A commonsense look at the practice of neonatal circumcision in America.
To cut or not to cut? For some soon-to-be parents of boys, no question is more agonizing than this one. If they look to the medical literature for guidance, they find conflicting opinions and “dueling studies” that reach conflicting conclusions. Frequently disputed points include the incidence of urinary tract infections in circumcised and uncircumcised babies, the rate of complications of circumcision, and the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases in circumcised and uncircumcised men.
And yet, despite all this point-counterpoint in the learned journals, there are some aspects of circumcision that desperately need the light of plain common sense shined upon them. Advocate and foe alike overlook some issues that are matters of common sense, and debate others without making some commonsense observations that would provide clear guidance. This article discusses four such aspects: circumcision's effect on the experience of sex, the question of whether there is a right to circumcise, keeping clean, and circumcision's potential effect on the parent-child relationship.
Circumcision and the experience of sex. If you cut off a significant piece of an individual's sex organ, it is simply common sense to conclude that his experience of sex will be affected. If you are missing part of the organ, it stands to reason that you miss part of the experience of using the organ. By default, we must assume that circumcision has a negative impact on the experience of sex, including masturbation. The burden of proof rests upon those who claim otherwise. As the saying among scientists goes, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
Circumcision is, in fact, nothing less than the amputation of a major component of the penis. This touches upon an important point: contrary to what many people assume, the foreskin is more than just a “flap of skin.” It is (as many articles explain in more detail) a major functional part of the penis, replete with sexually sensitive nerve endings. A circumcised penis, therefore, is not a normal penis. It is a penis from which a major part is missing. It is an incomplete penis. If you remove a boy's foreskin, we must assume that he will never experience sex as nature intended, which is his birthright.
For some thoughts about this topic in relation to the scientific literature, click here.
A right to circumcise? Since when has it been acceptable to amputate healthy, well-formed parts of a baby? Many people have trouble with ingrown toenails; should we prophylactically rip out all of a baby's toenails to prevent this potential problem? If not, why not? Because nobody has a right to remove normal, healthy parts of a baby. This seems self-evident and unarguable, yet most Americans have a blind spot when it comes to circumcision.
A thought experiment may help clarify this concept. Imagine that an uncircumcised man in his forties has minor genital surgery. When he awakens, he discovers that in addition to the expected surgery, he has been circumcised. When he asks the surgeon for an explanation, the reply is, “I figured that as long as I was operating in that area, I'd go ahead and do a circumcision. It's best for you. Don't worry; it's on the house.”
Would this be grounds for a lawsuit? You bet! And most people would be shocked at the surgeon's gall. Yet I too am a man in his forties, and like the imaginary man, I was circumcised without being consulted. The only difference is that in my case it was done over forty years ago. But the result today is the same: a man in his forties, missing an important piece of his sex organ as a result of actions taken without his permission. The imaginary man at least had a complete penis for over forty years; I had one for no more than a few days.
Keeping clean. Keeping an intact penis clean is not the onerous burden popular opinion would have you believe. Ask yourself: How much effort is required to pull back one's foreskin? Even if you have no familiarity with the intact penis, it's obvious, when you stop to think about it, that retracting the foreskin is not difficult. It certainly is less trouble than lifting an arm to wash an armpit. If you assume that a man would wash that area of his body anyway, you can see that the extra time and effort required to wash under the foreskin is virtually nil.
Besides, even if an intact man doesn't wash for awhile (if, say, he goes trekking in the Himalayas), it's not the end of the world.
Circumcision and the parent-child relationship. Men of my generation can't blame their parents for the loss of their foreskin. In the 1950's and 1960's, cutting in America was in full swing, and to insist that it not be done would have been quite out of the ordinary, and contrary to what American physicians “knew” to be best. It probably would have resulted in a lecture from the doctor.
This is no longer true. Although, sadly, most newborn American boys are still handed over to a surgeon, many in recent years have exited the hospital whole. It's no longer taken for granted that circumcision is part of a boy's neonatal experience.
If you will soon be a parent of a boy, realize that one day your son will understand that there are two kinds of penis in the world. If he is circumcised, he might well become angry when he sees intact friends in the locker room, and awareness dawns in him on a visceral level that you took the liberty of disposing of a significant part of his precious organ. He might let you know unambiguously how he feels, or worse, he might be embarrassed to bring up the subject and harbor a silent, smoldering resentment toward you. And who could blame him?
Some concluding thoughts. Think of a newborn baby boy—so beautiful, so perfect. Isn't it more than a bit insane that one of the first things we do is amputate part of his genitals?
We in America have to ask ourselves why, if circumcision is such a good thing, the rest of the world doesn't follow our example. Other than in countries where most of the population practices circumcision for religious purposes, neonatal circumcision has never been widely practiced in the population as a whole outside of the predominantly Anglo countries, and all of those countries except the United States have to a large degree dropped it. Why?
As mentioned earlier, the rate of circumcision in America has dropped since its heyday in the 1950's and 1960's. Part of that drop is due to the large number of immigrants from countries where circumcision was never widely practiced, but part of it is also due to people waking up from the hypnotic spell that circumcision holds over this country. Let's hope that more and more Americans wake up, so that more and more American men will go through life enjoying their birthright of a complete sex organ.
Links to Organizations that Oppose Circumcision
Attorneys for the Rights of the Child
CIRP (Circumcision Information and Resources Pages)
National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC)
National Organization to Halt the Abuse and Routine Mutilation of Males (NOHARMM)
Nurses for the Rights of the Child
