How did Florida’s stud quarterback Tim Tebow spend his spring break?
Tebow, the Florida quarterback and Heisman Trophy winner, spent spring break in the Philippines and — according to Dave Curtis of the Orlando Sentinel — helped circumcise impoverished children.
Tebow, who has no surgical training, was visiting an orphanage his father’s ministry runs in the country and assisted with the care of locals who had walked miles to the temporary clinic the ministry helped organize.
“The first time, it was nerve-racking,” he said. “Hands were shaking a little bit. I mean, I’m cutting somebody. You can’t do those kinds of things in the United States. But those people really needed the surgeries. We needed to help them.”
I loved Deadspin’s headline on this: “Tim Tebow has a steady hand, we hope” –Jim Buzinski
on May 5th, 2008 at 4:57 PM
“But those people really needed the surgeries. We needed to help them.”
How does anyone “need” the most sensitive part of their penis cutting off? About 80% of the world’s males are intact, and they manage juuuust fine.
If he’d been in a country where they cut out the clitoral hood (the female foreskin), would he have helped out there too?
The sooner this antiquated custom dies out, the better.
on May 5th, 2008 at 6:10 PM
I’d say that if an impoverished child lives in an area where various diseases are easily spread, it might not be a bad idea.
on May 5th, 2008 at 10:13 PM
On the contrary, when you live in an area where various diseases are easily spread, an additional wound is a very bad idea. (And the many, many, ridiculously many medical claims for circumcision are all bogus or trivial. It’s originally about sex-magic, now cemented in place by custom and conformity.)
on May 5th, 2008 at 11:53 PM
This Tebow fellow should be ashamed of participating in a brutal ritual which minors are pressured to conform with.
No national medical association on earth recommends routine circumcision.
on May 6th, 2008 at 1:26 AM
Beyond the circumcision, the bigger issue is that neither Tim Tebow, nor any of these other people, seem to have received any formal medical training, other than a “crash course” in circumcisions. What happens if there are follow-on infections? What is the quality of the surgery? What health information did “Dr. Tebow” dispense?
I also find it very sad that BEFORE these poor folks went to their “surgery” they went through a religious sermon. It seems they took advantage of desperate people to promote their religious message.
And they stayed at “Uncle Dick’s Home”???? Sheesh.
on May 6th, 2008 at 4:51 AM
I think the Doctors in the area know alittle more about what is best for the patients they have. What do any of you know about anything in the Phillipines? Relax guys!!! Why do people always have to knock others who are just serving people?
on May 6th, 2008 at 3:01 PM
Circumcision has become a routine ritual in the Phillipines. Fewer than 5% of males ever have a medical need for circumcision. Being that an untrained person was performing cosmetic surgery on pre-teen boys, I am appalled at any group that calls themselves a Christian group in condoning this. It is astounding. They should only be doing procedures that are medically necessary and those surgeries should be done by qualified professionals…not Tim Tebow! There are a variety of things that can go wrong with circumcisions.
on May 6th, 2008 at 5:24 PM
Christians are NOT supposed to circumcise. Read Acts 15 and Galatians 5. The early Christian church forbids male circumcision without an absolute medical need. No national medical organization in the world recommends infant/child circumcision on heath grounds. The Christian viewpoint is that Jesus shed blood and died for all mankind. The Jewish blood sacrifice was done away with by a new covenant — faith in Jesus Christ.
Circumcision is a very un-Christian thing to do.
Shame on Tebow and all those who sexually mutilate children.
on May 6th, 2008 at 7:31 PM
Who cares? He’s TT–he can do whatever he wants.
on May 6th, 2008 at 8:26 PM
It’s absolutely ASTONISHING to me that there are actually people here defending the fact that a football player goes over to another country and with NO medical training whatsoever, and with hands shaking, cuts the foreskin off of boys (who can’t consent to the operation) and then laughs about how he couldn’t get away with it in the US.
I know some people are cult like in their support for involutary male circumcision but the comments here are truly a disturbing eye opener of just how deep their lunacy goes.
on May 6th, 2008 at 10:02 PM
It’s a poor reflection on outsports.com to parrot on article on child sexual abuse without comment. Shouldn’t a site related to sexual equality serve to call out those who repress the sexual equality of others? Circumcision on non consenting children is a violation of basic human rights. I wish leaders in the American gay community would explain how male circumcision is ‘different.’ I doubt lesbians would let pass Martina going to Africa to help circumcise young girls.
on May 6th, 2008 at 10:18 PM
We reported the fact of what Tebow did and it’s your choice whether you wish to comment. I needn’t have an opinion on everything I post. This is a “talk” story that has gotten a fair amount of attention in the media.
on May 7th, 2008 at 12:11 AM
I’m “cut” and quite pleased. Sorry, but the uncut, flacid penis looks like a plantain. And comparing circumcision to clitoral removal is just plain disingenuous.
on May 7th, 2008 at 12:32 AM
Well I was circumcised, born in 1961, when probably 95% of male infants were
routinely “cut.” I certainly don’t feel traumatized or mutilated, and in fact an
uncircumcised penis looks strange to me.
BTW, I was most likely circumcised by a hung-over intern or resident at Baylor
University Medical Center, Dallas, TX.
on May 7th, 2008 at 12:34 AM
BTW, I suppose that now, at age 46, I should get some shyster lawyer to file a
specious class-action suit against BUMC for circumcising me. My parents consented to it, so I and my peers would have absolutely no basis to sue — but
that never deterred any of these ambulance-chasers!
on May 7th, 2008 at 1:01 PM
the comparison between ritual female circumcision and ritual male circumcision is completely appropriate and not at all disingenuous. the differences are only of degree, not kind. brutal and unnecessary for both sexes.
on May 7th, 2008 at 6:49 PM
So, a difference of degree, not kind, makes them the same? That’s like saying piercing your inftant daughter’s ears is the same as driving a stake through her heart.
Folks there are a LOT more pressing issues to worry about than circumcision.
on May 8th, 2008 at 1:00 AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22043754/?GT1=10645
It’s to help stop AIDS.
on May 8th, 2008 at 4:30 AM
i spent MY spring break doin bypass surgeries in Florida!
on May 8th, 2008 at 9:28 AM
I’m furious that my parents had me circumcised. No one should be allowed to do this to someone too young to speak up for himself. This practice should be outlawed. The owner can have this done when, and if he chooses. I like the foreskin, it’s primitive, and it’s cool looking.
on May 8th, 2008 at 9:51 AM
No, circumcision does not prevent AIDS and the study done in Africa can be disproven on multiple grounds.
First, the scientists gave the circumcized men a much stronger message regarding safe-sex practices and abstinence than they gave to the men who remained uncircumcized. For the test to be scientifically accurate both sets of men had to receive the same sex education.
Second, the scientists circumcized the intact men after a very short period of time. Too short to see any long-term effects caused by foreskin or a lack thereof.
Third, if the study in Africa really does prove that circumcision prevents the spread of HIV/AIDS then it must apply to every group of humans around the world. However, Europe (where circumcision is extremely rare) has a much lower rate of HIV/AIDS than the United States where circumcision is much more prevalent.
And finally, I think we in the gay community should all know by now that HIV/AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease that is spread through having sex without a condom. HIV/AIDS cannot be prevented through circumcision, it can be prevented through abstinence and the use of condoms.
on May 8th, 2008 at 11:46 PM
Give it up John. The the transmission of the AIDS virus can be significantly reduced through circumcision.
In scientific circles, the perceived links between male circumcision and HIV infection are nothing new. For years, AIDS researchers have observed that many African tribes that circumcise boys or young men had lower HIV rates than those that do not, and that Africa’s Islamic nations, where circumcision is near universal, had far fewer AIDS cases than predominantly Christian ones.
Now, trials in Kenya, Uganda and South Africa have all shown that male circumcision significantly reduces a man’s risk of acquiring HIV. The three sets of trials have shown circumcised men are up 50 to 60% less likely to acquire HIV during heterosexual intercourse.
on May 9th, 2008 at 7:39 AM
HIV can not live outside it’s host for very long. Isn’t hygiene really the key factor here. I don’t think these ppl have access to soap and water as readily as others would have in a developed state.
http://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/rwanda-circumcise-all-men-even-if-it-means-more-hiv-infection/
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/
on May 9th, 2008 at 1:52 PM
CJ, don’t forget, it also prevents epilepsy, blindness, masturbation and hundreds of other horrible things. Science has proven it over the years. Of course science subsequently disproved such claims but let’s not cloud the issue with the facts.
The African study has been roundly disproven based on nothing more than flawed methodology.
For example, how do YOU explain how it is that the US (where the vast majority of men are circumcised) has the HIGHEST AIDS infection rate in the western world; even higher than European countries where homosexuality is more easily expressed but circumcision is very rare. How do YOU explain how the researchers in the African study claim that these results only hold true for AFRICAN PENISES and the study would not be applicable to American or European penises?
And for those who believe that no one should have the right to make this decision for themselves just because they are happy with their circumcised state; how selfish. There are many African women who are happy with their genital mutilation and feel that all females should undergo the proceedure (which, by the way is carried out by females). That certainly doesn’t make it right.
I believe that ANYONE who wishes to be circumcised should have the right but no one should have that decision made for them. It’s a simple issue of my body my choice. I honestly don’t understand why such a position makes so many people pop a vein.
on May 9th, 2008 at 3:57 PM
Tebow should be ashamed of himself. Circumcision of children is a sick practice that has unfortunately become culturally entrenched in many societies. There is *no*medical benefit attributed to it that cannot be accomplished by other, less radical, means.
on May 10th, 2008 at 10:05 PM
I am ashamed of the American media for making Tim Tebow out to be some Christian hero who is helping the world by removing the most sensative part of a man. Oh excuse me, in his case it’s of young boys. Circumcision is wrong no matter how you cut it, no pun intended. Female and male circumcision ARE the same, regardless of what non-believers think. The only difference is the degree. If you don’t understand this then please do some research on it before you comment back. Also I am happy to see that the American Gay community has made an effort to fight for human rights and end the sick ritual called “circumcision” but I am dissapointed in the Straight community for not speaking up. I am a straight man and I think circumcision of non consenting persons is wrong. Why don’t more straight men speak up??? I was cut at birth and I am highly upset about it. The choice was talking from me along with the most sensative part of my body. My mother was lied to when I was born. She asked my pediatrician “why should he be circumcised?” and he replied “the skin is useless, it has no feeling, will only cause he problems and he won’t feel it being removed.” Absolute bullsh*t!!! It seems that straight American men feel that they are “weak” or “soft” if they speak against circumcision. I’ve even heard some say that it make you “gay”, how ignorant. If a man says that he’s upset with his penis then its assumed he must be less of a man. Thats bullsh*t too!!! I guess I’m one of the few straight men that is confident enough in himself, his penis and his sexuality to talk about this. I just hope that eventually more men will grow a pair of balls and start saying NO to circumcision of their boys. Looks and social conformaty are not valid reasons to circumcise. Maybe one day we can finally put an end to this unnessesary cosmetic surgery.
on May 11th, 2008 at 6:33 PM
If I understand the reasoning behind it, it seems like a good idea. I admit that I don’t know if I want an inexperienced guy slicing weenies, but his heart is in the right place.
Disease is rampant in these countries so if is lessens the disease rate then good for Tim’s father and tim. I just hope he had a VERY steady hand
on May 12th, 2008 at 6:26 AM
I agree with st149erfan. The dude’s heart was in the right place, it wasn’t like he was going over there to bring shame and disdain upon people. And I wish everyone would stop trampling all over religion like it’s some universal evil that needs to be expunged in the world. So what if the guys was doing it as part of his dad’s ministry, he was trying to do good, and while yes, it would of been better by far if he was actually trained, but chances are at least everything was clean and sterile so can everyone just get off it already? Jeez
on May 12th, 2008 at 4:27 PM
Stl49erfan and Pekemo, Currently in the United States there are many people advocating against rights for gays and lesbians because of their religions and because of the beliefs they hold dear to their hearts. Just because they have their hearts in the right place does not make them right. Just because his heart was in the right place does not justify the forceable surgery on innocent minors.
Mark, regarding hygiene, the foreskin is designed to prevent bacteria and other diseases from entering into the body. Obviously it is not full-proof (neither is the human immune system in general, for more information read about how the Spanish Influenza killed young people from 1917 until 1919), but it does provide protection as designed by closing the opening of the penis. This is especially true of infants and youngs boys whose foreskins have yet to retract.
on May 12th, 2008 at 11:05 PM
i love circumcised guys. do i think what tebow did was right or wrong? honestly it doesn’t really matter to me. it’s already been done.
on May 13th, 2008 at 2:09 PM
How did I miss this one for so long? Born 1961, not cut, thankful, but being different than most I researched and have had an interest in the subject. It’s not needed on any medical grounds, except a rare case. Even those are dubious and debated widely among doctors. It is a cash cow for hospitals. It’s a freakish test by religious medical nut jobs in the last century intended to keep boys from masturbating. That a religious “mission” would see it as their duty is bizarre. I can only assume they have taken care of all the needs these people have for vaccines, clean water, sanitation, clothing, food and shelter. What kind of monstrous eugenics program do they have to make everyones dick look “right”? The story Brando tells in Apocalypse Now about vaccinating a villages children and then going back to find the people had hacked off all the vaccinated arms to remove the contamination seems all too appropriate. “The horror, the horror.”
on May 15th, 2008 at 6:30 PM
The argument about preventing disease has always struck me as more rationalization than the honest reason. The reason for this mutilation is clearly cultural and as such it should be voluntary, meaning that it should never be performed on a minor.
For the record, I was born in the US in ’59, am cut, and would like to see the doctor who did the job have an equivalent amount removed from his penis for each and every boy that he circumcized… Yeah, I can be a vindictive s.o.b. at times.
Regarding Tebow’s heart “being in the right place”, I would call to mind the phrase: “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
on May 16th, 2008 at 12:06 PM
I don’t have a problem with him touring around and supporting the procedures. My area of concern is how was he trained to perform a circumcision and why would he want to.
on May 17th, 2008 at 3:49 AM
Man, the QB and coach Meyer are both running some freaky right-wing christian circus over in Gatorville. Worse of all the program does’t seem to be any better for it.
on May 19th, 2008 at 1:26 PM
The debate will rage over whether circumcision helps prevent disease. But are these diseases, mainly sexual, a problem in childhood or adulthood? I say leave
the foreskin alone, explain the pro and cons to boys as they enter puberty, and let them decide. I am very much an advocate of “body rights”. No one has the right to enter our most person space and make permanent changes and alterations without our consent….unless absolutely necessary for medical reasons.
on Sep 7th, 2008 at 1:16 PM
This guy, who was too ashamed to be on the Playboy All-American Team, is proud of genitally mutilating these innocent babies
And then is so atrociously arrogant that he parades his physical, emotional & sexual abuse before his college booster club (along w/his ignorant coach), all presumably in the name of God 
{see http://loserswithsocks.com/2008/05/05/tebow-homemade-circumcision/} All this does is add the layers of spiritual & cultural abuse to these heinous acts of cowardice!!! SHAME ON YOU, TIM!!! 
& URBAN!!! 
on Dec 10th, 2008 at 3:03 AM
I knew that guy was cut, wholesome my ass, he’s just neutered like all the other white boys in the USA
on Jan 6th, 2009 at 9:28 AM
eh, just from appearance…cut looks better flacid then uncut.
on Jan 8th, 2009 at 11:47 PM
Um, Hope, from EXPERIENCE (and lots of it), uncut feels and works MUCH better. It works the way a penis is supposed to work. No need for extra lubrication.
And really–should we cut off the labia of baby girls. I think that is a better analogy than the clitoral hood. The labia (both inner and outer) protects both the vaginal and urethral entrance…it also has all kinds of nerve endings.
Unlike the labia though–the foreskin is adhered to the glands. Did you know that they cut/peel the foreskin away from the glands before cutting? It’s like pulling a fingernail away from the finger. I’m glad that they now use pain meds for the poor boys, but it wears off and they don’t give more. It is INSANITY that this is still done.
I chose not to circ my little boy. His body was made perfectly–and I refuse to change perfection to fit some crazy societal norm.
on Jan 14th, 2009 at 6:45 PM
I believe circumcision is wrong but it should be up to an adult man to decide for himself. As a gay man, I would surrender to Tim Tebow anytime though.
on Jun 18th, 2009 at 12:43 AM
If I read the article correctly, Tebow did not do the circumcision but only helped(cut the thread for the medic, etc.). Why are people questioning his lack of training for operating when he actually didn”t do any cutting.
on Jun 18th, 2009 at 2:53 AM
uncut cocks are ugly and unhygienic, it should be mandatory!
on Sep 5th, 2009 at 12:16 PM
I think the amount of foreskin fetishism here masquerading as genuine concern is equally hilarious and disturbing. Implying that male circumcision is at all like female circumcision is hyperbole at best. If sex with a uncircumcised penis is so much better than a circumcised one, I’m glad I’m cut or I’d be dead of a heart attack by now.
on Sep 29th, 2009 at 6:18 AM
dan wrote “If I read the article correctly,Tebow did not do the circumcision but only helped(cut the thread for the medic, etc.)”
dan you did NOT read it correctly it read ““The first time, it was nerve-racking,” he said. “Hands were shaking a little bit. I mean, I’m cutting somebody”
on Oct 17th, 2009 at 10:50 AM
i’m foreskin free and glad i am.tim tebo is doing a great service th the boys. jesus was circumcised. god gave us a great clean gift.so just be proud that tim is willing to circumcise.
on Oct 17th, 2009 at 2:34 PM
I’m glad I was born European…
…and I have never heard anyone telling me with a straight face that I ought to be circumcised just because Jesus was… I’m also hoping that his circumcision was performed by somebody who new what he was doing.
on Jan 16th, 2010 at 9:24 PM
I’m cut and I hate it. I feel it should be outlawed. The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis and cutting it off is a disgrace. Most of my buds are uncut and always tell me how great the sex is. I have always envied all the guys that still have a foreskin. I’d do anything to have mine back. Also a penis with a foreskin looks alot better, it’s the way it’s suppossed to look. Natural and masculine. Also they feel better while in your hand or mouth, more to play with, more to enjoy!
on Jan 27th, 2010 at 7:16 PM
This is absolutely disgusting. Regardless of how you feel about routine infant circumcision (I personally feel that it is wrong, and if you want to reduce spread of disease teach people to use condoms, please) but the fact that an untrained person was doing minor surgery like this is disgusting. This is obviously an example of classism and/or racism if this mission feels that the people they are “serving” are not worthy of receiving the care of trained medical people.
on Jul 24th, 2010 at 11:38 AM
TexJockWannabe…
The reason why uncut cock looks foreign to you is because, as you said, 95% of your peers were violated. That doesn’t make it right.
Since when does someone else have the right to consent on my behalf for a MEDICALLY UNNECESSARY, ELECTIVE SURGERY?
If you wouldn’t have any surgery done to you on any part of your body against your wishes then why would you FORCE it on a child who can’t say no or fight for his/her rights? Where are the human rights lawyers when you need them?
on Jul 24th, 2010 at 11:44 AM
Can you imagine a family member asking the surgeon (without consenting the patient) to go ahead and do a double mastectomy on a grown woman because she has an increased risk for breast cancer.
on Jul 24th, 2010 at 12:36 PM
The sad strange truth is that the reason the anatomically correct penis looks “foreign” to a lot of American guys is that that’s all they’ve ever known.
Since it’s what they’ve grew up with, and all they ever see in textbooks are pictures of foreskin-less penises, and when books talk about the foreskin it’s described as “that extra bit of skin that’s cut off during a circumcision,” how else could they know?
I hate to say it guys, but American sex/medical education has got a lot of you snowed. American medical curriculum is still stuck in the middle ages. It’s a shame that other countries are way ahead of us when it comes to knowledge about dick.
It’s also kind of hard for the average American to even consider that doing this could be wrong. After all, THEY’RE circumcised, and so was dad… and… they’ve probably already circumcised their OWN children. Haven’t you guys.
Look, I know it’s hard, but consider; maybe you were wrong? Maybe your parents were wrong? Maybe, just maybe you and your parents before you were had by doctors wanting to make a quick 300 bucks? It’s not too late to learn. If you’re reading this, you can open up a google page and search “foreskin curriculum” or just “foreskin.” Educate yourselves.
Tebow isn’t a hero. He’s helped with genital mutilation. Someone else said it already, but what if he went to Sudan and was asked to help “properly circumcise impoverished girls.” Would he help? You know, make sure the girls are properly anesthecised so that they won’t feel pain, make sure the utensils are sterile, make sure it’s all nice and clean? Have you ever stopped to wonder why it is that all of this only makes it better for MALE circumcision, but not even if it were done by doctors under the most pristine conditions would we ever accept it for girls?
Sit down and THINK guys. This country’s sex/medical education needs a serious overhaul. Here we are at the beginning of the new millenium, into the 10s now, and we’re still doing this?
Anybody ever wonder when we’re going to “study” and “research” ways to AVOID circumcision? Why is it that studies insist on finding new uses for circumcision? “Research” that focuses on preserving a procedure is backwards. It’s almost like trying to find new ways to improve the 8-track when we’ve long since moved past the CD. We’ve got iPods now!
This Tebow Guy is a douchebag, if not completely misled.
We need to enligthen ourselves.
Peace.
on Jul 24th, 2010 at 12:46 PM
Nerator, I always find it interesting that people have the nerve to accuse those who defend the rights of children as “foreskin fetishists,” when it’s people who favor male circumcision who make silly statements like “I think it’s prettier. Girls like it better. It’s sexier.”
A fetish for a normal, healthy body part? Really? Are sure it’s not the other way around? That unless the dick isn’t cut, you don’t get a hard-on?
And what do you call those who fight against female genital mutilation?
Well, I suppose maybe they have some sort of obsession with the clit and labia then, eh? Maybe we don’t “really” care about a girl’s rights.
on Jul 24th, 2010 at 12:48 PM
And as for the “Christian” comments.
It shows how much you read your Bible.
Go ahead and tell us what Galatians 5 says.
Bottom line: The whole reason there is a Christian church and baptism etc., was because circumcision was so f’ed up they did away with it.
You either get cut, become a Jew and follow the WHOLE law, or you get baptized and follow Jesus. You can’t do both. Ask a Jewish guy. He’ll tell you.
on Jul 24th, 2010 at 1:00 PM
There are many problems with the claims that circumcision prevents STD, and furthermore that this is a good reason to circumcise a kid.
First off, did you ever stop and ask yourself, what risk a child has for contracting sexually transmitted diseases?
I want you to stop and think about that for a sec.
Why would a child need to have the risk for STDs “reduced?”
Fact is, circumcision cannot conclusively prevent ANYTHING. The studies that people are using to promote circumcision at the moment have tons of flaws, but lets’ not get into them. Let’s just say for the sake of argument that they’re 100%; circumcision would only “reduce the risk of HIV transmission by 60%.” Which means that a child would still have to worry about that 40%. Which means he has to learn to use a condom ANYWAY!!! So if he has to use condoms anyway, because STDs wouldn’t be the only worry (there’s also unwanted pregnancy and all that…), what’s even the point?
Let’s just say that the “studies” from Africa people are using were 100% accurate. (they’re not, but that’s another story) Something has got to be wrong with studies that don’t correlate with reality.
In America, for example, 80% of men are already circumcised from birth. The rates of infant circumcision are dropping, but at large, the population remains circumcised. These rates are at their highest in the East Coast, where cities such as Philadelphia and Washington DC rival HIV hotspots in South Africa. In the 1980s, when the AIDS epidemic first hit, the rate of circumcised men in America was at 90%. One needs to question how something that never worked here in our own country is suddenly going to start working wonders in Africa.
In other countries, the “protection” remains to be seen as well. AIDS is a rising problem in Israel, where the majority of the male population is already circumcised. On Wednesday, July 7th this year, Malaysian AIDS Council vice-president Datuk Zaman Khan announced that than 70% of the 87,710 HIV/AIDS sufferers in the country are Muslims (in other words CIRCUMCISED). The Muslim, circumcised population accounts for 70% of the incidence of HIV, but only 60% of the population, which would mean that the circumcised population is getting HIV at a much higher rate than the non-circumcised population.
Tebow isn’t doing ANYONE a favor.
Guys. Bottom line? Not even if there were “studies” that said female circumcision reduced HIV transmission by 100% would we ever consider it an OK thing to do. When something is a human rights violation, it doesn’t MATTER how much research has been written for it. Genital mutilation by any other name would still be genital mutilation. I can’t see how anyone dares bring up “studies.”
“Studies” usually seek to ABOLISH surgical intervention, not to preserve it. This circumcision “study” crap is backwards as bunk. How about let’s “study” how NOT to do this to our kids, eh? Maybe we could find better ways to avoid STDs rather than slashing our cocks and hoping for the best.
I’m out.
Peace.
on Jul 24th, 2010 at 1:44 PM
Let’s be clear.
Comparing the removal of the clitoral hood, aka: the female foreskin, the prepuce, is valid. They are homogeneous tissue derived from the same embryonic tissue. This is not a straw man, as others have suggested.
Anyone who prefers a “cut” man, has a circumcision fetish. Just like a guy who prefers large fake breast has a large breast fetish. However, they are both swimming in the shallow end of the gene pool.
The HIV studies in Africa, assuming they’re accurate, results in a “relative” reduction of 50-60%. The “absolute” reduction is closer to 2%. So you would have to circumcise 100 promiscuous men to prevent 2 promiscuous men from getting HIV. Check the study results if you don’t believe me.
on Jul 24th, 2010 at 3:34 PM
This is child abuse tourism.
on Jul 24th, 2010 at 10:54 PM
Wow, how unabashedly repulsively sadistic.
Even worse, People here are trying to MINIMIZE the genital mutilation of children!
There are things more pressing to worry about than Rape. But does that mean we should overlook such a heinous crime?
Ridiculous. This is some child’s genitals we’re talking about having parts of it mutilated without medical necessity at all!
What is wrong with people?
on Jul 24th, 2010 at 11:30 PM
Circumcision is not the issue, surgery by a two bit zealot football player is. Missionary’s, since someone wrote the bible 300 years after a man named Jesus died, have always imposed their belief on societies that really don’t need their opinion. Fact; most societies norms are lost or forced away by unneeded interference
on Jul 25th, 2010 at 2:01 AM
This is sick. On so many levels. Those poor boys.
on Jul 25th, 2010 at 8:26 AM
Tebow’s heart was not in the right place. MGM is a horrible thing and should be erradicated. Circumcision does not help keep a penis clean and free from infection, proper hygiene does! How anyone in the US can choose to circ their boys is unbelievable to me, what’s even more unbelievable is that we are spreading circumcision under the guise of Christianity and goodwill. It is not Christian (in the true sense of the word) to mutilate a person’s sex organs. Circumcision does not prevent or slow AIDS, it does not prevent UTI’s, it does not prevent masturbation (it’s intended purpose in our puritanical country). It does, however, desensitize the penis and increases the chances that a boy may need more unnecessary procedures, even death. If anadult wants a circumcision, fine, he’s an adult. But I, and my circumcised husband, refused to mutilate our son. If he chooses it as an adult, fine, but I cannot, as a responsible and loving parent, hurt my son, my trusting baby boy, in that manner. Shame on anyone who thinks parents and strangers have a right to make this decision for ANY baby, boy or girl!
on Jul 25th, 2010 at 9:14 AM
I am a Christian who really liked Tebow and his pro-life message. Now, I am sickened that he participated in the genital mutilation of children and babies. How many babies and children are having sex and need protected from an STD anyway?!!!
First, circumcision does NOT protect against disease!!! The prepuce (foreskin) protects against diseases!!!!!!! It’s there for a purpose!!! Boys are not born deformed and need fixed!!!!! The highest rates of STD are in America with the highest rates of cut men! The lowest rates of STD are in countries with few cut men!
There is NO difference between male and female genital mutilation!!! The foreskin is the sexual male equivalent of the female clitoris! Both develop from the same fetal tissue! The reasons to defend both practices are the same!!! It “looks better”, “it’s cleaner”, “it doesn’t hurt”, etc.
I am beyond disgusted!!! I pray Tebow educates himself before he hurts any more children! Both abortion and genital mutilation of males and females are evil assaults against babies and children, who are helpless and can’t defend themselves. I’m thankful Tebow is against abortion, and I pray he learns the truth about circumcision!
He sounds like he really thinks he is doing a good thing, but in this internet age of readily available information, I don’t how he can still be so ignorant.
on Aug 19th, 2010 at 1:41 PM
JC… When will you Earthlings quite mutilating children in my name?!?
on Jul 2nd, 2011 at 9:57 AM
I love it when people come together and share opinions, great blog,keep it up
on Dec 18th, 2011 at 6:13 PM
Wow – I’m surprised this thread has devolved into a question of whether or not circumcision is acceptable or not when the biggest issue is: People without medical training performing surgery. Um… I think you’re all missing the point.
on Jan 9th, 2012 at 8:50 AM
This has been fascinating to read. I thought I’d throw in a little educational material for any of you still following this article.
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1015820-clinical
I am an American and am used to seeing men cut. I have slept with two men who were from out of the country and the sex was terrible. I felt like a glove wrapped inside a glove. Not there for any purpose. If I lived in Europe, I’d be a lesbian.
It’s not that I don’t understand that it’s a form of mutilation, but there are good reasons to do it, though it’s true that most don’t occur until adulthood. I hear that the rates of phimosis, paraphimosis, and general foreskin-related balanitis are low, but I just spent 7 months working in a pathology lab at a small hospital- 10-15 OR procedures per week that involved anatomic path (not including routine dermatology or GI specimens)- we got two or three foreskins per week from men with (usually) phimosis. Not to mention the article I posted about does say there is a link to penile cancer, and higher risks of getting certain kinds of infections due to the environment of the uncircumcised penis. Yes, cleanliness certainly helps, but there’s only so much you can do when it comes to an anatomical situation like this.
The medical equivalent of circumcision on females is a removal of the clitoral hood, NOT the labia or clitoris. The hood is also technically unnecessary, but the risk of diseases in a woman’s future due to her own anatomy are nil compared to those of a man’s. MGM may have started the same way FGM is today- as a tool of oppression. However, the fact is that male circumcision is a medically recognized procedure, elective but valid because complications do rise from being uncut. That is simply not the case for women, so you can’t compare the two side by side.
Thankfully, I am never having children and therefore will not be making a decision to cut or not cut a son. All I know is that I am happy that my husband and boyfriend are both circumcised, and they are as well. If that makes me a fetishist, so be it. I just thought I’d show that there truly are a few medically recognized reasons to circumcise.
PS Tebow sucks.
on Jan 10th, 2012 at 2:57 PM
“. . . and assisted with the care of locals who had walked miles to the temporary clinic the ministry helped organize.”
Sounds like these people wanted it done. So, whether you are for it or not doesn’t mean that someone else isn’t the complete opposite. He is doing what he thinks is right and what these people ask for.