Tom Gualtieri of The Weeklings believes men should advocate for choice when it comes to their bodies.
Originally published at The Weeklings
“My body, my choice.”
I like this phrase, even with its reductionist simplicity. All argument seems pointless in contrast.
In America we may do anything we want with our bodies, barring suicide (a topic for a separate essay) and using illegal substances. There are piercings, tattoos, collagen, sex changes & hormones, breast augmentation… The list goes on and on, and that’s not counting the non-invasive procedures like diets, beauty regimens, waxing, sugaring, hair styling, the classic cut & color, and even (heavens!) exercise. We may paint ourselves blue, wear nose rings, ear gauges, dress in rubber clothing or use mountains of silicon in an effort to satisfy our need to feel beautiful, unique or to fit in. We fight for the right.
Todd Akin’s recent remarks about abortion (and his bizarre ignorance about rape) only highlight the ongoing debate over the phrase: “My body, my choice.” The subject of reproductive rights and battles to overturn two pro-choice decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 20th Century come around again every election cycle. And even though the 2010 mid-terms were supposed to be a referendum on jobs and economic growth, they resulted in attacks on Planned Parenthood and women’s reproductive choices.
In the pro-choice movement, the most important argument has been a woman’s right to choose. That right to choose involves the whole body and sexual rights are inevitably tied to it. The inability of half our nation to recognize a woman’s right to her own body abuts another issue tied up with that powerful phrase:
“My body, my choice.”
♦◊♦
A decade ago I was walking a Manhattan street with my ex when I spotted a fellow (I assumed this person was a man, though I couldn’t tell for certain!) with neon-blue hair, a studded wardrobe and ear gauges – something I had never seen before. I turned to my ex and snidely remarked that he should remind me to pierce my eyelids when we next visited the mall. He shook his head and said, “I think people can do whatever they want with their bodies.”
With that plain declaration, he unwittingly asked me to look at myself. Why was I so threatened by this person’s self-expression? Why need I be? His choices had no effect on me except to irritate something I preferred to keep hidden: my insecurity. Ever since then, I have been a firm believer in privacy. What you do with your own body and how you do it, so long as it does not interfere with my rights, is perfectly acceptable. Sure, someone may cause a disturbance if he walks down the street with a skull tattooed on his face, but if it disturbs me that’s my problem, not his.
“Suggestive clothing” or “flirtatious behavior” are often used against rape victims — as if either justifies a perpetrator’s violence. If I don’t have the self-control to keep from raping a woman because her short skirt makes me feel a need to dominate her, there’s something wrong with me, not her. She is free to dress and behave as she chooses. Just like a man.
Self-sovereignty is the touchstone of American culture but is often opposed by those who feel threatened. To the small-minded, independence and the assertion of self somehow diminishes their rights. To feel superior, they must fight back. Rape and Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) are just two in the panoply of attacks which either aggressively or suggestively attempt to crush a woman’s right to self-hood.
In the fight for male dominion over his sexual self, the foreskin has gotten short shrift.
♦◊♦
Now that’s you’ve stopped laughing long enough to pay attention (because let’s face it, circumcision is almost always treated as a joke, as is any form of violence against male genitals), think for a moment about your instant reaction:
“Eww, foreskin is gross.”
or
“That’s the parent’s choice.”
or
“It’s healthier without it.”
or
“What about religious reasons?”
or
“There is no comparison to Female Genital Mutilation.
or
“What difference does it make?”
For me, it all comes down to one point:
“My body, my choice.”
The foreskin is the only body part we routinely amputate in the absence of an immediate health threat. There are perhaps a dozen reasons cited as to why circumcision is a “benefit,” but none is an immediate threat and all can all be traced back to one of these:
- Appearance
- Religion
- Possibility of medical problems.
Let’s address #3 first, since the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a statement this month reversing its previously neutral stance on circumcision. The AAP’s endorsement of circumcision cites several medical issues which are, debatably, more prevalent by a few percentage points (sometimes fractions thereof) in the intact male: urinary tract infections, increased chances of STDs including HPV, HIV and others, as well as reduction in penile cancer. None are a direct threat and all are contingent on possibility, not probability. In addition, counter-studies have suggested otherwise.
Dr. Douglas Diekema, a member of the AAP’s circumcision task force, states in a recent Huffington Post article on the subject, “What remains unchanged is that the AAP still holds that the health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all newborn males.” Nevertheless, the AAP’s statement leans sharply toward cutting. This new stance, coupled with the World Health Organization’s embrace of experiments involving the circumcision of African men in order to reduce HIV transmission risk, has caused more than a bit of controversy.
“Intactivists,” believe that routine infant circumcision is violence — mutilation. The stress on the phrase “routine infant” is notable because while infant circumcision is decried, Intactivists remain dedicated to the grown man’s right to choose.
The sleeve-like structure that is the male foreskin (which, unsheathed, amounts to approximately 12 square inches in the adult male) serves a sexual function. Among those cultures that practice circumcision, medical reasons are heaped onto existing societal and religious custom, even though religious and medical practices have no relationship. American women rarely give a thought to the foreskin unless they are expecting a baby boy OR encounter an intact man during sex. For American men it is the same; there’s no occasion to speak of it unless they are dealing with an infant, have same-sex partners, or joke about it in the locker room. It is largely addressed as a nuisance by the American medical community even though the last 15 years has seen a reduction in the US practice.
The message is, “Cut it off. It’s easier.”
Maligned in the U.S., the foreskin is accepted for what it is by the majority of the world population: a functional part of male sexual anatomy.
When we think about infants, we do not like to think about the sexual beings they will become. We think only of their safety and their protection. But our infant boys do grow up to be men. All adults, men and women alike, deserve their full spectrums of sexual function and pleasure. They are also entitled to make choices for themselves.
Can a man experience sexual pleasure without his foreskin? Well, duh! Millions have, but it is the quality of the sexual experience that serves both psychological and biological functions. (Prolonged periods of heightened sexual pleasure produce stronger orgasms in both men and women, making it more likely conceive. Not only that – it feels better! Duh!) Since the male anatomy can function (and has for centuries) without the foreskin, little thought is given by the general population to the long-term effects of its removal. If the plumbing works from infancy through the teen years, what problems could possibly exist? But it is often later in life that cut men start to experience problems.
According to Ronald Goldman, Ph.D., executive director of the Circumcision Resource Center in Boston, “Medical studies have shown that the foreskin protects the penile head, enhances sexual pleasure, and facilitates intercourse.” Additionally, a study released in the April 2007 British Journal of Urology (BJU) International concluded that the “five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision had lower pressure thresholds.” Let me translate: The parts that are removed in circumcision are more sensitive than the parts that are left.
The study also notes that “The glans [head] of the uncircumcised men had significantly lower mean pressure thresholds than that of the circumcised men,” which amounts to the same thing. The head of the uncircumcised penis is more sensitive than the head of a cut male.
The study also found that in the circumcised male the circumcision scar is typically the most sensitive spot on the penis.
That’s completely fucked up.
A flicker of logic will draw the same conclusion that led to the above experiment: if the penis is engineered around the biological need to orgasm, and if the orgasm is produced by nervous stimulation, wouldn’t amputation of a part of this complex web of nerves and vascular tissue have some effect? This is no numb, useless flap of skin, though the population of content but naive circumcised men (and repulsed women) may argue otherwise. Whose right is it to tell me that it should be removed at birth? Infants in our care are meant to be protected from harm. But what of the adults they grow up to be?
Parallels to Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), seem offensive when a parallel is mistaken for comparison. But let me be clear: I do not compare the two. I draw a parallel related to genital integrity.
Women’s sexual needs have been vilified for centuries. The violence done on women through FGM is done to subjugate women to male desire. By removing pleasure, the male who has been taught to possess, dominate and rule is placated. Her sexual power over him is diminished if he feels that he is dominant. Her pleasure must be secondary – or entirely eliminated.
Genital mutilation, like rape, is an act of violence. Unlike rape, however, FGM represents a bizarre marriage of patriarchal domination and female complicity in the cycle of abuse. Perpetrated and perpetuated by women on women at the behest of men, FGM stifles a woman’s sexual health and pleasure to keep her part of the tribe. No one must step outside the circle – power must be equal among the subjugated. If I suffer, so should you. If a woman does escape this ritual, her pleasure reminds the tribe of the millennia of horror men have forced upon women, and that women have allowed to be done to their daughters: what does it say about women who have, for centuries, perpetuated male dominion by taking on the role of circumciser? There can be no rebellion in these societies. And where there is no rebellion, there is no fear and no self-examination.
If you re-read the above paragraphs with a few substitutions, it is equally ghastly:
Circumcision represents a bizarre marriage of patriarchal domination and female complicity in the cycle of abuse. Perpetrated and perpetuated by men upon men, with the complicity of women, circumcision mutes a man’s sexual health to keep him part of the tribe. No one must step outside the circle – power must be equal among the subjugated. If I suffer, so should you. If a man does escape this ritual, his experience of greater pleasure than his father calls to mind the millennia of horror men have done upon men, and women have allowed to be done to their sons.
Circumcision rituals are performed on males in cultures that include Judaism, Islam and various African tribes like the Kikuyu and Maasai at ages ranging from infancy to adolescence. Unlike modern American circumcision, which is done under medical supervision in private, tribal and religious customs involve public settings in which the child or teenager is on display during this ritual.
Sexual subjugation is about power.
What power, then, do we wield over our boys when the first thing we do to them after birth is to take a knife to the most delicate and sensitive part of their anatomies? What happens to the mother/child bond when she gives him into the arms of a stranger to experience the most excruciating pain of his newborn life, before being returned to her?
♦◊♦
In her August 12 op-ed in the LA Times (“Circumcision: It Was Good Enough For Jesus”) Charlotte Allen says, “Cmon on, guys, man up!”
Did she actually write “Come on guys, man up?!!?!”
My response is: How fucking dare you, madam?
I wonder, does she know anything of the men who are afraid to be called victim or less-than-men because they are not allowed to complain that their circumcisions have left them mutilated, partially damaged, impotent or having to live through a life-time of genital reconstructive surgeries? Men who have suffered from choices made for them in infancy suffer well into adulthood, often remaining silent on the issue, or silenced by other men and women, like Ms. Allen, who think they are “whiners.”
I was permanently damaged by my circumcision. A surgery, badly performed, left me with severe scarring and extreme sensitivity which actually causes unbearable irritation during certain sexual activities. This sensitivity has grown worse as I get older. Basically, too much flesh was removed from one side. I learned as an adult that I came home from the hospital with stitches in my penis. Upon examination, it is clear that a major vein was severed and the cut was too deep.
Compared to the grotesque damage which can be seen in images in various forums and activist groups about circumcision(these images of adult men with severely deformed penises as a result of circumcision are almost unbearable to look at it), mine may be an ungrateful complaint; my sex life has been basically normal. The damage, because Americans are so accustomed to the circumcised penis, wouldn’t register unless you looked closely. I’ve even been asked to pose nude and appear naked onstage. I don’t know anything other than the sex life I’ve had, yet I can’t help but wonder what my sex life could be like had I been allowed to keep the body nature designed.
Ms. Allen, not having a penis herself, should shut up. She has no right to have an opinion on the matter of my genitals. Though there may be argument from the women’s health camp because studies have shown that circumcision reduces the threat of cervical cancer in women by reducing the possibility of HPV transmission. (Although counter studies say otherwise.)
So – just to clarify – you want to cut off a part of your infant son’s sex organ because there is a possibility that he might, as an adult, come in contact with HPV and, subsequently, might have sex with a woman who hasn’t had the HPV vaccine?
Sorry. No. I can’t get on board with a lifetime’s alteration of a man’s body any more than I can a woman being forced to undergo a 20-minute vaginal probe before an abortion.
The case of David Reimer, an example of a worst-case scenario taken to extremes (hyperbole intentional), remained largely unknown until an expose in Rolling Stone Magazine in December of 1997. Reimer and his twin brother were sent to be circumcised several weeks after birth due to phimosis (a tightening of the foreskin). When Reimer’s surgery went horribly wrong, his brother’s surgery was aborted. The brother’s phimosis, a condition often treated through surgery, cleared up on its own without surgical intervention. But Reimer’s penis turned black and fell off.
Reimer’s penis turned black and fell off.
The darkest irony, to me, is that the condition for which they were both being treated cleared up on its own in Reimer’s brother.
The loss of Mr. Reimer’s penis resulted in a series of tragic decisions. First, his parents were convinced by a Johns Hopkins scientist to choose sexual reassignment for David. What followed was an orchiectomy (the complete removal of Reimer’s testicles) and an attempt to raise him as a girl via hormones and dozens of genital surgeries throughout his life. In his teen years, Reimer’s father disclosed what had happened and Reimer attempted to live his life as a man until his suicide in 2004.
Reimer’s story went unreported for three decades. Other stories like it are available to those who will listen, told by horrified nurses, doctors and O.R. staff. One nurse, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, told me:
“I had a baby who, shortly after his circ, his penis turned black and necrotic. He was transferred to our hospital for evaluation and died within two weeks.
“Then several months ago, we had a partial amputation with urethral involvement. That baby had to be transferred to a tertiary care hospital for repair and will have lifetime urologic complications. The father was inconsolable.”
And those are just two of her stories. And those stories are just the observations of one nurse. This week alone I have read three articles on botched circumcisions. One story reports the loss of the penises of twin infants after botched circumcisions. Another, the partial amputation of the glans penis (the head) during a bris. There are hundreds of stories like this. What will it be like for those boys to grow into adults?
There are countless men who say, “Hey, my dick is fine,” but there are just as many who can verify a loss of sensitivity. The removal of healthy erogenous tissue, whether or not its loss is recognized, is more to the point than, “My dick works.” Can you miss something you never had? I do.
♦◊♦
Christopher Guest, M.D, co-founder of the Children’s Health & Human Rights Partnership (CHHRP) calls the AAP’s statement “seriously flawed.” In a press release picked up by Reuters and other online publications, Guest states:
“‘Circumcision alters the structure of the penis, which inevitably alters function. Long term harm to men from infant circumcision has never been studied.’ He referred to a growing body of anecdotal evidence collected by the Canadian-based Global Survey of Circumcision Harm. Guest said that in the past 12 months over 900 men have answered the online survey to document their harm.”
The type of circumcision performed on Reimer was an unusual method and though there are various methods available today, they each bear a different set of risks. Stories of damage are not urban myths.
I came across a extraordinarily moving video on YouTube in which a devout Jewish mother expresses her personal feelings about the ritual bris:
“…the trauma that I felt as a mother having witnessed this rite on my babies… I didn’t know how to even formulate the questions because they were in total contradiction with everything that I believed and trusted. And it wasn’t until… many years later that I finally took a step to start learning about circumcision and I was devastated. And my heart has never been whole since.” – Miriam Pollack on Circumcision.
There is no empirical data to justify her feelings so her emotional response can be easily dismissed. But Intactivist boards are filled with stories like this by women who listened to their child’s screams or who watched their boys go into shock and whose protective instincts caught fire in that instant of “too late.” What regret must a parent live with to know that she has subject her child to even the most momentary pain or, worse, to a lifetime of anger predicated by a decision in which her son had no part?
Whether or not you believe that the foreskin has any function; whether or not you have researched its function; whether or not you believe an infant is traumatized by this bizarre custom, the fact remains: the man your son will grow to be is left without a choice when you choose for him.
Hugh Young, the founder of www.circumstitions.com, speaking at a debate on religious circumcision, said,
“No matter how ancient, no matter how beautiful the ceremony … no matter how much it is perceived as binding people to their ancestors, no matter how divinely commanded – what is happening at the centre of this is that a baby is held down and part of his or her genitals are cut off, and they stay cut off for the rest of that person’s life…”
♦◊♦
The revised statement by the American Association of Pediatrics fails to address both the sexual function of our children’s genitals and statements by the medical organizations of other civilized nations which oppose routine infant circumcision on the basis of its barbarity and uselessness. The problem we step into with all matters sexual is the embarrassment caused by having to think about sexual pleasure and, more specifically, the quality of that pleasure. It tears at our puritanical scabs to consider that our infant sons will grow up to be sexual beings, yet the foreskin must serve a man in adulthood, for the most refined sexual pleasure possible. Not just for sexual pleasure that is “good enough.” So how can we avoid talking about it? It may be easier to “cut it off” — but easier for whom?
Even if circumcision were not violence, and even if the foreskin were not a functional part of the male sexual anatomy, why would it be anyone else’s right to decide to remove it? When we make a permanent choice that affects the adult sexuality of our infant boys, how do we justify the phrase “My body, my choice?”
About The Weeklings
I used to engage in fairly regular arguments in grad school regarding circumcision of male babies (amongst other things that discussion of men/boys seemed to be left out of). Anyhow, I contest (along with a small subculture of women) that circumcising babies is a barbaric practice. Even if I eliminate all the later effects of this on an adult male the fact of the matter is that this is a not a procedure without trauma on the child. In my world anything that can traumatize a baby like that, and have some bad undesired effects, isn’t kosher with me. I was actually surprised to see how much in the minority I am in the female world and for that I have gone a crusade to actively talk to people about this. To me it is comparable to FGM (which I also find barbaric).
I’ll never be able to truly walk in a man’s shoes because it’s a life experience as a woman I just won’t have and as much as I try to contemplate these things I will always have questions that I have to give me clarity. I was hoping you’d bring up the social arguments that I find people seem to give as justification for the circumcision. The whole, “He’ll get teased in the locker room…. Girls won’t like it… etc.” I seem to run into folks that rely heavily on the social reasons for circumcision when making the decision. I don’t know what the male experience is with these things. Socially does it make a huge difference to be circumcised or not?
Thanks for reading this, Kat. since there are so many aspects to this particular debate, certain issues were left out. The social issues (and the profits which circumcision generates in the medical community) are left out. My focus here was strictly choice. But this piece, at least as published in The Weeklings, will have additional segments and the social issues will be brought up but it all comes down to this for me:
Your child’s private parts are private. And if he’s not being made fun of by other boys in the locker room, won’t boys find OTHER things to make fun of anyway? I don’t think it’s a condition for circumcision: looking like the father; fear of social rejection. I’d rather teach my kid to be proud of himself and his body.
I dunno… I’m a man (32), have a penis, and was circumcised at birth… I think the childhood trauma argument of this is bonkers… I don’t remember it, I am not traumatized by it. For those with the “my body, my choice” argument, wrong… Your body, your choice…once you turn 18. Until then, it’s your body, your parent’s choice. If they decide to have you circumcised, then accept it. There’s nothing you can do about it.
-Innominately Yours
So if my parents decide to get me a tattoo of their favorite band on my forehead that’s a-ok? What if it’s their tribe’s custom to chop off my left thumb?
Clearly the right of parents to make decisions about their children’s bodies is limited, and so should they be. Unless there’s a decisions which has to be made immediately and has serious implications for the child’s health, then parents shouldn’t be able to permanently modify their child’s body. Circumcision satisfies neither condition.
“If they decide to have you circumcised, then accept it. There’s nothing you can do about it.”
The same could be argued for just about any horrific custom. If something badly wrong is done to someone against their will then they shouldn’t have to “just accept it” because they weren’t able to object at the time.
Peter,
Yes I say accept it… What else are you able to do? Going to try and sue your parents? Going to get a foreskin implant/re-attachment? If you’re born and your parents had it done, tough….you cannot change it…you cannot regain your lost foreskin. That’s not me even injecting my opinion, that’s simply reality.
As far as limiting parental rights… The day when you fully surrender your child and all decisions
regarding that child to the state, is the same day you fail as a parent. By that I mean that yes, people, parents, etc., make some pretty shitty choices now and then…but…as a parent, that is their right.
I’ve got 2 children…an 8 year old daughter with cancer and a 7 year old son…single father, full custody. So yeah, I know about parenting (kinda). Have I made some mistakes? Absolutely! And I grantee I will make more (even unintentionally). How I raise my children does not have to be how you raise yours… But…if you want to try and get the state involved (limiting/banning/etc.) circumcision because you are offended by it, well, that’s when we have a problem. Any parent will attest to this one simple fact “you raise your kids, I’ll raise mine. You’ve got no right to tell someone how to parent…none.”
-Innominately Yours
Or you could campaign for greater awareness, so that parents in the future don’t do this to other kids. It’s true that once a foreskin is removed it’s gone, but that doesn’t mean that nothing should be done about the cultural practices that caused it to happen.
I disagree. To take an extreme example: Honour killings. Clearly they’re a case of parents intervening to correct their children’s “mistakes” and acting in their perceived best interests, but nonetheless are completely illegal and morally wrong. Children have human rights too, and there has to come a point where their parent’s wishes (while well intended) infringe upon those rights and shouldn’t be supported. I argue that circumcision crosses that line.
I’m sorry to hear that, and I don’t blame you for having made mistakes, but that doesn’t mean that, as a society, serious mistakes like unnecessary genital surgery can’t be prevented. It’s not that I find circumcision offensive, if an adult wants to be circumcised they’re more than welcome, it’s that I fine circumcision of unconsenting minors to be morally wrong. “You raise your kids and I’ll raise mine” doesn’t work when the kids need protection from the parents.
I think it’s less about criticizing parents who have circumcised and more about trying to educate parents who are making the choices today and in the future.
I don’t think it’s something that should be made illegal… yet… I think this is going to have to be a campaign of awareness where people’s mindsets slowly change. I also don’t think that piercing babies’ ears should be illegal, and yet I’m strongly against that too… Not quite equivalent, obviously, as it’s an earlobe and not a penis, but it’s still about letting the child make his or her own choices.
Would you have any problem trimming the labia of a daughter? It’s just a bit of excess skin, I’m sure there are countless excuses people could make similar to male circumcision such as doing it for looks, health, etc.
@ Joanna
This topic really presses my buttons so much so that I almost decided not to reply out of concern that I couldn’t stay civil, but I think that it would be worse to let it go unchallenged. I have very little respect for the argument that circumcision is morally wrong because it’s a violation of bodily autonomy (I consider it a human rights violation), but will not support a ban. The procedure is irreversible and once the harm is done, it can’t be undone. There are no do overs.
“I don’t think it’s something that should be made illegal… yet… I think this is going to have to be a campaign of awareness where people’s mindsets slowly change.”
Once people voluntarily stop doing it, there is no need to ban it so are you saying that there isn’t enough popular support for a ban or is this a disingenuous way of supporting a ban without having the ban actually prevent any preventable infant male circumcisions. If women believed that women should have the right to mutilate men’s bodies, I think they should just say it. I know fathers can do it to, but since there’s already one male without a choice, don’t tell me that it’s about choices for men.
BTW I don’t have a problem with a ban on ear piercing, but based on my understanding that the ear will close up and that’s why people need to somewhat regularly have an earring in there, I don’t feel one is necessary. If something is reversible or significantly reversible through plastic surgery, etc. or doesn’t significantly impact a person’s life (The ear allows us to hear and assists in balance, but I don’t know what the ear lobe does), there is no need to ban it.
@Innominately Yours:
“If you’re born and your parents had it done, tough….you cannot change it…you cannot regain your lost foreskin”
Actually, you can do something about it. There are thousands of men who are restoring their foreskins through various non-surgical methods. It’s called foreskin restoration; look it up if you’re interested.
Actually, Jim, foreskin restoration takes years to achieve successfully (if at all) and cannot restore lost nerve endings, the frenulum, nor the frenar band, all of which are vital structures permanently removed by circumcision.
The issue, as stated in several comments in this thread as well as in the essay, is that circumcision causes permanent, irreversible damage. Foreskin restoration is a sort of plastic surgery, without the surgery, which can regrow skin but which can never regrow the complex structures of the foreskin.
HOLD IT
foregen.org
they are trying to make a TRUE reversal possible.
What a ridiculous strawman argument. You may as well include everything imaginable – from tattooing one’s children, to having their toes amputated, to child sacrifice – under your term “parental rights”, since you haven’t actually admitted that there are any choices parents shouldn’t have.
And yeah, he can’t get his foreskin back, but he can try to prevent another boy from the same fate, and it’s a hell of a lot better than those circumcised guys who go around pushing circumcision out of emotional immaturity like a frat boy pushing a hazing ritual.
Just because you don’t remember the pain of circumcision doesn’t mean that it is an acceptable practice. We no longer spank out of the birth canal because it is unnecessary trauma.
It’s great that you’re happy you’re circumcised but the article clearly identifies that there are men who are happy it was done in infancy. You don’t circumcise a population in hopes that most of them will be happy with a permanent change to their body.
The parent is responsible for the medical well-being of the child. But the child’s body does not belong to the parent and, in the US at least, you can be arrested for putting your child in harm’s way with the argument: it’s my child, i can do what I want. Well, actually, you can’t just “do what you want” with your child’s body because that body is another being and does not “belong” to the parent. The child is in the care of the parents who are guardians for his well-being. There are documented cases of parents being prosecuted for NOT sending their child to the physician when that decision ended in harm for the child. The difference in the case of circumcision is that a parent is making a choice for an unnecessary procedure in infancy which can be made later by the adult.
There is nothing wrong with an adult deciding to permanently alter his own body. But to make that decision for your child – in addition to the torture it causes (whether or not you remember it
Some people live happy productive lives without being traumatized after being raped, does that mean rape victims who ARE traumatized are “just bonkers” and “need to get over it”. I mean after all rape does not result in a permanent loss of sensitivity right?
How would you know if you were? You don’t know anything else. By that argument it’s fine to neglect and abuse an infant in any way, as long as they survive and don’t consciously remember it.
Very well written.
The only part I had any trouble with is the FGM bit. FGM and MGM are both parallel and comparable and their interpretation as an expression of male domination and evidence of patriarchy is questionable.
FGM describes a wide range of practices, some of which involve the removal of the clitoris (which is undeniably alot worse) other of which involve removal of the labia minora and clitoral hood (which is more of less the same thing). Either way, both are examples of a wider culture of body modifications which are used as a rite of passage or a mark of ethnic identity. If it were purely about controlling women’s sexuality then those other, similar, customs simply wouldn’t exist and it would be restricted to women.
MGM doesn’t have to mean circumcision, there are other customs, but they are usually more restricted than FGM as the reproductive function of the penis is alot more easily destroyed. One example is penile subincision where the penis is cut open along the urethra:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penile_subincision
thank you for pointing those things out, they were really bugging me while i read the article.
If I lost my penis, I’d consider suicide quite seriously. Would I want to live in a world I can’t have one of my most pleasurable activities? The orgasms I have ARE NOT REPLACEABLE, they are 100% vital to my overall wellbeing. Anyone trying to interfere with that, I would knock them the fuck out. Anyone trying to do that to my child, even my wife, would have to answer to me. Never ever would I allow my son to be circumcised unless it’s medically necessary, or he is 18 and can decide for himself. If it was done without my permission, they’d be sued, or beaten the fuck up because that is an assault on my child.
Tom, thanks for an interesting post. Having grown up in a country where male circumcision is rare, and where a circumcision debate quickly turns into a debate about respecting minority cultures and religion, reading your post was illuminating.
I really agree with the “my body, my choice” view. I do not all agree that parents have the right to make random choices about the bodies of their children. I am the legal guardian of my children, and I get to make a lot of choices on their behalf. That is my responsibility as a parent; however, I also believe that I am ethically bound to limit my use of this power, taking into consideration what are necessary choices to make, and the consequences of those choices for my children. Changing their bodies (be it by circumcision or by tattoo) to me seem to have dramatic consequence, and at the same time fall short on any argument about necessity. However, I am sensitive to the fact that there are cultural and religious imperatives that changes what is “necessary”.
As for the “it was good enough for Jesus” argument – really, now. That something was common, accepted practice 2000 years ago it hardly an argument that it’s the right thing to do. By that line of argument we could, after all, have argued that it was right to raze Baghdad to the ground and sell the natives into slavery. After all, that was common military practice at the time of Jesus ….
Thanks for the article Tom, I found it really interesting and insightful.
I’m not circumcised, and in the UK the only people I’ve ever known to be circumcised have had it carried out under religious grounds. When I found out that it was common practice in the US I was pretty shocked, and a little disturbed.
Over here there have been no discussions I’m aware of to ever introduce it to the masses, it just seems completely nonsensical. I’ve never had, nor heard of anyone having any issues in life from having a foreskin, as far as I’m concerned it was a tradition brought in by people who lived in less sanitory environments (like the desert) many thousands of years ago.
I did have some jewish friends curiously quizzing me about it once, because it’s suppsed to make sex more pleasurable for men, and apparently people without one need to use lotion for masturbation (or something like that?).
I hope that’s provided some helpeful perspectives – long story short – over here we have them, and it’s a non-debate.
Christopher, sounds like things in the UK are much like in Denmark where I live. Here, there’s been some talk of outright outlawing the practice, but it appears the consensus that this would violate the right of minorities to cultural or religious practices. Implicit in that argument is that male circumcision is seen as fundamentally different then female circumcision (which *is* illegal and will find no support in a public debate).
Hi Lars,
Yep, that sounds the same to me. I think this is pretty standard across Europe – I know Germany it can now carry criminal charges, classifying it as mutilation. I would be surprised if standardised circumcision is particularly common in any secular societies. To be honest, I’m still surprised it’s the standard and socially accepted in the USA. If a Doctor asked me if he could cut the foreskin off my kid, I’d probably say ‘only if I can cut yours off first!’.
It just seems like a pointless physical trauma (whether remembered or not) for babies to go through.
RIght, I’ve read about rulings in Germany.
Thing is, given the situation in Northern Europe, the debate becomes qualitatively different from the US. Here, the main concern quickly becomes one of making sure that we, the majority, do not enforce majority social norms over the heads of (religious) minority practices, for matters we don’t really understand the implications of.
I’m torn myself. I’m seems a weird practice, a weird thing to do to infants, but I can’t claim I really understand the meaning of it in terms of religious practice, or the consequence of not doing it.
“I did have some jewish friends curiously quizzing me about it once, because it’s suppsed to make sex more pleasurable for men, and apparently people without one need to use lotion for masturbation (or something like that?).”
The first is subjective, and since most circumcised men have the operation performed at birth they’re hardly in position to compare. Those that aren’t, are mostly circumcised for genuine medical reasons, so I wouldn’t be terribly surprised if they find things easier afterwards. As for the lotion thing… what? I’ve never used one myself, but from what I’ve read it’s the other way around. Part of the rationale around mass circumcision of gentiles in the US was that it made masturbation harder.
I know three guys who were circumcised as adults… One is Hugo Schwyzer who wrote publicly about it. He was circ’d at age 37 and feels good about the whole thing. He doesn’t say sex is better, he says it’s different. He was having problems with his foreskin and it was medically necessary.
The other was circ’d in his early 30s for the same reasons as Hugo. He has a very different take on it. He doesn’t say sex is less pleasurable without the foreskin, he too says it’s different and in some ways better, some ways worse. However, when I got pregnant and found out I was carrying a boy, this friend of mine said, “Please do not circumcise him. I’m begging you.” Even though he’d had problems, and had had to have surgery later, he still felt strongly that babies should be left alone. He was glad for being left intact. However, his urologist pointed out the tone reason he probably needed the later circ was because of having been forcibly retracted as a small child/baby.
Here’s the thing – American doctors haven’t known how to deal with the foreskin because of such prevalence of circumcision, and so for so many kids born in the 60s, 70s and even 80s with foreskins, doctors were pulling back the foreskin forcibly, which was causing tearing of the fibers, causing scar tissue. This scar tissue often causes problems later in life. When my friend asked his mom if this had been done, she actually cried and said when he was like 6 months old, a doctor had forcibly retracted him, and he screamed at the top of his lungs. She was European and was shocked the doctor even did it. She changed doctors (this was the 70s) to a European doctor who knew about foreskin care. But the urologist wasn’t surprised that his foreskin had had this trauma, it’s very common.
The third guy had a nearly identical story, though the mom didn’t remember whether he was forcibly retracted by a doctor, but his doctor said he had foreskin scarring too, and it could be from that. The third guy also said he would not circumcise his child unless there were a medical issue.
So I think, for me, it’s less about a sensitivity issue after talking my friends. And more about the child’s right to bodily autonomy and not putting them through trauma when they’re newborns. My mom tells the story of how my brother turned stiff as a board, lips turned blue, shaking, after his. I just wouldn’t have done that to my newborns.
So I think, for me, it’s less about a sensitivity issue after talking my friends. And more about the child’s right to bodily autonomy and not putting them through trauma when they’re newborns.
That’s what I’ve been trying to say for the longest time about this.
Plain and simple at the end of the day a baby boy is having his genitals altered in a permanent surgical manner at a time in his life when he literally has no say in the decision. No more no less.
If a grown man wants to have it done then by all means let him do it. At least said grown man has a say in the fate of his foreskin.
“So I think, for me, it’s less about a sensitivity issue after talking my friends. And more about the child’s right to bodily autonomy and not putting them through trauma when they’re newborns.”
This is precisely why it makes no sense not to support a ban on infant MGC. Even advocating postponing making it illegal makes no sense if you believe this. I believe that there should be a social movement and education that will eventually lead to infant MGC becoming socially unacceptable. I don’t see why it should not be done within the context of making it also illegal. Bottom line is you shouldn’t have the option to permanently mutilate another even if he’s your son. He’s not your property.
I agree, making it illegal before there is a MASSIVE outcry against it, when almost all hearts and minds are sold against circumcision just turns it into anti-semitism and anti-islam, which is the absolute last thing that we want to be, or to do.
This very US centric issue is bemusing. I keep wondering how the medical/Insurance industry ended up convincing the US General Public infant surgery and genital assault was a good idea – and even necessary?
I’ve been looking for Historical references on the subject and they just seem to be missing. It’s almost as if it simply became fashionable in certain groups and then the fashion was aped, and some are still seeing it all as some form of socially normal climbing exercise.
I do wonder. If you are a guy and applying for medical insurance, do they ask for the state of the foreskin? Is there a box for cut and uncut? Do you get higher premiums, if you still have your helmet?
The idea that a boy should be circumcised so that he does not look out of place in the locker room later in life is just disturbing and adult neurotic body fascism. When I was young and being made to use school sports facilities and locker rooms, I knew of two cuts guys. One was Jewish and the other had been cut for medical need. It was no big issue and I did not notice anyone blushing or being neurotic of the presence or absence of that little old helmet.
Daddy had it done to him is equally banal as an argument. In that case, if daddy was sexually abused, why the hang up about not allowing little Joey to be with worrying adults? If daddy was witness to domestic violence by either parent – well it just gives Carte Blanche for either parent to pull out a baseball bat and swing – doesn’t it?
The argument that the grown male does not miss what he has not had are also plain silly. If people wish to go that route then why not extend it to removal of the appendix as a precautionary measure for all children? So many liken the foreskin to the appendix – along with tonsils – why is there not a mass movement to have all children, male and female, snipped up as early as possible? They will both be too young to remember and trauma and parents can then sit back and be terribly satisfied that they have acted in the best interests of the child’s life long health – and I’m sure that there will be some study that can prove that it will also have a benefit on the parents mental health and well being too!
I am very much aware that circumcised adult males perform differently in the bed room. As a Kinsey 6 Queer I’ve handled many cocks and had the joy of playing with them. Loss of sensation is an issue – you also have to handle a cut cock differently to an uncut one – and sensory pain can be a very real issue. Cut guys are also more likely to have odd shaped cocks too – scarring does occur and does not just affect the Glans but also can lead to alterations in the Frenum and Corpora Cavernosa – and when that happens you have different inflation rates which can lead to unusual inflation and bending.
Uncut guys enjoy themselves more – have higher sensitivity – and they do cum harder. Given that the penis is a rather integral part of the male sexual response and experience, I really don’t get why there is such a long term debate as to whether altering that is significant or not.
On another anecdotal note, I have chatted with many women about their preferences and have encountered a subset who like CUT. The reason they give is always the same – the cut guy, with the less feather like trigger, bangs harder and longer and it is more satisfying for the lady concerned. However – that still does not mean that they get a vote on how all infant males should be treated. Allowing adult female women to use their adult sexual pleasure as a reason to have male children circumcised at birth is ethically, morally and socially unacceptable.
Infertility and sexual dysfunction rates are far higher for cut men – so for banging it’s cut and for breading it’s uncut?
The medical evidence being used by the American Association of Pediatrics is flimsy – misguided and frankly so flawed that it needs to be binned. It smacks more of Professional Protectionism, cos if they dealt with all of the factors and realities they would have to call for am immediate cessation of all activity – and the financial implications at $300 per procedure are high – Over $ 1 Billion per year.
Counter arguments on grounds of coast are interesting – with it being claimed that Circumcision saves medical insurers over $3 Billion per year. … so lets be clear, there is a question over who is benefiting and how such benefit is measured and with the questionable conflicts of interest.
What is the increase in medical premiums that some will wish to impose?
I keep reading figures of increased rates of UTI in uncut male children – and yet I never see a comparator for UTI rates in female children – or any indication that parents should be encouraged in foetal sex selection, or that there is any outcry from the Medical/Insurance industry that steps have to be taken to cut any such UTI rates in female children. There is a lack of clarity and relevant information for people to make any kind of rational judgement across the WHOLE population.
Where are the advocates for female foetal genital surgery to cut UTI rates in female infants?
I have even seen some figures where the costs have been inflated with calculations of HPV incidence – and it’s interesting to see that the estimated figures there are potentially massive, and considerably more than the costs of actually vaccinating against HPV – for both men and women – the Whole Population. So I wonder if the vaccine manufacturers have been invited to the debate – they can be seen as a highly interested party. Condom manufactures may also have a vested interest – and so may the religious right.
If some wish to use costs and insurance as an argument in support of child genital mutilation, then they really need to be honest and invite all interested parties to the debate – and there needs to be rational consideration of what needs to be cut and how – is that male children’s genitals or Insurance costs and even insurers profits. …. oh and when it comes to medical argument and even infection risk, It’s normal to talk about whole populations in a balanced and scientific manner – and not skew demographics to support only one view.
As an uncut guy, I’m no swing voter – and I know exactly where my sympathies lie. It’s a no brainer – and it don’t matter which male brain is doing the calculation. P^)
I’m just going to address the insurance part of it to my knowledge. Since we have few jobs where I live which offer benefits I’m familiar with the benefit sets and to a T none of them cover elective circumcision. If a parent wants to do that to a child and it is not medically necessary then the parents will be paying out of pocket for it just as they would for any elective or cosmetic procedure on themselves. What I find interesting here is that so many people still elect to do this.
I would argue if it was a money making thing that it is pushed more by the medical industry than by the insurance industry.
Well, the medical community in the U.S. DOES push it, actually, and the recent statement released by the AAP is in the self-interest of doctors.
You are right that many insurance companies do not do it, but the theory is that the medical community has convinced the insurance companies that it is more in their interest to push circumcision because it reduces insurance output later over various other complications. If the insurance company can push it in infancy there is a reduced chance of, not only the ridiculous claims made by the AAP in their statement, but of medically necessary circumcision (which sometimes happens later in life, though rarely) which WOULD be covered by insurance. It’s a game, really. Because late-life circumcision is rarely as necessary as the medical community would have us believe. Phimosis, which can happen to adults, is diagnosed by the physician, not the insurance company so if a doctor can make that diagnosis, he/she gets money.
On the other hand, if the doctor can convince the parent to cut at birth, he/she still makes money and does not have to involve the insurance company.
I’ve long opposed circumcision based on the fact that it is generally a non-consensual surgery performed on an infant. In that respect I think it is very parallel to the discussion on FGM. Arguments about the severity of certain forms of FGM are not relevant since I can’t compare apples and oranges: there’s no telling what damage was done to a man’s sensation if he was circumcised as an infant.
Arguments about what women prefer disgust me. Would I like to have my genitals rearranged on the basis of what men like? Yuck. That’s not a woman you want to know. Geez, if a woman makes unpleasant comments about your penis, dump her. That’s demeaning. If your penis works and you experience sexual pleasure, it’s a good penis to me (btw, stop worrying about how big it is).
Unfortunately, when I discuss this issue with circumcised men they are often just defensive. It’s very hard to break the chain when fathers insist on circumcising their sons (which is also the issue with FMG, with mothers and daughters).
“Unfortunately, when I discuss this issue with circumcised men they are often just defensive.”
They are some of the biggest supporters of infant MGC. Men are taught that they can never be or allow themselves to be victims so they convince themselves that this must be beneficial. I hate that some people use this as an excuse for inaction. If the practice was universally condemned, there would be no need to ban it. You support a ban because some people will opt to do it.
There’s no need for cutting it off. I’m glad I have mine. Religion is pretend.
” There’s no need for cutting it off. I’m glad I have mine. Religion is pretend. ”
I agree Jacob, just my though. Stop the violence toward babyes, outlaw the practice!
Thank you so much. I’ve been pressing this issues for over decade now. When I started I was a lone voice completely laughed at. Now i see it everywhere and even countries are taking a stand against. Thank god.
I was mutilated at birth. Its a horrible thing to do to someone.
As I watch this discussion I keep being amazed that it needs to take place at all.
I keep coming across reports of a Bumper Sticker on a midwives car that reads “100% of babies oppose circumcision” – It does seem to sum it all up.
“As I watch this discussion I keep being amazed that it needs to take place at all.”
I was thinking the same thing this morning and I could only conclude that it’s because the victims are male. I remember how relatively quickly atrocities against little girls have been condemned at least in the west like FGC , foot binding, sex selective abortion, or honor killings. I know FGC is already illegal pretty much everywhere. I’m pretty sure the same goes for honor killings. Sex selection in India was banned and I think so was foot binding in China.
People will still do illegal things. Murder and rape are crimes, but they’re still committed. When something is illegal, it is recognized as wrong by a country. That is what makes legal infant MGC so disheartening.
Things not considered “atrocities” have also come under near universal criticism in the west such as the prohibition on female drivers and not sending female athletes to the Olympics. If there was a reason the mutilation of over half the infant boys in the country is less of a human rights violation than not sending a dozen female athletes to the Olympics, I like to hear it.
No, I do not have a penis personally, however, I am married to one who does. I can honestly say I am grateful for the fact that his eastern European heritage allowed for him to remain as God made him. Having limited experience, he was the first intact male I had ever been with. After getting past the curiosity of the looks and function, I was just so amazed at the difference it made to my comfort level. Who would have thought that it would have made such a big difference, no pun intended. Having the foreskin intact allows for his penis to expand to its natural size and leaves the head (glans) with a spongy quality, which makes it much more comfortable when coming in contact with my cervix. Previous experiences with clipped men had often times left me feeling bruised and beat up, like I’d been poked with a broomstick. We never had a son so were never actually faced with having to make the choice (I would have stood my ground for leaving the child in his God-given state) and I hope that one day my daughter will be as equally blessed. I still don’t understand American women and their hesitation regarding uncircumsized males. Ladies, all I can say is… you don’t know what you’re missing!
I for one find it totally depressing and stupefying that we need to walk on eggshells when discussing such a blatant act of vicious abuse/torture/mayhem so as not to “offend” any of its practitioners.
And to those of you who say “get over it” to men who are unhappy with the fact that they were cut, you are disgusting and immature. Would you ever dare tell an African woman who’s clitoris was sliced off to “quit whining”? Shall we tell rape victim advocates or any human rights activists for that matter to just live and let live? Even if it is essentially true that nothing can undo the past, what is the point of being so smart assed and smug about it? What do you get out of snubbing a person’s grievances like this?
“Cmon on, guys, man up!”
Seriously? I wonder what she would say to being strapped down and having her labia cut off without anesthesia.
But, um, as far as having an opinion goes: sorry, I’ll continue to do so. I may not have a penis but I’m not about to ignore child abuse.
The “my body, my choice” idea is actually somewhat flawed as a pro-choice message. It’s certainly vulnerable to pro-life propaganda – picture severed fetal limbs holding a tiny little sign saying “my body, not my choice.”
The flippant defense of circumcision for Christians as “good enough for Jesus, so it’s good enough for you” fails to account for one of the biggest developments in the history of Christianity really early on, in the first century AD. Paul of Tarsus (“St. Paul”) made it abundantly clear that you don’t have to be circumcised to be a Christian.
The essay points out the double-standard employed by those who use the “my body my choice” message to defend abortion rights but do not apply the same logic to circumcision. Abortion choices are only in conflict with the anti-choice movement if one believes that a fetus is an independent life before it is able to sustain itself outside the womb.
Presuming one is a Christian, Paul’s argument in the New Testament can be a useful tool in the circumcision debate but it ignores the major point of this article which is: each individual should have dominion over the choices he makes for his own body, regardless of religious doctrine or other outside influence.
The vast majority of circumcisions in the U.S. are not because of religious or ethnic tradition. It’s so common here because it’s become routine all by itself. It’s much more of a medical custom in America than any sort of ingrained cultural custom. Far beyond whatever medical benefits people say it has, it’s mostly just hospital habit at this point. A change in the inertia of hospital policies would stop the practice in most cases. Not all, but most.
I tend to think it’s an outgrowth of the way that Americans today tend to treat birth itself, as a medical procedure requiring a hospital and an MD and most likely some surgery. Routine circumcision is probably from the same warped mindset that leads 1/3 of all American babies to be delivered by C-section. (Another American medical statistic that’s way different than the rest of the world.) “Forget nature, let’s cut people up!”
Thank you for the thoughtful article. I think the discussion alone is extremely useful in helping parents make an informed decision. Several years ago, our friends were expecting twins, a boy and a girl. I asked them about their plans regarding circumcision for the boy, and they had never even had the thought that they needed to decide for or against the procedure. They were thinking it was automatic to circumcise a boy baby. I kept it low key, but gave them lots of information over a period of months, mostly written by M.D.’s (since much of their concern was medical). By the time their son was born, they had decided to skip the procedure. Yay!