Involuntary Foreskinectomy Awareness _______ Click →
By Suzanne Cook
I have never gotten so worked up about a particular issue as I have with circumcision. Since the birth of my first child, I have learned more about circumcision than I ever wanted to know. I am glad that I have been able to make a truly informed decision on behalf of my children. None of my children have been circumcised. At the time my first son was born in 1992, all I knew about circumcision was what I learned in a pamphlet - that it was not medically necessary and was painful for the baby. That's all I needed to know to say no to circumcision. Caring for my intact baby boy couldn't have been easier. Just external washing was all that was needed. I knew his penis was still developing and retraction wouldn't be possible or even needed until his teen years, when he would be perfectly capable of doing it for himself. I have 100% confidence that my sons will be capable of cleaning their own genitals.
What bothers me most about the circumcision issue is the fact that most parents have no idea what circumcision is or what the foreskin is for. Even those who have been given ample opportunity to learn the facts still brush them off and refuse to accept them. They do this so they can continue to circumcise their children without guilt. I mean, how many parents are actually going to admit that they chose unnecessary surgery for their newborn baby that removed healthy, normal, functioning tissue from his genitals which caused unnecessary pain and suffering and a life-time of problems from the lack of foreskin? Not many.
Instead, they hide behind the myths of "it's cleaner", "he will be teased if he is not circumcised", "he'll have to have it done later in life so better to do it when he's still a baby". Years ago, it is understandable that the majority of parents were ignorant about the issue because they were specifically told that circumcision was cleaner, healthier, etc. Today, there is no excuse. No medical organization in the world recommends routine infant circumcision. There are no valid medical reasons to circumcise a newborn baby, yet the cutting continues. Why? The excuses used today are mostly so the baby will look like his father, if the father has been circumcised. That has got to be the stupidest excuse I have ever heard. I know parents who have used this excuse and guess what? The boy looks more like his mother than his father! In hair color, eye color, general facial appearance. Why his penis has to be cut up to match his father's is absolutely ridiculous! It's obvious a hang-up on the father's side. Maybe by circumcising his own son it justifies his own circumcision. He is the one that doesn't want to feel like the odd one. I just cannot believe these factors actually play a role in deciding whether to put a little baby through medically unwarranted surgery. Where is their common sense? Where are their parental instincts to protect their child? It's absurd.
"Our task is not to fix the blame for the past, but to fix the course for the future." -- John Fitzgerald Kennedy (1917-1963)
I often hear from circumcised men saying "There's nothing wrong with MY penis", "I am glad I am circumcised". That's fine. No one is trying to make you feel bad about being circumcised. No one wants you to feel inferior because you are missing a part of your penis. What I oppose is these attitudes contributing to harming more baby boys. A father's preferences for his own penis should have no effect on deciding upon surgery for his newborn baby! Surely if he had an appendectomy or tonsillectomy, he would not insist that his child have one too. When he looks objectively at the facts, he will see that circumcision is not in the best interest of his son. He was circumcised in a time when it was thought to be preferable...healthier, cleaner. We now know better. Fathers and sons will always have differences and the difference in their circumcision status' can be easily explained along with the other differences. A child is a product of their parents' love for one another, not a clone!
I do feel that circumcision is a form of abuse. It has become a social ritual here in America. People cling to their personal opinions and fears in order to continue the practice of circumcising baby boys. If it were any other part of the body in which parents were deciding to amputate healthy tissue without the presence of disease or severe infection, you would hear a lot more outcry from the public. Since circumcision has been ingrained into our society as "normal", many people don't even think twice about it. In fact, many people don't even want to think about it at all! They don't want to think about it, or talk about it, or hear about it. Just do it, get it over with, and forget it ever happened.
The foreskin is the only tissue in which amputation is performed without medical justification. Rarely do problems occur that necessitates circumcision later in life. As with any part of the body, problems can occur and as with any other part of the body, problems can be treated medically rather than surgically. Surgery should be a last resort. But often with any and all problems related to the foreskin, circumcision is offered as the only solution. Parents in favor of infant circumcision state the men they know who HAD to have a circumcision later in life. In this society, it's no wonder. They either get them at birth or get them later in life. Either way, they WILL get them. Why the obsession with foreskin cutting? I think the issue is deep seated and may never be understood.
Improper treatment of an intact boy is a major cause of later problems and later circumcisions. Many parents and doctors harm little boys by retracting their foreskins before they are ready. The foreskin is attached to the head of the penis at birth. As the penis grows and develops, it gradually separates from the head (glans) and becomes retractable. There is no exact age when this occurs. There is also no reason to retract the foreskin before this separation is complete. Even after completion, retracting and rinsing does not need to begin until adolescence, when during puberty the body goes through tremendous change and personal hygiene needs to be given more priority in both sexes. I have never retracted either of my son's foreskins nor attempted to retract them. Any medical professional who has examined my sons has been told outright not to retract their foreskins. I really wouldn't think this would be necessary except that the sad situation exists that many doctors, nurses, etc. are uninformed about the normal male penis and their incompetence could harm my child through forced retraction. I have heard from many parents, horror stories about how a doctor forced their child's foreskin back to the point of causing pain and bleeding. This is abuse. Doctors are taught in medical school how to cut off the foreskin but they are not taught how to simply leave it alone! The responsibility is now placed upon us as parents to ensure that our children are not harmed. This is so important.
Every male is born with a foreskin. If he is not, he is considered to have a birth defect called aposthia. Interesting that to be circumcised is considered to be "normal" yet to be born circumcised and it's considered a defect. The foreskin protects the penis throughout life and aids in sexual functioning. The male glans is meant to be an internal organ, similar to the female clitoral glans. The double layered foreskin protects the male glans, just as the female foreskin, also known as a clitoral hood, protects the female glans.
Many parents don't even realize how much tissue is removed from their child's genitals during a circumcision. Many men have scar lines from the circular cut at mid shaft on their penis.
What they don't realize is from that point forward is all scars, including the entire glans, since the foreskin had to be unnaturally separated and torn away from the glans before it could be cut off. The fact that this tissue has to be torn away should send red flags up to anyone. It is not supposed to be removed, especially at birth. During the diaper years, the foreskin protects the penis from urine, feces, and abrasions from diapers. Throughout life, the foreskin protects from abrasions from clothing, secretes antibiotic chemicals, and provides a sensual rolling and gliding mechanism during intercourse and masturbation. From birth to adolescence, the penis is self-cleaning. The foreskin keeps the penis clean. Nothing gets up in there that isn't supposed to be there. External washing is all that is needed and is easily accomplished during a bath or shower. In adolescence and after the foreskin becomes retractable, a simple retract and rinse is all that it needed to maintain genital hygiene.
Another part of this issue that I am concerned about is human rights and sex discrimination. Because of the facts concerning circumcision: that it is not medically necessary, that it removes normal, healthy, functioning tissue, that it is painful and traumatic, and is permanent, I feel that a child's rights have been violated when he is circumcised. Why should anyone have the right to remove a part of his body that he needs to function properly? Why should he be subjected to genital alteration for his parent's cosmetic preferences? It is HIS body. HE has to live with the consequences from the lack of foreskin and any complications from the circumcision surgery itself. When we speak about female circumcision, which is illegal in this country by the way, we are appalled that little girls are held down and ritually cut, regardless of the reasons to why it's being done. We know there are no medical reasons for it and it is very painful. The American Academy of Pediatrics has taken a solid stance against female circumcision and specifically states that parents religious, cultural or personal beliefs should not be taken into consideration. But with male circumcision, the AAP states that a parent's religious, cultural and personal beliefs SHOULD be considered and any decision to circumcise is appropriate. That is sex discrimination. It's not o.k. for girls but it is o.k. for boys. I've heard the argument "but female circumcision is much more severe; you can't compare the two." Yes, some forms of female genital mutilation are very severe but we are not comparing severity we are comparing soveignity. In the state of Washington, it was proposed that a local hospital be given permission to perform what is called a "sunna" circumcision, in which the clitoral hood (foreskin) of a girl is slit. No tissue is removed. This would satisfy the parent's cultural expectations and spare the girl a more drastic mutilation. The public was outraged and the hospital was not given permission to conduct the circumcisions. People were outraged that a little girl's genitals would be cut, yet they say nothing about the amputation of the entire male foreskin. They were outraged because the sunna circumcision was saw as barbaric, having no medical value and violating the child's right. The same could be said for male circumcision. Some people still refuse to see that but facts are facts.
Most people are also totally unaware that the majority of males in this world are not circumcised. America is the only country who routinely circumcises the majority of male infants for non-religious reasons. I don't feel an infant should be a martyr for their parent's religion. It would be anti-Semitic to oppose circumcision for some boys but not for all, just because the reasoning differs. Some Christians mistakenly believe that they must circumcise, as God commanded. Many references in the Bible can attest to the fact that circumcision is not a requirement for Christians. In fact, Paul preached about this "yoke of bondage" in Acts 15. When Jesus was crucified on the cross, he freed us from the laws of the Old Testament. In the New Testament, it is talked about as "circumcision of the heart". Surely they don't mean for you to cut open your chest and make a circular incision in your heart! Honestly, I really doubt that circumcision of the penis was ever commanded! Yes, it does say in Genesis "you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin", but in says nothing about "penis". And in other portions of the Bible, it talks about "foreskin of your heart". Just my views but I really doubt that such a loving, caring God would ask people to intentionally harm innocent children through circumcision. The foreskin was not put on the penis so it could be cut off. God made man in his image. He did not make a mistake as far as the genitals are concerned. The foreskin has a life-long function and is supposed to be there.
Because of my strong views about this issue, I volunteer a lot of my time trying to educate others. As a parent, I always welcome any information that effects the health and well being of my children. If I were a newborn baby boy, I sure hope someone would tell my parents that genital surgery is not needed! I think we need to move past the point of debating circumcision and on to healing those who have been harmed and keeping all boys and girls intact.
~*~