Involuntary Foreskinectomy Awareness _______ Click →
"The doctor suggested it."
As far as my parents can remember, that's the reason I was circumcised as an infant. It wasn't required by their religion, and they didn't have any strong personal feelings about it. They were trying to be good parents and follow medical advice, so they sent me to an operating room where a sizeable portion of the skin around my penis was cut off.
Unfortunately for me, the "medical advice" they were following was based more on custom and ignorance than on actual facts. Rather than benefiting me, the procedure left my penis scarred and desensitized (as it does for most men), and left me with a nagging wonder about what things would be like if I'd been left intact.
Like my parents, most new moms and dads don't spend much time thinking about circumcision. Whether or not to have a son's foreskin removed is a parenting decision that's often made hastily, without much consideration. It's common for parents to just follow the recommendations of their doctor or religious leader without question, or to circumcise a son just "so he'll look like his father."
If parents did spend a little time learning about what circumcision is and what it does, it's doubtful that they would put their sons under the scalpel so readily. There's no solid medical need for it, and parents who agree to it may well be committing their sons to diminished sexual enjoyment in the future.
Some parents are clearly getting the message. According to the American Medical Association (AMA), infant circumcision rates in the United States are down from 80 percent in the 1970s to 65 percent in 1995, and they are continuing to fall. But that means that over a million infants still undergo foreskin removal every year, and clearly it's without their consent. The United States is the only country that routinely circumcises infants for non-religious reasons, and it's time for this backward practice to stop. Removing healthy body parts from babies is just not acceptable.
What's Cut Away
Despite what some people think, circumcision is not a surgery without consequences. The foreskin that's removed contains about 20,000 nerve endings, and cutting it off it dramatically reduces the amount of sexual sensation a man can feel. In addition, removing the foreskin takes away the cover that protects the sensitive head of the penis. The penis's head is then left exposed to rub against clothing every day of this boy's life. Just as skin on the hands and feet thickens into calluses when it is repeatedly exposed to friction, the skin of the penis head will thicken and become less sensitive without its natural cover to protect it.
Removing the foreskin also removes the penis's self-lubricating capability, which can make sex more uncomfortable. Men who were circumcised as infants often have prominent scars on their penises, and some find that erections feel tight and uncomfortable. That's certainly been the case with me. Because so much skin was removed during my circumcision, erections are sometimes painful, and the skin that's left is stretched, making it very fragile and easily irritated. If I don't use artificial lubricant, I frequently have to stop masturbating or having sex altogether because the pain and irritation are so great.
No Good Reason
Some people believe that circumcising their sons will help them avoid penile cancer, but there is no scientific justification for this. It's now thought that penile cancer is linked to the STD human papillomavirus (HPV), and it's unlikely to have anything to do with circumcision. In a 1996 letter to American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Hugh Shingleton, M.D., and Clark W. Heath, Jr., M.D., two representatives of the American Cancer Society, explained it this way: "Penile cancer is an extremely rare condition, affecting one in 200,000 men in the United States. Penile cancer rates in countries which do not practice circumcision are lower than those found in the United States. Fatalities caused by circumcision accidents may approximate the mortality rate from penile cancer."
Circumcision is also not an effective way to prevent HIV or STD transmission. The intact foreskin may, in some cases, serve as an entry point for STDs (particularly HIV), but in no way does getting circumcised protect men from getting STDs. If it did, we wouldn't see such huge numbers of people getting infected in the United States, where circumcision is common. Rather than cutting up young boys' penises, parents should teach them about using condoms when they become sexually active.
There is evidence that circumcision can cause a small decrease in the number of urinary tract infections (UTIs) in infants, but, according the AAP, the link is less than clear. The group says that most of the studies which have linked circumcision status to urinary tract infections haven't rigorously evaluated other factors that could affect whether infants get UTIs, like prematurity or breastfeeding.
It's hard to find a professional medical association that still supports infant circumcision. The AAP is the most recognized group in infant health care, and its current stance on circumcision says "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision." The AMA has issued a statement saying that it also supports this ruling.
Circumcision is common in the United States in large part because of our Puritanical history. Historically, one of the main motivations for non-religious circumcisions was to inhibit masturbation. "A remedy [for masturbation] which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision," wrote famed anti-sex crusader John Harvey Kellogg, M.D. "The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment."
That may sound a little ridiculous today, but the justifications people use for modern day circumcision don't stand up much better. People say they want their sons to look "normal" or "natural," but isn't it more normal to be uncircumcised and look the way 85 percent of the men in the world do?
Religious Beliefs
Some religions, particularly Judaism and Islam, do promote infant circumcision. Parents' beliefs, however, cannot legitimately be used as a justification for doing unnecessary surgery on children. The procedure we are talking about, whether it's done in a hospital or in a religious setting, is a medical one, and decisions about its appropriateness and ethical acceptability must be made on the basis of its medical value. It is clear that circumcision offers very little in the way of benefits for infant boys, and can be the cause of significant harm. They should not be injured because of their parents' religious beliefs.
Men who want to be circumcised for religious or personal reasons can have the procedure done when they are old enough to consent to it of their own accord. No one, however, should be faced with getting a healthy, vital part of their most intimate anatomy sliced off without their permission. It's time for us to move into the modern age and leave infant circumcision behind.
~*~