MALE CIRCUMCISION PART ONE: IT'S NOT THE CANDY WRAPPER, IT'S THE CANDY

"I will make you exceedingly fertile, and make nations of you, and kings shall come forth from you. ~ I assign the land you so sojourn in to you and your offspring to come, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting holding. I will be their God. ~ Such shall be the covenant between Me and you and your offspring to follow which you shall keep: every male among you shall be circumcised." (Genesis 17:6,8,10)

There has been a lot of news lately ~ and a lot of opinions expressed ~ regarding the sensitive topic of circumcision. In fact, this is surely one of the hottest (and least publicized) topics on the internet according to my findings.  Years ago I stumbled across a site dedicated to keeping men intact and the benefits of being intact were quite eye opening and rang true to me. Alas, I cannot find that site any longer however I decided to look into this matter a little more deeply anyhow. 

Jews and Muslims insist upon this ritual, or barbarism, depending upon one’s point of view. Muslims say it is to ……, but the Jews insist it is necessary due to Biblical history and that it is God’s command. I have read that circumcision is also a manner of marking gentiles as Jewish property, but I won’t go there for the moment. That is a can of worms I am not equipped to handle with any degree of knowledge.

What I do know is that babies die and there is something about the way Jewish circumcisions are performed that nauseates me. No amount of excuses and rabbinical defenses can make this sucking by the mohel an acceptable practice. Many rabbis, not all but many, have rather sordid private lives not conducive to such rituals as sucking the penis, an open wound, with their mouths.

As for gentile infants, why is it done? Circumcision is not a Western or European tradition. It never was so why is it practiced so thoroughly in North America or Europe?  Under what influence has this come about? 

Why did medicine become so pro-circumcision?  The claims made over the past few hundred years are, today, ridiculous, yet this practice is still strongly advised by most practitioners.  It has been claimed that circumcision cures everything from club foot to blindness, deafness and epilepsy. 

I propose to offer my Readers, some answers to these questions in case they are unaware, and interested in this topic.  I will also offer a comprehensive set of links at the end which will expand on what is written here.  In Part Two I will focus on Halachic circumcision, but Part One is more general and geared towards the phenomenon of gentile circumcision that came into medical vogue at the start of the last century. 

Note: Because of the sensitivity of this matter, comments that are over the top hate vents will not be posted. 

First, to lighten things up, a humorous piece that tells me how I should be approaching and blogging this topic. Needless to say, this is no more than political/medical satire! 

HOW TO WRITE ABOUT CIRCUMCISION

A guide for bloggers and journalists

By Hugh Young
The Intactivism Pages

Like the appendix and the tonsils, the foreskin is a part of the body we don't really need and it can cause painful problems. So, no foreskin, no problem. It is easy to cut off, and usually done when boys are babies, so they don't remember it. What you never had you never miss.

Nobody has ever written about circumcision before, so whatever you write will be original. Research is unnecessary, just write off the top of your head, and even make stuff up. Nobody will notice.

Your own circumcision status can't possibly bias you in any way. Circumcised men are especially well qualified because they know they're not missing anything.

Circumcision is really, really trivial, so it doesn't really matter what you write. Flippancy is essential. Make sure you use the word "snip" at least once, and any wordplay, such as "snip the tip" is guaranteed to cause hilarity.

A bit of the Bard gives your title both levity and gravitas. Only these titles are permitted:

a) To Cut or Not to Cut (To Snip or Not to Snip if you're feeling frisky) or

b) Circumcision: The Kindest Cut? (If you're really daring, what Shakespeare really wrote, The Most Unkindest Cut? but that raises the possibility that it is.)

The first title is good for emphasizing how finely balanced the decision is: Cut part of his genitals off? Leave them alone? Gosh! Which to choose?

Use lots of euphemisms, cutesy ("his winkle", "his wee thingy") for babies, gruff and outdoorsy ("his tackle", "Man's best friend") for men. The ever-popular hyphenated "package" is always acceptable. If you can complete the article using the word "circumcision" no more than once, and without saying "penis" or "foreskin" at all, you've got it made.

Begin with a reference to the great antiquity of circumcision, because old is always good. Then if you like, tout circumcision as the latest medical miracle. (It goes without saying that it should begin with circumcision, not with any consideration of the foreskin or any possible functions it might have. 

If you say "Circumcision, the removal of the flap of skin that covers the end of the penis..." you've defined it off the penis before you start, and then removed it without ever either naming it or mentioning cutting surgery.)

Begin either by mentioning that the Egyptians circumcised (and imply that they did it for exactly the same reasons we do today), or by referring to Genesis 17 (the Covenant of Abraham). Quoting the whole passage from the King James Version makes you look learned, but, unless you are writing for a very avant-garde and "alternative lifestyle organization" stop before you get to the bit about circumcising your slaves.

Suggest that babies were cut in the desert with unsterilized flint knives or sharpened slivers of shale and no antibiotics for "hygienic reasons".

Stress the importance of circumcision in Judaism but not Brit Shalom. Mention that Jesus was circumcised, but not how Christians need not be, as per Acts 15:5-11 & 24, Rom 2:25-29, 3:30-31, 4:8-13, Gal 5:1-6, 6:12-13 and Col 2:11, 3:9-11.) Never mention the complete role of the mohel!

And certainly never mention Christian/Zionists wishing to emulate their Jewish “brethren” in this deed! Equate it to the quaint ritual known as Baptism only, of course, much more significant than that once in a lifetime water rite.

Do NOT mention Muslim circumcision, unless you detail the gorgeous clothes in which they array the victim "Prince for a Day".

Dismiss any comparison with female genital cutting here: in female cutting a helpless child who cannot resist it is held down and part of their genitals cut off, for obscure and deviously sexual reasons, with a heavy overlay of custom, conformity, religion and fear; this violates her fundamental right as a human being to decide for herself what part of her own genitals she may want to keep, when she is old enough.

Unlike male genital cutting circumcision. Use the word "mutilation" freely of female genital cutting, and abuse anyone who uses it of male genital cutting. Really laying into anyone who makes such a comparison will enhance your feminist credentials if you are a man.

Circumcision is a very important decision for parents. They have to consider the issue very, very carefully before deciding to circumcise making the decision for their boys. Parents have to make many important decisions for their children, like circumcision, bedtimes, cutting off their earlobes, footwear, nostril-notching, ballet or piano lessons, and branding, and it is their sacred right and duty to do so. 

If you touch on the idea that the penis's owner himself should have a say, well, he will be a baby forever, so that idea is self-evidently ridiculous.

Emphasize that circumcision is a social norm in the US.  All social norms must be followed without question, right? Of course right. If you are somewhere the rate is low, find someone to say it is coming back.

If you mention world circumcision rates, bump up the rates in countries we like. Say it is "not common" in Northern Europe, not "virtually unknown". Give 50-year-old figures in countries where it has declined to near-zero, such as Australia and England. Don't mention that such circumcision as still happens in England is virtually all Muslim.

If you mention pain, call it "discomfort" and stress that nowadays all babies are given totally effective pain medication at the time of circumcision that lasts for two weeks. You could also mention that since they do not even know what their toes are at this age, the infant “Little king” will not even really feel the snipping as more than a vague dullness.

And NEVER EVER mention that Canadian investigators report that during vaccinations at age four to six months, circumcised boys had increased behavioral pain response and cried for significantly longer periods than did uncircumcised boys, a possible indication of post-traumatic stress disorder. ~ Taddio, A. et al., "Effect of Neonatal Circumcision on Pain Response during Subsequent Routine Vaccination," The Lancet 349 (1997): 599

List all the benefits no matter how trivial. Refer to circumcision "reducing the risk" of a long list of diseases. Do not say from what or to what, let alone how many circumcisions have to be done in vain for every one that actually prevents anything.

Mention the African HIV-circumcision trials and imply they prove that circumcising developed-world babies will reduce their chance of getting HIV by "up to 60%" (or 70% or 80%, whatever you're happy with) from any source, such as receptive anal sex or dirty needles. Shroud-wave about death from HIV or cancer.

Play down the risks. Say only that they "include bleeding and infection, which are rare and can be easily treated". Do not give the full list. Do not say how rare, such as 10% for ulcers narrowing the urinary opening. Do NOT mention death.

Stress that circumcision has no effect on sexuality. (This was first scientifically proved by Masters and Johnson in 1966 by touching the penis-heads of 35 circumcised and 35 uncircumcised men ~ three-quarters of them more than 40 years old ~ with single hairs, who all reported sensation at the same pressure. All married couples spend their honeymoons touching each other's genitals with single hairs and saying whether they can feel it. Sex researchers from Masters and Johnson onward have rightly ignored the foreskin, because it is just skin, unlike the eyelids, and feels no sensation ~ except during adult circumcision.)

Interview couples who decided to circumcise their sons. You can safely attribute any frivolous reasons you happen to support to them. Remind them that it's neat and tidy without loose skin over the end and it helps the child to pee better. Mums often ask for their baby boys to be circumcised to prevent this. If you can't, or don't pull it back, your foreskin gets in the way and causes spray and you may miss the toilet. 

The mention of incidents such as the embarrassment of zipper injury, teasing by friends, all belong here. Refer, if need be, to the infamous zipper scene in the film "Something About Mary". Any stories they have heard about their cousins' sisters' boyfriends who got "loads of infections" and "had to be circumcised" in great pain have universal applicability. Emphasize that the parents "have no regrets" because "he'll never remember it" and "it would really hurt to do it later". Every boy not circumcised in infancy has to be circumcised later.

Zipper scene from "Something About Mary." (Warning, adult content and language)

Refer to "uncircumcised" boys and men only in connection with being teased by peers or rejected by women. 

Expressions like "the worm", "anteater" and "turtleneck" are serious and appropriate ways of describing the foreskin, and men with foreskin have no feelings. Never say "intact". Nowadays you may refer to Intacivists, if you compare them all unfavourably to the Westboro Baptist Church, or hint that their interest in nothing at all happening to the genitals of "other' people's children" is unhealthy ~ unlike an interest in cutting parts off the genitals of other people's children, such as your article expresses. So don't even think about interviewing an Intactivist.

The bit about "looking like dad" belongs about here. Fathers never care what their sons look like, but all boys spend a lot of time contemplating (if not actually seeing) their father's penis, and obsessing about whether they look like him. Many fathers have checked into rehab/their den/their local bar to escape from the incessant nagging of their seven-year olds begging "Cut it off, dad, cut it off! It's gotta look like yours!"

If parents disagree, say the father should decide, because he's the one with the penis ~ unless he is not circumcised. In that case the mother should decide, preferably while she is still semi-conscious from the birth and still feeling resentful towards all males and their penises for what one has just done to her.

It is not necessary to interview any couples who decided not to circumcise, but if you do, quote only vague reasons, like "We just didn't think it was necessary." that will carry no weight with readers. Certainly do not interview any men who resent being circumcised, because they don't exist and they should just get over it and their problems can't possibly be due to their circumcision because no problem ever is.

Mention foreskin restoration only to make it sound as outlandish as possible, with emphasis on heavy, clanking weights that fall off embarrassingly.

By all means interview doctors who make their living from circumcision. Their motives are purely altruistic, as they will tell you themselves. NEVER mention their religious persuasion as it tends to give unnecessary emphasize on motivations.

Like the banana, you can use any allegorical imagery, such as a chortling baby, a smiling doctor or any cutting instrument that is not used in circumcision, such as a pair of household scissors. An article in the SF Examiner shows a pair of left-handed aviation tin-snips...)

Do NOT show blood, a Gomco Clamp, a screaming baby, or an actual circumcision being performed though a stock shot of kippah ~ and shawl-clad men bending over something unseen is permissible, especially in articles that do not otherwise mention ritual circumcision.  

 Parts of the Gomco Clamp

It should go without saying that you do not include any illustration of an actual penis. Exception: Michaelangelo's David, because it's Art, it's safely made of marble, it's not threateningly large, and its circumcision status is debatable and/or unhistorical.

Whatever the parents decide is the right decision "for your family". The circumcision decision (and that sidesplitting rhyme is a must, somewhere in every circumcision essay) must be finely tweaked to suit each family, like choosing a TV or adjusting the heating. The consent form is 15 pages long, lists all the many benefits and the handful of trivial, negligible risks, which are also rare, and always asks whether the family wants it high or low, loose or tight, and whether to spare or cut off the frenulum; and the doctor is duty-bound to follow the instructions of the whole family in the minutest detail.

Finish by re-emphasizing that the important decision to cut off part of a baby's genitals (or, oh yes, not cutting part off) belongs to the parents alone. Therefore they absolutely must not let anyone tell them what they ought to do (unless it is to circumcise).

At the same time, you may also imply that a coin-toss is an acceptable last resort. The call is "Heads we circumcise: tails we don't leave him uncircumcised."

Add some URLs to detached, objective websites like Circlist, the Gilgal Society or the Acorn Club.

And if your article is appearing online with space for "Comments", make any pro-intact comments "await moderation.

If you are concerned about your child's lifelong health, circumcision is the best way to avoid many difficulties that might arise over the years. According to medical science, removal of this "useless bit of flesh and enemy to the state" (Charles Darby) can help avoid an endless variety of complications such as epilepsy, deafness, blindness, dumbness, club foot,  nocturnal emissions, addiction to masturbation, venereal disease, spinal paralysis, bed-wetting, paralysis of the bladder, oral cancer, abdominal neuralgia,  incontinence of urinary tract and rectum, tuberculosis. To learn more about the medicalization of circumcision over the past few hundred years, there is an interesting  ONLINE SIDESHOW to be seen here. 

Sorry Rabbi, but I don't buy your spiel. Did you know, or even care, that:

Most men in the world and the great majority of men in Europe, Scandinavia, Central and South America and Asia are not circumcised?

"Medical" infant circumcision was introduced to prevent masturbation? (So was the invention of Kellogg’s CornFlakes!)

Until a few decades ago, female genital cutting was promoted in the western world for many of the same reasons as male circumcision?

Infant circumcision was fashionable in the English-speaking world 50 years ago but is now rare (except in the US)?

Babies are strapped down to be circumcised?

Circumcision with a PlastiBell^TM does involve cutting?

Before the foreskin can be cut (or crushed) off, it must be torn away from the glans?

Circumcision removes 50% of the skin of the penis?

Circumcision removes the most sensitive part of the penis?

No national medical association anywhere in the world supports non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision (male or female) on medical grounds?

The claim that circumcision protects against HIV is based on 5,400 circumcisions protecting (perhaps) just 73 men?

Even if the claim is true: it would take hundreds of circumcisions to prevent one case in the US?,; circumcision offers no protection at all to women?; circumcision offers no protection at all to gay men?

A comprehensive, independent rebuttal of the HIV claims.

And now we learn about an interesting situation in San Francisco, a major mixed brew of substandard morals in the United States.  The Jewish Community is up in arms about the following referendum to be held in November on circumcision of children under 18 years. 

JCRC LAUNCHES CAMPAIGN TO 

DEFEAT S.F. CIRCUMCISION BAN

June 2, 2011

By Dan Pine

The battle is on to keep circumcision legal in San Francisco.

The S.F.-based Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC) has begun partnering with religious, legal and medical organizations and individuals to map out a strategy for the November election. Their goal: to defeat a ballot measure that, if passed, would criminalize circumcisions.

Last month, the so-called Male Genital Mutilation Bill qualified for the Nov. 8 ballot. It would ban circumcision in San Francisco, with no religious exemptions allowed.

Parents, doctors and mohels authorizing or performing circumcisions would be liable for a $1,000 fine and/or a year in prison.

JCRC’s strategy includes fundraising, voter education and, eventually, ads, bumper stickers and all the trappings of a political campaign.

So far, JCRC has established the Committee for Parental Choice and Religious Freedom, and brought in the political polling firm Tulchin Research as consultants. The campaign has launched a website:

http://www.stopcircban.com.

Said JCRC Associate Director Abby Michelson Porth,

“We’ve got 86 coalition members on board. They are coming in faster than we can process them all. These are medical authorities, civil liberties scholars, national Muslim and Jewish organizations, HIV researchers, infectious disease specialists, rabbis and imams.”

The measure, which has drawn national attention, is seen as a frontal attack on a central tenet of Judaism.

Nathan Diament, director of the Orthodox Union’s Institute for Public Affairs said:

“The stakes are very high. Circumcision is a fundamental aspect of Jewish ritual practice and Jewish identity. While we certainly hope the prospect of [a law] being enacted is remote, the precedent it would set and the message it would send would be terrible, not just in the United States but around the world.”

“We don’t just want it defeated,” he added, “We want it defeated soundly.”

In addition to Jewish organizations such as the S.F.-based Jewish Community Federation, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee and the national arms of Jewish denominations, many non-Jewish groups have lent their names to the coalition.

They include the Muslim American Society, the S.F. Interfaith Council, the Islamic Networks Group, and prominent religious leaders, such as Catholic Archbishop George Niederauer of the S.F. Archdiocese.

Niederauer condemned the initiative in a May 23 letter sent to the San Francisco Chronicle. He wrote in the letter:

“Although the issue does not concern Christians directly, as a religious leader I can only view with alarm the prospect that this misguided initiative would make it illegal for Jews and Muslims who practice their religion to live in San Francisco ~ for that is what the passage of such a law would mean.

“Apart from the religious aspect, the citizens of San Francisco should be outraged at the prospect of city government dictating to parents in such a sensitive matter regarding the health and hygiene of their children.”

Political figures also have endorsed the campaign, among them five sitting and former members of the S.F. Board of Supervisors and state Sen. Mark Leno.

“On its face it is clearly unconstitutional,” Leno said of the measure. “Every legal assessment I have seen confirms that. Unfortunately, our initiative process allows for unconstitutional measures to be put before voters.”

Porth said the themes of the campaign will include defending religious liberties, parental rights and health benefits of circumcision, which proponents say are proven.**

Porth said,

“To criminalize a procedure that reduces the transmission of HIV, penile cancer, urinary tract infections and even cervical cancer seems to be an affront to science. San Francisco is at its best when we unite against efforts to curtail our civil liberties. This measure seeks to place the government between doctor and moms and dads, and between faith traditions and their adherents.”

Added Leno,

“Having lived now 30 years through the HIV/AIDS epidemic as a gay man in San Francisco, I am well aware that circumcision is a frontline defense against HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.”

The fight against the San Francisco ballot measure has brought a number of Muslim organizations into the JCRC-led coalition.

Maha El Genaidi, executive director of the Islamic Networks Group, said,

“Circumcision is required for Muslim males in emulation of the Prophet Abraham. A ban that specifically targets a religious practice of Muslims and that has been proven to be medically beneficial is a violation of First Amendment rights that guarantee all Americans the right to religious freedom.”

Zahra Billoo, the Bay Area director of the Council on American Islamic Relations, noted that her group rarely finds itself on the same political side as groups such as the Orthodox Union, adding that the measure is an assault on the freedoms of both religions.

She told JTA,

“The civil rights of Jews and Muslims are being impacted.  We don’t agree on all things all the time, but we do find common cause in many areas. An attack on one religion is an attack on all religions.”

Ameena Jandali, Islamic Networks Group:

"Circumcision is required for Muslim males in emulation of the Prophet Abraham. This procedure usually occurs after birth in the hospital and causes minimal pain to the infant, similar to other procedures that are routinely conducted such as immunizations for newborns. A ban that specifically targets a religious practice of Muslims and that has been proven to be medically beneficial is a violation of First Amendment Rights that guarantees all Americans the right to religious freedom." 

This attitude seems have carried on throughout history.  Excellent quotes both for and against male circumcision throughout the ages right up to 2010 can be found at Pleasures of the Foreskin
  
Mark Levin interviews Lloyd Schofield on his initiative to ban circumcision in San Francisco ~ This qualifies as the rudest interview I have ever heard. Levin was in attack mode from the first breath. An absolute schmuck. The media, including Fox, is definitely doing its best to discredit this movement in the eyes of the public.

 .

  

This attitude seems have carried on throughout history.  Excellent quotes both for and against male circumcision throughout the ages right up to 2010 can be found at Pleasures of the Foreskin
 
Here is a small sampling. The quotes in favour, you can read for yourself, dear Reader, since they are so detailed regarding the pleasure aspects that religious tenets seek to remove.

PHILO JUDAEUS OF ALEXANDRIA, a leading Jewish philosopher living in Alexandria early in the 1st Century

To these [reasons for circumcision] I would add that I consider circumcision to be a symbol of two things necessary to our well being. One is the excision of pleasures which bewitch the mind. For since among the love-lures of pleasure the palm is held by the mating of man and woman, the legislators thought good to dock the organ which ministers to such intercourse, thus making circumcision the figure of the excision of excessive and superfluous pleasure, not only of one pleasure, but of all the other pleasures signified by one, and that the most imperious. 

The other reason is that a man should know himself and banish from the soul the grievous malady of conceit. ~ Philo of Alexandria, of the special laws, Book I (ii), in Works of Philo, trans. F. H. Colson, Loeb Classical Library, 1937, Vol. VII, p. 105

MOSES BEN MAIMON (MAIMONIDES), (The Rambam) (1135-1204) was an important Jewish physician, philosopher and theologian. 

With regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. 

It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally. This gave the possibility for everyone to raise an objection and to say: How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for the member? In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally. 

The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. 

The sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: "It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him." In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision. ~ Moses ben Maimon, Guide of the perplexed, Part III, Chapter 49

ISAAC BEN YEDIAH, disciple of Maimonides, 13th Century

When a woman makes love to an uncircumcised man, she feels pleasure and reaches orgasm first. When an uncircumcised man sleeps with her and then resolves to return to his home, she brazenly grasps him, holding onto his genitals and says to him, "Come back, make love to me". This is because of the pleasure that she finds in intercourse with him, from the sinews of his testicles ~ sinew of iron and from his ejaculation ~ that of a horse ~ which he shoots like an arrow into her womb. 

With the circumcised man it is different. He will find himself performing his task quickly, emitting his seed as soon as he inserts the crown. … As soon as he begins intercourse, he immediately comes to a climax. The woman has no pleasure from him. She leaves the marriage bed frustrated. She does not have an orgasm once a year, except on rare occasions. 

[This is good for her husband: freed from lascivious desires] he will not empty his brain because of his wife [and] his heart will be strong to seek out God. ~ Quoted in David Gollaher, Circumcision: A history of the world's most controversial surgery, p. 22 by Isaac ben Yedaiah

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS,  writing 1267-73

[God ordered circumcision for] the diminishing of fleshly concupiscence which thrives principally in those organs because of the intensity of venereal pleasure. ~ Summa Theologiae, quoted in Leonard Glick, Marked in Your Flesh, p 89

THOMAS LAQUEUR,  

modern historian comments: "God ordained circumcision among the Jews, this text says, so that they might concentrate on his service rather than on the pleasures of the flesh. The notion that circumcision reduces pleasure, and thus the chance of conception, is fairly widespread." ~ Thomas Laqueur, Making sex: Body and gender from the Greeks to Freud, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, p. 271, n. 75

GIOVANNI SINIBALDI (OR JOHANNES SINIBALDUS), 

compiler a 17^TH CENTURY SEX MANUAL, an eccentric collection of folklore and observations on sexual matters, called Geneanthropeiae, published in Rome in 1642.

Despite its many absurdities (some of which were jokes), he had a more accurate knowledge of human sexual anatomy and physiology than many doctors over the next 300 years. He understood that the main source of sexual pleasure in women was the clitoris and that its functional equivalent in men was not the glans of the penis, but the foreskin, which he held to be the seat of male sexual pleasure.

He also considered that the foreskin contributed to women's pleasure during sexual intercourse, claiming that "the Jewish women, Turkesses and Mauritaniae, their husbands being shorn, make much of it, and most gladly accept the embraces of Christians". ~ Quoted in Alex Comfort, The anxiety makers, p. 26.

NAHAM OF BRATSLAV, 

18th Century. Copulation is difficult for the true zaddik [pious Jew]. Not only does he have no desire for it at all, but he experiences real suffering in the act, suffering which is like that which the infant undergoes when he is circumcised. The very same suffering, to an even greater degree, is felt by the zaddik during intercourse. ~ Quoted in David Gollaher, Circumcision: A history of the world's most controversial surgery, p. 22

ISLAMIC TURKISH PHYSICIAN, 1906. 

 The irritation which is caused by the inflammation of the distal part of the [intact] penis leads to erection and release through ejaculation, to enuresis, to onanism and pederasty with their psycho-pathological reactions, and finally to moral crimes. A wise Moslem writer says:

"It is exactly these fundamental effects and their influence upon men that the Moslem lawgivers take into consideration in establishing the strict performance of circumcision."

A pious Moslem told him:

"The reduction of sexual pleasure is just what circumcision aims at. Too great sexual excitement puts man on an equal plane with the lower animals, impels him to wicked moral aberrations and tragic crime. On the other hand, the complete abolition of sexual feelings would make men non-organic beings. We men enjoy coitus just enough."

Nuri Bey Risa, Studien uber die rituale Beschneidung im osmanische Reiche, Sammlung klinischer Vortrage, No. 438, Leipzig, 1906, quoted in Felix Bryk, Circumcision in man and woman: Its history, psychology and ethnology, New York, Ethnolgical Press, 1934, pp. 102-3

IMMIGRANTS TO ISRAEL, 1990S:  

An Israeli research project in the early 1990s sought to measure changes in sexual satisfaction after circumcision among Russian immigrants who got themselves circumcised after immigration to Israel. The research was carried out by Dr Avi Teper and Dr Eliezer Shalev, from the Women's Department, Ha-emek Hospital, Afula. They mailed a questionnaire to 108 males, 76 of whom replied. 

The circumcised immigrants reported a significant decrease in sexual satisfaction. Before circumcision 54 per cent reported "great sexual satisfaction", but afterwards the number was only 24 per cent. The proportion of those reporting "medium satisfaction" rose from 30 percent to 61 percent. There was no change in the number reporting "small satisfaction". 

Since 68 per cent of the respondents sought circumcision as the fulfillment of their dream to become full Jews and 10 percent because of Jewish tradition, it is possible that some of them denied they felt any adverse consequences from the operation. The remainder sought circumcision because of social pressure, and one for a medical reason. 

Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin and R. Blustein, "Challenges to circumcision in Israel: The Israeli association against genital mutilation", in George C. Denniston, Frederick Mansfield Hodges and Marilyn Fayre Milos (eds) Male and female circumcision: Medical, legal and ethical considerations in pediatric practice, New York, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 1999, pp. 343-50

 A GENTILE BRITISH DOCTOR, 1935:

I suggest that all male children should be circumcised. This is "against nature", but that is exactly the reason why it should be done. Nature intends that the adolescent male shall copulate as often and as promiscuously as possible, and to that end covers the sensitive glans so that it shall be ever ready to receive stimuli. Civilization, on the contrary, requires chastity, and the glans of the circumcised rapidly assumes a leathery texture less sensitive than skin. Thus the adolescent has his attention drawn to his penis much less often. I am convinced that masturbation is much less common in the circumcised. With these considerations in mind it does not seem apt to argue that "God knows best how to make little boys". ~ R.W. Cockshutt [Love the name for this topic and his attitude!], "Circumcision", British Medical Journal, 1935 (2), 1935, p. 764

 
REFERENCES:

Pleasures of the Foreskin

Intactivation Pages

Wikipedia ~ Circumcision

Foreskin Restoration Info

Methods of circumcision ~ "All my means are sane, my motive and my object mad." ~ Herman Melville, Moby Dick

International Circumcision Information Reference Centre

National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers

All About Being Circumcised Information for 7 to 10 year olds ~ There are so many lies comforting comments in this article it is difficult to discern if it is a farce/comedy or propaganda!

The Intactivism Shop promoting genital integrity

A lot of interesting things here including babies to adult gear. Shown "Brit B'li Milah" ~ Hebrew for "Covenant without cutting.

The Mohels are Really Pissed

Circumcision Talmud Style

Circumcision ban to appear on San Francisco ballot

Circumcision: A Source of Jewish Pain 

Jewish Circumcision Resource Centre:

The motto of this site is “Judaism has never demanded uniformity of belief or practice.” One purpose of this site is to gather and disseminate information to interested Jews about the experiences of those who kept their children intact and whole. This information will add to understanding and acceptance of alternatives to circumcision in the Jewish community. I found this to be an eye-opener considering how we gentiles are taught that the Bris or Brit Milah is mandatory. It seems many Jews are unaware of this fact also. 

.

Circumcision ~ Halachic Viewpoint