Why can’t the United States stop circumcising boys?
| July 2nd, 2007While looking for something else, I ran into Why can’t the United States stop circumcising boys?, an interesting essay by Robert Darby. Widespread male circumcision is a phenomenon that, in wealthy countries, has happened almost exclusively1 in English-speaking countries, and that has faded in every English-speaking country but the USA, where the majority of boys are still circumcised.
So why the American exceptionalism? Despite the title of Darby’s essay, he doesn’t provide a convincing answer, and some of the possibilities brought up seem unlikely to explain the distinction. (For example, I’m sure that the profit motive is important to circumcision — did you know that hospitals make huge profits selling cut-off foreskins?2 — but I don’t see any reason to expect that to be more the case in the US than in other countries).
Darby does suggest a legislative approach to reducing male circumcision, short of an outright ban, which is to stop having the government pay for it. In California, the circumcision rate plummeted once Medicaid coverage ended.
Two things annoyed me about Darby’s essay. First off, the seemingly obligatory passage3 , in any essay objecting to male circumcision, comparing the practice to female circumcision:
The claims of culture are taken very seriously in this age of globalization, but the problem with this particular claim is that it is applied inconsistently. First, there is discrimination based on gender. No matter how important circumcision of girls may be to the cultural/ethnic/religious groups that practise it, American opinion has determined that girls’ bodies are more important than tradition, and that any cutting of the female genitals is Female Genital Mutilation, now banned by law. Secondly, the cultural argument seems to be a one-way street. When faced by parents from circumcising cultures, doctors say they must respect their traditions and accede to their wishes, at least in relation to boys. But when it comes to non-circumcising cultures (the great majority) the argument is suddenly reversed: instead of enjoying automatic respect for their traditions, parents from non-circumcising cultures are pressured to conform to the American norm and to consent to have their sons circumcised, so that they will be “like other boys”.
A more likely explanation than gender-based discrimination is discrimination based on culture (otherwise known as xenophobia); of course we venerate our own cultural acts of child abuse even while correctly disliking the child abuse practiced by other cultures. It’s also the case that, bad as male circumcision is, FGM is in many ways worse; the implicit assumption that the two circumcisions are equivalent (and therefore there is no reason other than sexism that anyone might find FGM more objectionable) doesn’t hold water.
That said, regardless of what US circumcision practice is based on, the effect is a form of child abuse practiced nearly exclusively on boys, and that’s objectionable from a feminist point of view.
Darby also writes:
No matter how many statistics-laden articles get published in medical journals, circumcision cannot shake off the traces of its Victorian origins. It remains the last surviving example of a once respectable proposition that disease could be prevented by the pre-emptive removal of normal body parts which, though healthy, were thought to be a weak link in the body’s defences. In its heyday this medical breakthrough, described by Ann Dally as “fantasy surgery”, enjoyed wide esteem and included excisions of other supposed foci or portals of infection, such as the adenoids, tonsils, teeth, appendix and large intestine.
But circumcision is not “the last surviving” example of such a widespread practice in the US; weight loss surgery is skyrocketing in popularity, justified by unproven long-term preventative effects.
P.S. Also interesting: Darby’s review of the book Madhouse – about Henry Cotton, administrator of a New Jersey asylum, who for decades forcibly removed teeth and other body parts from unwilling patients “for their own good,” and was much admired for this practice.
Cotton was not just a fanatic applying the physicalist procedures of mainstream medicine to the new field of psychiatry, but the embodiment of a deep-seated trend in the medical profession itself: the assumption that if these wise experts think some sort of treatment or procedure is good for you, it is your duty to submit to it, and even that they are entitled–by virtue of their scientific understanding and promise of benefit–to force it on you, with or without informed consent. Throughout his career, Cotton insisted that he was at the forefront of scientific rationality and that his therapies must be enforced because they flowed inexorably, as a matter of mere logic, from the facts of disease as established by the science of which he was the anointed interpreter. He claimed that his approach was based on “scientific medicine,” the germ theory of disease, and “scientific evidence and proof.” His published articles are peppered with terms like “progressive medical men,” “indisputable facts,” “modern medical knowledge”; it hardly needs to be said that they were totally innocent of any ethical awareness.
- I say “almost exclusively” because I suspect circumcision of boys is widespread in Israel. (back)
- From Darby’s essay: “In the age of biotechnology and tissue engineering, human body parts have a high market value, and baby foreskins are especially prized as the raw material for many biomedical products, from skin grafts to anti-wrinkle cream. The strongest pressure for the continuation of circumcision may not be from doctors at all, but from the hospitals which harvest the foreskins and sell them to commercial partners. This would explain why so many mothers are still pressured to sign consent forms when they arrive for their delivery.” (back)
- Although Amanda points out an exception to this rule. (back)
July 2nd, 2007 at 12:36 am
Oh, well fine. Write this post while I have one in the works called “Male Circumcision is a Bad Idea.” ;)
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 2nd, 2007 at 5:27 am
It’s also funny that he discusses tonsillectomies as “fantasy surgery,” when in fact they can be medically necessary (infection can settle in them and be difficult or impossible to eradicate with antibiotics; plus, if someone is allergic to antibiotics, there may be no other choice). I have never, ever heard of a medically necessary circumcision.
This comment was written by Madeline.Report this comment to the moderators
July 2nd, 2007 at 5:59 am
As to the comparisons to FGM, I definitely think lots of people make these comparisons without completely thinking through the disparities between the two and of course to equate complete removal of the clitoris or infibulation with the removal of the foreskin is just a completely ludicrous comparison.
At the same time, I do think there might be an instructive comparison between one (probably rare )type of fgm in which just the clitoral hood is removed. As far as I can tell most definitions of “FGM” or “female circumcision” include this type of cutting, as do various international organizations like WHO which condemn FGM. It seems this kind of FGM–removing just the clitoral hood–is analogous to male circumcision, and in fact it seems some of the same arguments in favor of male circumcision can be used in favor of removing the clitoral hood. (For instance, I’m always hearing about smegma in males as a justification for circumcision. But females also have smegma that can accumulate under the clitoral hood; it seems if the hood is very tight or the smegma isn’t washed away, it can harden and cause irritation and pain just like in men.)
I’m actually not sure how most Americans would feel about a practice of removing the clitoral hood, but I’m guessing not good; and perhaps recognizing that might give male circumcision supporters some pause given that the procedures seem to be analogous.
This comment was written by activistgradgal.Report this comment to the moderators
July 2nd, 2007 at 6:10 am
“the procedures seem to be analogous.”
I totally agree that they’re more analogous than any of the other procedures that have been discussed.
But I have a ghost of a memory of reading about American contexts in which this surgery was done against women’s wills, and it having really bad results. I can’t find them, though, after brief googling. (I’m not sure where I first read it.) Do you have any information?
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 2nd, 2007 at 6:35 am
I have never, ever heard of a medically necessary circumcision.
I actually know several people who were circumcized as teenagers or adults for strictly medical reasons. I don’t know the details, but it has something to do with how the foreskin is attached in some men creating problems for them.
This comment was written by Stentor.Report this comment to the moderators
July 2nd, 2007 at 6:43 am
I have never, ever heard of a medically necessary circumcision.
It can happen. Like any other body part, the foreskin can get chronically infected and sometimes removing it is the only practical way to get rid of the infection. It can also occasionally develop cancerous growth, though I’ve never heard of anyone dying of cancer of the foreskin, perhaps because any abnormal growths are easy to spot before they get out of control. However, just as most tonsillectomies are unnecessary, most circumcisions are unnecessary and, at best, unhelpful.
This comment was written by Dianne.Report this comment to the moderators
July 2nd, 2007 at 7:13 am
Conversations I’ve had about circumcision have involved a fair number of anecdotes about boys uncircumsized as babies who end up getting circumcized during childhood on medical advice. Now, for at least one of those stories, the medical advice appeared to be “Because it might cause problems later”, which sounds like nonsense to me, but there are certainly doctors out there who look at uncircumcized boys and recommend circumcision.
This comment was written by LizardBreath.Report this comment to the moderators
July 2nd, 2007 at 7:39 am
When male circumcision involves using a piece of glass to scrape off their penises, then a comparison to FGM is valid, otherwise, no. (Yes, that happens.) We need to be absolutely clear that FGM can cause infection and death, that it makes it impossible for (many) women to enjoy sex and it can make it impossible for them to even have sex without further surgery. It’s often done in unsanitary conditions and CAN CAUSE INFECTIONS AND DEATH.
Did I mention that it can cause infections and death?
Amp, I love you, but you’ve got to come out stronger on this one. I’m not a fan of male circumcision, but it’s been shown in studies to reduce HIV transmission in some circumstances, which points to medically valid reason to keep it around in some places. This is in opposition to FGM which greatly, greatly increses the probability of HIV transmission. Because FGM leaves a mess of scar tissue which can bleed during sex. Not like a hyman breaking, but like ripping and tearing. Which can cause infections and death.
So the reasons not to do MC is that it’s probably not medically necessary in most cases in the US and it’s painful for male infants and can reduce sensation in adulthood. The reason not to FGM is because it’s medically dangerous, unsanitary, can lead to infections and death, removes sensation in adulthood and can be painful for the person’s entire life and may require many repeat surgeries: to allow the woman to have sex, to allow her to give birth and to re-stich up after she gives birth.
Frankly, ANY comparison between the two hurts a case against male circumscision. Because in comparison, who the heck cares about MC? It’s nothing.
This comment was written by Les.Report this comment to the moderators
July 2nd, 2007 at 7:40 am
Great post, Amp.
I guess one of the things that bugs me the most about this is when there are men who have been circumcised who make a point of talking about how great it is, the sensation is just as good, etc.
This bothers me because it makes the focus of the conversation sexual pleasure rather than child abuse, which is what circumcision is, pretty much.
By way of comparison, I know women personally who have had their inner labia and clitoral hood removed for purposes of sexual pleasure, and they rave about it . . . this DOES NOT make performing the same procedure on an infant an okay thing. Personal bodily autonomy is the key. Do whatever the hell you want to your own body, but lopping off bits of someone else’s should really give all decent people pause.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 2nd, 2007 at 7:50 am
Well I have read a few interesting articles lately indicating that circumcision in the US is falling, and circumcision in parts of Africa is increasing.
It’s increasing in parts of Africa because it is being touted as an HIV prevention technique, and studies have noted lower rates of HIV in regions where circumcision is more prevalent. (I’m not supporting this view; I’m just noting that this is the argument some public health people are using these days.)
The article on the US can be found here. In the article, the drop in circumcision in the US is attributed to immigration and changing attitudes toward the body. The drop in the US has been fairly large.
Here is the data source for the US article. What is most striking is the differences between Latinos and Asians (much lower) and the strong state variation, which is correlated with racial/ethnic make-up of a state, but even whites and blacks in those states have lower circumcision rates.
This comment was written by Rachel S..Report this comment to the moderators
July 2nd, 2007 at 8:25 am
Frankly, I really can’t get all het up about male circumcision. Particularly when foolish comparisons to FGM are made. Clearly , a lot of people are concerned though. I think Myca makes the most compelling argument. However, I’m not certain that it is wise to have the state superceding the authority of parents in this instance. Considering that any such law would have to have an exemption for religious reasons or run afoul of the establishment clause, it would be inherently discriminatory.
Of course, I’m probably biased by the fact that I feel no personal sense of injury or dimunition. In fact, if I were forced to express a sentiment one way or the other, I’d have to say that I’m rather glad I was circumcised. What little I know would seem to indicate that having a foreskin is a bit of a bother. It ’s also likely that I’m biased by the fact that I first became aware of anti-circumcision activism in the days when I was researching and counter organizing against White supremacist and anti-Semitic groups. This kind of thing had an appeal among them for reasons that should be obvious.
The discussion here has made me curious. I wonder how many folks on the anti side of the debate have actually been circumcised? Obviously the pro side isn’t likely to have too many intact advocates, not for long anyway. What I’m getting at is how many people who oppose circumcision do so because they personally feel abused, injured or mutilated?
This comment was written by W.B. Reeves.Report this comment to the moderators
July 2nd, 2007 at 8:38 am
I’m circumcised, and although it’s never been much of a hassle for me, I still (golly) don’t think that it’s okay to slice hunks off of baby’s genitals for no medical reason.
Additionally, the sex-radical in me rebels at circumcision because the original reason for widespread US circumcision was to prevent masturbation, and I consider it part and parcel of the whole ’sex is dirty and bad and wrong’ movement.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 2nd, 2007 at 8:56 am
Child abuse is a bit of a stretch. OK, a huge fucking stretch. That’s a big sledgehammer, you know.
It’s correct, BTW, that it’s being recommended as an AIDS prevention tactic. That’s because the “harm” of a physician-performed circumcision is so minimal, while the benefits of AIDS prevention (in countries where AIDS is rampant) are higher.
there are some fairly vocal anti-circumcision zealots out there. No surprise; there are ant-ANYTHING zealots out there. Of course, what has happened is that their view is often held to be “accurate” while the “it’s really not a big deal, and nowhere near child abuse” view is often referred to as “biased.
Alternatively, you can call it child abuse. But much like the expansion of other once-valid terms, this dilutes the term “child abuse” so much that it’s meaningless.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
July 2nd, 2007 at 9:08 am
I am sympathetic to anti-circumcision position, but as others have said, the comparisons to FGM is ridiculous. It is also ridiculous that online feminist discussions of FGM are almost always derailed by discussions of male circumcision (sort of like every discussion of domestic violence, sexual assault, gender roles, etc). I wonder if individuals who are concerned with male circumcision will actually post on a thread devoted to the topic?
The language of “barbarity” when discussing male circumcision is also off-putting when discussing a Jewish and Muslim religious practice, as they are minority religious groups (in a North American context) who experience discrimination on the basis of their religious beliefs. For the record, I also find it unacceptable when talking about FGM because it has so many colonial connotations (connotations that are often specific to gender-related practices).
I was curious about the rates of infant male circumcision in Canada versus the US (apparently, less than 10% of infant males are being circumcized in Canadian hospitals - down from about 70% in the early 1970s). In the course of my googling, I found that Canadian medical ethicist Margaret Somerville has allowed an anti-circumcision group to post a chapter from her book (The Ethical Canary). I haven’t had a chance to read the chapter carefully, but a quick skim convinced me that it might be of interest to Alas readers despite it’s focus on the Canadian legal context. The chapter can be found here.
This comment was written by debbie.Report this comment to the moderators
July 2nd, 2007 at 9:11 am
If you ever want to see a parenting site blow up, post the male circumcision debate.
Personally, I’m inclined to agree with Myca. Circumsizing male children is making unnecessary decisions about their bodies without their consent, and I’m not ok with that if it isn’t necessary.
As far as the AIDS thing goes. Well, I’m willing to bet that condom use is much better at AIDS prevention than circumcision and I’d really rather my child practice safe sex than assume that because he is circumsized he’s “safe” and doesn’t have to worry about condoms.
I know the child abuse language is strong… and I’m not certain I’m willing to go that far. I don’t think circumcision is right, but I’m not sure I feel a need to force a ban… but I can certainly understand why people feel it is abusive.
One thing I will say is that I find the arguments like: “well, I want him to look like his Daddy” or “Foreskin is gross” or “that’s what everyone else does” really really disturbing.
This comment was written by Kate L..Report this comment to the moderators
July 2nd, 2007 at 9:12 am
Ampersand writes: “… regardless of what US circumcision practice is based on, the effect is a form of child abuse …”
We should reserve phases like “child abuse” for cases where children are really suffering from mental and physical trauma. If you make a list of what would make the cut to be classified as child abuse, male circumcision just wouldn’t make it. Think of all the things that it must be compared against, like child rape, severe beatings, and severe neglect.
How many circumcised men complain about problems due to circumcision or feel that they were abused as a child? I would guess near zero. Certainly the views of people who have actually been circumcised should be considered before something is declared to be child abuse.
If earlobes were trimmed off at birth as a cultural custom, would that be child abuse? People could still hear fine, and some culture might consider this as beautiful. If no physical harm is done, I just don’t see a practice of trimming some skin on an infant’s body part as abuse.
This comment was written by Dan Morgan.Report this comment to the moderators
July 2nd, 2007 at 9:17 am
“If no physical harm is done”
But that’s not the case, neh? There are studies that link male circumcision to some loss of sexual sensitivity, aren’t there? Or am I mistaken?
And there are also the botched circumcisions (a la the Money case) to consider, in terms of “no harm.”
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 2nd, 2007 at 9:17 am
I would never put male circumcision in the same category as female ‘circumcision’ . . . no way, no how. FGM is fucking barbaric, is designed to destroy female sexual pleasure, and should be rightly considered misogynistic torture.
That’s not to say that male circumcision is no big deal. It’s not FGM, thank god, but especially in the US, it’s incredibly widespread, almost 100% of the time medically unnecessary, and does, in fact, involve cutting a hunk off of an infant’s penis for no good reason.
Frankly, it’s creepy as fuck.
Like I said, I don’t think of it as equivalent to FGM in any way. If you like, we can analogize it to a piercing. As in . . . after your baby boy is born, you call someone in to pierce his penis, attaching a thick metal ring, and permanently soldering the ring in place. It will affect his sexuality for the rest of his life . . . maybe not in a bad way, but in a different way, and he’ll never be able to remove it.
That’s why I find circumcision creepy. Because it really is.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 2nd, 2007 at 9:32 am
I do have some sympathy for this point of view, but when bringing up the specter of religious discrimination, I think it’s important to note that the hugely overwhelming majority of circumcisions performed in the US are not done for religious reasons.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 2nd, 2007 at 9:41 am
Also . . . what’s the pro-circumcision argument?
I mean, the anti (for me, anyway) is that engaging in medically unnecessary genital surgery (which has many possible disadvantages and very very few possible benefits, especially in the USA) on infants is something we Should Not Do.
I hear a lot of complaints that anti-activists are sidetracking from FGM, or that their language is too strong, or that there’s not much loss of sensation, or that it’s sometimes a religious decision . . . but I don’t think I’ve ever heard a good affirmative argument as to why we should circumcise most male children in the US.
Is there one?
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 2nd, 2007 at 10:17 am
I don’t think there really is much of a pro-circumcision argument, beyond religious traditions. I keep seeing references to some studies around male circumcision and HIV transmission in sub-Saharan Africa. I’m not sure how relevant this is for prevention in the US, but it seems that comprehensive sex education, harm reduction (needle exchanges), and addressing HIV transmission in prison are more practical interventions.
This comment was written by debbie.Report this comment to the moderators
July 2nd, 2007 at 10:21 am
Say Myca, can you provide a link on the connection between circumcision advocacy and masturbation? I’d be interested in that.
This comment was written by W.B. Reeves.Report this comment to the moderators
July 2nd, 2007 at 10:31 am
Sure, you can check it out here.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 2nd, 2007 at 11:00 am
Myca,
I don’t know about a specific pro-circumcision script, but the ones I hear are often as follows:
1) religious reasons (which makes sense to me).
2) It’s “cleaner”/ “more sanitary” despite the fact that this is no longer accepted in the medical community, it is a common argument. I also hear a lot of annecdotal, “My mom is a nurse in a nursing home and knows a lot of older men who have to be circumsized in their old age because they are unable to keep everything clean and it’s much more painful to do it then.” blah blah blah.
3) An uncircumcized penis is harder to “keep clean”
4) For aesthetic purposes (i.e. foreskin is “gross” “ugly” etc)
5) So that the kid will not be picked on/made fun of because he would “look different” in the locker room
6) Because that’s what my husband wanted - i.e. the boy should “look like daddy”
Those are the “pro” circumcision arguments I hear a lot.
This comment was written by Kate L..Report this comment to the moderators
July 2nd, 2007 at 11:06 am
Um, can we get another reference for the claim about selling foreskins, please? Sounds a whole lot like legend & hear say to me. (And, if CosmetiCo were to go to that much trouble to put something besides mineral oil and stearic acid in their wrinkle cream, wouldn’t they be advertising it as some sort of miracle ingredient, comparable to the “placenta” creams and other niceties?)
In other words, are we sure this guy isn’t nuts? (So to speak.)
Addendum: this site (www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/comme…) claims that these folks (www.skinmedica.com/contact) use foreskins to make some high-falutin’ skin stuff. I sent them a message asking what’s up with all the foreskins (there’s no mention of them on their site.)
I’m still smelling a legend, here. (The supposed reselling of “baby parts” by abortion clinics is a hot topic among some especially gullible right-to-lifers right now, for one thing…)
This comment was written by Kell.Report this comment to the moderators
July 2nd, 2007 at 12:10 pm
“well, I want him to look like his Daddy”
There is a simple answer to that, which I gave to my ex husband when this topic came up - If you were missing an arm, would you want the doctors to remove one of the baby’s too?
My son is *not* circumcised as a result of that discussion - and since he’s about to turn 20, I am sure he’ll be glad I shared that with all of you ;-)
This comment was written by Broce.Report this comment to the moderators
July 2nd, 2007 at 12:56 pm
It’s interesting to me how much Kate’s reasons 2-4 are echoed in a lot of the misogynist rhetoric around female genitalia as well. “Vaginas are dirty and hard to keep clean and ugly and smelly, etc, etc.”
—Myca
PS. Not that these are actually Kate’s reasons. I just meant the ones she pointed out.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 2nd, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Actually, I think it’s less about the inherent dirtiness of penises (like female sexual organs) and more about our issues with bodily fluids in general.
That, and the whole “how could you possibly teach a boy/man to properly clean himself? we all know that boys are incapable of cleaning…” I actually hear that kind of crap a LOT. It’s the same kind of “men are incompetent” crap that is both patriarchal and incredibly demeaning to men.
Thanks for the edit :) They are definitely NOT my reasons. I find all but #1 to be completely idiotic and frightening. None of them are good enough reasons to me to lop off a perfectly working part of my child’s body.
This comment was written by Kate L..Report this comment to the moderators
July 2nd, 2007 at 3:58 pm
The pro-circumcision argument of demonstrated lower incidence of HIV applies in high-prevalence, high-concurrent multiple regular sex partners, low-prevention measures, low-general health situation, ie, typical African high-incidence country. Circumcision has not been reliably shown to be a favorable HIV-reduction practice in the developed world where condoms are easily available and are often used. The US HIV prevalence rate is too low to detect small additional benefits (or detriments) readily in condom-using heterosexual men in the general population.
I have never gotten the impression that Jewish men are unsatisfied sexually due to lack of sensitivity. Surveys indicate that they are as happy or more happy in their sex lives as the general population. A large percentage of mohels (ritual circumcizers) in the US are physicians, and I don’t see any health issues - the main medical problems in (8 day old) infant circumcision are severe clotting deficiencies and infection, and the doc-mohels know about the first and use sterile technique to avoid the latter. So - butt out of the Jews’ business, I say. It’s their covenant, not ours.
Everyone else - why bother? A certain percentage of boys and men will get constriction and inflammation of the foreskin (phimosis), which can be painful. At that point they can be circumcised to deal with the anatomic problem.
Men do get cancer of the glans and foreskin, and they can die of it if it is neglected, but this disease, caused by the same virus that causes cervical cancer, is rare.
This comment was written by NancyP.Report this comment to the moderators
July 2nd, 2007 at 5:49 pm
I’m shocked at how eager people are to maintain the status quo.
Foreskin absolutely IS SOLD:
http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/f4sale.htm
(with no compensation or even notification to the victim or his family). TNS Recovery Complex face cream was discussed on Oprah Winfrey for crying out loud. This is not some phantom.
The US is the LAST country that still cuts most infants for non-religious reasons. NO MEDICAL SOCIETY on earth (not even the Israel Medical Association) recommends infant circumcision, so those professing “medical reasons” should post some credentials or shut it.
Circumcision IS NOT the appropriate treatment for phimosis:
http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_alternative_treatments.html
Female mutilation is now illegal in the US without religious exemption, but females have been cut in the US and Blue Cross paid for it:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1878411047/normuk-20
Religious exemption would not be needed to outlaw male circumcision, since the parent has no right to amputate valuable healthy normal tissue from a non-consenting infant for any reason.
Infants don’t have sex. HIV claims, while wildly overstated, are irrelevant.
Infants don’t get penile cancer. More men get breast cancer than get penile cancer.
More infants die from circumcision than you probably realize, between 1 in 5,000 and 1 in 10,000. The cause is often listed as bleeding, infection, or anesthesia complications, but the circumcision is at fault. http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html
Every circumcision removes over half the sensual nerve endings, denudes the glans, and eliminates the natural frictionless rolling/gliding action. About 20% have unintended results: tightness, asymmetry, skin bridges, bulgy veins, gouges to the glans, skin tags, jagged scars, etc.
http://www.noharmm.org/IDcirc.htm
It’s barbaric mutilation, child abuse, YES. 80% of the world does not circumcise.
HIS body, HIS decision.
This comment was written by Ron Low.Report this comment to the moderators
July 2nd, 2007 at 8:03 pm
It is just me, or is there a faint whiff of anti-semitism (not to mention anti Muslim racism) in all this anti circumcision propaganda?
In the real world, the foreskin is a vestigal organ, dating back to the ancient times when our primate ancestors hadn’t invented pants or underwear yet. In the modern world. we need a foreskin about as much as we do an appendix or tonsils.
For over 5,000 years, the Jews have been removing the foreskin - a tradition that the Muslims adopted 1,700 years ago.
It’s also a common cultural practice in America - most male American babies are circimcized at birth (I was one of those children - my foreskin was removed shortly after my birth 39 years ago).
I’ve never felt “mutilated” or “deformed” by this surgery - nor has the absence of a foreskin prevented me from having sex or masturbating.
I honestly don’t understand what all the frantic anti circimcusion hysteria is about!
Gregory A. Butler
This comment was written by Gregory A. Butler.New York, NY
Report this comment to the moderators
July 2nd, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Yes. It’s just you.
Proverbs 13:24 says “He who spareth the rod hateth his son,” and yet I oppose the beating of children. I bet I’m totally an anti-Christian bigot.
Well, as I asked earlier, is there an affirmative case to be made as to why we should circumcise most male children in the US? I’m open to hearing any arguments, it’s just that thus far I haven’t actually heard any.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 3rd, 2007 at 2:57 am
I so wish I had the time right now to comment here, since this is a topic I have written about and researched quite a lot. One article that people might find very interesting, given what has been said is David Gollaher’s From Ritual To Science: The Medical Transformation of Circumcision in America. His book Circumcision is also worth reading. Regarding Jewish circumcision, Howard Eilberg-Schwartz, in his book God’s Phallus devotes an entire section to examining the ways in which Jewish circumcision is understood in the Talmud (and maybe elsewhere) as feminizing of Jewish men so that they can be, collectively, as the people of Israel referred to constantly in the prophets (since only men were considered part of that “people’), God’s lover and bride—metaphors which recur consistently in the Bible when the relationship between God and the people of Israel is talked about.
Regarding male circumcision and male sexual sensitivity, here are two links:
http://www.noharmm.org/bjusuppl.htm
http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/sorrells_2007/
There are also plenty of articles, if you read through the literature, detailing research that demonstrates the effects of infant male circumcision on boys, everything from changes in sleep patterns to differences in pain threshholds between boys who were circumcised and those who were not. I don’t have time to dig the links out, though.
It’s worth thinking about how the medicalization of infant male circumcision, connected as it was to anti-masturbation theory and practice (and that whole notion is really connected to deep hostility in the 1800s to male sexual pleasure in general - read up on what Kellog and Graham–yes, the founders of the companies that give is breakfast cereal today–and other popular and medical authorities of the time–had to say about what would happen to men who had too much sex, even entirely “legitimate” married sex: it resembles to a striking degree the horrors that supposedly befell those who masturbated)–anyway, it’s worth thinking about how the connection between the medicalization of infant male circumcision in the 19th and early 20th centuries and its connection to anti-masturbation theory and practice is connected to people’s reluctance, until just recently, to acknowledge what should be an obvious fact: that if you amputate a nerve-filled piece of skin from a penis, the person that penis is attached to is not going to feel whatever those nerves were designed to feel. Once you acknowledge this fact, it seems to me, the question becomes not whether the sensation exists, not whether there is some competition between cut and uncut men in this regard— because, certainly, cut men are entirley capable of having entirely satisfactory sex lives—but, rather, what our cultural stance was and is towards that sensation in men and why?
And that is a much, much, much larger question that I don’t have the time right now to go into, though I should add I do not mean to imply that this is an entirely abstract and intellectual question. Obviously, we are talking about a practice that involves the real bodies of real boys and the men those boys grow up to be.
This comment was written by Richard Jeffrey Newman.Report this comment to the moderators
July 3rd, 2007 at 5:33 am
“but, rather, what our cultural stance was and is towards that sensation in men and why?”
Well, it’s certainly interesting in the context of mixed messages, in that we spend a lot of time talking about male sexual satisfaction while at teh same time giving the chop to nerve endings.
I’m not totally comfortable with the cultural phenomenon of male circumcision being framed around the idea of sensation though. There are cultural intentions, and cultural byproducts. And while male circ was popularized among gentiles as anti-masturbatory, I don’t think that the appeal was supposed to be reduced sensation so much as reduced need to handle the penis for hygeine, etc. I’m not sure there’s enough here to make the leap to assuming that sensation is the heart of (or even a primary factor in) the American obsession with (male) circumcision.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 3rd, 2007 at 5:38 am
Dan Morgan:
If you saw a parent deliberately punch a small infant hard enough to give the infant a black eye — just the one punch, mind you — would you argue that it wasn’t an act of child abuse, because it’s not as bad as other acts are? (The pain of a black eye is almost certainly less than the pain of circumcision.)
I’d call it abuse. To say that no behavior towards children can be abusive unless it rises to the extremes of child rape et al is far too narrow.
In my opinion, yes. Especially if it were typically done without anesthesia.
Sailerman:
So do you agree with Dan, that to needlessly cut off a infant’s earlobe (presumably without anesthesia, to make the comparison valid) isn’t abusive? How about my example of deliberately giving an infant a black eye?
The only way to define child abuse that lets circumcision off the hook is if you define it based on the motivations of the adult who injures the child. It’s true that circumcision is not done maliciously in our culture, so perhaps from that perspective it’s not child abuse. But from the infant’s perspective, circumcision is identical to any other needless, painful, mutilating attack. I do think that’s a reasonable sense in which circumcision is indeed child abuse.
Nor am I convinced that including “needlessly cutting off body parts” in our understanding of what is abusive is going to dilute the term beyond all meaning. I think the opposite is true; if you refuse to admit that cutting off a body part for no good reason can be abuse, than your definition is far too narrow.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 3rd, 2007 at 5:46 am
A couple of people have suggested that religiously-motivated circumcision is more acceptable.
I disagree. I don’t think that harmful acts are okay if they’re religiously motivated; for example, voting for laws banning abortion and homosexuality is morally wrong in my view even if the voter is motivated by their religious beliefs.
Religions can and do change to accommodate improved understandings of what is moral. Circumcision is, or should be, such a case.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 3rd, 2007 at 5:50 am
Mandolin:
Except that when cricumcision was justified as an anti-masturbatory measure, it was justified largely–and I wish I could find the source for you, but I am not at home–on the basis of the pain it would cause (as an antidote to sexual pleasure) and the assumed reduced sensitivity that would result. I would agree with you that once other, more explicitly medical rationales were proposed–as in Gollaher’s article–reduced sensation sort of went underground as a rationale behind/motivating factor of the procedure (though it’s also true that if you read some of the debates on this that went on 20 or 30 years ago, there are people who actually applaud the reduced sensation since it ostensibly would help men not to ejaculate too quickly), but to me the question of sensation–though I would frame it much more broadly as the question of male physical pleasure in sex and what that pleasure means culturally; and I should add that I only came to this after doing quite a lot of reading; my initial impulse was the kind of framing you suggest–is the subtext running through the other rationales that are proposed.
Also, an interesting conversation related to this on another blog: http://sexinthepublicsquare.wordpress.com/2007/04/06/the-foreskin-dialogues/
This comment was written by Richard Jeffrey Newman.Report this comment to the moderators
July 3rd, 2007 at 5:52 am
WB Reeves writes:
I don’t think anyone’s proposing legislation banning circumcision. Although I’m not against it.
No more than any other law with an exemption is discriminatory. This, in and of itself, seems like a very weak reason to oppose a law.
I don’t feel any personal sense of injury or dimunition, either. Nonetheless, unnecessary amputation of body parts without consent is simply wrong. Just because I myself wasn’t harmed by it is no excuse for continuing to perform it on a new generation of non-consenting boys.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 3rd, 2007 at 5:58 am
“Except that when cricumcision was justified as an anti-masturbatory measure, it was justified largely–and I wish I could find the source for you, but I am not at home–on the basis of the pain it would cause (as an antidote to sexual pleasure) and the assumed reduced sensitivity that would result. ”
That makes sense in the context of the other kinds of anti-masturbatory procedures, like the application of blistering agents….
Hmm.
It’s not that I don’t trust your research. I’ve read about this stuff, but probably not as widely. But I don’t really know how to fit that into Western narratives about sex. I suppose it would slot in with the idea that men have to conserve their semen to avoid losing personal power.
It’s odd to see an emphasis on lessening male sexuality without stricture on female, but as I recall, the Victorians were pretty pleased with the idea of medical clitorodectomy. But also with the idea of therapeutic orgasm. Probably trying to look for a consistent narrative from them about sex would be over-simplifying deep neurosis. Must ponder.
I’ll take a look at the blog link! Thanks.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 3rd, 2007 at 6:13 am
“A couple of people have suggested that religiously-motivated circumcision is more acceptable.
“I disagree. I don’t think that harmful acts are okay if they’re religiously motivated; for example, voting for laws banning abortion and homosexuality is morally wrong in my view even if the voter is motivated by their religious beliefs.
“Religions can and do change to accommodate improved understandings of what is moral. Circumcision is, or should be, such a case.”
My beef with this, Amp, is that circumcision isn’t “harmful.” Unnecessary in most cases? Yes. So is ear piercing, but many people do that to infants. Piercing the ear of an infant also makes a permanent change to an erogenous zone. But is it harmful? No. Would I do it to my kids? Never, but it’s not my business if other parents want to do it to theirs.
I would not counsel a non-Jewish friend to circumcise his or her son, because I don’t think it’s necessary if you don’t have a good reason for it. I do have a good reason to plan to do it to my sons - because (and this is goin to sound hokey) it’s a commandment from God. I would rethink that reason in a second if I believed that it would actually be harmful to my children, but until there’s actual proof that it’s actually harmful, I think it’s going way too far to call it child abuse, or to even suggest that we should be okay with banning it.
Parents are charged with their children’s well-being, and also with their raising. To that end, partents have the right to decide their children’s medical care, and also their religious indoctrination. Parents get to choose whether to vaccinate, parents choose whether to pierce, parenst choose how to educate, parents choose whether to baptize, and parents choose whether to circumcize. All of this is done without the consent of the children. It is in our best interests to leave the rights of the parents alone unless there is significant evidence that a practice is absolutely necessary, or unless there is significant evidence that a practice is extremely harmful. I think that sending Jewish girls to substandard religious schools where they are discouraged from studying much beyond the juior high school level is a bad idea, but that’s a parent’s choice, and as long as the schools are meeting the minimal state requirements, I don’t have a right to interfere in that choice. We get, and should get, wide berth in this country when it omes to our religious choices, and I don’t think that’s a bad thing.
This comment was written by ADS.Report this comment to the moderators
July 3rd, 2007 at 6:32 am
Mandolin:
Another angle, this from Michael Kimmel’s book Manhood in America (or American Manhood? I can’t remember the title): In the 1800s, male sexual pleasure/indulgence was understood to run counter to the work of building the nation that men were supposed to be engaged in.
And you are, of course, absolutely right that the stance against masturbation in men accompanied an even stronger stance against masturbation in women, for which clitordectomy was one recommended “cure.” It is interesting, however, esecpailly since both practices were rationalized in the same way, that the routine circumcision of infant males lived, despite numerous instances in which the medical rationales for its practice were disproven, while clitoidectomy, though it did not entirely disappear as a practice in the States (and I guess I should make clear, if I haven’t, that I am talking about the US here), has certainly fallen over time very far from the favor in which it was once held.
This comment was written by Richard Jeffrey Newman.Report this comment to the moderators
July 3rd, 2007 at 6:47 am
“It is interesting, however, esecpailly since both practices were rationalized in the same way, that the routine circumcision of infant males lived, despite numerous instances in which the medical rationales for its practice were disproven, while clitoidectomy, though it did not entirely disappear as a practice in the States (and I guess I should make clear, if I haven’t, that I am talking about the US here), has certainly fallen over time very far from the favor in which it was once held.”
Oh, absolutely.
I actually think there’s a lot more productive discussion to be had talking about the parallel evolution of clitoridectomy and male circumcision in the west, then there is talking about FGS (female genital surgeries) and western male circumcision. Sex-phobic Victorians did seem to be viewing the procedures as cures for the same underlying problem, so that even though they aren’t physiologically similar, the ideology behind them is something that can be attacked at the same time.
While there are similarities between the western view of male circumcision and the non-western cultural roots of FGS (damn, I used to have a chart that had great quotes about hygeine, and the goodness of a “thorough” circumcision, and the medical ramifications of circumcision… can’t… find it…), there’s also a lot of unacknowledged difference that stems from ignorance about A) physiology, and B) the manifold variations of FGS and the cultures that surround and underlie it.
I’m actually surprised that western cultures aren’t more accepting of FGS. Why aren’t we seeing it sold in the mainstream as a cure for single motherhood? Of the top of my head, I’d wonder whether part of our self-definition is as the “civilized” half of a “civilized” versus “savages” dichotomy. Africans are “savage”; they practice FGS; we must not. Certainly, we see in Africa that there are places which have not traditionally practiced FGS which have taken up the practice as a way of defining themselves as “traditional” and “not westernized.”
I’m trying to come up with ways to slot male circumcision into any of those dichotomies and utterly failing. I hope I’m not thread drifting.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 3rd, 2007 at 6:53 am
Quoting from the blog post that Richard listed in this thread:
This fascinates me, because there are places where the male foreskin is removed because it is the “female” part of the penis, considered analagous to the labia. (Likewise, the clitoris is removed as the “male” part of women because it is considered analogous to the penis.)
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 3rd, 2007 at 6:57 am
I believe that piercing an infant’s ear is wrong and immoral too, but let’s be clear.
It’s not permanent - When I take my earrings out, the piercings heal. Plus, I have the option of taking the piercings out.
It doesn’t involve permanent removal of tissue - It involves poking a hole (which, as I said, I consider immoral, since it’s an unnecessary violation of another person’s bodily autonomy), but that’s a far goddamn cry from permanent removal of a body part.
It’s not directly sexual - Yes, the earlobes can be erogenous zones, but come on, they’re not genitals. This is why no one has ever advocated mutilation of earlobes as a way to curb masturbation.
A reasonable biological analogy would be removal of the clitoral hood, but that’s problematic in discussion because it’s so often linked to clitorectomy (which is NOT analogous).
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 3rd, 2007 at 7:27 am
But when it comes to non-circumcising cultures (the great majority) the argument is suddenly reversed: instead of enjoying automatic respect for their traditions, parents from non-circumcising cultures are pressured to conform to the American norm and to consent to have their sons circumcised, so that they will be “like other boys”.
I wonder what evidence he has that this actually occurs.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
July 3rd, 2007 at 8:07 am
RonF–
This was clearly the case in the beginning of the 20th century, when people from non-circumcsing cultures were intensely pressured by the medical establishment and more to circumcise their newborn boys. Check out the article and book I referenced upthread by David Gollaher.
This comment was written by Richard Jeffrey Newman.Report this comment to the moderators
July 3rd, 2007 at 8:25 am
And again, while it is permanent, (just like the scars from a healed over piercings are permanent) I’m not getting the “harmful.” It’s different from the way we’re born, but it’s not damaging. It’s a permanent changing of a person’s body, but parents do that to their kids all the time. A vaccination, for example, is a permanent chnging of a kid’s immune system. Should circumcisions be required? No. Should they be encouraged? Again, no. But if you have a (minority) religious tradition of doing so, where’s the rationale for forcing a ban?
This comment was written by ADS.Report this comment to the moderators
July 3rd, 2007 at 8:31 am
ADS:
How do you define “harm?” (Please forgive me if I missed something that you said earlier.)
This comment was written by Richard Jeffrey Newman.Report this comment to the moderators
July 3rd, 2007 at 9:41 am
It’s hard to define harm. Since I don’t beileve circumcisions are harmful, it’s hard to define it in this context (since it’s almost impossible to define a negative). I have not seen evidence that suggests that circumcision, especially infant circumcision, causes a decline in sexual function or sensitivity. A difference in sexual feeling/sensitivity/experience, probably, but a decline? I haven’t seen that shown. FGM produces clear damage to a woman’s sexual experience - male circumcision does not. Barring evidence of that, discussion of a ban is just more “let me force my choices on you because I know better than you do how to raise your children,” which I think we can all agree is wrong.
This comment was written by ADS.Report this comment to the moderators
July 3rd, 2007 at 9:46 am
ADS:
Actually, the evidence is there, in many of the articles that have been linked to, and in extensive research on the physiology of the foreskin and of the glans penis pre and post circumcision. You may choose to see that evidence as pointing to difference rather than decline, but that is not the conclusion reached by the researchers themselves. The fact that a circumcised man can still feel sexual sensation and achieve orgasm and ejaculation does not, in and of itself, mean that those men do not experience a reduced sexual sensitivity as compared to men who are not circumcised.
This comment was written by Richard Jeffrey Newman.Report this comment to the moderators
July 3rd, 2007 at 9:53 am
“Needless?” Bit of an a priori there, mate.
But you’re digressing. The issue is whether circumcision is child abuse, not what “child abuse” is, generally speaking. All this is going to do is end up going down the road of debating whether circumcision is more similar to ___ than to ___; do we really have to go down the general-child-abuse-what-is-it road?
Bullshit. Here’s a few other ways:
You can:
1) decide that circumcision is simply not all that big a deal, irrespective of its motivations. If you believe that, it’s not child abuse. UNLESS, of course, you categorize “abuse” as including things that aren’t really a big deal.
2) decide that circumcision is more of a big deal, but that it’s justified. Similarly, this justification has nothing to do with parental motivation.
Those are only two examples.
Amp, I’m distressed by your arguments here. This is a blatant straw man (”can be” is quite different from “is always;” not to mention the obvious fact that “no good reason” is under debate.) You’re generally a trustworthy and logical debater, and I”m wondering why you are lowering your standards here.
But OK, OK, we’re going to have to go to generalities, i can see that now..
For child abuse to have any meaningful definition, it has to reflect some objective measure of the actual harm to the child, right? There’s also a motive factor–a big one. Abuse is a subset of “bad;” not all things that are bad, or unpleasant, are abusive.
You know, and I know, that there are about 100,000 things that parents can do to affect the lives of their children. Many of them are legal; many of them are bad; none of them are currently considered child abuse. You can marry the wrong person; spend too much money on booze; start smoking; let your kids smoke as soon as they’re legally allowed to do so; let them get C and D grades in public school, thus probably cutting them out of higher education; give them bad advice on the job hunt; be a “bad parent;” have another sibling you can’t afford; raise them as white supremacists; etc.
Most of the things in that list will have much more of a lasting effect on a child than whether or not he has a foreskin.
Why are they NOT abusive?
I submit it’s because the “abuse” standard is pretty high. It actually is based significantly on intent to hurt someone. So locking my 2 year old in her room because I like to hear her cry is abusive; doing it because she just whacked her brother with a stick is not.
You already seem to think circumcision lacks the intent to harm. How, then do you classify it as child abuse, in comparison to the world of non-abusive greater harms?
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
July 3rd, 2007 at 10:10 am
Sailorman,
Are you reading Richard Jeffrey Newman’s comments? Because he’s pointed to some objective harms.
It’s a bit off-putting to read you insulting Ampersand’s arguments at the same time as you don’t seem to be responding to the material in the thread. In this instance, you’re the one pulling out the stops like calling his arguments “bullshit.”
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 3rd, 2007 at 10:15 am
The routine medical circumcision of infant boys is a medically unnecessary procedure. There are arguments out there that it has prophylactic value–against cancer of the penis; against HIV infection; against what will happen if a boy is not taught to keep himself clear–but there are plenty of other surgeries that we might perform that would save far more lives than circumcision. We could, for example, remove the breasts of infant girls, just to make sure there is no chance they will develop breast cancer, and far more women die of breast cancer each year than do men from cancer of the penis. Edited to add: Yet I doubt anyone would seriously suggest we ought to institute such surgery, despite the fact that girls whose breasts were removed could, except that they would be unable to breast feed their children, live perfectly normal lives (and there are substitutes for breastfeeding, and if all girls had their breasts removed when they were infants, a generation of girls would eventually be born for whom breastfeeding was nothing by myth); nor would they miss, because they would never have known, the erotic potential of the breasts they did not have. (And I feel I need to say this: I am not suggesting the removing the breasts from infant girls is analogous in its effect to those of the circumcision of infant boys; I am trying to point to the nature of the reasoning by which the routine medical circumcision of infant boys is justified.)
This comment was written by Richard Jeffrey Newman.So what do you call it when the medical profession promulgates–as it still does in many places in the US, despite a growing trend to the contrary–a procedure that is not only medically unnecessary, but is also deeply and profoundly painful for the person on whom the procedure is performed. I think, in other words, when deciding whether the routine medical circumcision of infant males (I am, for the moment, not talking about religious circumcision) is or is not abuse, that it’s important to remember how deeply institutionalized the practice has been in the United States. Individual parents who chose or will choose to follow what has been until recently the overwhelming medical position in favor of circumcision are certainly not guilty of child abuse as individuals, but, if we call it abusive when a doctor performs unnecessary surgery….no, more to the point, if we can call it abusive that doctors used to perform unnecessary hysterectomies on women, why can we not call it abusive when they perform unnecessary circumcisions. Please note: I am not comparing the nature or severity of hysterectomy and cricumcision as medical procedures. I am talking about the wilfull way in which the medical profession endorsed and promoted the procedures despite the fact that they were unnecessary.
Report this comment to the moderators
July 3rd, 2007 at 10:17 am
There’s also a motive factor–a big one.
I have to strongly disagree that motive is a factor in whether or not an action is child abuse. I see this as self evident, but I can expand on it if you need me to do so.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
July 3rd, 2007 at 10:26 am
I have to strongly disagree that motive is a factor in whether or not an action is child abuse.
Denying a child food is considered abuse.
Scenario A: I come home from work and see my 12-year old son about to sit down to the dinner he made for himself. I knock it to the floor and say “the hell you’re getting food, you little shit” and send him to bed. Child abuse? Obviously.
Scenario B: I come home from work and see my 12-year old son has taken all the food from the cabinets and refrigerator, made an enormous pile of it in the backyard, and set it on fire, destroying $1000 worth of groceries. I tell him “since your behavior has resulted in all of us going hungry, it’s going to start with you. You go to bed now, and you’re not getting any supper.” Child abuse? Obviously not.
Same action, different motivation. One is abuse, the other is discipline or natural consequences or whatever you’d like to call it; “parenting” would be my word. Can parenting cross a line into abuse? Certainly - but for many, many actions, the fact that you’re doing it for the child’s own good is paramount.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 3rd, 2007 at 10:28 am
Richard,
Quite a lot of the examples I saw in your links were about what can happen when circumcisions go wrong. I think this is a very good reason to not encourage routine medical circumcision (which, again, I am against) because in those cases, there’s no good reason to circumcize an infant. When the circumcision is being done as part of a religious ritual, there is a good reason, and the equation changes. We stopped giving smallpox vaccines routinely after smallpox was eradicated, because there’s no good reason to expose people to the risk the vaccine poses. If and when smallpox makes a reappearance, that equation will change. (In addition, while I cannot point to a reference right now, I have seen numbers that show that circumcisions performed by mohels - ritual circumcisers in Judaism - are far less likely to be botched than those performed by doctors, for the simple reason that mohels do circumcisions on boys the exact same age all the time, day in and day out, while urologists and plastic surgeons only do them occasionally.)
Small dimishments in fine-touch sensitivity in the glans, that do not prevent sensation, orgasm and ejaculation, seem to be to fall more in line with “difference” in sexual feeling than “decline” in sexual feeling, especially when balanced with needing to have a circumcision performed in adulthood, which, if you’re being raised as Jewish, will be required when you turn 13 if it wasn’t done in infancy.
This comment was written by ADS.Report this comment to the moderators
July 3rd, 2007 at 10:42 am
ADS:
Unfortunately, I do not have the time to link you to all the studies that have been done relating to circumcision, but I assure you that the ones I am thinking of, and that you could find pretty easily yourself if you wanted to, are not about botched circumcisions, but are, rather about the effects of routine and successful operations.
As to whether circumcision results in a “small” diminishment of sensation: not only is “small” a profoundly subjective measure, but research I have read indicates that the diminishment of sensation can be as much as 30%, using the measure established by the researchers, and it was a fairly objective measure–if I remember correctly–having to do with a correlation between how much tissue, and therefore how much of the nerve network in the foreskin was removed (glans sensitivity is diminished; foreskin sensitivity is removed completely), and circumcised vs. uncircumcised men’s response to stimulii. Again, I don’t have the time to find the link, and I will not swear by my summary here–I will only say for sure that I know there is research that seems to show the difference in sensation between cut and uncut men is anything but uniformly small.
That being said, I do agree that we need to talk about medical and religious circumcision in very different ways, not in terms of the effect it has on the boys who are circumcised, but in terms of the cultural and other assumptions that frame the procedure.
This comment was written by Richard Jeffrey Newman.Report this comment to the moderators
July 3rd, 2007 at 10:43 am
Sure.
I come home. I’m drunk and surly, and my child is crying. I run to his room and punch him full in the face, bloodying his nose and splitting his lip. Abuse? Obviously!
I come home. I’m stone sober, but my child has made a mess of the house in my absence. I run to his room and punch him full in the face, bloodying his nose and splitting his lip. Abuse? Heck no, it was for his own good! That’ll learn ‘im.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 3rd, 2007 at 10:57 am
Surely, Myca, you can do better than that. The argument was that there is no difference in defining abuse based on intent of the parent. Several examples were provided showing examples in which the posters argued that the difference in intent was the difference between abuse and not. You countering with an example in which intent does not matter does not advance the argument, it’s just a strawman. Try again.
This comment was written by ADS.Report this comment to the moderators
July 3rd, 2007 at 11:02 am
No, my argument is that (as Amp pointed out) circumcision is more severe than punching a child in the face, blackening his eye, bloodying his nose, and splitting his lip.
If intent isn’t exculpatory in the case of a punch to the face as a punishment, surely intent is much less exculpatory in the case of circumcision, which is much more permanent and is not intended as a punishment.
I’m not arguing that intent never matters, merely that in this case it doesn’t.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
July 3rd, 2007 at 11:11 am
Yes, and, once again, since the intent is not punishment, they’re nothing at all alike. Just because one is more severe does not automatically make that the winning argument.
Amputating a child’s leg, for example, is even more severe than blackening an eye. Doing it because you’re pissed at a kid and hit them with an ax is abusive. Doing it because they’ve got gangrene and will otherwise die is not.
When infant circumcision is performed within a religious context, the choice is not “perform this circumcision now without the child’s consent or nothing will happen later,” it is “perform this circumcision now while the child will have fewer lasting effects, when the danger is least, when it can be done without general anaesthesia,” or “wait until the child is a teenager, and then if they wish to remain within the religion in which they were brought up, they will have to choose to undergo a far more serious procedure that will be far more damaging to their sexual function and that carries far higher risks, including that of general anaesthesia.” M