While female circumcision is rightly considered by Americans to be an inhumane practice, male circumcision, a practice performed on more than 1 million American infants each year, is usually shrugged off by the public as benign.
I’d like to suggest that it is actually far from benign, but in fact, is a rather awful thing someone would feel obligated to do to their child.
First, let’s identify what circumcision actually is. Circumcision is the removal, sometimes surgically, sometimes not, of the foreskin of (usually an infant’s) penis. It’s mutilation. If you were forced to explain this to someone who had never heard of circumcision and revealed that you were part of a society that practiced that, I imagine they would run away from you as fast as possible.
The most common arguments put forward in favor of infant male circumcision include “It looks better that way” (aesthetic), “It’s more hygienic” (hygiene), “It’s better that a boy looks like his father/everyone else” (conformity), “It lowers your risk of STDs” (disease), and “It’s my religious freedom to circumcise my son” (religious).
None of these arguments hold up, and while the default position should be “leave children’s body parts alone unless medically necessary,” it evidently isn’t, so I’m going to hopefully show why these reasons simply aren’t persuasive.
Let’s look at the aesthetic and hygiene arguments. These are two that pretty much all men should find insulting. Think about this: what if you lived in a society that instead of circumcising newborn boys, gave all of the newborn girls breast implants? Most people who are attracted to women would probably find that more aesthetically appealing once the girl becomes mature, so it makes just as much sense, right? Most people should find that disturbing and feel insulted that someone would use that as an excuse to do something like that to an infant.
As far as the hygiene argument is concerned, if there is indeed a reason to think that foreskin makes it less sanitary, then ideally we should be reminding boys to be thorough when washing themselves. It’s offensive to me as a male for people to think that men are somehow incapable of sufficiently washing themselves so much that the proper course of action is to cut off a piece of their body.
If we applied this line of thinking consistently, we would almost certainly feel perfectly okay cutting off the tips of infants’ fingers because sometimes it’s hard to clean under their nails. Clearly, this is not ideal.
Next, there is the conformity argument, which has a component of parental sentimentality to it, which I find understandable, however misplaced it may presently be. Still, there is a much simpler solution to this problem than an uncalled-for surgical procedure.
What parents really should do if the subject comes up is communicate to their children that you cared enough about them to not unnecessarily remove a part of their body; they are fine just the way they are, and that there’s no reason to feel different or ashamed whatsoever. It needn’t be so drastic of a conversation that it needs to be pre-empted by surgery.
The disease argument is slightly more complicated in that there is some evidence that if you’re circumcised you have a reduced risk of contracting HIV. However, this is only true if you live in a country that is extremely high risk for AIDS, and you have no plans on using a condom.
Condoms are significantly more effective at preventing STDs than circumcision, and even if circumcision was better at preventing STDs, that doesn’t mean kids should be circumcised when they are infants and have no possible way of contributing to the decision.
Any potential benefits gained from the operation only mean something once a person is sexually active, which means there is plenty of time to wait so that whoever is potentially having part of their body removed can be asked if they want to do it first.
Even after all of those, the least defensible argument still, is the religious argument. As far as the United States goes, your freedom to practice your religion ends at your causing harm to other individuals. This should include medically unnecessary (not to mention potentially dangerous) operations to highly sensitive organs, or medically unnecessary operations, period. We don’t allow people to bring harm to their children due to practicing their religion in any other case, so why does circumcision get a free pass?
It’s 2011. When are we going to realize these kinds of effectively barbaric practices shouldn’t be defended anymore? We stopped letting people sacrifice each other, now it’s time to stop letting them maim each other as well.
BY KEVIN ACKLEY
Email
Loading tweets...
5 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Bob
October 20, 2011 at · (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Male circumcision is a safe, popular, healthy & beneficial procedure for individuals & parents to choose. It provides benefits such as 12x less likely for UTI, +22x less likely for cancer, decreases HIV acquisition by 53% to 60%, herpes acquisition by 28% to 34%, and HPV prevalence by 32% to 35 % in men. The risks are about 0.2% and are typically minor & easily corrected.
Parents should research circumcision and make an informed decision for the health & well-being of their son.
Judith
October 24, 2011 at · (UTC -6) Link to this comment
You can’t believe anything “Bob” says. He is a circumcision fetishist who lurks on twitter and uses at least 3 different usernames. thecircdecision, circinfo and aparentschoice being the 3 I know about. All he does all day for at least the last 3 years is try to convince parents they aren’t smart unless they have their baby boys cut. It’s truly sick and pathetic.
Hugh
November 3, 2011 at · (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Using relative risk ratios (RRRs) is a well known way of making a small difference in a rare diseas look big. UTI is so rare it would take hundreds of circumcisions to prevent one case, which can be treated as it occurs. Cancer, thousands of circumcisions. The 0.2% figure is ex recto. A Richmond VA pediatrician had to repair 1600 botches in three years, suggesting (from the local birth and circumcision rates) a complication rate of more than 13%
Tony
October 23, 2011 at · (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Bob’s comment misses the point in some areas, and ignores it in others.
First, “safe” is a subjective term. It ignores what the healthy child wants done or not done to his body. And this “safe” procedure creates a wound and removes normal, functioning tissue. That it is popular is irrelevant. A half-competent researcher can find objectionable practices that are popular. Healthy and beneficial are also subjective since the child is healthy when circumcised and most males will never require (or choose) surgical intervention if left with their whole body. The ethical question exists separate from the possible benefits of surgery. It is not ethical to surgically alter a healthy individual without his (or her) consent. Removing a female’s breast buds may reduce her risk of breast cancer, but it is not ethical to do so on a healthy child. The same core logic applies to a male and his foreskin.
Second, the possibility that circumcision reduces risk by 12x, 22x, 53% to 60%, 28% to 34%, or 32% to 35% for whatever maladies are discussed is an incomplete approach. If talking about UTI, studies suggest that there is a reduction from circumcision. (There are also studies that suggest differently, but I’ll accept this finding for the purpose here.) That reduction in UTIs is only for the first year of life, and virtually all of UTIs are easily treated the same way girls are treated. And that reduction is the relative risk. The absolute risk of a UTI in the first year of life for a male is approximately 1% if left intact. It is approximately .1% if he’s circumcised. Yet, females have an absolute UTI risk of approximately 3% in the first year of life. The ethical question of surgically altering healthy children doesn’t disappear just because an allegedly impressive number can be tossed out.
The same critical thinking is necessary for the other potential benefits of circumcision. Circumcision does not prevent HIV, herpes or HPV. (An HPV vaccine now exists.) Safe sex practices are still required either way. Safer, non-invasive options exist.
Finally, Bob’s quoted complication rate is optimistic. The estimate he quotes is from the CDC (or Brian Morris), which states that studies in the U.S. suggest complication rates between 0.2% and 2.0%. These do not erase or minimize the ethical problem of forced, non-therapeutic circumcision, but one shouldn’t ignore facts to better promote circumcision. Also, “typically” minor and easily corrected includes the reality that some complication are not minor or easily corrected. These include partial/complete penile amputation and death. They’re rare, but they occur. It’s also relevant that a complication one person considers “minor” will not be considered minor by another. What does the individual think about the change to his penis, whether he has complications or not?
Judith
October 24, 2011 at · (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Great article, and unfortunately, the pro-cutting trolls have already been circling in an attempt to negate what you say. That is the problem with common sense though. We intactivists merely say that nothing should be done to a perfect male body, and these “men” come along and say whatever they can to pitifully justify why torturing a newborn baby is a good idea. I’m sorry, but it will never be a good idea to strap down a screaming baby and slice off the most sensitive part of his body.
And if parents don’t want to watch the procedure, then they shouldn’t be subjecting their sons to it. Wake up, America! You need to start realizing the harm you’re doing by believing these men, who get turned on by the mere mention of the word circumcision. Is that truly who you want to listen to? And you don’t have to listed to us either. Go to youtube and type in circumcision. Watch a few videos and listen to the screams of the babies. If that doesn’t convince you, then nothing will.