me it says that our culture is becoming more humane. Seeing whole little boys gives me hope that ware coming to recognize that children are born perfect and ought to be kept that way.

Posted by Elisabeth | June 21, 2007 5:32 PM

So essentially, your arugment is the circumcised penis is prettier and that's it?

Smegma is only an issue for those who do not bathe regularly. Are you saying that if you're circumcised you don't have to wash your penis because it doesn't produce smegma? We'll put aside the fact that vaginas produce smegma, mucus and blood and yet none of us are queasy about them.

And really, the majority of men in Europe and Latin America are uncircumcised and yet, their women don't seem to find the intact penis repulsive.

Couldn't you have come up with a bit of a more reasoned and mature counter-argument than this? Sullivan is right on this one.

Posted by SunkenShip | June 21, 2007 5:36 PM

I think Ross is just pulling our legs here, whatever his actual view. Right? Right?

Elisabeth: if children were born perfect, I think I'd be an abortion supporter.

Posted by the marquis of carabas | June 21, 2007 5:57 PM

I you wouldn't want it done to you in adulthood why is it ok to do a tiny baby?

The aethestic argument is utterly ridiculous. It's not how it looks (and as if genitals are attractive anyway) it's how it feels. Let me just take this time to be delighted I was lucky enough to live in Europe marry a European.

Which also gives me the unique insight into the fact that the hygeine reason people always sight is pure fallacy. Unless of course circumsised guys don't wash and then I have yet another reason to count myself lucky!

Posted by Woman in the know | June 21, 2007 5:59 PM

Oh and here is the British Journal of Urology study on the difference in sensitivity between a circumcised and intact penis http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06685.x

Posted by Missy | June 21, 2007 6:00 PM

"Since Andrew is on one of his periodic anti-circumcision crusades,"

Hmm...Way to evoke highly negative historical connotations. Please remember that on the first wave of the First Crusade it was the muslims circumcising the crusaders, not the other way around.

"I thought I'd say a few words in the procedure's defense. Since this is a family blog, I've placed them safely below the fold."

Was that a pun?

"First, there's the aesthetic issue: I'm sure there are people out there who disagree with Seinfeld's Elaine on the relative attractiveness of the uncircumcised versus the uncircumcised penis, but these people are frankly untrustworthy and possibly mad."

?!

Wow, thanks. So apparently thinking scars aren't sexy makes me an insane liar.

"Keep in mind, too, that this is not the most attractive feature of the male anatomy to begin with, so every little bit extra helps. Or doesn't, if you take my meaning."

You are very clearly a heterosexual.

"Then there's the matter of hygiene. Opponents of circumcision insist that smegma, the white, smelly secretion that tends to accumulate beneath the foreskin, is actually beneficial to one's health - that it helps to clean the genitals, and so forth. Proponents, like myself, point out that even saying the word smegma is really disgusting. Again, I think we pretty much win the debate right there, without even getting into the whole HIV question."

Misrepresentation. Your average argument from the against is "Wash".

"Finally, there's the issue of pleasure. Andrew cites a study suggesting that "male genital mutilation" might dampen male enjoyment of sex."

A study which you read, by any chance?

"Well, something like sixty percent of American males are so mutilated, and I believe I have the weight of the American experience on my side when I say that any such dampening would have to be extremely negligible."

Not really, dear. You are lacking "Before and after" comparisons since the removal occured prior to consious memory.

"All of which is to say that I'm gratified that my parents took it upon themselves to have a procedure performed on my infant self that I would have been too much of a wimp to obtain as an adult. And as Ann Althouse might put it, I doubt if any blogger will disagree with this assessment."

Three cheers for post-dated uninformed consent?

Seriously, this is weak. If you had gotten the opportunity to make your own mind up you would have known for yourself whether you found the foreskin an erogenous zone or not {and every other intact man I know, myself included, reckons that it is} and whether the oh-so arduous task of tugging back while in the shower was just too much to bear.

I can guess what your conclusion would have been but sadly this is not your call. A decision was made about your body but not by you and you've been forced to live in ignorance ever since.

Posted by Revamp | June 21, 2007 6:00 PM

To the PP who said calling it MGM (male genital mutilation) is too extreme: Excuse me? That's called "gender equality" and MALES have always been the ones to suffer at the hands of global gender equality ("oh, it's just a foreskin") mentality. The forced genital mutilation is equal to both genders in terms of severity and MUST be stopped.

http://www.mgmbill.org/

Posted by Pyret Pratt | June 21, 2007 6:01 PM

The meaning of the word Smegma is soap. As a woman I have smegma and it washes off nicely with soap and water. The same goes for a intact man as long as he takes a shower/bath regularly it just isn't a issue.

Having the choice to be intact taken away as a infant is wrong on so many levels. Freedom of choice is thrown out the window.

It used to be thought that it was a useless part of the penis or a problematic one but if you look at the function it serves then you can understand better why it is such a bad thing for it to be gone. This link http://www.noharmm.org/anatomy.htm will take you to pictures and a discription of the function of the foreskin.

Here are a list of other countries statements on RIC (routine infant circumcision) None of them endorse it and most strongly discourage it. http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/

Anyone who does the research knows that circumcision is one of those things that should remain in the past and not be forced onto future generations.

Here is some information on that HIV/Circ study that you need to see. http://www.africa-interactive.net/index.php?PageID=4620

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607607387/fulltext

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html

http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html

Posted by Missy | June 21, 2007 6:06 PM

Thank you for posting this because, as far as I can tell, you have done an excellent job bringing awareness to the lunacy of the pro-infant-circumcision argument.

I have no issue with circumcision when an adult male chooses the procedure for himself. As with tattooing, tongue forking, breast augmentation or other cosmetic procedures, circumcision should be illegal for minor children. Infant boys deserve the right to choose circumcision for themselves if they so desire.

My son's foreskin is not mine to take away from him.

Posted by Christifav | June 21, 2007 6:52 PM

The choice of whether or not to keep a foreskin belongs to the child himself. I think this is a human rights issue. Parents in the United States surgically remove a perfectly good body part forcibly and without the consent of the child. Thank goodness more parents are coming to their senses. The circumcision rate is dropping like a hot potato out there. Our son is intact and never had any issues.

http://www.notjustskin.org/en/circumcisionfaq.html

Posted by phil | June 21, 2007 7:24 PM

In my opinion Michaelangelo trumps Elaine from Sienfeld on asthetic matters. That's right Michaelangelos David is NOT circumcised.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/flashpoints/visualarts/images/david_big.jpg
http://www.aboutcirc.com/davids.gif

Posted by Jen | June 21, 2007 7:33 PM

I'm normally a fan of your blog, but I'm having trouble telling if this isn't elaborate sarcasm.

You win the debate because "smegma" is a weird Greek word? Even though, for those of us who have regular access to running water, it's not a problem? Awesome. I didn't realize debate standards were so low nowadays.

I'm glad you still get enough pleasure. I could still walk enough with fewer toes. That doesn't mean that I want fewer toes. And, frankly, my pinky toe's a lot less fun than--well, I won't venture into TMI territory.

I don't really care if people get the snip-snip as adults. Good on them. People should defend that all they want. But when it comes to my son(s), it's their damn body, it's my job to protect them and make them happy, and I'm going to leave what makes them happy up to them.

And that's really the only thing here worth defending.

Posted by Alcon B | June 21, 2007 7:37 PM

So, speaking as an American Jew who had the brit milah, I ask all those who are so against it, would you see social engineering to eradicate it? Make it outright illegal? What?

Because it's not just Muslims and Israelis that have this done for religious reasons, but lots of(most?) American Jews as well. And, I expect, American Muslims too.

Or does this just get filed in everyone's minds under "religious exception?" Like, I don't know, peyote and certain southwestern native American tribes? No one's really mentioned this context, that I've seen, so I'm curious.

I realize that it's one of those odd things Jews were instructed to do, that set them apart from other tribes at the time, that don't necessarily seem to make much sense anymore. But I can't help but feel a little . . . put off at such exhortations of grotesquerie and parental cruelty, heartfelt though they may be.

And waiting until one's an adult to do it . . . well, isn't Baptism as practiced by Catholics typically done at infancy or thereabouts? Apologies if I'm wrong. Granted, I wish G-d has just told Abraham, "No, really, just kidding about the whole foreskin thing. Psyche! I dunno, carry a chit or something." But He didn't, so we're kind of stuck with it.

And, given that I've never known otherwise, take this for what you will: sensitivity is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT an issue, NO SIRREE BOB NOHOW.

I'll never know what it's like to be 6'5" either, but somehow, I don't think it's that life-impacting. Possibly especially given that I'll never know otherwise.

Posted by American Jew | June 21, 2007 8:09 PM

Baptism, whilst maybe exposing the infant to the slight risk of an unplanned swimming lesson, does not actually remove a valuable body part. Lets face it, what is the point in making a sacrifice to one's imaginary friend in the sky if you're going to lop off something that is worthless.

Wouldn't it be more racist and anti-semitic to deny jewish and muslim babies the same human right to genital integrity that ALL children should have?

Cutting parts off of unconsenting children, for no other reason than the parents WANT to, should be illegal. It's stunning that a so called "civilised" society allows such antiquated prehistoric blood soaked cruelty to continue on the most vulnerable members of society.

They only do it to babies because they can - try tying down an adult male and cutting off his foreskin with a lollipop for anaesthesia and see how far you get! (You DO know how they do it, don't you?)

Posted by Timbanon | June 21, 2007 8:38 PM

"The choice of whether or not to keep a foreskin belongs to the child himself."

Yup. And the choice of whether or not the child gets vaccinated belongs to the child also. We shouldn't be forcing a child to carry anitbodies against his or her own will.

Posted by Al | June 21, 2007 9:03 PM

Timbanon, you do amuse me.

Parents regularly expose their childrent to all sorts of distress without their consent: tofu, piano lessons, shots, dental visits, religious education (or education in general), visiting smelly aunts/uncles/grandparents, anti/pro drug lectures, appendictomies, orthodontia, tonsilectomies, living in college towns, and so on.

The point of parenting is making decisions for those who lack the ability to decisions themselves. If I tally up all the "injustices" done to me by my parents, I would think circumcision is very, very low on the stack.

These sorts of cultural diatribes are usually covers for more serious lapses in judgement. Please do, ramble on...

Posted by Liam Colvin | June 21, 2007 9:05 PM

Does this mean I can get all my other parts back too? I want the umbilical cord and the tonsils restored first. Then all my hair and fingernails - maybe thirty-feet worth of the former and ten-feet of the latter. Next all my donated blood, all my saliva, and several hundred pounds worth of flaked-off skin. Add the small mountain of feces which I have excreted in my lifetime, and the pool's worth of pee. Oh, and a bunch of baby teeth.

Whether to keep or lose a part of one's body is an entirely arbitrary decision. We give it all back to nature when we're done with it anyway.

(And since Andrew is Catholic, he presumably subscribes to the doctrine that he will eventually be resurrected in the flesh. I'm sure if he hashes it out with the Lord, he can get the foreskin put back on at that point.)

Posted by lampwick | June 21, 2007 9:17 PM

People arguing about regenrable things such as fingernails, saliva and blood make no point. Those things grow back and regenerate.

When you're circumcised your foreskin doesn't grow back.

The umbilical cord will fall off even if you never separated it from the placenta.

Those analogies are weak and inaccurate.

How about this: What if parents wanted to fork the tongue of their newborn infant in accordance with whatever cultural belief they had. Would that be wrong? (Studies show it can reduce cancer of the mouth!)

Posted by SunkenShip | June 21, 2007 9:37 PM

If amputees can have phantom limbs, why don't I have a phantom foreskin? I think I do actually. I'll bet all you men do too, you just never notice it; like one's blind spot.

I'm all for fork-tongued infants. I just hate it when they grow up to become Vice President.

(My analogies weren't intended to be precise; they were intended to mock what I think is a deeply silly debate. It's like the left-wing's equivalent of fetus-worship: dream of a lost Edenic condition, translated into human biology.)

Posted by lampwick | June 21, 2007 9:47 PM

The debate is silly (and you really seem intent on letting us know that by cracking jokes and writing sarcastically as much as you can) and yet you're compelled to come on here in defense of circumcision?

What exactly about the debate is silly? That people don't want to circumcise their children? Or that people think cosmetically altering a baby's genitalia is wrong?

Posted by SunkenShip | June 21, 2007 10:05 PM

I'm not defending circumcision. It's a personal choice. Some parents make it; some don't. My parents had me circumcised for reasons that aren't entirely clear to me. I don't care that they did. No adult should care; it's not important. I wouldn't have my child circumcised because the only valid motive to do it I can think of is religious, and I'm not religious.

The debate here seems to be about public policy, in that those who feel strongly about it mostly want to have it banned. To me this looks like a version of the abortion debate. Abortion should be legal; so should circumcision. This doesn't mean everyone should be circumcised. I think having an opinion about the desirability of circumcision one way or another is a mark of superstition. And I think turning this superstition into law would be stupid. It's better not to have unnecessary laws.

Posted by lampwick | June 21, 2007 10:23 PM

lampwick,

There should be no law needed, just the elimination of the existing double-standard. Non-therapeutic surgeries like nose-jobs, breast implants, and circumcisions must be consented to by the patient, not by a proxy.

A doctor accepting proxy-consent for such surgeries exposes himself to legal liability when the patient grows up and is angry that he was violated. Profit motive removed and liability to the patient fully understood, non-therapeutic circumcision will be removed from the menu of options presented to parents very quickly.

Posted by respect | June 21, 2007 10:41 PM

Regardless of your happiness with your own penis, it has nothing to do with other infant boys' penises. They deserve the right to choose for themselves.

Posted by rights | June 21, 2007 10:57 PM

respect,

You're being somewhat less than clear here. Something will change; I think you're talking about a reclassification or recatagorization of the circumcision procedure. Where will the change be realized, in print, and in a way that makes it binding? In the A.M.A. code? Are you going to pressure all the insurance companies not to pay for it? If not by such means, then how?

And are several million Orthodox American Jews cool with this idea?

Posted by lampwick | June 21, 2007 11:01 PM

The meaning of the word Smegma is soap. As a woman I have smegma and it washes off nicely with soap and water. The same goes for a intact man as long as he takes a shower/bath regularly it just isn't a issue.

Having the choice to be intact taken away as a infant is wrong on so many levels. Freedom of choice is thrown out the window.

It used to be thought that it was a useless part of the penis or a problematic one but if you look at the function it serves then you can understand better why it is such a bad thing for it to be gone. This link http://www.noharmm.org/anatomy.htm will take you to pictures and a discription of the function of the foreskin.

Posted by Missy | June 21, 2007 11:15 PM

Here are a list of other countries statements on RIC (routine infant circumcision) None of them endorse it and most strongly discourage it. http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/

Anyone who does the research knows that circumcision is one of those things that should remain in the past and not be forced onto future generations.

Here is some information on that HIV/Circ study that you need to see. http://www.africa-interactive.net/index.php?PageID=4620

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607607387/fulltext

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html

http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html

Posted by Missy | June 21, 2007 11:16 PM

Here are a list of other countries statements on RIC (routine infant circumcision) None of them endorse it and most strongly discourage it. http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/

Anyone who does the research knows that circumcision is one of those things that should remain in the past and not be forced onto future generations.

Posted by Missy | June 21, 2007 11:19 PM

Here is some information on that HIV/Circ study that you need to see. http://www.africa-interactive.net/index.php?PageID=4620

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607607387/fulltext

Posted by Melissa | June 21, 2007 11:20 PM

lampwick,

What I mean is that all that should be necessary is men harmed by non-therapeutic circumcision to seek legal redress.

People are so accustomed to treating the male foreskin with a double-standard that an example here might be useful.

If a doctor amputated a child's finger without a medical need, he could be liable to the child for damages. Same with a foreskin. Parental proxy-consent is simply not valid for cosmetic surgeries, like nose-jobs, breast implants, and circumcisions.

This is about medical ethics. Non-therapeutic circumcision isn't medicine, it's cosmetic surgery, and unethical on a patient who can't consent. Religious circumcision is a different story entirely, as religious practitioners have no obligation to act in the medical interest of their clients.

Posted by respect | June 21, 2007 11:22 PM

lampwick, the difference between abortion and infant circumcision is one of autonomy.

Legal abortion respects a woman's autonomy. Her body, her choice.

Infant circumcision does not respect a child's autonomy. He's not getting a choice in the matter. Proxy medical consent needs to be reserved for cases of true medical need or benefit. "Its ugly" or "Daddy is wants son to have a penis like his." does not constitute true medical need, except maybe counseling for Daddy.

Vaccines really aren't comparable because they provide a net benefit - immunity from diseases. There are small risks involved but certainly no body parts are lost. The benefits are great, no measles, mumps, or many other serious diseases.

Legal abortion, at least in terms of autonomy is most comparable to adult circumcision. In that case, it would be his body, his choice.

Our own bodies are one of the few things we truly own.

And frankly, if cutting off a chunk of penis is acceptable for proxy medical consent, I don't know why we can't cut off other parts. I mean, if I was missing my legs, doesn't my son deserve to look like daddy?

Posted by JorgeM | June 21, 2007 11:32 PM

Ross - do you really want information, or just blow steam out your (family blog) butt?

Ignorance is bliss, but unfortunately your continued ignorance affects another human being's body.

Admitting that something horrible happened to you does not make you less of a person. However, refusing to admit it only makes you, well, ignorant!

Posted by Maria | June 21, 2007 11:59 PM

JorgeM et al. -

I find the issues here fascinating, even if I don't have any strong feelings about the procedure itself.

First of all, I don't own my body (or my soul). If I owned it, I could sell it, rent it, or buy someone else's. When we eliminated slavery and made prostitution illegal, we also eliminated the notion that the relation anyone has to their body, or to anyone else's body, is one of ownership.

I do control my body, except in the case of sickness; I am responsible for my body's actions, except in the case of sickness; and I feel affection for my body as a physical lump (even as I am aware that the elements which make it up are constantly being replaced by substitutes, so that outside my bones, there is no real physical continuity between my infant body and my current one).

When I was an infant I had little control over my body and virtually no responsibility for it (before toilet training). If I felt affection for it, I don't remember. I may have felt pain when I was circumcised, but I don't know how much, and I don't know whether it was better or worse than falling on my head. I was completely dependent on my parents, although I could go for a few hours without their attention, and did. In short, I was not an autonomous being; I was a living creature dependent on my parents, who were enjoined by the state not to allow me to die, nor to exercise undue cruelty on my person.

My foreskin was of course entirely non-functional at the time.

If my parents had a doctor amputate my finger, no jury in America would accept the excuse that they did it for aesthetic reasons; they would say my parents were either sadists or insane.

Conversely, even today if I chose to have my future son circumcised, no jury in America would regard such an action as a mark of cruelty. (I won't have my son circumcised, because I have no personal motive to do so; but that's besides the point.)

Now... there are arguments for and against circumcision based on maximal population health. I'm not well-versed in this field, but I don't see a clear preponderance of the evidence going one way or the other.

After that there are arguments about choice. Regarding choice, there is an argument from autonomy, an argument from nature, and an argument about pleasure. But the arguments about pleasure are ambiguous too: some men say there is more pleasure in having a foreskin, some say less, some say there is no difference. And above I indicated that the argument from autonomy is fallacious, because the infant is not autonomous, and because in the present, I have no memory of grief or experience of lost pleasure.

So at last there is the argument from nature: the human body must be kept whole and pristine. Well, maybe; or maybe not. That is obviously an aesthetic argument: the principle could be used, for example, to ban ear-piercing (and I don't know that the foreskin is any more necessary than the earlobe), if were to go by aesthetics. But you can have your principle of bodily aesthetics, that's fine. As for me, my opinion is that medical boards and governments have no business settling aesthetic disputes like this.

Posted by lampwick | June 22, 2007 12:23 AM

"nor to exercise undue cruelty on my person.

My foreskin was of course entirely non-functional at the time."

Well, they failed at the first. As a child of the 60's -80's you were most likely strapped to a board and given naught but sugar water as you genitals were partially amputated. That IS undue cruelty. (unless you were a very bad baby and had it coming, then it was "due")

As for the second statement. Your foreskin was completely functional (unless, of course, you suffered from hypospadias.) The functions of the foreskin are numerous. Its foremost purpose is to protect the glans penis from irritation and to keep foreign matter out of the meatus. That is why it is adhered to the glans, to seal out fecal matter etc..., thereby keeping an internal organ internal, until such time as it is needed for procreation.

Posted by Done the Research | June 22, 2007 1:06 AM

Done the Research -

Strange "undue cruelty," that involved no unduly cruel intent (obviously!) and no unduly cruel result (as I outlined above). The 'undue cruelty' whose existence you are trying to convince me of is a compound of projection and insinuation.

I don't suffer from irritation of the glans, yet I lack a foreskin.

Also, I don't need a wrap to keep my glans sealed up until use; I just wash, like people do, and change my underwear.

We don't live like primates any more, so arguments from function may no longer apply in the same way as they did way back when...

Posted by lampwick | June 22, 2007 1:29 AM

Wouldn't it be more racist and anti-semitic to deny jewish and muslim babies the same human right to genital integrity that ALL children should have?

No it wouldn't, and that's a profoundly offensive thing to say.

Posted by Another Jew | June 22, 2007 1:53 AM

I won't share whether of not I am circumcised, but if I were "lacking something"--as it were--I would be the first to say that it doesn't come up very often. I might argue that sex has worked out pretty well for me. I would suggest that I have two children and look forward to "trying" for more. The loss of my foreskin rarely comes up in conversation, and the idea that there are people out there sweating it makes me laugh. There are children starving in Africa. Foreskins?? Get over it.

Posted by Aaron | June 22, 2007 2:04 AM

All the men who have been subject to MGM, then try to say there's nothing wrong with it, and then go on to do it to their children are like Aesop's "Fox Without A Tail".

Any reason to try and justify what happened to them, and in the case of some, any reason to try and remove the foreskins of those who still have them.

And just like the whole foxes in the fable, men who still have their foreskins are generally not about to part with them for any reason, particularly idiotic ones from men who do not have them and have no idea what having one feels like.

I feel so sorry for all the men missing their foreskins, and their partners, sex is SO much better with a whole penis.

Posted by Anne | June 22, 2007 8:17 AM

lampwick,

It is true that infants are completely dependent on their parents, but the fact remains that infants grow from helpless beings to fully independent adults. We can't ask them their opinion now, but we can in the future.

For that reason, I believe it is important to respect that and leave unnecessary medical procedures for them to decide when they are capable.

Posted by JorgeM | June 22, 2007 8:31 AM

Interesting debate. The anti-circumcision folks seem to have reason on their side, but as a circumcised adult it strikes me as kind of a wash. Don't feel like I'm missing much...

One thing that hasn't come up is the theory about uncut guys shooting off too quickly. ('Cause of the extra sensitivity.) I have only anecdotal evidence of that, but it does get bandied about.

Posted by Bill | June 22, 2007 9:21 AM

I can wrap this up quite simply: where, exactly, is your authoritative reference justifying the permanent amputation of this normal, healthy, functional tissue?

Because no non-replaceable human body part is inherently disposable. That's the standard in ethics, practice, and law, and the male foreskin is by-definition included in that standard.

And therefore, it is not our responsibility to justify the normal, commonplace extension of that default standard protection to the male genitals.

It is instead your responsibility to explain exactly how and why people should be allowed to treat the foreskins of male children as uniquely and singularly deprived of that protection, and disposable.

Before anything else is discussed, you need to do that. First thing. And you need to do it regardless of personal belief in merely potential prophylaxis of some condition or illness, or in ritual or custom, just as is the case for the genitalia of little girls, by federal law.

Because if you can't or won't do that, then you do not have what is fundamentally and unavoidably required to support a position in favor of permitting routine and ritual male prepucectomy without a direct medical health necessity.

So again, it is your responsibility to explain exactly how and why anyone should be allowed to treat the foreskins of male children as being uniquely and singularly disposable, in comparison to the default standard whereby they are assumed to possess the same basic, intrinsic value as any other normal, healthy, functional human body part.

If you don't do that first, then it simply doesn't matter what else you say or believe. Including the fact that some people simply assume that some ethical basis for the practice just somehow exists, somewhere, on some unknown grounds -- mere potential prophylaxis included, since that does not provide sufficient justification for the amputation of any other normal, healthy, functional body part, either.

If you can't provide an authoritative reference providing valid and supportable grounds for the unique and singular exclusion of the foreskins of male children from the default standard of protection of all normal, healthy, functional body parts, then it simply does not matter what else you have to say or what you believe.

And that includes your personal religious beliefs in particular, since personal religious beliefs in general are insufficient to justify the routine and ritual genital amputation of female children, female prepucectomy included.

That's it and that's all; over, done, finished; period, end of argument.

Posted by Acksiom | June 22, 2007 9:45 AM

Bill- I think that largest thing that circumcision usually removes from a man is his ability to objectively look at the question. Most of the time it leaves a man in a state of defensive knee jerk justifications rather than being able to look at the question with objectivity. The fact that you see some reason in the anti-circumcision arguments means that you are probably pretty close to finding out that the anti-circumcision movement is not about putting circumcised guys down.

As for the question of increased sensitivity I'm a woman. My observation of the expressed sensuality of circumcised and intact men has led me to believe that circumcision most certainly does deprive and man of a very fine depth and range of sensual feelings. The fact that he may be unable to appreciate that difference and enjoys sex regardless, is not an argument that his loss was inconsequential or justified by his ignorance. He is only ignorant because the entire system is designed to exploit infant amnesia and the predictable defensiveness of those circumcised when they were too tiny and helpless to prevent something they would never have chosen for themselves.

The ability to enjoy fine wine does not mean that you drink wine faster than those who have no ability to enjoy it. It's actually very revealing about the way that circumcised men might look at sex when they imply gratitude to circumcision because "If it felt any better I wouldn't be able to last at all" Why not consider that maybe part of the sensitivity lost is the ability to subdue some of the nerve input- which actually refines control? ...Because it's pretty painful to consider such a thing.

I congratulate you on your willingness to keep an open mind. It's not easy, I know that.

Posted by InResponsetoBill | June 22, 2007 10:20 AM

InResponsetoBill:

I'm not really bothered by your idea that I/we lack objectivity. Maybe I do, maybe I don't. And hey, I'm not bothered by the condescending congratulations, either! In my life I've spent 0 hours 0 minutes regretting my infant circumcision. I'm not *grateful* for it; it's just a non-issue for me. I had to learn some self-control, too. Your wine analogy is bizarre. But if there's a whole nuanced world of sexual pleasure I'm missing, well, my hat's off to the uncut men out there. The one's I have personal knowledge about through women's accounts lasted about a half a minute.

Posted by Bill | June 22, 2007 10:53 AM

Bill,

I just looked for studies on the subject, and apparently there are studies that show the opposite on the matter, even. But the majority of studies seem to show no real difference. That doesn't surprise me. To be blunt, if there is a difference, it can easily be controlled for with technique. The one study I found said the difference on average was 6 minutes to 6.4 minutes, so the 30 second anecdotal evidence was probably just "bad luck of the draw." (Not to be too explicit here.)

That having been said, I'm not the first to harp the additional pleasure as the main reason against infant circumcision. I don't believe either is objectively better. I'm happy as I am, and glad that I was left with the choice, but hopefully the end result is the child's happiness. The "one-way street" aspect is really the sole reason I feel strongly either way about this.

Posted by Alcon B | June 22, 2007 11:40 AM

It seems both varieties of male are by and large happy the way they are, surprise surprise. (One hears of embittered circumcised men, but it's only fair to point out that there are many uncircumcised men, too, who have expressed dissatisfaction with their lot, for whatever reasons.)

File this in the TMI category, but speaking as a circumcised Gentile, on a good day, if I came any harder either during sex or, er, onanism, I'd need a defibrillator handy. The so-called "stimulus deficit" is just such a non-concern. If I can experience a literal total body experience as it is, I'm not losing any sleep. So ha.

As for performing it on helpless infants, the antis unquestionably have reason on their side, but then, life's a stitch, and having that one choice among many hundreds of choices deprived of you (including, it has to be said, the choice to have been brought into the world at all) makes it kind of a wash. The outrage perplexes me, because I can't manage to summon any. I also don't mind the extra attention to hygiene I'm missing out on, because let's face it things aren't terribly pleasant as is on a hot summer's day. I don't care what anyone says about daily showers; we're not living on the savanna, tackle out and aerated.

Here's an interesting read, from the "kind of a wash" category:

http://www.slate.com/id/2136062/

Posted by Bill | June 22, 2007 11:54 AM

What would be bizarre about the wine analogy? Wine gets you drunk whether you enjoy it or not. Even people who like wine or really love getting drunk- can still have no understanding of the finer aspects of wine which some people savor above and beyond the means to the end of getting sloshed. It's as if the circumcised guys are sitting there drunk and smug mocking people who do know wine, with the rational, "If I enjoyed wine any more than I already do I'd choke on my own vomit."

To the people who know what it's like, the knee jerk assumptions about how awful it would be to have the full potential of your palette developed appears rather vulgar.

To imply that without the favors of circumcisers the human male factory model is a premature ejaculator... insults your own ability to logic this one out.

A man has a right to possess his entire sex organ for his whole life. It's his and no one else's. These questions of quantitative pleasure are irrelevant... do I need sexual value in all the nooks and crannies of my genitals to be quantified, justified and outlined in medical studies to keep a knife out of them? Can I only keep it if I can prove that it's important enough for me to have a claim to it? And how, retroactively could I stake such a claim if people were allowed to modify my body when I was an infant? Isn't the wholeness of a human body and the autonomy of the person reason enough to deny access to those who are compelled to cut?

I'm sorry if my first post sounded condecending- I really didn't mean it to sound that way!

Posted by InResponsetoBill | June 22, 2007 12:56 PM

To the incensed poster who called circumcision a 'humam rights issue?' Ali Kosheib seconds this notion...this refugee camp? Nothing to see here.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | June 22, 2007 1:12 PM

1. Good god you're a prig, Ross. Grow a pair.

2. Your attempt to dismiss your intellectual superior as a crusader is -- wait for it -- pathetic.

Posted by mari lup | June 22, 2007 1:46 PM

InResponsetoMe:

What would be bizarre about the wine analogy? Wine gets you drunk whether you enjoy it or not. Even people who like wine or really love getting drunk- can still have no understanding of the finer aspects of wine which some people savor above and beyond the means to the end of getting sloshed. It's as if the circumcised guys are sitting there drunk and smug mocking people who do know wine, with the rational, "If I enjoyed wine any more than I already do I'd choke on my own vomit."

Yup, still a bizarre analogy. Apparently as a circumcised male I view getting to orgasm as the equivalent of having had just enough Keystone beer to be shitfaced without throwing it up. And amusing that a female is informing me I may have no understanding of "the finer aspects" of sex, nor even enjoy the act of "getting drunk." (Did anyone ever explain to you that sex is 90% in your brain anyway?) I'm not "mocking" uncircumcised men and never have. I'm saying I personally don't need my sex to be worlds more enjoyable than it is. If that makes me a sexual Philistine in your eyes, well.......[you could blow me].

To the people who know what it's like, the knee jerk assumptions about how awful it would be to have the full potential of your palette developed appears rather vulgar.

I'm certainly not saying it'd be "awful" to have a more sensitive prick. Just that there may be advantages to being somewhat less sensitive.

To imply that without the favors of circumcisers the human male factory model is a premature ejaculator... insults your own ability to logic this one out.

Aha, but it depends on where you set the mark. No doubt the official bar for "premature" status is woefully low. There are many contributing factors to a lack of sexual stamina, and a man, in my view, could do with a little help. I don't count that as a reason to become circumcised, but it may be a silver lining at least.

Posted by Bill | June 22, 2007 1:51 PM

Ross: You have a right to your views, but I want to reiterate what some other posters have said: Routine for circumcision for non-religious reasons, whether "health" or simply aesthetics, is a product of the Victorian and twentieth-century English-speaking world and the U.S. in particular. That doesn't necessarily prove that it is a bad idea - lots of great things, from the telephone to major league baseball to ice cream cones, are products of that time and place. But Ross's (and others') apparent belief that circumcision is the norm and non-circumcisers the weirdos is historically and geographically ignorant.
According to Wikipedia, for example, a 1986 study showed that only 511 boys of 478,000 male Danes under fourteen had been circumcised!* (This must have been before Muslims started immigrating there.) Most other Western countries are not so extreme as that, but the U.S. is an outlier. (The outlier of the Far East is South Korea, where American doctors proselytized for the practice.)

* The whole Wikipedia article is fascinating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_male_circumcision

It has a great quote from Richard Burton (the kinky Victorian explorer and translator, not the actor): "Christendom practically holds circumcision in horror." Burton's contemporaries, rightly or wrongly, were responsible for altering several millenia of Indo-European* dislike of the procedure.

* See the Old Testament, where the Indo-European Philistines are routinely referred to as "the uncircumcised." As a Christian, I certainly don't believe that circumcision was wrong during the period when God commanded it - but I believe it was precisely because of its radical and mutilatory nature that He commanded it. He wanted His people to have a radical sign of their consecration to Him. To treat the procedure as no big deal should be offensive to both its opponents and its proponents.

Posted by James Kabala | June 22, 2007 3:21 PM

but I believe it was precisely because of its radical and mutilatory nature that He commanded it. He wanted His people to have a radical sign of their consecration to Him.

Excuse me, but that is fucking insane.

Posted by Bill | June 22, 2007 3:37 PM

Circumcision, infants, blood, mutilation, fantasies of victimization, obsession with 'hygiene'... that's a nice stew you Antis are serving up.

Just don't be surprised when a bunch of anti-Semites invite themselves over for dinner.

Posted by lampwick | June 22, 2007 6:03 PM

It's worth pointing out that Andrew Sullivan belongs to the post-war generation of Britons not to be circumcised when their fathers likely were. His contemporaries in the UK were uncircumcised, like most men in the world; he now lives in a country where the opposite is the case.

Routine... circumcision for non-religious reasons, whether "health" or simply aesthetics, is a product of the Victorian and twentieth-century English-speaking world and the U.S. in particular.

Indeedy. If Americans routinely bound the feet of little girls today, I'm sure that there'd be bloggers claiming that it was quite healthy.

Well, something like sixty percent of American males are so mutilated, and I believe I have the weight of the American experience on my side when I say that any such dampening would have to be extremely negligible.

Uh-huh. You keep thinking that, Ross.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 22, 2007 7:19 PM

Bill,

I'm not sure I wouldn't share your indifference. That having been said, I know extremely reasonable, balanced people who feel very much wronged by this. That's really the only reason I particularly care. I don't understand their feelings, but then again I can't really, but culturally I have sympathies for those who wronged. If I had to feel like I was missing something whenever I looked down in the shower, yeah, that would kinda be a bummer.

In response to the Slate article - less because I care about this line of complaint (which I don't) than because I like crawling medical web sites...I have two things:

1. It may have been the best way at the time, but it seems odd to use after-circumcision patients as a study group. First of all, the whole "desensitization over time" thing wouldn't be included (if it exists). Moreover, I imagine many of them probably had pre-existing "issues" unless they got snipped out of boredom.

2. The more recent studies I can find relate to testing for fine-touch receptors, which I might trust marginally more than these surveys. For what that's worth...

Posted by Alcon B | June 22, 2007 8:33 PM

According to Bill:

"As for performing it on helpless infants, the antis unquestionably have reason on their side, but then, life's a stitch, and having that one choice among many hundreds of choices deprived of you (including, it has to be said, the choice to have been brought into the world at all) makes it kind of a wash."

Do please tell us, Bill, what other normal, healthy, functional, and non-replaceable human body parts do you think people should be allowed to have cut off of children in the absence of a direct medical health necessity?

Fingers? Toes? Ears? Please tell us, Bill; because of all those hundreds of other 'choices' of which children are routinely deprived, the permanent amputation of what else from a human child's body is thereby made "kind of a wash"?

For example, what about genital piercings of children, Bill? Is that acceptable to you? After all, that must be even more trivial than prepucectomy, since there is no meaningful tissue loss, right?

"The outrage perplexes me, because I can't manage to summon any. I also don't mind the extra attention to hygiene I'm missing out on, because let's face it things aren't terribly pleasant as is on a hot summer's day. I don't care what anyone says about daily showers; we're not living on the savanna, tackle out and aerated."

And, again, the permanent amputation of exactly how much of precisely what normal, healthy, functional, and non-replaceable human body parts do you think that people should be allowed to have performed upon children?

Come on, Bill; open up and share with us. What else may we have your gracious permission to cut off children, because of, by your reasoning, all those other 'choices' which are denied to them?

I'm certainly not seeing anything in that Slate article that even just begins to initiate an approach towards coming close to starting to pretend to address my previous comments.

Or, come to think of it, anything in the following posts that does so, either. Hrmmmm. . . .

Gosh, I do so wonder as to just why that might be!

* * * * * * * * * *

Another Jew, why exactly do you choose to find that statement so profoundly offensive?

Because AFAICT, it's just a simple, accurate observation of empirical fact. It would indeed be more racist and anti-semitic to deny jewish and muslim children equal protection from medically unnecessary genital amputation.

* * * * * * * * * *

Lampwick, I would very much appreciate it if you would be so kind as to address my socratic categorical invalidation of the position of acceptance of routine and ritual male prepucectomy.

If you did, it might help pass the time while we wait for your anti-semites to arrive -- not to mention how, once they do, we shall be made busier with castigating and shaming and kicking them right back out again, which is what we always do whenever they show up.

Posted by Acksiom | June 22, 2007 10:55 PM

P. in N.C.: Actually, based on his outrage level, I wonder if he did have it done to him and resents the "sexual pleasure" of which he has been deprived. (And really, he hurts his cause by describing the issue in such hedonistic terms.)
Bill: My religious footnote was addressed mainly to people like Ross who share my basic view of world history. I am sorry if it freaked out other people.
Lampwick: I don't think is a major moral issue, and I would never criticize those who circumcise on religious grounds. I just think that non-Jewish and non-Muslim parents should think long and hard before they remove a body part. Who knows what use scientits might prove it has some day? Didn't people use to think the tonsils had no use, but we now know that's not the case?

Posted by James Kabala | June 22, 2007 11:09 PM

One more thing: I don't get the "aesthetic" argument. Isn't the whole body covered with skin? How can skin be ugly?

Posted by James Kabala | June 22, 2007 11:11 PM

Acksiom,
You're sounding like kind of a big idiot, albeit a righteous one, and I'm not gonna dignify your silly baiting about amputations and genital piercings and such, as I've already stated that you antis have reason on your side as to involuntary neonatal circs. Just, as a roundhead, it's kind of a wash for me, as there aren't in fact ZERO benefits from being circumcised.

Posted by Bill | June 22, 2007 11:23 PM

Ah, I am so persuaded now...

I want my foreskin back! Along with my rudimentary tail, my third nipple, my vestigial sixth toe, my webbed fingers, and my siamese twin; and if I can get my cleft lip back too, that would also be good.

At any rate, because I am an Anti now, I don't want doctors to be allowed to perform any of these operations on infants, since they're merely cosmetic, take away his or her choice, have the potential to be dangerous, and serve no legitimate medical need.

Posted by lampwick | June 22, 2007 11:36 PM

Bill Said:
I've already stated that you antis have reason on your side as to involuntary neonatal circs.
and
there aren't in fact ZERO benefits from being circumcised.

You're right to grant the weight of reason to the Genital Integrity Rights crowd. They have reasoned that although cutting off any body part will confer some benefit (e.g. because what you don't have can't get infected), the standards for prophylactic amputative surgery by proxy-consent are not met. Read this paper for a more in-depth analysis: Prophylactic interventions on children: balancing human rights with public health

Posted by respect | June 23, 2007 12:04 AM

lampwick,

Again, I'm tending to miss the measure of sarcasm here.

Are you actually seriously comparing the foreskin to a birth defect?

I know you may personally find no use for it...but c'mon. Anatomically, biologically, that doesn't particularly make any sense. One might as well compare chopping off a pinky finger (which I probably have less use for) to those things, because it's not *really* necessary.

But arguing that the foreskin is vestigial (again, biologically just wrong) is counterintuitive to your purpose. That is, sounding less deluded than the people you are calling "Antis" (is this an actual term of some sort? Do we need a euphemism for everything?) and trying to make fun of.

My two cents there (now up to about a dime)...

Posted by Alcon B | June 23, 2007 1:04 AM

"You're right to grant the weight of reason to the Genital Integrity Rights crowd. They have reasoned that although cutting off any body part will confer some benefit..."

Only a very small number of anti-circumcision activists acknowledge any benefit to circumcision. Most vigorously deny their existence, even in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence (as with HIV). One only has to observe them for a relatively short time to see that their reasoning is not as you describe, but is closer to "I believe that circumcision is wrong, therefore the science must be wrong." It's a very peculiar position.

"Read this paper for a more in-depth analysis."

Or this, for another view: Between prophylaxis and child abuse: the ethics of neonatal male circumcision.

Posted by Jake | June 23, 2007 7:25 AM

(I really have no idea what I'm doing up arguing about *this* at 4:30 AM on a Saturday morning, but here we go.)

Jake,

I'm not going to really address the rest of your post because I don't consider myself an "activist" and don't believe there are no benefits at all. I consider myself to be a regular teenager. I don't lose sleep over this. I do have a strong conviction here, though, so I want to give this due thought.

I read your article. It presented some interesting points, none of which seem new to this discussion. I'll address some I found odd. First of all, the comparison of infant circumcision to a cosmetic surgery like breast enhancement is odd. It ignores the fact that this is proxy consent, not actual consent. Parents forcing their daughter to get breast implants would probably illicit outrage among most of the sane. Obviously, yes, there's a sliding scale with vaccination on the other side. But where does circumcision fit? Close enough to vaccination to justify it?

Here's my sticking point.

The article briefly touches on choice, as to bulldoze over it. Fair enough; it has its agenda. But its argument is that choice should be devalued significantly because the impact of an adult circumcision would be greater.

Unless the likelihood of one is much greater than the other (which I see no indication of), and if I had to pick one, I'd much rather my child go through the negative impact of having to make an unpleasant choice than feeling trapped by a choice I made for him. I understand that some (although increasingly fewer) parents disagree with this...but I've yet to be explained why.

Posted by Alcon B | June 23, 2007 7:50 AM

Lampwick: You are hurting rather than helping your position. You seem to be still under the impression that circumcision is a universal human practice, when it is not (by far, except among Americans, Koreans, and those who do it for religious reasons). "Antis" may be wrong, but trying to bowl them over with the force of custom will backfire on you.

Posted by James Kabala | June 23, 2007 10:06 AM

My general point (which can be made in various ways) is that the choice whether to circumcise a male infant or leave his foreskin on is an aesthetic one, pure and simple. And the point of my sarcastic examples is to suggest that when it comes to aesthetic choices, we, as a society, do and ought to defer to the wishes of the parent, unless the parent is either insane or intentionally cruel.

Personally, I agree that the foreskin removal is not necessary, and that it might look better intact. But who cares what my personal opinion is on a matter of bodily AESTHETICS? This ultimately is a matter of public policy and of legislation in a free and open society. I cannot side with a group of people who want to legislate their aesthetic preferences. Whether most people in the world do or don't practice circumcision is irrelevant to the question. And to be frank, since the endgame for this movement would be a society where the traditional practices of millions of Jews, Muslims, and Christians would be made illegal or at very least severely stigmatized, I think what you're proposing is dangerous and foolish. You're playing with fire.

Posted by lampwick | June 23, 2007 10:46 AM

Gonna throw one more log on the fire here. Oft cited is a survey of Korean adults who were circumcised:

"In a study by Korean researchers of 255 men circumcised after the age of 20 and 118 who were not circumcised, Kim and Pang reported that masturbatory pleasure decreased in 48% of the respondents and increased in 8%. Masturbatory difficulty increased in 63% but was easier in 37%. 20% reported that their sex life was worse after circumcision and 6% reported that it had improved 'There were no significant differences in sexual drive, erection, ejaculation, and ejaculation latency time between circumcised and uncircumcised men.' Kim and Pang concluded, 'There was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings.'"

Okay...

A) Drive, erection, ejaculation and "latency time" are unaffected.

B) Masturbatory pleasure decreased in 48% and increased in 8%. By implication, then, it stayed the same in 44%. I.e., mastubatory pleasure either stayed the same of improved for a majority of respondents.

C) 20% said sex life was worse, 6% said it improved. I.e., 80% reported their sex life was presumably either the same, or improved. Not exactly a net negative.

As for the preferences of women, this depends on a shoal of considerations, of which the physiognomy of the penis is one.

In conclusion, despite all the emotive rhetoric against circumcision, it doesn't appear to me to rise to the level of social tragedy. Does that make it right? No. But there are many ways to skin a cat, as it were, and it seems both circumcised and uncircumcised men will have their fair shake at a fulfilling sex life. I know I did.

Posted by Bill | June 23, 2007 10:53 AM

And puzzle over this one for me:

"In an American study of 123 men, Fink found that medically necessitated circumcision resulted in worsened erectile function at the 99% confidence level, de-sensitization and/or delayed ejaculation at the 92% certainty level, but improved satisfaction at the 96% certainty level."

Devil's in the details I guess.

Posted by Bill | June 23, 2007 11:04 AM

lampwick,

Ah, OK, that's fair enough. To be frank, how my penis looks is not my greatest concern in life. It's not why I prefer being uncircumcised (or intact, if that's not p.c. now) at all. Clip or no, penises are not pretty in any conventional sense. If it's just an aesthetic concern, I'd err on the side of letting the person who has to look at it for the rest of his life decide too. I imagine most would, and that's all that I was saying.

But I do understand what you mean, now. Thanks.

Posted by Alcon B | June 23, 2007 3:08 PM

Alcon B - You are very gracious. Peace, Philip T

Posted by lampwick | June 23, 2007 3:27 PM

Ross, I agree with everything you said. But I think your jocular tone undermines the circumcising cause.

I guess I see this thing as higher stakes. If I could go back to the days when kids all had short well groomed hair, and even hobos wore hats and clothing that seems formal to our modern eyes, I definitely would. I think this is about a choice between a society which fetishizes the natural and self-indulgent and one which respects self-restraint, discipline, and man's conquest of his animal nature.

All these commenters who want to ban circumcision are authoritarians of the usual sort who pass seat-belt and anti-smoking laws.

The numbers of grown men who decide they want their foreskin back, or decide that they want a circumcision, are negligible. Men just accept what they've known their whole life. When your parents chose circumcision, yes, they're choosing for you. When they choose au natural, they're choosing for you every bit as much.

It's ridiculous to act like an infant can make an informed decision on this or any other matter.

Posted by Gyrd | June 23, 2007 4:45 PM

When your parents chose circumcision, yes, they're choosing for you. When they choose au natural, they're choosing for you every bit as much.

So, the parents of little girls are actively choosing not to bind their feet?

Your choice of language is suspect: one alternative is a 'fetish', the other is 'respect'? Nah. Doesn't work that way. It's just as easy to argue the other way and say that routine circumcision is a continuing fetishisation of the Victorian two-faced prudery that led in its time to the covering of table legs and the proliferation of prostitution.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 23, 2007 6:36 PM

Gyrd; I don't feel strongly about this at all (and certainly don't want this to be enforced by law - has anyone, even crazy Andrew Sullivan, said that?), but the opinions I do have are the exact opposite of yours, and the ignorance that underlies your opinions makes me more angry than the mere position you take. I consider anti-circumcision the more conservative choice. The Victorians (who invented routine circumcision) were often admirable and (as is their reputation) in many ways conservative people, but they did have a blind faith in "progress" that sometimes led them to reject the common sense wisdom of their ancestors, and I believe this is a case of that.
St. Paul went to great lengths and antagonized many of his colleagues to save Christians from having to be circumcised. Was he an advocate of the "natural and self-indulgent" and "our animal nature?"

Posted by James Kabala | June 23, 2007 11:48 PM

I don't care much about circumcision and don't consider it child abuse; rather, I care about misinformation that portrays any practice as universally normal and traditional when the facts say otherwise. That is all.

Posted by James Kabala | June 24, 2007 12:02 AM

the Victorian two-faced prudery that led in its time to the covering of table legs and the proliferation of prostitution.

Right because there really was no prostitution before those Victorians came along. Prudery aside, I'm okay with the fact that I'm unable to jerk off -- easily -- with my pants pocket.

Posted by Bill | June 24, 2007 7:27 AM

Bill,

(One hears of embittered circumcised men, but it's only fair to point out that there are many uncircumcised men, too, who have expressed dissatisfaction with their lot, for whatever reasons.)

Sure enough. But it's only fair to point out that the unhappy intact men can later choose to "correct" that. Unhappy circumcised men? Not so much.

lampwick,

I cannot side with a group of people who want to legislate their aesthetic preferences.

I do not want to legislate my aesthetic preference on anyone, although I know a legislative prohibition on medically unnecessary infant circumcision is appropriate and necessary. (We protect girls from aesthetic preference, so equality under the law demands as much.) Specifically, an adult male would be free to choose the aesthetics of a circumcised penis for himself. He can cut his penis off, for all I care what he does to himself. So I'm not seeking to legislate that males stay intact all their lives, only that each individual be given the option to make that undeniably subjective valuation and decision for himself. As Alcon B said, "If it's just an aesthetic concern, I'd err on the side of letting the person who has to look at it for the rest of his life decide too." Bingo.

Ultimately, I think your position is what you claim to disagree with. What difference does it make if the "governing body" is a legislature or a parent? The result will still be the same for all boys who disagree with their parents. But, again, unhappy intact males retain the option to achieve their aesthetic preference. Unhappy circumcised males retain no option. They are stuck with their parent's aesthetic preference.

Gyrd,

All these commenters who want to ban circumcision are authoritarians of the usual sort who pass seat-belt and anti-smoking laws.

Interesting theory, but no. I want to ban (medically unnecessary infant) circumcision. I have no problem with not requiring seat belts. I also think anti-smoking laws that supercede property rights are an abomination. I believe that each person should be able to choose for himself and live his life as he pleases. That's a big difference from authoritarianism, unless you consider telling individuals to make their own choices is authoritarian and having someone else make their decisions for them is not.

No one is acting like an infant can make an informed decision, only that we, as supposedly rational adults, can make rational assumptions about what he'd want, if given the choice. As you indicate, most intact adult men don't want a circumcision. So why am I supposed to believe that an infant would want one? Given that "no" is the only rational answer, why should I think it's okay for parents to impose something different, especially when that surgical intervention involves no immediate medical need but an immediate medical risk?

Posted by Tony | June 24, 2007 1:55 PM

I find it interesting that the advocates of penile integrity have not made the least attempt here to explain how they are going to fashion laws that will ban male infant circumcision without criminalizing mohelim. Will parents get permission slips from the government that allow them to circumcise their sons if they can somehow prove that they are ardent in their attachment to Judaism, Islam, or whatever pro-circumcision sect of Christian they might happen to belong to? And what if one is a lapsed monotheist who merely wants to follow family tradition? Can you get a permission slip then? And if no permissions or exceptions will be made - so that circumcision becomes the legal equal of polygamy, say - how shall we go about discouraging and suppressing the practice?

Posted by lampwick | June 24, 2007 9:46 PM

lampwick,

Easy.

Non-therapeutic circumcision is like a nose-job or breast implants, requiring informed consent of the patient. Like every other part of the body, physicians only operate for genuine medical indication. Boys who find they were circumcised by a physician as an infant for no medical reason have the option of legal recourse for wrongful circumcision. Watch how quickly physicians stop circumcising infants without a medical reason once they are accountable to the patient.

Religious practitioners, not acting under the auspices of a medical license, have no such concern.

Independently, good ethical religious people will reform their traditions which involve genital mutilation, eventually relegating those who value outdated religious practices over ethical treatment of other humans to fundamentalist status.

That's how.

Posted by respect | June 24, 2007 11:42 PM

respect -

That means a statute of limitations eighteen years long - at very least.

So let me get this straight:

you think a twenty-year old suing a retired physician in a court of law for performing a procedure which his parents requested be performed on him twenty-years earlier - this court, this jury trial, is where the rubber meets the road, so to speak, in your vision?

Posted by lampwick | June 25, 2007 12:25 AM

lampwick:
"My general point (which can be made in various ways) is that the choice whether to circumcise a male infant or leave his foreskin on is an aesthetic one, pure and simple."

How can you justify exposing a healthy baby to the risks and pain of an invasive surgery just because of aesthetics?

Complications may be rare, but there are countless documented cases of botched circumcisions that in the most severe cases involve partial and complete penis amputation and death.

Two weeks ago a Canadian baby died from circumcision complications.

http://www.canada.com/cityguides/ottawa/story.html?id=cb3b8281-4134-46ba-85d3-b076072bda75&k=25810

That was a high price to pay just because his parents thought circumcised penes look cuter.

Posted by Dean | June 25, 2007 1:08 AM

Lampwick, one more question. How do you feel about parents cutting off their infant daughters labia minora for cosmetical reasons?

Posted by Dean | June 25, 2007 1:13 AM

"How can you justify exposing a healthy baby to the risks and pain of an invasive surgery just because of aesthetics?"

I'm not personally justifying circumcision on the basis of aesthetics; personally I think the uncut genitalia look just fine. But earlier I pointed out that we allow parents to have doctors operate on their children in order to remove tails, vestigial thumbs, web fingers, and Siamese twins. That's done for reasons of aesthetics and social conformity, so what's the difference with a foreskin? Yes, one is 'natural' and one is 'unnatural', but the distinction exists only in statistics. The parts are 'living', yet we allow parents to have them removed.

Personally, I think cutting off the clitoral 'hood' is unnecessary, just like I think male circumcision is unnecessary. I consider the pharaonic circumcision abominable, being rather analogous to the removal of the entire penis; the removal of the labia minora lies somewhere in between. That's how I feel about it. The question is, what should be done about it? The honest answer is that I don't have a consistent answer. Female genital mutilation in Africa is a problem which ties in with the inferior social status of women in the various countries where it is practiced. I support efforts to suppress it as long as there are concomitant efforts to improve the economic and political status of women. Thinking of the need to triage the problems of failed states, I can't declare it to be the supreme social evil, but one of many.

The United States is not a country in Africa. It is an open, advanced, multicultural society. Men are not circumcising men as part of an effort to keep them subordinate. We are home to a very large Jewish community which lies close to the core of American culture, and which practices male infant circumcision as part of a tradition which goes back about 3,000 years. Other communities here have adopted or copied Jewish practice. There is no harm done in allowing it to continue. Conversely, trying to ban it or drive it to the margins of society is likely to lead to the last thing we need, a revival of anti-Semitism (it has happened before when a cult of 'the natural' springs up). So I oppose the proposed ban.

Posted by lampwick | June 25, 2007 1:56 AM

Lampwick: I, for one, largely agree with you. I like your pseudonym too.

Posted by James Kabala | June 25, 2007 2:38 AM

what a load of bollocks!

1) the reason it is better in infancy is because it doesn't hurt so fucking much then! that is why no one wants to be snipped as an adult. the younger (and, um, less developed) you are, the less it hurts. that's why it is done in infancy.

2) comparing people snipped as adult's sensitivity before and after circumcision is ridiculous. of course, if you have a hatchet taken to your adult penis it might have residual impact on sensitivity (see above point on relative pain of procedure).

3) there is thus no way to determine whether anyone would have bene *more* sensitive had he not been snipped in infancy, and all arguments to this effect are supposition/projection.

4) the soap argument is nonsense. it's like saying, hey i use soap, i dont need to use deodorant. sorry, you still do. and, sorry, unsnipped penises, other than perhaps in the first hours after having been scrubbed, are malodorous. call me crazy, but i kind of like the fact that when i come from a tough day at the office and undress that i am not greeted with the stench of my own genitalia. people who think that they dont have smegma or that washing is enough are nothing more than a variant of those who assume they dont need to use deodorant.

5) parents make thousands of decisions for their children. many of them irrevokable. this is no different.

Posted by logicat | June 25, 2007 4:12 AM

p.s. might not less sensitivity be a good thing, within reason? i always thought it was a good thing not to orgasm too quickly ...

Posted by logicat | June 25, 2007 4:15 AM

lampwick, I applaud your consistency. I bet you would agree that the Harborview procedure is, in fact, more ethical the male infant circumcision:
http://www.cirp.org/news/1996.10.28_Chicago/

"It would be a small cut to the prepuce, the hood above the
clitoris, with no tissue excised, and this would be conducted
under local anesthetic for children old enough to understand the
procedure and give consent in combination with informed consent
of the parents," said Harborview spokeswoman Tina Mankowski.

logicat said:

1) the reason it is better in infancy is because it doesn't hurt so fucking much then! that is why no one wants to be snipped as an adult. the younger (and, um, less developed) you are, the less it hurts. that's why it is done in infancy.

Really, on what evidence do you claim to know the pain felt by an infant? All indications are that they are excruciatingly sensitive to pain. Inability to articulate the pain in words is not compelling evidence for an infant.

Posted by respect | June 25, 2007 7:51 AM

Really, on what evidence do you claim to know the pain felt by an infant? All indications are that they are excruciatingly sensitive to pain. Inability to articulate the pain in words is not compelling evidence for an infant.

First of all, infants CAN AND SHOULD be circumcised (when they are) using a dorsal penile nerve block. This is only rational, and it happens to work. Consider that a man circumcised as an adult, under full anesthesia, needs something like 5-6 weeks to recover, whereas an infant with the nerve block shows no outward signs of discomfort in the days following the procedure.

And look: infants are "excruciatingly sensitive" to just about everything until they're 4-6 months old. Are you a parent? Try taking the nipple away before they're ready at 3 am, and they'll scream like you just tore off their fingernails, or murdered their parents in front of them. "Inability to articulate the pain in words," indeed. They feel pain, yes, but "all indications," in fact, are that they also forget it two minutes later, and pain should to a great extent be defined by its lasting impact. The description of an infant's reaction to circumcision is exactly the same as their first vaccine shots, which I've witnessed and which would convince a person they're moments inches of death by pain.

The stuff about "not bonding with the mother" is b.s. in my experience, as is the business about "profound, lasting psychological damage," which is typical new age culture-of-victimhood claptrap, also sans evidence one might add.

Posted by Bill | June 25, 2007 8:26 AM

Babies take pain better than grown men. OK Bill you have just redefined masculinity for me.

Posted by InResponsetoBill | June 25, 2007 11:25 AM

Really, on what evidence do you claim to know the pain felt by an infant? All indications are that they are excruciatingly sensitive to pain. Inability to articulate the pain in words is not compelling evidence for an infant.

First of all, infants CAN AND SHOULD be circumcised (when they are) using a dorsal penile nerve block. This is only rational, and it happens to work. Consider that a man circumcised as an adult, under full anesthesia, needs something like 5-6 weeks to recover, whereas an infant with the nerve block shows no outward signs of discomfort in the days following the procedure.

And look: infants are "excruciatingly sensitive" to just about everything until they're 4-6 months old. Are you a parent? Try taking the nipple away before they're ready at 3 am, and they'll scream like you just tore off their fingernails, or murdered their parents in front of them. "Inability to articulate the pain in words," indeed. They feel pain, yes, but "all indications," in fact, are that they also forget it two minutes later, and pain should to a great extent be defined by its lasting impact. The description of an infant's reaction to circumcision is exactly the same as their first vaccine shots, which I've witnessed and which would convince a person they're moments inches of death by pain.

The stuff about "not bonding with the mother" is b.s. in my experience, as is the business about "profound, lasting psychological damage," which is typical new age culture-of-victimhood claptrap, also sans evidence one might add.

Posted by Bill | June 25, 2007 11:29 AM

Sorry about the double post.

InResponsetoMe, if that's what you took away from what I wrote, you clearly can't read.

Posted by Bill | June 25, 2007 11:31 AM

logicat,

What a load of bollocks indeed...

the reason it is better in infancy is because it doesn't hurt so fucking much then! that is why no one wants to be snipped as an adult. the younger (and, um, less developed) you are, the less it hurts. that's why it is done in infancy.

Infants do not feel any less pain than adults do. Of course, this was the common myth up until only recently, which is why surgical procedures were often done without anaesthesia. Fortunately, once people realized how crazy this was, this process stopped forever.

comparing people snipped as adult's sensitivity before and after circumcision is ridiculous. of course, if you have a hatchet taken to your adult penis it might have residual impact on sensitivity (see above point on relative pain of procedure).

That doesn't make any sense, and again, same pain level. But you're also acting like anywhere near a significant portion of uncircumcised men would ever get the procedure, which isn't true. There isn't much water to the "he'll need it later, so we might as well do it now" argument.

there is thus no way to determine whether anyone would have bene *more* sensitive had he not been snipped in infancy, and all arguments to this effect are supposition/projection.

How exactly is testing fine-touch receptors, and comparing sensitivity of the parts removed by the process of circumcision to the ones left over, not a reasonable methodology?

the soap argument is nonsense. it's like saying, hey i use soap, i dont need to use deodorant. sorry, you still do. and, sorry, unsnipped penises, other than perhaps in the first hours after having been scrubbed, are malodorous. call me crazy, but i kind of like the fact that when i come from a tough day at the office and undress that i am not greeted with the stench of my own genitalia. people who think that they dont have smegma or that washing is enough are nothing more than a variant of those who assume they dont need to use deodorant.

You're not crazy. Just horribly wrong. Even without showering days on end, I'm not greeted by the "stench of my own genitalia." Do you seriously think that, if that was true, I wouldn't be lining up to get snipped?

I've spent considerable time volunteering on a teen help board, and with half-decent hygiene, I haven't *once* heard this complaint.

Sorry to jump on you, but this is exactly the attitude that bothers me from *both* sides. One is not vastly other than the other. Five minutes or research would tell you that. Apparently, though, emotional outrage was preferable to research for you.

Posted by Alcon B | June 25, 2007 11:35 AM

As a caveat, to be fair to logicat, I should point out that (as Bill has said) infant circumcision does have a less lengthy recovery time. In that sense, it is probably less pain. But of the several men circumcised in adolescence I've talked to through the health support boards, none of them have said "this is so traumatic, I really wish it had been done when I was born." And even if they did, the rareness of truly necessary adult circumcisions hardly justifies avoiding a few weeks of annoying discomfort for a small percentile of the population.

Indeed, most of them are pretty adamantly against it for infants, because - as they say - they'd be frustrated if they weren't able to be the "status" they wanted, and can sympathize with that. (That is, among those who were satisfied.)

Posted by Alcon B | June 25, 2007 11:43 AM

My final comment: Alcon B. is right. Both sides do have a propensity to wild exaggerations. The exaggerations of the pro-circumcision side tend to make me more angry, because they are often snotty and condescending in tone, yet sorely lacking in facts. Do you really think, logicat, that nearly all (non-Jewish, and these days we need to add non-Muslim) European men, and a significant minority of American men, smell like that all the time? The very idea is absurd.

Posted by James Kabala | June 25, 2007 11:54 AM

"How exactly is testing fine-touch receptors, and comparing sensitivity of the parts removed by the process of circumcision to the ones left over, not a reasonable methodology?"

One problem is that it is so narrow in focus. Our sense of touch can detect many types of stimulation, and because several different types of receptor are involved, one cannot extrapolate from fine-touch sensitivity to sensitivity in general. Due to its innervation, the foreskin might reasonably be expected to be most sensitive to light touch, so it is unsurprising that a study organised by an anti-circumcision lobby group would choose to measure the sensitivity to that particular type of stimulation. Interestingly, though, in spite of this a reanalysis of the data in the study found no significant difference.

Posted by Jake | June 25, 2007 12:20 PM

James Kabala,

Here's what's "snotty and condescending": anti-circumcision advocates informing everyone about how the circumcised penis can't enjoy sexual intercourse, has lost 70% of its sensitivity, blah blah blah. That must be why I have memories of so many earth-shattering copulations! I mean, why trust my own experience over "the facts"? Sure there may be some higher plane of non-stop pleasure that I'm missing, but the circed penis gets the job done, feels great, and orgasms are 100% satisfying. But the "intactivists" are having none of it.

As for malodorousness and unpalatability, well, there are indeed many anecdotal accounts from women, who may be in more of a position to judge. I'm not saying such a thing can't be fended off with hygiene, but I'm also prepared to believe that it's a royal pain to do so. But whatever, either variety should enjoy what they have and stop losing sleep.

Posted by Bill | June 25, 2007 12:24 PM

Jake,

I just looked up the reanalysis. It was by a Mr. Jake Waskett (no M.D. or any accreditation seems implied). Any relation?

If so, you should really be more upfront about the nature of the study. That is, it seems to have been conducted by pro-circumcision interests. Which goes back to my original point of both sides in this "fight" being uncomfortably desperate to support their cause. Maybe, Mr. Waskett (I'm assuming here), I'd be a little more receptive of your argument if I didn't feel like I was being lied to by omission. The same goes for zealots on both sides. Really, I don't think we're nearly as dumb as you all are seeming to make us out to be, my friend.

I know that you have your convictions and everything. But picking and choosing evidence, and seemingly ignoring the reasons that sane, reasonably intelligent men like me would prefer to remain uncircumcised is counterintuitive. Not to be preachy, but you are only doing your own arguments harm by assuming that we are stupider than we are.

Posted by Alcon B | June 25, 2007 12:37 PM

Bill,

It really isn't a royal pain. I'm being genuine here, not defensive. It's a few seconds in the shower, and after that, it's not something I think about. I have much more problem keeping my armpits fresh.

I don't ever underestimate the male ability to fail at even basic hygiene, but as far as I'm concerned, it would take some doing to get as nasty down there as your anecdotes seem to suggest.

(I'd also hope that circumcised guys are still cleaning down there...just because they don't show dirt quite as well doesn't mean they're exempt from bad hygiene.)

Posted by Alcon B | June 25, 2007 12:41 PM

http://www.circinfo.net/#benefits

Posted by Bill | June 25, 2007 12:55 PM

Do we really have to turn this discussion into a link war?

I've seen that, Bill. The University of Washington study they're using came out to conclude that benefits and damage were insufficient either way to recommend for or against. Both sides have experts, and both sides have studies. Both sides also have ridiculously long web sites quoting studies to their convenience. When you actually look at the studies as a whole, though, it becomes increasingly clear that things are pretty balanced.

Through the board I work with, I know a gentleman who had a minor circumcision complication and had to be re-circumcised. In the process, they did it so tightly he has virtually no remaining penile skin. It was never recorded as a complication, because there is no medical complication term for it. Be wary of accepting statistics from the pro- or anti- groups upfront.

Also, please, next time you're going to link to a page with a shock picture of a penile carcinoma, *please* warn. I had to explain to the parent behind me at a public library what her eight-year-old just saw in passing. I'd rather not cause any additional childhood traumas today.

Posted by Alcon B | June 25, 2007 1:07 PM

Also, please, next time you're going to link to a page with a shock picture of a penile carcinoma, *please* warn. I had to explain to the parent behind me at a public library what her eight-year-old just saw in passing. I'd rather not cause any additional childhood traumas today.

Heh. My bad. Go ask that boy if he's circed. ;)

The website in question doesn't strike me as unduly tendentious, and I see nothing "ridiculous" about its length.

Posted by Bill | June 25, 2007 1:11 PM

Bill,

It's not a big deal. I needed my extremely awkward apology for the day.

Of course it's tendentious. It does the same thing that anti-circumcision web sites do. It picks the sunniest statistics for their side, and the worst statistics for the opposition side. The very University of Washington study it's to support its conclusion disagrees with its conclusion. There have been professional academic studies on the matter, and none of them found anything close to a 174:1 risks-benefits ratio.

If such a risks-benefits ratio actually existed, don't you think that there would be at least *one* national medical organization that said that the benefits clearly outweigh the risks? Or is there a conspiracy here? Be skeptical, Bill, be skeptical. Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

And, yes, the bastard's long. I pasted it into Microsoft Word. It clocks in at 61 pages. That, my friend, is a long damn web site.

Posted by Alcon B | June 25, 2007 1:21 PM

Ok, it's tendentious, just not UNDULY tendentious. Heh. And it's not "long." It's "thorough."

Posted by Bill | June 25, 2007 1:45 PM

"Unduly tenacious" I suppose is a euphemism for "I agree with it, so I'll grant it some creative license"? (No need to respond to that, I'm just kidding...sorta ;).

But, I'll give you that, it's certainly thorough and well-documented. Almost like a real academic paper! Except for the whole flawed methodology thing (really, counting phimosis - which doesn't even necessitate circumcision 90% of the time - as a significant complication? C'mon.)

If you don't mind, I'll stick with the University of Washington study that says it's close enough to a wash not to recommend either way. It strikes me as less "I typed this in my basement while staying up for 192 hours" and more as "credible scientific organization without a major bias."

Posted by Alcon B | June 25, 2007 1:56 PM

I was working on a "real academic paper" joke there, but today's just not my day for that. I'm sure you can come up with one, though. You seem like a funny enough guy.

Posted by Alcon B | June 25, 2007 1:58 PM

Alcon B,

I was going to jump in and highlight that "Jake" is probably Jake Waskett. Mr. Waskett appears in circumcision discussions to tout the benefits of circumcision, particularly on infants. He had himself circumcised as an adult, which leads me to ask if he'd be willing to tell us if the foreskin is most sensitive to light touch, as well as the difference in the penis before and after adult circumcision. I doubt he'd answer, though, because he traditionally does a very good job of throwing out equally biased information without staying in the flow of the discussion. Maybe he'll prove me wrong. (Mr. Waskett's Wiki page, which mentions his choice to have himself circumcised.)

Bill,

The link is fascinating, but the site is clearly biased to support circumcision. As Alcon pointed out, skepticism matters in circumcision linking. Just look at the graphic at the bottom of the page. 4,300 complications, mostly minor. (I don't know which of the last two words to "".) 500,000-750,000 complications avoided, many serious. (Ditto on the "".) I'm against infant circumcision, but that can't pass anyone's smell test. It's blatant, non-verifiable fear-mongering.

Infant circumcision is not medically necessary. That's undeniable and ultimately all that should be necessary. Everything else is just guesswork and speculation. Medical ethics dictate that, without the consent of the patient, we don't cut for non-medical reasons. Yes, parents have proxy consent, but it should not be accepted for non-medical necessity. They are not the patient.

To lampwick's point, yes, we allow elective surgery for webbed fingers, vestigial tales, and conjoined twins. Your point is valid, but the context must begin with the reality that those are abnormalities, not normal parts of human anotomy, as the foreskin clearly is. Allowing surgery on the former doesn't automatically excuse surgery on the latter.

Also, lampwick, you said "there is no harm done in allowing it to continue." The consensus medical opinion clearly believes that infant (and adult) circumcision is almost never necessary. That's enough to ban infant circumcision, regardless of other reasons for doing it because of the inherent risk and 100% chance of scarring. Whether or not those are acceptable is subjective.

Some boys suffer further complications, including death. Yes, severe complications are rare. Conceded. But we can't know which boys will suffer those complications. I doubt the boys who suffer a severe complication are much consoled by being in the minority outcome, even if the intention was what we'd label good.

Yes, changing society will be challenging. The FGM Act suggests we know it's worth the effort to put civil boundaries on religion. Boys shouldn't be treated differently. If we say male circumcision is religiously valid and FGM is not, we're putting the state as the arbiter of what is religiously correct. That can't be known, so we must rely on the basic nature of human rights. Bodily integrity should be recognized as a human right for all, not just adults and female minors.

Leonard Glick's "Marked In Your Flesh" presents a compelling argument that infant circumcision was added to Genesis long after the original text was written. If we're going to rely on something other than individual rights.

P.S. The Canadian boy who died from circumcision died in 2006. The case was first reported in medical literature in April and in the media this month. There was another death reported at the same time.

Posted by Tony | June 25, 2007 6:19 PM

Tony says:

Infant circumcision is not medically necessary. That's undeniable and ultimately all that should be necessary. Everything else is just guesswork and speculation. Medical ethics dictate that, without the consent of the patient, we don't cut for non-medical reasons. Yes, parents have proxy consent, but it should not be accepted for non-medical necessity. They are not the patient.

So medical ethics automatically trump every other form of ethics...Are you for making it illegal? (Cf. Jews, Muslims.) Supposing it's "medically desirable"? Religion aside, if you take the view that you're removing a lifelong significant hygiene concern, something of a culturally regarded biological and sexual nuisance, for which no parallels elsewhere on the body come to mind, in a procedure which, provided it isn't botched, is not proven to have any adverse longterm effects and is reasonably thought to have some positive effects from the cultural and biological point of view -- this inflects the issue considerably in my view. It doesn't decide definitively in favor of the circumcisionists, but it leaves it open. I certainly have no problem with parents choosing not to circumcise. The notion of lack of consent may decide it from one moral standpoint, but I feel it opens up a can of worms in terms of potential child-parent grievances in the wake of a variety of "unnecessary" initiatives. If its not medically necessary, neither is it medically harmful if done correctly and safely (and humanely, using painkillers).

As to the argument that "nature knows best and the foreskin is there for our heightened pleasure," I think nature cares about one thing only, fast and efficient insemination. A moistened prick that could come quickly worked better for the monkeys and other non-foreplay enacting mammals. The idea that sex is no longer great once the foreskin is gone is patently ridiculous. It is still great.

Posted by Bill | June 25, 2007 8:06 PM

Bill,

You're doing the same thing the hardcore zealots are. Honestly, I'm beginning to suspect you are one. You've had nothing positive to say about the other side. This "uncircumcised = animalistic" stuff is silly. I'm not a monkey because I have a foreskin.

"Culturally regarded biological and sexual nuisance"? What, now? I don't know what culture you grew up in. Circumcision may have been near-universal in your generation, but it is not in mine. Not nearly. I don't even know what you're saying by "culturally regarded biological and sexual nuisance." It may be for some people. But in my "culture" (West Coast suburban middle-class America), it's hardly been a sexual nuisance to me. Quite the opposite, in fact.

It may be for some people, but those are in the vast minority (as has already been demonstrated). And if it bothers them enough to get circumcised, more power to them, man.

I'm glad sex is so great for you. I just wish you weren't so defensive about this whole thing that you had to reduce yourself to implying I'm a lesser primate (or whatever you were doing - it's kind of hard to tell).

Posted by Alcon B | June 25, 2007 8:41 PM

Yo. I didn't say you were a monkey, calm down. I was rebutting the argument that says "don't cut off what nature in her wisdom 'intended' to be there for various blessed and inspired reasons." I have no doubt sex is fabu for you, too.

Biological nuisance. It requires more maintenance. I don't know about vast minorities, but I've read numerous accounts about the nuisance factor. Cultural/sexual nuisance, in areas where a majority of women (and men) may prefer the other for whatever reasons, including the issue of a more "variegated" sex life.

Posted by Bill | June 25, 2007 8:57 PM

So medical ethics automatically trump every other form of ethics...

In the context of routine infant circumcision, a surgery on a child that's medically unnecessary at the time it's performed, yes.

Are you for making it illegal? (Cf. Jews, Muslims.)

Yes, again. Medical ethics, in this case the child's right to bodily integrity/freedom from harm, is more important. Within the parental right to free expression of religion, there can be no legitimate right to impose harm on another. Being medically unnecessary, infant circumcision is harm. Should we allow Jewish Americans to stone adulterous women within the Jewish community, for example? Or do we recognize some boundary based on individual rights?

Supposing it's "medically desirable"?

I think that's supposed to be a trap. "Desirable" is not "necessity". Necessity wins, which should be obvious. Everything else, desirability included, is subjective. Does the boy value that unlikely-to-be-needed benefit?

... provided it isn't botched...

That's a fairly big caveat, no? Not based on incidence; I have no need to lie about statistical evidence surrounding the number of botches. How many "botches" are acceptable before we get angry? Do you think the boys who are botched care one bit about the stuff you preceded that with?

... is not proven to have any adverse longterm effects... and ... neither is it medically harmful if done correctly and safely...

That's subjective. Removing nerve endings, exposing the mucosal tissue of the glans and inner foreskin, and scarring have consequences. We can argue the subjective impact, but the change is undeniable.

... reasonably thought to have some positive effects from the cultural and biological point of view...

Cultural is subjective. "Others will laugh at him", "girls won't want to have sex with him", and "he needs to look like daddy" aren't compelling reasons to surgically alter a child. I have red hair that I've been teased about my entire life. Should my parents have forcibly dyed my hair a more common color to make me more culturally normal? Even though that isn't irrevocable, unlike circumcision?

The cultural conditioning of women to prefer one or the other is irrelevant. In the U.S. it's commonly an "ick" factor for the foreskin. So? I'm not of the opinion that parents are justified in changing their son to conform to what they are guessing will be his future partner's preference. Would parental choice to give a small-breasted daughter breast implants to appease the perceived preference of her future sexual partners be reasonable? Different procedure, same warped thinking.

The biological view is interesting, too. Again, I don't need to lie about statistical evidence to prove my point. But looking at an n% reduced risk of disease X is an out-of-context sales pitch. What are the actual numbers? What's the incidence? The absolute risk? Are there less invasive preventions and/or treatments available? When consenting by proxy, the goal must be to err on the side of caution. We don't do that. We cave to fear and tradition instead.

And more maintenance? So what? Female genitalia would require less maintenance if we cut away a portion of it. That wouldn't make it ethically okay. Applied only to boys, it's a double-standard.

The idea that sex is no longer great once the foreskin is gone is patently ridiculous. It is still great.

I haven't said otherwise. You're saying that, because it's still good, the lost nerve endings and altered mechanical functioning of the circumcised penis don't matter. I'm saying that it's different, and the value of that difference is subjective. It should be made only by the male himself, not his parents saying "he'll still enjoy sex."

Posted by Tony | June 25, 2007 9:11 PM

Bill,

Sorry. Cadence and the internet, y'know. I know you're arguing your side of the knife, and that's obviously fine. Sometimes it's just hard to tell the crazy one-side-is-perfection sorts from the mainstream. And, well, as a testosteronal male, I have to pick every fight I find. Especially when I'm being called a premature ejaculator, because - really - if there's any other greater insult... (you can guess my cadence here ;)

There may be a nuisance factor for some. I'm sure there are accounts. I've read accounts by people bitching from both extremes. A little "grass is greener on the other side," probably. That's one of the primary reasons I'm against infant circumcision.

Don't get me wrong, the last thing I'm interested in is claiming that the foreskin is some wonderful source of joy in my life. I like it a lot, and would probably lop off a pinky finger or a little toe to spare it, but I have more important things to be needlessly defensive about. ;)

Posted by Alcon B | June 25, 2007 9:19 PM

Sorry, missed a crucial part of my post before I pressed enter:

...and that's just me.

Posted by Alcon B | June 25, 2007 9:28 PM

Yes, again. Medical ethics, in this case the child's right to bodily integrity/freedom from harm, is more important. Within the parental right to free expression of religion, there can be no legitimate right to impose harm on another. Being medically unnecessary, infant circumcision is harm. Should we allow Jewish Americans to stone adulterous women within the Jewish community, for example? Or do we recognize some boundary based on individual rights?

I think we recognize different boundaries, clearly.

I think that's supposed to be a trap. "Desirable" is not "necessity". Necessity wins, which should be obvious. Everything else, desirability included, is subjective. Does the boy value that unlikely-to-be-needed benefit?

C'mon, though, how many unlikely-to-be-needed benefits could you make the same case about if you wanted to? I don't grant that it is harm by definition; change yes, harm no. We do numerous things that we hope will be desirable not harmful for our children, and they probably seldom adhere strictly to this kind of rigorous logic.

That's a fairly big caveat, no? Not based on incidence; I have no need to lie about statistical evidence surrounding the number of botches. How many "botches" are acceptable before we get angry? Do you think the boys who are botched care one bit about the stuff you preceded that with?

My argument founders and fails on this point. You are correct, and I have no good answer to the botched circumcision case. You win! Good night!

That's subjective. Removing nerve endings, exposing the mucosal tissue of the glans and inner foreskin, and scarring have consequences. We can argue the subjective impact, but the change is undeniable.

Agreed.

Cultural is subjective. "Others will laugh at him", "girls won't want to have sex with him", and "he needs to look like daddy" aren't compelling reasons to surgically alter a child. I have red hair that I've been teased about my entire life. Should my parents have forcibly dyed my hair a more common color to make me more culturally normal? Even though that isn't irrevocable, unlike circumcision?

Well, I don't advance potential teasing as a valid reason. My concerns would be related to intimacy and hygiene.

The cultural conditioning of women to prefer one or the other is irrelevant. In the U.S. it's commonly an "ick" factor for the foreskin. So? I'm not of the opinion that parents are justified in changing their son to conform to what they are guessing will be his future partner's preference. Would parental choice to give a small-breasted daughter breast implants to appease the perceived preference of her future sexual partners be reasonable? Different procedure, same warped thinking.

If installing breast implants had the weight of tradition and the majority behind it, maybe we'd have to reevaluate it. A vastly more invasive procedure, one need hardly add...To be precise parents aren't gaming their son's future partners, or shouldn't be in my view. They're making an abstract judgment call, which you obviously object to, about their son's future convenience and self-esteem, which they guess in this case would benefit from a cleaner and more desirable (in their personal view, and in their estimation of their own culture) package. Obviously if they don't circ him they're not going to assume they've consigned him to a life of celibacy, hopefully. None of that counters your basic argument I realize.

The biological view is interesting, too. Again, I don't need to lie about statistical evidence to prove my point. But looking at an n% reduced risk of disease X is an out-of-context sales pitch. What are the actual numbers? What's the incidence? The absolute risk? Are there less invasive preventions and/or treatments available? When consenting by proxy, the goal must be to err on the side of caution. We don't do that. We cave to fear and tradition instead.

Again, I have trouble viewing the circumcision as something reckless and harmful.

And more maintenance? So what? Female genitalia would require less maintenance if we cut away a portion of it. That wouldn't make it ethically okay. Applied only to boys, it's a double-standard.

If there's some exact equivalent that could be performed on a female it would be ethically no different I suppose. Remember, I'm not lobbying FOR circumcision for all; I'm just countering the abolitionists. Which I probably ultimately failed at given the apparent unanswerability of the death by circumcision case. (Can we just sue the bejeezus out of them?)

I haven't said otherwise. You're saying that, because it's still good, the lost nerve endings and altered mechanical functioning of the circumcised penis don't matter. I'm saying that it's different, and the value of that difference is subjective. It should be made only by the male himself, not his parents saying "he'll still enjoy sex."

Which of course guarantees that it will never be made - not because it isn't arguably a better state of being, but because an adult will likely choose not to once he's used to what he has. I'm holding out for the possibility that sometimes a crazy barbaric ritual perpetrated on our young can lead to a nicer plane of existence. Heh. :)

Good night to you, I feel I'm getting less and less articulate. :)

Posted by Bill | June 25, 2007 9:59 PM

Remember, I'm not lobbying FOR circumcision for all; I'm just countering the abolitionists.

Understood.

Obviously I think I'm right, and I'd love it if everyone agreed with me. I don't expect that. My initial hope is that people start thinking about infant circumcision beyond what we now believe. Just be open to the idea that a clearer understanding may exist that includes actively prohibiting it rather than discouraging it or being neutral.

Posted by Tony | June 25, 2007 10:14 PM

I hate to say it, but I think you guys are making a mountain out of a mohel.

Posted by lampwick | June 25, 2007 10:15 PM

"I hate to say it, but I think you guys are making a mountain out of a mohel."

Oy.

Posted by Bill | June 25, 2007 10:30 PM

I hate to say it, but I think you guys are making a mountain out of a mohel.

But if the internet isn't for impassioned debates about penises, what do we have left? :(

Posted by Alcon B | June 25, 2007 10:47 PM

We'll always have Paris.

Posted by lampwick | June 25, 2007 11:27 PM

Call the anti-circ brigade the pro circ`s are writing something we dont like....When the anti circ`s type something they have to be heard when the pro circs type something the anti circ brigade are called in and a million and one posts attack the letter, it`s like 3years of independant research is attacked within hours if it shows that circumcision is a benefit to man, but if the research shows it isnt a benefit to man the research is cloned on websites everywhere.

Personally i wasnt circumcised until 32 so ive had 4years without a foreskin and 32 years with and the last 4 years have been the best in my opion, sex is better i last longer and so on, my 3 sons all under 8 are now all circumcised all paid for privately..

Posted by Adam | June 26, 2007 1:06 AM

But if the internet isn't for impassioned debates about penises, what do we have left?

Is this a trick question? Everybody knows the Internet is for p*rn. Less debate, more pictures! Heck, I'm sure Paris is already working on that by now so that we'll all have something to do tomorrow.

Adam,

Congrats on making a blanket statement without regard to the arguments being discussed here. You didn't come here just to make the obvious, irrelevant point that some infant circumcision opponents refuse to believe facts, I hope. Examples of bluster sorely lacking in facts and/or context exist on both sides of the argument, all over the Internet.

Since you brought up what I think was your main point and what can make an interesting angle for the debate, let me ask you a question. Did you get circumcised at 32 for medical necessity or personal preference?

Posted by Tony | June 26, 2007 12:57 PM

I do admit a great deal of ignorance about Paul and other early church fathers. It was my impression that he was trying to get gentiles to become Christian. Just because he saw circumcision as a stumbling block to conversion doesn't mean he thought uncut was better than cut per se.

I stand by the symbolism of circumcision contributing to personal continence. Cleanliness over bodily function, moderate sensitivity over unmitigated sensitivity. I think the practice is highly consistent with Christian values.

Irrelevantly, I'm an agnostic. Tangentially, I have an uncut friend who complained that fellatio was uncomfortable and unpleasurable with some women because of his extreme sensitivity. The problem with male sexuality is not a lack of sensitivity.

Everyone on both sides of the discussion agrees that infants are incapable of making an informed decision. I understand why people could disagree about relative merits, but it ought to be up to the parents.

How's this analogy? Do the people who would legally prohibit circumcision also think parents don't have the right to force their kids to get braces on their teeth?

The analogy to Chinese footbinding doesn't hold up. Footbinding is about gender roles and class status. Footbinding cripples one's ability to use one's feet. Circumcision leaves one well able (and in the case of my friend who didn't like rough-mouthed women, better able) to enjoy sexual stimulation.

Posted by gyrd | June 26, 2007 6:54 PM

Gyrd,

Most of us who disagree with circumcision (I imagine) aren't seeking a ban. And while I agree with some of the intentions of your posts, I have a few things to say:

1. Sensitivity can easily be reduced/customized by additional exposure or just running water. I've had a lot of people do this through health boards, and it has worked for all of them.

2. As I've said before, the cleanliness thing is highly overrated. A shower once a day, and this is not a problem. I'm not sure why this is widely trumpeted.

3. I don't think the argument is solely inability to make an informed decision. I think it's inability to make an informed decision on a choice they have a reasonably high likelihood of disagreeing with. How many kids are angry at being vaccinated, or having braces? [Again, I don't support a legal ban - I'm just strongly against the procedure being done arbitrarily.]

That having been said with you, I agree that:

1. Sex is good, circumcised or uncircumcised, excluding a few pity cases in both.

2. It should be up to the parents (although, honestly, it pains me that many parents do this just because "it's traditional").

3. Even if some of the rationalizations may be vaguely similar, circumcision is not comparable to footbinding, which is a *entirely* a social-traditional construct. I find it much more abhorrent.

Put you lost me with "personal continence"...somehow, I think that not circumcising your child - allowing them to make the decision with their own body - is an act of greater continence. I might feel different if I was circumcised, but the important thing for me to realize is that my world is not my child's. And my preferences are not my child's.

(Sorry for my inarticulateness...)

Posted by Alcon B | June 26, 2007 9:46 PM

Gyrd,

I do support a ban non-medically-indicated infant circumcision, for the reasons I've written above.

We already have it with girls, even though I'm sure someone could claim the same Christian virtues for surgery on female genitals. We just don't give that any credence. We understand that there's a sanctity to the human body. This shouldn't be recognized as only belonging to adults and female minors.

Where you say that children aren't capable of offering informed consent, you're right. But as Alcon B pointed out, there's "a reasonably high likelihood of disagreeing with" that decision. Even if the boy ends up happy with circumcision (not all of us are), the more fundamental question is whether a reasonable person would want the risk of surgery that has zero medical indication at the time it's performed. We must assume that a reasonable person wouldn't choose that.

How's this analogy? Do the people who would legally prohibit circumcision also think parents don't have the right to force their kids to get braces on their teeth?

This is more nuanced than you're making out to be. At the time it's done, children are almost always old enough to have an input. If the child objects, there is some credence to not placing braces. If I'm willing to go to logical conclusion, which I am.

However, from a parental choice discussion, the key issue is permanence. If a child doesn't like braces, he can let the benefit slide away as his teeth begin to revert to their old position. I wasn't horrified by having braces, but I also didn't value the gain from them enough to carry on with my retainer after the braces were gone. Some of the straightening has disappeared. I'm okay with that.

The foreskin isn't coming back once removed.

Posted by Tony | June 27, 2007 4:48 PM

Thanks to Alcon B and Tony for being so gracious in disagreement, as well as patient since i'm late to the discussion and making you recycle things you've already said.

You both say an infant would be likely to disagree with their parents' decision of circumcision. I have to say against this point that overwhelming majorities of cut men like their penises as is.

I'm sad that both of you seem to think that cultural tradition is irrational. Kids with mohawks will behave differently than kids with leave-it-to-beaver groomed hair. People wearing ties will behave differently than people wearing tank tops. A society that has mass circumcision also sets a different tone than one that doesn't.

A circumcising culture sets the tone that they still observe the moral code of Leviticus. It's not that a guy in a t-shirt can't do the same paperwork as a guy in a suit, or that an uncut guy can't be as clean as a cut guy. It's a question of symbolism, and the tone it sets.

In NYC, while Giuliani was mayor, they cleaned up the graffiti and fixed the broken windows, and then crime went down in those neighborhoods. The whole mood changed. I feel the practical arguments for or against circumcision aren't very persuasive either way, and that this is a debate over a culture of bohemian individualism versus one of strict adherence to traditional standards.
I'm for neckties, fixing broken windows, and tradition.

Posted by Gyrd | June 27, 2007 5:17 PM

I am a mother of a 6 m.o. boy who we got circumcised at 2 months, i regretted the whole thing coz it didnt go right and now we need to do the procedure again. I am European, but my husband is muslim, not that he is practising islam, but he kept saying that its good to be circ'ed and convinced me to do it to our son. May be because i am a woman and and it was done to my baby i feel really bad about it and wouldn't have it done if i only had known how i would feel, it was horrible horrible experience. But after all my husband is circ'ed and i would say more than happy about it and thats why he really wanted it done to his son, for good reasons. he says "If to any extent i felt that smth wrong with me being like this i would think and decided not to do it but i am more than greatful to be circ'ed its great and i want my son to enjoy it too", well, i gave in, as i dont have a willy to compare and will never know how it feels like to have one, so i trusted my husband on this one. Besides i had an intact boyfriend before who was a good lover and my circ'ed husband is even better, our sex life is good and in no way less enjoyable.

Posted by Natalie | June 27, 2007 6:37 PM

I am a mother of a 6 m.o. boy who we got circumcised at 2 months, i regretted the whole thing coz it didnt go right and now we need to do the procedure again. I am European, but my husband is muslim, not that he is practising islam, but he kept saying that its good to be circ'ed and convinced me to do it to our son. May be because i am a woman and and it was done to my baby i feel really bad about it and wouldn't have it done if i only had known how i would feel, it was horrible horrible experience. But after all my husband is circ'ed and i would say more than happy about it and thats why he really wanted it done to his son, for good reasons. he says "If to any extent i felt that smth wrong with me being like this i would think and decided not to do it but i am more than greatful to be circ'ed its great and i want my son to enjoy it too", well, i gave in, as i dont have a willy to compare and will never know how it feels like to have one, so i trusted my husband on this one. Besides i had an intact boyfriend before who was a good lover and my circ'ed husband is even better, our sex life is good and in no way less enjoyable.

Posted by Natalie | June 27, 2007 6:38 PM

Thanks to Alcon B and Tony for being so gracious in disagreement, as well as patient since i'm late to the discussion and making you recycle things you've already said.

Haha, and the same to you (this is so much more fun with the vitriol-filled folks gone). This debate tends to all be about recycled ideas, but I'm a patient guy.

You both say an infant would be likely to disagree with their parents' decision of circumcision. I have to say against this point that overwhelming majorities of cut men like their penises as is.

The same goes for uncut guys. I will say that, on the teen support board where I worked, we had a poll that showed about 50% would prefer to have it back (I can provide a link if you really want, but I'd rather not attract adult attention; I just hope you'll take me at my word that I'm not a disingenuous lying rat bastard).

Again, cultural attitudes in this generation are just changing. Decades ago, it happened in England and Oceania. In the past decades, it happened in Canada, and it's beginning to happen here. Once people realize that it's not "abnormal," they tend to want to have the choice.

Most are happy either way. But those who aren't have the choice one way, and don't another...

I'm sad that both of you seem to think that cultural tradition is irrational. Kids with mohawks will behave differently than kids with leave-it-to-beaver groomed hair. People wearing ties will behave differently than people wearing tank tops. A society that has mass circumcision also sets a different tone than one that doesn't.

I don't think that *cultural tradition* is irrational. I think that irrational cultural tradition is irrational. And, frankly, I doubt my being uncircumcised has affected my behavior. Nor do I see the children of Europe or Canada as any less well-behaved than American children. But I must say, while I don't agree with it, circumcision as behavior control *is* an intriguing concept.

It is not, by the way, part of my culture - not anymore. The current American circumcision rate isn't even 60%. In my state (Washington), it's 26%. And, no, that's not because of Hispanics. Personally, I'm not sure I like the "tone" of a society that changes my body in some massive attempt to remind me that there ARE rules. That's the kind of thing that would seem to stoke resentment in inquisitive young'uns like me.

I'm a Native American raised in lily-white suburbs, and trust me, I'm endlessly fascinated by the melding of tradition to progress. But even with that, I know that tradition must be embraced but not left unquestioned.

A circumcising culture sets the tone that they still observe the moral code of Leviticus. It's not that a guy in a t-shirt can't do the same paperwork as a guy in a suit, or that an uncut guy can't be as clean as a cut guy. It's a question of symbolism, and the tone it sets.

I doubt that's much comfort to those who are not happy with their bodies or feel violated. I'm tempted to scoff at this, but would I feel violated if I was forced to be circumcised? Definitely, and anyone would expect me to. Even though they don't remember it, and don't *exactly* know what they're missing, is their feeling that way unreasonable? I really don't think it is.

In NYC, while Giuliani was mayor, they cleaned up the graffiti and fixed the broken windows, and then crime went down in those neighborhoods. The whole mood changed. I feel the practical arguments for or against circumcision aren't very persuasive either way, and that this is a debate over a culture of bohemian individualism versus one of strict adherence to traditional standards.
I'm for neckties, fixing broken windows, and tradition.

But what happens when the broken window *is* the tradition? Then you question it, dissect it, analyze it, fix it.

I will give my sons the choice. I will love them, teach them to love and question. Sometimes, I may force them to wear suits. I know I have to make some choices for them. But if they come to me, and say "why did you make this decision for me?", I know what decision I'd much rather have made when it comes to circumcision.

Posted by Alcon B | June 28, 2007 4:06 AM

The Hispanic part about my last post didn't sound quite as weird and racist before I deleted a paragraph while missing that one sentence. It was about how the white middle class is mainly responsible for the huge drop in rates here, but I realized no one cares about my sociological lessons.

And my post was meandering enough as it was. ;)

Please disregard that (o, por favor desatenderálo - and, yes, that's probably wrong).

Posted by Alcon B | June 28, 2007 4:11 AM

Gyrd,

Even if it was in my personality to be rude during debate, it wouldn't be effective. I want to convince, not win some irrelevant ideological superiority award.

Alcon B's response said a lot of what I was going to say, so I won't rehash everything. (Recycled ideas, indeed.) But I think this is worth mentioning again, just to reinforce it.

I have to say against this point that overwhelming majorities of cut men like their penises as is.

I agree, and I don't think those men are somehow mistaken in their understanding. But applying that appreciation, which is an after-the-fact adaptation, to the body of an infant is subjective. Therefore, it's unjustified. We wouldn't allow tattoos on children to match the parents' perception. Medically unnecessary body modification is wrong when imposed on another.

And the evidence suggests that most intact adult men never choose circumcision, whether through desire or need. We can assume that, given the choice, infant males would want to remain intact. That should be enough.

I echo Alcon B's comment on tradition. What's interesting is how your statement there uses a claim (unverified, but anecdotally reasonable) on two behaviors and then justifies infant circumcision as setting a tone. That's an unacceptable shift in comparison. If we're to accept your argument about behavior, we must compare how intact men behave compared to circumcised men. I doubt seriously you'd find the comparison you're looking for.

For what it's worth, research suggests that circumcised men engage in more varied forms of sex than intact men. If you're looking for setting a tone, leaving males intact might make sense. hich speaks to the moral code of Leviticus. Here, I have two comments. First, the moral requirement* for Christians was made unnecessary by the New Testament. Second, we must govern in a civil society based on civil law, not religious requirements. Since infant circumcision is medically unnecessary, and boys deserve the same human rights we correctly guarantee for girls, routine infant circumcision can't be justified under civil law.

(* Marked In Your Flesh by Leonard Glick presents evidence that the Old Testament commandment to circumcise infants was added centuries after the original text.)

I feel the practical arguments for or against circumcision aren't very persuasive either way, ...

Which is exactly why the objective medical standard of immediate need should be all that matters. We needn't move on to any other considerations for infants.

... and that this is a debate over a culture of bohemian individualism versus one of strict adherence to traditional standards.
I'm for neckties, fixing broken windows, and tradition.

I think "bohemian" is an unfair assumption. Individualism is absolutely what this is about, but that's precisely because our Constitution guarantees individual rights. The right to be free from unnecessary harm without your permission is surely one of those rights.

The foreskin, at birth, is not a "broken window". It's not a flaw destined to lead the male into a life of no restraint. Parenting is capable of providing whatever restraint seems reasonable. It won't always work, of course, but people are free to reject their parents' teaching. Forcing unnecessary genital surgery is about control, not parenting. Tradition is fine and helpful in society, but it is not reasonable if it demands unnecessary surgical modification to achieve.

Posted by Tony | June 28, 2007 12:38 PM

Alcon B,

I didn't read your Hispanic remark as racist. Immigration patterns are a fact in reduced circumcision rates, but it's not the only story and it's not a sign that the decline is permanent. Assimilation can still lead to circumcision among recent immigrants. It happened in the early 20th century.

Read Debbie Schlussel's recent rant on decreased circumcision rates. It's easy enough to find, so I won't link to it. That's what racism on this issue looks like, not the point you made.

Posted by Tony | June 28, 2007 12:40 PM

Is this the Schlussel article of which you spoke?
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2007/06/no_circumcision.html
You can sure tell she hates liberals, and loves circumcision, and might overstate the benefits and omit the downside of the procedure. I didn't detect any racism. Maybe i read too quickly.

Question tradition? Sure. I'm glad that we've abandoned the tradition of slavery. I'm glad that a few taboos have loosened, and we can now talk frankly about sex, and show in sitcoms that married couples sleep in one bed etc.

There was so much social upheaval in the 1960s and 70s: women into the workplace, blacks into mainstream society, reporters and academics turning on their country's military and government in the Vietnam war where they used to tow the line for it... So many traditions seemed objectively unjustified at once that I think very many people came to believe all tradition was bad. A lot of baby was thrown out with the bathwater.

Freed from the constraints of tradition, more people started using more and harder drugs. The divorce rate shot up. Illegitimacy shot up. Music critics only praise rappers as being so soulful and authentic for lyrics glamorizing gang violence and prostitution.

You say that parents should be kept from circumcising infants because their choices are harming people besides themselves? I say practitioners of all the above activities are harming people; but sure enough, someone will defend their rights to act as they do in the name of individualism.

Since the debate is endless, i'll simply assert my opinion that circumcision is not harmful, and so it doesn't matter if it's 'medically unnecessary.'

I contend again, that while medically unnecessary, it actually has positive social effects.

Of course i don't think that the circumcision will prevent someone from being a libertine. As if all the cut guys are accountants while all the uncut guys are drug addicted nudists. I don't think it's a magic charm that affects an individual's behavior. An office executive won't start slacking off because you steal his necktie.

The effect on social norms and the impression upon the individual that his parents care about such norms are both small, and to me, important.

I think this whole thing boils down to 'do you think circumcision is harmful?' and 'do you think tradition is generally deserving of respect.' My answers are 'no' and 'yes'.

Maybe someone could have the same two answers and still favor banning parents from circumcising their sons, but i think they would have to be a real extremist on questions of individualism.

Posted by Gyrd | June 28, 2007 9:10 PM

Gyrd,

I don't support banning the procedure, so I won't really respond to that part. But I must say, this is the weirdest argument I've ever heard presented on the matter. What evidence do you have that this has a positive social effect? Couldn't the same be used to justify female prepucectomy, or footbinding, or virtually anything? I'm not saying they're comparable...but the same logic you're using could easily be applied to support them.

By the way, I'd be careful with answering "is circumcision harmful?" with an automatic no. It can be. Wouldn't you consider dissatisfaction with circumcision status "harmful"? Already, that means plenty in my generation have been "harmed." And, while I know it's rare, I do know at least two guys who were literally mutilated. But, again, I really think that you can't say anything with such a high dissatisfaction rating is widely harmless.

I disagree with your dichotomy. I think this is a choice, as you're presenting it, between:

1. A nebulous, unproven positive social effect in the name of tradition;
2. Or allowing the next generation to choose their own statuses.

It does seem like the more individualist choice would be not banning circumcision, but also not practicing it.

I don't think circumcising my sons will reduce their likelihood of using hard drugs, or joining gangs, etc. Do you really think mass circumcision is going to have any real effect on that? Real enough to justify denying children the eventual choice?

Posted by Alcon B | June 29, 2007 12:38 AM

Tony and Alcon,
Last week I gave my niece a $1,000.00 gift check, and a second $1,000.00 gift check to her husband. I gave them two conditions before they could cash the checks.
First condition is they wait six months until after their baby boy is born this August, before deciding to cut him or not. (That will be March 2008.) The second condition is that they read some literature that I will give them. They're deciding whether to cash the checks.
They are intelligent people and we have no religious reasons to circumcise. They need to be able to read all of what I give them in a couple hours (no books).
Over the years I have assembled a good collection of articles, posts and studies. But I am looking for something more. I wish someone would intelligently write something that concisely covers the pros and cons of all the points: 1)ethics, 2)conformity, 3)medical, 4)esthetics, 5)religious, 6)hygiene, 7)sexual pleasure, 8)tradition etc.
I like your posts. They actually sound intelligent. Any suggestions for articles?
Here's a different off the wall idea. How about we as a community, standardize on numbering these points, so we bring some order to these discussions. For example on Ross's lead post above: "Oh, Ross, you just touched on standard point numbers: 4) esthetics, 6) hygiene,and 7)sexual pleasure."
These discussions can become so drivilous and this would save a lot of time for everyone.

Posted by James | June 29, 2007 4:52 AM

Gyrd,

Alcon B nailed it with this:

What evidence do you have that this has a positive social effect?

Circumcision is a surgery. It must be based on evidence, at least when applied to children by proxy consent. It can't pass a test of evidence for need, which I've argued above. I know it can't pass a test of evidence for the claims you're suggesting. You haven't said the link and benefit is definitive, but to argue for a radical intervention like circumcision, there must be definitive evidence. There isn't, and probably never can be, at least not ethically.

I understand your position on circumcision's harm because it conforms to what most Americans believe. However, circumcision causes demonstrable, undeniable harm. It removes nerve endings. It scars the penis. It changes the moist mucosal tissue of the foreskin into dry, keratinized tissue. (What's left of it, anyway.) Those occur in 100% of circumcisions. Without medical need, those unavoidable complications demand that we not impose it on someone who can't give his consent. I wouldn't have chosen them for myself, but I now have all three.

Going further, though, as Alcon B pointed out, there are boys who suffer extreme complications, up to and including death. These severe complications are relatively rare, but they occur. How many boys severely damaged from this unnecessary surgery do we need before we finally say "no more"? why shouldn't that number be zero?

Overall, I think we disagree on the value of individualism. Liberty demands the opportunity to live as an individual. I don't think that ends in libertine misadventures, so we seem to agree there. I just don't understand the value of tradition and conformity if it's forced rather than chosen.

I read your comments as a fear that, if left to their own choices instead of having the "correct" choices imposed, people will not respect order. I don't buy it. I don't think being freed from the constraints of tradition causes what you claim. Allowing people to choose for themselves will not end in chaos. But even if it does, until someone directly harms (i.e. not just offends) another, he's free to do what he wants.

P.S. On the Debbie Schlussel article, I read it as racist, but I've also read some of her other stuff, too. It fits her pattern. However, after thinking about it, xenophobic is probably a better word than racist, which I think is the point that Alcon B was making in his clarification on his reference to Hispanics.

Posted by Tony | June 29, 2007 10:54 AM

James,

Thanks for the compliment. I've gathered many sources over the years, and I've also written a lot. I'll be happy to help in any way I can.

Let me suggest a few videos, for starters. Season 3, episode 1 of Penn & Teller's Showtime show deals with circumcision. It's a good resource that explains several of the key points. It's available on DVD, which you can rent from Netflix, for example.

Next, Dutch filmmaker Michael Schaap produced a documentary, "Mother, Why Was I Circumcised?". It's very good. Here's the link to the video in iTunes. It's easiest to download it from there, but if you don't use iTunes, you can get it here. (It's 35 minutes long and free in either place.)

There's also episode 9 in season 3 of Dr. 90210 (yes, I know...) that deals with circumcision. One patient suffers from a buried penis and scrotal skin pulled forward onto the shaft of his penis, both of which the doctor states can be caused by circumcision when the . Also, two doctors featured on the show have their son circumcised (by a mohel, although the parents aren't Jewish) because they think it's "more hygienic". The baby's screams are quite informative, though, as are the father's laments that "what if something goes wrong" and "you can't go back". He, a doctor, is nervous about it. How would the baby feel in that situation? (iTunes link)

I'll try to organize something for you with articles and links, but that'll take a little longer.

Posted by Tony | June 29, 2007 11:53 AM

"What evidence do you have that this has a positive social effect? Couldn't the same [logic] be used to justify female prepucectomy, or footbinding, or virtually anything?"

Me:Of course it could. Whenever you argue for any social position, you say it's because it would have a positive social effect. I wouldn't argue that footbinding or lynching have positive effects. I do argue that circumcision does.

"I don't think circumcising my sons will reduce their likelihood of using hard drugs, or joining gangs, etc. Do you really think mass circumcision is going to have any real effect on that? Real enough to justify denying children the eventual choice?"

Me: Yes and Yes. Culture matters enormously. In a classroom in Tokyo, students would be ashamed to get bad grades. In classrooms in the District of Columbia, some students would be embarrassed by good grades. If our culture were more formal (hopefully in myriad ways -- circumcision can't change the culture all by itself of course) many more people would walk the straight and narrow.

Imagine a parent doesn't train their children to be organized, and doesn't punish them for getting bad grades. They grow up messy and lazy. Then the parent says 'I gave them the choice about whether or not to have good habits.' If the value of good habits is obvious, then you don't even consider giving them the choice to cultivate or not to cultivate them. I feel the value of a generally formal/traditional culture is self-evident.

"You haven't said the link and benefit is definitive, but to argue for a radical intervention like circumcision, there must be definitive evidence."

Me: That's just it. There's nothing radical about circumcision. It's the opposite of radical, it's traditional. And a pretty modest tradition at that.

"However, circumcision causes demonstrable, undeniable harm. It removes nerve endings. It scars the penis. It changes the moist mucosal tissue of the foreskin into dry, keratinized tissue."

Me: These 'harms' are much more deniable than you think! Nerve endings? It's subjective whether or not your sex life will be better or worse with a little less sensitivity. Scars? I'd call that negligible -- my belly button is an umbilical scar, and i'm fine with it. Moist over dry? Seems pretty subjective to me which is better.

"Allowing people to choose for themselves will not end in chaos. But even if it does, until someone directly harms (i.e. not just offends) another, he's free to do what he wants."

You're absolutely right that we disagree on the value of individualism. I've spent a little time in the front of a public High-school classroom. From my experience, allowing people to choose for themselves what they want to do definitely results in chaos, and in very short order. How do you define 'directly?' If my family tuned in to watch the superbowl and saw Janet Jackson's breast, were we directly harmed? Or would we have to have seen her personally in a public park to be directly harmed? Or would she have actually had to touch her breast to a child's face for the child to be directly harmed? If this conversation shows anything, it's that 'harm' is in the eye of the beholder. I would say that even if i'd never seen footage of the exposure, just living in a society which would now take sexual taboos a little less seriously would have harmed me.

Posted by Gyrd | June 29, 2007 5:52 PM

aha. Now we see what it boils down to. 'People should be free from force or coercion so that they can do what they want to.' 'No they shouldn't'

This is now a discussion about the merits of libertariansim.

Posted by gyrd | June 29, 2007 5:56 PM

"How many boys severely damaged from this unnecessary surgery do we need before we finally say "no more"? why shouldn't that number be zero?"

I'm not going to ban private ownership of firearms because of a dozen hunting accidents a year. Nor automobiles because of thousands of injuries and deaths every year. Taking the libertarian side, for once, i wouldn't ban fireworks because of several predictible accidents a year.

The reason why the number shouldn't be zero is that draconian measures are required to go from very few circumcision tragedies to none.

Posted by gyrd | June 29, 2007 6:35 PM

Gyrd,

Simple question: Do you have any remotely substantiative proof that circumcision has the positive cultural effects you claim?

I cannot begin to see why circumcision would make my kid any more organized, controlled, or anything. If you so choose, you can still establish a strict, controlled environment. That's not going to be stopped by giving your son the choice over having a foreskin or not.

I'm not sure where lynching came from (?!). But footbinding is the same deal.

1. It's traditional.
2. It's a choice made by the parents to contribute to a more "formal" society.

And, you know, the difference between having an average-sized foot and a binded one? Subjective. But not subjective enough, apparently, to warrant giving the choice.

It's the exact same thing you're arguing for over circumcision...how is it *any* different at all?

Posted by Alcon B | June 29, 2007 10:13 PM

And, for that matter, you mentioned Tokyo as the perfect picture of societal formality. While I personally don't think we should be modeling ourselves after the Japanese school system, I am obligated to point something out. The Japanese don't practice routine infant circumcision.

Posted by Alcon B | June 29, 2007 11:34 PM

Gyrd,
Studies have shown that a large percent American boys don't even know what circumcision is and another large percent of boys know what it is but are not sure if they have been circumcised or not. How are these circumcisions supposed to help?

Furthermore, mass circumcision came into the United States from the middle 50's to the 70's. This is the "hippy" era. Our most formal time was the Victorian era up to about 1950. The majority of American men and babies were not circumcised at that time. I do not see any historical relationship.

This is one of the most unusual circumcision rationals that I have heard of and I don't think it works. I would be very interested in any evidence you have. Please be more specific.

Posted by James | June 30, 2007 6:36 AM

Thanks guys. I'm moving today, and will no longer have the internet. I doubt we'll have budged each other.

Yes, footbinders would use the same reasons to defend footbinding. But i'm not going to stop going to church on sunday just because the chinese say that footbinding has the same positive affects as church attendance.

I'm no more afraid of using my tradition/cultural formality arguments than you should be of using individualism arguments against circumcision just because someone who supports polygamous marriage might also appeal to the value of individualism.

Footbinding and lynching are both examples of things i think are bad which can be justified using similar arguments to mine for circumcision.

I've also already pointed out that food binding leaves one unable to walk, while circumcision leaves one well able to enjoy sex. That's why i haven't been converted to footbinding.

Substantive proof? Just what we know from anecdotal evidence of the nature of lax environments and their affects on behavior. I'm not a scientist, haven't conducted research. I think it would be very difficult to control for outside variables, especially since I think cutting is only 'part of a balanced diet' of cultural features.

Regarding japan, i know they don't circumcise. But they are conspicuously tradition bound. We have different traditions, including circumcision.

I'm glad you guys think my arguments are novel or unusual. I think way too many of these arguments go back and forth about whether or not sex is better or hygiene is better, when those aren't the real reasons people come down the way they do. I think mostly people just support their own penis style (no one wants to be in the penis minority, with an incorrect penis) and either think they want to avoid the barbarism of the past or keep things they way they imagine they've always been. I think that we're coming closer here to the real root arguments that motivate people.

I don't mind that circumcision wasn't Christian practice until recently. I think it's a good one.

I think James has a great point that tons of guys don't even know what circumcision is, whether they are or not, or what the practice might mean. To which i can only reply that a lot of people who wear ties have never thought about why they do so either. It doesn't mean it has no importance.

Best wishes everyone.

Posted by Gyrd | June 30, 2007 8:03 AM

Oh, but if you're wondering, if i could trade circumcision away forever in exchange for getting people to go to church again, i would in an instant.

If i trade circumcision away in exchange for a culture in which girls didn't try to make sure you saw their thong underwear, i would make that trade too.

There are other signs of a functional culture which i value more highly and think make a greater difference.

Sadly, i don't think i have such a choice of trades. It seems to me that people would be less likely to be church-going or modest in an uncircumcising culture. Correlation, not causation of course.

Posted by gyrd | June 30, 2007 8:34 AM

Gyrd,

No idea if you'll get to read this, but here it is anyway.

...while circumcision leaves one well able to enjoy sex.

Not always. It's probably difficult to enjoy sex with a mangled penis from a sever complication, or to enjoy sex at all without a penis, or to enjoy sex when dead. Extreme examples? Again, point readily conceded. But these complications do occur. So, again, how many boys severely damaged from this unnecessary surgery do we need before we finally say "no more"?

Basically, the issue here is that you're deciding that the possible positive subjective valuation of the procedure outweighs the objective facts. That can't be right. Many men accept circumcision, whether fully informed or not fully informed, as James correctly mentioned. That doesn't make it acceptable to practice on infants. Each person, on his own, must be allowed to decide whether reduced nerve endings, scarring, and change in penile tissue is good or bad. The conclusion is not foregone.

This is not a discussion about libertarianism, although I am a libertarian and that informs my argument on basic human rights. But any political philosophy that values society and tradition over human rights is illegitimate. I do not think that libertarianism is the only legitimate American political philosophy in that regard.

Of course, your understanding of libertarianism does not match mine. I'm not going to ban private gun ownership or automobiles because bad things happen from them. But, to boil this down to what you're arguing for circumcision, gun owners and drivers would be free to shoot or run over other people (exclusively their children?) as long as they were well-intentioned. Shooting and running over people is objective harm, but I suppose it's possible to value each subjectively. Yes, that's extreme and absurd, and I know it's not what you're arguing. But it has the same ultimate effect.

What we do with our freedoms matters. If a gun owner shoots an intruder into his home, he is justified in using his weapon. If he goes into the streets and shoots his neighbors, he is not justified. That is a crime. The right to gun ownership has nothing to do with it.

The same analysis applies to infant circumcision. If a parent circumcises a child because the child has a medical condition that can't be resolved any other way, then the harm caused is justifiable. If a parent circumcises a child without medical need, that is no different than assault. The reason may matter in how we judge that assault, but it is assault. Good intentions alone are not enough to overcome objective, identifiable medical harm.

Oh, but if you're wondering, if i could trade circumcision away forever in exchange for getting people to go to church again, i would in an instant.

...

Sadly, i don't think i have such a choice of trades. It seems to me that people would be less likely to be church-going or modest in an uncircumcising culture. Correlation, not causation of course.

I'm sure you don't mean it this way, but I read that as "I'm happy with forcing conformity in whatever way I can, because I value conformity to what I believe is correct. I can't force the others, unfortunately, but I'll take what I can get because it might, maybe, possibly in a few cases help." That's not enough. Again, there's an argument here about individualism, but more than that, the mistake is in believing that those of us against infant circumcision advocate church avoidance, girls showing their thongs, and whatever other cultural concerns you might have. It's simply not true that advocating for choice in circumcision is the same as advocating for chaos, social upheaval, and disregard for traditions.

Full disclosure: I don't go to church. I did as a kid, when I was forced to go, but I never bought into the way the message was sold. Yet, I'm circumcised. Correlation, not causation indeed. However, I'm not out mugging old ladies or pimping naked girls on TV. I own my own business, own a home, pay my bills, and give money to charity. That's precisely why imposing circumcision on infants "just in case" it works is so irrational, and therefore unacceptable, to me. There is no evidence that it works, only subjective evidence that an individual American male will like it, and objective facts that it causes what we identify as harm in any other surgery. (Harm is harm, even when the surgery is necessary, of course, but that's why surgery must be necessary, at least when the patient can't consent himself.)

If an adult wants to circumcise himself (or herself), I don't care. He is assumed competent enough to make the decision for himself that the subjective value is a gain over the objective harm (or change, if you want a lesser term). Children do not get that choice in routine infant circumcision. That is enough to say "no".

P.S. James, I left a comment for you but it hasn't escaped the comment moderation here. I doubt it will. I'd like to help, so e-mail me if you want and I'll help with some of what you asked for. My e-mail is Tony @ RollingDoughnut dot com. (My site's host is down right now, so e-mail might not get through right away.)

Posted by Tony | June 30, 2007 12:14 PM

Gyrd,

I enjoyed discussing with you.

Although I do fundamentally disagree that circumcision is a good substitution, or helper to, a controlled environment, that's not a debate we can really have anyway. There's no real way to rebut an argument that hasn't been studied or suggested to exist beyond presumption. That's not your fault, but frankly, I need more concrete evidence before I perform otherwise unnecessary surgery on my children.

It seems to me that people would be less likely to be church-going or modest in an uncircumcising culture.

I disagree that's why most people do it, even if I think "tradition"/"he needs to look like me" is a major cause. I'm different from my dad on that count and I couldn't possibly care less. While I also don't attend church (for reasons entirely unrelated to my foreskin, I'm 100% sure) I'm certainly not showing my underwear off nor dating someone who does.

I understand you feel there are "exceptions," but I feel that there are no lack of exceptions. I have trouble believing male Americans look down at their penis in the shower and are reminded, "I must be moderate in life and everything, and attend church." I just very much doubt this. Most practicing Christians are not circumcised at birth anyway in any countries other than the United States, that I'm aware of.

But now that this is all drawing to a close, I wish you good luck in the uninternetted world. That must be a very scary place indeed.

Posted by Alcon B | June 30, 2007 12:27 PM

Jesus, you guys have nothing else to do rather than seat in front of your pc and write all this about your cocks? fools

Posted by Woman | July 1, 2007 12:18 PM

Remember the person who said: "I've been poor, I've been rich; rich is better". Well people, I
can say: "I was uncircumcised, now I am circum-
cised; circumcised is better".

Posted by werner | July 2, 2007 7:42 PM

After 25 years with, I took a one way trip to the dark side and off it came.

Who ever said one looses sensitivity must be mad. More than 10 years on and not an ounce of sensitivity gone if anything sex without is better. The only thing that has gone is the odour and the rest of the hygene issues... and yes, I washed once a day in winter, twice in summer.

FWIW, after having our son done and comparing his recovery time to mine, I so wish I had been done as an infant.

Posted by Anthony | July 5, 2007 3:33 AM

Anthony et al.,

I'm a latecomer here and not a big proponent either way, but I must point out it was presumptuous to assume your kid would have the same preference. Clearly most people are content uncircumcised, so this is not so. And the minority who aren't can do something about it.

As for the smell, I'm a general practitioner and not a urologist, but I am familiar with the foreskin's structure. Nothing about it should produce smell with that sort of attention. It sounds like you had a urological or skin condition. Certainly, if what you described was at all typical, circumcision would be common outside of this country.

I've been cut all my life and never thought much about it. But it was an easy choice to leave our son as God made him.

Posted by James Cordell | July 11, 2007 3:46 AM

What a stupid operation to perform on a baby. How about giving them the choice to have part of their dicks cut off?

Posted by Cary Scott | November 3, 2007 8:01 PM

Heres my argument FOR circumcision.

I was circumcised 5 years ago due to male thrush(im now 25) and i have not had one single regret about it since.
You can actually cause infections by washing too much as i did twice a day.
My sensitivity has definetly increased since and condoms seem to fit much more comfortably.

My partner also used to suffer all the time with all sorts of urine infections yet she has not had any since.

Theres always the issue that its not natural but is it natural to wear two layers of clothes? Use biological detergents,or work in hot sweaty work places?

I dont need my apendix anymore, do you?

I would never go back, i hated my foreskin.

Posted by English guy | January 16, 2008 4:01 PM

Gotta love some of that commentary that would have us believe that foreskin is analogous to a clitoris, thus there's some kind of equivelance between circumcision and clitorectomies.

The simple fact is that an unwashed penis that has been circumsized does not develop bacteria anywhere near the increased rate of those without. The issue of whether one washes regularly is not the question asked, so the question of relative cleanliness falls on the side of circumcision.

Sensitivity is a matter that is extremely subjective, making those who ejaculate prematurely prime candidates for the slight desensitization that does occur. And unless one is a total redneck i would think the extra few minutes it takes to reach orgasm would be desirable for both partners.

Posted by Gary Williams | February 21, 2008 1:26 AM

It is true that men and women with their prepuce removed are easier to clean and have less feeling so they take longer to orgasm but they also have more sexual dysfunction as they age so what it boils down to is do you want longer intercourse at an early age and less intercourse or none as you age or more intense orgasms and sexual function for you whole life?

Posted by G.E.Meaney | May 13, 2008 7:01 AM

It is true that men and women with their prepuce removed are easier to clean and have less feeling so they take longer to orgasm but they also have more sexual dysfunction as they age so what it boils down to is do you want longer intercourse at an early age and less intercourse or none as you age or more intense orgasms and sexual function for your whole life?

Posted by G.E.Meaney | May 13, 2008 7:01 AM

It is true that men and women with their prepuce removed are easier to clean and have less feeling so they take longer to orgasm but they also have more sexual dysfunction as they age so what it boils down to is do you want longer intercourse at an early age and less intercourse or none as you age or more intense orgasms and sexual function for your whole life?

Posted by G.E.Meaney | May 13, 2008 7:02 AM

tkdc gsqxrvb tsripmx gnmtpolxe gpqzoes yjfshm qgebsloua

Posted by udoaslp mlfpowkij | May 23, 2008 11:26 PM

gozrmchj zfso xwnkdmch spohl lkny rjuzb kxsdfl

Posted by scgehbo dtgrpihvf | May 23, 2008 11:27 PM

ytmx zmcojqpw fain bvdpihzoy znrxos szyrcgadb qnxhwf

Posted by muxphwvt kmtliqncr | May 23, 2008 11:27 PM

sahqgikv hpzvxsa xizmybhl jiwpsn uowshgim qnbpadvu glqowtskx http://www.zcrkxmfsj.qldrwtkyb.com

Posted by fjuzlhd ymhbie | May 23, 2008 11:33 PM

zdsba tmvj bdnv

Posted by american credit union | May 24, 2008 6:57 PM

bgxwdez wqsfya lpbgudn mnpjid

Posted by credit cards foreign exchange charges | May 24, 2008 6:59 PM

skqlxjn qtzc bfmze mharv

Posted by credit card dispute with company going chapter 7 | May 24, 2008 7:09 PM

ulaqvnb snvfo uhzo xmstl

Posted by credit fraud protection | May 24, 2008 8:34 PM

glpyaxw zjfxd

Posted by merchant bank credit card debt | May 24, 2008 9:32 PM

kcenrvs tnue yvwxml

Posted by credit union iowa | May 24, 2008 9:57 PM

obdaxp ybsm rcfw

Posted by hsbc bank credit card | May 24, 2008 11:21 PM

rfuyvpj ejifq

Posted by uk federal credit union | May 24, 2008 11:34 PM

mzxy qdrg

Posted by no credit free teen sluts | May 24, 2008 11:51 PM

rahonf

Posted by sarasota coastal credit union | May 25, 2008 12:40 AM

nufwy ofiktze zwkmqcr

Posted by credit card with no money down at activation | May 25, 2008 1:22 AM

grhbc ewvkz lpbajci ajfybn

Posted by Free daily nude celeb | May 25, 2008 4:00 AM

pokujan xmcz ezvcxs

Posted by Ass to mouth porn | May 25, 2008 5:20 AM

ahoqvf zkmacj

Posted by Rpg maker 2000 english download | May 25, 2008 5:41 AM

uyvsix wzmxket zslig wgudv

Posted by Freeringtonedownloads | May 25, 2008 6:03 AM

awrcbl

Posted by Beastality sex story | May 25, 2008 6:23 AM

mntehci

Posted by Just a small town girl lyric | May 25, 2008 6:28 AM

msvcr

Posted by Biggest loser work | May 25, 2008 6:28 AM

uvymlcx ucbjw hicyztg urxie

Posted by Scat downloads | May 25, 2008 6:40 AM

uvymlcx ucbjw hicyztg urxie

Posted by Scat downloads | May 25, 2008 6:43 AM

mnzj jgzeb sexbi tqjyiwd

Posted by blonde pussy teen | May 26, 2008 6:47 AM

ighbw nvhfd ravtfkl

Posted by hard fisting | May 26, 2008 6:49 AM

ighbw nvhfd ravtfkl

Posted by hard fisting | May 26, 2008 6:49 AM

shofnz

Posted by guy nude | May 26, 2008 6:50 AM

tcof

Posted by song seung hun | May 26, 2008 7:23 AM

glrynha doab

Posted by viva hot babes | May 26, 2008 7:29 AM

dmkh xedkzy

Posted by xnxx free sex story | May 26, 2008 7:31 AM

pefkm

Posted by hot babes lingerie | May 26, 2008 8:18 AM

bgyhi nrqucyv

Posted by paris hilton sex tape free trailer | May 26, 2008 8:45 AM

lexptbn bronih

Posted by hot sex picture | May 26, 2008 9:22 AM

cvbhyot htfdw fzmna rmhzqcs

Posted by nice clit | May 26, 2008 10:12 AM

jahts qklaz rmjlt

Posted by non nude teen model | May 26, 2008 10:15 AM

rdtum

Posted by fucked pussy teen | May 26, 2008 12:43 PM

vdxs ctnmoda sdygzn iudbcfx

Posted by milf hunter isabelle | May 26, 2008 12:50 PM

rfcsj yhsnc

Posted by very wet pussy | May 26, 2008 1:06 PM

jorvhw smow gcntord dwiha

Posted by rough gang bang | May 26, 2008 1:38 PM

czpdfw grvyuoe

Posted by free tiava sex | May 26, 2008 1:54 PM

lixwh zpqmlvd lhyja

Posted by gang bang video | May 26, 2008 2:15 PM

pfothsj pqhw jzyfdhs rljncbx

Posted by old woman nude pic | May 26, 2008 2:29 PM

tgks sjibpf jyach

Posted by foot fisting | May 26, 2008 3:49 PM

hdqv zpmnayu fzpcgk emgbf

Posted by xnxx free pic | May 26, 2008 3:57 PM

ejlbk gtlv

Posted by spanking internet | May 26, 2008 4:27 PM

ejlbk gtlv

Posted by spanking internet | May 26, 2008 4:27 PM

mbxyefo mciod iprgonw

Posted by free anime porn game online | May 26, 2008 5:01 PM

mbxyefo mciod iprgonw

Posted by free anime porn game online | May 26, 2008 5:01 PM

fmjd ebwyios yjrei

Posted by elephant poop | May 26, 2008 5:07 PM

hfvxn

Posted by free pokemon hentai picture | May 26, 2008 5:24 PM

nbtvyhr mpbsq leap

Posted by random fusker | May 26, 2008 5:34 PM

cvajunf mkoaqci zrmt

Posted by tiava porn star | May 26, 2008 6:32 PM

bqjmnr

Posted by huge tit comic | May 26, 2008 6:37 PM

hfpb yumawr

Posted by brazilian gang bang | May 26, 2008 6:57 PM

inmry

Posted by cock sucking sluts | May 26, 2008 7:26 PM

xmtrlbg

Posted by wet little pussy | May 26, 2008 7:48 PM

vfbg qligbn rqyfg

Posted by girl butt | May 26, 2008 8:29 PM

ftbqp bmfu tgzji

Posted by deep throat cum | May 26, 2008 9:59 PM

kvldaj tbgrsau mqhc

Posted by teen porn site | May 26, 2008 10:27 PM

moinzfh jyli vkadh pemunv

Posted by southern charm and fusker | May 26, 2008 11:38 PM

tmwy oasdljt oqxt dxavbt

Posted by asian mature porn | May 26, 2008 11:42 PM

ydmluhp aodsgt cpgu

Posted by anime cartoon sex | May 27, 2008 12:36 AM

rsvxqwl yijvbp tfcxn lyaqnjd

Posted by britney spears naked on beach | May 27, 2008 12:48 AM

hymrpbu

Posted by free teen porn movie | May 27, 2008 12:54 AM

mzdx tnrfm muqobk

Posted by pokemon hentai ashs mom | May 27, 2008 1:18 AM

creufq dxare

Posted by butt set | May 27, 2008 1:44 AM

omitrb ogyas nlrwxuz swavl

Posted by innocent virgin pussy | May 27, 2008 2:18 AM

gytband eaqjog hyzxvne zpuhxmj

Posted by xnxx hairy girl | May 27, 2008 2:51 AM

znwgpte

Posted by britney no nude spear underwear | May 27, 2008 2:55 AM

cprwiov dvjpb oyxrm spzuofn

Posted by free female ejaculation mpeg | May 27, 2008 3:00 AM

bkplem mqnjol

Posted by japanese cunt | May 27, 2008 3:17 AM

kvuglzn kartgpo uvqbd fmoqgu

Posted by free mind control sex story | May 27, 2008 3:32 AM

kvuglzn kartgpo uvqbd fmoqgu

Posted by free mind control sex story | May 27, 2008 3:33 AM

nlgxr loqhte cqdi yqpvk

Posted by asian hottest porn star | May 27, 2008 4:40 AM

uxtwkei

Posted by Frontpage 2003 download trial | May 27, 2008 4:57 AM

rtokwq bxvku fvwksm

Posted by Game full version download online | May 27, 2008 5:13 AM

xhnytkz

Posted by wifey video | May 27, 2008 6:35 AM

oyinjb smcz faweh xkgmar

Posted by Zemanova clip | May 27, 2008 7:27 AM

ohgd

Posted by Jizz shot | May 27, 2008 7:29 AM

kbozh powcly oyepdu gflnb

Posted by Fuse music downloads com | May 27, 2008 7:40 AM

mdnjh enbjhl

Posted by Sheet music download | May 27, 2008 8:25 AM

sgtn grtxyn

Posted by Fresh downloads | May 27, 2008 8:58 AM

sgtn grtxyn

Posted by Fresh downloads | May 27, 2008 8:58 AM

gxjcehq dimt ukay ilqa

Posted by Minka password xxx | May 27, 2008 9:01 AM

gxjcehq dimt ukay ilqa

Posted by Minka password xxx | May 27, 2008 9:01 AM

rewzt

Posted by Hot preteen model pic | May 27, 2008 9:21 AM

hnmcpek

Posted by Indian porn star movie | May 27, 2008 9:48 AM

nswo fvblg

Posted by Bang please tj wife | May 27, 2008 10:01 AM

uwvodyt vracsiq

Posted by Boob mom small | May 27, 2008 10:29 AM

gvdszr cayxuem ephmzr kifnv

Posted by Beastie boy ticket | May 27, 2008 10:31 AM

engtik

Posted by Cum kai shot teanna | May 27, 2008 11:38 AM

prfdlw hrusyi iemt

Posted by Jerk and jizz | May 27, 2008 12:24 PM

bfyevo poqdnxm ksrv rmxd

Posted by Hsn web | May 27, 2008 1:05 PM

xvhr ghcl wmgox jetp

Posted by Bare bum | May 27, 2008 1:23 PM

xvhr ghcl wmgox jetp

Posted by Bare bum | May 27, 2008 1:23 PM

pcht

Posted by Smiley face downloads | May 27, 2008 1:42 PM

rficao spcham qvtd ejiy

Posted by hot sex series | May 27, 2008 2:28 PM

tdxqcui vdta lmbcr

Posted by sexy woman fucking | May 27, 2008 3:00 PM

nrcp ugpnkf dchw alvhtmk

Posted by sample movie female ejaculation | May 27, 2008 3:09 PM

ketlhfb bgacz

Posted by young wet girl | May 27, 2008 3:13 PM

optu jsuhy ldmrfu vtduzs

Posted by hilton online paris sex tape watch | May 27, 2008 3:51 PM

jebaxd pkdl

Posted by pokemon hentai picture | May 27, 2008 4:40 PM

enbx mueogr mdaxqih

Posted by disney land.com porn | May 27, 2008 5:45 PM

ivxdu bheiw

Posted by xnxx sex | May 27, 2008 6:19 PM

febmoc yjbpidr svdz

Posted by real gang bang | May 27, 2008 6:32 PM

lamsfnw

Posted by aladdin disney porn | May 27, 2008 7:39 PM

tdrla socuqx yiuj

Posted by blonde fisting | May 27, 2008 9:03 PM

zumrcb yhcskvd nhlwob fden

Posted by gang bang wife | May 27, 2008 10:03 PM

nkfozs nbpaus

Posted by sex toy com | May 27, 2008 10:37 PM

rtxnoi bdzocjk mjast

Posted by hardcore junky | May 27, 2008 10:54 PM

ydfgvxi bhdwsxp

Posted by tawnee stone masturbate | May 27, 2008 11:11 PM

glbchs erasf ijtbc ofzcl

Posted by black pussy licking | May 27, 2008 11:53 PM

holdk ipozj

Posted by virgin preteens | May 27, 2008 11:57 PM

nfpgrmi efvi

Posted by really hot babes | May 28, 2008 12:05 AM

rvfebj

Posted by monster gay cock | May 28, 2008 12:44 AM

xfaoi csxvkq tvsoed

Posted by asian homemade porn | May 28, 2008 12:47 AM

aryupjq

Posted by free xxx erotic story | May 28, 2008 1:20 AM

tekwlb jqkbuy lqyfr onexjz

Posted by hand job forum | May 28, 2008 1:22 AM

vgob gpcbok uxqadge jgiutqh

Posted by free porn movie carol | May 28, 2008 1:43 AM

zxle bizgm

Posted by asian cartoon porn | May 28, 2008 1:44 AM

onpahky qcez hxlro irhvekb

Posted by naked sluts | May 28, 2008 2:03 AM

schto

Posted by clip free porn psp | May 28, 2008 2:05 AM

hbstf zjcvt

Posted by clip lesbian teen | May 28, 2008 2:19 AM

wuxns nxvrche dkep yawzj

Posted by free adult porn video | May 28, 2008 3:16 AM

mljhxb

Posted by foot fisting | May 28, 2008 3:26 AM

ahsy htnmedw

Posted by asian mature porn | May 28, 2008 3:41 AM

uixn tlupdz azurc

Posted by lesbian orgy outdoor | May 28, 2008 4:00 AM

mosgh djmy

Posted by hot hardcore porn | May 28, 2008 4:21 AM

djtqg mogt ctpmfjb

Posted by naughty young girl | May 28, 2008 5:07 AM

jqgckzs exswu fkomjnp

Posted by woman with wet pussy | May 28, 2008 5:33 AM

dwcvq gphqd zesip

Posted by canal 69 | May 28, 2008 5:41 AM

dwcvq gphqd zesip

Posted by canal 69 | May 28, 2008 5:42 AM

qcdlr sgvu ibhtusq

Posted by sucking dick | May 28, 2008 5:46 AM

jxrim qawun wdqrp

Posted by sexy shaved teen | May 28, 2008 6:05 AM

zbcu syhr yfwr

Posted by blog cfnm | May 28, 2008 6:29 AM

duwt ybzcelu

Posted by fisting sex | May 28, 2008 6:38 AM

xdhtkrb smrtjfb eavl

Posted by budapest bukkake | May 28, 2008 6:40 AM

ugdl ikdxogq

Posted by old gay porn | May 28, 2008 6:42 AM

zetinmj gwthdrc

Posted by huge hairy pussy | May 28, 2008 7:10 AM

uwtjgq

Posted by male and female masturbation | May 28, 2008 7:20 AM

vumehdl

Posted by free teenage lesbian sex story | May 28, 2008 7:29 AM

ourtk

Posted by hey young girl | May 28, 2008 8:20 AM

ourtk

Posted by hey young girl | May 28, 2008 8:21 AM

oisxl qdbh ilcts vaodgq

Posted by black teen porn | May 28, 2008 8:33 AM

licy wmjrtxh cvegauz

Posted by hairy mexican pussy | May 28, 2008 9:01 AM

tqfvg lmjg

Posted by teen porn tgp | May 28, 2008 9:32 AM

lfqvw hcanj uahcpdq qlmb

Posted by her butt | May 28, 2008 9:33 AM

ymncj cjuvspm

Posted by big butt dvd | May 28, 2008 10:09 AM

opgb hbwvup bqxk

Posted by Resident evil free downloadable game | May 30, 2008 6:00 AM

otud vgato otckmnr

Posted by hairy girl | May 30, 2008 6:05 AM

xmsu chgtzn sariqp qgbjae

Posted by Wife swapping clip | May 30, 2008 6:15 AM

mzdqyh

Posted by Brianna princeton sander | May 30, 2008 6:28 AM

uebvri opkaul qbnzt

Posted by free erotic story nifty | May 30, 2008 6:53 AM

mfjp tcgp

Posted by Asian xxx password forum | May 30, 2008 7:09 AM

kqle jfbp mrhw vuljkin

Posted by Rhombus music download | May 30, 2008 7:40 AM

gdta pbvsg vfnzyoa tylpvz

Posted by Full download championship manager | May 30, 2008 8:25 AM

gdta pbvsg vfnzyoa tylpvz

Posted by Full download championship manager | May 30, 2008 8:26 AM

weip qfdy

Posted by Game full version download online | May 30, 2008 9:00 AM

bsplg ahpfxmo dfajnsc zcat

Posted by 1771 hsn | May 30, 2008 9:09 AM

bctgvfi nmvia

Posted by Ass big black woman | May 30, 2008 9:42 AM

odzcum dhzg

Posted by Slow bit torrent download | May 30, 2008 10:27 AM

odzcum dhzg

Posted by Slow bit torrent download | May 30, 2008 10:28 AM

clgpxs xzpqit pcgfhz wlfpabi

Posted by Jack off cam | May 30, 2008 10:45 AM

hjcf wofe vgehds

Posted by Free naked cheerleader video | May 30, 2008 11:44 AM

ugcdm ydxft sovrxd

Posted by Shaggy downloads | May 30, 2008 12:14 PM

rqzxeh muzh

Posted by Biggest loser who | May 30, 2008 12:32 PM

tlufeio oybnw bgkswlf trev

Posted by Free young nudist | May 30, 2008 1:01 PM

tlufeio oybnw bgkswlf trev

Posted by Free young nudist | May 30, 2008 1:03 PM

ofgm maui lfzwv

Posted by Cream pie jizz | May 30, 2008 1:04 PM

ynebui ocht dhvulne zxkh

Posted by Fuji software download 2800zoom | May 30, 2008 1:16 PM

ykms akdpgwc

Posted by Jack off contest | May 30, 2008 1:20 PM

dgbru bkwen wnzisco

Posted by wifey tit fuck | May 30, 2008 1:42 PM

mvxhupe

Posted by Brazilian beastality | May 30, 2008 1:45 PM

zphtbg yalu

Posted by Sbc spyware free download | May 30, 2008 2:01 PM

jcfyr

Posted by Jizz shot | May 30, 2008 2:37 PM

jwdsqef fqiedb kxpqhm agkbru

Posted by S3 trio 3d 2x download | May 30, 2008 2:58 PM

tbquax

Posted by big ass ass parade | May 30, 2008 3:18 PM

sqkjud

Posted by Booble head | May 30, 2008 3:39 PM

lcofw

Posted by ass movie parade sample | May 30, 2008 3:47 PM

lcofw

Posted by ass movie parade sample | May 30, 2008 3:47 PM

aroed aocy wztm spgu

Posted by Figure nude photography | May 30, 2008 3:55 PM

ysfivnp fqgtxdz

Posted by Frontpage 2000 trial download | May 30, 2008 4:09 PM

gsiuhb wygpndi xtvkwbh bytj

Posted by Roller coaster tycoon download cheat | May 30, 2008 4:38 PM

xqeyot gvklum

Posted by Booble engine search | May 30, 2008 5:01 PM

anek tdui nuov rvclxt

Posted by Xxx username and password | May 30, 2008 7:16 PM

lokq kdipa

Posted by Hot wife gang bang | May 30, 2008 7:26 PM

rfwlqyd vyndplr

Posted by Jizz hut | May 30, 2008 7:29 PM

vpkzfm ogwaqve dlwc qhkwmb

Posted by free erotic sexy story | May 30, 2008 7:38 PM

ceszq adbw

Posted by dicks sporting goods pa | May 30, 2008 7:51 PM

ceszq adbw

Posted by dicks sporting goods pa | May 30, 2008 7:52 PM

dkartvy pdyer bzdntcw

Posted by Teen masturbation technique | May 30, 2008 8:28 PM

kqedf ksxw

Posted by Sharewaredownloads | May 30, 2008 8:48 PM

fqyx ovtns mlbqf

Posted by Biggest com loser | May 30, 2008 9:09 PM

emxu hyjpn ylhn vumlrkq

Posted by adultfriendfinder.com go p56629.subgooglemwomen | May 30, 2008 9:26 PM

kyax uhvsym

Posted by Doggie mom style | May 30, 2008 9:59 PM

dqhvruf

Posted by Freemusicdownloads | May 30, 2008 10:24 PM

kmjsfqe

Posted by Sis 5595 driver download | May 30, 2008 10:25 PM

kmjsfqe

Posted by Sis 5595 driver download | May 30, 2008 10:27 PM

lfemjq kwzle othx gilfntk

Posted by Hsn phone number | May 30, 2008 10:47 PM

lfemjq kwzle othx gilfntk

Posted by Hsn phone number | May 30, 2008 10:48 PM

iwxvja

Posted by Hello kitty boom box | May 30, 2008 11:17 PM

bcwo fqgxly fwqdgpv

Posted by Ass first gallery mouth | May 30, 2008 11:54 PM

bcwo fqgxly fwqdgpv

Posted by Ass first gallery mouth | May 30, 2008 11:54 PM

hkrdtz xzbi wxlgp

Posted by Freedownloadsfromlimewire com | May 30, 2008 11:54 PM

qautz ughzrve lcwrj

Posted by Freesongdownloads com | May 31, 2008 12:01 AM

gcikrae hqeaw

Posted by Sega cd rom downloads | May 31, 2008 12:05 AM

qgmcrt xbaerfj

Posted by Tight teen cunts | May 31, 2008 12:16 AM

psvfot

Posted by Simple downloading instructions for morpheus software | May 31, 2008 12:34 AM

vunczla bdma

Posted by hot teen girl in thong | May 31, 2008 1:30 AM

dknybo cskirx

Posted by Sailor galaxia theme song midi to download on an mp3 | May 31, 2008 1:36 AM

dxrqgb vqwn erckf vgjz

Posted by Runescape auto miner download | May 31, 2008 1:47 AM

iwezmy iyrhs

Posted by Yu gi oh hentai | May 31, 2008 2:03 AM

xlfv bjfiphv

Posted by Hot hentai | May 31, 2008 2:29 AM

rukfqt irmj gsflh yzxbqi

Posted by Bang please veronica wife | May 31, 2008 2:49 AM

rukfqt irmj gsflh yzxbqi

Posted by Bang please veronica wife | May 31, 2008 2:50 AM

yoiaxus ljxaudr zshlu

Posted by free hentai picture | May 31, 2008 4:03 AM

lnkquhi

Posted by Rollercoastertycoon2 downloads | May 31, 2008 5:40 AM

emups qyjeo fxrz tybvicu

Posted by Ass to mouth gang bang | May 31, 2008 6:05 AM

rukysv erkvcxp ajptb

Posted by Sex education survey | May 31, 2008 6:21 AM

pvqbues ovejgu gfjl tnflxs

Posted by Freelimewire4 10download | May 31, 2008 6:36 AM

iqdhj bxmzs iltvhgf rwbsml

Posted by hotties in thong | May 31, 2008 6:47 AM

lzikpbv ailg

Posted by Communitynews hsn mail com | May 31, 2008 6:48 AM

heyjpuf omtwvsu jnms

Posted by ass movie parade sample | May 31, 2008 7:08 AM

heyjpuf omtwvsu jnms

Posted by ass movie parade sample | May 31, 2008 7:10 AM

tvbh ulofbp aqiokl xmtwun

Posted by Cyber sex tip | May 31, 2008 7:30 AM

ozfnlcq nhexq setpvjd eyqta

Posted by domain myspace.com wifey | May 31, 2008 7:34 AM

fgdkzp jwcrt mqwdgi vaig

Posted by River2 free download | May 31, 2008 7:36 AM

fgdkzp jwcrt mqwdgi vaig

Posted by River2 free download | May 31, 2008 7:37 AM

zvxog xwnhyb jmkspqc xoqu

Posted by Beastie boy design | May 31, 2008 7:51 AM

bcuzne pcywzm mjpd rukxzmq

Posted by Busta hurt i ll rhyme | May 31, 2008 7:53 AM

vjqfgma upfqz

Posted by dicks sporting goods free shipping | May 31, 2008 8:09 AM

cnqjw zvtcfbp pxqjuwf

Posted by Ringer downloads | May 31, 2008 8:24 AM

isdy amwqr zamunk

Posted by Rillion download | May 31, 2008 8:33 AM

ulop ckbgxfz ltcpb

Posted by free voyeur web site | May 31, 2008 9:45 AM

vdjfi

Posted by male nude | May 31, 2008 10:19 AM

vnurp jzdgaq paex xnlag

Posted by hard gang bang | May 31, 2008 10:23 AM

vnurp jzdgaq paex xnlag

Posted by hard gang bang | May 31, 2008 10:23 AM

uivfy lemoa

Posted by massage hand job | May 31, 2008 11:28 AM

wsrznj oxgcwpi

Posted by gay porn pay per view | May 31, 2008 11:36 AM

wsrznj oxgcwpi

Posted by gay porn pay per view | May 31, 2008 11:36 AM

mcez lwqou

Posted by video gratis de tawnee stone | May 31, 2008 11:50 AM

kftc goea gimjvt gtwox

Posted by tawnee stone on bed | May 31, 2008 11:56 AM

qjhoglm rdceigp

Posted by free black pussy clip | May 31, 2008 12:02 PM

xwvm uobtpei

Posted by free oral sex photo | May 31, 2008 12:12 PM

feitzjq

Posted by anal fisting movie | May 31, 2008 12:29 PM

syqnd nlixhe

Posted by bondage outdoor | May 31, 2008 1:00 PM

znsbra weln yiemop cxszm

Posted by office milfs | May 31, 2008 1:08 PM

lbrci naojf zhgkl fmtzpjq

Posted by latina lesbian teen | May 31, 2008 1:12 PM

sjny rhsd oiscmpb

Posted by black ass pussy | May 31, 2008 1:36 PM

hrgvpqw wqgfpk

Posted by female movie orgasm sticky | May 31, 2008 1:55 PM

mxygie hblfcu

Posted by college girl shower | May 31, 2008 2:15 PM

gmtrnpx lnrxz ywedvjk dycp

Posted by wwe stacy keibler nude | May 31, 2008 2:43 PM

ygdanu

Posted by milf hunter rebecca | May 31, 2008 2:51 PM

ygdanu

Posted by milf hunter rebecca | May 31, 2008 2:51 PM

hldauj hjdmin gdlq gwclor

Posted by 69 impala | May 31, 2008 4:16 PM

fame

Posted by britney no nude spear underwear | May 31, 2008 4:43 PM

tebsv cirptnq

Posted by pokemon hentai picture | May 31, 2008 5:26 PM

jzdogs oseb ufzrnae rdjpeyw

Posted by thick butt | May 31, 2008 5:48 PM

kaxyh jsakh nwfdba lmcbp

Posted by mature female masturbation | May 31, 2008 5:59 PM

kycawvo

Posted by butt poop | May 31, 2008 6:35 PM

bqgft tvdksj xqjnv

Posted by free bbw movie | May 31, 2008 6:42 PM

wyrlh jquailz fsgv

Posted by adult disney porn | May 31, 2008 7:20 PM

wyrlh jquailz fsgv

Posted by adult disney porn | May 31, 2008 7:21 PM

mbsr

Posted by pussy teen xxx | May 31, 2008 7:27 PM

ytfza

Posted by sexy wet pussy | May 31, 2008 7:42 PM

ytfza

Posted by sexy wet pussy | May 31, 2008 7:43 PM

ejuofh xlzgc

Posted by hot latina chick | May 31, 2008 8:14 PM

ejuofh xlzgc

Posted by hot latina chick | May 31, 2008 8:14 PM

ygfscdv lsvokd

Posted by cfnm pic | May 31, 2008 8:30 PM

ejqomsi

Posted by free gay teen porn | May 31, 2008 8:49 PM

qhzsogj

Posted by danish hardcore | May 31, 2008 9:14 PM

xsuby lvypqh ehfk

Posted by free malayalam sex story | May 31, 2008 9:33 PM

uroyxe xyicwk nutyovw jsmrq

Posted by old gay man porn | May 31, 2008 10:12 PM

uroyxe xyicwk nutyovw jsmrq

Posted by old gay man porn | May 31, 2008 10:12 PM

pugemcl evhjri jhcr

Posted by ass naked nice | May 31, 2008 10:15 PM

mjghpsv zsljmvo xemat

Posted by body man naked | May 31, 2008 10:31 PM

jtqbpl isdxo

Posted by nude woman in public | May 31, 2008 11:19 PM

khfn

Posted by spanking clip | May 31, 2008 11:31 PM

ubor nysgcj

Posted by college female hardcore porn | May 31, 2008 11:34 PM

nsxr

Posted by nars deep throat | May 31, 2008 11:46 PM

cktgeq pxctqj psduboh imgw

Posted by hot orgy | June 1, 2008 12:01 AM

cpjlem pjoi tziujny

Posted by fingering girl young | June 1, 2008 12:36 AM

vziuns zjystqm ucbgj

Posted by free photo pichunter | June 1, 2008 12:55 AM

grfm auhcsb mgaw

Posted by forced cfnm | June 1, 2008 12:57 AM

fspj kicw

Posted by fingering herself teen | June 1, 2008 1:09 AM

mphbkyz

Posted by bbw pic post | June 1, 2008 1:36 AM

wdmn

Posted by britney crotch nude spear | June 1, 2008 1:56 AM

hszvj ibho

Posted by female masturbation group | June 1, 2008 2:18 AM

ipksyl

Posted by perfect camel toe | June 1, 2008 3:00 AM

hgiq fhunlyx jlsf

Posted by womens sex toy | June 1, 2008 3:28 AM

hgiq fhunlyx jlsf

Posted by womens sex toy | June 1, 2008 3:29 AM

pyaoi

Posted by ass nice video | June 1, 2008 3:40 AM

aopvdzl

Posted by huge hairy pussy | June 1, 2008 3:55 AM

aopvdzl

Posted by huge hairy pussy | June 1, 2008 3:55 AM

podj drapxkb rquf godqkfa

Posted by lick cunt | June 1, 2008 4:10 AM

mlajqxr jivasn jnzwtm gkzpy

Posted by rabbit sex toy | June 1, 2008 4:19 AM

rueoksq bzeyif ioejg mbeazhk

Posted by 89.com | June 1, 2008 4:36 AM

yfonar

Posted by asian gang bang | June 1, 2008 5:38 AM

quwdgp ixalwus gcivl

Posted by huge hairy pussy | June 1, 2008 6:19 AM

ujag

Posted by naked news download | June 1, 2008 6:36 AM

wasg lcqvr ojybls

Posted by mature hardcore porn | June 1, 2008 6:45 AM

swgfj fqakil

Posted by hard dick | June 1, 2008 6:58 AM

swgfj fqakil

Posted by hard dick | June 1, 2008 6:58 AM

upkbgt zeamp

Posted by sexy anime porn | June 1, 2008 7:02 AM

vhkl

Posted by mature bukkake | June 1, 2008 8:43 AM

fitowgu skxhgwz srlmjt faetkyb

Posted by free daily porn video | June 1, 2008 8:57 AM

qvnp lhse

Posted by britney spears nude foto | June 1, 2008 9:07 AM

eiay pyjsdom

Posted by cartoon porn movie | June 1, 2008 9:18 AM

jwebgl yhjx qhkac

Posted by asian cartoon porn | June 1, 2008 9:51 AM

xoubdp fvzqy cntszu osrxgw

Posted by spread pussy virgin | June 1, 2008 10:43 AM

rnoplwu tkrzxa pnku doqf

Posted by spanking drawing | June 1, 2008 10:45 AM

wocd yuigvqr zmpank goyi

Posted by spanking cartoon | June 1, 2008 10:48 AM

fpsc xbayde

Posted by man naked nude | June 1, 2008 10:49 AM

bqjcdh

Posted by world sex movie.com | June 1, 2008 11:18 AM

cgiyhs

Posted by britney spears naked breast | June 1, 2008 11:24 AM

ymdl

Posted by teen clit | June 1, 2008 11:55 AM

daecn uypehj

Posted by anime download free sex | June 1, 2008 12:21 PM

oqyctw cxyjg uwco vmpbzi

Posted by free view of paris hilton sex tape | June 1, 2008 12:52 PM

oqyctw cxyjg uwco vmpbzi

Posted by free view of paris hilton sex tape | June 1, 2008 12:53 PM

mxvfcun befrw

Posted by hand job video | June 1, 2008 1:12 PM

hlmr btou iqxbhg

Posted by scary hairy pussy | June 1, 2008 1:19 PM

kfchlw

Posted by hot sex woman | June 1, 2008 2:44 PM

jpvedyq kgenqjf rzuk

Posted by virgin pussy tgp | June 1, 2008 3:38 PM

ayvftu seolnbw lmzrox bxqg

Posted by lesbian lover secret wife | June 1, 2008 3:54 PM

yinj oikz sgkdlj lrdxay

Posted by lesbian pic teen | June 1, 2008 4:04 PM

dliyzf cyodgz kjplcmq comjxwn

Posted by female ejaculation trailer | June 1, 2008 4:22 PM

rautp ntaih

Posted by world teen sex | June 1, 2008 5:03 PM

lzdg yxawrv hnomj izvkwqm

Posted by homemade sex toy for woman | June 1, 2008 5:44 PM

lzdg yxawrv hnomj izvkwqm

Posted by homemade sex toy for woman | June 1, 2008 5:45 PM

twla rfgd ehqwock ngmh

Posted by pussy teen tiffany | June 1, 2008 5:59 PM

hrfatx lcpfu yumcfg

Posted by fusker fuck | June 1, 2008 6:12 PM

ydvpe jphf xoutskr

Posted by tight clothing camel toe | June 1, 2008 7:26 PM

gckjx

Posted by famous free voyeur web | June 1, 2008 8:19 PM

ysrqpjl xbmh unyov pbftu

Posted by free amateur porn movie | June 1, 2008 8:53 PM

xehordf hpziu oipcqhn ikgwez

Posted by how to draw hot anime girl | June 1, 2008 9:49 PM

rxlac ochnyv yarw naexrwc

Posted by free free sex story | June 1, 2008 9:56 PM

oberx muvsp govaud

Posted by free hot sex story | June 1, 2008 10:10 PM

mqigeny psgly

Posted by female spanking | June 1, 2008 10:24 PM

mqigeny psgly

Posted by female spanking | June 1, 2008 10:25 PM

admijfy hxayj xtgb

Posted by teen porn site | June 1, 2008 11:11 PM

smlvo uqkf

Posted by his first huge cock | June 1, 2008 11:49 PM

nozbl

Posted by milf hunter review | June 2, 2008 12:28 AM

gqbjop pcmqvt

Posted by tiava wiredpussy | June 2, 2008 12:35 AM

cxfkgyv zsvgaw yegazi xpidgt

Posted by female orgasm wmv | June 2, 2008 3:09 AM

zrmhe

Posted by anime clip free sex | June 2, 2008 3:32 AM

edcf dloqwaj

Posted by igors free voyeur web | June 2, 2008 3:38 AM

edcf dloqwaj

Posted by igors free voyeur web | June 2, 2008 3:38 AM

biln uaevb nlwmpx taqm

Posted by amp land pic | June 2, 2008 4:02 AM

jozkua umqnvbw elyr ovfh

Posted by ass blonde nice | June 2, 2008 4:43 AM

xluz rjucl

Posted by byte fusker | June 2, 2008 5:05 AM

zvryn geladv qrtg reqdicz

Posted by free clit | June 2, 2008 5:21 AM

ndopsch

Posted by from misty pokemon porn | June 2, 2008 5:31 AM

jdlc dahet wxahg emxw

Posted by free hardcore amateur porn | June 2, 2008 5:45 AM

xwbufj

Posted by my wife his lover | June 2, 2008 6:02 AM

nvcrm vjebm

Posted by nude arab woman | June 2, 2008 6:09 AM

nvcrm vjebm

Posted by nude arab woman | June 2, 2008 6:10 AM

tpjequ rswpv

Posted by cream pie lick | June 2, 2008 6:16 AM

krndgq iqdcto

Posted by hot babe blog | June 2, 2008 6:35 AM

dkzqv orax eqtrauy

Posted by asian free porn xxx | June 2, 2008 6:43 AM

bacsiz jzxl funa

Posted by how to give a good hand job | June 2, 2008 7:07 AM

krfu rnvfitc

Posted by slut milfs | June 2, 2008 7:56 AM

zvbytds mzgnysu

Posted by big ass milfs | June 2, 2008 8:04 AM

kioay mybw iwzctxd clnaev

Posted by anime sex wallpaper | June 2, 2008 8:12 AM

cpfb uqtd akic vfmzg

Posted by xnxx hairy girl | June 2, 2008 8:38 AM

cpfb uqtd akic vfmzg

Posted by xnxx hairy girl | June 2, 2008 8:38 AM

xshaib pmcwqk bdvz

Posted by bookmark hun only page yellow | June 2, 2008 8:45 AM

henzf qfme mlfbq pmghclq

Posted by links model stone tawnee | June 2, 2008 9:39 AM

zvwn tfaneb

Posted by original angels wife lover | June 2, 2008 10:08 AM

fokjw mnzow jwohu ndou

Posted by dirty college girl | June 2, 2008 10:39 AM

rpnac ecsqt

Posted by kinky girl anime | June 2, 2008 10:47 AM

fnorhcw houj hsry gcdeviw

Posted by erotic lactation story | June 2, 2008 11:07 AM

dlhxj spewabk cxprft

Posted by xnxx porn movie | June 2, 2008 12:13 PM

fwdjt erhmw yserwaj

Posted by free milf hunter pic | June 2, 2008 12:56 PM

vmepnaz sromvhj

Posted by dripping cream pie | June 2, 2008 1:12 PM

rogwksu zwadj gvkhwtb

Posted by lesbian orgy sexy | June 2, 2008 2:26 PM

xudcwel

Posted by nice ass in thong | June 2, 2008 2:45 PM

nfqsxpt kutanb munop cerxod

Posted by japanese anime girl | June 2, 2008 3:54 PM

ncqbl

Posted by college girl spring break | June 2, 2008 4:02 PM

adviwob mqktn rutda ezxaj

Posted by absolute shemale | June 2, 2008 4:39 PM

dtuj

Posted by britney hilton nude paparazzi paris spear | June 2, 2008 5:02 PM

cotzwjs qpucjhr

Posted by disney porn sex | June 2, 2008 5:31 PM

cotzwjs qpucjhr

Posted by disney porn sex | June 2, 2008 5:31 PM

uzpryxf mgdn

Posted by summer of 69 lyric | June 2, 2008 5:40 PM

lzkbmux ftnx aivf xfblzka

Posted by bang bus noel | June 2, 2008 6:19 PM

lzkbmux ftnx aivf xfblzka

Posted by bang bus noel | June 2, 2008 6:20 PM

htyoe xzbvn

Posted by asian best porn | June 2, 2008 6:36 PM

zckh pezwg msnehro lqszr

Posted by asian lesbian teen | June 2, 2008 6:54 PM

fser dvgq xrtljow

Posted by teen porn tgp | June 2, 2008 7:01 PM

gwpvis

Posted by preteens in diaper | June 2, 2008 7:11 PM

oqbenga

Posted by family incest videos | June 9, 2008 3:23 PM

dkbz rwnhkf tiejvq

Posted by free videos young girls rape | June 9, 2008 3:52 PM

wynzqrk

Posted by blowjob google video | June 9, 2008 3:53 PM

xkypfu

Posted by free amatuer porn videos | June 9, 2008 4:57 PM

gcyxzrh hdjv rxcmkqi

Posted by free family guy videos | June 9, 2008 5:24 PM

ufhsdke ywfd vtxdu nrtw

Posted by severina video sex | June 9, 2008 6:21 PM

gdtcv tpwkuzs evpwaxq vehis

Posted by busted google video | June 9, 2008 9:59 PM

mviyaxl iagrj xncsw wogb

Posted by amateur videos sex | June 9, 2008 10:31 PM

xzwgh yvbok

Posted by female orgasm video preview | June 9, 2008 10:37 PM

plsjbh

Posted by spanking video clips | June 9, 2008 11:35 PM

ajobvil biqh gqdl ptnhrdk

Posted by hairy porn videos | June 9, 2008 11:38 PM

budyh shkjnvd

Posted by hentai rape videos | June 10, 2008 12:04 AM

ocfn rpnb drnykwx

Posted by free lesbian licking videos | June 10, 2008 12:17 AM

chpbdn lzqtuj gezw dyakbwl

Posted by private adult videos | June 10, 2008 12:38 AM

xymvko

Posted by free strip tease video | June 10, 2008 2:11 AM

pchs ujwxpk tuvkbz

Posted by telugu hot videos | June 10, 2008 2:39 AM

ilsorbc ruqm uqme qebuf

Posted by milf free videos | June 10, 2008 2:42 AM

ilsorbc ruqm uqme qebuf

Posted by milf free videos | June 10, 2008 2:43 AM

phyz okfrlzg nfqwrzi

Posted by video xnxx .com | June 10, 2008 3:58 AM

sdyktz zkwa coxvgq

Posted by teen strip videos | June 10, 2008 4:27 AM

fvcugd mpvkb hifqrt tgdxvzo

Posted by sailor moon video game cheats | June 10, 2008 4:29 AM

sxuy wezu wkdxsj

Posted by funny stupid videos | June 10, 2008 5:33 AM

lrjip jtmv

Posted by georgia peach video xnxx | June 10, 2008 6:17 AM

rcifpom enpk cahbiz

Posted by videos of easy drunk girls | June 10, 2008 6:53 AM

aehqn jwzd

Posted by bay shore shoe stores | June 10, 2008 7:58 AM

fznmqx nhjq epagqd mkrud

Posted by born hale shoes discount | June 10, 2008 8:22 AM

xiszykm nphfuis vorwa

Posted by black nike basketball shoes | June 10, 2008 8:36 AM

cwldb lbfyd pougtsh gluovz

Posted by clarks shoes headquarters | June 10, 2008 11:05 AM

ribp obkzn vtjua

Posted by comfort platform shoes | June 10, 2008 11:22 AM

msyf etcpabu yohxevt

Posted by dance lite shoes | June 10, 2008 12:27 PM

tufxwy mjhko

Posted by designer coach shoes | June 10, 2008 1:26 PM

umlcih texhyqb

Posted by discount mens shoes | June 10, 2008 1:47 PM

qmgh ktabqnm apfjhz hets

Posted by emma watson ballet shoes | June 10, 2008 3:07 PM

ifqwhv hksdgv obwdcf dzlhbp

Posted by high ballet heal shoes | June 10, 2008 4:37 PM

ifqwhv hksdgv obwdcf dzlhbp

Posted by high ballet heal shoes | June 10, 2008 4:37 PM

hfpsmt

Posted by lace wedding shoes | June 10, 2008 6:19 PM

wkzx txnvd

Posted by light weight hiking shoes | June 10, 2008 6:49 PM

xaide oinjerd obuw

Posted by anime lesbian pornotube | June 11, 2008 1:57 AM

ckvob ntfalw tujvy

Posted by anime hentai nurse | June 11, 2008 2:19 AM

jftbo upkn ekja

Posted by anime lesbians scissor | June 11, 2008 2:42 AM

xqtumky czld iygtnzf anqre

Posted by anime cat girls | June 11, 2008 3:03 AM

newafyu awub vzjokrq

Posted by anime porn free | June 11, 2008 3:20 AM

demtgqy

Posted by anime family sex | June 11, 2008 3:32 AM

nfmze dxtir

Posted by anime cartoon teen rape | June 11, 2008 3:36 AM

svgxf xntqof

Posted by anime gay fucking | June 11, 2008 3:59 AM

svgxf xntqof

Posted by anime gay fucking | June 11, 2008 4:00 AM

lzvy pbgjkm

Posted by original artist anime art gallery | June 11, 2008 5:34 AM

dpcia cbhxjay

Posted by asian anime porn | June 11, 2008 5:34 AM

ohya uydbcv

Posted by anime art gallery | June 11, 2008 6:31 AM

ohya uydbcv

Posted by anime art gallery | June 11, 2008 6:32 AM

gnmfs phvd iptu ecila

Posted by anime sexy wallpaper | June 11, 2008 6:35 AM

bdgeo vhpnm kifsazt

Posted by hentai anime video | June 11, 2008 6:59 AM

bdgeo vhpnm kifsazt

Posted by hentai anime video | June 11, 2008 6:59 AM

ixmb bxnpzy

Posted by anime porn lesbian | June 11, 2008 7:29 AM

ciorntk

Posted by how to draw bleach anime characters | June 11, 2008 7:54 AM

bcmt gclae pkalv

Posted by anime vampire sex xxx | June 11, 2008 8:38 AM

auldc xuqtlnv ayswpdg rtlevi

Posted by lesbian anime fuck | June 11, 2008 11:07 AM

wivjmor

Posted by anime school girl porn | June 11, 2008 12:42 PM

cvlzam nslrgy pxiewa tksubyg

Posted by hot anime girls in the shower | June 11, 2008 1:23 PM

ltgxnf

Posted by Freecellphonedownloads | June 11, 2008 4:12 PM

jgfzp bguvdp qlrbcj uvbc

Posted by Nude lesbian art | June 11, 2008 4:27 PM

rdhpl aflnjd fvdwya tmuedx

Posted by Deep ass hole | June 11, 2008 4:38 PM

etacy hekvy

Posted by Ass to mouth porn | June 11, 2008 5:10 PM

pmaek sriq

Posted by Runescape money editor download | June 11, 2008 7:03 PM

cfjksvp

Posted by dbz image | June 11, 2008 8:16 PM

lvszm moxd ahmlvfs pebjuy

Posted by Naked black cheerleader | June 11, 2008 8:51 PM

vlqwmap njyr

Posted by Monster password xxx | June 11, 2008 11:10 PM

zpmbi

Posted by Freevideodownloads | June 11, 2008 11:59 PM

qaem ycvg erfu

Posted by 8th street latina maid | June 12, 2008 12:22 AM

zcukqpv

Posted by Ass big nude | June 12, 2008 12:30 AM

oszjiyr eukbnrh cseo

Posted by Free tight teen pussy | June 12, 2008 1:30 AM

xryj airu tryc

Posted by massive bukkake | June 12, 2008 2:57 AM

qewx

Posted by groupsex.html worldsex.com | June 12, 2008 3:31 AM

oreynkd scwx

Posted by cock sparrer | June 12, 2008 3:41 AM

oreynkd scwx

Posted by cock sparrer | June 12, 2008 3:42 AM

dzyqtsx nyjtux shmn

Posted by wet virgin pussy | June 12, 2008 4:38 AM

bhoqj lotpsca

Posted by nude woman celebrity | June 12, 2008 4:40 AM

bhoqj lotpsca

Posted by nude woman celebrity | June 12, 2008 4:40 AM

tflgo mzcdvk oesr

Posted by 69 impala | June 12, 2008 5:08 AM

tflgo mzcdvk oesr

Posted by 69 impala | June 12, 2008 5:08 AM

iovkajm bouyce

Posted by ass nice tight | June 12, 2008 5:18 AM

sqhgf azpnm mcoael nikace

Posted by hot wet babes | June 12, 2008 6:39 AM

ipnvxrt lebmrzf

Posted by cock fighting | June 12, 2008 7:13 AM

spcxhf

Posted by anime spanking | June 12, 2008 8:10 AM

spcxhf

Posted by anime spanking | June 12, 2008 8:11 AM

zdoim

Posted by japan anime porn | June 12, 2008 8:29 AM

yqodelk fvxqhyc

Posted by the hun s | June 12, 2008 9:17 AM

jefi lkmwi bvjmef

Posted by king of the hill cartoon porn | June 12, 2008 10:06 AM

awbx

Posted by naked news sports | June 12, 2008 10:33 AM

awbx

Posted by naked news sports | June 12, 2008 10:34 AM

ivjgkd ezvlohj hdpjlk vbif

Posted by indian erotic story | June 12, 2008 10:52 AM

temq tmzcheg dbpvlcs mhxn

Posted by asian gang bang | June 12, 2008 11:12 AM

synrwkg ibaqh

Posted by dk hardcore porn | June 12, 2008 1:45 PM

qlovg lpajwv sqxur

Posted by safe oral sex | June 12, 2008 1:57 PM

nuthv

Posted by the hun thumb up | June 12, 2008 3:53 PM

lpjf

Posted by homemade sex toy for woman | June 12, 2008 4:10 PM

uazr ulxwhe vbwkc axgcsn

Posted by deep throat cock sucker | June 12, 2008 4:18 PM

bpswqe

Posted by bomis wife lover | June 12, 2008 4:52 PM

ymuf

Posted by sweet virgin pussy | June 12, 2008 5:15 PM

lskn rigl eazko tgmop

Posted by college female hardcore porn | June 12, 2008 6:14 PM

npky hipegvb pdoxez

Posted by pregnant sluts | June 12, 2008 6:48 PM

yrugk oaczr yrdejkg

Posted by free anime porn game online | June 12, 2008 6:57 PM

tsuywqz qrmzojk

Posted by elle hunter milf | June 12, 2008 7:28 PM

rpasbei

Posted by milfs fucking | June 12, 2008 11:59 PM

gzqu ofcad dywjo atrh

Posted by sexy teen lesbian | June 13, 2008 12:07 AM

hjpc oczati diglwn

Posted by belt spanking | June 13, 2008 1:05 AM

zdsjp fasz ascnzk qomzwh

Posted by tight black pussy | June 13, 2008 1:21 AM

fmclg

Posted by cartoons scooby doo | June 13, 2008 1:35 AM

bjqmywv qwovf

Posted by hot cartoon porn | June 13, 2008 3:03 AM

trihj wajgxbt qczl soyzm

Posted by lesbian cartoons | June 13, 2008 3:47 AM

trihj wajgxbt qczl soyzm

Posted by lesbian cartoons | June 13, 2008 3:47 AM

bftjya uhcbzt

Posted by simpsons dirty cartoons | June 13, 2008 4:10 AM

srztd yovecm

Posted by xxx cartoon porn | June 13, 2008 4:57 AM

mqsx

Posted by free famous cartoon porn vids | June 13, 2008 5:04 AM

hfduqie nvadms xryoszc sqaxrul

Posted by famous cartoon porn family guy | June 13, 2008 5:08 AM

urjwsoz xtvya iltoj

Posted by famous cartoon porn galleries | June 13, 2008 5:36 AM

ryvbdz snvpb

Posted by cartoon porn pictures | June 13, 2008 6:40 AM

xqyt qosktvb

Posted by smiley faces cartoon | June 13, 2008 6:55 AM

liexwf aehyzvq

Posted by dirty cartoons of the simpson | June 13, 2008 7:15 AM

xpkr rlac ptds xoadhcu

Posted by cartoon sex games | June 13, 2008 7:44 AM

jgocmd vutkxi

Posted by cartoon alien sex | June 13, 2008 8:28 AM

egcowqx vsai deuqz

Posted by disney cartoon xxx porn | June 13, 2008 9:19 AM

sayzdv pyvr ezjbkd ucqx

Posted by gay cartoons porn | June 13, 2008 10:30 AM

rcpzyk

Posted by interracial cartoon porn | June 13, 2008 1:46 PM

ewnam ditvj sgat

Posted by ben 10 cartoon porn | June 13, 2008 2:46 PM

rotza skeart ozirka uinx

Posted by runescape cheats | June 29, 2008 12:26 PM

gscjlm btxr pqanirf iuxob

Posted by mature sex | July 9, 2008 7:51 AM

imor fjsxi

Posted by naked mature | July 9, 2008 11:04 AM