Can You Believe San Francisco Might Ban Male Circumcision?

Tue, November 16, 2010 9:30am EDT by 28 Comments

iStock

First the city of San Francisco banned McDonald’s from putting toys in their Happy Meals and now there’s a proposed ban on male circumcision! Is that crazy?

Baby boys born in San Francisco may be spared the scalpel, if one man gets his way. San Fran resident Lloyd Schofield has proposed an ordinance that would make it illegal to circumcise males under the age of 18!

Sandra Bullock opens up about her son’s circumcision

If any parent decides to tamper with their baby boy’s foreskin, they face a $1,000 fine and up to one year in jail, reports the San Francisco Examiner! If this ordinance passes, the police code would be amended “to make it a misdemeanor to circumcise, excise, cut or mutilate the foreskin, testicle or penis of another person who has not attained the age of 18.”

NYC artist shows that Happy Meals don’t decay

Rest assured HollyMoms that there’s a good chance this ordinance won’t even make it on to the November 2011 ballot. It needs 7,168 valid signatures on a petition by April 26 of next year in order to appear on the ballot. We’re curious, where do you stand on the circumcision debate?

–Amy L. Harper

Get more HollyBaby news and gossip! Friend us on Facebook, Follow us on Twitter and Subscribe to our Newsletter!


Leave a Reply

To comment, please fill in the fields below, enter your comment and select the Comment button.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

View Comment

Owings

Posted at 9:32 AM on June 26, 2014  

Here’s a review and comparison of typically the most popular penis extenders on the market, and endorses specific ones for buying.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

sam

Posted at 8:09 AM on March 23, 2011  

This is a personal decision. Only the person who OWNS the organ should decide whether it should be removed or modified.

Amputation or partial amputation is a last resort in medicine, not a prophylactic. How this simple rule managed to bypass the practise of routine infant cutting is beyond me.

A LARGE number of physicians will not subject their own children to this procedure, they know it is unnecessary and risky at best. Yet many parents are not advised by their dr of the risks or downsides to it. Nor are they told just how much money the surgeon earns by doing circs, or that their son’s prepuce could well be SOLD and used in research. It’s a very lucrative business, and THAT is the only reason it continues…. Nothing to do with the health or wellbeing of babies, boys or men.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

MichaelWarriorOfLove

Posted at 5:19 AM on March 16, 2011  

Circumcision is not only mutilation; it’s also child torture, extreme child abuse and disgusting human vivisection. This crime should have been outlawed already 6,000 years ago. Bravo San Franciscans for being among the first ones to take action to also protect our boys from this bloody and painful human rights violation. May this enlightenment shine all over the world so other countries that still are deceived by this ancient evil will wake up and follow your example! Thank you Lloyd and the immensely growing number of Intactivists in this world that work so hard on waking up the blinded. We will not rest until all children, boys and girls, will be protected all over the world. May all children be entitled to keep their genitals intact so they can grow into a world with love and peace instead of being taught fear and sexual violence from the beginning! May all people deceivers that preached, promoted and committed this disgusting crime lay down there knives and torture clamps now before our outrage and anger against them will escalate into unforeseen dimensions!

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

AJ L.

Posted at 7:19 AM on March 15, 2011  

It is so unnecesary! The baby feels pain and is forever traumatized by it, even if they dont realize WHY they are traumatized! Its not something Drs recommend, nor the AAP. DoctorsOpposingCircumcision.org is also a great resource. The US, along with Africa, are about the ONLY countries IN THE WORLD who cir’c our babies. The rest of the world doesnt have half the diseases as wide spread we do. The forskin is there for a reason. It is there to protect, to shield from infection. At the VERY least, leave it up to the owner of the penis, the boy himSELF!

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

James Mac

Posted at 5:29 AM on March 15, 2011  

Parents don’t ordinarily allow strangers to interfere with their children’s sex organs.

Parents don’t ordinarilly allow strangers to slice healthy living flesh from their children’s bodies.

Odd some parents will allow a stranger to to BOTH these things to their children – - and even PAY them to do it!

Bizarre…

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Lexi

Posted at 7:10 PM on March 12, 2011  

Yes, it’s absolutely mutilation. There is NO PURPOSE for it. Same as female gm.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Ken

Posted at 3:30 PM on March 12, 2011  

Circumcision is genital mutilation. It has no proven health benefits and not a single medical academy in the world recommends it. Freedom of religion doesn’t grant you the right to harm another individual, and holding a baby down and painfully excising part of his body is most certainly a harm.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Barefoot Intactivist

Posted at 9:07 AM on March 12, 2011  

Ban it, immediately. Sexual mutilation is a crime. It makes no sense to classify genital cutting by GENDER instead of SEVERITY. Male genital mutilation and female genital mutilation are the same damn thing if you bother looking into the facts. Male circumcision can be deadly, and in 100% of cases removes the most sensitive part of a man’s penis. I support the San Francisco ban and hope the country and the world follow suit.

~Barefoot Intactivist

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

AnnD

Posted at 8:38 AM on March 12, 2011  

So hoping this ban goes forward and the rest of the country follows suit.

Female genital mutilation was made illegal in this country and so should male genital mutilation.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Greg

Posted at 4:38 AM on March 12, 2011  

Search The Whole Network and Intact America and Circumstitions circumcision is genital mutilation.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

mixtapes

Posted at 1:24 AM on March 12, 2011  

Drop-side cribs are recalled and companies go out of business because around 30 kids have died from it. Over one hundred infant boys die A YEAR from circumcision. What is wrong with this picture?

It is not my right, nor any other parent’s right, to make the lifelong decision to permanently alter a child’s body. 70,000 nerves exist in the foreskin – a significant amount of feeling. This is unacceptable. It is my son’s body, and it’s his right to make changes to it as he sees fit. It is not my decision, nor yours.

If men and women have equal rights in this country, why are we still allowed to forever damage the most sensitive part of our little boys but it’s wrong to do it to girls? It needs to be illegal all the way around.

Condoms prevent HIV, not circumcision. HIV wouldn’t be so rampant in this country if circumcision prevented the virus.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Jim

Posted at 12:47 AM on March 12, 2011  

That’s great for people in San Francisco to try to protect the rights of babies. Hopefully the ban will pass, and hopefully that will set a precedent that many more cities and even states will follow.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Me!

Posted at 12:03 AM on March 12, 2011  

About time! Mutilation is mutilation…whether it’s because of tradition, religion or bogus health reasons!

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Glen

Posted at 12:01 AM on March 12, 2011  

I have my foreskin and I am grateful to my parents for refusing to let the doctor cut off the most sensitive parts of my penis when this was an almost-unquestioned social norm. Infant circumcision rates are falling because most people today know that cutting a healthy baby is unnecessary and unethical. It doesn’t matter if you think God wants you to cut it off, or if you think it’ll reduce his HIV risk… it’s HIS body, so HE has the right to decide for HIMSELF if he doesn’t want his foreskin for whatever reason. Simple as that. If girls have a right to 100% of their sex organs, than so do boys. Equal rights, and equal protection under the law!

Over 80% of the men on this planet have their foreskin, are perfectly happy and are not complaining. The Europeans think the American obsession with circumcision is insane…. and they’re right.

Someday the mutilation of all children (not just girls) will be illegal not just in San Fran, but across the country. I hope I live to see it. Peace.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Pat

Posted at 11:51 PM on March 11, 2011  

If males are supposed to have foreskins, they’d be born with them. …Oh, wait, they are.

I fully support the ban.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Joel

Posted at 11:49 PM on March 11, 2011  

I don’t use the word “Mutilation” because I feel that implies that there is something other than positive intent by parents.

Instead, I would say that circumcision is the permanent and painful removal of healthy, normal, sensitive, functional erogenous genital tissue from someone who is incapable of giving their personal, informed consent.

Unnecessary cosmetic surgeries that removes thousands and thousands of nerve endings like those found in the fingertips and lips do not justify parental proxy-consent. The medical/hygiene motivations have been disproved, which is why national medical organizations around the world are clear – the practice is NOT recommended.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Craig

Posted at 11:42 PM on March 11, 2011  

Physical integrity is the the fundamental right to ones own body, a right that was repeatedly violated with the implementation of mass industrialized, non-consenting, non-therapeutic male infant circumcision in the Unites States. A wide range of surgical complications occur in 2-10% of the cases.(1) Since there are approximately 120 million circumcised men in the United States today, it stands to reason that there are millions of men who suffer daily from the effects of these botched circumcisions. These are the men who can benefit most form the work at Foregen.

Many Americans are surprised to hear that circumcision (the surgical removal of the foreskin) is uncommon in the western world. Foreigners are often shocked when they first hear that the practice of circumcision even exists in the United States. Circumcision was first introduced in the United States by an anti-sexual Victorian initiative which began during the 1830’s. Numerous publications from the 1830’s to times even as late as the 1970’s had advocated for circumcision as a means to prevent masturbation, and permanently desensitize the penis.(2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12)

Circumcision advocates quickly moved on to manufacture a number of outrageous health claims. These claims were tailored to the fears and anxieties of the day. Circumcision has been claimed to cure epilepsy, convulsions,? paralysis, elephantiasis, tuberculosis, eczema, bed-wetting, hip-joint disease, fecal incontinence, rectal prolapse, wet dreams, hernia, headaches, nervousness, hysteria, poor eyesight, idiocy, mental retardation, insanity, strabismus, hydrocephalus, clubfoot, cancer, STD’s, UTI’s, ect.(13) Doctors were eager to claim that they could cure many of these aliments,conditions and diseases because there were no treatments available then. Even though all of these claims have been throughly discredited, circumcision has remained a solution in search of a problem ever since. Many Americans are surprised to find out that female genital cutting (FGC) shares a strikingly similar history in the United States.(5,14,15,16,17,18,19) FGC was even covered by Blue Cross Blue Shield until 1977. Nowadays, many forms of FGC are now considered forms of female genital mutilation (FGM), which are banned in all western countries.

Perhaps the most shocking fact is that circumcision continues to be practiced in the United States even though no official western medical organization in the world recommends it. The Royal Dutch Medical Society, The British Medical Association, the Canadian Pediatric Society, and the Royal Australian College of Physicians have all made official policy statements against circumcision. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Urological Association all do not recommend circumcision, and are also in agreement that there are no proven benefits.

For some reason this information is not making it to parents. Studies have shown that doctors provide parents with almost no accurate or useful information about circumcision. One study showed that 40% of parents believed that their doctors failed to provide enough information, 46% reported that their doctors failed to give them any medical information at all, and 82.8% of parents regretted their decision they made within the first six months of their son’s life.(20) Another study found that physicians were less likely to circumcise their own sons.(21) This suggests that doctors are very well aware that circumcision is a non-therapeutic surgery (in short, a ritual); but they do not appear to share this knowledge with parents. A busy physician can supplement their income by as much as $60,000 per year from circumcision surgeries alone.(22) This incentive can cloud a physician’s judgment when it comes to providing parents with information about circumcision.

Many parents are surprised to hear that anesthetics are used in only a minority of cases.(23) The use of local anesthetics significantly drives up the costs of surgery. When anesthetics are used, they can only reduce the pain. Infants can not be given general anesthesia because of the medical risks involved. In the recent past, anesthesia was rarely used, if ever. Because of this, circumcision has always been an extremely traumatizing experience causing an array of short and long term behavioral problems, including altered perceptions, and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)(24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35), and a possibly self destructive behavior(36,37). Many circumcised men, some of whom are doctors, experience a strong denial of loss which in turn fuels an emotional compulsion to repeat the trauma to normalize their loss.(38,39,40,41,42)

What is the foreskin? is a question that many Americans would have trouble answering. Information about the foreskin is virtually absent during discussions of anatomy in biology classrooms, and yet, the foreskin provides a well-documented set of crucial sensory, protective, immunological, hygienic, and sexual functions. The foreskin is a double fold of skin that is twice as big as its appearance. It can make up to 80% or more of the penile skin covering, and includes around 12-20 square inches of skin (the size of a 3×4 or a 4×5 index card!)(43,46), and in turn includes a specialized sheet of dartos muscle(44)

One of the functions of this mobile skin system is to glide up and down the shaft of the penis in order to facilitate non-abrasive stimulation during sexual activity without any need for artificial lubricant. This frictionless gliding mechanism is the principal source of stimulation for the intact penis and facilitates non-abrasive intercourse.

The neuro-anatomy of the penis has been rigorously studied by respected anatomists of all kinds. The component tissues that comprise the foreskin are richly innervated with the greatest quantity and variety of sensory nerve endings than any other part of the penis.(45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53) Many people are surprised to discover that the glans or “head” of the penis is actually the least sensitive part.(46,52,53)

To no surprise, this information was corroborated in a 2006 study which measured the sensitivity of all the parts of the penis. Researchers used an extremely sensitive pressure sensing probe while each test subject, whose view was blocked with a screen, reported a sensation of touch. To demonstrate precision they took each measurement multiple times. The results were statistically consistent. They concluded:

“Five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision were more sensitive than the most sensitive location on the circumcised penis[...] The glans in the circumcised male is less sensitive to fine-touch pressure than the glans of the uncircumcised male[...]The most sensitive location on the circumcised penis is the circumcision scar on the ventral surface [...] When compared to the most sensitive area of the circumcised penis, several locations on the uncircumcised penis that are missing from the circumcised penis were significantly more sensitive.”(53)

The foreskin, like the eyelid, also serves an important set of protective and immunological functions. The foreskin protects the delicate glans of the penis and puts the urethra at a distance form its environment protecting it from foreign contaminants of all kinds. While simultaneously shielding the penis from injury. The foreskins inner fold and the glans of the penis are comprised of mucous membrane tissue. These are also present in your eyes, mouth, and all other bodily orifices including the female genitals. These mucous membranes perform many immunological and hygienic functions. Certain components such as Langerhans cells(54), plasma cells(55), apocrine glands(56), and sebaceous glands(57), collectively secrete emolliating lubricants(58) rich in enzymes such as lysosomal enzymes, cathepsin B, chymotrypsin, neutrophil elastase, immunoglobulin, and cytokine(59,60) whose function is to sequester and “digest” foreign pathogens. The foreskin is also responsible for the production, retention, and dispersal of pheromones such as androsterone(61). In time we will discover even more information about the foreskin and its functional components.

The intact penis is naturally clean and maintains a level of hygiene that is optimal when compared to a penis that has been altered by circumcision. In fact, a myriad of rigorously controlled studies performed by objective researchers among racially and socioeconomically homogeneous study groups in developed urban settings have shown that circumcision is either often associated with an increased risk of bacterial infections, viral infections, and major STD’s, or no significant diffrence. (62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73).

Needless to say, circumcised men have been denied normal bodily functions associated with anatomically correct genitalia. Foregen is working tirelessly to restore physical integrity and emotional wellbeing to circumcised men who desire genital intactness. Visit Foregen.org and dontate to support the cause.

Refrences:
(1)Williams, N; L. Kapila (October 1993). “Complications of circumcision”. British Journal of Surgery 80 (10): 1231-1236.
(2) Lallemand C-F. Des Pertes Seminales Involontaires, 3 vols. Pasis: Becht Jeune 1836, 1839,? 1842. Vol1.,pp.463-1: vol2., 70-162; vol. 3,.pp266-7,280-9
(3) Dixon EH. A Treatise on Diseases of the Sexual organs. New York: Burgess, Stringer & Co. 1845. pp.158-65
(4) Moses MJ. The Value of circumcision as a hygienic and therapeutic measure.? New York medical journal 1871 Nov;14(4):368-74
(5)Kellogg, J.H.? (1888). “Treatment for Self-Abuse and Its Effects”. Plain Facts for Old and Young. Burlington, Iowa: F. Segner & Co. Plain Facts for Old and Young (1881 edition) at Project Gutenberg
(6) Hutchinson J. On Circumcision as preventive of masturbation. Archives of surgery 1891 Jan;2(7);267-9
(7) Remondino PC. Negro rapes and their social problems. National popular review 1894? Jan;4(1) 3-6
(8) Cockshut RW. Circumcision. British Medical Journal 1935 Oct 19;2(3902):764
(9) Guttmacher AF. Should? the baby be circumcised? Parents Magazine 1941 sept; 16(9):26,76-8
(10) Miller RL. Snyder DC. Immediate circumcision of the new born male. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1953, Jan;6 (1):1-11
(11) Fishbein M. Sex hygiene. In: Fishbein M(ed). Modern Home Medical Adviser. Garden City, New York Doubleday& Company:1969. pp. 90. 119.
(12) M. F. Campbell, “The Male Genital Tract and the Female Urethra,” in Urology, eds. M. F. Campbell and J. H. Harrison, vol. 2, 3rd ed. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1970),1836.
(13) F. A. Hodges, “Short ?History of the Institutionalization of Involuntary Sexual Mutilation in the United States,” in G. C. Denniston and M. F. Milos, eds., Sexual Mutilations: A Human Tragedy (New York: Plenum Press, 1997), 35.
(14) Robert Tuttle Morris, M.D. Is evolution trying to do away with the clitoris? American Association of OB/GYNs Vol.5, 1892, pp.288-302
(15) T. Scott McFarland, M.D. Circumcision of Girls. Journal of Orificial Surgery. Vol.7,July 1898,pp.31-33
(16) Benjamin E. Dawson, A.M., M.D. Circumcision in the Female: Its Necessity and How to Perform it. American Journal of Clinical Medicine. Vol.22, No. 6, June 1915, pp.520-525
(17) Belle C. Eskridge M.D. Why not circumcise the girl as well as the boy? Texas State Journal of Medicine Vol. 14, May 1918
(18) Mc Donald, C.F., M.D. Circumcision of the female. General Practitioner Vol. 18 No3, Sept 1958, pp.98-99
(19) W.G. Rathmann M.D. Female Circumcision: Indications and a new Technique. General practitioner Vol. 20, No.3, Sept 1959, pp.115-120
(20) Adler R, Ottaway S, Gould S. circumcision: We have heard from the experts; now let’s hear from the parents. Pediatrics 2001 Feb;107(2):E20
(21) Topp, S. (1978, January). Why not to circumcise your baby boy. Mothering, 6, 69-77.
(22) Fleiss, Paul M.D. What your Doctor May Not Tell You About Circumcision. Warner books. New York. Sept 2002.
(23)Stang , M.J., & Snellman, L.W. (1998). Circumcision practice patterns in the United States. Pediatrics, 101(6)
(24)Gunnar MR, Fisch RO, Korsvik S, Donhowe JM. The effects of circumcision on serum cortisol and behavior. Psychoneuroendocrinology 1981; 6(3):269-75.
(25) Porter FL, Miller RH, and Marshal RE. Neonatal pain cries: effect of circumcision on acoustic features and perceived urgency. Child Dev 1986;57:790-802.
(26) Gunnar MR, Connors J, Isensee, Wall L. Adrenocortical activity and behavioral distress in human newborns. Dev Psychobiol 1988;21(4):297-310.
(27) Anders TF, Chalemian RJ. The effects of circumcision on sleep-wake states in human neonates. Psychosom Med 1974;36(2):174-9.
(28) Marshall RE, Stratton WC, Moore JA, et al. Circumcision I: effects upon newborn behavior. Infant Behavior and Development 1980;3:1-14.
(29) Marshall RE, Porter FL, Rogers AG, et al. Circumcision: II effects upon mother-infant interaction. Early Hum Dev 1982; 7(4):367-74.
(30) Lee N. Circumcision and breastfeeding. J Hum Lact 2000;16(4):295.
(31) Anand KJS, Hickey PR. Pain and its effects in the human neonate and fetus. New Engl J Med 1987;317(21):1321-9.
(32) Boyle GJ, Goldman R, Svoboda JS, Fernandez E. Male circumcision: pain, trauma and psychosexual sequelae. J Health Psychol 2002;7(3):329-43.
(33) Taddio A, Katz J, Ilersich AL, Koren G. Effect of neonatal circumcision on pain response during subsequent routine vaccination. Lancet 1997;349(9052):599-603.
(34)LaPrairie Jamie L. Murphy Anne Z. Neonatal Injury Alters Adult Pain Sensitivity by Increasing Opioid Tone in the Periaqueductal Gray. Front Behav Neurosci 30 September 2009.
(35) Rhinehart J. Neonatal circumcision reconsidered. Transactional Analysis J 1999;29(3):215-21.
(36) Van der Kolk BA, Perry JC, Herman JL. Childhood origins of self-destructive behavior. Am J Psychiatry 1991; 148;1665-71.
(37) Jacobson B, Bygdeman M. Obstetric care and proneness of offspring to suicide. BMJ 1998; 317:1346-49.
(38) Van der Kolk BA. The compulsion to repeat the trauma: re-enactment, revictimization, and masochism. Psychiatr Clin North Am 1989;12(2):389-411.
(39) Goldman R. The psychological impact of circumcision. BJU Int 1999;83 Suppl. 1:93-103.
(40) Maguire P, Parks CM. Coping with loss: surgery and loss of body parts. BMJ 1998;316(7137):1086-8.
(41)Hill G. The case against circumcision. J Mens Health Gend 2007;4(3):318-23
(42)Goldman R. Circumcision policy: a psychosocial perspective. Paediatr Child Health 2004;9(9):630-3.
(43) See photographic series in: lander MM. The Human prepuce. In: Denniston GC, Milos MF (eds). Sexual Mutilations: a human Tragedy. New York: Plenum Press; 1997. pp.79-81
(44)Jefferson G. The peripenic muscle; some observations on the anatomy of phimosis. Surgery, Gynecology and Obstetrics 1916 Aug;23(2):177-81.
(45) Moldwin RM, Valderrama E. Immunohistochemical analysis of nerve distribution patterns within preputial tissues. J Urol 1989 Apr;141(4):499A. (abstract)
(46) Taylor JR, Lockwood AP, Taylor AJ. The prepuce: specialized musocsa of the penis and its loss to circumcision. Br J Urol 1996 Feb;77(2): 291-5
(47) Dogiel AS. Die Nervenendigungen in der Haut der ausseren Genitalorgane des Menschen. Archiv fur Mikroskopische Anatomie 1893:41:585-612
(48)Bazett HC, McGlone B, Williams RG, Lufkin HM. Depth, distribution and probable identification in the prepuce of sensory end-organs concerned in sensations of temperature and touch; thermometric conductivity. Archives of Neurology and psychiatry 1932 Mar; 27(3):489-517
(49) Ohmori D. Uber die Entwicklung der Innervation der Genitalapparate als peripheren Aufnahmeapperat der Genitalen Reflexe. Zeitschrift fur Anatomie und Entwicklungsgeschichte 1924;70(1):347-410.
(50)Halata Z, Munger BL. The neuroanatomical basis for the protopathic sensibility of the human glans penis. Brain Res 1986 Apr23;371(2):205-30.
(51)Winkelmann RK. The Cutaneous Innervation of the human newborn prepuce. Invest Dermatol 1956 Jan;26(1):53-67
(52)Winkelmann RK. The erogenous zones: their nerve supply and significance. Mayo Clin Proc 1959;34(2):39-47.
(53)Morris L. Sorrells, James L. Snyder. Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis . BJU 2006 Oct:22, pp. 864-869
(54) Weiss GN, Sanders M, Westbrook KC. The distribution and density of Langerhans cells in the human prepuce: site of diminished immune response? Isr J Med Sci 1993 Jan;29(1);42-3
(55) Flower PJ, Ladds PW, Thomas AD, Watson DL. An immunopathologic study on the bovine prepuce. Vet Pathol 1983 Mar;20(2):189-201.
(56)Ahmed A, Jones AW. Apocrine Cystadenoma: a report of two cases occurring on the prepuce. Br J Dermatol 1969 Dec; 81(12):899-901.
(57)Hyman AB, Brownstien MH. Tyson’s “glands”: ectopic sebaceous glands and papillomatosis penis. Arch Dermatol 1969 Jan;99(1):31-6
(58)Parkash S, Jeykumar S, Subramanyan K, Chaudhuri S. Human Subpreputial collection: its nature and formation. J Urol 1973 Aug 110(2):211-2
(59) Ahmed AA, Nordlind K, Schultzberd M, Liden S. Immunohisto chemical localization of IL-1 alpha-, IL-1 beta-, IL-6- and TNF-alpha-like immunoreactivities in human apocrine glands Arch
(60) Frohlich E Shamburg-Lever G, Klesses C. Immunelectron microscopic localization of cathepsin B in human apocrine glands. J Cutan Pathol 1993 Feb;20(1):54-60
(61) Cohn BA. In search of human skin pheromones. Arch Dermatol 1994 Aug; 130(8):1048-51
(62)Dermatol Res 1995;287(8):764-6Smith GL, Greenup R, Takafuji ET. Circumcision as a risk factor for urethritis in racial groups. AM J Public Health 1987 Apr;77(4):452-4
(63) Bassett I, Donovan B, Bodsworth NJ. Male circumcision and common sexually transmissible diseases in a developed nation setting. Genitourin Med 1994 Oct;70(5):317 -20.
(64) Bassett I, Donovan B, Bodsworth NJ, Field PR, Ho DW, jeansson S, Cunningham AL. Herpes Simplex virus type 2 infection of heterosexual men attending a sexual health sentre. Med J Aust 1994 Jun 6:160(11);697-700
(65) Van Howe R. Does Circumcision Influence Sexually Transmitted diseases?: a literature review. BJU Int 1999 Jan;83 Suppl 1:52-62.
(66) Laumann EO, Masi CM, Zuckerman EW. Circumcision in the United States: prevalence, prophylactic effects, and sexual Practice. JAMA 1997 Apr2;277(13):1052-7
(67) Dickson NP, Van Rood T, Herbison P, Paul C. Circumcision and risk of sexually transmitted infections in a birth cohort. J Pediatr 2008;152:383-7.
(68) Cook LS, Koutsky LA. Holmes KK. Clinical presentation of genital warts among circumcised and uncircumcised heterosexual men attending an urban STD clinic. Genitourin Med 1993 Aug;69(4):262-4
(69) Van Howe, Robert S. (May 2007). “Human papillomavirus and circumcision: A meta-analysis”. Journal of Infection 54 (5): 490–496.
(70) Dinh, T.H.; M. Sternberg, E.F. Dunne and L.E. Markowitz (April 2008). “Genital Warts Among 18- to 59-Year-Olds in the United States, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999–2004″. Sexually Transmitted Diseases 35 (4): 357–360.
(71) Van Howe, R.S. (January 1999). “Circucmsion and HIV infection: review of the litarature and meta-analysys”. International Journal of STD’s and AIDS 10: 8–16.
(72)Amir J. et al. Circumcision and Urinary Tract Infections in Infants. Am J Dis Child (1986), vol. 140, p. 1092.
(73)Prais D. Shoov-Furman R, Amir J. Is circumcision a risk factor for neonatal urinary tract infections? Arch Dis Child Published Online First: 6 October 2008.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Ebony Phoenix

Posted at 11:09 PM on March 11, 2011  

YAY for a ban. It’s about time. Boys should be protected from mutilation just like girls. I hope it passes and spreads throughout the country.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Grace

Posted at 11:07 PM on March 11, 2011  

It’s a step in the right direction! 100% of baby boys are opposed to circumcision! His body, his choice.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Kim S.

Posted at 11:05 PM on March 11, 2011  

Good! It should have been banned along with female genital cutting in 1996.

I’m all for religious freedom….til it require altering a child. Altering your son’s body because of YOUR religion takes his choice of religion as an adult. What if a boy has no desire to be Jewish? He’s left with permanent physical scars and is missing a vital piece of his genitals! Let the owner of the penis make up his mind in adulthood as to what he wants.

My husband is circumcised simply because that’s just what was done in the mid-west when he was born…he isn’t happy about it. We are keeping out son due in June whole just like nature intended him to be!

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Lauren Stone

Posted at 10:47 PM on March 11, 2011  

YES! It should be banned. We protect girls from even the most minor genital cutting. But we offer up our sons to ripped and cut and robbed of up to 75% of their penile nerves. THAT is CRAZY! Teach him how to wash, teach him to use a condom and teach him that you, his parents respect his sovereignty as a human being. Circumcision is painful, dangerous (approx 200 US boys die per year from it) and completely unnecessary. It violates their most basic human rights. It violates the 1st and 14th Amendments. Any doctor who performs routine infant circumcision is violating their Hippocratic oath. HIS BODY. HIS CHOICE.
Circumcision is nothing more than an archaic social custom that needs to come to an end. TAKE THE WHOLE BABY HOME ?

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Cyn

Posted at 9:41 PM on March 11, 2011  

It’s way past time that this genital mutilation is outlawed. Baby girls are protected from ANY form of genital cutting (even the ritual ‘nick’, which is FAR less invasive and damaging than what is done to baby boys); this protection is unconstitutional, for it denies boys the right to equal protection under the law.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

RobertB

Posted at 2:51 PM on November 18, 2010  

Good for San Francisco! Circumcision is horrible and completely unnecessary. Worried your boy won’t be clean? Get off your lazy butt and teach him the proper way to pull back his NATURAL foreskin and clean himself. Think it leads to cancer? Show me the proof! And I too have seen many circs done in hospitals, all done with minimal (if any) sedation or pain relief, all causing the baby to arc their back off the contraption they’re STRAPPED DOWN to, all causing them to scream in horrible pain and hold their breath. And not once have I seen a parent in the room while this is happening. Want to mutilate your child? Then you should have to watch the whole ugly show.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

maria

Posted at 8:03 AM on November 18, 2010  

It is also fairly fictitious to show a crying infant as the picture for this article.Most babies receive pain relief and when properly soothed by their parent do not become hysterical.And yes i have seen a baby circumcised in person and not on youtube.There is way too much personal bias and personal opinion to allow a ban like this to take place.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Lauren Stone

Posted at 11:13 PM on March 11, 2011  

Maria, I wonder if some topical anesthetic and ‘comfort’ from someone would be enough for YOU if you were strapped down and someone was cutting off bits of YOUR genitals? Most circumcision is done WITHOUT pain relief. If you have watched a circumcision in person and you feel it’s okay or even worse, something you would recommend, then I say you have no soul or human compassion. Circumcision is completely unnecessary. So even if pain management were possible, why on earth would you do that to a baby?

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

maria

Posted at 7:57 AM on November 18, 2010  

I imagine if circumcision is banned in San Francisco they will start losing citizens.It is absolutely self righteous and judgmental for those who call it mutilation.What is fascinating is this is taking place before the CDC comes out with their new data which has been said seems to show circumcision being more beneficial then previously thought, very fascinating.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Lauren Stone

Posted at 11:09 PM on March 11, 2011  

Oh please! CONDOMS and safe sex prevent STD’s. No amputation required. All the supposed benefits have time and time again been proven false.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Paula

Posted at 1:03 AM on March 12, 2011  

It IS already banned in SF. For girls. you can’t even prick their genitals for a few drops of blood for a religious ceremony…but you CAN amputate a healthy part of a baby. yeah. THAT makes total sense. What happened to equal rights?

And, look up mutilation in the dictionary. That is exactly what people are doing to baby BOYS.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter