This is an article about a subject that I hold dear, it's more important to me than naturism, but I don't understand why more naturist don't jump in and help to protect what is natural.



Midwifery Today, Issue 81, Spring 2007

Foreskins for Keeps: An Idea Whose Time Has Come, by Gloria Lemay.
Contributing Editor Gloria Lemay tells about her path to ending
circumcision by January 2008.

One Woman's Path to this project

I was genitally mutilated when cut by a scalpel when giving birth at
17
years of age. It was called an episiotomy and it was "routine" for
women 40 years ago That painful surgery led me to the homebirths of my
next two children because I knew that cutting genitals was wrong. Back
then, women didn't have scientific studies or evidence, we simply knew
it couldn't be right and we didn't have to prove it. Years later, a
large randomized controlled study at B.C. Women's Hospital (1) proved
what I and thousands of other women always knew. Episiotomies do
harm..

Circumcising boys

I have two intact brothers and one cut brother. My mother always
regretted having her last son circumcised because "the doctor said it
was best". My youngest brother had the misfortune to be born at the
height of the Canadian circumcision epidemic in 1957 and the covering
of
his sensitive glans was stripped from it with no anesthetic, crushed
and
amputated.

When I started midwifery practice in the 1970s, it seemed a natural
part
of the gentle birth movement to protect infant boys from unnecessary
pain by opposing circumcision. I found that most couples could not see
any point in cutting their sons with the rare exception of practicing
Jews and Muslims. Even with religious clients, I would do my best to
talk them out of circumcision because I felt that someone had to warn
them that their baby would be bloody, sore and fussy for days after the
operation.

One father of a premature boy wanted to circumcise his tiny 5 pound son
because he felt it was the right thing to do. He had been circumcised
as an infant and thought this was the preferred status for a man. I
was
able to "educate" him out of the idea and this is a story about that
little boy that took place 18 years later:

" I was at a coffee shop and this woman came up to me and inquired
"Gloria?" I didn't know who she was and she explained to me that I had
attended her homebirth 18 years before. The story started to come
together for me. I think I didn't recognize her because I had only met
her once before she gave birth to her son. The woman had had a
heart-shaped uterus and she gave birth at 34 weeks (6 weeks early).
They
insisted on birthing at home and basically told me they would go
unassisted if I didn't come to the home. The birth went well, baby
weighed about 5 lbs and we pumped the colostrum and dropper fed him for
a while but baby thrived. I had a place on my chart where I was
prompted
to ask "Will your son's penis be left intact?" but I hadn't gotten to
that question before they gave birth. I was shocked to find out on Day
3
that the father was making plans to circumcise this tiny little guy. I
tried everything I knew to talk him out of it but he was adamant that
it
would happen. I even threatened to bring out the really nasty colored
pictures that I had. He came right back with his intention to get very
nasty with me if I persisted in obstructing him. I was just sick about
it. Finally, I dropped off on their kitchen counter a very "bland"
pamphlet from our local hospital that really didn't take a position
about circumcision pro or con. I don't, to this day, know what hit that
father as a mind changing piece of information but, when I came back
for
the next postnatal visit, he had transformed! He told me that, after he
read the pamphlet, he had decided to speak to his own parents about his
anger at being cut.

Anyway, 18 years later there I was in a coffee shop with the mother and
that boy. He's a big, good looking man now. The mother said to her son
"This is the lady who delivered you and you should thank her for giving
you your life." He, of course, didn't know what to say to that but he
offered his hand for me to shake. I said to him "No, I didn't deliver
you and I didn't give you life---you and your Mom figured all of that
out by yourselves. What I would like you to thank me for is your
foreskin because I went to bat for you when your Dad thought you should
be circumcised and that part wasn't easy." He looked me in the eyes and
really understood what I was saying and gave me a big "Thank you." That
was a moment!

MIRACLES UNFOLDING

For 27 years, I have been working locally and admiring national women
leaders like Marilyn Milos, R.N.( founder of NOCIRC):, Jeannine Parvati
Baker (author of "Hygiea" and "Prenatal Yoga"), Barbara Harper
(Waterbirth International) and Nancy Wainer Cohen (author of "Silent
Knife" and "Open Season".). These women take every opportunity when a
microphone is in their face to speak up for baby boys. I believed that
they were much more qualified than I to speak
publicly against circumcision. I also was very intimidated by not
wanting to step on the toes of religion. Then, in Sept 2005, I
enrolled
in a course called "Causing the Miraculous". In this course, we were
instructed to think about something that we would consider a miracle
and
what came to mind for me was the end of circumcision in my lifetime.
The idea of having this barbaric insanity end forever became so
compelling that I stepped into a huge and impossible/possible promise
(after all, if you can dream it, it's possible) " Foreskins for
Keeps---an Idea Whose Time Has Come. The end of circumcision by
January
1, 2007." Just the thought is scary, intimidating and this is a
project
that has expanded me beyond my known limits.

I let the midwives on the Midwifery Today Forums know what I was
thinking and asked them the following questions:

"What if 2006 was a year of intense action to end infant circumcision
world wide? What if we read a headline in 2007 that said "Infant
Circumcision Abolished"? What if no one even knew who or what caused
it?
What if there were magical, synergistic incidents that couldn't really
be explained but led to the end result that baby boys kept their
foreskins for keeps?

What would you give to have that happen in your lifetime? What part
would you have loved to play? What sort of world would we have if we
came to a peaceful and graceful end of the circumcising? What new
problems could future generations take on because this one was no
longer
an issue?"

Asking questions is amazing. It begins a process in the minds of
others
where their creative powers are unleashed. One of the replies I
received inspired me even more.

"Azores wrote: How amazing if the earth's people didn't suffer
immediately after the jolt of birth, coming from such peaceful
tranquility to this. If in 2007, male infant circumcision were
abolished- my heart would beam with exhilaration. Then I'd say "OKAY!!
now let's deal with female circumcision!" because that is when the woes
of circumcision will finally end.
If no one knew who or what caused it? I'd believe that a powerful
spiritual force truly existed, and loved us.........or maybe aliens?
Just kidding.
What would I give to see that happen in my lifetime? Hmm...If I knew
that taking a few years off of my life, and dying sooner meant no more
circumcision- I'd do it. Then, I'd thank every single star every single
night for shining so brightly, because my hope and faith in a higher
good would be restored.
Which part would I love to play? I'd hope to be one of many (together,
making up a much larger force). That is, if human action had any
involvement (which I guess could be through prayer?).
What sort of world would we have? Our world would be one of... anything
is possible. A possibility that other issues could be resolved just as
peacefully and gracefully.
Which new problems could future generations take on? More human rights
issues. Mass unnecessary birthing intervention, the no-no subject,
slavery, Abandoned newborns left to die. Suicide in pregnant mothers,
suicide, murder, rape, child abuse, and many more.
If this were no longer an issue? I'd believe that anything could
change,
and that all ugly issues had a fighting chance of resolving."

This brainstorming with my sister midwives took me further afield. I
needed to find out who was interested and active and who my partners
would be. This took me into domains on the internet that I never knew
existed and has introduced me to the giant "Salvation Army of
Foreskins" in cyberspace. I had no idea about many things that were
happening in the intactivist movement----the restoring community, the
active participation of gay men in the movement, the lawyers and
friendly doctors----all this was news to me. As a birth activist, I've
been so used to clashing with doctors that it took awhile to realize
that I had a terrific resource in "Doctors Opposing Circumcision".



On December 1, 2005, the world lost Jeannine Parvati Baker. When she
could barely talk, I told Jeannine it was okay for her to go because we
would see her dream of ending circumcision through to the completion
and
I promised her it would happen sooner, not later. Everything I do to
further this cause, I do in tribute to Jeannine and Marilyn Milos who
were there before anyone else.

CANADA AS A LABORATORY FOR WHAT WORKS



Ending circumcision has been an exercise in "think globally and act
locally". I believe that the province where I live, British.Columbia,
can be a model of what can be accomplished in other jurisdictions.
Canada still has a long way to go in ending circumcision. We have had
one province, Manitoba, which has stubbornly refused for years to take
circumcision off the publicly funded medical plan. In November 2005 a
baby boy received a circumcision by mistake in a Manitoba hospital. A
whistle blower in the hospital called the press and the government of
Manitoba has now joined all the other Canadian provinces in dropping
circumcision as an insured service. We still have work to do to close
the private clinics that have sprung up throughout Canada but the
pressure is building to abolish them, too.



In the summer of 2006, a man who had been circumcised at 8 years old
in
a religious residential school for orphans obtained $12,000 from the
health insurance plan of B.C. to have a plastic surgery replacement of
his foreskin. This is an important landmark in ending circumcision in
Canada. When physician's groups and government bureaucrats can see the
writing on the wall that men who have suffered this human rights
violation will take action to be compensated in adulthood, all of the
traditional excuses and justifications for circumcision will no longer
be tolerable. More and more men will get the courage to come forward
and share their anger at having unwarranted, irreversible, mutilating
surgery without their own consent.

MIDWIVES MAKING THE DIFFERENCE

The end of circumcision is within view. Every midwife across North
America can make a big difference by educating others in her community,
standing up to the doctors who resist the end of this barbaric practice
and protecting the boys that are born into her hands. There are
resources available on the internet that are free and easily
duplicated. Many, many organizations have put in place the brochures,
posters, videos and advertising that make ending circumcision easy.
The
first place to visit for resources is NOCIRC http://www.nocirc.org
Doctors Opposing Circumcision has an excellent teaching film for
medical
students on their website. This can be downloaded and used for
teaching
students midwives the importance of the male prepuce.
(WMP, streaming)
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/prepuce.html

(WMP, download)
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/video/Circumcision_WM7NTSC_256k_D.w
mv

Here's some comments from midwives who have viewed the video.

>Very very informative. A keeper for me.
>V.
>
> Thank you for forwarding this. This fits in perfectly with my
midwifery
> reproductive physiology course and I have passed it on to my fellow
> students
> Carol-Anne Brockington
> www.TheBirthDen.com

>This was fantastic.Thank you very much.Very informative.
>
>Ana Markel
>
The Midwifery Today website has a forum for sharing ideas about ending
circumcision. Please add your voice to the discussion of strategies
and
ideas to protect our boys. http://www.midwiferytoday.com


Gloria Lemay is a teacher of midwifery in Vancouver, BC, Canada. She
is
the mother of 3 daughters, and has one grand daughter. She is an
advisory Board Member of the International Cesarean Awareness Network
and a contributing editor of Midwifery Today Magazine. In 1998, she
was
nominated for the YWCA "Woman of Distinction" Award. She is the 2002
recipient of the "Women's Voice Award" from CHOICES Ontario and the
2004
"Mothers and Midwives Award" from Waterbirth International. She lives
in Vancouver, BC and wants her tombstone to read:

Gloria Lemay---she spoke up for babies.

Now that is what I call very determined!

My question on the dangers of circumcision, would it be just as dangerous to get it put back on? And will it be just as good or plyable as the original? I can see having an opposable thumb replaced since it would be a very useful "tool", but isn't getting a foreskin put back on just a tad on the extreme side since it can be just as damaging and not guaranteed to work?

Boyd

Surgical restoration is not recommended by those that speak the loudest for not circumcising and foreskin restoration. However, having said that, non-surgical foreskin restoration comes highly recommended. All this involves is stretching the remaining penile skin until the glands is once again covered (a process that takes 2-4 years if done consistantly)

"Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised." I Corinithians 7:18

"For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love." Galatians 5:6

I was circumcised as a baby. Being born in the late 1950s, I suppose it was according to common practice, a day or two after my birth--too soon, according to Biblical standards. It's hard for me to judge whether I have any lingering physical or spiritual difficulties because of this; however, I have never felt deprived, and my reproductive organs function normally as far as I can tell, although I've never had my fertility tested. (My former wife had had her tubes tied before we married; the way things didn't work out, it was just as well. I wouldn't want to become a father now anyway; I couldn't keep up with the child.)

Female "circumcision" is a true genital mutilation that should be stopped at once if at all possible; yet male circumcision is not so bad. Why would God have commanded it at all if it caused permanent harm? Especially since one of the Levitical requirements was that "He that is wounded in the stones [testicles], or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD." (Deuteronomy 23:1; you get the feeling the LORD isn't as prudish as many contemporary Christian leaders.) Still, I am for making it the parents' choice, and for reinstating the eighth-day standard.

I'm thankful I'm not circumcised. I can't see what purpose it serves. The only time it should be done in my opinion is for health reasons.

It is obvious that it is no longer required in the Bible. Health reasons probably is indeed the no. 1 reason. All a boy would have to do is make sure to clean under the skin thoroughly. I myself am circumcised, I like the way my penis looks better than uncircumcised ones. I have had mine for a little over 31 years, so I guess I'm sort of 'attached' to it!? Maybe, Greg.

a little mix up in the previous post!

Actually, Greg, it's attached to you. I see very few men who are not circumcised. It makes me a little self-conscious about being "different"--especially when I see men who would be envied by a stud horse.I guess it's still widely done--at least in the US.

"Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised." I Corinithians 7:18

"For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love." Galatians 5:6


Keep in mind that these verses are there to explain to the Church that circumcision is not needed for a spirtual sign, for circumcision is for the Jews and not the Gentiles. The issue was that some of the Jews were telling the gentile Christians that they NEEDED to be circumcised to be a Christian, as a work of their salvation. Which of course you can't work to abtain your salvation so whether your circumcised or not, it doesn't matter spiritially. However, this topic is about the physical plane to which those verses don't apply since these restorers are not trying to work for their salvation.



"I am for making it the parents' choice"

What about the mans choice? He's the one that has to live with being mutilated (yes it is, look up the definition) I've personally had some very serious issues in the aftermath of the american circumcision (not to be confused with the Jewish circumcision) I have partially restored myself to date, just to bring an end to very painful and bleeding erections.

If any man chooses to be circumcised when he comes of age, so be it, but why is it tolerated that these people are not allowed the respect and honor to choose for themselves? If it's not harmful, why shouldn't parents be allowed to tattoo their children? remove toenails? After all it's a parents choice. I hope you can see the absurdity of this. Of these three, the only one that severes the nerves is circumcision.

Parents do other things to their babies before they're even old enough to decide for themselves--like having a baby's ears pierced. I would call that child abuse. Circumcision should be abolished except for medical reasons or when someone is old enough to decide if he wants it.

I was reading about the response of christians being told they had to be circumcised to be saved. I have done a church study on grace and we covered this topic. I have to laugh! Right now I have to pray, preach, beg, cry, and do whatever it takes to get men to accept Jesus. If cutting on their willie was part of the deal, the curch would be a lot smaller. I'm glad it's not that hard.
happy2beadam

PS: We had a youth Easter play last night and 4 people accepted Jesus! The kids did a great job!

AMEN!!!!


Glad to hear about those coming to salvation, that's what it's all about.

Daniel

Being born in the same time period I was also circumsised. For some reason that practice, like so many other things a society latches on to, caught hold and was promoted by doctors. I wonder if it was to pad their bills a bit with unneeded proceedures. Not knowing anything different I can't comment on if I'm missing snything. I'm perfectly happy with my penis and my wife enjoys it, too (LOL). It serves a porpose and works well. If I was caused any trauma becaue of it as an infant, I certainly don't remember. I've had enough other problems in my life and haven't thought about what may have been.

Biblical circumcision was apparently done for health reasons, as was the basis of many of the Levitical laws back then.

We had a guy in Vietnam who had a really green growth underneath his foreskin. Doc sent him to be circumcised. It was a painful thing for him to go through. We medics treated him through the healing process later.

I was supposedly circumcised, but it wasn't done completely. As of the time I was drafted, I really couldn't pull the foreskin back. After, with lots of sex during leave times from the army (with my wife), it retracted and became stretched enough to where I could retract it.

I think it's a good idea to have it done. If I had a baby boy, I'd have it done to him.

Ralph

"Biblical circumcision was apparently done for health reasons, as was the basis of many of the Levitical laws back then."


I don't buy this argument because it presumes that God made a mistake in his creation. If foreskins were a detriment to a mans health, that would have been taken care of on creation day. Of all of God's creatures that have penis's it's only the human species that get's "repaired" by circumcision.

Your right that the basis of many of the Levitical laws are for health reasons, and they are proved by scientific research today, circumcision is an exception to this rule. I've studied the Levitical laws in the past and could never find the physical benifit for circumcision, where in the eating of clean meats has a spiritial and physical benefit. This leads me to question whether circumcision was actually a command of God, but rather mans idea of making a statement back to God.

Peter and Paul went through no small effort to show that there is no spiritial benefit to physical circumcision in the new testament Church. Although not part of the cannon, I understand that in the book of Thomas it says that Jesus spoke out against circumcision. Whether he did or not is anybodies guess, but I wouldn't be suprised knowing what he did say in the Gospels. There was a huge contrast to what man thought God was saying in the old testament and what Jesus said. We can look back and ask "why couldn't they see it" but we forget that we know more of the story than they did.


"I think it's a good idea to have it done. If I had a baby boy, I'd have it done to him."

Somebody else made that choice for me, I really do have a hard time dealing with forgivness to this man that cut me. Many men today hate the fact that they wasn't allowed the due respect to have been given the oppertunity to make that choice for themselves. Some of them would probably get their foreskin amputated anyway, but the choice is theirs to make.

Daniel

By the time a child is old enough to make that choice, believe me, it would be a very rare thing to have done! I have heard of young men (adults) who made that choice thinking its something they have to do then walk around for a week very very sore wishing they listened to their friends!

Now, here is MY "theory" about why the circumcision...:

Man hid from God in fear and covered himself. God was saying in affect: "You think you can hide, but I am going to get you where you feel the most vulnerable and let you know I own it and no matter how much you hide or cover up, I got you!"

That is as close to a ritual amputation as you can get without, as Paul puts it, cutting the whole thing off! Just enough to get the point across and let them know God owns them.

God reveals their vulnerability, cuts their pride, and forces them to trust him. Like a knife thrower at a carnival or circus and a pretty lady up against a wall. Trust, vulnerability, pride. Its all there in one whack.

Which is a good reason why we do not observe this today, for God does not treat us like slaves or cattle, but like friends. Even though Jesus bought us with a price, he gave us our freedom and made us friends. We are not "owned" in this way. But we must be willing and give ourselves in this way, like a husband and wife.

That is why I am concerned about why married couples are fearful of being nude around each other. They treat each other as strangers and not allow themselves to be vulnerable around each other. There is no trust, just pride, with fear.

Naturism says I trust you and I am glad you trust me.

How much do we trust God? The early Christians (and many do today) trust God with their very lives, literally, and gave it all on pain that is far worse than circumcision for the Lord.

Boyd Allen
"May the Lord protect our nudity from the sight of those who will not benefit, and may he allow us to be seen by those who will."

Well, I am one who chooses NOT to be circumcised. I am perfectly capable of pulling the skin back to wash under it. I do that often since as a nudist I shower frequently.

They want to increase the number of men who get circumcised in Africa, because there's a 60% less chance (by their say-so) of getting AIDS compared to non-circumcised. It also said that in regions where circumcisions are common there is a much smaller incidence of AIDS than in other regions.

Personally, if a person is hygenic I don't see where it should make a differance.

Like the (apparently) majority I was circumcised as a baby, and I have no problem with that. I like the clean look, and it's low-maintenance...

God Bless
Kevin

I don't know enough about Aids, but that sounds baffling. Would the foreskin hold in the HIV virus more? I thought that once it infected you, that was it and it didn't matter how long it touched you.

How about teaching people to stop having random sex? Or how to use a condom? I know teaching about condoms isn't politically correct and the religious right doesn't believe in anything but abstinence, but I'm not sure if cutting men up is the answer either. Cutting something OFF might help, but only the foreskin? I don't know. Maybe someone knows more about this than me.

If they want to find out something thats good for you, they would take years of research before they would acknowledge something "might" be good for you. But something like this? Looks like trouble is about to begin.

If they do this, I hope they won't get much of a fight from these guys.

BTW, it's really not high maintenance. Easy to clean.

Boyd

I think the main problem is that a lot of non nudists don't clean themselves DOWN THERE. The guy we saw with the green growth underneath it certainly wasn't.

Think there was a story about a woman on Stories of the ER who hadn't been cleaning herself DOWN THERE and had her hair all terribly matted from her monthly menses having dried up in it and all. They had a time getting her all cleaned up.

Imagine the pair of them having sex. No telling what each could be carrying in that mess of non maintenance.

Ralph

I don't know if he ever got over it, but I have a grandson who wouldn't touch himself while using the bathroom and would get urine all over the place. What is this problem some people have with touching themselves?

That same article gets printed periodicly. The actual article is several years old and keeps getting reprinted every time that anit-circ bills comes before the state and federal governments, the article gets printed and the bill never makes it to the floor. Apparently somebody is more concerned with protecting promiscuity than protecting children from unneeded medical proceedures.

Daniel