The Debate Over Circumcision

There wasn't a debate in our house, our son was circumcised!

Usually body parts are there for a reason.

i understand the debate . . . but better to get it over with in infancy then them grow to adulthood embarassed by it. circumcision is pretty much the norm . . . you did a good thing!

Our son is not circumcised, and it was an easy decision: Whoever circumcised me cut off too much skin giving lots of problems throughout puberty when I didn't have enough skin to cover my erections. I thought they were just growing pains until I finally told my doctors that erections hurt.

The circumcision rates are down to 55% in USA and falling. Pretty soon it won't be the norm here, and it was never the norm worldwide.

We don't cut any other body part off before it ever causes a problem.

We're Jewish, so our son is circumsized. But quite honestly, I don't think we would have bothered if we weren't Jewish.
Circumcision rates are falling quickly in the U.S., and around most of the rest of the world, circumcision isn't common.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled,
And by the authority of the same, as follows:

SECTION 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Massachusetts State Prohibition of Genital Mutilation Act."

SECTION 2. Chapter 265 of the General Laws is hereby amended by adding after Section 13L the following new section:

Section 13M: Genital Mutilation; exceptions, penalties, education, preventative and outreach activities.

(a) For the purpose of this section, the term "genital mutilation" shall mean the removal or cutting or both of the whole or part of the clitoris, labia minora, labia majora, vulva, breast, nipple, foreskin, glans, testicle, penis, ambiguous genitalia, hermaphroditic genitalia, or any genital organ.

(b) For the purpose of this section, the term "premature forcible retraction of the penile or clitoral prepuce" shall mean forced retraction of the prepuce from the glans, except to the extent that the prepuce has already separated from the glans.

(c) For the purpose of this section, the term "prepuce" shall mean foreskin.

(d) Except as provided in subsection (e), whoever knowingly circumcises, excises, cuts, or mutilates the whole or any part of the labia majora, labia minora, clitoris, vulva, breast, nipple, foreskin, glans, testicle, penis, ambiguous genitalia, hermaphroditic genitalia, or genital organs of another person who has not attained the age of 18 years or on any non-consenting adult; or whoever prematurely and forcibly retracts the penile or clitoral prepuce of another person who has not attained the age of 18 years or any non-consenting adult; or whoever knowingly assists with or facilitates any of these acts; or whoever arranges, plans, aids, abets, counsels, facilitates, or procures a genital mutilation operation on another person who has not attained the age of 18 years or any non-consenting adult shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 14 years, or both.

(e) A surgical operation is not a violation of this section if the operation is (1) performed on a person who has not attained the age of 18 years and is necessary to the physical health of the person on whom it is performed because of a clear, compelling and immediate medical need with no less-destructive alternative treatment available, and is performed in a properly licensed facility by a person licensed as a medical practitioner in the place of its performance; (2) performed on an adult who is physically unable to give consent and there is a clear, compelling, and immediate medical need with no less-destructive alternative treatment available, and is performed in a properly licensed facility by a person licensed as a medical practitioner in the place of its performance; or (3) performed on a person in labor or who has just given birth, and is performed for medical purposes connected with that labor or birth because of a clear, compelling, and immediate medical need with no less-destructive alternative treatment available, and is performed in a properly licensed facility by a person licensed as a medical
practitioner in the place of its performance, by a midwife or person in training to become such a medical practitioner or midwife.

(f) In applying subsection (e) no account shall be taken of the effect on the person on whom the operation is to be performed of any belief on the part of that or any other person that the operation is required as a matter of custom or ritual.

(g) The Department of Public Health, in consultation with appropriate state and federal agencies or departments shall establish and implement appropriate education, preventative and outreach activities focusing on, but not limited to: the new immigrant populations that traditionally practice female genital mutilation, hospitals that traditionally practice male and intersex genital mutilation, and religious groups that traditionally practice male genital mutilation, for the purpose of informing members of those communities of the health risks and emotional trauma inflicted by this practice and informing those communities and the medical community of the prohibition and ramifications of this Act.

Erin, Did you already have your second son, or is his birth still in the future? Please don't circumcise him or any other sons you have. Please tell your friends and family to not do this to a child. The experience you had with your first son obviously doesn't happen every time, but it happens to a lot more baby boys than the US medical industry wants you to know. I had a horribly botched circumcision many years ago, and I have had almost unbearable pain in my penis all my life. As I grow older the pain is less severe but still there. I truly hate for anyone to see all the scars on my penis. Why should anyone feel pain from a body part designed in large part to give pleasure? Naturally all this has caused me to read and research about this thing that is done only in the Muslim World (20% of the world's population), and in the USA. Worldwide 75% of males are NOT circumcised. There is no good reason to do it. The "medical" reasons exist only in the minds of US doctors and researchers. Even they admit their reasons are "weak" or the benefits "slight." Any study that shows a "benefit" can easily be disputed by anyone who knows how to read and think critically about how data can be manipulated. The only reason this won't go away is that it makes too much money for the doctors who do it. It's easy to make $60,000.-$80,000. a year from 10 or 15 circumcisions a week (they take about 15-20 minutes) in addition to all other medical income. Who paid for the do-over on your first son? Did the doctor who botched it pay for it or did you and/or your insurance company pay for it? Think about it. They make even more money when they botch one, no matter who pays for it. Even a well-done successful circumcision causes enormous pain to the baby, and takes away the most sensitive part of his penis forever. Please don't do this again.

Erin wrote: "On all matters of the male anatomy, I defer to my husband. It is, after all, territory he is intimately familiar with." But sadly, he is only familiar with territory that has had more than half its most sensitive tissue removed, so to put it somewhat cruelly, he doesn't know what he's missing. (And it he says "If I were any more sensitive I'd have a heart attack" that just underlines it. The cardiac wards of the world are not filled with intact men, because the full compliment of nerves improves the quality of the sensitivity, not just its quantity, giving him more control.) An intact man, by contrast, does know what he would be missing, and very rarely gives permission for it to be removed. If your husband had lost any other part of his anatomy in infancy, would you think that qualified him to order its removal from your son?

kelldog wrote: "better to get it over with in infancy then them grow to adulthood embarassed by it. circumcision is pretty much the norm" It almost certainly won't have to be done at all, and circumcision is only the norm in parts of the US, so an intact boy is most unlikely to be alone or even in a minority nowadays. While you can tell an intact boy he's got something the others lack, how can you comfort a circumcised boy?

DON'T DO IT!

It was never a good idea, and fortunately, it's dying out:

drops in male circumcision:
USA: from 90% to 56%
Canada: from 47% to 14%
UK: from 35% to about 3% (less than 1% among Christians)
Australia: 90% to 12.6%
New Zealand: 95% to below 3% (mostly Samoans and Tongans, less than 1% among whites)
South America and Europe: never above 3% (includes many of the world's most Christian countries eg Poland, Spain, Italy, Brazil)

There is a serious problem with this "decision" as most people that make the decision in the US have no knowledge of the parts cut off. The parts are very fun to have (an understatement). Men that don't have them can't appreciate this.

Also, parents are making the decision based on old cultural norms. Things have changed and are changing. People did not talk about this years ago and people went along with the heard. As this hits the light of day via the internet and people exchange views without embarrassment, it will die off.

Very few men that have these parts (even if the were embarrassed as "different" when young) will get this cut off. That alone must be considered. Many intact men would rather lose an ear than loose the frenulum and rigid band. It is that good. It is good for sex and it is good for health to keep it natural and intact. On the other side, it is a fact that men that are cut often try to justify this by keeping the practice going. Cut Drs. have been keeping the practice going. Keep in mind that circumcised women keep that practice going and say the sex is good enough. Well everyone deserves the best sexual function possible and natural is the best for both sexes.

It is so easy to clean an intact baby (both my boys were left unharmed). Besides the many complications of circumcision, it is actually more complicated to keep a cut baby clean. Also, there is no protection against feces when the penis is mutilated and the glans is exposed.

The MRSA (staph) problem should convince any parent to bring the boy home without needless surgery.

Sorry, In my post it should be herd (not heard). Also, I did not really answer the
Question

We did not have a debate. I am intact and my wife had no ideas of cutting our sons.

I was born in the 60s and somehow my highly educated mom said NO WAY are you cutting my son. I actually think more than 20% of my generation is intact (and that there is really no good data on this).

I contest the Kelldog statement "then them grow to adulthood embarassed by it." No embaresmesment for me, but very odd that many women did not know I was intact until I explained it all (errect it does not look so different). This always makes me think the people saying smells, icky, ew, have no experience whatsoever. No complaints as to any sexual problems. It is a myth that intact guys have P.E. issues. In fact the only study found that some Premature Ejaculation issues may be linked to being cut (cut first you do it too soon then not at all). Intact has more nerves/sensing but better control and feedback.

Erin your blog made me so sad. Why should a mother insist that a highly sensitive part of her baby's genitals be sliced off soon after his birth? He was perfect, totally innocent, and he relied on you to protect him.

You should know that the sticky substance you found so offensive was what was left of the natural membrane that nature used to fix his foreskin to his glans (you had one too as a little girl, fixing your foreskin to its clitoral glans). The point of this is to protect the inner foreskin and the glans from the acidity and germs of his poo while in nappies and from uncomfortable and damaging abrasion through childhood.

His foreskin no more needed removing to clean his glans than you as a baby needed your hymen surgically ruptured so your mother could scrub inside your vagina with a test tube brush! If you find that comparison horrifying then so you should....the glans is private and sexual and a mother shouldn't normally ever even see it!

The idea that you needed to defer to your husband in foreskin matters is nonsensical. You have a foreskin, whereas he had his sliced off as a tiny baby, so who is more in a position to understand the protective and pleasurable functions of this part?

Arguably the female foreskin is less significant than the male, yet if you'd taken a baby daughter to a doctor and asked him to cut it even in a minor way (such as Indonesians and Egyptians often do) you'd be imprisoned. This is a good law.

Tradition is NEVER an excuse for cutting a child.

I find it sad that this is so commonplace and done without a thought to the long term consequence of removing healthy, functioning tissue from a non-consenting person. I am proud that my son is intact, and will have all the parts nature gave him to make him a fully functioning man when he is a sexual adult. I feel that no one has the right to alter anyone's genitals without their consent. If my son or any male wants to be circumcised, he can make that decision when he is an adult. 80% of the men in the world have foreskins, our culture is backwards when it comes to this subject. But we are so hung up on sexuality, it is not surprising. I have been with intact men and the sex is more pleasureable for both men and women. Men that are intact are also less likely to balk at using a condom, as their glans is not already so desensitized that another obstacle to safer sex is removed. My job as a Mother is to protect my children from harm and circumcision is harmful, physically, emotionally and psychologically.

I have four sons. My two oldest were circumcised. I simply didn't know better... There wasn't even a question there, I just accepted it as this is what we do with baby boys.

Then, a friend of mine said something to me when I was expecting boy #3. My husband and I did a lot of research, and when I say a lot, I mean A LOT!!

We didn't just research the internet, we actually talked to a LOT of men! We started with family members and friends.

My husband is circumcised, as is his older brother. My husband's step-father and my husband's younger brother are not.

My FIL and BIL answered a lot of questions for us, sensitive ones at that. I still to this day greatly appreciate what help they gave us.

My FIL has diabetes. Due to his diabetes, he wound up having to become circumcised in his 40's. This was a very important issue for my husband and I. We worried, what if we don't get it done now, and our son grows up and has some kind of problem that requires the surgery... Will he be upset that we didn't do this for him when he was a baby and wouldn't remember it?

So we asked my FIL.. Do you wish this had been done for you when you were a baby, you know as a preventative measure?

He was appalled! He said, absolutely not. He then said something that made a heck of a lot of sense.

He said, if we are to believe removing parts of a baby's body as a means of prevention for future problems, then why don't we just start removing ALL organs that the human body can do without. Why not remove the tonsils and appendix as soon as the baby is born?

We also asked if there was anything like "being teased in the locker room." Both my FIL and BIL laughed and said no, it's not like guys are running around check each others privates out and then comparing and making fun.

We talked to soooooooooooo many other men and went over MANY aspects of circumcision. We talked to "un-cut" men, "cut men", men that were cut and never had a problem, men that were cut and had serious problems, men that were un-cut and never had a problem, men that were un-cut and had serious problems.

I won't go into it all here cause this is already getting to be a long response...

What 100% made our decision final to not circumcise our 3rd born son was the fact that many many people get outraged and upset when they hear about countries that practice female genital mutilation... Yes there are extremes of this, but one form of female genital mutilation is removing the skin of the clitoris. This is an illegal practice and considered to be an inhumane act of mutilation.

In essence though this type of female genital mutilation is no different then what we do to boys.

My oldest is my daughter. I thought long and hard, what if someone had suggested that we do a surgery to remove the foreskin of her clitoris... I would have been outraged!!

Yet, I found nothing wrong in doing this to my sons?

When I just really stopped and thought about it, I realized that just because it is an acceptable tradition doesn't really make it right.

My two youngest sons are not circumcised. My sons do not feel weird about looking different than their brothers, nor have they ever noticed that they are different. It's simply not an issue.

I am very grateful that I had a friend that voiced his opinions to me about this subject. If he hadn't, I might have never questioned the tradition, and might have someday down the road regretted what we did. At least I can be happy knowing that I did my best. I don't feel bad that I did have my two oldest sons circumcised, I do however wish I had known then what I know now.

I choose not to circiumcise. ANd my sons are now 37,28, & 24 and one has since had his own son and choose not to either.

It's good to see that more and more American parents are questioning this procedure. It was never common world wide and of the few Anglican countries that picked it up all but the US have largely discarded it. England in the late 40s, New Zealand in the 60s, Canada and Australia in the 70s and 80s one has to ask what is taking us so long? Perhaps what it takes is for people to talk about it like this. There seem to be many myths which circulate with regard to intact boys but those do seem to be slowly disappearing.

To Melanie: Good for you, I think one of the things that must be kept in mind is that we can't let what happened before cloud rational judgment; when you know better you do better. :) It also shows what can happen when people talk about it just like this.

Wow, Erin, who knew it would be such a hot topic. I am a mother of one girl, but I do remember them asking (even though we knew we were having a girl) if we wanted a circumcision. My husband had one, so we just said yes. If we have another, I will definately do more research and figure out what is best for our family. Thanks for bringing the issue up to those of us who know nothing about it!

I would no more circumcise my girls for ease of cleaning, less folds to get "sticky sustances in", looks, etc, etc. than I would my son. I am quite certain the excuses made up for mutilating baby boys could all apply to those wanting to mutilate their baby girls. Hygiene (less folds on a penis or vagina = easier to clean).....looks (what do I know about who my child may marry one day? Or what he/she will prefer in terms of what their genitals look like? Should I just assume both my girls and son will want to look "smooth and reduced" down there and do it now?).....health (for goodness sake, we need to start removing body parts BEFORE they have issues; penises and vaginas get infections, why not remove some of their parts to help with this? Cancer? Men get breast cancer, women get breast cancer, etc., shall we remove other parts for prevention at birth as well? UTI's....if a vagina was circumcised, could we reduce incidence of urinary tract infections? Hrmmm....)

It all applies to both sexes. If you are going to be pro-circ, be fair and circ your sons and daughters! Otherwise leave their bodies whole and intact, as nature and God intended...the foreskin is no more an anomaly than the inner labia are.

honestly i have done some research on this and have watch documentary's on it and oblivious there was a reason for the skin to grow there in the first place.
i have 3 sons and none of them are circumcised and it was not a hard decision for me to make. I did not want to put my son's through a lot of pain just to make them look different when they were older. my hubby is not either, and i didn't want them to look different or feel like they were different,

And honestly if i had to make that choice again, i would and not have it done to any of my boys.