Sep 19

More circumcised men are HIV positive

MBABANE – Even though male circumcision is considered to have a protective effect for HIV infection, circumcised men have a slightly higher HIV infection than those who are not.

The Times SUNDAY can today reveal that government has known this for close to three years.

It is contained in the Swaziland Demographic and Health Survey (SDHS) of 2007 which still prevails.

This report summarises findings of the 2006 survey carried out by the Swaziland Central Statistical Office (SCO).”

Full article here:

Sep 19

What were the real reasons behind David Reimer’s suicide?

“David Reimer was one of the most famous patients in the annals of medicine. Born in 1965 in Winnipeg, he was 8 months old when a doctor used an electrocautery needle, instead of a scalpel, to excise his foreskin during a routine circumcision, burning off his entire penis as a result.”

Full article here:

Sep 16

The psychological impact of circumcision


“There is strong evidence that circumcision is overwhelmingly painful and traumatic. Behavioural changes in circumcised infants have been observed 6 months after the circumcision. The physical and sexual loss resulting from circumcision is gaining recognition, and some men have strong feelings of dissatisfaction about being circumcised.

The potential negative impact of circumcision on the mother-child relationship is evident from some mothers’ distressed responses and from the infants’ behavioural changes. The disrupted mother-infant bond has far-reaching developmental implications [99-104] and may be one of the most adverse impacts of circumcision.

Long-term psychological effects associated with circumcision can be difficult to establish because the consequences of early trauma are only rarely, and under special circumstances, recognizable to the person who experienced the trauma. However, lack of awareness does not necessarily mean that there has been no impact on thinking, feeling, attitude, behaviour and functioning, which are often closely connected. In this way, an early trauma can alter a whole life, whether or not the trauma is consciously remembered.

Defending circumcision requires minimizing or dismissing the harm and producing overstated medical claims about protection from future harm. The ongoing denial requires the acceptance of false beliefs and misunderstandings of facts. These psychological factors affect professionals, members of religious groups and parents involved in the practice. Cultural conformity is a major force perpetuating non-religious circumcision, and to a greater degree, religious circumcision. The avoidance of guilt and the reluctance to acknowledge the mistake and all that that implies help to explain the tenacity with which the practice is defended.

Whatever affects us psychologically also affects us socially. If a trauma is acted out on the next generation, it can alter countless generations until it is recognized and stopped. The potential social consequences of circumcision are profound [21]. There has been no study of these issues perhaps because they are too disturbing to those in societies that do circumcise and of little interest in societies that do not. Close psychological and social examination could threaten personal, cultural and religious beliefs of circumcising societies. Consequently, circumcision has become a political issue in which the feelings of infants are unappreciated and secondary to the feelings of adults, who are emotionally invested in the practice.

Awareness about circumcision is changing, and investigation of the psychological and social effects of circumcision opens a valuable new area of inquiry. Researchers are encouraged to include circumcision status as part of the data to be collected for other studies and to explore a range of potential research topics [21]. Examples of unexplored areas include testing male infants, older children and adults for changes in feelings attitudes and behaviours (especially antisocial behaviour); physiological, neurological and neurochemical differences; and sexual and emotional functioning.”

Full article here:

Sep 10

Female Circumcision. Male Circumcision. Is There A Difference?

"In looking at both Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and Male Genital Mutilation (MGM), it appears that there is no equal protection under the law for male infants and boys under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Illegal to perform FGM, fine to perform MGM. Yes, willful destruction of the primary male sex organ is unethical. Or is it much more than unethical?" -Ken Derifield of The Intact Network

Full article here:

Sep 03

America: Land of the Mutilated Penis

“If you really think about it, it might be possible to recall the first time somebody explained to you what a male circumcision is. I don’t think we ever get over the shock of that knowledge, and those of us who were put through this torturous act certainly never really heal from it, instead we pay for our parent’s decision for the rest of our lives.

Strong words are required to describe the huge mistake we continue to commit in this society by having boys circumcised. It is far too large of a problem in America.”

Full article here:

Sep 01

Circumcision’s complications: what could go wrong?

‎"Tissue removed in a circumcision cannot truly be replaced or re-grown. However, there are so many complications from infant circumcision that there is a flourishing sub-specialty of pediatric urologists who treat children with severe circumcision-induced complications.

Dr. David Gibbons is one such pediatric urologist serving the Washington, DC area. He has seen so many bad results from circumcision in his practice that he wishes the procedure would fall out of favor."

Quote from Dr. Gibbons: "Neonatal circumcision [sic] is totally unnecessary, and there is no current role for preventative or prophylactic neonatal circumcision."

Full article here: