Betty Dodson with Carlin Ross
Better Orgasms. Better World.
 |
Betty's Vaginal Barbell |
 |
My Romantic Love Wars: A Sexual Memoir - EBOOK EDITION |
 |
Betty Dodson's Bodysex Workshop DVD |
 |
Betty Dodson Liberating women one orgasm at a time |
 |
Carlin Ross Sex, Politics & More Sex |
 |
Eric Amaranth Sex life coaching and neo-male perspectives. |
 |
Lawrence Lanoff President of Pleasure, Tantric Master. Creator of Tantra-X University. |
 |
Liandra Dahl Sex Documentarian |
 |
LilithLand Women, Sex, Culture & Relationships |
 |
BorderReiver Restoring My Foreskin |
 |
Caitlin Bovard From the bible belt to under the belt |
 |
Caitlin Roberts Taking Back "Slut" |
 |
cajun sausage Lovin' Dr. Betty since 1996! |
 |
Christina Cicchelli |
 |
Danny Wylde Male. Libra. Whore |
 |
Dr. Lulu History & the Material Culture of Sex |
 |
Emily and Ju Queer love |
 |
Eric Francis Astrology & Adventure |
 |
Jenn Parenthood. With Cursing |
 |
Jessica Kramer Liberating Birth |
 |
jexhibitionism |
 |
Julia Emerald Philosophy, Sex and Freedom |
 |
Kasini Poet. Educator. Catalyst. Mother. |
 |
carlisleorama |
 |
LesleyS Redefining my sexual self after babies. |
 |
Logan Levkoff sexologist, sex educator, intellisexual, author, mom |
 |
Marisa Black Finding room for all of me |
 |
Marylou Naccarato Learn how to raise your level of “Sexability” |
 |
Miss Dirt Sex. Yoga. Feminism |
 |
Palesa Art + Sex + Media + Empowerment |
 |
The ED Coach Pa... Helping Men Regain Their Sexuality |
 |
Princess What would my mother say? |
 |
Scout Life...Parenting...Bodysex |
 |
VirginMonoblogger Thought all virgins were the same? Think again. |
 |
WildOrchid A selfsexual, toy loving, bisexual fetishist. |
What do American men have in common with Middle Eastern and Tribal African men? All three societies routinely perform circumcision on boys while the rest of the world does not. In the United States, we circumcise babies within the first few days or week. Muslims do it to young boys who are between 12 and 15 while African boys are between 6 to 10 years of age. In all three instances circumcision is performed without anesthesia!
Perhaps Muslims circumcise boys late to insure they will become angry young men willing to sacrifice their life for Allah. In Africa it's a rite of passage into manhood, a warrior who now can kill animals and other men. The fact that the AMA does not support circumcision citing there is no health benefit, I suspect it's the same for Americans: circumcision prepares our young men to go to war. After all, War Inc. has been America's number one industry ever since 1914 following WWI.
The Jews maintain the tradition of circumcision because some second century rabbis thought it was a good idea; a perfect example of religious ignorance. But why do Protestants, Catholics or Atheists do it? The most common reason mothers give is, "I want my son to look like his father." Or, "I don't want him to look different from other boys in the locker room." So this barbaric, horrific procedure continues without rhyme or reason other than those few who have the courage to say "No" and dare to be different. That was my mother, Bess Dodson. She refused to circumcise her baby boys and she had four sons. Daddy was not circumcised, but Mother later told me that even if he had been, she still would never let them do that to her babies. It made no sense because she believed they were fine just like Nature intended. That was Mother! She always relied upon "plain old horse sense," as she called it.
Over the decades of listening to a multitude of people's sex problems, I've often been asked for my opinion on circumcision. Consistently I have been against it for many reasons mainly because I believed it was meant to curb male masturbation. Like Mother, I too believe our bodies are perfectly designed by Nature. However, I never made a big issue out of my stand against circumcision in deference to all the men who'd been cut. Thanks to an active sex life during the two liberated decades of the sixties and seventies, I knew more American men were cut than not, so why make a big issue of it? However, I did comment regularly that circumcision was a barbaric procedure that was an attack on the male sex organ in the name of cleanliness or holiness. I would never recommend or support it.
In the early eighties, I spent several weeks in Amsterdam running workshops. At one point, I remember thinking how sweet and gentle most Dutch men were. More like my brothers and the boys I'd dated back in High School in Wichita. Looking back I wondered how many of them had been circumcised. European countries do not perform circumcision routinely like we do here in America. When I moved to New York in the fifties, most of my lovers were Jewish and they were all circumcised. My former husband was circumcised and he ended up with a small hole about three inches above the cut line where a bit of skin got snipped off by accident. He had to remove the dried mucous from it regularly like squeezing a pimple. He was also a premature ejaculator who claimed he rarely masturbated as a child and never as an adult.
Also during the eighties, more truth about circumcision emerged and many gay men begin to rebel against this form of genital mutilation. Some of the guys were restoring their foreskins by stretching the remaining skin. About the same time, feminists were raging against Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) in Muslim and African countries. Instinctively I would ask, "What about Male Genital Mutilation with circumcision?" Women were adamant about it not being the same thing. Men could still ejaculate with their cut dicks which fulfilled the role of procreation.
I didn't make the connection on how circumcision changed the act of intercourse until my recent correspondence with Dr. Rob, an American studying in Moscow. He rekindled my interest in the subject when he sent a video clip of a baby having the procedure done. I'm still reeling from the images. It's one thing to imagine what this is like. It's altogether different to actually see it performed. Truth is I'm a tough old broad, but I broke down and cried like a sissy girl. Any person who watches this video would never, ever allow their baby boy to be circumcised. There are no words to describe the horror I witnessed with my own eyes.
The method practiced in most hospitals today use a Gomco or Mogen clamp that slowly crushes the skin and seals the vessels resulting in an almost bloodless procedure. However, the baby experiences severe pain for up to twenty minutes as the clamp slowly mashes sensitive nerve endings. The foreskin is similar to a girl's clitoris; both are heavily endowed with thousands of nerve endings. I saw a happy little baby boy laid down inside a cold plastic mold imitating an infant's shape. Then his little legs are straightened out and strapped down along with his arms whereupon Baby naturally begins to cry. Unbelievably, the father is standing by. He asks the doctor if he can give his son a pacifier to suck.
While Baby is temporarily calmed, the doctor swabs the area with a soft applicator covered with antiseptic. It obviously feels good because Baby's penis becomes partially erect. Then the pain and screams come as his sweet little penis is put into the Gomco. The doc pulls the foreskin out with a cold metal clamp and thrusts a probe inside the foreskin and circles the shaft to separate the skin from the penis. The cries are now horrendous as Baby struggles against his bondage. Just try to imagine your clitoral hood being stretched out and then a sharp instrument inserted to separate the hood from the clitoral glans. The father mentions at one point that his baby is really upset. The doc assures him he's fine and he won't remember any of it.
I believe heterosexuality is at war with itself because of circumcision. First Baby feels pleasurable sensations that are abruptly followed by a barbaric torturous treatment that reduces his penis to a bloody stump! Is it any wonder why these men hate women or they don't trust anyone? Research has shown that the pain of circumcision is present in personal memories. When I Googled "against circumcision" some 300,000 sources appeared beginning with Mothers against Circumcision, Catholics, Protestants, Doctors and even Rabbi's who don't support it. Any nurse who has witnessed one is absolutely against it after seeing a baby suffer first hand. At least the Jewish-style circumcision uses a finely honed blade of surgical steel. In Africa it's a bit of glass or an old razor blade. My friend Rob in Moscow said he was haunted by the memory of the white searing pain until he was eight years old. He is now restoring his foreskin by stretching what's left. While other men are doing this, all those thousands of nerve endings have been lost for good.
In the sixties I was dating a man who was not circumcised. Grant practically worshipped women's genitals and loved all forms of sex. When we decided to date other people, the first thing I discovered was how difficult it was for me to have an orgasm with casual sex (research has shown that women are more likely to orgasm with a genitally intact partner). Meanwhile I figured he was coming all over the place. My conclusion at the time was while he could "run the fuck" I was limited to each man's technique. During that time, I was reading Wilhelm Reich who talked about the angry man who penetrated a woman's vagina using his penis like a weapon. I eventually named this the "Hard Fuck" where a guy would bang away. The first man I came with outside my primary relationship was uncircumcised. Unfortunately none of this registered at the time. I've only recently made the connection between the hard fuck and circumcision where a man struggles to get adequate stimulation during intercourse.
Later on when Grant I entered the sexual revolution and attended sex parties together, I quickly learned never to end up on my back and let a stranger fuck me. I always got on top so I could control the depth of penetration. I'd also stimulate my clitoris at the same time and I always added additional lubrication. Now that I understand how circumcision plays out in men's lives, my ride ‘em Cowgirl stance made sense. Circumcised men have lost so much sensation in the head of their penis that they masturbate with a heavy hand and fast rhythm which naturally translates into a hard and fast friction fuck!
Better than my Ph.D in sexology was having lots of sexual experiences with many different people. After I viewed the video sent by Dr. Rob in Moscow, I saw the difference in sexual penetration and thrusting of the natural man versus a circumcised man. As a result of this, I thought back over some of my boyfriends. My Spanish Doctor was not circumcised and I always came with him from intercourse in my twenties. Victor was a circumcised Jew with a nice fat dick and I could come with him if I got on top. Then I remembered Ira whose edge of his glans looked like a serrated kitchen knife. When I asked about his butchered penis, he said it was from a bad circumcision. Although I was crazy about him, my insides were sore after our first hard fuck so on the third date, I told him we were sexually incompatible and stopped seeing him.
Mother said she always came from intercourse with my uncircumcised father. She often commented on what good control he had and said they were a perfect fit. One site showed the difference between a natural foreskin that bunched up and pressed against a woman's clitoris during penetration; nerve bundles gently kissing other nerve bundles with a smooth gliding motion. It was Mother Nature's clitoral stimulator. Uncircumcised glans are moist and they look like satin while exposed glans have a different rougher texture that's always dry.
I'm amazed it's taken me all this time to understand heterosexual intercourse with and without a foreskin. My sexlife with Eric Amaranth, who is circumcised, was good in part because I requested a slow fuck with lots of extra lubrication. I'm proud of his capacity for care as well as passion during sex. I also realize why my life's work has been centered on liberating masturbation. It's one sure way that women can have orgasms. Given the physical and psychological damage done to American men with this unholy procedure, I'd say vibrators have saved the day for us gals. Once circumcision is ended for good, it will be a big step toward ending the war between the sexes, healing erectile dysfunction (ED) along with ending premature ejaculation. It will also create a healing for all the pre-orgasmic women that rarely or never can orgasm from those hard friction fucks.
It's no wonder men hate women consciously or subconsciously. Look at what mothers have allowed a doctor to do to them. First Baby feels pleasure with soft touches that get him partially erect. It feels good until the Doc applies a cold hard metal clamp. The searing pain that follows lasts twenty minutes or more like a sustained torture. May I suggest we consider the similarities between American men and their Islamic brothers or a primitive African tribe? The one thing they have in common is their puritanical and ignorant approach to male sexuality. We must end the barbaric practice of circumcision now! It's up to Mothers to take a stand and protect their baby boys. He can look different from Daddy and eventually know the truth: daddy was a victim of male genital mutilation (MGM) which is no longer practiced in a sexually enlightened society.
0 items
Mothers Don’t Circumcise Your Boys
Thank you, this is great. I think that's so true why men have to "bang" because they not feeling very much.
Circumcision
I have two sons. My first child was circumcised. I absolutely refused to allow my second son to be. My first child was a very difficult baby. Colicky and did not sleep well. He is still a very restless young man of 26 years old. My second son was totally different. A gentle and loving child. He was very calmand easy to soothe. I often wondered if the difference was connected to the decision to circumcise or not. I often feel guilty for circumcising my eldest son and wonder how different of a man he would be today if I had not.
100% Spot On!
BUT and this is a big BUT, the fight against female mutilation which is still widely happening is some parts of the world is a bigger issue.
Please
I agree that circumcision is worthless but it's not a conspiracy and it doesn't reduce us to mindless beasts.
"It's no wonder men hate women consciously or subconsciously." Really? Come on, give us some credit.
The main point of the essay makes sense but you've damaged your credibility with hyperbole and damned us with faint praise.
Erotica author and podcaster: http://nobilis.libsyn.com
Attitudes Toward Male Circumcision Are Changing
Betty and Dr. Christiane Northrup appear to share similar views on male circumcision:
http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com/10F/doctor_northrup.html
Below is a pictorial presentation of the Sexual Functions of the Foreskin:
http://xrl.us/ForeskinFunctions
Betty and I worked on this
Betty and I worked on this article together. We may need to address some of your concerns.
We love men. When we both watched that video of a baby boy being circumcised, we cried. Betty remembered, back in the 70s, wanting to include this male genital mutilation with the charge against female genital mutilation.
Why is it necessary to remove any part of our bodies that we enter the world with that has been designed through years of evolution? Whether it's a clit or foreskin it violates the sanctity of the body. I read the comments about FGM being worse than MGM. Here's my point: without a clit you can still have g-spot stimulation/orgasms...right? So without a foreskin you can still ejaculate/orgasm. What one suffers in both FGM and MGM is the deliberate destruction of 1,000s of nerve endings which, in the end, changes the nature of the sex act between men and women. Men have less lubrication, need more friction etc and this all results in fewer orgasms for women.
We are sex positive. We believe in equality for both sexes. We believe in the sanctity of the body. And we believe that circumcision is unnecessary JUST LIKE THE AMA.
genital mutilation
miss moonlight,
what could be gained by knowing whether this is "worse" for males or females, or which is the "bigger issue"? is it worse to be hit with a bat or a tire iron? the very discussion of which is worse only serves to be divisive. calling one a bigger issue only minimizes the experience of the other.
I Will Try To Answer Post Below
I neither want to get involved in a debate here on a site that is about fun and loving or take the thread off topic. But from what I have read, the mutilation of females is more risky, more painful, done for reasons of male dominance and often in poor conditions. It also deprives women of their sexuality and can lead to painful sex for ever. In Europe it is also illegal; I hope it is elsewhere. This is my personal opinion. Like everything in life it is based on either what I have read, what I have been told or what I have seen so I am the first to admit it can be flawed.
As for men, I have had circumcised and uncircumcised lovers and not noticed any difference other than the visual. However, from a personal point of view, apart from disfigurement I do not think anything should be done to the body that is not medically required.
Betty's and Carlin's view here would be interesting.
Oh Nobel One, I challenge
Oh Nobel One, I challenge you to watch the entire clip of the baby's circumcision and then tell me I deal in hyperbole. You're quick to criticize me and obviously take delight in doing so. More masturbation perhaps? Dr. Betty
Great Article -wanted to share some info on FGM and MGM
I wanted to say thank you for standing out on this and the comparisons is great.
Girls and Guys both have various forms of Circumcision .
The removal of Clit hood and the Foreskin are stated as the same.
Removal of Clit hood in a Female would be consider type 1 circumcision and Illegal in The USA which to me is a Big Double Standard.
We also know that as there are many types of Female Circumcision and not all of them are done in unsterile conditions they even remove a clit hood in a baby girl just like they remove foreskin from males in infancy to teen years .
I do say there are Variations in Male Circumcision and I even believe that many circumcisions done to males that end up being botched is proably the same type as a female who gets infibulated.
Many countries that pratice FGM are only doing the removal of clit or the clit hood .
Yes Males do end up Castrated as in accidently getting their glans off many doctors -hide that fact put put invisble stitches in there which leads men to have lil holes around their glans and they wonder why.
Males Do die from this circumcision even in a Sterile Hospital but they never state it was a circumcision cause they just say well the baby died from severe hemoraging and ask your question how can 2 day old have Severe Bleeding in their lil body ?
A mom had to watch her son in a coma for 6 yrs because he lost so much blood that it lead to brain damaged
Many Doctors and nurses do hate doing this procedure only if they are not Pro-circ but just do it because they don't want parents to feel bad so when parents do not do it they will get the the actual truth from their doctor is some of them are high Fiving the Mom's for not doing it .
Anyways, to help get the pro - circ and neutral medical professionals into the Truth That Circumcision is Bad and It harms males will be needing to update in a Full Study of Foreskin because Not one Single USA Medical Book has a Male with a Natural Anatomny .
Their is a Book for Males that deal with growing up and is the only book I have ever seen in USA but it's just a description.
In medical books/dictionary all they do is list a Small defintion of the Foreskin but if you look up the complications of foreskin which are Highly Misdiagnosed - you will get a recommendation of circ in that Book for Balantitis , Paraphimosis, and Phimosis.
People need to find out if Balantitis diagnoses are the actual Seperation Trauma an male with a Foreskin goes through which is Normal Part of Function .
Sometimes even doctors think Smegma coming out of foreskin is Yeast which it is not .
Some docs recommend circumcision for a child who doesn't retract by the age of 2 but in reality the full retraction averages up to 10 ages but even some can not retract til when they hit 16.
Also, retraction can be delayed in a Male with a foreskin if he went through Forced Retraction which sadly some doctors recommend to do by telling parents they need to retract & clean throughout childhood.
Many doctors do try or retract foreskin of males during check up and what for some say we are checking to see how tight it is or need to see the pee hole which is wrong for them do to because Forced Retraction Not only can hurt the baby but it also leaves the Child No Dignity of His penis the same forced retraction of a circ'ed boy remaining foreskin don't get that Dignity either !
Us Females we get Yucky Paps and that is embrassing but we have to get them just like how when it's time to deliver a baby .
I also wonder if certain Male Factor Infertilty can be the result of the Circumcision because wouldn't it be possible that if your missing part of your skin you have to have skin to help the penis grow so more likely it will bring the testicles up because the foreskin does 'reach ' from the overhang of the foreskin to the sides of the balls in the male.
I left my son Brendan intact and during wiping I realized that there was more to the Foreskin than just On top of the penis .
I only seen 2 penis with foreskin one with my son and one with my son's father . All the rest of my family are circumcised I'm the one who ended this Tradition for my son's future kids!
Also, if you read a Europe Cosmo Magazine it would talk about multiple orgasms vs a Usa magazine is it normal to not orgasm.
Even intact males along with females can both orgasm more than once before actually coming.
A circ'ed male is just to focused on having to come that he doesn't really have those orgasm he more likely will just come as in ejaculate.
I am a male. I could not
I am a male. I could not agree more with the stance against circumcision.
Perhaps more disturbing than the act itself (as a nurse, I've seen quite a few), is the "reflex" act of parents circumcising their newborn as if it were as normal as taking a newborns temperature. There definitely is not a lot of forethought into the long-term result of the procedure.
I would like to abolish this ridiculous and barbaric practice. My viewpoint has little to do with the procedure itself, and a lot to do with the loss of penile tissue containing thousands of nerve endings. It's ridiculous.
As for the reasons, I understand none of them. "Looking like Daddy?" I don't know about the rest of the world, but I can't recall ever seeing my father's penis...nor making any comparisons. Is it a cultural norm for father and son to compare genitals now? By the same argument, would those parents advocate for limb amputation if the father had been born with only one arm? Gotta look the same right?
There is no doubt in my mind that it affects male sensitivity greatly. Condoms? Forget it. Being circumcised, I cannot use condoms since they dampen sensitivity so that it is non-existent (and yes, I've tried them ALL). Obviously I have no idea what intact sensitivity is like. Can't go back. And THAT makes me angry.
Thanks for this
It does help to have a female perspective critical of circumcision, since ironically mothers who do this to their boys are less likely to have listened to the men who were affected by circumcision.
While foreskin restoration doesn't bring back the high concentration of nerve endings lost to circumcision, I and others can tell you it does lead to a whole lot more sensitivity. Some of us do now know what we were missing, and are none too happy about it. Let's do what we can to keep other males from experiencing this loss.
Outraged
I am outraged that an exquisitely sensitive healthy normal part of my body was amputated for no reason. I am also outraged that this is still done legally to over a million male infants every year in the US, while even a pin-prick to draw a ceremonial drop of blood is illegal for girls. 94% of the world's population lives where female genital cutting is illegal.
Male genital mutilation is a shameful human rights crisis in the USA. HIS body HIS decision.
Circumcision and male orgasms
Hi Betty,
I am circumcised and have been achieving the most amazing orgasms for 35 years. This is my own perspective, and I am sure no two circumsisions are physically identical. I've been a fan of your mission and web site for many years. You posted my comments on achieving male orgasms a few years back (I was the one who got myself arroused one morning, put a condom on my penis, went for my morning jog and had an intense orgasm/ejaculation immediately starting my jog, before I even reached the end of the driveway, from the jostling inside my pants).
I'm between relationships and this morning I saw for the first time your new website. Having the place to myself, I started exploring your new site and felt the familiar bulge between my legs. It is stimulating reading and now viewing! It was about 8:00am when I started viewing and touching myself. Being cold this morning with the snow outside, I wrapped my naked firm body in a nice warm soft throw. Within minutes, there was the familiar pre-cum wetness that always gets me excited all under the throw. I love your site! The warm sun was streaming in the back window, so I took a few breaks to stand and soak up the sun while I thrust my hips making my genitals flop wildly, a different sensation that feels really nice. (I am getting more pre-cum as I write this!!! After two separate orgasms this morning). By 9:30, I was so excited my heart was beating faster and I went to the fridge for the whipped cream. I squirted my genitals liberally with the foaming wonderland, amazingly the first time I've tried this! Well there was no stopping the precum and mixed with the cream it tasted sensational. Finanlly about 10am, with the lubricating effects of the cream on my penis head, I pressed it repeatedly between my thumb and two forefingers with my right hand, while my left cream ladened hand held the shaft and stayed mostly still. I tensed my thighs off and on, and suddenly had the most intense organsm from the gentle messaging and slipperiness of the head. It mixed with the whipped cream and tasted fantastic. [time out for another orgasm!!!!!!!!!! Wow !!!!!!!!!!
So am I just one of the lucky ones with excellent feeling in the head of my penis? Maybe more research needs to be done. I've seen uncircumcised friends' and I really like the clean look that I have, but I don't know what it would otherwise feel like. I've discovered the secret of ginseng too in keeping my penis more erect and pleasurable. Don't need viagra. Thanks for your site I don't even think of using porn. Thank you.
The rest of the English-speaking world
You mention other societies that circumcise, but you might also mention the rest of the English-speaking world, which tried it and gave it up. In the UK it was mainly the English upper-classes - but only a minority of them - who got cut (with the result that ordinary Englishmen may refer to toffs as "bell-enders"), but in Australia and New Zealand it was nearly 100% around 1950. Now hardly any Europeans or Maori do it in NZ (only Pacific Islanders), and in Oz it varies widely by state, but nowhere more than 20%. The result is that it is now mainly older men who are circumcised. Yet the rate of HIV/AIDS is much lower than the US, studies have shown no difference in the STDs between cut and intact, and only a few fanatics want to bring it back.
Your experience with cut and intact men is widely shared. The fact that some men's experience (as in "Circumcision and Male Orgasms") varies so widely may depend on a) the nature of his circumcision (high or low, loose or tight, how much frenulum was taken - factors of interest only to circumfetishists, by which time it's usually too late) and b) how his nervous system adapted - which nerves reconnected to which brain cells that had been left waiting in vain for signals from his foreskin. This deserves much more study.
What's very strange about circumcision is the mad variety of reasons given for doing it. Remember, doing it came first, the reasons came later, and as each one is shot down, another rises to take its place.
I'm outraged that I was circumcised
I was circumcised when I was a baby, circumcision didn't do me any good, but circumcision decreased my sexual pleasure capacity for life, so I'm outraged that I was circumcised. In my opinion it is evil to circumcise babies because when they grow up they might not want to be circumcised. Most circumcised males do not know what they are missing, I think though that most circumcised males would be outraged if they knew what they're missing.
Mothers don't circumcise your boys
I am 36 and circumcised, like my 2 brothers. My father isn't, and I wouldn't allow my 4 year old son to be mutilated either.
Don't know why I was, but I am now in the process of restoring what foreskin I have left (which isn't much).
I believe firmly in leaving the child whole, and that we need to break this needless cycle of pain and disfigurement.
Thanks Betty!
All the best,
Alex in Australia
Now how do you test your hypothesis?
As an uncircumcised male, I can fully support the idea of abolishing circumcision, but to call your connection of circumcision and war shaky would be unforgivably generous.
I can understand that you apparently had sex with a statistically significant portion of males in United States, but that doesn't make it a statistically relevant portion. Were all these men selected at random from randomized population? Was there a control group of other women that would share their experience with these men? Personal experience, no matter how vast, is no substitute for scientific method.
And you don't need to be an erudite scholar to note the rather lax approach to history. German's are circumcised at far lower rates than Americans, yet look at who started both World Wars. And yet America gets fingered in WWI? Is it because it is the only significant power in that conflict that commonly practiced circumcision? And why WWI anyways? Why not Spanish-American War? That one can be blamed on America (and all its circumcised penises) with historical proof! You can also throw the Civil War in there, but what do we do about French Revolution and the Crusades? I don't have all the historical facts here, but I have a hunch that many of the wars in human history are explained by factors OTHER than foreskin envy.
I'd love to see my comment posted and addressed, but I won't hold my breath for too long. After all, the same two people profess "It's no wonder men hate women consciously or subconsciously" quickly followed by "We love men" and just as quickly followed by defense of the first statement as no mere hyperbole. If criticism of your statements can only be responded to with "more masturbation?" may be it's time to look for positions that are easier to defend. Perhaps because they are grounded in reality?
To the Noble One's defense...
I have to agree with Nobilis, Betty. I don't believe he takes any pleasure in criticizing you. I was confused as well to read sentiments like, "I believe heterosexuality is at war with itself because of circumcision," and, "Is it any wonder why these men hate women or they don't trust anyone?" and, "It's no wonder men hate women consciously or subconsciously." Assuming that men do hate women (a notion I find dubious to begin with), what would that hatred have to do with circumcision? For that matter, what does heterosexuality have to do with circumcision? I know a variety of cut and uncut men, both gay and straight. In my admittedly limited sampling, there doesn't seem to be any correlation between being circumcised and being straight. And to the best of my knowledge, none of them hate women as a rule. Could you please explain your thoughts on this in more detail?
I'm also confused by the idea that circumcision reduces sensitivity in men. I remember being astounded the first time I heard someone utter this thought. I myself am circumcised, and I couldn't imagine being more sensitive than I already am during sex. I never resort to "hard friction fucks" as you put it; I climax far too quickly. Sure, I used to attempt hard, driving penetration when I was young and inexperienced and the only sexual reference I had was pornography. I tried to imitate the men I saw in those movies, but I couldn't maintain control. I soon learned that I frequently have to slow down or even stop thrusting entirely to prevent coming too soon.
Another of your commenters mentioned condoms and said that they reduced his sensitivity to the point of non-existence. I have to say that condoms are about the only thing I've found that take my sensitivity down to manageable levels. Even then, I find I have to pace myself to last long enough to bring my partner to climax before I do. Again, I admit that myself alone constitutes a rather poor statistical set, but from what I've heard about the increased sensitivity of natural men, I would be lucky to get my penis out of my pants without blowing were I uncircumcised.
I don't disagree that circumcision is unnecessary; I'd even go so far as to say that your article has convinced me not to circumcise my sons, should I ever have any. I just wanted to share my experience as a circumcised male and assure your male readers that their lives can still be fulfilling regardless of whether they still have their foreskins or not. Being circumcised makes one no less of a man, and having a foreskin is not the answer to life's problems.
The foreskin has lots of
The foreskin has lots of functions, it is not a useless piece of skin. Here is an excellent description of the functions. www.noharmm.org/anatomy.htm
doctoropposingcircumcsion.org also has more info.
Here is another video with the functions of the foreskin http://vodpod.com/watch/718259-the-prepuce-the-function-of-the-foreskin
The first poster said if he was any more sensitive he would not be able to bear it. This is a misconception about what the functions of the foreskin are. It protects the sensitive glans, and protects it from unpleasant sensations such as rubbing against underwear. It also contains approximately 12,000 nerve endings or "pleasure receptors", while the gland is very sensitive to pain. Essentially cutting off the foreskin cuts off the pleasurable nerve endings while leaving the sensitive pain receptors. This makes it a fine line between pain and pleasure for circumcised men. Sadistic, yes?
Betty, I've been a fan of
Betty, I've been a fan of yours since 1988. And I've known for all that time that you don't like the Cut. Still, I am elated to see you bring a lifetime of experience to bear on the American fascination with routine circumcision.
FGM is much much worse. And not every Kansas mother was as sensible as yours. Patricia Robinett has written a memoir, The Rape of Innocence (http://www. patriciarobinett.com/ ) about her struggle to come to terms with the FGM she underwent in 1950s Kansas.
Only just now did I read that you grew up in an intact family. You're not unusual, given your place and time. Most American boys born before WWII in small towns, to parents of limited means, were not circumcised. Back then, it was mainly urban middle class boys who were circumcised. During the War, the farm boys noted that the city boys who had grown up in comfort all sported the bald look. They may have razzed the city boys in the barracks, but after the war, they were happy to ape their betters.
To my pleasant surprise, YouTube does not censor videos showing a baby undergoing routine infant circumcision (RIC) without anesthesia. Those videos are truly gross and disgusting. That hundreds of USA doctors have performed hundreds of RICs without anesthesia, and that hundreds of nurses have assisted them, has lowered my opinion of the humanity and good sense of American medicine. But doing RIC without lidocaine is no longer best practice. Sadly, it is not extinct practice either.
The vast majority of American RICs happen because the parents request it. And they request for one or both of two shameful reasons: (1) God forbid that Junior have a dick that does not look like Daddy's; (2) Parents dread the thought that circumcised American boys will make fun of Junior the showers after PE, in swimming pool locker rooms, in summer camp. They dread even more the thought that when a date reachs into Junior's fly and discovers his foreskin, she goes "Ewww that's so gross" and stops returning his calls. Never underestimate an adolescent fear of nonconformity as a reliable driver of human choices. I am equally appalled to read that there are grown women who undergo cosmetic surgery on their labia, and some even trim their clitoral hoods.
My father was cut and I was not. That did not matter, because that fact went unremarked lifelong. I was also usually the only boy with a foreskin in the locker room, or in the hernia check line, and that really scared me. By being very carefully making sure that my foreskin was pulled back every time I was naked, I was never razzed after age 9 or so. I was very afraid of what shallow conformist midwestern American girls might think. When I was 29 years old, I let my hair down and wrote about my fears to a nice Jewish girl I knew. She took my letter to her closest Jewish girl friend, and they had a frank talk. My friend wrote back, saying that they searched their hearts and experiences, and concluded that to prefer a man because he was circumcised, orto avoid a man because he was not, was something that had NEVER crossed their minds. They wanted Jewish husbands, but until they were ready for that, they considered all men fair game, and had no issues at all with intact. It was only years later that it dawned on me that secular Jewish girls are probably more foreskin friendly than your typical Methodist sorority chick.
I very much suspect that most hardcore male intactivists are gay. Gay men are the penis connaisseurs. By revealing that Grant was intact, you join the many women who discovered intactivism in good part thanks to the fun they have had with one or more intact men. There are a number of young women who vlog on YouTube against circ. In a PM exchange, one revealed to me that when she was in college, she had an affair with an intact Latino. It did not last long, but the high quality of the sex was a defining moment in her sexual self-discovery, and she joined the Foreskin Fetishists, a taste she cannot responsibly indulge because she is a single Mom!
I am not totally convinced that a foreskin makes for better vaginal intercourse with every person, every time. I still think that foreplay with the clit and cunnilingus are more valuable. But I may be wrong, and welcome more research. And I can easily imagine young American women coming to believe (with a little help from Cosmo and Glamour) that the foreskin makes for better sex, and babe, if that ever happens, RIC goes the way of the dodo, real fast. I live in a culture that used to circumcise with a vengeance but has almost completely given it up. There is no talk that the quality of sex has improved, probably because most of us have a sexual partner around our own age. Women in their 30s grew up in birth cohorts where there was a healthy mix of cut and uncut. I have never heard a woman here joke about the difference. When the sex columnist in the UCLA student newspaper tried to sound out women students on uncut intercourse, the typical reaction was "i've never noticed or thought about that aspect of male anatomy."
The rest of this post is based on a lifetime’s personal experience, as there is very little published information of this nature. During my late teens, I began to notice that my foreskin retracted fully and automatically with every erection I experienced; thus I discovered how the foreskin stores the extra skin needed to accommodate an erection. My erections seemed to require every bit of skin I had; thus my first inkling that RIC might be sexually dysfunctional. From the fact that erection made my foreskin vanish, I jumped to the wrong conclusion that the foreskin plays no role in sexual activity.
For many years after my 1983 first reading of Wallerstein (1980), I criticized RIC mainly because I saw it as medically unnecessary, of completely unproven prophylactic value, and as a weird fetish. It was also evident that it was quite painful no matter what the medical establishment asserted, but thought that a prior injection of lidocaine adequately addressed the issue. I saw it as sexually damaging only when it was botched or when the outcome was too tight. Hence I was quite surprised to discover in the early 1990s that the foreskin is highly enervated. Thus I began, in my 40s, an important step in my progress towards sexual self-understanding. The moral is that in no way does merely possessing a foreskin make one appreciate its virtues. Being intact does not automatically make one a competent and thoughtful intactivist. Like all other humans, we intact men have to struggle to learn about our intimate selves.
I have no memory of my foreskin adhering to the glans. I do remember when my doctor forcibly retracted it for the first time, when I was 6 or 7, that hurt a bit but never mind. I did not begin retracting regularly until I was 10, and did so only to prevent stares at the urinal. Until I was 15, my frenulum was sufficiently tight that my foreskin would not stay retracted unless I held it there. Over time, the frenulum relaxed, the muscle that constricts the tip of the foreskin weakened, and my foreskin grew looser and less pointed. My tendency to premature ejaculation has vanished. Just as many circumcised men post on the web that they cannot imagine being more sensitive than they are, I am thankful that RIC has not made me any less sensitive than I am.
In my view, the glans is not the primary seat of male sexual sensation, and the foreskin’s primary role is not to protect and moisten the glans. Privileging the glans is an understandable mistake, given how intensely sexual it looks and its prominence in circumcised men. Nevertheless, my glans has surprisingly little feeling, the corona excepted. I believe that most of what I feel during vaginal intercourse stems from the frenulum, ridged band, and inner foreskin rubbing against the vaginal wall. Circumcision, of course, excises what I have just claimed are the key sources of sexual pleasure in the intact male. Nevertheless, I suspect that most circumcised men under 40 or 50, if their circumcisions are not too radical, are probably not much impaired sexually. The testosterone cocktail is simply too potent, and circumcising in infancy probably allows time for alternative neural pathways to develop. Nevertheless, we should be open to the possibility that circumcision materially diminishes the sexual pleasure of older men.
The foreskin facilitates masturbation, a fact I did not appreciate before my 30s. I was nearly 50 when I first read that many circumcised men cannot masturbate without artificial lubrication. There was no hint of this fact in the bawdy talk or reading of my youth, so that I was very slow to agree that there could be some truth to the claim that circumcision makes masturbation more difficult and less pleasurable. What holds for masturbation also holds for manual foreplay. European women have told an American intactivist that they cannot conceive of foreplay on a man lacking a foreskin.
Even though I've only had one sexual partner during my entire life, namely the person to whom I'm married, I've reached the same conclusion you have: enjoying vaginal intercourse should be combined with ample stimulation of the clitoris. Foreplay with the clitoris assures that she is wet. Combining female masturbation with vaginal intercourse (which my wife has always done) makes for an orgasm every time. The foreskin plays an essential role in male natural lubrication. It traps the precum, and distributes it to where it is most useful for intercourse. Condoms suppress the action of precum, making artificial lube an imperative. I suspect that the women who can't enjoy the cut penis aren't using enough artificial lube.
It could be that circumcised men thrust too hard and fast. My wife taught me to begin quite slow and to not go in more than the length of the glans. We call this "teasing the opening." After a little while, I explore going in a bit deeper, as her lubrication permits. There is no evidence that she enjoys long hard strokes until she is about to climax, a state to which she has arrived in good part because the tip of her middle finger is working her clit.
Fellating an intact penis is not disgusting if it is first washed under the tap with the foreskin retracted. The foreskin makes possible intercourse between the thighs, without artificial lube. It does complicate putting on a condom, because of tension applied to the frenulum.
Most English writings about the mechanics of sexual pleasure have been authored by Americans ignorant of the foreskin, presumably because they or their partners were circumcised. I invite intact men and their partners to take advantage of the anonymity of the web to put into the public domain what they have learned about their intimate selves, thereby adding to the stock of information about the sexual role of the foreskin.
I agree with you that there
I agree with you that there is no evidence that circumcised men are more violent or aggressive. Millions of circumcised men are good lovers, especially with a little lube. Millions of intact men have been barbaric soldiers. The enormous struggle between Germany and the USSR during WWII was almost entirely fought by intact men.
Some circumcised men are damaged from the outset because too much was taken off. They have trouble masturbating, and can suffer from painful erections. Vaginal sex can be impaired. We also need to investigate whether some circumcised men begin to lack feeling after 40 or 50 years of age. I am intact and value every bit of feeling left to me.
Like many people in the progressive mental health field, Betty has bought into the notion that circumcision (without local anesthesia) plants the seeds of lifelong psychosexual difficulties of a sadomasochistic nature, that baby boys perceive their routine circumcisions as a betrayal by their mothers, which leads to lifelong resentment against women. A number of American men with unhappy sexual or personal lives have found in their infant circumcisions a convenient scapegoat. But there is no hard scientific evidence for any of this.
I grew up in the USA, surrounded by circumcised boys. They never joked about it before college, and I surmise that very few of them knew that their equipment had crossed paths with a scalpel at an age when they could not remember it. And these boys were a bawdy foul mouthed lot. But the only way in which I think circumcision affected them psychosexually was that fellatio was an obsession. It is a fact that women are more reluctant to perform fellatio on an intact male. It is also less necessary, because handjobs are very potent foreplay for intact men.
When Kinsey died in 1956, he was planning to conduct a study asking whether cut men were more likely to be gay. It would not be a wise career move to conduct such a study nowadays.
Van Lewis was arrested for
Van Lewis was arrested for picketing a Florida hospital in 1970, to protest the infant circumcisions going on in its maternity ward. Therefore he has been an intactivist longer than anyone else living today. He studied at Harvard under the Nobel Laureate George Wald, who became an intactivist at Lewis's urging. According to Lewis, Wald, who was a nonpracticing Jew with a respect for the spiritual dimension, was deeply puzzled at the way almost all gentile mothers in the 1960s and 70s had their baby boys circumcised. Why this ruthless and thorough suppression of the foreskin?
When Wald looked at the human genitalia through his biologist's eyes, he saw that the clitoris was a way women partook of a bit of masculinity. The clitoris is homologous to the intact penis. Much of Betty's work can be seen is helping women get in touch with the phallic sexuality embodied in their clits. (Another masculine detail women share with men is the body hair they grow at puberty. In both sexes, that is the result of testosterone.)
Likewise, the foreskin is the way (intact) men are a bit feminine. Strictly speaking, the foreskin is homologous to the clitoral hood. Without wishing to gainsay that in any way, I nevertheless urge women to think of the foreskin as having a lot in common with their inner lips. The foreskin cushions intercourse, and enfolds the urinary meatus and the body's primary sexual opening. Wald came to believe that the rising violence and macho of youth culture pointed to boys needing to discover their feminine sides, whose physical embodiment was their foreskins. "Today boys need their foreskins" Wald said. The main difference between my foreskin and my BH's inner lips is that my foreskin is more sensitive.
We do not know yet just how the inner lips and foreskin interact during vaginal intercourse, in good part because circumcised Americans, or the wives of such men, have done nearly all research involving the clinical observation of sexual acts. Could it be that gentle straight intercourse can have aspects of the docking that many USA gay men cherish?
For more on Van Lewis and George Wald, see:
http://www.stopinfantcircumcision.org/crick-wald.htm
Young women of America, open your hearts and minds and bond with the foreskin, that gentle token of femininity every intact male carries in his pants. And if you are worried about how clean he is under that foreskin, clean him yourself, until your eyes and nose are fully at ease. Years ago, my BH would lovingly pull back my foreskin in the shower and gently wash the glans and sulcus. That was hot, I can assure you. If he won't let you do the same to him, drop him.
medical society statements
You might also want to check out the following:
Canadian Paediatric Society
http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/fn/fn96-01.htm
"Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed."
http://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/pregnancy&babies/circumcision.htm
"Circumcision is a 'non-therapeutic' procedure, which means it is not medically necessary."
"After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions."
Royal Australasian College of Physicians
http://www.racp.edu.au/download.cfm?DownloadFile=A453CFA1-2A57-5487-DF36...
"After extensive review of the literature the Royal Australasian College of Physicians reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision."
(those last nine words are in bold on their website, and almost all the men responsible for this statement will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%. "Routine" circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in Australia in all states except one.)
British Medical Association
http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/malecircumcision2006?OpenDocument&H...
"to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate."
National Health Service (UK)
http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/articles/article.aspx?articleId=649
"Many people have strong views about whether circumcision should be carried out or not. It is not routinely performed in the UK because there is no clear clinical evidence to suggest it has any medical benefit."
Why?
Moonlight, Why must we defend male circumcision by saying female circumcision is much worse? In fact, the female circumcision issue is rife with misinformation in the industrialized countries.
It is not more risky. Every year, more than 200 male babies die of their circumcision wounds in The US and in South Africa alone, 40 to 100 die every year. It is also not more painful. In The US, only about 16% of infants receive any analgesia for the procedure. The closest equivalent to the male foreskin on the human body is the lips. Just imagine getting your lips cut off without anything for the pain! Female circumcision is also not male driven any more than male circumcision is female driven. It is the mothers who take their daughters to have them circumcised and the procedure is exclusively done by females. These women who are taking their daughters are fully supportive of having it done. They do not suffer the consequences that are popular belief in the industrialized world. Here is an article by noted female activist and soldier against female genital mutilation, Hanny Lightfoot Klein showing that western perceptions are completely wrong and that circumcised women enjoy sex:
http://www.fgmnetwork.org/authors/Lightfoot-klein/sexualexperience.htm
If you think about it logically, if it were as damaging as myth in the US would have it be, the women would be essentially frigid and resistant to having sexual relations with their husbands and that is certainly not the case. It also dispells the myth that it is done by a "dusty road side." In fact, many female circumcisions are done in clinical settings in storefront operations. However, in Africa, the perception of back country male circumcision is entirely accurate. These male circumcisions are done in what are euphimistically called "initiation camps" and in these, all of the perceptions of female circumcisions are true. It is done in the bush by practitioners with no medical training or sterile conditions.
The reasons for female genital mutilation are the exact same as for male genital mutilation:
http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/mgmfgm.html
In fact, there is nowhere in the world where FGM is practiced that MGM is not practiced.
I am glad you have stated that your information is a result of what you have read or been told. FGM is something that Americans are not familiar with and all our information is second hand. This has empowered some to exaggerate the issue. I applaud those who are in the fight to end the practice but this exaggeration is simply not necessary. I believe they are acting in sincerety and good faith. I suspect it is like the party game where people line up, start a secret at one end of the line and whisper it to the next person. By the time it gets to the end of the line, it does not resemble the original.
Male circumcision is no more than a pointless practice of our culture and much like the FGM issue, there are myths that surround it. The truth is that it provides no benefit to the man and much of the research shows a high probabilty of damage to the sexual performance of the adult man and his partner.
Ashley Montagu Campaign Against Torture & Mutilation of Children
Thank you, Betty and Carlin, for a wonderful article. It deserves far wider circulation.
Please sign with Nobel laureates and thousands of others the Ashley Montagu Resolution to End the Genital Mutilation of Children Worldwide: A Petition to the World Court, the Hague, at http://MontaguNoCircPetition.org.
And please insist that your national and state or provincial governments pass legislation guaranteeing equal protection of the law for all children's sex organs and for the human right to keep them intact. See http://MGMbill.org Normal sex organs and keeping them that way are human birthrights that must be defended locally, nationally and worldwide by the full force of law.
What sex the child happens to have been born and what medical, religious, cultural, superstitious or other beliefs the parents may hold are 100% irrelevant. The child has an unalienable human right to the integrity its own human body. No one has any right to amputate living, healthy body parts from any child in the world, no matter what opinions of any kind, medical, religious, cultural, superstitious, sadistic or otherwise, the one wanting to lop those body parts off may hold. Infant and child circumcision are hideous, horrible, heinous, horrendous sex crimes. For the protection of children and the adults they will become if they survive these insane stone-age assaults, and for the protection of the world they will make, those committing these repulsive sex crimes must be stopped, and jailed if necessary to stop them. Every child counts. Defend every child.
I wholeheartedly agree with
I wholeheartedly agree with your argument. I think the same way. But I can't believe you included this line:
"Perhaps Muslims circumcise boys late to insure they will become angry young men willing to sacrifice their life for Allah."
I didn't expect that from a thoughtful feminist like you. How could you perpetuate one stereotype while breaking another? Do you have any proof that Muslims circumcise to make young men angry? And who said all young Muslim men are angry (other than legitimate social/political reasons)? If you can accept that Jews circumcise boys because some rabbis thought it was a good idea, why can't you think the same of Muslims? Many Muslim men do certain things to emulate their Prophet, and circumcision may be one of them. So unless you have information on why cultures do certain things, you could be more thoughtful about speculation.
more issues with your post
One other comment I have huge problems with:
"May I suggest we consider the similarities between American men and their Islamic brothers or a primitive African tribe? The one thing they have in common is their puritanical and ignorant approach to male sexuality."
Which "primitive," "African" tribes are you talking about? I can't believe the cultural ignorance of that comment! First of all, there's no reason to call people who are living in the world today "primitive," and that term has the same historically negative connotations as the N-word, so I don't understand why you used it. Also, there are 52 countries in Africa, and many, many tribes within each country. I don't think most African countries practice either male or female genital cutting. FGC is practiced widely in some North African countries, and scattered among East African countries. When the 2007 study that suggested male circumcision can reduce risks of HIV infection came out, people in South Africa and other affected countries were debating whether to make it mandatory for boys, and you bet there was opposition. So for all the "primitive African" practices you wrote about, turns out most Africans don't circumcise either boys or girls.
While I agree with your hypothesis that male and female circumcision decreases sexual pleasure, I wouldn't stretch it to say that's why men hate women or that's why men are violent. There is not enough reason to even speculate on that. A vast majority of Latin Americans, non-Muslim South Asians and East Asians don't circumcise boys, but that hasn't stopped some men from those societies from taking part in war, or being misogynistic.
Betty: While I agree w/your
Betty:
While I agree w/your anti-mutilation stance regarding the circumcision of healthy baby boys, I think your arguments (as many others have stated previously,) that cut males are more aggressive/misogynistic/warlike as a result need to be left on the shelf, as there's no scientific argument that supports that at all. Penn & Teller's "Bullshit" show, (IIRC, you've appeared in one of their episodes,) did an entire episode dedicated to the monstrous nature of circumcision, with plenty of data to back up their points. There's lots of evidence pointing to circumcision being a negative for the sexual satisfaction of men (and a barbaric practice in general,) without evidence-free hysterics thrown into the mix. I admire your usually-rational approach to sexuality, but this off-the-wall tack doesn't become you at all.
In addition, I think that perhaps part of the reason that women in the US/other circumcision-prone countries reflexively state that FGM is somehow "different" or "worse" than circumcision is that since so many men here at home have already been cut, it seems tantamount to dissing their sexual prowess and the very genitals of the men that these women come into contact with on a daily basis. However, I think the best way to get around this is to teach both women and men that circumcision is a negative thing while also making the point that cut males aren't always doomed to be inferior lovers.
Just my two cents.
why you should circumcise your boys
Hi everyone, while I think you all have valid points, I would like to throw in my educated opinion as a student in the health field. As someone mentioned previously, it has been recently scientifically shown that male circumcision has medical benefits that can not be ignored. The study performed in 2007 did provide evidence that males who were circumcised have a drastically decreased risk of sexual transmission of HIV/AIDS. The foreskin provides a warm, moist environment that is ideal for bacteria, as well as STDs and viruses like HIV, to survive. Hence, male circumcision is a significant protective factor against STDs that not only protects the circumcised individual, but also the partner/s that are also placed at risk. I am opposed to FGM because it dramatically impacts a woman's life in a way that has no health benefits whatsoever, but when male circumcision is done by a medical professional in a sterile environment, it has proven health benefits. I understand that circumcising a baby may seem barbaric, but with the wealth of knowledge we have today surrounding the positive health outcomes of male circumcision, it seems harmful not to have this medical procedure done to your male child. As an advocate for raising awareness about HIV/AIDS, I urge everyone to become informed and learn about how you can help protect your child from this virus-and circumcision is definitely an important protective measure. That's not to say that circumcision can 100% protect someone from getting HIV (and barriers like condoms should still be used and considered the best way to protect oneself), but it does help lower the risk of sexual transmission of the virus and other STDs. In any event, the true health benefits of male circumcision are important to be aware of-which is why this post kind of scares me...
Post new comment