Man Sues Hospital Where He Was Born For Circumcising Him 28 Years Ago

A prison inmate in South Dakota just became aware that what he has down there was tampered with as a newborn. He’s not happy that he was circumcised 28 years ago, and is now suing the hospital where he was born, claiming the procedure robbed him of his sexual prowess.

The man values said prowess at around $1,000 in compensatory and punitive damages, says the Associated Press. In addition, he’d really like it if his foreskin could be restored “in the hopes I could feel whole again,” noting that he realizes anything like that won’t be more than aesthetic.

He’s currently in jail serving time for a kidnapping conviction, giving him plenty of time to file the federal lawsuit. The suit claims an “unknown doctor” misled his mother into thinking the procedure was a medical necessity.

“I was recently made aware of the fact that I had been (circumcised) and that … I was robbed of sensitivity during sexual intercourse as well as the sense of security and well-being I am entitled to in my person,” he argues in the lawsuit, adding that his sex life was lacking due to the procedure.

The prison where he’s incarcerated has already said they won’t be the ones paying for any kind of restoration.

US man’s lawsuit says circumcision ‘robbed’ him [News-Leader]


Edit Your Comment

  1. OMG_BECKY says:

    I hope he wins.

    • chefboyardee says:


    • catskyfire says:

      I hope he loses.

      • StarKillerX says:

        yep, and when he does they should cut the rest off for wasting the the court’s time and all of our tax dollars.

    • david.c says:

      What? Stupid suit that only drives up health care costs. This is actually one of the main reasons (litigation) that health care is so expensive.

      So, you might want to think twice about advocating merit-less lawsuits

      • Bladerunner says:

        Strictly speaking, this may be meritless due to say, statute of limitations issues, however, it’s not prima facie meritless on concept…for many years docs performed a completely unnecessary and at least mildly mutilating (w/ proven negative effects) procedure, that doesn’t sound meritless to me.

        • LabGnome says:

          Well, it also has the burden of proof that a doctor misled his mother into the procedure. Not only that but I think they would have to also prove that he misled purposefully? Not sure if that is a requirement for the compensatory and punitive damages, as I am not a big town city lawyer though.

          • Bladerunner says:

            Right. But we’re talking whether this is just meritless on its face, and I would say that, while he’ll likely lose and probably has no case, what little info we have doesn’t establish that.

        • CTrees says:

          I just want to say, if I have any sons? I’m going to have them circumcised as infants.

          • Bladerunner says:

            Not sure why you felt the need to respond to my comment with that…but I would ask “why would you do that?”

          • imasqre says:

            If I ever have a son, I will never have him circumcised. There is absolutely no reason for it and it will make sex more enjoyable in the future. People who arbitrarily chop off baby parts “just ’cause” is ridiculous and barbarian.

            • Velifer says:

              FYI, increased sensitivity in the male isn’t really what makes for more enjoyable sex. Very few partners like a minute man.

              • imasqre says:

                I don’t think you know what women like, based on that statement.

                • Velifer says:

                  Your insanity makes me smile.
                  get a vasectomy though, as soon as you can.

                  • imasqre says:

                    I am a female, Sherlock.
                    If you want to believe your butchered penis is better than a natural born man, then you are deluded. Having experienced both, you either need to dabble in some homosexual activity so you can know what you are talking about or just accept you were cut up as a baby and your sex life is now sub-par.

                    • chargernj says:

                      You have some pretty stong opinions for someone who has no “skin in the game” so to speak. (sorry, I couldn’t resist)

              • imasqre says:

                Sensitivity is VERY different from stamina. FYI

            • chargernj says:

              Do you have any actual proof that sex is better for the man when he is uncircumcised? Not having a penis yourself, I have to assume that it’s just your opinion.

              Maybe it’s better for you, but again, that’s your opinion, and a subjective one at that.

              • Bladerunner says:

                Proof has already been posted elsewhere on these comments. It’s also pretty easily available on the internetz.

                • chargernj says:

                  See the thing is that you can never really prove this particular point. Every single bit of data on the topic is based on subjective opinion.

          • Jawaka says:

            Me too. and to add to that I’m very happy that my parents chose to have me circumcised as an infant. I’ve seen pictures of uncircumcised penises and they look horrid.

            I’d also like to add that almost every woman that I’ve met seems to feel the same way. It seems that women who are used to a circumcised penis are also ok with an uncircumcised one where a woman who isn’t used to one will run for the hills when they encounter one.

            • Bladerunner says:

              It’s wonderful that you can make choices that will affect the rest of your child’s life based on “well, I liked it”.

              • richcreamerybutter says:

                Did you see the part about her husband being happy with his intact member? I’m not sure why you’re implying that circumcision is a default state for all men when the uncircumcised seem to be just fine with theirs.

                I’d never want to make a man feel bad over what happened to him as an infant. However, when cut men get so defensive as to try to prove why their members are “better,” I feel compelled to add that any woman worth keeping will love your parts in either condition.

            • FigNinja says:

              I’m a woman who has been with both and, frankly, when they’re *ahem* ready to go, they look pretty much the same.

              I don’t want to make anyone feel bad about their bits. If you love a man, you love what he has. Personally, I would never have my son altered. My husband is very happily intact himself.

            • Jane_Gage says:

              I hope I have a girl, but if I have a guy I’ll leave his thing in its sleeping bag. How cute!

      • ldillon says:

        Isn’t it the (usually) medically unnecessary procedure of circumcision that’s driving up healthcare costs?

    • imasqre says:

      I seriously hope he does too. I despise the social norm that is circumcision and if I was a man and realized what had been done to me when I was a baby without my consent, (on my “manhood” no-less) I’d feel violated and upset.

      • rmorin says:

        I despise the social norm that is vaccinations. They were done without my consent when I was younger. They injected my with tetanus toxin and FORMALDEHYDE when I was a child. It was barbaric.

        Oh wait. Circumcision is a medical choice with risks and benefits. Medical choices are made by parents. Deal with it.

        • iblamehistory says:

          No benefits to circumcision, actually. Go ahead and try to find actual evidence that each “benefit” you believe in is not just fear mongering.

          It’s not a medical decision that parents make. It’s mutilation and modification of a person’s body without that person’s consent.

          • rmorin says:

            Yeah, heh, those wackos at the “CDC” (whatever that is!) seem to think so:


            • imasqre says:

              If you actually truly believe this drivel (a 4 years old report), I don’t even want to get into a conversation with you. It has all been disproved. Research a bit more. Honestly, good hygiene is the only thing, I plan on teaching my child to wash thoroughly.

              • rmorin says:

                I’m sure the research has been disproven by many people at CIRCUMCISIONKILLS.COM or whatever fake health site you used to make your decision. Is that you Jenny McCarthy?

                If you knew anything about health research, then you’d know clinical guidelines are only updated about once every 5 years. There would not be enough changes to reserach to warrant it otherwise.

                Finally I hate to be the internet tough guy, but I am a RN who has worked in LDRP, and I never had a single doctor I worked with advocate not getting circumcized. Instead they present the parents with the risks, the benefits and let them choose. Which is the whole point. You don’t know better then other people imasqre, you’re not a special snowflake. People should be able to make there own healthcare choices for their children and not bow to pressure from self-righteous people like yourself.

                • profchaos79 says:


                • imasqre says:

                  I don’t read ridiculous websites trying to find tidbits of information from people just to prove my argument.

                  First of all, you have no idea what I know so step off the soapbox. People like you are the ones that keep these ridiculous things in their mind bc they can’t see the facts for themselves.

                  I will NEVER dismember my child. That is his decision to do that. Pls keep arguing, it seems you have been doing this all day but it doesn’t change the fact cutting of part of a child is ok. Ever.

                  You must be circumcised yourself. And you should be pissed about it. Bc you have no idea what your parents made you miss out on.

                  • rmorin says:

                    First of all, you have no idea what I know so step off the soapbox. People like you are the ones that keep these ridiculous things in their mind bc they can’t see the facts for themselves.

                    I bet I know more then you. In fact, I bet I am better informed about nearly any health topic. See I am actually in a field site collecting research right now, working on a Doctorate in Nursing. Data comes back infrequently, so I have time to perruse the internet. (It’s why I’ll be active for hours at a time and then gone for days on this and other sites)

                    But see despite my (verifiable) superior knowledge, I’m never going to advocate making decisions for you. I think you are an adult, and if you want to get your kid circumcized, more power to you, if not I’m not going to bat an eye. Your families healthcare choices are your business, not mine. See though unless you are a self-righteous idiot, you understand that works both ways. Do not advocate for people to have there choices taken away because you do not like them.

                    • imasqre says:

                      I’ll take that bet any day. :D

                      It’s funny bc I don’t NEED to tout my degrees or work experience. I can hold an argument without trying to prove how “big I am”. Which it seems men who were circumcised without their consent need to do. Especially based on this subject. Lucky for you, the puritan roots of this crazy country have no idea what your penis is supposed to look/act like. And that’s what sucks for all of us.

                    • rmorin says:

                      Naw, I’m pretty sure you do not know what you are talking about.

                    • imasqre says:


                      You’re just a rude and insulting boy puffing out his chest with nothing to show for it.
                      Good luck.

                    • Jaynor says:

                      Could this possibly be due to a lack of them?

                    • Bladerunner says:

                      For the record, not to step into an argument or anything, but this: ” Do not advocate for people to have there choices taken away because you do not like them.” – is laughable. That’s exactly what you’re advocating, by removing the child’s future self from the equation. The parents get all the say in the rest of their kid’s life, you say? What a wonderful nurse you must be!

                  • Thalia says:

                    Your misuse of the term dismember is disturbing. Though I’m glad you do not intend to dismember your child, since that tends to be rather fatal.

            • Tedicles says:

              yes, there is a report. Funny how when you look at the bibliography almost all of the citations come from either Africa or other under-developed areas. So for them, maybe there is a medical benefit….but not in a world where we have showers, soap, etc.

            • nearly_blind says:

              Sure it may have beneficial effects, but so what! Cutting body parts off often reduces disease. You could save thousands of men’s lives every year by removing one testicle at birth. This would cut testicular cancer in half.

        • imasqre says:

          You should talk to your parents about that then. At least they didn’t cut off a part of your genitals for……. some reason. Vaccinations are to prevent disease. Please explain to me the point of cutting off a day old boy’s foreskin.

      • Tacojelly says:

        I’m a man, and I’m circumcised, and I’m very glad my mother (a pediatrician) had it done to me as a child.

        No person circumcised as a child remembers it. Anyone circumcised as an adult usually has to deal with an excruciating healing period.

        There are very clear hygiene issues that can prevent as well diseases.

        And finally, I don’t buy this sensitivity nonsense for a minute. I don’t think anyone can speak to that with authority one way or another; you either know what it’s like with foreskin or you don’t. And really, do men need more sensitivity?

        • imasqre says:

          You can’t “buy the sensitivity nonsense for a minute” bc you don’t have an uncircumcised penis. (and as a woman……. I prefer a man as he was supposed to be). If you did, you’d advocate for not butchering babies straight out of the womb.

    • Mrs. w/1 child says:

      Me too. If he wins hospitals will hopefully fear a lawsuit enough to have one less way to hurt people in pursuit of profits.

    • Anna Kossua says:

      I hope he wins, too.

      BUT… I hope his kidnapping victim sues him for at least $1001 and wins: “They stole his foreskin, but he stole all of ME!”

    • MeowMaximus says:

      I hope this ridiculous lawsuit gets laughed out of court, and the inmate gets some extra time for wasting the court’s money.

    • soj4life says:

      Because we should reward stupidity? Also this will drive up healthcare costs even more.

  2. AllanG54 says:

    I would think, though I’m not sure, that the hospital would have needed his parents’ permission to do the circumcision. So, I would suspect his lawsuit would be against his parents and not the hospital. But what do I know.

    • Bladerunner says:

      “The suit claims an “unknown doctor” misled his mother into thinking the procedure was a medical necessity.”

      • longfeltwant says:

        Yes. Filings say lots of things. Can he substantiate any of that?


        • Bladerunner says:

          True, but the original point was “So, I would suspect his lawsuit would be against his parents and not the hospital.”
          If he’s claiming the doc lied (likely because that’s what his mom said), then the hospital would be the damaging party, not the parents as the OP stated.

    • Hi_Hello says:

      but the doctor might have lied to his mom about the procedure

    • Bakkster says:

      Depends on the hospital, some of them simply assume every newborn boy will be getting circumcised.

      • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

        Our hospital had several consent forms. I’m guessing they’re trying to avoid lawsuits like this.

  3. Bladerunner says:

    Oh, I’m sure this debate is going to be well-reasoned and polite…

  4. Marlin says:

    Being that he was a minor at the time, unless his parents are also on the lawsuit, it will be tossed.

    He needs his mom to testify to what the doctor said and the doctor would have to have said something that was not standard medical practice at the time for the suit to have any chance.

  5. sufreak says:

    From ladies I’ve talked to, they prefer the snipped vs unsnipped choice. Like the prisoner, I wasnt given a choice. But I’m rather thankful for it.

    $1000? I’m pleasantly surprised by the low amount. But why does he values his ‘prowess’ so low.

    • Leksi Wit says:

      Women probably prefer snipped b/c that is the societal norm in the US, but it the opposite is the norm in Europe. I wonder what Eurogirls prefer?

    • deathbecomesme says:

      Hey! It’s not the size of the judgement that matters!

    • sojourner022 says:

      Not this lady. If you’ve only been with women who have only ever seen one type, of course that is what they are familiar with.

    • longfeltwant says:

      Clipped or unclipped are both okay. Sure, there are some minor medical implications, but really it boils down to tradition or penile preference. If parents prefer clipped, that’s fine. If not, that’s fine.

      What I can say with certitude is that I totally reject the claims of the anti-clippers, who think it is some kind of mutilation on par with other forms of bodily mutilation or torture. That is nonsense, and people who think that way are ninnies.

      • tsumeone says:

        Babies actually do die from being circumcised. It is rare but it happens. It is a medically unnecessary procedure 90% of the time, and should be banned unless medically necessary or the person is old enough to decide for themselves.

        • Kestris says:

          What about those for whom it’s a religious commandment? Are you also going to say they cannot perform it because it should be banned, simply because it may not be medically neccesary? Way to disregard freedom of religion there.

          • crashfrog says:

            You don’t have “freedom of religion” over someone else’s body, not even a child’s. People for whom circumcision is a religious commandment can get that procedure when they’re old enough to make that decision for themselves.

            • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

              “You don’t have “freedom of religion” over someone else’s body, not even a child’s.”

              Isn’t circumcision still legal? What have the court’s said?

              • Bladerunner says:

                It hasn’t been extensively tested by the courts, because for most men it happens 18 years before they can even think about suing, and by the time their old enough it doesn’t occur to them. A case like this would be an example of the courts weighing in, so let’s see!

            • Bakkster says:

              That quite literally defeats the purpose of the religious freedom. The religion states children are to be circumcised 8 days from birth, not 18 years.

              There’s a big difference between performing a circumcision for millenia-old cultural and religious reasons, and performing a circumcision for minimal efficacy against an STD that has only been around a few decades.

              • Bladerunner says:

                It’s still not valid. The religion dictates that it should occur, but I doubt you’d find a single religious scholar who would say that the parents would be at fault for following a law that didn’t allow them to make that decision for their child, and moreover, your religion can say whatever it wants but I don’t care; society has a vested interest in you not mutilating your child, period. If the child wants to mutilate itself later, fine, but in the meantime, I dont’ care how much you want to.

                • Bakkster says:

                  Right, but I think there’s neither the will nor the need to make it illegal, given it’s majority practice and given all my friends who are circumcised I’ve only heard of one expressing any strong dissatisfaction about it. It’s always going to be parents choice, I just hope that more often than not they differ to their children to make that choice. It would be a big overstep to ban religious circumcision.

                  In the same way, I think everyone should be immunized from common airborne diseases for which we have effective vaccines, but I would never think of forcing someone with a religious objection to receive one despite my belief that their religious belief is bad.

                  • Bladerunner says:

                    I think what you’re really missing here is that children are not the property of their parents. Society has a vested interest in vaccinations, see “herd immunity”, and i nthe case of circumcision, it’s trivially easy to let the kid make their own decision. No one recommends a complete ban, only preventing parents from making a permanent change to their kid when it’s in no way necessary.

                    • Bakkster says:

                      See, I get the vested interest in immunizations. Bonus for herd immunity generally protecting those with a legitimate religious objection.

                      If it isn’t a total ban, then I’m cool with it. I wouldn’t be in favor of preventing Jewish circumcisions on the 8th day (I’m not Jewish).

                    • Bladerunner says:

                      You see, I am.

                      If a religion said that you had to chop off a baby girl’s clitoris, you’d agree it was monstrous, neh? Or if there was a religion stating that on the 9th day you poked out a child’s eye? The point here is that the religion of the parents should not be used as justification for permanent changes to the child, period. If that kid grows up to be an atheist, or even just another religion, they’ve been maimed for no reason (and I recognize some might disagree with “maimed”, but I stand by the statement). We all agree that the Christian Scientists who want to let their kids die rather than get them simple life-saving treatment, rather than relying on prayer, are abusing their kids, don’t we? And while this isn’t death, it is nonetheless a permanent decision that can never be undone that has proven negative effects (and whether they are fully established, as some have questioned, isn’t really the point, since, once again, the kid could choose to do it when they grow up…even the risk of such is plenty).

              • crashfrog says:

                That quite literally defeats the purpose of the religious freedom. The religion states children are to be circumcised 8 days from birth, not 18 years.

                Well, that’s tough shit. Not everything that a religion commands is legal to do, because religions don’t trump laws under any system but theocracy.

                There’s no religious freedom right to practice your religion on another person’s body.

                • Bakkster says:

                  OK, but given that the majority of circumcisions are done for other reasons than religion, I don’t see why there would be a strong push to ban the procedure.

                  I just want the option to have my sons remain uncircumcised, I don’t want to force anyone not to be able to do it just like I don’t want them to force me to do it.

                  • Bladerunner says:

                    The problem many of us have is that this is parents forcing it on their kids, in a permanent way, on something that can easily wait until they’re grown and can make the decision on their own. That’s why we’re in favor of banning it on infants, because we believe the child should be able to make the choice when they can, instead of the parents doing it on a whim.

                    • Bakkster says:

                      Whereas I can’t justify banning it outright, particularly for those for whom it is a religious requirement. I wish fewer parents would circumcise their sons, but I’m not going to make that call for them.

          • LabGnome says:

            Freedom of Religion is the trump card right? If I wanted to snip a piece of some random flesh from my kid that is horrible and it would not matter why. If I want it snipped because my religion says so, well, that’s okay.

            People recognize this argument sometimes, so we go to science. Despite hundreds of studies on this topic, we still get a neither good or bad kind of answer (unless you include ‘studies’ from religious organizations).

            Honestly it is so nerve racking for me as a parent to debate whether to do it or not, I just hope that I don’t get a boy next round.

          • Applekid ‚îÄ‚îÄ‚î¨ Ôªø„Éé( „Çú-„Çú„Éé) says:

            I would argue babies do not possess the ability to provide informed consent. To medical procedures or to what religion their parents would brand them.

        • LanMan04 says:

          It is a medically unnecessary procedure 90% of the time
          Circumcision provides a host of medical benefits. Do you also think immunizations are medically unnecessary?

          • dks64 says:

            “Circumcision provides a host of medical benefits. Do you also think immunizations are medically unnecessary?”

            Most are, yes. Circumcision is unnecessary. If a male wraps up his junk every time he has sex, his risk of contracting those STD’s drops dramatically (smart idea anyway, cut or uncut). My man is uncut, he’s had absolutely no problems with STD’s or infections. It’s easy to keep clean and the foreskin enhances sex. It’s an unnecessary procedure, I’m glad there’s a drop in it these days.

            • rmorin says:

              Your argument is bizarre. “My boyfriend doesn’t have HIV so there is no benefit for others” WTH?

              • Bakkster says:

                No, the argument that we should be circumcising children to guard against STD instead of teaching them about safe sex is silly. If you’re using safe sexual practices, there is no need to be circumcised.

                • rmorin says:

                  If you are engaging in safe sex, no need for gardasil. No Gardasil for anyone under 18. Agree yes or no?

                  • Bakkster says:

                    I’m not in favor of preventing either circumcisions or Gardasil. I am in favor of allowing people to opt out of it if they so choose. Both could be left until someone becomes sexually active before administering.

                    That said, comparing efficacy rates, they really aren’t comparable. Circimcision is only about 50% effective, Gardasil is nearly 100% effective. If Gardasil was only 50% effective, I probably wouldn’t administer it either.

                    • rmorin says:

                      I apologize. I lost track of the wackos saying it should be banned and those who say it should be a parents choice.

                      Make no mistake, I think it should a parents choice and would never advocate taking that choice away. Parents should be informed of benefits and risks, and then make a choice. I worked in LDRP, and I could not have cared less if they did or not, I just wanted to make sure that they were informed.

                      Surely you do not want to ban it altogether right? Cause then you are definitely one of the wackos.

                    • Bladerunner says:

                      There’s a difference between banning altogether and not allowing parents to make certain choices for their children.

                      A parent who got their kid a tattoo as an infant for religious reasons would likely be up on charges (if they could even find an artist that would do it!). A parent who lops off a part of their kids junk for religious reasons isn’t? And make no mistake: very few parents know of these studies you keep touting (which have been legitimately questioned due to multiple flaws in methodology).

                    • rmorin says:

                      Even conceding there needs to be more research done, does not it go both ways in that negative consequences have not firmly researched either?

                      To that end, if we don’t know if it is good, and we don’t know if it is bad, and it has a significance to people (religious, cultural, aesthetic, whatever) why ban it?

                    • Bladerunner says:

                      Because you’re making a choice for a child that has proven negative consequences, searching for a potential benefit. There’s decades of research showing that 1, circumcision has complications (duh, it’s a medical procedure), and that it reduces penile sensitivity.

                      It was originally recommended in the 1800s (after having fallen out of favor for quite some time) to prevent kids from playing with themselves.

                      And there’s no way to undo it once it’s been done.

                      So, in light of all that, I think that parents should not be disfiguring their kids because a couple crappy studies in Africa showed the possibility of a slight reduction in disease.

                    • castlecraver says:

                      Yes, let’s routinely defer to tradition, convenience, and aesthetic preferences despite the fact we really have no idea whether this irreversible medical procedure is really worth doing. While we try to find out, and even though we could just as easily wait until the kid is at least old enough to think let alone have sex, let’s keep doing it anyway on any baby whose parents give us the OK.

                      There are periods in our history when similarly faulty logic supported the continued practice of some truly bizarre, ineffective medical procedures for much too long. Whatever about religious tradition or personal preference (note several instances of courts intervening to allow a physician to overrule a Jehovah’s Witness family’s refusal of blood products for their younger, not-yet-competent children) allows medical practitioners to often overlook this faulty logic is entirely beyond me. The origins and 20th century resurgence of circumcision have very little to do with the current arguments presented in its favor — it’s a cure in search of a disease and to wit, a failure to apply the scientific method by people who should know better.

                  • Bladerunner says:

                    Does Gardasil permanently disfigure (and don’t quibble about “disfigure”…you are chopping off a part that doesn’t grow back and undeniably changing the look, that is the definition of the word). Are the studies supporting Gardasil spotty at best and showing a 50% reduction rate?


                    Then the comparison is not valid. Stop making it.

        • rmorin says:

          Circumcision significantly reduces the likelihood of HIV transmission.

          Just like vaccinations are one way and “not medically” necessary to some people does not mean that it is not a good idea.

          • crashfrog says:

            You’re misunderstanding the term “significantly”, there; that merely means that the infection-reducing effect was prominent enough that it was 95% not likely to be by chance.

            If your son is a sub-saharan African prone to having “dry” sex (look it up), then by all means circumcision will slightly statistically reduce his chance of being infected by HIV during sex with an infected partner. On the other hand, the same studies performed in the US show exactly the opposite effect – circumcision makes you statistically more likely to contract HIV from unprotected sex with an infected partner.

            Better idea? Don’t cut parts off your son’s body without his permission and teach him to use condoms. There are zero practical benefits to circumcision in the United States. Certainly nothing that justifies the widespread cosmetic alteration of infant boys.

            • rmorin says:

              Explain to me how the fact that the study participants where in physically located in Africa effects the physiology of HIV transmission as you claim?

              Certainly there is evidence that genetic traits in African heritage individuals are more susceptible to HIV, but last time I checked there were plenty of people in the US with African heritage.

              Also, don’t say “I have studies” and don’t supply them. I took the two seconds to find a good source, so if you can’t your point is moot.

              • Bakkster says:

                Because they are more likely to have unlubricated intercourse resulting in more abrasions. It has to do with cultural sexual practices, not geography.

          • Bladerunner says:

            1, not a great point, since STD transmission is in no way comparable to the transmission of vaccinated diseases, and

            2, a quick google search also found:

            I would argue that the HIV argument, while much touted, was not a point until recently, and honestly shouldn’t be a point even now; the argument is one of reducing percentages, not being a complete barrier (as an unfailed condom is, for example). If being circumcised reduced your chances by factors of ten, then MAYBE you’d have a point, but the best numbers are a reduction by maybe 60%, on studies that were stopped “on ethical grounds”. Wikipedia: “Both the WHO and CDC indicate that circumcision may not reduce HIV transmission from men to women, and that data is lacking for the transmission rate of men who engage in anal sex with a female partner.” In other words “We have some data, it’s not great, but it seems to maybe recommend it in areas where HIV is rampant.”

          • castlecraver says:

            Sorry, you’re way off base in that comparison.

            First, there are studies that dispute that particular finding, and the study you cite has (some unavoidable) flaws. But accepting it now for the sake of argument, the chance it may decrease the transmission of an STD that a child will not be at risk for* until he reaches sexual maturity is in no way similar to a vaccine designed to prevent against a disease that a child may well be at risk for now or in the near future. Further, condoms are more effective by a very wide margin and aren’t permanent.

            I’ve yet to encounter anyone who is vehemently anti-infant circumcision who disputes an informed adult’s right to do whatever the heck he/she wants to their body. So if someone wishes to use that rationale (lower their STD risk) to have themselves circumcised, so be it. But why make an irreversible decision affecting body integrity for someone else who’s not at risk, when they could make that decision themselves at a more appropriate time? Nope, the “vaccine” argument holds no water.

            *through the only means of transmission relevant to this discussion, of course

            • rmorin says:

              Wow, well you clearly did not read my source because it was not one study. It was a CDC review of a bunch of studies. So I didn’t cite “a study” I cited a CDC review on the subject.

              Secondly, you did not refute the vaccination argument in the least. So let’s use something that is completely comparable: Gardasil.

              From your post:

              But why make an irreversible decision affecting body integrity for someone else who’s not at risk, when they could make that decision themselves at a more appropriate time?

              Gardasil is a series of three shots that girls as young as 9 can receive. It helps reduce the liklihood of HPV infection, which for all intents and purposes, is only spread through sexual contact. Right now, parents decide whether their daughters receieve it or not. It will only really be helpful if they are sexually active. Under your logic young women should not get this until they are 18.

              Injecting chemicals into a body to illicit an immune response is just as big of a threat to “body integrity” (what a silly, non-medical term you use) as removing a 5mm skin fold from a new born. Both have risks, both have benefits.

              • Bakkster says:

                Can be administered at age 9, not always. Do you really believe children only become sexually active after their 18th birthday?

                What if the Gardasil procedure involved removing part of the Labia? Would you be in favor of performing that on every single girl in the world?

                Personally, I’m a fan of parents choice. Though I obviously prefer they make the less obtrusive choice, I’m not going to tell them they can’t. I just don’t want a choice like circumcision being dictated to me or my children.

                I’m less in favor of choosing not to get a vaccine (outside adverse reactions) because they are significantly more effective, are sometimes the only line of defense of some diseases, strengthen herd immunity and thus good for public health, and most of the arguments against them are completely fabricated. If circumcision was 90+% effective at preventing STDs, maybe I’d agree with you, but being marginal means I’d rather leave it to my sons to decide their own foreskin’s fate.

                • rmorin says:

                  Do you really believe children only become sexually active after their 18th birthday?

                  This proves my point. Why state this? And to answer your question if removing a part of the labia that what dubiously functional, reduced STI rates for women I’d advocate that too.

                  It is otterly bizarre that you balk at minor physical alterations to reduce disease, but say you are an advocate for administration of chemicals to systemically (and permanantly) change body physiology to reduce disease.

                  • rmorin says:

                    *utterly, otters are bizarre enough

                  • Bakkster says:

                    If it were 50% effective and had the potential to reduce genital sensitivity?

                    Circumcision is less likely to prevent STDs than to have no effect, that’s not a worthwhile procedure in my book, regardless of any potential side effects or lack of them. Try to find a better straw man.

                  • Bladerunner says:

                    You keep saying “Permanently” alter body phsyiology…what do you mean? In what detrimental way does it change?

                    • Bakkster says:

                      Not to mention, some vaccines are so impermanent they need boosters…

                    • rmorin says:

                      Listen, I am not going to explain the physiology of immune response based on vaccinations. Needless to say when you get a vaccination, it alters the way you body physiologically responds to a disease. Are the any negative effects to them? Yes, but they are very infrequent, and people that advocate long term negative physiolgical changes of vaccinations are usually laughed out of rooms.

                      There is dubious evidence about the negative effects of circumcision. There is definitive proof of benefit. In the end, it’s your kid, you have the legal choice, and I am not advocating taking that away from you. I lost track as to what posters have said they’d actively support a law banning circumcision. Those are the idiots I get worked up about, because they are trying to dictate healthcare choices which are not at all as controversial as they make it out to be.

                    • Bakkster says:

                      Not all vaccinations are permanent. Moreover, their effects are the same as those left behind after contracting the actual disease. When they are active, they provide significant efficacy, over 90% in most cases. Beyond that, not a single peer reviewed study has substantiated the hoax that vaccines cause autism (seriously, look it up, the guy started the rumor to sell his own pseudo-science remedy for autism).

                      Contrast that to circumcision. It is permanent always, though reconstructive surgery can provide partial remedy. The efficacy is below 50%, meaning it’s less likely to be effective than not. Some studies show reduced sensitivity.

                      I agree, though, no reason to ban circumcision. Particularly for religious reasons. My concern is making sure my potential future sons are not circumcised without my consent because ‘everyone does it’.

                    • castlecraver says:

                      “There is dubious evidence about the negative effects of circumcision. There is definitive proof of benefit.”

                      *sigh* If you genuinely believe there is [i]definitive[/i] proof and are in the same breath willing to call the evidence for negative effects dubious, well… I…. I wish you had a better science teacher in school.

                    • rmorin says:

                      You apparently know better then the CDC. I will not be able to get through your hubris regardless of what I say.

                    • Bladerunner says:

                      The CDC doesn’t say it’s “definitive” either, particularly since there aren’t THAT many studies, they just have evidence, and based on that evidence are making recommendations. Find the phrase “there is definitive evidence that circumcision prevents HIV” somewhere on the CDC and you’ll earn +1 internets.

                    • Bladerunner says:

                      “Listen, I am not going to explain the physiology of immune response based on vaccinations. Needless to say when you get a vaccination, it alters the way you body physiologically responds to a disease. Are the any negative effects to them? Yes, but they are very infrequent, and people that advocate long term negative physiolgical changes of vaccinations are usually laughed out of rooms.”

                      I just wanted to confirm you weren’t a “vaccines cause autism” idiot.

                      So, you’re claiming that the physiological change of your immune system in response to a vaccine which gives you specific antibodies to fight a specific disease is in any way comparable to chopping off a piece of your kid’s junk because there might (might! The studies are far from conclusive) be a chance of lowering transmission rates of STDs that already have other, better prevention methods. How you can possibly equate those two is mindboggling.

                      And as other posters have said, as soon as you can say circumcision is 90+% effective at stopping HIV, with

                    • Bladerunner says:

                      weird, it chopped part off (irony!).

                      The remainder went something like:


                    • Bladerunner says:

                      I feel stupid. Twice now I tried to use the “less-than” sign, even though I know full well this site supports html tagging, and therefore would read everything after it as some strange attempt to do something in HTML.

                      The real rest said something about “with less than 1% complications” and went on from there, but I’m not retyping it again.

              • castlecraver says:

                I’m so accustomed to seeing people reference the same 4 studies (all flawed, all disputed and all of narrower scope than those who rely on them like to acknowledge) that it’s kind of a knee-jerk response. Of course, the CDC report relies quite heavily on those same studies (7, 9-11)…

                You are incorrect about Guardicil. Per the CDC ( ), it is critical to deliver the vaccine *before* a woman becomes sexually active and is exposed to any HPV. Your statement, “it will only really be helpful if they are sexually active.” is false. It worries me that so many people seem to only be able to consider the merits of circumcision using inapplicable analogies, programmed aesthetic preferences and anecdotal evidence, but I suppose I should be grateful you only resorted to the first.

                Moreover, even though (whether or not you acknowledge it) I’ve established that there’s far more rationale for administering vaccines than circumcising infants and the two are extremely dissimilar, I’ll note that the appropriateness of administering that particular vaccine to girls so young is still a matter of intense debate anyway. ( ).

                body (n): duh.
                integrity (n): The state of being whole and undivided.
                Just plain English. And “body integrity disorder” is actually a real medical condition too.

          • Bakkster says:

            Sorry, hit wrong reply button:

            Glad I wasn’t circumcised for the benefit of HIV prevention, given that:
            1) I like my foreskin
            2) My wife and I have never needed to worry about STDs ever in our lives
            3) If I were to go have casual sex, I’d wrap it up instead of hoping my lack of foreskin would protect me.

            Dumbest justification to be circumcised, ever.

        • Bakkster says:

          Glad I wasn’t circumcised for the benefit of HIV prevention, given that:
          1) I like my foreskin
          2) My wife and I have never needed to worry about STDs ever in our lives
          3) If I were to go have casual sex, I’d wrap it up instead of hoping my lack of foreskin would protect me.

          Dumbest justification ever.

      • Bakkster says:

        Personally, since it’s a one-way procedure, I’m glad I have the option for circumcision now rather than my parents making it for me back then.

        I actually have a buddy considering foreskin reconstruction, too. A lot cheaper just to not circumcise in the first place, I’m guessing.

        • ChuckECheese says:

          Some hospitals in Phoenix area are charging for circumcision now. It’s another $150 or so on top of the other birth costs.

          • Bakkster says:

            Right, it’s the ‘Nitrogen inflated tires’ of the hospital world. Easy money they can charge your insurance for.

            • Kuchen says:

              Since circumcision is considered an elective procedure, it is frequently not covered by insurance. My guess would be that most insurance plans do not cover circumcision unless there is an underlying medical need.

    • katarzyna says:

      I don’t have a preference. Each way has its advantages.

    • Cerne says:

      My guess is that the low figure is to keep the case from being thrown out as ridiculous right away. This way the prisoner might get to actually appear in court and the chance to leave jail for a couple of hours and do something is probably pretty appealing to him.

    • The Porkchop Express says:

      who knows how long he will be in jail for. Maybe he will only have a few years to use “it” for what HE wants instead of what a cellmate may want?

    • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

      I’ve been told that being snipped is a prerequisite to get a BJ from a white, American girl.

      When I was a kid, pretty much every boy was circumcised. I think this has changed a lot, what is the ratio now, 50/50 and mostly whites?

      • Snowblind says:

        One word:


        • Cat says:

          One more word: Smeghead.

        • dks64 says:

          I’ve known guys who are cut who have worse hygiene than guys who aren’t. Smegma isn’t a problem with anyone who keeps themselves clean. Girls get it too, you know.

        • VintageLydia says:

          I dated more than one non-circumcised guy in my more sordid past. If they had smegma, they weren’t bathing properly (and were not getting ANY below-the-waist sexual contact from me if that was the case.) If they were clean, they got sex! Not too difficult.
          Girls have more flaps down there and we have no problem keeping things clean. Why can’t boys perform similar hygiene?

        • imasqre says:

          One word:


      • dks64 says:

        I’m a white, American girl and my bf isn’t circumcised. I’ve been with both, I prefer uncut.

    • Heresy Of Truth says:

      Maybe he’s not wooing the ladies.

    • dolemite says:

      As a male, I prefer snipped, and I’m glad I was snipped.

      • AcctbyDay says:

        How can you prefer snipped over not snipped if you never experienced not snipped. That’s like saying you prefer beef to pork with never actually tasting pork.

    • crashfrog says:

      From ladies I’ve talked to, they prefer the snipped vs unsnipped choice.

      As a man, I prefer big tits over small ones. Therefore, fathers should make sure their daughters are getting breast implants. Preferably around age 14 or so, you know, because they’ll more easily heal from the procedure.

      Only fair, right? If the preferences of women justified surgery on my genitalia at an early age, why shouldn’t male preferences receive the same consideration?

    • iblamehistory says:

      Circumcised penises look absolutely vile. My husband is intact and his manhood is beautiful, the head is perfectly smooth and extremely sensitive, and since he knows how to take a damn shower, it’s clean.

      I’m pretty glad he has full sexual functioning and sensitivity.

    • imasqre says:

      I personally prefer unsniped. There is more sensitivity and it’s a lot more fun.

      • Thalia says:

        Curious how you found that out? In my experience, from people who were circumcised as adults (either because of religious or medical reasons) they say there is not a noticeable difference.

        • Bladerunner says:

          The logic behind a change in sensitivity is that in the case of children, the uncovered glans has been rubbing abrasively against cloth for 18 years, during particularly crucial development stages no less, which means reduction, so an adult wouldn’t necessarily notice a difference, or at least not as much of one, and certainly not for awhile. But for any other info, I’m going to defer to imasqr’s experiences.

        • imasqre says:

          As a female, I prefer unsniped, I should have clarified, sorry.

    • MsEllenT says:

      I’m not reading the responses ’cause so very many here are ignorant. However, I’ve had both cut and uncut, and my personal preference is def. CUT. All the way. As for sensitivity? Anecdotal though it is, I found uncut guys to be waaaay too sensitive. Talk about minute men. Thank science my husband is cut.

  6. SmokeyBacon says:

    Ok, I am a girl, so can someone please explain one thing to me – he is 28 and he JUST learned he is circumcised? He didn’t know until just recently – really? I am so confused how he didn’t know before this.

    • Bladerunner says:

      He probably just learned that there are known side-effects to being circumcised, such as loss of sensitivity, etc. (here under the umbrella of “prowess”). Guys know they’ve been snipped, but they don’t often know about what that really means.

      • SmokeyBacon says:

        Ok, all the answers are good but this makes the most sense to me. I guess I am just surprised it hadn’t come up at SOME point in his life before age 28 but if he had been told something about it being for health reasons and then just discovered that wasn’t the case and he feels he had lost his “prowess” because of it, I guess I can understand that part. It could just be the phrasing of it that threw me (“I was just recently made aware of the fact that I had been circumcised” and the first line of the article made me think he just found out it had happened and I was imagining that he had somehow never looked at his own penis before – and he was like “dude, what the hell happened here”?)

        • RandomHookup says:

          It’s not something that comes up. I was circumcised, but can’t figure out for the life of me why. My brothers weren’t and I wasn’t going to ask my mother. I just assumed I was “different”.

      • Bakkster says:

        I dunno, it’s feasible he literally didn’t know. Given he’s serving time for petty crime in a plains state, perhaps he didn’t have t he best possible sex-ed…

    • Marlin says:

      That and he noticed AFTER he was in jail.


      • RedOryx says:

        This. I worked in a prison for two years and there’s only one way I can think of where this would be a recent discovery.

    • Important Business Man (Formerly Will Print T-shirts For Food) says:

      He’s probably never seen another penis until he went to prison.

    • katarzyna says:

      I thought that was sarcasm.

    • Cerne says:

      It’s less he just realized it happened and more he just realized he could sue over it.

    • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

      Outside of showering after gym class in high school, a guy really doesn’t seem to many penises (though, maybe this is different in the era of internet porn). Even then, you try to not make eye contact with anything below chest level.

      I wasn’t aware of what a non-cut one looked like until I joined the Army. The unsnipped guys used to get called “doggie dicks”.

    • j2.718ff says:

      Obviously, he has no memory of the event. As long as the doctor didn’t mess up badly, there won’t be major scars, so one might just assume this is normal anatomy.

      And lastly, guys tend not to look at other guys in very much detail. Additionally, in the US, most guys are circumcised, so most look that way. Those who are uncircumcised know that they are different, and might take effort to hide while in the locker room.

      • LabGnome says:

        Along these lines, no one ever told me I was circumcised. I looked like everyone else, my penis even looked like the ones in books. Why would I randomly think, ‘I wonder if something was removed from this penis before I could remember anything’?

        Granted, at 28, it is a bit more surprising to not have figured it out yet. But I could see it legitimately happening.

    • dolemite says:

      I’m thinking he was sitting in prison bored to death, trying to figure out lawsuits he could bring up.

    • iesika says:

      Maybe he’d made it 28 years without seeing an uncircumcised man naked? I’m pretty sure my high school health class never mentioned circumcision.

      It sounds silly, but I suppose it’s possible. What’s more likely is he just found out the procedure is completely unnecessary and robs men of a lot of potentially pleasant nerve endings, and that someone had told his mother it was a medical procedure.

  7. MaxMiami says:

    This is the definition of a frivolous lawsuit. In addition to paying court costs, he should pay the hospital’s legal fees.

    If he wins, I’m going to sue the orthodontist who put braces on me as a child, and the doctor who sewed up by split chin for leaving a scar.

    • Bladerunner says:

      Those aren’t really comparable scenarios. The braces were in order to protect yoru teeth long-term. You’d have to make the argument it wasn’t necessary. And if it wasn’t, if you got a crazy “everybody braces!” orthodontist, you’d have a case. The split lip, again, you’d have to show that it was done wrong; you split your lip, which 1 required (presumably) stitches, and 2 would have left a scar anyway. You’d have to show that a competent surgeon would have not left a scar, and then you’d have a case.

      There is rarely a medical necessity to circumcise, so if a doctor told his mom there was, when there wasn’t, and it was known there wasn’t, then the doctor would, indeed, be liable. Much like unnecessary braces or if you’d gotten unnecessary stitches.

    • DarthCoven says:

      Big difference between circumcision, which has no known medical benefit in the modern era, and braces or scar tissue after being stitched up. The braces straightened out your teeth, and the scar tissue is a lot less than the death that would have resulted in the loss of blood from when you were injured as a child. Also, I’m sure the doctor and orthodontist explained the medical benefits of each procedure to your parents.

      • Thalia says:

        Except that circumcision does have medical benefits:

        • Bladerunner says:

          If you actually read that, it quickly becomes clear that the studies are rubbish, and that even with the rubbish data it’s still not conclusive:

          “Most of the studies were from Africa. Of the 35 observational studies in the review, the 16 in the general population had inconsistent results”. – So let’s ignore those, apparently.

          • Bladerunner says:

            Oh, and also none of those studies are testing the efficacy of circumcision in the 0-18 yrs demographic. Which means that for our purposes they’re even more useless, since this whole argument is “is there a benefit that outweighs letting the kid grow up and chose for themselves”

    • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

      I think a better analogy would be having one’s tonsils out. Many kids in my generation had that surgery.

      • Bakkster says:

        Aside from the whole, you know, medical necessity thing.

        Probably more like a piercing assuming the holes didn’t cover back up. Permanent scar without being medically necessary, if the doctor lied then he has a case.

        • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

          But it wasn’t medically necessary. Tonsils were removed either as a preventative measure or at the even slightest hint of a sore throat. It was kind of like wisdom teeth up until 20 or 30 years ago — It was very common for dentists to remove them, regardless of whether or not there was room.

        • rmorin says:

          Get your facts. While not “necessary” there are significant health benefits. Under your logic vaccinations are not “necessary” as well, so why do we do those?

          • Bakkster says:

            No, I’m very pro-vaccination, because nobody has a choice whether they encounter most transmissible diseases which people are vaccinated for. I have no say in whether I meet someone contagious with Mumps.

            I do have a choice if I have unprotected sex with a partner who may be carrying an STD. I don’t need a circumcision to get better results with a condom or abstinence, and implying that unprotected sexual risk mitigation is a justification for widespread circumcision is a bit silly. Sure, slight risk of increased infant UTIs, but not worth a permanent surgical removal of an organ.

            So, check the fact sheet on risks. 0.2-2% risk of complications, uncertainty over loss of sexual function, and majority reporting no change in function or improvement for adult circumcisions. Worth it to reduce the risk of a UTI? Why not let adults consent to the procedure if they choose, rather than assuming every adult male will want one?

            • rmorin says:

              AHAAHA alright Dr. Bakkster. The foreskin is an organ now huh?! Find me one, non-wacko website that claims the foreskin is an organ. The fact you refer to it as an organ shows a personal bias.

              Also huh, Dr. Bakkster, all vaccinations are against things we do not have any effect on transmission? Like Gardasil? Right, I forgot, girls can get HPV from people with gential warts who sneeze on them.

              So you believe a parent does not have the right to give their child Gardasil? Answer yes or no.

              • Bladerunner says:

                Is this sufficient?


                “Hormonal stimulation of tyrosinase activity in human foreskin organ cultures”

                Gardasil is recommended for girls 13 and up. A 13 year old is capable of having a strenuous objection, and hypothetically of attempting to prevent an unwanted vaccination (although I concede that very few will actually try to fight it). Heck, in some societies 13 was considered adulthood, albeit “young”, isn’t that the age of the bat/bar mitzvah?
                A baby is completely incapable. Not comparable situations.

                • rmorin says:

                  Gardasil is recommended for girls 13 and up. A 13 year old is capable of having a strenuous objection, and hypothetically of attempting to prevent an unwanted vaccination.

                  9 and up, Dr. Bladerunner. Children for good reason do not get to make healthcare choices. If you think a 13 year old should have control over their healthcare decisions, then you are too radical for me to engage in a discussion with.

                  • Bladerunner says:

                    I probably shouldn’t have put two replies in one, so I’ll put the bit that referred to this post in its proper reply area:

                    If you think that even a 9 year old is on par with a newborn infant in terms of decision-making capacity, you’re clearly not just too radical, but too much of an idiot, to converse with, Dr Rmorin. While you MAY make your case that they are similar, they are not at all directly comparable, in that once again, a 9 year old has far more decisional capacity than a 1-month-old.

                • rmorin says:

                  Also that source does NOT state the foreskin is an organ. Just because the word foreskin is in front of organ does not mean it is stating that.

                  You shouldn’t just copy and paste crap without understanding it. Please find an actual academic source which states the foreskin is an organ.

                  • Bladerunner says:

                    Find one first that states it unequivocally is not.
                    Definition of organ:

                    “Organ: A relatively independent part of the body that carries out one or more special functions.”

                    Foreskin is “relatively independent”, and it “carries out one or more special functions”. Therefore it’s an organ. Just saying “no it isn’t” isn’t enough, so I will ask you to find where anyone says it is not an organ.

                    And we’re both wrong: “can” is not “recommended”, “” recommends 11-12, or 13-26.

                    And if you think that even a 9 year old is on par with a newborn infant in terms of decision-making capacity, you’re clearly not just too radical, but too much of an idiot, to converse with, Dr Rmorin. While you MAY make your case that they are similar, they are not at all directly comparable, in that once again, a 9 year old has far more decisional capacity than a 1-month-old.

                    • rmorin says:

                      Ahahahaha you know that the 9 year old doesn’t get to choose what shots to get right?? Please tell me you know that kids don’t decide their healthcare choices? Their decision making ability is moot, it’s not theirs to make. If a parent says “you’re getting gardasil” guess what? They are getting Gardasil.

                      You honestly believe a 13 year old should be able to make their vaccination choices!?

                    • Bladerunner says:

                      A 17-year old is likely to get gardasil if their parent decides it, too, because kids rarely fight their parents decisions in court-type ways.

                      That’s a case where a 14-year old with strong objections to a course of treatment won his case despite his parents opinion on the matter.

                      So you are wrong, rmorin, when you pretend that kids with the ability to make judgments never do. Will you admit, then that at least a 14-year old is obviously different than an infant?

                    • Bladerunner says:

                      And just to pound the point home:

                      “”I don’t believe Dennis’ decision is the result of any coercion. He is mature and understands the consequences of his decision,” [Judge] Meyer said during Wednesday’s court proceedings. [In reference to the 14-year-old boy].

                      But, of course, you’re going to keep making false equivalences, I’m sure.

              • Bakkster says:

                Skin is an organ, at best it is partial removal of an organ. Would you be in favor of partial removal of the liver or kidneys just because it gave a 45% reduced risk of something related to lifestyle?

                Yes, I think parents have the right to choose if their child gets Gardasil. Mostly because it’s nearly 100% effective.

                • rmorin says:

                  You are equating open or lappy surgery to remove part of organs vital for life, to snipping off 5mm of skin on the penis.

                  Congrats we’ve hit mach level-crazy.

                  • Bakkster says:

                    Not all of your Liver or Kidneys are necessary, that’s how they do live donors. ;)

                    Again, any procedure for

    • iblamehistory says:

      I am actually quite unhappy with the orthodontist who agreed with my mother to pull my remaining baby teeth and give me braces at age 8 when it could have waited until I was 14 or 15 like everyone else. I had typically bad teeth; nothing horrible or extreme that required early attention. I understand that some cases are so extreme that early attention is vital. Mine was not one of those cases–I had a gap between my front teeth, they stuck out a bit, and my bottom teeth front were a little crowded.

      I did not understand nor want braces. My mom used the argument “but you’ll be getting them off just as everyone else gets theirs on!” which did nothing to make me feel better about being the only one in the third grade with braces.

      It was painful, I didn’t know why I needed them, and I didn’t take care of them because I didn’t know how or why I needed to. Mind you, my parents never made me brush my teeth before braces, either–it was just something I didn’t know the necessity of. It wasn’t until my late teens that I realized it was necessary every day instead of every week or month.

      The braces came off when I was 11, my retainers were not properly fit to my mouth so the orthodontist popped them on and kicked me out. Got home, couldn’t remove them, freaked out, dad rushed me back and they had to cut the retainer off of me. I never wore retainers after that and my teeth went right back to ugly in no time.

      Fast forward to 3 years ago, I’m in my early-mid 20’s and I paid our of pocket for Invisalign because I could not smile with my mouth open. My teeth made me look like my father was also my brother. None of this would have happened if a major procedure wasn’t done unnecessarily on an 8 year old child who didn’t understand it as opposed to a 15 year old kid who hates braces but hates her teeth even more and understands what’s necessary if she wants nice teeth in the end.

      Am I suing? No, my body was not permanently altered without my consent (my teeth went back to how they were). Also, my genitals weren’t involved. But I am using my story to hopefully influence what other parents decide to do–it’s very traumatic for a young kid, and it’s extremely expensive; seriously, if it CAN wait, it NEEDS to wait until the child is old enough to understand what and why and how.

      Foreskin doesn’t grow back in the way that teeth can revert to their previous state. Once it’s gone, it’s gone, and your best bet is to try your luck at foreskin restoration, like hundreds of thousands of men are doing.

  8. Bativac says:

    Get the hell outa here!

    As a circumsized man who didn’t have any say so in the matter, I don’t have an opinion one way or the other. But I really can’t see this going very far.

    If he wins, I would like to have a change of heart, and will admit to feeling inadequate and less-than whole, and therefore deserving of hundreds of dollars from the hospital where I was born and mutilated.

    • Tiercelet says:

      Someone removed part of your genitals without your consent.

      There happens to be social approval for this particular form of cutting male genitals, but in what other circumstance would this be considered acceptable??

      • Kestris says:

        Religious beliefs. See Judiasm-

        “Brit Milah: Circumcision

        Of all of the commandments in Judaism, the brit milah (literally, Covenant of Circumcision) is probably the one most universally observed. It is commonly referred to as a bris (covenant, using the Ashkenazic pronunciation). Even the most secular of Jews, who observe no other part of Judaism, almost always observe these laws. Of course, until quite recently, the majority of males in the United States were routinely circumcised, so this doesn’t seem very surprising. But keep in mind that there is more to the ritual of the brit milah than merely the process of physically removing the foreskin, and many otherwise non-observant Jews observe the entire ritual.

        The commandment to circumcise is given at Gen. 17:10-14 and Lev. 12:3. The covenant was originally made with Abraham. It is the first commandment specific to the Jews.”

      • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

        Getting your tonsils out? Compulsory tonsillectomies was based on the same questionable medical theory, as the link between being uncircumcised and VD risk.

      • OutPastPluto says:

        > Someone removed part of your genitals without your consent.

        Didn’t seem to cause any real problem. No lack of “prowess” or fertility actually occurred.

        • msbask says:

          You can’t really know that, can you?

          • Puppyclaws says:

            Clearly he can! If he is happy with his sex life and capable of reproduction (as he indicates he is), “but it coulda been more betterer, you don’t know for sure!” is a stupid argument. It’s possible that not getting snipped could have made his sex life worse, too; we don’t know, and speculation is pointless. All we can judge is whether or not he’s happy with the results.

      • Bativac says:

        I really have no idea. Like I said, I just don’t care one way or the other. If my wife pops out a baby boy, once I’m done fighting to disprove my paternity, I’ll worry about circumcision.

        Frankly I’m more concerned about the gap between my two front teeth. Can I sue my parents for not fixing that when I was a kid??

      • dolemite says:

        Someone also cut off my umbilical chord, and boy am I pissed. It hurt, and I didn’t have a say in the matter, and I also wanted an outtie, but I got an inny.

      • Thalia says:

        Vaccinations. Ear piercings. Blood draws. Vitamin K. There are quite a lot of decisions made by parents regarding an infant. Some of them change the baby’s body. Most of them in a way that is positive, or at least net neutral, including circumcision.

  9. Cerne says:

    On a personal level I’m against circumcision and would probably support a law limiting it to consenting adults. But this prisoner has no case and letting the suit proceed simply wastes limited legal resources. Can judges in the US throw cases out for having no merit?

    • Marlin says:


      You do realize that the hospital/doctor needs a “consenting adult” to approve it before it is done. So your law would not change anything.

      • GoldVRod says:

        A baby is not a consenting adult.

        • Marlin says:

          A parent is, unless you think parents should have to ask the Courts/Gov what they can have done to their child in even basic medical rights such as this topic.

      • Cerne says:

        It thought it was pretty clear that I meant the PATIENT would have to be a consenting adult.

        • Bladerunner says:

          You were.

        • Marlin says:

          So parents can’t decide what is done to their child now?

          Yea lets make more laws that tell doctors, leat alone parents, what they can and can’t do. Seems to be working great for womens rights. /s

          • rmorin says:

            Can you imagine if kids could turn down shots? Everyone would have polio.

            • Bladerunner says:

              Except, of course, that shots have been proven to prevent death, time and time again, and immunizations are effective something approaching 99% of the time, while circumcisions might according to some disputed studies, reduce transmission in certain circumstances, by less than other, non-permanently disfiguring solutions. It’s quite a bit different. And I wager that

              • rmorin says:

                Look the long and short of it is kids don’t get to choose their medical treatments. No one is arguing that. What I am saying is that circumcision should be a potential choice for parents when they consider the risk and benefits, just like anything other health choice they are making.

                I am aruing against people who do not believe it should be a parents choice. There are people (see City of San Francisco) are trying to say they know better then you, and want to take healthcare choices out of your hands. I’m against that.

                I’m not sure which side of the fence you are on, but if we are on the same side can we stop all the back and forth?

                • Bladerunner says:

                  We are not on the same side of the fence. You believe parent should be able to maim their kids based on flimsy to no evidence, I believe that’s a bad argument.

                  You believe 4 studies with dubious methodology in subsarahan africa equal “conclusive” while decades of research on vaccines isn’t.

                  You believe that infants have the same decision making capability as pubescent children.

                  • Bladerunner says:

                    Also, sometimes kids DO get to determine their own medical treatment. Upstream I linked to teh 14 year old who refused blood transfusions (and died) based on his religion, despite his bio parents objecitons

                  • rmorin says:

                    I literally have no idea were you get the decision making thing. All I have said is that children (whether 1 day or 13years) don’t get to make their own healthcare choices.

                    As a society we have decided that (barring pregnancy which makes them a de-facto adult) until 18 your parents are responsible for you, including making healthcare choices. You pointed to some instances where this has legally been challenged. Those have been the exception and not the rule. I’m a RN. If a 12 year old’s parents say “you’re getting gardasil” to their kid, their kids thoughts (while we try to get everyone on board) come secondary to the parents. I use this to illustrate that even seemingly “elective” (regardless of efficacy) procedures can be decided by parents without agreement from children.

                    You are using slanted words like “maim”. An anti-vaccine nutter could use the words “poison” (technically correctly, but realistically not true) and other slanted words to prove their points.

                    You state that evidence is not definitive for benefits. I can respect that opinion. You then however state that evidence on negatives IS definitive. I can not respect that, because the strength of evidence if anything is higher on the benefits side. I could respect an opinion of “we do not know too much about negatives or benefits, so I advocate abstaining from it to be careful” I can not respect you twisting the research simply to fit your agenda.

                    • Bladerunner says:

                      And I cannot respect your constant ignoring of things that don’t fit your mindset. I’ve already demonstrated how sometimes kids CAN make their own medical decisions. You ignored me, so you can repeat “whether 1 month old or 13 years old” as though repetition makes it so. A judge let a 14 year old kid die because the kid’s religious beliefs prevented blood transfusions that would have given him a 70% chance at life, vs. a virtually 0%. The court allowed a 14 year old to let himself die based on his opinion of medical care. Just because you are an RN doesn’t mean you know everything about healthcare, the law, or really anything.

                      The fact remains, you are chopping off a part of a kid’s junk for no solid reason. When the anti-vaxxers call vaccination “poison”, they’re trying to imply that there will be a detrimental affect on the kid, despite the evidence to the contrary. When I call circumcision “maiming”, I am implying that a piece of the body is being removed for no good reason, to detrimental effect both aesthetically (which is always an arguable point, so let’s just remove detrimental on aesthetics) and functionally. If that’s not maiming, then what is?

                    • Bladerunner says:

                      Oh, I’m sorry! I didn’t fully read your comment, where you say that the evidence for any detriment isn’t definitive, and the evidence for advantage is stronger. I didn’t realize that you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. You have 4 studies that have been criticized. As far as I know, that’s all the “evidence” of benefit. They are recent studies. I have papers going back as far as 1965 ( … I don’t love that paper, but since you dont’ care how bad the study is, only that it exists, I figure its fair game) showing the possibility of harm. I have a study in the annals of family medicine ( saying there’s no proof of benefit. You say that in the case of no benefit, it should be up to the parents, even though if there’s no benefit, you are chopping off a part of the penis for NO REASON. If there’s no benefit, there’s only harm. Most of these studies, btw, rely on so much self-reporting as to be laughable. There have been no decent studies either way, and your belief is that, in the absence of evidence of harm (beyond, obviously, standard surgical complications and medical errors, which dont’ happen to uncircumcised kids but do happen to the ones having the procedures), then elective surgery is A-Ok! If a parent wanted an infant to have a boob job, we would call her a monster. If a parent wants to clip a little girls clitoris, we would call them a bad person. If they want to shop the tip of their boy’s junk, that’s fine and how dare we say otherwise, don’t we know you’re an RN!!!. I’m sorry, before I think letting parents make such decisions for their child (a decision they could easily make on their own when they’re older if they so choose), I want to see concrete evidence of benefit. You don’t have that, at least not for non-sub-saharan African males (the studies of a completely different culture, that, again, have been criticized).

    • OutPastPluto says:

      People like you should get to experience an adult circumcision first hand just so you know what you are actually advocating.

      • Cerne says:

        I’m not advocating for adults to go out and get circumcised. I’m just against the idea of performing unnecessary surgery on babies. Also I don’t get how people can argue it’s too painful for an adult, but that a baby feels basically nothing from the same procedure.

    • rmorin says:

      So under your logic we should not vaccinate children until they are 18? Vaccines have certain demonstrated benefits, but also risks. They are not a “medical necessarity” because all someone has to do is avoid Tetanus and there is no need for it.

      Now let’s see, circumcision has demonstrated, significant benefits : ,

      After adjustment for confounding factors in the population-based studies, the relative risk for HIV infection was 44% lower in circumcised men.

      (Don’t let facts get in the way of your self-righteousness)

      But it of course also has risks. It is not a “medical necessity” because all someone has to do is avoid sex right? Cause no one has sex until they are 18?

      Parents make health choices for their children. Circumcision is a good health choice for many, many, parents because they’d rather exchange the risk of decreased penile sensitivity for the lower level of STI transmission. If it is not for your kid fine, your choice, but don’t for a second try to spread your fact-less sentiments to others.

      • Bakkster says:

        Know what’s more effective against HIV transmission? Condoms, 80% reduction.

        Don’t mess with my junk permanently when temporary solutions will do.

        • dks64 says:


        • rmorin says:

          You know what is effective against tetanus? Not stepping on rusty nails.

          Don’t inject poor babies with inactived tetanus toxin and formaldehyde that last years when you can just buy thick healed shoes!

          • Bladerunner says:

            Rusty nails, btw, are not the onlyw ay of contracting tetanus. In the case of any penetrating injury, they recommend a vaccine if you don’t already have one. Also, the vaccine fades over time (requiring boosters, or, if you want to take your chances, not requiring boosters). Not so with ye olde circumcision.

      • dks64 says:

        So genital mutilation is a good idea just in case the child decides to have unprotected sex with someone who is HIV positive? It doesn’t even guarantee the person won’t contract it, just POSSIBLY lowers risk. How about teaching your kid to use a condom every time?

        • rmorin says:

          So injecting tetanus toxin and formaldehyde is a good idea just in case the child decides to step on a rusty nail? It doesn’t even guarantee the person won’t contract it, just POSSIBLY lowers risk. How about teaching your kid to not step on rusty nails?

          • Bladerunner says:

            Except tetanus is contracted due to accidents often. You don’t “accidentally” have sex.

            And the risk from tetanus vaccine of permanent problems is less than circumcision by a great deal.

          • Bakkster says:

            Wait, now you’re claiming vaccine efficacy is justification not to use them? Despite the fact that you’re in favor of circumcision which PROBABLY DOESN’T reduce the risk of STD transmission (44% reduction is not much)?

            That’s a nice side effect, but hardly worth depending on. Call me back when circumcision is 90+% effective.

          • Bakkster says:

            PS, tetanus vaccine is 93% effective preventing contraction, and 99% effective against death from tetanus. That’s damn effective.

      • Cerne says:

        Yes because vaccinations and circumcision are exactly the same thing, both involve permanent changes to the genital area for instance.. Also condoms don’t exist and the majority of high school students are HIV positive.

        Seriously man get a grip.

        • rmorin says:

          So injecting children with chemicals which change body physiology to illicit immune response: normal!
          Cutting of a 5mm flap of skin on an infant: barbaric!

          Weird lines you draw.

          Oh and condoms do exist! Thanks for pointing that out. So under your logic, women should not receive Gardasil until they are 18. Remember condoms exist they can just use those! And Gardasil does permanantly change body physiology, so we should wait until they are 18 to make that choice! What a joke.

          • Bladerunner says:

            In what permanent and detrimental way does Gardasil change the body?

            • Bladerunner says:

              Still waiting for the “detrimental” part…

              • rmorin says:

                There are very few if any long term adverse effects of Gardasil. Perhaps long term complications from an allergic reaction?

                There are very few if any demonstrated long term adverse effects of circumcision. Perhaps decreased penile sensitivity? I don’t have the data in front of me so I can’t comment, but I know that Drs I work with would explain to parents that the risks are minor and can include infection, and decreased sexual sensitivity later in life. (There is also a very, very small risk of disfigurement, but I again don’t have the data in front of me). I last worked there in 2008.

                My whole point is that it is a choice, and not an outrageous one. Parents should be able to make these choices for their children. Medical guidelines should come from medical professionals and not judges, or law makers.

                • Bladerunner says:

                  And the Doctors say (as of 1999): “Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.”


                  The American Association of Pediatrics can’t recommend circumcision.

                  Many insurance providers consider it elective.

                  So the “benefits” are not proven and, at best, are minimal.

                  The risks are great:

                  “Drs I work with would explain to parents that the risks are minor and can include infection, and decreased sexual sensitivity later in life. ” THOSE ARE NOT MINOR, AT ALL.

                  So you have NO negative consequences for Gardasil.

                  Circumcision is disfiguring, with the potential for life-changing complications.

                  But they’re equivalent to you?

                  Any time a parent wants to willfully and permanently disfigure their child, they better have a good reason as far as I’m concerned. “I’m their parent” isn’t enough.

      • mbbbus says:

        Thank you for not giving up. Please continue to make sense.

    • ChuckECheese says:

      “Consenting adults:” Your parents agreed to have your foreskin removed. Done.

  10. mistyfire says:

    How does one at 28, become “recently” aware that they were circumcised?

  11. axolotl says:

    It seems in this case, the penis mightier than the surgical scissors…

  12. Costner says:

    I read this yesterday since it made the local news (I’m a SD native). Have to say I didn’t see the consumerism angle on this one, but maybe hospitals offer coupons or something.

  13. ZachPA says:

    This man did not just recently learn he was circumcised. His penis has been a part of his body for 28 years, 10 of which have been spent as a legal adult.

    I’m not certain exactly how many years one has in South Dakota to file a civil claim for damages, but I would suspect 10 years is long past the statute of limitations. Most SOL laws in the US start ticking the clock when damages are either discovered or inflicted. Either way, because this man is at least 10 years an adult, and a reasonable adult would know if his penis is circumcised, he is SOL on the SOL.

    Also, even if the doctor in the hospital lied through his teeth to this man’s parents 28 years ago, there is quite a difference between what is true and what can be proven in court.

    • Emerald4me says:

      Yeah, what is the statute of limitations? Sounds like a prisoner who just wants a quick $1,000. He is probably guessing the hospital’s insurance will just pay that out and not bother with this.

      • Snowblind says:

        Strangely, that is the same amount of money that “Bubba” wants so he does not become “Bubba’s” new bitch.

    • castlecraver says:

      You might be surprised that in places where circumcision is still the prevailing norm, including America, even well-educated adults occasionally are unaware their penises have been modified until the first time they see an intact one, which may well have been in prison in this man’s case.

    • TennisFan says:

      The one thing that makes sense is that he’s representing himself. Any lawyer would have told him the statute of limitations had passed. I doubt that it would even be delayed until he reached the age of 18. Even so, the incident occurred 28 years ago and he probably doesn’t have any evidence that the circumcision occurred in the hospital where he was born. If he did, it would likely have the physician’s name on it.

  14. El_Fez says:

    Wait – he’s 28 years old and he’s just NOW noticing that his penis has been messed with? How fat is this guy?

  15. Remarkable Melba Kramer says:

    I’ve always wanted to work in the circumcision ward!

    I heard it pays four skins a week and a chance to get ahead!!

  16. Straspey says:

    Religious male circumcision:

    “Religious male circumcision generally occurs shortly after birth, during childhood or around puberty as part of a rite of passage.

    Circumcision is most prevalent in Muslim countries and Israel, and is most prevalent in the Jewish and Muslim faiths, although also common in the United States, the Philippines, South Korea, and among Christians in the countries of West Africa, Ethiopia and Kenya, which are predominantly Christian.

    It is also practised among Christians in Egypt, Syria and Lebanon. It is also common in several African tribal groups. It is less common in Europe and Latin America, though practised in the large Muslim population in India and among some Indian Christians, depending on region and family background.

    Circumcision for medical reasons is quite widely performed in China and Japan, being the largest single medical procedure performed in both countries, but religious circumcision in each is comparatively rare, and largely confined to the Muslim population.

    Hodges argues that in Ancient Greece the foreskin was valued and that Greek and Roman attempts to abolish ritual circumcision were prompted by humanitarian concerns.

    Male circumcision practiced as a religious rite is found in the Hebrew Bible, as part of the Abrahamic covenant, such as Genesis 17, and is therefore practiced by Jews and Muslims and some Christians, those who constitute the Abrahamic religions.

    Sixth Dynasty (2345 – 2181 BC) tomb artwork in Egypt is thought to be the oldest documentary evidence of circumcision, the most ancient depiction being a bas-relief from the necropolis at Saqqara (ca. 2400 B.C) with the inscription reading “Hold him and do not allow him to faint”.

    In the oldest written account, by an Egyptian named Uha, in the 23rd century B.C, he describes a mass circumcision and boasts of his ability to stoically endure the pain: “When I was circumcised, together with one hundred and twenty men…there was none thereof who hit out, there was none thereof who was hit, and there was none thereof who scratched and there was none thereof who was scratched.”

    Circumcision in ancient Egypt was thought to be a mark of passage from childhood to adulthood…”

    More here:

    • Bladerunner says:

      Are you just posting info for the curious, or do you have a point you’re trying to establish?

  17. Kestris says:

    I am amused by all the commenters saying that since there’s no medical nessecity in cicumcision, that it should be banned, and are completely disregarding that there are certain religions that REQUIRE a baby to be circumsised.

    • kobresia says:

      This so-called “religious/cultural necessity” does not make it okay to perform a severe sexual mutilation surgery on a female child, why should it excuse *any* medically-unnecessary and non-consensual body modifications to any child?

      • LabGnome says:

        Because it is the right religion. :) /s

        • kobresia says:

          What’s comical about the “right religion” is that it claims man is created in God’s very image. Logical extension would imply that God therefore has a foreskin, and if a foreskin is the picture of perfection, why would it ever need to be removed? Or is God just a foolish dolt who lacks forethought and has to make demands on His Chosen People to mutilate themselves to fix his mistakes?

    • iblamehistory says:

      As already stated, there are religions requiring the clitoris to be removed and/or the labia to be sewn shut in girls. There are also religions requiring men to take several child brides and begin trying to impregnate them at the onset of puberty.

      Religious convictions do not trump human rights. Human rights win out every time. And before anyone chimes in with “lol circumcision as a human rights violation,” tell me… how is genital integrity NOT a human right?

  18. kobresia says:

    The claims of torture and grievous lasting damage are ridiculous, the question really boils down to whether it’s a parent’s right to conduct non-consensual cosmetic body modifications on their children as if they own them.

    I’d see circumcision as being akin to parents tattooing a child, having a child’s ears or nasal septum pierced, binding their feet in wrappings so they can wear stupidly tiny shoes as adults, or using those neck rings to mash their clavicles down to make their necks look really long. Many of those sorts of body-mods-forced-on-children things are religiously- or culturally-motivated, just like circumcision, and not performing them can have cultural implications despite the potential for those practices to cause lasting physical damage to the children.

    I consider the much worse abusive behavior that parents commit against their children is indoctrinating them with religious bullshit.

    • Bladerunner says:

      “The claims of torture and grievous lasting damage are ridiculous”…

      It is a fact that being circumcised changes sex for the circumcised, to a greater or lesser degree depending on factors. No medical professional that I know of doubts that.

  19. kataisa says:

    Why are inmates allowed to sue anybody?

    • who? says:

      One of my friends has a full time job handling liability claims for the county jail. This is pretty much par for the course.

  20. Fishnoise says:

    If you’re unaware you were injured by someone, the “discovery rule” MIGHT in unusual circumstances toll the statute of limitations depending on the specifics of state law. Only $1,000 in damages, though? It seems unlikely a federal court would find it has jurisdiction — and a federal judge will ding this guy’s commissary account for every dollar of the filing fees before dismissing this.

    • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

      He’s probably hoping the hospital would settle for some small amount vs. paying for a lawyer’s time to defend the case. The guy would probably settle for $500, which is cheaper than paying attorney fees for a few hours.

      • Fishnoise says:

        You’re right, he was probably thinking that, but the way to get $1,000 is to threaten to file, not to force the defendant to spend money first by filing an answer to his cornball complaint before negotiations take place. As long as the hospital is already out $$$ for legal fees, it won’t stop until it gets a piece of him .. um, I mean ANOTHER piece of him.

  21. Cat says:

    It seems the surgical team misread the doctor’s instructions. It said to give him a “circular incision”.

  22. t2fastspin says:

    I wonder how they found this article? Were they tipped off?

  23. Gman says:

    To folks claiming it should be illegal:

    First of all as many have said – there are religious and health reasons for it.

    Secondly – I seriously doubt you can find a single person who vividly remembers the pain they felt. I know my son does not. He stopped crying before he even got out of the doctors office.
    Heck he cried longer when he wanted to bring one of his toys to school than after the appointment.

    Third – if you are going to ban any type of “optional” procedures why limit it to only circumcision? Why not piercings and tattoos of all types? Why focus on only one aspect of the body? Why not ban mothers from piercing their daughters ears till the girl turns 18?

    • castlecraver says:

      First: irrelevant and heavily disputed, respectively.

      Second: also irrelevant. And anecdotal.

      Third: Because in most cases, those body modifications are decided upon by an informed adult/teen capable of weighing the decision rather than an infant. I have no idea whether it would be technically legal for a mother to drag her daughter to a shop kicking and screaming and force her to get pierced/tatooed clearly against her will (and what tattoo artist would agree to do it?), but no, that should also not be allowed.

      • iblamehistory says:

        Agreed x 3. Just adding, babies slip into shock as it’s being done. “He didn’t cry” because his body ran out of options and decided down almost completely in order to try to survive an life threatening situation. That’s how the nervous system works–shut down any process that is not absolutely vital in sustaining life. The same response would be seen if you took a gun and shot a baby in the arm.

        Sure, babies don’t explicitly remember. But feel free to do some light research into how his procedure affects attachment and the psychological impact, both explicit and implicit. If you’re not up for this, I’ll summarize: it screws them up majorly. But you wouldn’t know, since you have nothing to compare it to.

        If a baby won’t remember the pain of having part of his penis cut off, why don’t you just smack him upside the head a few times? Just as cruel, he won’t remember, and it even leaves less lasting physical effects!

        Lastly, I wasn’t tattooed by my parents. I was tattooed when I decided to be in my mid-20s. My ears were pierced when I was 9 and I asked for it. My only complaint with my ears is that I was taken to a mall and not a certified piercer. I also feel that it should be illegal to pierce a baby’s ears. No licensed piercer will pierce a child who doesn’t ask for it and express understanding, and since piercings should be banned unless done by a licensed piercer, there you go. No guns should ever be involved–they are impossible to sanitize properly, and they blast a dull rod through the tissue, destroying it. Not to mention they’re also wielded by high schoolers who learn to use them on teddy bears.

        • Thalia says:

          Have you ever actually seen a circumcision? That is not what shock looks like. Seriously, people advocating against this procedure don’t have a clue what it looks like, what it is, or the benefits or drawbacks. It’s kind of a religious issue for them.

          • Bladerunner says:

            No, you’re very very wrong. On every count that you mention. Babies DO sometimes slip into psychogenic shock, and it’s NOT religious, and some of us DO know what it is and HAVE seen it, which is in part why we’re against parents having this “choice”.

          • castlecraver says:

            The only religion here is the fanaticism about maintaining a centuries-old religious practice that has yet to show any practical medical benefit that would rationalize its continued routine application on infants.

    • dks64 says:

      I’m all for banning piercings on children, it’s ridiculous. The difference between circumcision and piercings is major body mutilation. The foreskin doesn’t grow back and having your ears pierced doesn’t affect your sexual pleasure.

  24. Golfer Bob says:

    This is just the tip of the case. Once you get deeper into it, there will be plaintiffs popping up out of the woodwork.

  25. NumberSix says:

    I support him on this, but only a moral victory would be acceptable. A financial victory could be bad news.

  26. some.nerd says:

    He’s at least 28 years old, and he was just “recently made aware” – not even self-observed – his circumcision??
    No wonder he’s an inmate. DERP!

  27. Piddles says:

    This is a good suit. To paraphrase someone else’s words, “We made female circumcision legal the afternoon it was discovered to be a real procedure.” Male circumcision is genital mutilation regardless of its context, and his current life circumstances. Even if the baby is Jewish, parents are required by tradition to have a Bris at least a week after birth. Hopefully it will set a precedent, but the kind that requires parents to sign waivers. The kind that requires hospitals to not perform the procedure unless specifically requested.

  28. Jawaka says:

    Meh, sue your parents, not the hospital. The hospital only did it because your parents had them do it. But of course this won’t happen since the hospital is a more lucrative target.

  29. Golfer Bob says:

    Ok, Consumerist missed comedy gold when they left out that the inmate’s name is Dean Cochrun.

  30. fsnuffer says:

    All this person is doing is trying to become a perfect prick

  31. StupidSTUPIDLogin says:

    Loss of sexual prowess with…all the other inmates?

    Noticed something was lacking by staring at….all the other inmates?

    Lol fool just wants more money, looked at his junk, and thought, “Aha!…”

    • Jane_Gage says:

      Don’t be dense. If I got arrested I’d get sent to the hole and have a six month masturbation marathon.

  32. The Online Presence says:

    I will start by stating that I am not circumcised.

    Being circumcised DOES in fact decrease sexual sensation. The foreskin has many nerve endings which of course one would be missing if it is removed. Maybe others here who are uncircumcised would like to comment on this. If I were to retract by foreskin (while flaccid) and kept my penis in my underwear it would be quite sensitive and uncomfortable as it rubs on the material of the clothing. This is because the foreskin protects the glans. Circumcised men seem to have no problem with that discomfort because the nerve endings are less sensitive. The foreskin is a very soft skin as well. Imagine a male in a hunter gatherer society walking around naked having the head of his penis rubbing against all types of grass and bushes (ouch!) because they had no foreskin – it would be very painful. Once you remove the foreskin it is gone and the process cannot be undone (even if skin is attached back on it will not have the sensation that an intact foreskin does).

    It is as silly to argue that men should have circumcisions performed to protect against the SLIGHT POSSIBILITY of an infection (or in very rare cases penile cancer) as it is to say that women should have their breasts removed to avoid breast cancer. If a situation arises it can be dealt with then.

    • kobresia says:

      I wear silk boxers to eliminate chafing, problem solved! I find it pretty uncomfortable to not wear them under other clothes, they’re like a giant foreskin, I guess.

      I don’t disagree that I’m probably missing some tiny and/or different sensation during sex or masturbation. However, while I have no way of knowing what I’m missing, I’m quite confident in my assessment that it doesn’t really hamper those activities appreciably. With the exception of those who experienced a botched or infected circumcision that really did serious damage, I’m guessing it’s not that serious of an issue for most of us.

      I mostly just have a bug up my ass over it being a religiously-motivated or thoughtless, and completely unnecessary mutilation, despite being pretty trivial.

      The “medical grounds”, as you note, are spurious and can be dealt with. Really, all the justifications are simply feeble attempts to invent a solution (and not even a particularly effective one!) to various non-problems.

      The biggest hoot is that one how “having a foreskin increases the potential to be infected with HIV via sexual contact”. I think on the scale of “risk of contracting HIV”, “having unprotected sex with someone who has HIV/AIDS” is 99% of the risk factor there. It’s not just that the claim is dumb, it also is disinformation, just like the pope saying condoms increase the spread of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa. Bottom line: Circumcision alone does not confer any practical protection (and even the theoretical protection is extremely shaky at best) from HIV, so I strongly feel that testicular amputation is appropriate corrective surgery for anyone who makes that claim, because they are so stupid they shouldn’t be allowed to reproduce.

    • Thalia says:

      Good to know that you know how it feels to not have something you have never not had.

      Turns out if you actually talk to adults who have been circumcised (not that uncommon, for religious or medical reasons), who have had sex circumcised and uncircumcised, they do not think they lost sexual sensation and enjoyment. And given that their data is based on real information, not just their “thinking” I tend to give it more credence.

      • Bladerunner says:

        Huh. Weird. How you’d be so totally wrong. Again.

        For citation:

        I wager it’s also worse when done on a child than when done on an adult, but of course, they’ve done no studies on that to my knowledge, so it’s idle speculation I suppose.

      • The Online Presence says:

        Your anecdotal evidence of going around asking guys who have have had this procedure done is crap. Did YOU go around finding men who have had this done to ask them about their penile sensitivity before and after circumcision? More than 3 men? More than 100? Even if men who were circumcised as adults didn’t report a loss of sensation that doesn’t make it the case for males who are circumcised as infants. We are talking about nearly 2 decades of the glans rubbing on clothing and such while the penis is developing.

        If it weren’t for the fact that religion brought circumcision into practice most people would find it to be both ridiculous and barbaric. Cut off any body part for the purposes of a ritual and then have someone come up with reasons why its better not to have said body part as justification for removing it. “If we amputate your legs now you will never have to worry about skinning your knees or spraining your ankles.”

  33. HogwartsProfessor says:

    Sounds like a bored inmate who needs something to do.

  34. Abradax says:

    The hospital should agree to sew the foreskin back on, but refuse to cover the anesthesia. He either pays for it, or gets an owie.

  35. BennieHannah says:

    When my son was born, it was common in the mid 80’s, it was common to routinely snip male infants. I put a halt right away because it was an issue I hadn’t even thought about, given that we didn’t know if we were having a girl or a boy. My husband and I went home, thought about it for a week, and decided to have the circumcision given that all of our male family members were circumcised as were most other male infants within our community. In fact, I’ve never seen an uncircumcised penis (but hope to….one day…in my whorish nursing home years). So I guess my response is — get over it. If that’s the worst thing that’s ever happened to you, you’re a lucky guy. My parents paid for speech therapy that GAVE me a speech impediment and my mother had me injected with weekly antibiotics for my non-existent allergies. They also told me all kinds of shit about Jesus that proved to be false. I still speak to them and give them (admittedly crappy) presents on special occasions, because I “love” them. Whatever that means.

    • iblamehistory says:

      If having your genitals permanently mutilated is the worst thing to happen to you, you’re lucky? What sick, masochistic world do you live in? Congratulations on taking your son’s bodily autonomy and choice away from him.

      No doctor will give ANTIBIOTICS for allergies. My allergies are non existent as well–because I was given weekly allergy shots with increasingly higher amounts of the allergens until my body had built a resistance and was no longer affected by them.

    • castlecraver says:

      I see; if everyone else is doing it, it must be right. I guess the parable about “if all your friends jumped off a bridge” must come out a little different when you teach it to your son?

  36. Thalia says:

    Find me a single religious source which requires this. You will not find one. This is a cultural, not religious, practice. Nice try though.

    • Bladerunner says:

      “According to the Hebrew Bible (Genesis 17:10-14) God commanded the Biblical patriarch Abraham to be circumcised, an act to be followed by his descendants:

      10 This is My covenant, which ye shall keep, between Me and you and thy seed after thee: every male among you shall be circumcised. “

  37. ironflange says:

    When my son was about ten, he found out about the procedure and asked if I had been done (he hadn’t).

    Me: Yes

    Him: Why?

    Me: It makes you more aerodynamic.

    That got me the funniest look ever, I can still picture it.

  38. TLCTugger says:

    Of course being a convict does not affect his right to sue for grievous harm inflicted upon him in childhood.

    Of course cutting away nerve laden tissue affects sexual sensation and removing that slinky sleeve of slack skin affects sexual function. The ONLY person with the standing to say whether that is a good or bad loss is the owner of the genitals.

    Naturally he should prevail in the lawsuit. But let’s hope that doesn’t mean the state pays for surgical reconstruction. NON-surgical foreskin restoration works much better.

  39. pika2000 says:

    Most people that pro-circumcision are saying it’s to prevent certain diseases (which is a dangerous precedent vs using condoms).

    Based on their logic, I propose doctors to staple shut their mouths. Many diseases are caused by ingestion of the foreign material. Count also other health issues like diabetes, hypertension, obesity, etc. So we should staple their mouths shut, and they would simply eat via feeding tube with a controlled diet. Same logic.

  40. Mr. Spy says:

    His parents performed what they believed to be a medically/religiously necessary operation. He was not old enough to make an informed decision in the matter. His parents had the legal right to ask for this operation to be performed. The doctor did it legally.

    Is it wrong or right? Screw it. It was done legally and correctly and he has no case.

    Don’t agree with the law? Try to get it changed. Don’t just go A-Sue’in

    • Bladerunner says:

      There is no law specifically allowing it. He’s claiming that he was wronged civilly (a tort), and he’s not trying to argue any constitutional violation, he’s arguing that he’s already covered under existing tort law.

  41. bosozoku says:

    I’m glad I can’t fit a roll of quarters in my foreskin – and so are 100% of the ladies I’ve been with – because the male part is kind of funny looking in the first place, but even more-so ‘intact’. Besides it’s already pretty sensitive, I’d hate to cut my action time down (as short as it is already). Sidenote – Kristen Wigg in Bridesmades did a pretty good impression.

  42. Weekilter says:

    Not too smart if it took him 28 years to find out that he got clipped. And how does he know what he’s missed?

  43. Press1forDialTone says:

    What an ass! How about a second circumcision and this time we go down to the

  44. redhand32 says:

    “Foreskin and 7 years, our fore[skin]fathers built a great nation based on tips of discarded penile tissue, and surviving little pee shooters that streamed urine jets in the waiting eyes of proud and loving parents across this nation. Yet, today we are challenged by some, who in their twisted cynicism are unhappy with the traditions of our crotch sages of yore, preferring instead smegma sticks, groin lint, wicked willies, wicks swing in the breeze male showers across the land,– from the forests of Maine, to Midwestern corn fields, to the taco trucks of east LA.

    Is this who we are, a bunch of two bit [no pun] eunuchs, fearfully clutching our private parts in horror, imagining we may one day in puberty shout our lines in high school plays as would Mickey Mouse, or some pedestrian counter-tenor ? No, we will not succumb to the testosterone twisted imagination and cynical pay days of litigants of convenience. Circumcision now, circumcision forever, — BOYEEEEEEZ!”