Customer Reviews

Circumcision: Frankly Speaking

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(33)

 

 

As a man who was born and raised in Europe, I was astounded (and horrified) to find out that circumcision is the most commonly performed surgery in the United States. European countries do not circumcise their boys. Neither do non-Muslim Asians or Latin Americans. In fact, the only places on earth where the majority of babies are circumcised are Israel, the Muslim countries, certain primitive tribal groups, and the United States. We Europeans consider the amputation of normal, natural, sexually important tissue from non-consenting infants to be child abuse and genital mutilation. It is totally unnecessary and unethical. So, when my daughter and her husband found out they were expecting a boy, since they live here in the U.S., the issue of circumcision naturally came up. Had we been living in Europe, this issue would not even have been a consideration. We purchased Frankly Speaking hoping to find out why circumcision is so popular in this country. What we found was nothing more than rationalizations for a cultural phenomenon very similar to the rationalizations presented by those societies who circumcise their girls.

Space does not permit a detailed recounting of the misinformation, cultural superstitions and blatant falsehoods--all masquerading as medical fact-- contained in this book. One illustration will have to suffice. On page 8, the authors say, "Cleanliness of the area is at the heart of much of the debate about penile care." To any rational, logical, non-superstitious person, soap and water is the correct recommendation for cleanliness, not amputation. The idea that the male penis is so filthy that the foreskin must be amputated, as the authors insist, instead of merely cleaned with warm water as you would a woman's genitals, is one of the most ludicrous ideas I have ever heard. No wonder Europeans, Asians and others consider the U.S. a culturally backward and often barbaric country.

We were very disappointed with Frankly Speaking. We had hoped for accurate, up-to-date information to help us decide whether or not to circumcise our expected boy, but really only found pro-circumcision propaganda. This book, (actually a 96 page pamphlet), is really nothing more than an attempt to talk unsuspecting parents into having their son circumcised. Filled with factual errors such as ("the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends newborn circumcision," when in fact it does not,) outdated information (recycled penile cancer research from the 1930s!, which we later discovered on the web was refuted by the American Cancer Society ), and blatant misinformation (that the foreskin is "vestigial," when in fact we found that there has been research over the past ten years proving its protective and neurological value to sexual sensation). The authors seem to be mere shills for the 1.5 billion dollar a year circumcision industry.  Any parent would be far better off going on the web, as we did, and searching the many circ sites found.  We found two excellent books called "Say No to Circumcision" and "Circumcision Exposed," which, unlike "Frankly Speaking," are truthful about their anti-circumcision stance. These books are also available from amazon.com

After researching circumcision resources on the Internet I read this book to see how its information compared to other sources. It did not fare well in light of current research which is readily available online.

The book's views seem antiquated when compared to the vast majority of recently published reports on the subject. It appears that the author is attempting to promote his religious views disguised as medical rationale. I suggest seeking other sources for comparison before making a decision about having a child's body surgically altered by circumcision.

Despite millions of years of evolution which have determined that all mammals, both male and female, have a prepuce or foreskin to enhance protection and sexual enjoyment, it is amazing to read a book such as Frankly Speaking which essentially says that nature made a big mistake when it came to the human male. This mistake, of course, is the male foreskin which, according to the authors, if left in place without amputation by circumcisers charging big bucks, will result in a whole litany of ills. In fact, on page 10 of this book the authors state categorically that "the Academy currently recommends circumcision of infants to prevent health problems." This is totally untrue. On March 1st of this year, the American Academy of Pediatrics, after studying circumcision for over two years and reviewing all the medical research done during the past 40 years, concluded that amputation of the male foreskin could not be justified on medical grounds and the Academy did not recommend this surgery. In fact, the AAP has NEVER recommended circumcision and their latest statement simply aligns the Academy with every other national medical association in the world. So I was shocked to read this blatant falsehood in Frankly Speaking. I was also amused to read that anyone who does not endorse circumcision is considered to be part of a handful of vociferous, anti-circumcision fanatics. I'm sure the AAP will be astounded to know they must form part of this fringe element. It is, however, only the beginning of false statements, incomplete information and blatant falsehoods found in this small book.

One more example will have to suffice. In chapter 4 of Frankly Speaking the authors begin their explanation on pain to reassure parents that their infant son will not suffer. They make the amazing assertion on page 38 that, "newborn nerve receptors are not fully developed and they do not feel what we adults have come to know as 'pain'." One of the findings of the new AAP taskforce was that infants do indeed feel a great deal of pain and that if parents are going to have their son's genitals cut, eventho the AAP does not recommend it, the circumciser should use some form of pain relief. According to the AAP, "Considerable new evidence shows that newborns circumcised without analgesia experience pain and stress measured by changes in heart rate, blood pressure, oxygen saturation and cortisol levels. Other studies suggest that the circumcision experience may cause infants to respond more strongly to pain of future immunization than those who are uncircumcised."

Of course, Frankly Speaking was published before the AAP report was released so perhaps the authors now have second thots about recommending a surgery that their own peer organization does not. But given the obvious distortions of truth found thruout this book, I suspect these facts would not change the author's minds.

When discussing circumcision, one should first and foremost understand the target of circumcision... the delicate genitals of a human child. Male circumcision attacks the most exquisitely sensitive part of the male anatomy. Female circumcision may expand beyond this primary target to adjacent tissues which are less sensitive but equally vital. The intent and result of both male and female circumcision is to deprive the individual of normal levels and range of pleasure while still allowing for procreation. The male prepuce (foreskin) is designed by nature to provide multiple beneficial functions throughout the lifetime of the male. Several circumcision information organizations present web sites, books, research and recently published articles which explain the functions and benefits of the prepuce in detail. Historically, circumcision has been promoted as preventing gout, club feet, epilepsy, cancer, masturbation, urinary tract infections, chorea, sexually transmitted diseases and a host of other afflictions. Typically, the afflictions in vogue medically at the time are touted as being prevented by slicing off and throwing away (or clandestinely selling) the infant prepuce. The simple fact that the vast majority of the world's male population (85%) have their genitals intact as nature intended, and live perfectly healthy lives, soundly refutes these deceptive medical claims. The human species would not exist today if their sex organs were somehow faulty by design. It causes one to wonder if there are darker motivations driving those that profit from cutting the sex organs of children. Natural intuition and logic tell you that cutting the healthy living flesh of an infant is harmful on many levels. The rationales for circumcision put forth in this book have been refuted by numerous current scientific studies. Like old wives tales, the myths and misinformation surrounding circumcision linger on. Contemporary medicine is catching up to common sense and is now understanding that amputating part of a child's sex organs is detrimental. The benefits of keeping children whole as they were born, far out weigh any perceived improvements made with scalpels, clamps and crushing tools. The legal system has already outlawed the genital mutilation of females (female circumcision) because of its human rights and medical ethics violations. Outlawing the genital mutilation of males (male circumcision) will be next for the same reasons. The well informed reader can only wonder at the fetish-like obsession of continuing to promote the circumcision blood ritual under the guise of medical practice as this book attempts to do. In the face of modern day understanding, the content of this book appears to be nothing more than an attempt by someone living in the past mentally to try to persuade others to join him there by perpetuating antiquated concepts. The child's right to body integrity supercedes any perceived right by physicians, parents or religion to usurp that sovereignty.

Like others who have reviewed this book, I am a urologist. I purchased Frankly Speaking in the hopes it would be a good guide to give my patients who were contemplating circumcision for their child. Unfortunately, I cannot recommend this book. Filled with factual errors, half truths and simple hokum, it only presents the pro-circumcision side while ignoring the many arguments against this procedure.

The authors assert that the human prepuce or foreskin is nothing more than "vestigial, even useless, tissue." This view is profoundly wrong. The foreskin is, in fact, the most sexually sensitive part of the penis, and the primary covering for the glans which is normally an internal organ shielded by the foreskin from abrasion, drying, and callousing, and keeping it uncontaminated by dirt. The foreskin comprises approximately half of the smooth muscle sheath called the dartos fascia; most of the erotogenic nerve endings on the penis, including the densely innervated ridged bands; specialized epithelial Langerhans cells, an immune system component; thousands of coiled fine-touch receptors, including the Meissner's Corpuscles; ectopic sebaceous glands that lubricate and moisturize; the entire immunological defense system of the soft mucosa, which may produce antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as lysozyme, the same as found in mother's milk, and plasma cells which secrete immunoglobulin antibodies; lymphatic vessels, the loss of which interrupts the lymph flow within a part of the body's immune system; the frenulum, a sensitive tethering structure on the underside of the penis rich in erotogenic nerves; the pheromone producing apocrine glands; 50% or more of the total penile skin, which when amputated, radically desensitizes and immobilizes the remaining shaft skin; the foreskin gives the penis the ability to "glide." If unfolded and spread out flat, the adult foreskin measures 15 to 20 square inches, the size of a postcard. All this specialized skin gives the natural penis the anatomically unique ability to smoothly "glide" within itself - which allows non-abrasive intercourse without drying out the vagina; several feet of blood vessels, including the frenular artery and portions of the dorsal artery, the loss of which interrupts normal blood flow to the shaft and glans of the penis, potentially reducing its growth and damaging its function; an estimated 240 feet of microscopic nerves including portions of the dorsal nerve; and, most importantly, between 10,000 and 20,000 specialized erotogenic nerve endings of numerous types, which can discern slight motion, subtle changes in temperature, and fine gradations in texture.

Does this sound like "vestigial, useless, tissue"? Certainly no one who has studied the anatomy of the penis would think so. And this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to biased, unscientific information contained in this book. I cannot recommend it at all.

We bought this book hoping that it would provide our family with helpful information for this difficult decision. The authors certainly know how to put on the "hard sell" but this put us on our guard. Almost nothing in this book is of real medical value. The authors say that they are doctors, but they come across like used car salesmen. The obvious bias of the authors, the failure to present the other side of the issue in a responsible manner, and the use of obvious scare tactics left me with a bad taste in my mouth. Anyone seeking objective information and balance would be advised to look elsewhere. The book earns one star only because it serves as a model of high pressure sales tactics.

When anthropologists look back at the twentienth century, certainly they will find the ritual of surgical alteration of the genitals in newborns to be odd, if not barbaric. In their searching for the madness behind this practice, this book will provide helpful information. It highlights the psychology that allows an intelligent individual to perpetuate the unthinkable.

The book is short, clearly written, and easily understood. The content is not supported by a single reference, nor is there a suggested reading list for the reader who would like more information.

Much of information provided is either inaccurate, biased, or fabricated. As Dr. Weiss is an articulate long-time advocate of circumcision, I expected much better from him.

If the reader is looking for a more accurate assesment of circumcision, read the statement by the Canadian Paediatric Society published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal or by the American Academy of Pediatrics in their journal Pediatrics.

Weiss has been writing in minor journals for years, extolling the virtues of circumcision for all manner of health benefits. The book is essentially a tract, not a balanced account of anything.

The medical community has been vigorously, no, frantically researching and surveying for data to support routine infant circumcision since the days when they made the mistake of jumping on the Victorian idea that there was something bad about enjoying sex. They only begrudgingly allowed that procreation was somewhat pleasurable. Everyone informed about human anatomy knew that cutting off the prepuce of a boys penis would greatly diminish his sexual enjoyment for life. Why do books like this even debate the possibility that such an operation on a healthy, normal organ could have truely benificial effects.