Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

California City Considering Ban On Male Circumcision

May 31, 2011 by  

California City Considering Ban On Male Circumcision

The residents of Santa Monica, Calif., may consider a ballot initiative in 2012 that would make it a misdemeanor to circumcise a male before the age of 18, according to an article on

The controversial proposal is spearheaded by a group called MGMBill, where MGM stands for “male genital mutilation.” The group claims boys should be safeguarded from circumcision in the way girls are protected from genital mutilation, under the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection” clause.

“Unless there is a compelling medical reason to do so, no one has the right to cut off the working body part of a child. Genital mutilation is done for social, ‘hygienic’ or religious reasons, and no national medical organization in the world supports forced infant circumcision as a beneficial health measure,” the group claims on its website. “We don’t allow girls to be circumcised because we know that it is harmful to their physical and mental well-being, and boys should be afforded equal protection of the law.”

David Lahrer, a Jewish Leader, strongly disagrees with the proposal, which contains no religious exemptions. Lahrer told the Los Angeles Times that the proposal “takes the notion of the mommy state to a ridiculous extreme,” and “it probably touches on being anti-Semitic.”

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “California City Considering Ban On Male Circumcision”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • James R. Maxwell

    I wonder what sick demented fool came up with this idea. Circumsision is a necessity to prevent problems for males as they
    develop in life. If you wait till a child is 18 to have it done
    then you will have a nation where it will not be done. The operation
    is painful and not a plesant experience in any way. Beside the
    problems with keeping the male organ clean and prevent diease it
    also eliminate other medical problems as the child develops in life.

    • nax777

      I have heard Docs say there is no medical reason for it. The point is banning a religious pratice. Ironic that banning abortion is medically sound and they oppose based their religion.

      George I, Bill, George II and Barack have all lead us to today. The era of fear continues and our children are going to grow up with government workers shoving their hands between their legs because this is the America you want and did not grow up in yourself!
      Or is this the kind of national defense that you wish you would have grown up in?
      Too many people or more brain washed by the media than care to admit out of fear! Speak sound bites and wear a leash is the new motto that Dem and Pub supporters live by today.

      I am out of patients and will strive to have words hit like a ton bricks and let the chips fall where they may!

      Replace the powers with citizens that can be immediately removed by citizens and never serve for a life time. We must take control ourselves. Please join with us at you might be able to click on my name. This will take you to my link page that links to, and

      P.S. Have you heard of “you cut”

  • JimH

    Talk about intrusive government sticking their nose into your personal life.
    The proposal contains no religious exemtions. No 1rst ammendment rights for the uncircumcized.

  • Bud

    One would expect such a law, were it to pass, would be thrown out as an intrusion into religious freedom, or an invasion of privacy.

  • Albino.

    “religious freedom” Ok then should’t muslim’s be allowed to circumcise there daughters?

    • Bleh

      Not even remotely the same. I suggest you do some reading and figure out why.

      • Albino.

        Body mutilation of children in any way is WRONG. how is cutting in a young boy any different that cutting a girl?

        • Bleh

          Since you seem incapable of doing some research I will help you.
          The skin removed from the penis does nothing to affect the boy adversely after he heals. In fact it will help him avoid many issues in his later life, especially if he finds himself in situations where he cannot bathe regularly.

          The part removed from the female however is a pleasure center and will effect her sexual experience. The operation does nothing for her in any beneficial way and is nothing more than a mutilation for an irrational religious reason.

          A woman should weigh in here, but I am willing to bet any sexually active adult female would vehemently refuse to undergo such an operation.
          The male operation I can speak for, I am quite thankful for my parents decision to have it done to me and am very thankful I did not have to do it later in my adult life.

          • libertytrain

            Albino is not particularly concerned about women, only itself.

          • Albino.

            I know about female circumcision! This all started because a few in here are quoting “Freedom of Religion” as an excuse for male circumcision and I pointed out HOW HYPOCRITICAL that statement is! Oh wait this is about Religion, as james stated below “Abraham (Genesis 17)”!

            If the USA can BAN female circumcision then why can’t male circumcision be ban?? Just a question! Oh yes sorry, bad me, because the Bible allows for it! So if religion allowed for female circumcision (like some radical Muslims believe) would it be OK??

          • Albino.

            libertytrain…………….. Wow there cowboy!!! And how did you jump to that CONCLUSION??

          • independant thinker

            I read a study years ago that showed wives of circumcised men had fewer uterine/vaginal cancers than wives of uncircuncised men.

          • Albino.

            Lean to read libertytrain before you go on the attack! “Body mutilation of children in any way is WRONG!” Does that comprehend in your gray matter??????

          • Albino.

            independant thinker……. Care to post some sources?

          • Irena

            The differences between male and female circumcision are extreme. For the males, it is the removal of the foreskin-done often for religious or health reasons. For women, the most drastic form of circumcision is the removal of the clitoris, and the entire removal of the inner and outer lips of her vagina (Labia Majora and Labia Manora). What is left of her vagina is then sewn up tight, leaving her with a small hole to menstruate and urinate from. Women who have survived such-if they do not bleed to death first-indicate that sex is painful, and child birth is excruciating. Whereas male circumcision can have health benefits, female circumcision is nothing more than making sure the woman stays a virgin for the man when she gets married. Thus, I am not so sure that female circumcision has any “health value” whatsoever. The procedure pretty much ruins any chance that the woman will ever enjoy intercourse. Where the two would contain any similarities, I would say maybe a man having his penis removed, and him being given a hole to urinate from might come close to comparing the two.

          • Bleh

            Albino. says:
            May 31, 2011 at 9:50 am
            “I know about female circumcision!”

            Seriously? Apparently you didn’t know everything, as you asked what the difference was. The difference is crystal clear. Anyone who truly knows the difference wouldn’t relate the two together in seriousness. If you choose to, then your argument is based on pure dribble.
            The two are not at all the same thing. One is simply barbaric and one is medically prudent.

          • Albino.

            Look I should have never said a thing in the first place as you seemingly have a good knack of twisting peoples comments against them.

            What the hell I don’t even have children!

            You win! No more debate from me!

        • Carol J

          Having had to take care of 6 year-old who had not been circumcized, I would say it is a matter of health. He developed a bacterial infection under the foreskin and it took 3 weeks to completely clear it up. If the circumcision is done at birth, there is much less pain and suffering. Both of my sons were done at 7 days old, and they didn’t even show signs of being in any pain. My husband said he wished his parents had had it done when he was a baby. No infections and wouldn’t have had to go through process when he was an adult

    • JimH

      Albino, The article i just read didn’t mention female circumcision being encouraged by the Muslim religion, or it being illeagal in the U.S. Could you recommend some sources?

      • Albino.

        from the article above!!!!!……. “The group claims boys should be safeguarded from circumcision in the way girls are protected from genital mutilation, under the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection” clause.”

        • JimH


        • Albino.

          What Moderator!!!! The links aren’t good enough for you?? All they where just some new’s articles about Muslim women in Africa and female circumcision! Jezzz!

          • JimH

            Albino, What are you getting so worked up for? I asked your help on some sources, you told me and I thanked you.

          • Albino.

            JimH…… it’s the Moderator on here! Post a few links to news articles about the sick Muslim radicals and female circumcision, what the hell they’er removed!!

          • independant thinker

            I think you are only allowed to post one link at a time.

          • Albino.

            Arrrr ok…… Didn’t think about the spam filter!!…… Thanks.

  • Dan az

    Frankly I can’t imagine that going under the knife at 18 would be even considered,but then you have people that put rings and holes in them, who knows.I think I would rather not know whats going on at least I wouldn’t have that memory burnt in to my mind.At 18 you used to have a job and were on your own supporting your self,can you imagine asking your boss to take a few days off, because you just had your dick cut?Guvmnt needs to stay out of every ones life when it comes to decisions of what you do to your body and the well being of your young.Just more PC crap from who ever minority that thinks they need to control and make it law bothers me.I’m sick of it,if you don’t like it don’t do it but don’t tell me that its for my good.Next they will be telling us that it is wrong to breath.Get a life and stay out of mine!

    • Al Sieber

      Right on Dan, what’s next?

    • ValDM

      I can tell you a story about circumcision in adulthood. My first husband related this story to me:
      When he got his first leave from the Air Force, he went to town to buy a little pleasure. The woman was less than lubricated, and he tore his foreskin. When he got back on base and told his C.O. what had happened, he was sent to the infirmary for surgery. The surgery went well, but waking up needing to urinate, tore the sutures, and the REAL pain began. Circumcision on babies is the more humane way to go about this.

      BTW, comparing circumcision on men TO women is comparing apples & oranges……what’s being cut away on a woman just doesn’t perform the same function, nor does it have anything to do with cleanliness or disease prevention, but has everything to do with controlling said woman.

      • Dan az


  • Ken

    Then we need to do away with some of the 63 vacinations required before going to school as well. And what about that tonsillectomy every 4 year old seems to need? Aren’t tonsils working body parts? It seems the whole world is smoking pot, Oh that is almost legal now or you can buy the pill version.

  • Baba

    As far as I know, it is the descision of parents about circumsision of baby boys. NOT the Local/State/Federal Government. “Back Off” Santa Monica and tend to your individual business and not everyone’s business. MANY Grown men who have not had cicumsision do it later in life because the inconvenience of the foreskin and health issues. They say they wish their parents had consented to this before they knew what was going on.
    Whoever thought up this new ruling about not allowing circumsision is “SICK.”

  • James

    As part of the covenant God made with Abraham (Genesis 17): “Every man child among you shall be circumcised…And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed…And the uncircumcised maan child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his; he hath broken my covenant.”
    This was modified in the New Testament to accomodate the ten-tribe lost sheep of the House of Israel, who hadn’t practiced circumcision for generations.

    • James

      “from his” should have read “from his people.”

  • Charles bond

    Can’t you see this is a GAY movement.

  • Norm

    A national survey conducted from 1999-2002 found the overall percentage of males circumsized in the US was 79%.
    My family has four generations (at least) of circumcised males.
    It works for me and I’ve heard no complaints from the females.
    Doesn’t the government have anything productive to do?

  • Macawma

    Again, more sicko whacky wierdness coming out of California…why don’t they just fall off into the Pacific?

  • Harold Olsen

    This is very stupid, but it’s the sort of thing I have come to expect from Californians. There is nothing wrong with being circumcised. When I was born, my parents had me circumcised. Both of my brothers were circumcised as was my father. I’ve read where circumcised men are less susceptible to getting STD’s than uncircumcised men.

    The first time I saw kid that wasn’t circumcised, was in my 7th grade PE class. I thought he has some sort of deformity.

    The first time I heard about this idiot measure, which was a couple of weeks ago, I thought it was a joke. The story I read said that if this measure was passed, it would be retroactive. Basically, any child who is circumcised would have to be uncircumcised. Good luck there. And, I guess, parents of circumcised male children would retroactively be criminally charged.

    Circumcision is commonly associated with the Jewish religion, though non-Jews, like myself, get circumcised, and, therefore, putting a ban on circumcision would be a violation of the First Amendment regarding freedom of religion. I believe that a male child in the Jewish religion is supposed to be circumcised eight days after he is born.

    Hopefully, if this idiotic measure is passed it will be challenged and overturned. I can’t help but think that David Lahrer quoted in this article is right and this is purely an anti-Semetic move.

    • Albino.

      Sorry no links…… Copy and past into google to read the full papers!

      Medical Studies on Circumcision

      NOTE: There have been numerous articles in American media about claims that circumcision prevents HIV transmission. No mainstream media article has reported on an opposing view, as described in the findings of the following five medical articles.

      Claim of Circumcision Benefit is Overstated and Premature

      Further research is required to assess the feasibility, desirability and cost-effectiveness of circumcision to reduce the acquisition of HIV. This paper endorses the need for such research and suggests that, in its absence, it is premature to promote circumcision as a reliable strategy for combating HIV. Since articles in leading medical journals as well as the popular press continue to do so, scientific researchers should think carefully about how their conclusions may be translated both to policy makers and to a more general audience. The importance of addressing ethico-legal concerns that such trials may raise is highlighted. The understandable haste to find a solution to the HIV pandemic means that the promise offered by preliminary and specific research studies may be overstated. This may mean that ethical concerns are marginalized. Such haste may also obscure the need to be attentive to local cultural sensitivities, which vary from one African region to another, in formulating policy concerning circumcision.

      Fox, M. and Thomson, M., “HIV/AIDS and Circumcision : Lost in Translation,” Journal of Medical Ethics 36 (2010):798-801.

      Circumcision/HIV Claims are Based on Insufficient Evidence

      An article endorsed by thirty-two professionals questions the results of three highly publicized African circumcision studies. The studies claim that circumcision reduces HIV transmission, and they are being used to promote circumcisions. Substantial evidence in this article refutes the claim of the studies.

      Examples in the article include the following:

      1. Circumcision is associated with increased transmission of HIV to women.

      2. Conditions for the studies were unlike conditions found in real-world settings.

      3. Other studies show that male circumcision is not associated with reduced HIV transmission.

      4. The U.S. has a high rate of HIV infection and a high rate of circumcision. Other countries have low rates of circumcision and low rates of HIV infection.

      5. Condoms are 95 times more cost effective in preventing HIV transmission.

      6. Circumcision removes healthy, functioning, unique tissue, raising ethical considerations.

      Green, L. et al., “Male Circumcision and HIV Prevention: Insufficient Evidence and Neglected External Validity,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 39 (2010): 479-82.

      In National Survey Circumcision Had No Protective Effect

      A survey of South African men showed that circumcision had no protective effect in the prevention of HIV transmission. This is a concern, and has implications for the possible adoption of mass male circumcision strategy both as a public health policy and an HIV prevention strategy.

      Connolly, C. et al., South African Medical Journal 98(2008): 789-794.

      Circumcision is Not Cost Effective

      The findings suggest that behavior change programs are more efficient and cost effective than circumcision. Providing free condoms is estimated to be significantly less costly, more effective in comparison to circumcising, and at least 95 times more cost effective at stopping the spread of HIV in Sub-Saharan Africa. In addition, condom usage provides protection for women as well as men. This is significant in an area where almost 61% of adults living with AIDS are women.

      McAllister, R. et al., “The Cost to Circumcise Africa,” American Journal of Men’s Health 7(2008): 307-316.

      Circumcision/HIV Have Incomplete Evaluation

      The push to institute mass circumcision in Africa, following the three randomized clinical trials (RCTs) conducted in Africa, is based on an incomplete evaluation of real-world preventive effects over the long-term � effects that may be quite different outside the research setting and circumstances, with their access to resources, sanitary standards and intensive counseling. Moreover, proposals for mass circumcision lack a thorough and objective consideration of costs in relation to hoped-for benefits. No field-test has been performed to evaluate the effectiveness, complications, personnel requirements, costs and practicality of proposed approaches in real-life conditions. These are the classic distinctions between efficacy and effectiveness trials, and between internal validity and external validity.
      Campaigns to promote safe-sex behaviors have been shown to accomplish a high rate of infection reduction, without the surgical risks and complications of circumcision, and at a much lower cost. For the health community to rush to recommend a program based on incomplete evidence is both premature and ill-advised. It misleads the public by promoting false hope from uncertain conclusions and might ultimately aggravate the problem by altering people�s behavioral patterns and exposing them and their partners to new or expanded risks. Given these problems, circumcision of adults, and especially of children, by coercion or by false hope, raises human rights concerns.

      Green, L. et al., “Male circumcision is not the HIV �vaccine� we have been waiting for!” Future Medicine 2 (2008): 193-199, DOI 10.2217/17469600.2.3.193.

      Circumcision Decreases Sexual Pleasure
      A questionnaire was used to study the sexuality of men circumcised as adults compared to uncircumcised men, and to compare their sex lives before and after circumcision. The study included 373 sexually active men, of whom 255 were circumcised and 118 were not. Of the 255 circumcised men, 138 had been sexually active before circumcision, and all were circumcised at >20 years of age. Masturbatory pleasure decreased after circumcision in 48% of the respondents, while 8% reported increased pleasure. Masturbatory difficulty increased after circumcision in 63% of the respondents but was easier in 37%. About 6% answered that their sex lives improved, while 20% reported a worse sex life after circumcision. 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.

      Kim, D. and Pang, M., “The Effect of Male Circumcision on Sexuality,” BJU International 99 (2007): 619-22.

      Circumcision Removes the Most Sensitive Parts of the Penis

      A sensitivity study of the adult penis in circumcised and uncircumcised men shows that the uncircumcised penis is significantly more sensitive. The most sensitive location on the circumcised penis is the circumcision scar on the ventral surface. Five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision are significantly more sensitive than the most sensitive location on the circumcised penis.

      In addition, the glans (head) of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The tip of the foreskin is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis, and it is significantly more sensitive than the most sensitive area of the circumcised penis. Circumcision removes the most sensitive parts of the penis.

      This study presents the first extensive testing of fine touch pressure thresholds of the adult penis. The monofiliment testing instruments are calibrated and have been used to test female genital sensitivity.

      Sorrells, M. et al., �Fine-Touch Pressure Thresholds in the Adult Penis,� BJU International 99 (2007): 864-869.

      Circumcision Policy Influenced by Psychosocial Factors

      The debate about the advisability of circumcision in English-speaking countries typically has focused on potential health factors. The position statements of committees from national medical organisations are expected to be evidence-based; however, the contentiousness of the ongoing debate suggests that other factors are involved. Various potential factors related to psychology, sociology, religion, and culture may also underlie policy decisions. These factors could affect the values and attitudes of medical committee members, the process of evaluating the medical literature, and the medical literature itself. Although medical professionals highly value rationality, it can be difficult to conduct a rational and objective evaluation of an emotional and controversial topic such as circumcision. A negotiated compromise between polarized committee factions could introduce additional psychosocial factors. These possibilities are speculative, not conclusive. It is recommended that an open discussion of psychosocial factors take place and that the potential biases of committee members be recognized.

      Goldman, R., �Circumcision Policy: A Psychosocial Perspective,� Paediatrics & Child Health 9 (2004): 630-633.

      Circumcision is Not Good Health Policy

      A cost-utility analysis, based on published data from multiple observational studies, comparing boys circumcised at birth and those not circumcised was undertaken using the Quality of Well-being Scale, a Markov analysis, the standard reference case, and a societal perspective. Neonatal circumcision increased incremental costs by $828.42 per patient and resulted in an incremental 15.30 well-years lost per 1000 males. If neonatal circumcision was cost-free, pain-free, and had no immediate complications, it was still more costly than not circumcising. Using sensitivity analysis, it was impossible to arrange a scenario that made neonatal circumcision cost-effective. Neonatal circumcision is not good health policy, and support for it as a medical procedure cannot be justified financially or medically.

      Van Howe, R., �A Cost-Utility Analysis of Neonatal Circumcision,� Medical Decision Making 24 (2004):584-601.

      Pain, Trauma, Sexual, and Psychological Effects of Circumcision

      Infant male circumcision continues despite growing questions about its medical justification. As usually performed without analgesia or anaesthetic, circumcision is observably painful. It is likely that genital cutting has physical, sexual and psychological consequences, too. Some studies link involuntary male circumcision with a range of negative emotions and even post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Some circumcised men have described their current feelings in the language of violation, torture, mutilation and sexual assault. In view of the acute as well as long-term risks from circumcision and the legal liabilities that might arise, it is timely for health professionals and scientists to re-examine the evidence on this issue and participate in the debate about the advisability of this surgical procedure on unconsenting minors.

      Boyle G. et al., “Male Circumcision: Pain, Trauma and Psychosexual Sequelae,” Journal of Health Psychology (2002): 329-343.

      Circumcision Results in Significant Loss of Erogenous Tissue

      A report published in the British Journal of Urology assessed the type and amount of tissue missing from the adult circumcised penis by examining adult foreskins obtained at autopsy. Investigators found that circumcision removes about one-half of the erogenous tissue on the penile shaft. The foreskin, according to the study, protects the head of the penis and is comprised of unique zones with several kinds of specialized nerves that are important to optimum sexual sensitivity.

      Taylor, J. et al., “The Prepuce: Specialized Mucosa of the Penis and Its Loss to Circumcision,” BJU 77 (1996): 291�295.

      Circumcision Affects Sexual Behavior

      A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that circumcision provided no significant prophylactic benefit and that circumcised men were more likely to engage in various sexual practices. Specifically, circumcised men were significantly more likely to masturbate and to participate in heterosexual oral sex than uncircumcised men.

      Laumann, E. et al., “Circumcision in the U.S.: Prevalence, Prophylactic Effects, and Sexual Practice,” JAMA 277 (1997): 1052�1057.

      Researchers Demonstrate Traumatic Effects of Circumcision

      A team of Canadian researchers produced new evidence that circumcision has long-lasting traumatic effects. An article published in the international medical journal The Lancet reported the effect of infant circumcision on pain response during subsequent routine vaccination. The researchers tested 87 infants at 4 months or 6 months of age. The boys who had been circumcised were more sensitive to pain than the uncircumcised boys. Differences between groups were significant regarding facial action, crying time, and assessments of pain.

      The authors believe that “neonatal circumcision may induce long-lasting changes in infant pain behavior because of alterations in the infant�s central neural processing of painful stimuli.” They also write that “the long-term consequences of surgery done without anaesthesia are likely to include post-traumatic stress as well as pain. It is therefore possible that the greater vaccination response in the infants circumcised without anaesthesia may represent an infant analogue of a post-traumatic stress disorder triggered by a traumatic and painful event and re-experienced under similar circumstances of pain during vaccination.”

      Taddio, A. et al., “Effect of Neonatal Circumcision on Pain Response during Subsequent Routine Vaccination,” The Lancet 349 (1997): 599�603.

      Circumcision Study Halted Due to Trauma

      Researchers found circumcision so traumatic that they ended the study early rather than subject any more infants to the operation without anesthesia. Those infants circumcised without anesthesia experienced not only severe pain, but also an increased risk of choking and difficulty breathing. The findings were published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Up to 96% of infants in some areas of the United States receive no anesthesia during circumcision. No anesthetic currently in use for circumcisions is effective during the most painful parts of the procedure.

      Lander, J. et al., “Comparison of Ring Block, Dorsal Penile Nerve Block, and Topical Anesthesia for Neonatal Circumcision,” JAMA 278 (1997): 2157�2162.

      Circumcised Penis Requires More Care in Young Boys

      The circumcised penis requires more care than the natural penis during the first three years of life, according to a report in the British Journal of Urology. The clinical findings of an American pediatrician showed that circumcised boys were significantly more likely to have skin adhesions, trapped debris, irritated urinary opening, and inflammation of the glans (head of the penis) than were boys with a foreskin. Furthermore, because there are large variations of appearance in circumcised boys, circumcision for cosmetic reasons should be discouraged.

      Van Howe, R., “Variability in Penile Appearance and Penile Findings: A Prospective Study,” BJU 80 (1997): 776�782.

      Poll of Circumcised Men Reveals Harm

      A poll of circumcised men published in the British Journal of Urology describes adverse outcomes on men�s health and well-being. Findings showed wide-ranging physical, sexual, and psychological consequences. Some respondents reported prominent scarring and excessive skin loss. Sexual consequences included progressive loss of sensitivity and sexual dysfunction. Emotional distress followed the realization that they were missing a functioning part of their penis. Low-self esteem, resentment, avoidance of intimacy, and depression were also noted.

      Hammond, T., “A Preliminary Poll of Men Circumcised in Infancy or Childhood,” BJU 83 (1999): suppl. 1: 85�92

      Psychological Effects of Circumcision Studied

      An article titled “The Psychological Impact of Circumcision” reports that circumcision results in behavioral changes in infants and long-term unrecognized psychological effects on men. The piece reviews the medical literature on infants� responses to circumcision and concludes, “there is strong evidence that circumcision is overwhelmingly painful and traumatic.” The article notes that infants exhibit behavioral changes after circumcision, and some men have strong feelings of anger, shame, distrust, and grief about having been circumcised. In addition, circumcision has been shown to disrupt the mother-infant bond, and some mothers report significant distress after allowing their son to be circumcised. Psychological factors perpetuate circumcision. According to the author, “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 misunderstanding of facts. These psychological factors affect professionals, members of religious groups, and parents involved in the practice.”

      Expressions from circumcised men are generally lacking because most circumcised men do not understand what circumcision is, emotional repression keeps feelings from awareness, or men may be aware of these feelings but afraid of disclosure.

      Goldman, R., “The Psychological Impact of Circumcision,” BJU 83 (1999): suppl. 1: 93�102

      Serious Consequences of Circumcision Trauma in Adult Men Clinically Observed

      Using four case examples that are typical among his clients, a practicing psychiatrist presents clinical findings regarding the serious and sometimes disabling long-term somatic, emotional, and psychological consequences of infant circumcision in adult men. These consequences resemble complex post-traumatic stress disorder and emerge during psychotherapy focused on the resolution of perinatal and developmental trauma. Adult symptoms associated with circumcision trauma include shyness, anger, fear, powerlessness, distrust, low self-esteem, relationship difficulties, and sexual shame. Long-term psychotherapy dealing with early trauma resolution appears to be effective in healing these consequences.

      Rhinehart, J., “Neonatal Circumcision Revistited,” Transactional Analysis Journal 29 (1999): 215-221

      Anatomy and Function of the Foreskin Documented

      A new article describes the foreskin (prepuce) as an integral, normal part of the genitals of mammals. It is specialized, protective, erogenous tissue. A description of the complex nerve structure of the penis explains why anesthetics provide incomplete pain relief during circumcision. Cutting off the foreskin removes many fine-touch receptors from the penis and results in thickening and desensitization of the glans outer layer. The complex anatomy and function of the foreskin dictate that circumcision should be avoided or deferred until the person can make an informed decision as an adult.

      Cold, C. and Taylor, J., “The Prepuce,” BJU 83 (1999): suppl. 1: 34�44.

      Male Circumcision Affects Female Sexual Enjoyment

      A survey of women who have had sexual experience with circumcised and anatomically complete partners showed that the anatomically complete penis was preferred over the circumcised penis. Without the foreskin to provide a movable sleeve of skin, intercourse with a circumcised penis resulted in female discomfort from increased friction, abrasion, and loss of natural secretions. Respondents overwhelmingly concurred that the mechanics of coitus were different for the two groups of men. Unaltered men tended to thrust more gently with shorter strokes.

      O�Hara, K. and O�Hara, J., “The Effect of Male Circumcision on the Sexual Enjoyment of the Female Partner,” BJU 83 (1999): suppl. 1: 79�84

      Male Circumcision and Psychosexual Effects Investigated

      Infant male circumcision continues despite growing questions about its medical justification. As usually performed without analgesia or anesthetic, circumcision is observably painful. It is likely that genital cutting has physical, sexual, and psychological consequences, too. Some studies link involuntary male circumcision with a range of negative emotions and even post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Some circumcised men have described their current feelings in the language of violation, torture, mutilation, and sexual assault. In view of the acute as well as long-term risks from circumcision and the legal liabilities that might arise, it is timely for health professionals and scientists to re-examine the evidence on this issue and participate in the debate about the advisability of this surgical procedure on unconsenting minors.

      Boyle, G., Goldman, R., Svoboda, J.S., and Fernandez, E., “Male Circumcision: Pain, Trauma, and Psychosexual Sequelae,” Journal of Health Psychology 7 (2002): 329-343.

      Surveys Reveal Adverse Sexual and Psychological Effects of Circumcision

      A survey of the 35 female and 42 gay sexual partners of circumcised and genitally intact men, and a separate survey of 53 circumcised and genitally intact men, and a separate survey of 30 genitally intact men themselves indicated that circumcised men experienced significantly reduced sexual sensation along with associated long-lasting negative emotional consequences.

      Boyle, G. and Bensley, G., “Adverse Sexual and Psychological Effects of Male Infant Circumcision,”. Psychological Reports 88 (2001): 1105-1106.

      Foreskin Reduces the Force Required for Penetration and Increases Comfort

      Masters and Johnson observed that the foreskin unrolled with intercourse. However, they overlooked a prior observation that intromission (i.e., penetration) was thereby made easier. To evaluate this observation an artificial introitus was mounted on scales. Repeated measurements showed a 10-fold reduction of force on entry with an initially unretracted foreskin as compared to entry with a retracted foreskin. For the foreskin to reduce the force required it must cover most of the glans when the penis is erect.

      Taves, D., “The Intromission Function of the Foreskin,” Med Hypotheses 59 (2002): 180.

      Survey of Men Circumcised as Adults Shows Mixed Results

      Men circumcised as adults were surveyed to assess erectile function, penile sensitivity, sexual activity and overall satisfaction. Over 80% of these men were circumcised to treat a medical problem. The response rate was 44% among potential responders. Mean age of responders was 42 years at circumcision and 46 years at survey. Adult circumcision appears to result in worsened erectile function, decreased penile sensitivity, no change in sexual activity, and improved satisfaction. Of the men 50% reported benefits and 38% reported harm. Overall, 62% of men were satisfied with having been circumcised. Note: Results may be affected by the fact that there was no sample of normal, healthy, genitally intact men for comparison.

      Fink, K., Carson, C., DeVellis, R., “Adult Circumcision Outcomes Study: Effect on Erectile Function, Penile Sensitivity, Sexual Activity and Satisfaction,” J Urol 167 (2002): 2113-2116.

      Survey Finds Circumcision Contributes to Vaginal Dryness

      The impact of male circumcision on vaginal dryness during coitus was investigated. We conducted a survey of 35 female sexual partners aged 18 to 69 years who had experienced sexual intercourse with both circumcised and genitally intact men. Women reported they were significantly more likely to have experienced vaginal dryness during intercourse with circumcised than with genitally intact men.

      Bensley, G. and Boyle, G., “Effects of Male Circumcision on Female Arousal and Orgasm,” N Z Med J 116 (2003): 595-596.

      Early Adverse Experiences May Lead to Abnormal Brain Development and Behavior

      Self-destructive behavior in current society promotes a search for psychobiological factors underlying this epidemic. The brain of the newborn infant is particularly vulnerability to early adverse experiences, leading to abnormal development and behavior. Although several investigations have correlated newborn complications with abnormal adult behavior, our understanding of the underlying mechanisms remains rudimentary. Models of early experience, such as repetitive pain, sepsis, or maternal separation in rodents and other species have noted multiple alterations in the adult brain, correlated with specific behavioral types depending on the timing and nature of the adverse experience. The mechanisms mediating such changes in the newborn brain have remained largely unexplored. Maternal separation, sensory isolation (understimulation), and exposure to extreme or repetitive pain (overstimulation) may cause altered brain development. (Circumcision is described as an intervention with long-term neurobehavioral effects.) These changes promote two distinct behavioral types characterized by increased anxiety, altered pain sensitivity, stress disorders, hyperactivity/attention deficit disorder, leading to impaired social skills and patterns of self-destructive behavior. The clinical importance of these mechanisms lies in the prevention of early adverse experiences and effective treatment of newborn pain and stress.

      Anand, K. and Scalzo, F., “Can Adverse Neonatal Experiences Alter Brain Development and Subsequent Behavior? Biol Neonate 77 (2000): 69-82.

      • Carol J

        Since HIV is transmitted by body fluids, foreskin or no foreskin has nothing to do with it.

        • Albino.

          Jay says different! Read below….. And his sources…………..”Another British Medical Journal article in May 2000 “……………… and ……………..”A BBC television programme in November 2000″……..

  • Albino.

    independant thinker……. Care to post some sources?

  • http://none John Kohlenberg

    Oh it is alright to take a sissors and cut the babies spine for an aqbortion, but you can not cut the forskin off his penis for health reasons and cleanlyness. Idiots.

    • libertytrain

      good point.

  • Bob from Calif.

    All these liberal wieners need to keep their hands off of our junk. First at the airports, now at the hospitals. They probably wont stop until they wrap our DNA around their little fingers.

  • Templar

    No doubt there are those who would look upon Santa Monica as a San Francisco of the South. Perhaps soon one will have to display the genitals to qualify for a Happy Meal purchase…..

    • Jay


    • ValDM

      This circumcision issue has already been run up the flagpole in San Fran, a few weeks ago. I thought this article was about San Fran until I read it. Seems like CA is bound & determined to rid themselves of gays faster by criminalizing a procedure that has been proven to be beneficial to the recipient in terms of health. Gays already experience a lower longevity than straights; now CA wants to ban this minor surgery so gays can die even faster than they already do……….killing them with political correctness.

  • http://None Judy P

    It should be left up to the parents of the child. See this is a bunch of imbecils trying to tell you how to live your life. And how to raise your children and so on and so on. It’s got to stop! I am sure they are a bunch of Jew Haters. They need to be run out of town on a rail. Notice there is no individual names attached to the article. What part of It’s none of their dam business don’t they understand. The MGM Bill needs to be struck down and these insidious , impious, ignoble megalomanics need to drop dead!

  • Sadly Wiser

    Well here is one issue where the Jews and Muslims could make common cause, as both require male circumcision. The difference is that Jews do it on the 8th day, when there is the least amount of bleeding, but Muslims do it any time up to age 13! Maybe that explains something about the Muslim mentality??? In any case, that would seem to make it Anti-Semitic, in that both Jews and Arabs (but not all Muslims) are Semites!

  • Jay

    Folks, this consideration to ban the procedure is coming from California, the land of fruits and nuts! It will go nowhere. There is no medical evidence to discredit male circumcision, rather, there is medical evidence that the opposite is true. Regardless, It should be left to the decision of the parents, and not these wackos that call themselves MGMBill. The group claims boys should be safeguarded from circumcision in the way girls are protected from genital mutilation, under the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection” clause. BTW, it is simply idiotic to equate female circumcision with that of male circumcision. With the Female it involves the total or partial removal of the clitoris thus making orgasm impossible, with the Male, the foreskin is removed, BIG DIFFERENCE!!! Are these yahoos, MGMBill, smoking crack?

    There are an estimated ninety to a hundred million women and girls living today in African countries that have had some form of female circumcision (Lane and Rubinstein 1996). Recent articles in the media have reported the growing practice of female circumcision in the US and Europe, among immigrants from countries where it is part of the culture. Circumcision occurs for a number of cultural reasons, such as religion, tradition, preserving virginity, and cultural identification. However, the practice of severe forms of female circumcision is now proven to be a great health risk, and the women of the societies that still practice female circumcision risk severe health problems. This paper reviews the practice of female circumcision and proposes a plan to reduce the use of harmful forms of circumcision, and consequently, the health problems associated with it.

    Are there benefits from Male circumcision?

    There are several:

    1 Many older men, who have bladder or prostate gland problems, also develop difficulties with their foreskins due to their surgeon’s handling, cleaning, and using instruments. Some of these patients will need circumcising. Afterwards it is often astonishing to find some who have never ever seen their glans (knob) exposed before!

    2 Some older men develop cancer of the penis – about 1 in 1000 – fairly rare, but tragic if you or your son are in that small statistic. Infant circumcision gives almost 100% protection, and young adult circumcision also gives a large degree of protection.

    3 Cancer of the cervix in women is due to the Human Papilloma Virus. It thrives under and on the foreskin from where it can be transmitted during intercourse. An article in the British Medical Journal in April 2002 suggested that at least 20% of cancer of the cervix would be avoided if all men were circumcised. Surely that alone makes it worth doing?


4 Protection against HIV and AIDS. Another British Medical Journal article in May 2000 suggested that circumcised men are 8 times less likely to contract the HIV virus. (It is very important here to say that the risk is still far too high and that condoms and safe sex must be used – this applies also to preventing cancer of the cervix in women who have several partners.)

A BBC television programme in November 2000 showed two Ugandan tribes across the valley from one another. One practised circumcision and had very little AIDS, whereas, it was common in the other tribe, who then also started circumcising. This programme showed how the infection thrived in the lining of the foreskin, making it much easier to pass on.


5 As with HIV, so some protection exists against other sexually transmitted infections. Accordingly, if a condom splits or comes off, there is some protection for the couple. However, the only safe sex is to stick to one partner or abstain.


6 Lots of men, and their partners, prefer the appearance of their penis after circumcision, It is odour-free, it feels cleaner, and they enjoy better sex. Awareness of a good body image is a very important factor in building self confidence. 

    7 Balanitis is an unpleasant, often recurring, inflammation of the glans. It is quite common and can be prevented by circumcision.

    8 Urinary tract infections sometimes occur in babies and can be quite serious. Circumcision in infancy makes it 10 times less likely.

    Interesting how a simple, medical procedure, circumcision, which is of great health benefit, is refereed to as, mutilation. But abortion, which is a gruesome form of mutilation leading ultimately to death, is referred to as, a medical procedure! Again, this is coming from California!

    Question, speaking of mutilation, why aren’t these morons protesting at abortion clinics where both boys and girls are being savagely mutilated to death?

  • JimH

    Many years ago a baby boy was born with out eye lids. The doctors took his foreskin from the circumcision and made eye lids. The problem is he has no eyelashes and he’s a little cockeyed.

    • Jay

      Good one Jim, lol!

    • Jay

      Your penis a very important part of you. Make the most of it!

    • Albino.

      Blasphemy………. It’s the tool of the devil!

      • JimH

        Jay & Albino, Just don’t try to think with it and you’ll be OK.

  • vikingdoula

    Lots of misinformation here. Try this: Please.

  • TombstoneLizard

    Ever heard of “gunk in your junk”? The foreskin is unnecessary to the use of a penis, and has a higher potential of trapping viral infections, STD’s, and various nasty micro-organisms. There are no exceptional nerve endings in the foreskin that make sex more pleasurable. Cutting off the labia or the clitoris of a female DOES have a detrimental effect on intercourse; as the labia is the closing point to protect the vaginal entry, and the clitoris is a bundle of nerve endings similar to the head of the penis, with similar stimulatory effects. The male penis does not need a fold of skin to protect it, as the ureter closes after urination or orgasm. If you do not want to circumsise your baby, fine. At least educate him on the potential hazards of foreskin retention so he can make an informed decision. Don’t make it illegal for a parent to choose health and cleanliness for their child!



  • Nightrider

    I understand in Asian countries (may not be so much today) it is/was a practice NOT to circumcise male babies so notice the people there still have and enjoy enough sex to populate more than any other continents and the women there don’t have an inordinate high rate of urinary/vaginal cancers as western medics claim this uncut condition would cause. The so-called benefits of circumcision, other than it being in adherence with a religious practice, is pure baloney. An uncircumcised male keeping himself and living a clean life is healthier than a physically dirty and sexually promiscuous uncircumcised male.

    Do you not think this cutting practice is promoted by the medical profession as a way to increase their fees?

  • http://none C. Porter

    Circumcision on males is supposed to make reproductive cancer less, not more, likely. This practice is up to families and doctors, not the branches of government.


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.