Circumcision: Cut It Out?
There’s Been Quite a Flap Over Foreskin Lately
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Actor Russell Crowe railed against circumcision in a profanity-laced tweet last week, calling the ancient and still-popular practice “barbarism.” This month, Colorado becomes the 18th state (California among them) to stop funding circumcision with Medicaid. And in November, San Francisco residents will decide whether to outlaw the procedure outright when they vote on the “Male Genital Mutilation” bill.
Starshine Roshell
Once the norm in the United States, the practice of slicing off a boy’s foreskin shortly after birth has become less common, and more controversial, in recent years. On the one hand are Jews and Muslims with religious and cultural reasons for making the cut, and statisticians convinced the practice reduces the likelihood of urinary tract infections and HIV. On the other are outraged “intactivists” stumping for “genital integrity,” arguing that lopping off the penile hood violates infants’ bodies, reduces sexual sensitivity, and was only popularized in this Puritanical nation as a (clearly futile) means of discouraging masturbation among naughty boys.
Outside the United States, circumcision is prevalent only in Muslim nations, Southeast Asia, Israel, and South Korea. It’s rare in Europe, Latin America, and most of Asia.
While the nation’s circumcision rate has been declining for years (only 15 percent of American boys were intact in 1965; almost half are today), the numbers vary wildly from region to region. In 2006, the circumcision rate among boys in the North Central states was 78 percent. In the South: 55 percent. In the wild, um, unabridged West? Less than 34.
Peter Hasler, medical director of Santa Barbara County’s Primary Care Family Health Division, says few local pediatricians even provide the service these days. “I think it’s now just a norm to be either way,” he says. What accounts for the lower rates on this side of the country? He guesses it’s the Left Coast’s tradition of questioning the status quo (yeah, San Fran, we’re talking to you), and also our large Latino population, for whom circumcision isn’t a cultural norm.
Personally, I feel about circumcision the way I feel about piercing babies’ ears; I’ve never understood the instinct, and I didn’t do it to my kids, but neither am I inclined to pronounce it “wrong.”
My husband’s reasons for not circumcising our sons were principled: It’s weird, perhaps even cruel, to amputate part of a perfect and perfectly functioning human being—at least tonsils, wisdom teeth, and gall bladders have the opportunity to malfunction before we rip ‘em out.
My reasons were lazy: Between diaper rashes, cracked nipples, and my own been-through-the-wringer netherparts, I would have enough raw regions and tender terrain to contend with after delivery. A tiny, post-surgical penis was simply more than I was willing to manage.
I had a few concerns, though: Would our sons be mocked for looking different than other boys? And how would they feel about looking different than their traditionally trimmed father?
My husband laughed at this notion. Laughed. Out loud. At a pregnant woman. Boys’ genitals, he explained, don’t look anything like their fathers’ until they’re old enough that they no longer see each other naked anyway.
My concerns about peer mockery turned out to be foolish, too—at least in freewheelin’, foreskin-favorin’, “mutilation”-legislatin’ California, where a generational genital shift is clearly taking place. My 8th grader told me the subject of circumcision came up among his pals over lunch (don’t ask; I didn’t). One after another, each boy casually proclaimed, while chomping Sun Chips and cafeteria cookies, that he was not circumcised.
“I’m not.” “Not me.” “Nope.” “Me neither.” Then, after a few seconds of silence, several of them announced in unison: “But my dad is!”
Related Links
Starshine Roshell is the author of Wife on the Edge.
Comments
I remember seeing an uncircumcised organ for the first time. Screamed. Leaped out of bed. By the time my feet hit the floor I was fully dressed and running for the door. Needless to say, all my boys are snipped.
winddancer1562 (anonymous profile)
July 6, 2011 at 4:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You should get your facts right. The comment made by Russell Crowe happened weeks ago (June 10) not last week. Having been online that night and participating in the discussion, I can tell you that the comments were taking way out of context. Whether or not a person believes in circumcision doesn't negate the fact that reporters should get their facts straight before publishing an article. When they do not it only makes them look lazy and ill-informed.
responjourn (anonymous profile)
July 6, 2011 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
i don't think missing crowe's comment by three weeks is a critical journalistic error. seriously. relax. nice article, starshine. and what about the dudes who want their foreskin back? have you heard about that? getting reconstructive surgery to replace it? i think it was on TLC a few years ago...
fuelingstation (anonymous profile)
July 6, 2011 at 11:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Great article, Starshine! We're having a baby boy in September and my husband and I decided against the cut. I don't want to put my baby through that kind of pain and nor (like you) do I feel like taking on the responsibility of an unnecessary open wound on our newborn - especially after all the physical recovery that comes with childbirth anyway. I can't find a good enough reason to do it, so I won't. If people feel it's necessary for religious reasons, I'm not going to argue (although I do hear that a growing number of Jewish parents are opting out as well).
Looking at the history of circumcision in this country it's evident that the medical reasons for doing it came only after socio-cultural concerns were well established (read: weird Puritan attitudes towards sex and mental illness). Until the mid-1920s, women were also subjected to circumcision to curb "undignified" behavior. We would probably recoil in horror at this notion now. So why not revisit today's practices and openly ask ourselves why we really continue to do it, rather than simply think we're supposed to?
beans77 (anonymous profile)
July 6, 2011 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
In 7th grade we all had to take a group shower for the first time after the first day of PE... one guy out of 200 was not circumcised... we called him an Okie.
In so many ways I've wondered what I missed. Descriptions of sex are meaningless, it is all feel. I'm glad circumcision is now being stopped... let boys decide at 18.
pardallchewinggumspot (anonymous profile)
July 6, 2011 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
@winddancer: Doubtless Indonesian, Malaysian and Singaporean men do the same when they encounter their first "uncircumcised" woman. (And the practice there is surgical and much milder than the horrors of tribal Africa, so they are comparable.) That's a really bad reason for doing it to babies.
And they are not "snipped". With the Accu-circ they are chopped. With the Gomco and other clamps, sliced (and until the Mogen company went out of business after lawsuits worth $18M, with the Mogen clamp, the glans might be sliced as well). With the popular Plastibell, the foreskin is crushed and dies. You can see pictures and videos of these methods being done at http://www.circumstitions.com/#pictures.
Hugh7 (anonymous profile)
July 6, 2011 at 4:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is pure and simple antisemitism. Kind of goes against the First Amendment. You might want to read that one.
jukin (anonymous profile)
July 6, 2011 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
@Jukin: the proposed age-restriction (not a ban) would apply to all circumcision, regardless of religion. (97% of US circumcision is "medical".) Infant circumcision violates HIS First Amendment right to practise the religion of HIS choice, when he is old enough, without having had another, not of his choice, cut into his body before he could resist.
Hugh7 (anonymous profile)
July 6, 2011 at 9:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This issue is not about anti-Semitism. It's about human rights.
When an African study said circumcision reduced HIV infections, a study in Sexually Transmitted Diseases disagreed and said, "The Council on Scientific Affairs of the American Medical Association says that ‘‘circumcision cannot be responsibly viewed as ‘protecting’ against such infections.”
They further stated, “The leading international statement of medical ethics is the European Convention on Human Rights and Bioethics, where Article 20(1) prohibits non-therapeutic tissue removal from those who do not have the capacity to consent. Children have a right to the protection of the security of their person and to protection from degrading treatment. Circumcision violates those human rights. Several authorities report that circumcision degrades the erectile function of the penis. Circumcision, therefore, must be regarded as degrading treatment. Degrading treatment is an additional violation of human rights.”
To read a fully referenced article that clarifies this issue, see: http://wehonews.com/z/wehonews/archiv...
michaelkmooney (anonymous profile)
July 6, 2011 at 11:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"I remember seeing an uncircumcised organ for the first time. Screamed. Leaped out of bed. By the time my feet hit the floor I was fully dressed and running for the door. Needless to say, all my boys are snipped."
Well, a foreskin makes an excellent "shallow woman filter".
Sounds like it worked.
Sorry for your sons.
Yeoman123 (anonymous profile)
July 7, 2011 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think your reason for not circumcising makes perfect sense. Who wants to be responsible for keeping a tiny wounded sex organ sterile inside of a diaper? I wouldn't. What doesn't make sense to me is that in a civilized country in the year 2011, we feel like we need a reason NOT to mutilate a newborn baby's penis.
kurt_t (anonymous profile)
July 7, 2011 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Nice article. Still says nothing of the 65-85% of the male's sexual receptors cut off and leaving less skin than is taken away. Also in California the circ. rate has been "for Years" at 22% and this was before the national USA rate dropped from 56% 2006 to 32.5% 2009. The Bay Area is said to be below 10%. Circumcision can be simply put:
Do you think it is okay to cut off part of someone's body without their permission? YES or NO!
KOTFrank (anonymous profile)
July 7, 2011 at 6:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"I remember seeing an uncircumcised organ for the first time. Screamed. Leaped out of bed. By the time my feet hit the floor I was fully dressed and running for the door. Needless to say, all my boys are snipped."
Perfect demonstration of an idiot.
=====
"This is pure and simple antisemitism. Kind of goes against the First Amendment. You might want to read that one. "
It's not 'antisemitic' to be against the barbaric practice of infant genital mutilation. You are apparently unaware that even Jews oppose the practice.
www.JewsAgainstCircumcision.org
www.JewishCircumcision.org
CynDaVaz (anonymous profile)
July 7, 2011 at 7:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Circumcision was forced upon me as a child, and now I suffer because of my parents choice. I have an ugly scar, a dried, keratinized glans, and a loss of sensitivity (feeling.) I deeply oppose genital cutting of children. It is a human rights violation. It is sexual assault of children. It needs to come to a complete end worldwide. Girls AND boys need to be protected from those who want to cut their genitals. Adults can do whatever they want to THEIR OWN genitals.
restoringchad (anonymous profile)
July 7, 2011 at 8:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Circumcision of babies should only be allowed in cases where both parents have also been circumcised and the baby has given written consent. Otherwise - No.
TrailHacker (anonymous profile)
July 8, 2011 at 8:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I would somewhat demurely add that sex is better with an uncircumcised man.
erthcrclr (anonymous profile)
July 8, 2011 at 8:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Chad, your case is obviously not the norm, as there are millions (if not billions) of men who have been circumcised without complications. On the other hand, there have also been men who had complications due to not being circumcised, and there is an increased risk of infection and other health issues.
I shouldn’t be surprised, but I think that all the comments about “genital mutilation” and “sexual assault” are going a bit overboard. It is a minor surgical removal of a tiny bit of excess skin, not “chopping off” a part of the body or “mutilation.” It is not done to reduce the frequency of masturbation (ridiculous!), and it is part of the religious tradition of many people. This is simply an invasion on the privacy of families, and this law should not be passed.
abates17 (anonymous profile)
July 11, 2011 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Reminds me of the story my dad tells about his circumcision: When asked if the procedure hurt, he says it was done when he was 3-days old and he didn't recall specifics, just that he couldn't walk for a year!
mssearch (anonymous profile)
July 11, 2011 at 11:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I gave birth to my oldest son at UCSF. My husband is circumcised, so we had Jack circumcised as well. Right after the procedure, the top nurse came in and told me that it was a smart move. They just had a man come in with cancer of the penis due to being unclean and un-circumcised. The poor man's penis had to be removed. Having sons, it is difficult to get them to wash their hands properly (or flush the toilet). In my mind, any procedure that helps fight cancer or STDs should be exercised.
qmagoo (anonymous profile)
July 11, 2011 at 12:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Countries where circumcision is rare but hygiene is good (Sweden, Japan, Norway) have penis cancer rates that are no higher than those in the US where circumcision is common.
Penis cancer is caused by other factors such as cleanliness, viral infection, UV exposure; not by presence or absence of a foreskin.
To attribute a cancer cause is always difficult; for example, non-smokers do get lung cancer. So just because a `top nurse' says the cause was a foreskin doesn't make it true.
pardallchewinggumspot (anonymous profile)
July 11, 2011 at 5:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't have any children myself, but wanted to share the story of my best friend. Her husband comes from a traditional Jewish family, so wanted to circumcise their son. She, however, believes that this practice is unnecessary and didn't want any part of her child cut away. With her husband and family putting pressure on her to agree to the procedure, she basically said, "You will have to wrestle him from my arms in order to circumcise him." The mama bear position worked, and at age 6 his parts are all intact. I believe if I had a boy, I would make the same decision.
JustSayin (anonymous profile)
July 12, 2011 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There is a doctor who performs circumcisions but doesn't charge a fee, he only takes tips.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
July 13, 2011 at 5:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Allowing someone to interfere with your child's sex organs? Allowing someone to take a blade to your terrified, restrained child and amputate erogenous and functional parts from his penis? My god!!! That is NOT how enlightened, responsible, protective parents behave.
Responsible parents protect their children from harm and abuse. Responsible parents protect their sons from forced genital cutting.
JamesMac (anonymous profile)
July 16, 2011 at 3:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)