CIN CompuBulletin Circumcision Information Network Volume 1, Number 12, 3 September 1994 1 SEPTEMBER USA TODAY, P8A: FREEDOM OF RELIGION DOES NOT SANCTION ABUSE "USA TODAY's editorial noting Supreme Court Cases concerning conflicts between religious freedom and constitutional rights, incredulously asked, 'What's next? Circumcision outlawed as child abuse?' ('Respect religious diversity,' Our view, Debate, Aug. 24). "Actually, this raised an interesting issue. Three points need to be made: "-Constitutional guarantees of religious freedom do not sanction harming another person in the practice of religion, nor the use of religion as a legal defense when one harms another. A child has a right to be free from religion and violations of body integrity. "-Circumcision causes unrecognized harm. We have several publications which document the harm reported by many men around the country who attribute emotional, physical and sexual problems to their circumcision. These conclusions are supported by professionals in the medical and mental health field. Lack of awareness, denial and fear of disclosure inhibit greater recognition of this harm. "-Child abuse is abuse regardless of the adult's intention. Though no harm may be intended, it does not change the fact that harm is done. "Since circumcision is forced upon more than 3,00 males every day, and over 90% of American circumcisions are done for non-religious reason, isn't it time for us to ask: 'Why are we doing this to our sons?'" Ronald F. Goldman, exec. dir. Circumcision Resource Center Boston, Mass. CIN Editor's note: Ron Goldman is one of many Jews questioning the practice of circumcision. He appeared on the M Pauvich show last summer and was crucified, portrayed as a nut. Such is the life of an anti-circumcision activist in the good ol' U.S. of A. INTERNATIONAL READERS RESPOND CIN asked to hear from international readers, especially from those of non-circumcising corners of the world. Following is one response from England, where circumcision rates were once comparable to those in the U.S...until the British National Health Service stopped paying for it: "Although in Britain, this mutilating operation is not done as a matter of routine, there are calls from time to time (often from women) for its re-introduction. I feel so strongly about this subject that I should be more than happy for you to use it. "She, a woman's magazine in Britain, carried an article by a female writer in the August 1994 edition which contained the following: "'...Circumcision may seem brutal, but it can have health benefits. Under the foreskin there are glands which produce a white cheesy substance called smegma. If this is not washed away it can build up and may encourage infection. The partners of uncircumcised men are slightly more likely than others to get cervical cancer.' "It is indeed sad that after so many years, since the late-1940s when Britain stopped this barbaric practice, there are those who now in a mass circulation magazine, urge the re-introduction of such mutilation. Indeed the female author of this article appears to be unaware of much about male genital organs: she advances the odd proposition that the size of the average male penis when unerect is 2 inches. Unfortunately, the magazine will be read by women and mothers-to-be who might not realise just how mis-guided this author is and how ill-informed. It would be a matter of deepest regret if Britain were to return to a mutilation at a time when North America is now waking up to the irreversible and far-reaching damage caused to millions of male infants both in the less educated parts of the world, as well as as a result of religious fanaticism and plain ignorance in such countries as the US, Canada and Australia. "As one who suffered the fashionable mutilation of neonate circumcision in the mid-1940s in Britain, I have always resented the fact that, far from being a necessary procedure, my circumcision was wholly unnecessary and has left me, because it was performed by a very junior doctor, with a penis so tightly cut that a full erection is very uncomfortable, with a scar that looks as if the operation were done with a pair of pinking scissors and which wanders up and down the shaft, with a glans which is pitted from infections contracted (my mother told me) whilst I was in diapers from which a foreskin would have protected me (so my father, a doctor, told me) and with a glans so insensitive that I have greater sensitivity in my finger-tips. In my mid-30s I finally plucked up courage (because for many years I feared further butchery to a penis which caused me so much distress from its appearance and lack of proper function) to have an broad adhesion between the glans and the shaft, caused solely by the circumcision and its aftermath, removed. "What struck me was that for a few weeks the part of the glans so exposed to touch and to the sensation of my wife's tongue and vagina was intensely more profound than I had believed possible. For the first time oral sex from my wife was something that I could actually feel in a small part of my glans. In due course, the abrasion of clothing reduced that part of the glans to the same grey, insensitive piece of flesh as the rest. "Having glimpsed for myself, no matter in so small a part of the glans and for such a brief time, how life might have been had I not been mutilated as a victim of medical fashion, my resentment and my sense of loss and loathing increased and deepened. At the age of 50 I still harbour bitter anger towards my mother for giving into the blandishments of the doctors. In recent treatment for alcoholism, this anger and the sense of being different from the rest of my family, all of whom were not circumcised, were seen as being major causes of the feelings and lack of self-worth which lead me to abuse alcohol. My sex-life with my wife has been, to her great distress, infrequent for most of our marriage because it was for me rarely a source of physical pleasure; I am now, and have been for some 7 years, almost totally impotent. I yearn to know, with a sense that I cannot convey in words, how it must feel to have a foreskin and to feel not only intercourse but even simple actions as urinating with the foreskin in its normal position covering the glans. "Incidentally, my wife contracted cervical cancer some years ago, despite my being circumcised; so she and I do not even have that so-called 'advantage' to console me for my mutilation." C.P. from London, England. (Full name withheld by request.)