This one goes out to all my male readers, because I have a conundrum and I want your input.
When I was younger, I never really had a philosophical or moral “problem” with male circumcision. It was just a personal or religious decision made by the parents of a male child based on what seemed right to them. In the long run, it posed no serious medical risk and didn’t seem like a big deal.
However, having immersed myself in a lot of random, sex-positive literature, I’ve found that there is a large community
of people who are strongly against male circumcision, citing reduced ability for men to self-lubricate, lessened sensitivity, hygiene issues, and a sense of bodily violation by men who were circumcised. Thus, while I don’t fault people for circumcising their kids (after all, they probably aren’t versed in the theoretical or medical arguments that led me to oppose the practice), I feel like the better option is to leave what nature created alone, and would suggest as much to people who were on the fence.
But Carnal Nation brought up an interesting question regarding circumcision in Africa, where HIV prevalence is so high. Apparently, the WHO recommends circumcision as a means of reducing HIV transmission. I am sketchy on the science of this, but you can read more about the general dialogue here. The good thing is, most African men are getting circumcised later, around age 15 or so, when they have the agency to decide for themselves about the procedure. But I imagine they have very little information on the subject, and have simply been told that it will prevent them from getting AIDS. Does this present a moral hazard- making kids feel even more invincible against the disease by circumcising them? And what about their own sexual and hygiene needs? Is the potential for preventing AIDS worth trading off the general health benefits of having the foreskin?
Granted, it is AIDS. And AIDS is a scary disease, and a prevalent one, so I am inclined to think the trade is worth it. But something inside nags at me….
Your thoughts?
Also, for guys who are comfortable sharing- are you happy, upset, or ambivalent about being circumcised? Has it affected you in any significant way? Looking forward to your input.
Stay cool, queer kids.
Forever The Queerest Kids 
I am (the whole Jew thing) and I’ve never had problems. I’ve actually heard it helps hygiene rather than hurts it – that’s why it slightly diminishes contraction of HIV. I think. I’m biased of course, but I don’t see any physical problems (though there may be some moral issues with doing it to young kids).
The arguments on hygiene seem to go back and forth – hard numbers are difficult to come by. I haven’t heard any specific health benefits of going uncircumcised, but I also see little hard evidence for the health benefits of circumcision.
I have a very hard time believing that circumcision can make a significant enough dent in HIV infections, though. To me, it seems like the “protection” offered by the procedure is insignificant in comparison to safe sex practices.
My feelings on my own? Ambivalent.
All boys are born intact. In fact circumcision is an outdated torture that should be abolished. It does nothing to help the function of the penis and actually loses some of the nerves in the penis. I am intact and love it and I have had no complaints From anybody I have been with. The main thing is to teach the young boys how to keep their penis clean and they will have no hygiene problems and better sex because of the extra nerve tissue
The biggest supporter are already cut,mutilated,have part of their penis thrown away so of course they support it or otherwise their parents would be wrong for having them cut. I am an older man and have never had an infection,premature ejaculation STD or any of the other things people say WILL happen so do not cut your little boy because society says it is normal. In 20 yrs the norm will be intact boys and everyone who is cut will be different
Circumcision can be seen as a form of mutilation and a form of abuse when done to a child or baby against it’s will and the systematic routine practise of this disgusts me. In hospitals all over America right now, babies are strapped into a plastic mould called a ‘circumstraint’ with two arm restraints and two leg restraints and a clamp fitted onto the end of each baby boy’s penis which is fixed so tightly it crushes the tissue, damaging the penis, just so there is less blood when they make the incision and cut off the foreskin. It’s a pretty horrific and barbaric practice.
“There is reason why they call it ‘cut’ – because you loose something.”
It is not a normal act to lob off a piece of skin and flesh from a baby. When you think about it, anyone caught doing this in any other circumstance would be imprisoned. Under the guise of religion and tradition however, it slips under the radar. What would happen if, let’s take Scientologist’s as an example (as they are considered a relatively new religion) announced to the world that all their babies were to have their ear lobes removed at birth as standard practise? There would be outrage from most if not all communities of the world. And why? – because it’s a very weird, unnecessary thing to do and morally wrong to permanently change a baby physically, cause it pain and scar it, emotionally and physically. However, because people have been practising circumcision for many years, it’s deemed as being perfectly ok to do – even though it’s no different to removing an earlobe, nipple or eyelid. There is absolutely no good reason to cut off a boy’s foreskin, unless in adult life it is causing complications and the reason is medical. Even circumcision for women is deemed ‘wrong’ by the western society, but for men it’s supposed to be okay?
How does this affect you if you are religious? Well, it states nowhere in the Koran anything at all about circumcision. Nor do you have to be circumcised if you are a Jewish – it is simply a ‘gesture’ of dedication, but not necessary. The main culprit of circumcision is actually Americans.
The reason why American’s first started the procedure in 1870’s was because they thought it ‘cured’ ‘diseases’ such as ‘masturbation’ and ‘madness’. It was done to children as soon as they were born as a sort of ‘vaccination’ against these ‘diseases’. In the 1890’s there was also an attempt to make it law for all “Negro boys to be circumcised so as to reduce their sex drive and protect white women from rape.” Dr John Harvey Kellogg’s, of Corn Flake fame, was a huge supporter of this, and actually wrote in a book in 1877 that he thought the procedure should be done to babies with no anaesthetic so that the baby would have an emotional pain memory to learn not to masturbate;
“The operation should be performed without administering an anaesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment.”
In a way, he was right to assume that circumcision will affect the sexual habits of the individual. In recent scientific demonstrations, it is shown how a cut penis often does not perform correctly or naturally during sex and can be problematic for both men and women. There is not enough skin to accommodate an erection – therefore there is no ‘give’ necessary for more pleasurable sex from the perspective of the person being penetrated. Essentially you are being poked hard and awkwardly which can cause pain and discomfort. The edge of the head of the penis, called the ‘coronal ridge hook’ is not protected by bunched up foreskin on cut penis and so it not only scrapes the lining of the vagina/**** when being withdrawn but it also looses the vacuum to hold in the natural lubrication. The vagina was designed with the foreskin to create this vacuum to hold in the man’s ejaculation – it helps procreate. No vacuum means less sperm are trapped and getting pregnant, if that is your aim, can be more difficult. Not to mention it is very difficult to masturbate without having to use lubrication – another opportunity for someone to sell you something you don’t need and making the natural spontaneity of sex and masturbation into something synthetic and artificial.
The very common and weak excuse about cleanliness and that cut men are cleaner or healthier is misguided. All of our body gets dirty and builds up dirt – earwax, mucus, nails, hair – we wash them all and survive, do we not? Nobody tells us to cut fingers off at birth just in case they get dirty, do they? There is absolutely no evidence to say it is healthier to have a cut penis, apart from the view that is if you have no foreskin you therefore automatically eliminate any remote chances of it being infected in the foreskin simply because you do not have one to be infected, but to the same example, if you remove children’s teeth then the chances of them having tooth decay is zero simply because they have no teeth to become decayed – that doesn’t mean that a child’s teeth will become decayed if they are not removed, obviously. Or even breast tissue – working on the same principles of that argument, we should remove the breast tissue of every newborn baby girl just in case they develop breast cancer in the future – ridiculous and flawed.
The actual practise of circumcision can also be very dangerous and it is a very major procedure to be undertaking on a newborn child and has been fatal in some cases. Doctors have quoted it is a barbaric act, unnecessary and the British Medical Association claim it is a completely unethical practise and that the reason why it is still going on and not being challenged is because it is a multi-billion dollar industry. Up until now, Americans have had to pay for healthcare and therefore pay to get a child circumcised – if Americans suddenly realised it was wrong to cut up a child’s natural penis there would be a huge impact on the health industry and fat cats would loose a hell of a lot of money – billions in fact. So basically, to save them loosing money – you or your child looses a necessary and natural part of your body. Mutilating and hurting new-born babies to make a buck – ahh, the American dream.
Finishing here a beautiful quote from ‘Elizabeth Blackwell’, who in as early as in 1894 clearly pointed out how absurd and arrogant it is to think that God and/or nature could make a mistake in the making of not only ‘man’ but all male mammals on the earth;
“Circumcision is based upon the erroneous principle that boys, i.e. one half of the human race, are so badly fashioned by Creative Power that they must be reformed by the surgeon; consequently that every male child must be mutilated by removing the natural covering with which nature has protected one of the most sensitive portions of the human body. The erroneous nature of such a practice is shown by the fact that although this custom (which originated amongst licentious nations in hot climates) has been carried out for many hundreds of generations (by Moslems and Jews), yet nature continues to protect her children by reproducing the valuable protection in man and all the higher animals, regardless of impotent surgical interference.”
I agree with you about circumcision, however your statements about the coronal ridge are inaccurate. The vagina cannot possibly create a literal vacuum. The word you are looking for is ‘suction.’ Your moral arguments are good, but the science on that point is flimsy, at best. Your arguments regarding religion are particularly persuasive, and I also share these views. The point is fundamentally that a pre-verbal infant cannot possibly claim a religion and thus cannot consent to anything that is done for religious reasons, let alone a surgical procedure.
The problem may be an issue of informed consent. Many parents are frightened by the idea of circumcision–the actual cutting procedure. As a woman, I find it intuitively disturbing but reserved my conclusions about the practice until I had read quite a bit of evidence for both stances on the issue. But ultimately, I do not believe I could circumcise any child of mine, simply because I find the practice unnecessary and would not want to cause a child pain. Also, any of the evidence I’ve read about possible benefits is not realistically beneficial enough to outweigh that major moral and emotional concern. I believe if most people were to research the topic thoroughly, they might at least reconsider circumcising or decline to do it.
EDITORS NOTE: Female circumcision is a VERY VERY different procedure which is used as a method of subjugation and control over women’s bodies and makes it absolutely impossible for women to get pleasure out of sex. This is not the purpose of male circumcision and under no circumstances should that parallel be asserted.
I am approving all comments for this post, but please be respectful in your arguments and do not make fallacious arguments that belittle the suffering of women everywhere. Thank you.
Thanks for this clarification–agreed 100%. Keep up the good work!
Circumcision is a dangerous distraction in the fight against AIDS. There are six African countries where men are *more* likely to be HIV+ if they’ve been circumcised: Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, and Swaziland. Eg in Malawi, the HIV rate is 13.2% among circumcised men, but only 9.5% among intact men. In Rwanda, the HIV rate is 3.5% among circumcised men, but only 2.1% among intact men. If circumcision really worked against AIDS, this just wouldn’t happen. We now have people calling circumcision a “vaccine” or “invisible condom”, and viewing circumcision as an alternative to condoms. The South African National Communication Survey on HIV/AIDS, 2009 found that 15% of adults across age groups “believe that circumcised men do not need to use condoms”.
The one randomized controlled trial into male-to-female transmission showed a 54% higher rate in the group where the men had been circumcised btw.
ABC (Abstinence, Being faithful, and especially Condoms) is the way forward. Promoting genital surgery will cost African lives, not save them.
I believe it’s very wrong to draw an artificial distinction between male and female circumcision.
Some forms of female circumcision do less damage than the usual form of male circumcision. Sometimes there’s just an incision with nothing actually removed. One form just removes the clitoral hood (the female foreskin), so it’s the exact equivalent of cutting off a boy’s foreskin. In some countries, female circumcision is performed by doctors in operating theatres with anesthesia. Conversely, male circumcision is often performed as a tribal practice. 91 males died of circumcision in just one province of South Africa last year.
Are you aware that the USA also used to practise female circumcision? Fortunately, it never caught on the same way as male circumcision, but there are middle-aged white US American women walking round today with no external clitoris because it was removed. Some of them don’t even realise what has been done to them. There are frequent references to the practice in medical literature up until at least 1959. Most of them point out the similarity with male circumcision, and suggest that it should be performed for the same reasons. Blue Cross/Blue Shield had a code for clitoridectomy till 1977.
One victim wrote a book about it:
Robinett, Patricia (2006). “The rape of innocence: One woman’s story of female genital mutilation in the USA.”
Nowadays, it’s illegal even to make an incision on a girl’s genitals though, even if no tissue is removed. Why don’t boys get the same protection?
Don’t get me wrong. I’m totally against female circumcision, and I probably spend a lot more time and money trying to stop it than most people. If people are serious about stopping female circumcision though, they also have to be against male circumcision. Even if you see a fundamental difference, the people that cut girls don’t (and they get furious if you call it “mutilation”). There are intelligent, educated, articulate women who will passionately defend it, and as well as using the exact same reasons that are used to defend male circumcision in the US, they will also point to male circumcision itself (as well as labiaplasty and breast operations), as evidence of western hypocrisy regarding female circumcision. The sooner boys are protected from genital mutilation in the west, the sooner those peoples that practice FGM will interpret western objections as something more than cultural imperialism.
It’s worth remembering that no-one except for Jewish people and Muslims would even be having this discussion if it weren’t for the fact that 19th century doctors thought that :
a) masturbation caused various physical and mental problems (including epilepsy, convulsions, paralysis, tuberculosis etc), and
b) circumcision stopped masturbation.
Both of those sound ridiculous today I know, but how that’s how they thought back then, and that’s how non-religious circumcision got started. If you don’t believe me, then google this: “A Short History of Circumcision in North America In the Physicians’ Own Words”. Heck, they even passed laws against “self-pollution” as it was called.
Over a hundred years later, circumcised men keep looking for new ways to defend the practice.
Yes, but female circumcision is ALWAYS wrong, and in almost all cases MUCH more damaging than male circumcision if only because of the issue that male circumcisions are almost always performed with sterile equipment and generally by medical professions. The overwhelming majority of women who are mutilated are done so with equipment that is not sterile and often much more inherently dangerous than even the ‘mildest’ procedure (such as the clitoral prick with a sharp object you’re referencing–even that would be EXTREMELY likely to cause additional significant or grievous harm in most of the unhygienic circumstances in which this procedures are performed) That said, you are correct that both practices are completely unnecessary and there really isn’t a reasonable justification for circumcising any infant.
Doctors cut off parts of girls in plenty of countries, but that doesn’t make it ok.
It used to happen in the USA:
http://www.noharmm.org/CircintheFemale.htm
Circumcision in the Female: Its Necessity and How to Perform It
Benjamin E. Dawson, A.M., M.D. – Kansas City, Missouri
President, Eclectic Medical University
American Journal of Clinical Medicine, vol. 22, no. 6, p. 520-523, June 1915
http://www.noharmm.org/femcirctech.htmF
emale Circumcision: Indications and a New Technique
W.G. Rathmann, M.D. GP, vol. XX, no. 3, pp 115-120 , September, 1959
http://www.noharmm.org/circumfemale.htm
Circumcision of the Female
C.F. McDonald, M.D. – Milwaukee, Wisconsin
GP, Vol. XVIII No. 3, p. 98-99, September, 1958
(“If the male needs circumcision for cleanliness and hygiene, why not the female?”)
More recently, the AAP’s Bioethics committee changed its policy on female cutting in 2010 saying “It might be more effective if federal and state laws enabled pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ritual [clitoral] nick as a possible compromise to avoid greater harm.”
They were forced to retract this about six weeks later:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/722840
Dr Diekema, the chair of the committee said “We’re talking about something far less extensive than the removal of foreskin in a male”.
Why would the procedure in this link be illegal in most western countries:
http://aandes.blogspot.com/2010/04/circumcision.html
yet this is legal:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6584757516627632617
The arguments on this controversial subject rage on. It is very difficult to compare the male experience between the cut and not-cut sine you can put a meter on their brains and tell the difference. Even tests done when previous uncut male patients need to be circumsized for medical reasons hasn’t yielded clear cut data. The ‘testamony’ is trying to reason from insufficient data about a subject, the human body and its responses, that even today we don’t really understand.
From the stories I hear from people traveling in Africa and getting their information, the spread of AIDS has a lot to do with men who travel from country or area to elsewhere regularly and either pay prostitutes or simply rape women. This doesn’t seem to be the typical male that one can convince to use a condom. The statistics in countries where the % circumcised suggests that circumcise does not prevent the spread of AIDS, needs to look at the data and see if other ways of looking at the data might suggest that the smaller population fraction who is not circumcised commit more violations on the helpless women.
When I got married years ago, my wife told me she was very happy that i was circumcised because circumcised men in the US transmit HPV less often to their partners than uncircumcised men.
Today’s society speaks of religious freedom. In the controversy or a mosque at ground zero, it was quoted with some reasonable justification a lot. I’ve noticed that a lot of people who quote religious freedom on that case are quick to overrule it in the case of a subject where one side has a religious point of view but these people want to argue the other way. Then they say religion has to give way.
There are three major religious groups in the US who elect circumcism and one group who is not religious but traditional. The obvious religious groups are the Jews, especially the orthodox members, and the Muslims. The third religious group is a portion of Christianity who hold, according to its scriptures, Circumcism is not needed to be a member in good standing but who argue if the all good God mandated this for his people, the sons of Abraham as an everlasting covenant, it cannot be a bad thing and choose to follow that practice out of the scriptural example rather than out of a religious law. The Jews have been following this custom for some 4000 years of recorded history. The Muslims have followed a similar practice for some 1400 years. Somebody mentioned the age of 15. However, I believe the Muslim practice for circumcism is at the age of 13 and at that age the boy becomes a man in the eyes of his nation.
I’ve read all the arguments above but am not convinced. I have seem them all before along with a lot more serious and telling arguments that quote accurate reliable data that show the question is not cut or dry.
From what I know, I cannot accept the idea of female circumcism. Even if there are variations in how it is done with differing pain and outcomes, the stories i read suggest that a lot of it is carried out most brutally and in a sense of domination of the woman. There is little to suggest it has a religious origin although it may be confused with such, It is found in Africa, the middle east, and South America with it growing in Europe and the US due to immigration. While surveys mention it being in Islamic areas, it appears to be more associated with sociological history going back to Egypt. It seems to me to be the same kind of syncretism we see in parts of Christianity where various local customs get adopted and sort of ‘baptized’ and made Christian with no warrant in the faith at all. While I’ve not read of that happening in Islam, I would be surprised if it didn’t. It is seen in Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism and more. The issue with syncretism is that ideas are adopted into a faith that are not derived from the foundations of that faith and act as an impurity and weaken the whole thing just a the wrong element in a crystal make it impure and weaker than if it weren’t there.
For those who wish to set ‘modern thinking’ and ‘modern facts’ against ancient religion,study your history. In how many decades probably or centuries less likely are all thee modern things you quote going to be thrown over as a false trail on man’s quest to know the truth. Millennia of human experience has failed to show the harm done by male circumcism of infants or near adolescent boys. Most of the losses quoted cannot be well established. They are based on anecdotal evidence that lacks a common measuring device to compare the results. So rant on if you will. It is a kind of debate that never becomes resolved except through overwhelming force.
In Africa the issue that circumcision is reducing the risk of AIDS also increased the rite of passage which involved circumcision. Personally, I believe that it should be a personal choice and not an imposition by any society.
Before, circumcision was for religious or cultural reasons and last for medical reasons. Some societies think a penis wrapped by a prepuce is dirty and unsightly.
Should we cut of ears because they can become dirty?
I did write on the subject. “My son right of passage” check it out but that really the way I feel about this topic.
Many of the arguments you’re using to defend male cutting apply equally to female cutting. There are many women who are glad to be cut, and whose husbands are glad that they’re cut for example, but that doesn’t make it acceptable for them to cut their daughters. There are lots of people who believe that their religion requires them to have parts cut off their daughters’ genitals. Female circumcision seems to be a few centuries older than male circumcision, and both pre-date any religions that are still alive today. It’s normally women who promote and perform female genital cutting btw, especially in those countries where the worst forms are practised.
Almost all Muslim boys are circumcised, but it’s usually performed anywhere from the age of seven to late puberty. The only two countries in the world which circumcise a majority of baby boys are the USA and Israel.
“The statistics in countries where the % circumcised suggests that circumcise does not prevent the spread of AIDS, needs to look at the data and see if other ways of looking at the data might suggest that the smaller population fraction who is not circumcised commit more violations on the helpless women.”
If you’re trying to explain away why there six countries where men are more likely to be HIV+ if they’ve been circumcised, you’d have to show that the *circumcised* men have more sexual partners. Why not look at the countries where circumcised men have lower rates of HIV though, and try to explain that away instead? That’s actually much easier to do, since most of the circumcised men in Africa are Muslim, so should have fewer sexual partners.
Christians in the USA would not be circumcising if it weren’t for the old masturbation thing. Circumcision in the USA was nothing to do with religion when it first became popular. Trying to use Christianity as a justification only came later, and less than 5% of Christians outside the USA and the Philippines circumcise.
I was circumcised at birth, against my wishes. I understand that, even though I cried out for them to stop the pain, the doctor kept cutting. I must have distracted the doctor though, because he botched my circumcision. I have lots of scar tissue on the bottom of my penis next to my frenulum. The scar tissue has always bothered me, but, until I learned about circumcision, I thought it was just the way I was born. *sigh*
I really wish my parents had protected me and not let them circumcise me at birth. I am restoring my foreskin to undo some of the damage, and it is helping.
As for the HIV issue, I practice safe sex. My circumcision status has no bearing on the HIV issue.
………………. There is a movement of Jews who are questioning circumcision, and working to end this abuse of children. The movement ranges from the Orthodox to the secular, and includes mothers, fathers, scholars, historians, medical professionals, activists, and intellectuals.
Jewish Groups for Genital Integrity
* Brit Shalom Celebrants by Mark D. Reiss, M.D. http://www.circumstitions.com/Jewish-shalom.html
* Questioning Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective by Ron Goldman, Ph.D. http://www.jewishcircumcision.org
* The Current Judaic Movement to End Circumcision: Part 1
http://intactnews.org/node/105/1311886372/jewish-voices-current-judaic-movement-end-circumcision-part-1
Circumcision: A Jewish Feminist Perspective by Miriam Pollack
http://www.noharmm.org/pollack.htm
Jewish Intactivist Miriam Pollack has some great commentary on Foreskin Man in this recent interview.
http://www.beyondthebris.com/2011/07/defying-convention-interview-with_27.html
Jews Speak Out in Favor of Banning Circumcision on Minors
http://intactnews.org/node/103/1311885181/jews-speak-out-favor-banning-circumcision-minors . ……………………………………