The circumcision debate remains a hot topic on this blog, and others. Last week, Mr. Fred Rhodes wrote a comment on an older post (Tony Responds: Circumcision’s Encore), and given that the post is a bit buried, I thought I’d go ahead and post his comment in toto here:
I know what that psycho-sexual nerve is. It’s called the prepucial frenular delta nerves. It comes out of the glans of the male and the glans clitoris of the female. AKA the masculine “Gee String” and the feminine “G Spot, it relays sexual arousal back to the reproductive parts of the brain when stroked or pulled. Sometimes they sever these nerves during neonatal circumcision resulting in disuse atrophy after puberty’s brain chemistry sets in, this leading to psychological and neurological sexual nerve damage trauma. This in turn leads to various sexual dysfunctions, including erectile dysfunction, suicidal depression, and even paranoid schizophrenia. These weird side effects can reduce the risks of acquiring HIV from unprotected rough dry reproductive sex with infected prostitutes that causes rips in the male and female prepuce, from not being able to keep it up long enough to finish the job. Adult males who know of the function of the frenulum’s nerve bundle will not allow the anti intactivist’s to cut them, so they are trying to push neonatal circumcision to cause the infants to grow up sexually dysfunctional. They cut my frenulum off as an infant and I have a psycho-sexual nerve disorder causing me not to be able to keep it up around others, male and female. It appears to be some type of natural eugenics to diminish the men of masculine god worshipers. That is why the Jews have to trace their ancestors back by their mothers blood line as the males keep dying off from wars and disease, and suicide bombings in the Muslims case. It also engrams into our brains at the infancy time, a subconscious need to attack the enemy. Can you think of a better reason for why 9/11 happened? It’s all psychosexual nerve trauma related. The creator had nothing to do with it. Nature’s first commandment would be, if she could speak, would be “I am your child, put no god before me.”
Now, firstly, I need to applaud Fred’s bravery and candor for telling us about his condition, one which I have never before heard of.
Let me direct you to a cursory explanation of the prepucial frenular delta nerves by Ken Mcgrath. He states within:
The frenular delta is noted by men as the most sensitive area of their penis, especially in the mid-line nearest the frenulum, and the frenulum itself.
Circumcision is so costly, and so based in superstitious garbage. I am trying my best not to be alarmist, and yet I can barely contain my disgust over this matter. I know enough, now, to never, ever perform such an act on my children. I’m struck by the impulse to again compare male circumcision to female circumcision, that brutal act to which we westerners find so disturbing and grotesque.
Why? Because people studying dicks are telling us that we are literally beheading our infants at birth. There.
More on circumcision:
Get RR In An Email
24 Comments
August 17, 2007 at 2:02 pm
…suicidal depression, and even paranoid schizophrenia…
The challenge here is that those indifferent or inclined to embrace infant circumcision will scoff at this. They will label anyone advocating against circumcision as crazy and promoting irrational, untrue nonsense. You’ve linked to a useful article, but most people are disinclined to care about details.
Beyond a bias to unquestioned acceptance among circumcision advocates, the biggest problem in the circumcision debate is marketing. In the anti-intellectual analysis, it’s catch a disease versus fuller sensitivity. The “if I had any more sensitivity, I couldn’t handle it” cop-out demonstrates that our arguments have to be easier to understand than the more nuanced aspects of the foreskin’s benefits.
On the other point, I almost go out of my way to make the comparison between male and female genital cutting. The comparison is so obvious, but making it helps me understand how open someone is to hearing that male circumcision might not be the most wonderful thing ever. I know I’m right, but I try to make it a compass more than a debate point.
August 17, 2007 at 2:26 pm
I’m going to have to agree that people are disinclined to care about details, and yet there is something to be said about the fact that at one time there were serious projected health risks to circumcision. With sterilization and more “controlled procedures,” some of these risks have been quelled, and yet here is a valid health risk- one that speaks specifically to psychological and physiological emasculation.
Therein lies that new comparison (though perhaps not healthy in debate but better as a compass) between female and male genital mutilation. Granted, I’m going to assume that the risk of depression and schizophrenia is rare (perhaps more rare than urinary tract infection in intact infants), but it still sends the right chills…
August 17, 2007 at 4:02 pm
…it still sends the right chills…
To open-minded people who are willing to consider that circumcision has negatives. But I’ve seen this argument elsewhere and the reactionary circumcision fanatics use it to discredit everyone who is against circumcision. It doesn’t send chills to them.
I don’t worry about them precisely because they’re fanatics. But the fence-sitters who come along and read/hear it are more likely to say “you know what, that is crazy” before learning any facts beyond what they already know.
Essentially, I think first-things-first. Start with “circumcision isn’t medically necessary” and work from there. That includes the history and the current risks of performing circumcision. Since they’re unknown and/or ignored, they’re the key.
But the further possible impacts and concerns? Here, where we’re inclined to at least assess the validity, it’s okay. On a parenting blog or when talking to reporters, for example, not so much. America just isn’t at that level of receptivity and openness yet.
It’s the same reason I hate the term “intactivist”. Most people don’t want to be part of a movement. They just want to be normal, regardless of facts. Hence, continued circumcision even when people know there isn’t any medical need or justification. They want comfortable.
Fred’s response doesn’t give the clear impression that such extreme outcomes are rare. Note that rare isn’t a reason to ignore something. Death as a risk is a reason not to circumcise, even though it’s rare. It’s just much easier to prove death from circumcision than suicidal depression or schizophrenia from circumcision.
August 17, 2007 at 4:28 pm
“It’s just much easier to prove death from circumcision than suicidal depression or schizophrenia from circumcision.”
Agreed- and yet I think that westerners, and I used this term in the broadest sense (and speak to those people who, as you say, want to be “normal”), would find it easy to believe that a female circumcision would OF COURSE lead to such mental instabilities, as if it would be impossible not to be unstable given the circumstances.
And yet it seems, as you say, a fruitless task to condemn male circumcision given similar mental risks. When speaking on her own suffering, both psychological and physical, given her own circumcision, Ayan Hirsi Ali does not expect her readership to bat an eye. It just “goes with the territory” that such an procedure could cause life-long problems, both physically and mentally.
You’re right, Fred doesn’t speak to the rarity of such symptoms. I, however, will, noting quite simply that such mental neuroses are just not in the public eye the way the broad spectrum of bi-polar disorders or phobias are. Why not? Well, for reasons you’ve stated:
You’re right, claiming to be mentally unstable as a result of male circumcision WOULD BE scoffed at by fence-sitters and those who would call people opposed to male circumcision “intactivists.” The word “activist” is almost euphemistic, and for good reason.
I’m also in agreement on the idea that a newsbite would not be suited to bring up such a problem. But newsbites and interviews prove time and again to be a place where no problems are really formally addressed and given due diligence.
August 17, 2007 at 4:49 pm
[...] Circumcision and the Psychosexual Nerve [...]
August 18, 2007 at 12:58 am
Agreed on the Western willingness to believe any and all possible negative outcomes from FGM, specifically. And everything else, in general.
August 18, 2007 at 4:48 am
[...] Mob Legend Aug 17th, 2007 at 4:28 pm [...]
August 19, 2007 at 7:37 am
Is this condition physical or psychological? He himself calls it “psychosexual” so we can and must assume that he problem must be addressed through a therapist.
The assumption that this individual is mentally unstable “as a result of” his circumcision is most likely not correct. All we know is that this individual has chosen to tell us a story (unverified) and chosen to link his mental disorder to the removal of his frenulum.
I would suggest it is better to cut to the chase with this kind of post rather than to assume anyone who can magically link circumcision to 9/11 is dealing from a full deck. Perhaps he should be encouraged to take this issue to a professional rather than raise it (troll it?) on this blog?
August 19, 2007 at 4:55 pm
You’re right, Joshua. This evidence is anecdotal, and unconfirmed. But it is interesting, and though it is not reason enough to end circumcision, I do believe that you’re incredibly wrong about removing the mammalian penile sheath’s benefits.
He didn’t link removing the mammalian penile sheath to the bombing of the World Trade Center, by the way. He linked it to penile dysfunction. Penile sheath and penile dysfunction both have the word “penile” in them, so it’s a little less of a leap.
August 19, 2007 at 4:57 pm
If, that is, we’re going to go on using “penile”- a troubling attempt at depersonalizing the human body to make the whole thing more stomach-able.
August 20, 2007 at 4:43 am
Mob Legend said: “If, that is, we’re going to go on using “penile”- a troubling attempt at depersonalizing the human body to make the whole thing more stomach-able.”
Its a bit like being on a jury isn’t it? One has to cut through the emotions and weigh the facts (evidence).
For instance I have seen another piece by this Fred Rhodes who claims circumcision id to blame for the deaths of his brothers (plural). I think we are dealing with a nutter here.
August 20, 2007 at 5:06 am
Mob Legend said: “This evidence is anecdotal, and unconfirmed. But it is interesting”
Yes there is a lot of interesting stuff out there. For instance that male circumcision reduces the risk of female to male HIV infection by 60% and as a result the WHO and UNAIDS are promoting it on a mass scale. http://tinyurl.com/32g7ga
Yes the so-called sexual benefits of the mammalian penile sheath. This nonsense has finally been debunked by this study: http://tinyurl.com/38bhzt . But don’t expect this carefully contrived ‘myth’ by the anti-circumcision groups to just go away, why recently they even organized and funded their own study to prove how ’sensitive’ the foreskin is. If you even read that then you would probably read and believe those studies Big Tobacco that smoking is not that harmful or that GMO foods are as safe as houses, you know what I mean?
9/11. He linked circumcision with violence and leads to “a subconscious need to attack the enemy”. This is a pattern with posts from the lunatic fringe of the anti-circumcision movement. The violence in the middle east they claim is due to circumcision of Jews and Muslims and most of the violence is the US they claim is due to the high rate of circumcision. I kid you not. But notice they say nothing about Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao. Very strange people.
August 20, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Joshua says: “The violence in the middle east they claim is due to circumcision of Jews and Muslims and most of the violence is the US they claim is due to the high rate of circumcision. I kid you not.”
Joshua has laid on attacks on the fringe anti-circumcision movement. I invite Fred Rhodes to defend this attack, and am happy to host a debate between the two of them on a separate page, if that is something they’re interested in.
I looked at another post of Fred Rhodes’ on another blog, and found that he stressed a feminine creator (sort of like Gaia, I think), and also claimed, as Joshua paraphrased, that some of his family’s deaths were resultant of circumcision. I have contacted Fred and invited him to respond on my blog, if that interests him.
On my own behalf, I would like to respond first to the fact that studies have shown that female circumcision results in, among other psychological issues (both short and long-term), paranoia and depression. Behavioral differences between uncircumcised and circumcised boys are observable, if not accompanied by tens of studies. Also, in the very article that Joshua cites, there are reported differences between sexual response in both groups of test subjects.
Also, and this I think it the most important, the foreskin of the uncircumcised subjects was NOT tested for sexual response. The glans seemed the major subject of the study. This study has received A LOT of attention. Just as arguments on the other side of this debate sometimes receive a lot of attention. Why? Because it seems that studies like these are the killer-app of either debate, effectively making up Paris’ Arrow to the Achilles of either argument.
Joshua speaks to the benefits of circumcision. He speaks more specifically to the circumcision of infants in Africa. I wonder, Joshua, do you think these people should have a choice? Do you think these infants should be given a choice (or allowed to live long enough to decide as to how they are going to protect themselves from HIV)?
If not I’m afraid we’ll have to agree to disagree. But I hope you’ll really consider my question before you blast it. Let me repeat it again, and let me add female subjects: Should men and women have the right to chose whether they are circumcised?
August 21, 2007 at 5:42 am
Joshua, The psycho in psychosexual nerve refers to psychological brain processing, the sexual is the physical, and the nerve links them together. Severing the nerves is the cause of my dysfunctions. There are no rules saying it is one or the other. There are other factors like they cut too much skin off so when I would get an erection my harry scrotum skin would get pulled up my shaft and my nuts would get pressed into my groin, adding pain to what should be pleasure. I did not know that was not normal going through puberty. As my shaft was growing through puberty, the lack of skin put tension on my glans and my pee hole split open and bled. Imagine you were my dad or I was your son and you did this to me. Infants should not be cut. Fully matured adults should only be considered.
I’m not mentally unstable, I’m just in disagreement with you. I agree that bad neonatal circumcisions can cause suicide. I agree that some of us are at risk for being genetically incompatible to traditional neonatal sexual nerve trauma that may lead to paranoid schizophrenia. I agree that causing sexual dysfunctions by severing the frenulum nerves in infants is a form of eugenics.
Here. Let me magically link circumcision to the Holocaust.
The Nazis made the men pull down their pants
and if they were circumcised they were sent to the camps.
If you look at the big picture, there is a group of people who need to promote circumcision, the have nots, and a group of people who hate it, the haves. The have nots are always trying to take what the haves have and the haves have to protect what they have from being halved off by the have nots. In the long run the circumcised attack the circumcised and the intact attack the circumcised. It causes dissension.
August 22, 2007 at 6:46 am
Mob Legend said: “Also, and this I think it the most important, the foreskin of the uncircumcised subjects was NOT tested for sexual response. The glans seemed the major subject of the study. This study has received A LOT of attention. Just as arguments on the other side of this debate sometimes receive a lot of attention. Why? Because it seems that studies like these are the killer-app of either debate, effectively making up Paris’ Arrow to the Achilles of either argument.”
Sorry to say you have fallen for the anti-circ line on this. Where is the foreskin during erection? Back down the shaft, yes? So when they tested the sensations on the shaft they were in fact testing the foreskin, yes? Importantly this study tested the erect penis (as opposed to the NOCIRC organized and funded one) which did not. A quick question… to establish sexual sensation of various places on the penis what would be the purpose in testing when the penis is flaccid?
The study also found: “No significant effect was found for pain sensitivity.” This also debunks another piece of anti-circ disinformation that the pain response is higher among those who underwent infant circumcision.
I guess the clincher for me is that it appears Kimberley Payne, the author, herself is as anti circ as they come. I quote:
“Kimberly Payne, one of the study’s authors,[...] said that she personally is opposed to circumcision, calling it “a barbaric practice.”
“I sympathize with the efforts of [the National Organization of Circumcision Information Research Centers],” she said. “I would have loved to find evidence in my study to dispel the practice, but I did not and must report the findings accordingly.”"
Now we come full circle to the quote I posted (was it here?) by Astrobiologist Gerald Soffen:
“Finding the truth even if the truth is not what you would hope for is a mixture of joy because you have found the answer and pain because the answer is not what you wanted.”
Perhaps Kimerley Payne obviously has the moral integrity to accept this, but I am not sure the people who drive the anti-male circumcision movement can accept the truth as they have years of emotional investment in the matter and will simply not be able to admit defeat. Sad state of affairs.
August 22, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Joshua,
Have you held an uncircumcised penis in your hand? Or at least seen one on TV? If you have, then you’ll know that the penile sheath moves back and forth during intercourse, exposing the glans and then covering them. Yes, it retracts, it fully retracts, but it doesn’t lock into position (hence the idea that it facilitates penetratus).
And yes, we have come full circle, because you’re ignoring my questions, and I’m left trying to field yours. So, without further ado, I’ll repeat myself:
“Do you think these people should have a choice? Do you think these infants should be given a choice (or allowed to live long enough to decide as to how they are going to protect themselves from HIV)?
If not I’m afraid we’ll have to agree to disagree. But I hope you’ll really consider my question before you blast it. Let me repeat it again, and let me add female subjects: Should men and women have the right to chose whether they are circumcised?”
August 24, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Mob Legend ties to give an anatomy lesson (and by so doing either shows ignorance or deliberately tries to deceive).
As to your first paragraph I say that I have no experienced of handling an uncircumcised penis but I am aware of the enormous variation in foreskins ( http://tinyurl.com/2q3dse ) to the extent that no generalization about the mechanics of the foreskin (like to attempt) is possible.
The supposed value of the foreskin in assisting with ‘intramission’ is also a bit of a joke. You see you can’t have it both ways … it is either merely moist with little of no foul smell or it has a build up of foul smelling rotting smegma. So if the penis under the foreskin is kept clean how much does it really contribute to intramission? Now with substantial heterosexual experience I will tell you that I have only encountered one female who really had a lubrication problem to the extent that she kept lube on hand. For the rest after fore-play there has never been any dryness on insertion. So what exactly is your point on this?
August 24, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Mob Legend asked: “Should men and women have the right to chose whether they are circumcised?”
And I ask: why single out the foreskin for special attention? Should children not have a right to whether or not to be immunized? Should children be protected from being indoctrinated into any religion or cause by their parents? Principally should children be allowed to make the decisions/choose in ALL matters which have a long term or permanent effect upon them either mentally or physically.
So I ask you what is the intrinsic value of the foreskin which overrides any religious, cultural or medical considerations relating to a parental circumcision decision?
(PS: if you are really up to a open and honest debate don’t you think you should drop the pre-approval moderation/censorship of my posts?)
August 24, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Joshua (two posts up): “So what exactly is your point on this?” My point is that the mammalian penile sheath serves a purpose, and that natural selection selected the continued genetic program that indicates the infants building of said sheath.
“(PS: if you are really up to a open and honest debate don’t you think you should drop the pre-approval moderation/censorship of my posts?)”
I use the default mode of approving comments, and your ham-handed attempt at discrediting me further does nothing for your case. I have never edited anyone’s comments obviously. Your insinuation that this debate is dishonest is insulting.
But oops! There I go actually attempting to answer your questions, where you spend most of your time dodging mine and attacking my credibility. This will be a real debate when you answer this one question:
Should men and women have the right to chose whether they are circumcised?
You answered that question by asking other questions, which didn’t answer my question? Why? Are you too afraid to take a stand on the issue?
If you read my other posts, you’ll see that I have already answered some of these questions you ask, anyway. No, I don’t think parents should indoctrinate their children into their religion. It is my belief that child be educated on religion and faith, hopefully broadly looking into many religions, and then, at the age of reason, being given a choice. In other words, I NEVER said circumcision overrode other parental decisions.
Immunization? Well, like religion, immunization is NOT circumcision. (Though circumcision is firmly rooted in religion indoctrination). I’ve already cited that I will not speak on a topic that I am not comfortable with my level of knowledge on. I even requested that Joshua e-mail me some worthwhile reading material on the issue. He didn’t. Why? Well, I’m beginning to think that it’s because he’s actually pro-immunization, and that he adores bringing up the immunization debate. He thinks that if we lump immunization in with circumcision, then we’ll start thinking about them as being equally sensible (or at least so difficult to compare that we’ll back off the circumcision topic).
Hey Joshua, we’re not talking about religion or immunization right now anyway, are we? No, we’re not. CIRCUMCISION. Let’s stay on topic and stay honest:
There have been two questions throughout this ongoing debate that you refuse to answer. We’ve both laid out our sides for this readership pretty well, I think (though I’m sure, based on your responses to my argument, that you think yours are perfect and mine are dishonest and wrong).
1) I do not ignore a potential preventative effect to genital mutilation, but I find it similar to killing a fly with grenade. What do you say for the equally effective measures of prophylaxis and hygiene? Why won’t you address condoms and soap?
2) Should men and women have the right to chose whether they are circumcised?
And, finally, thanks for your opinions, if you chose to finally deliver them.
August 26, 2007 at 4:30 am
Dear Mob Legend. I have answered you in that I have stated that male circumcision is a perfectly acceptable parental decision as a result of religious, cultural or medical considerations. So I will not be drawn into answering a question which assumes that male circumcision and FGM are two sides of the same coin. Learn to live with it.
I am unconvinced that the ‘mammalian penile sheath’ serves any purpose at all. A vestigial organ or an evolutionary vestige that has now developed into a public health risk.
The question of ‘choice’ cannot in my opinion be applied on to the foreskin. It is a principle. It the matter applies to the foreskin it should apply to immunization equally (in the physical realm) and to religion/atheism in upbringing, decisions over education and culture etc etc. I’m sorry but my position on circumcision does not start and end with the foreskin it merely flows from my position on parental consent and parental decision-making. So I may be talking about circumcision here but not to the exclusion of the ‘bigger picture’. Why do you want a narrow focus?
Anti male circumcision groups, in order to sell their dubious cause, have created the myth of a sexual function for the foreskin and tirelessly attempted to discredit any medical benefit accruing through the procedure. I see as a thread running through your posts the use of this anti male circumcision propaganda and am not sure whether it is intentional or through ignorance.
Now with time on your hands and google available you can now range freely and read up on immunization, religious indoctrination of children and parental decision making etc etc and inform yourself on these issues. It is not my responsibility to direct your education in this regard. Sorry.
You see male circumcision as a ‘big thing’ while I see it as a 20 minute procedure. So I ask you AGAIN what is the intrinsic value of the foreskin which overrides any religious, cultural or medical considerations relating to a parental circumcision decision?
Perhaps you can comment on the anti-circumcision organization NOCIRC organizing and funding a study which produced fundings which suited their agenda. Is this typically unethical behavior of the these zealots not a good indicator that whatever they say and do should be looked at very closely? Or do we go back to a quote by Bertrand Russell:
“If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.” – Bertrand Russell
December 18, 2007 at 6:37 am
“Circumcision is so costly, and so based in superstitious garbage. I am trying my best not to be alarmist, and yet I can barely contain my disgust over this matter. I know enough, now, to never, ever perform such an act on my children. I’m struck by the impulse to again compare male circumcision to female circumcision, that brutal act to which we westerners find so disturbing and grotesque.”
Amen! I agree wholeheartedly. Both men and women have a foreskin or, “prepuce”. In women, it’s the clitoral hood.
http://www.sickkids.ca/childphysiology/cpwp/Genital/genitaldevelopment.htm
http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/mgmfgm.html
Jen
http://www.intactivist.org/
February 5, 2008 at 11:27 pm
I read that test on cut and uncut mens sensitivity. It failed to observe the statice of the cut mens frenulums. As I am familial with its appearance, I can tell whose gee strings have been cut and whose have not. Not accounting for this, confounds the whole test. Did they ommit this pertainant information on purpose to distort their results in their favor? Or were they unaware of the many variations of circumcision? Or did they purposely choose cut men with frenulums still intact?
February 5, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Should anyone have the right to cause sexual nerve damage and resulting sexual dysfunction to another person against their will? The Chinese tried it with the eunuchs and it turned their dynasties asunder.
June 5, 2008 at 11:08 am
[...] the female. AKA the masculine ???Gee String??? and the feminine ???G Spot, it relays sexual arousalhttp://reimagineritual.wordpress.com/2007/08/16/circumcision-and-the-so-called-psychosexual-nerve/FEMALE CLITORIS BADBOYDOOMDADDY&39s Xanga Site – WeblogMay 25, 2008 … female CLITORIS. Many more [...]