The Ongoing Controversy on Male Circumcision
To my delight, I found that my friend in the Philippines, Dr. Emer, has posted a new article about male circumcision on his .Parallel Universes. blog.
This entire series began with another friend blogger – Dr. Maurice Bernstein, of the Bioethics Discussion blog. His first post, “Male Circumcision: Should it Now Be a Crime?” gathered 441 comments, many of them anti-semitic, over-the-top, or holding such extremist views that you had to wonder about the individuals making the comments! Blogger took issue to having so many comments on one thread, and Dr. Bernstein was forced to put up another post to allow the comments to run their course. That post accrued another 58 comments, pretty much in the same vein as those from the first posting.
Dr. Bernstein teaches medical students, and he was going to use those comments to show his students what he was coming to believe was a “main stream opinion” regarding male circumcision. After discussing the subject with several males on my own, I was given a very different impression, and decided to post the question on my own blog, because I felt certain that if I didn’t allow the real extremists to take over the thread, that we would be able to get a better sampling of what the “general population” really thinks. That’s exactly what happened.
In the course of the circumcision discussion, Dr. Emer, a physician in the Philippines, posted a comment mentioning that in his country, an uncircumcised man is looked down on, and ridiculed … as if they were lacking in manhood somehow. I found that idea very interesting, since I’d never heard it before. I understood that there are medical reasons for circumcision, and of course also religious reasons … but I was amazed to read about the social reasons!
Dr Emer has found some excellent articles regarding how male circumcision can help prevent the transmission of HIV from infected women to men by up to 60%. He’s linked to 10 very interesting articles! Those of you who were interested in this conversation before should go over and take a look. It’s not over yet, apparently.
In contrast, I believe that most of my Indian friends who left comments would not circumcise their own sons, but still maintained a balanced view on circumcision. I would love to hear more comments from other cultures … how is circumcision viewed in your country? What are your personal feelings about it?
Please vote in the Poll I’ve put in the left side bar … :o)
Nota bene: I’m going to enforce the same rules on this thread as I did the last time. This is not an open forum for the propounding of extremist views … and anything even remotely snarky won’t remain in the comment thread for more than a few minutes, so don’t bother.
August 17th, 2006 at 9:51 am
My oldest son is of the age where they have to dress and undress for gym class in front of everyone (gasp) : ) I asked him if he has friends who tease other boys for being different “down there.” He responded with his usual, “mom! geez.” But then he told me that some of the boys are different and they do get talked about behind their backs but not outwardly teased. The discussion was ended w/ a strict warning from me that he better never be the one who is teasing. I wonder if this topic is taught in reproductive health? If not, it should be. I think we would all benefit from unbiased education in this area.
August 18th, 2006 at 4:28 am
Thanks for the link, Moof. It would be great to hear how other nationalities treat this very controversial subject. I have also voted on your poll.
August 18th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
Cool poll feature!
Glad I was voting with the majority!
best,
Flea
August 19th, 2006 at 4:27 pm
I think as I mentioned before, I do not understand the controversy over ths issue. And now, with some of the findings re HIV/AIDS, I think parents would be foolish to not have it done. As I said before, I am grateful that my parents made the decision. It has never bothered me in the slightest. And I have never (ahem) had any complaints.
Cheers, Ian
August 20th, 2006 at 8:36 pm
Late to comment (but I was in the majority vote, as well), but as an OB/GYN I’m asked by parents to do circs fairly routinely. I do use local pain relief, and yes, the babies don’t like it much (mostly, though, I think the strapping down and not eating before the procedure gets them more than anything). I don’t have a moral or medical problem with the procedure, nor do I push it on those that do not desire to have the procedure done. Live and let live (with or without foreskin!)
August 22nd, 2006 at 7:41 am
In my country (Norway) only muslims and jews are asking for this procedure. It used to be done for them at public hospitals (at the tax-payer’s expense), but that pratice is now all but abolished. There are a few surgeons (of the muslim faith) doing it in their private practices, the Jews (of which the entire country has around 1000) are using some non-medical person to do it (I am told, never having actually witnessed a Jewish circumcision).
It is hoped that the procedure will gradually disappear, as it is not only barbaric but also expensive and in general frowned upon as some sort of child molesting.
August 24th, 2006 at 6:25 pm
I’m not sure how to vote, because I agree with the option of “I approve of circumcision for those who want it.” but am concerned that is interpreted as parents wanting it. I think a person should be able to choose for themselves the state of their genitals. I don’t believe that should be up to another person to choose circumcision for a particular person, whether or not they have legal/medical authority over the patient in question.
So I don’t think that parents should be able to choose it for their children, but do think that adults should be able to choose it for themselves.
December 20th, 2006 at 7:57 am
Here’s what I’ve learned about circ outside the USA, Moslem countries, and Africa.
Korea: Most men born since 1960 or are cut. Some opposition.
Philippines: Nearly all men are cut. Little dissent.
Japan: some men circed as adults for sexual and cosmetic reasons.
Australia. Most men born in Australian maternity wards before 1990 were cut. Most men born since are not.
New Zealand: Cut heavily 1920-70. Has since gradually ceased cutting.
India: Educated Hindus are surprisingly open-minded about infant circ, even though in India it is seen as a Muslim custom. The practice of infant circ is not unknown in Kerala.
Latin America: Some of the urban upper class born in private hospitals are cut. Their families are acquainted with circ in the USA.
Eastern & Southern Europe: only Moslems, religious Jews, and a few cases of medical necessity are ever circed.
Scandinavia: a part of the world where the foreskin is considered very important for male sexual pleasure. Hence the proportion of men never cut in their entire lives is perhaps the highest on earth.
Western Europe: large Moslem minority is, many Jews are highly secular and are not. A few boys from sophisticated families are circed without medical indication. Porn films and the web have made American circ fairly well known, and some Europeans wish to imitate it.
UK: About 30-50% of baby boys circed before 1950. Infant circumcision now almost nonexistent. Nowadays 5% of boys circed after infancy. Maybe 20% of all living men are circed.
Ireland: circ rare.
Gay men: surprisingly hostile to circ. Foreskin porn is always aimed at them, not women. Quite a few gay men are admitted foreskin fetishists.
December 20th, 2006 at 9:29 pm
Why are some Americans so angry about routine infant circ, to the point of losing all civility and of seeming like foreskin fetishists? Bear with me as I conjecture. Circumcision was introduced to make masturbation more difficult. When masturbation came to be tolerated, routine circumcision became cosmetic surgery fueled by a desire to have all boys with genitals that look alike. Hence over 100M adult American men were circumcised even though when it was done, there was no credible medical research supporting it. Generations of Americans were led to believe that the foreskin is disgustingly unsanitary. Routine circumcision was popular in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and nowhere else.
Even though Novocain and related local anesthetics have been available for about a century, and have been widely used in dentistry, doctors performed those 100M circs without pain management. The possibility that the foreskin influences the quality of one’s sex life, or that of one’s partner, was a question not posed before the 1990s. I submit that all in all, the American medical profession has behaved very badly here, has failed in its duty to lead, and has breached the trust we naturally place in it.
And why do Americans continue to circumcise infant boys even now? Again, forgive me as I conjecture:
1. Most fathers cannot face having their sons ask them in the bath or locker room “Daddy, how come your willy doesn’t look like mine?”
2. Most American men and women of reproductive age have never seen an intact penis in the flesh. They do not want to be reminded of the foreskin every time they change a son’s diaper.
3. Most American mothers do not want to talk about foreskin hygiene with their sons at bath time.
4. Many American women find the foreskin highly unsanitary, and a grave violation of the First Taboo of American Social Life: Thou shalt not emit body odor. Those who feel this way overlook that civilized men and women rinse off their genitals before undertaking sexual activity (and it is a fine thing to begin sex by showering together), and that responsible casual sex requires a condom. Lust, sexual acts, and our genitalia all have a reproductive teleology. That women being disgusted by oral sex with a foreskin is Mother Nature’s way of reminding women that she prefers that they receive semen in their vaginas rather than in their stomachs.
I am intact because born in continental Europe, grew up in circed USA, live in a nation that gave up circ without fuss, am married and the father of daughters. I am not an “intactivist” because I have no academic expertise in any aspect of health care or human sexuality. Moreover, many intactivists are homosexual men, for reasons I cannot defend.
Growing up in the USA with a foreskin was emotionally difficult. My father and brother were cut, and my parents never said mentioned my foreskin in any way until I was 19. The boys among whom I grew up never mentioned that their genitals had been surgically altered. Boys quite sophisticated about other aspects of human sexuality never mentioned it in my presence until I was in college. Nearly all intact USA Baby Boomers were underclass or foreign born. Boys were circumcised before their mothers changed their diapers for the first time. The USA in the 2nd half of the 20th century became perhaps the most foreskin-oblivious culture in human history.
I did not know I was normal until I was 13, that I was healthy until I was 19, that American medicine was flatly wrong on this score until I was 31. Even though no one ever made fun of my foreskin after second grade, and no one who knew me in high school or college ever knew I was intact, I was so embarrassed by my foreskin that I did not lose my virginity until after age 35. To this day, the only people who know I am intact are my mother, my spouse, and a half dozen close friends I had 20 odd years ago, when the emerging anti-circ movement gave me the courage to “come out of the closet.”
A dirty secret is that most men are not all that exciting sexually, especially after 30 years of age, and that women do not reliably climax from sexual activity with men. Proof: the high divorce rate. A persistent lack of sexual sophistication is most likely at fault. Over the next 20 years, I predict that most American women of reproductive age will come to believe that the foreskin makes intercourse more enjoyable (regardless of whether this in is indeed the case). When this occurs, routine infant circumcision will vanish from USA obstetrical practice. A generation later, American women may conclude that the foreskin does not matter all that much for pleasure, but by then there will be no turning back.
December 20th, 2006 at 10:04 pm
Cosmopolite, thank you for taking the time to comment so extensively. You have some very interesting conjectures.
I do have to jump into here, however, and say that, aside from your own personal experiences, some of your most basic ideas seem to be just that: conjectures.
I don’t have the time to really get into things right now, however a few points by way of example:
… The thought that circumcision “was introduced to make masturbation more difficult” … or that it was ever done to make men penis’ all look alike … or that the high divorce rate is because of bad sex …
I would just like my readers to think about those factors and take a moment to ponder other reasons behind circumcision … or behind failed marriages, because you’ve given us some very narrow perspectives, there.
My silence could have denoted assent to your post, and I wanted to be certain that none of my readers mistook my being too busy to really address the issues with you (this is Christmas week) for agreement.
Again, thank you for sharing your ideas with us. I may not agree with you, but I’m certainly interested in everyone’s opinion.
December 21st, 2006 at 12:08 am
That a major reason for the introduction of routine infant circumcision in the second half of the 19th century, in the UK and the USA, “was… to make masturbation more difficult†is documented by the medical historians Gollaher in the USA and Robert Darby in Australia and the UK. But this is not the reason why we male Caucasian Baby Boomers are overwhelmingly circumcised. The reason was simply that foreskins made our parents queasy.
Here’s why I take the liberty of writing out my conjectures. During the 1930s and 40s, many USA maternity wards quietly adopted a policy of circumcising all boy babies, without first obtaining the mother’s consent (this happened to my brother in 1954). I have been utterly unable to find anything in print about why American hospitals did this. I have searched the Reader’s Guide to Periodical Literature for articles in popular magazines on circumcision published between 1930 and 1980, and found almost nothing. Even more remarkable, there was very little in the USA medical literature of the day as well.
If I were to give a short and sweet explanation of why half of all marriages end in divorce, I would say that women (1) initiate about 2/3 of all divorces, (2) are growing more educated, and education reduces fatalism in the face of life’s adversities, and (3) have better paying jobs available to them; why put up with an unhappy marriage when you can support yourself? Hence I don’t see bad sex as a primary cause of divorce. But bad sex makes it less likely that she will put up with other things.
I’ve been called many things in my day, but “narrow” is a first!
December 21st, 2006 at 10:07 am
*LOL* Cosmopolite … I didn’t say you were narrow, I said that some of the perspectives you’d given us were narrow. Please forgive me for leaving you with the wrong idea.
Have a Merry Christmas.
December 22nd, 2006 at 3:15 pm
1. “Narrow” is a major reason I decline to interact with the self-styled “intactivists.” Compared to them , I and my perspectives are emphatically not narrow.
2. Circumcision is vastly less important than eradicating FGM prevalent in much of Africa and Yemen, and possibly elsewhere.
That Islam in any way mandates FGM is a grave misconception.
Here I differ from intactivists who broadly equate FGM and male circumcision. Hundreds of millions of cut men around the globe
have no difficulty whatsoever using their equipment to urinate and impregnate. The same cannot be said of many forms of FGM, whose death rate in primitive conditions may be as high as 1%.
3. If God made a mistake when he put a foreskin on the penis,
that mistake was a very minor one when compared to His having
made the breast and prostate gland highly prone to cancer. I think that breast cancer is a worse problem than AIDS in the advanced countries. I am horrified that AIDS gets a lot more research money than breast cancer.
4. Excuse my drifting off-topic. French Christmas carols are a lovely childhood memory for me as well. Best wishes for the holidays.