Male Circumcision: Good Idea or unnecessary mutilation?

Great Debates
21

Before our son was born my wife and I discussed this topic at length. I’m circumcised and am satisfied with the results, but I’m also sensitive to the argument that it is a potentially unnecessary operation. I have had several experiences, though, that push me toward the pro-circumcision camp:

We took care of my wife’s grandfather for two years, and his uncircumcised penis caused him endless misery in his last decade. His inability to adequately care for himself in the hygiene department prior to our assistance led to infections; hygiene was made additionally complicated and unpleasant for others when that unfortunate time came; and, when he was placed in a nursing home after our inability to continue dealing with his advanced senile dementia, the nurses expressed dismay that he was uncircumcised. They said that there were so many complications with uncircumcised elderly men that they sometimes had to be circumcised for health reasons. That’s secondhand info and perhaps open to debate from health care professionals, but what a nightmare.

My uncle chose circumcision as a teen because he “didn’t like being different,” and it was a bad experience for him, although he was glad after the fact. The few women I have known to express a preference have favored circumcised men. The wait-and-choose stance is a reasonable one, but (having experienced nothing else, admittedly), I’m happy to have been circumcised before I remember and doubt that my son will feel otherwise.

22

Friends of mine are in the medical field and they are all for circumcision because they tend the elderly wards or the long term convalescent sections and have seen natural penis after natural penis with sores on the glans for not being cleaned regularly. They don’t find those sores on clipped males.

They also have commented on the smell that can develop because urine can get caught under the hood and if not cleaned daily, it stinks. They also have worked on young men with hoods so tight that they cannot draw them back completely to thoroughly clean underneath.

I suppose, somewhere lost in the dim mists of time, there was an original reason for clipping the male, perhaps to set him aside from animals, initially, perhaps some religious fanatic was a bit psycho and figured that it would be a good idea because he did not like the look or was himself born without one.

Seems like a lot of that sort of stuff goes on in organized religion. Someone decided that there should be a Pope, who should be treated as God’s ambassador, someone else decided that Orthodox Jews should wear the long hair sideburns, another person figured woman should never be preachers, and gosh knows how many figured and still figure that certain ancient religious texts should never be seen by anyone except a chosen few.

Basically, circumcision is the only religious based universal alteration of the body that has gone on for ages. I’m surprised that nature, usually seeing such repeated effects on the body, has not begun to develop a naturally circumcised male.

Maybe the invention of clothing encouraged this because then the ‘hose’ was no longer swinging in the breeze, a prime target for assorted thorns, brambles and sharp things the owner happened to run through while hunting, or running like hell from something bigger than him.

I don’t know. I just assume that one day some guy looked down at his hooded thing, figured, ‘this needs to go,’ and sliced the extra skin off, probably to prove his manhood by pain or whatever. Then he coerced others into doing it for whatever reason and the rest is history.

I mean, Catholics have nuns, along with other religions, but Deities are always single, unmarried, with the exception of Roman gods. So, it had to be a guy who decided that Christ needed unasked for ‘wives’, and a whole lot of them, even after polygamy became uncool.

So, this just had to be a guy thing. Even the Jewish religion does not escape the texts and laws being influenced by the feelings and desires of the writers. (I still wonder about the pig thing.)

23

I don’t get it - these people in nursing homes are SUPPOSED to take care of the old people, and that includes cleaning them if they can’t clean themselves. If you can’t handle touching an old man’s penis, you don’t need to be taking care of them.

I’ve gone several days without bathing before (not often, I usually bathe about once a day, sometimes skip a day on the weekend), and I have never had anything accumulate under my foreskin, nor have I gotten any infections or sores there. If these old men are developing health problems related to their foreskins, it’s because they are being seriously neglected!

24

My son is ‘uncut.’ I have heard the arguments about eldercare, but I agree, the solution isn’t cut it off, but improve the care. If people got nasty sores on their toes, even their little toe, from lack of care, would we say cut it off? Even if they were non-ambulatory? No, we say, make sure people take better care of it. Sue for better care if you have to. I have yet to hear the same complaint from people in Europe (anyone want to comment from Europe?). So it is probably just another case of ‘Americans are uncomfortable around even non-sexual contact/discussion of genitalia’ causing problems.

Oh, and the comments about female genital excision need to be separated from female circumcision. There is a wide range of practice, and female circumcision (removing only the clitoral hood above the attachment line) is actually fairly common (and 10 years ago was becoming more so), especially among the middle and upper classes in Egypt, and to some degree elsewhere (at least according to one source). Far more similar to male circumcision than has been stated. Female genital excision is what you are thinking of when you equate it to removing the glans or the entire shaft. The two practices are similar, and have similar trappings, but tend to get lumped in together. I used to teach a class on that subject (university level women’s studies class, about 2 hours of lecture/questions). Not that I think highly of female circumcision, either. Yet another cultural practice that has lived longer than the meaning behind it, for most people.

Anyway, getting back to the discussion, most of the women I know who circumcise their sons do so because they (and the daddy) are afraid that being different from daddy will be more traumatic than having it removed. HELLO? Looking like daddy wasn’t a problem for the first generation that had it done routinely, was it? The recinding of a medical reason for it apparently isn’t as potent as the original insistance that there was a medical reason for it (which they did think at the time, even if part of the medical reason was curing normal exploratory behaviors). My dear epeepunk responded appropriately to that question, I think: “If we can’t manage to tell our son that his is different because they used to think it was medically necessary and now we know that isn’t true, how the heck are we going to talk to him about sex?” Really, how hard is it to give a factual reason for the difference? I think it is that “American panic” at talking about genetalia that kicks in.

Another reason I hear is that the mom likes the way it looks. Usually from women who haven’t seen an adult uncut from a loving perspective, though not always. I’ll admit it took me a few days to get used to how it looked, but now, circumcised boys look very … exposed, I guess. I’ve seen mothers love the way a nearly-black birthmark looks, how much more should you be able to love the way their body is SUPPOSED to look?

The last argument I get is the ‘he’ll be different from the other boys’ routine. Uh-huh. Like he’s going to be identical in every other way, too? Even completly disregarding the fact that there will probably be a mix no matter where he goes in the US, at this point… who says that that will actually be a problem? Let me illustrate: Long before I was even considering pregnancy, a friend confided the following story to me: She had left her son uncut, but had indeed worried about the social repercussions. One day, when her son was 5, he came home from a play date in tears. When she finally got a coherent word from him, it seemed his upset stemmed from the other boys seeing his penis… (insert maternal moment of utter dismay here) …the other boys thought it was so incredibly cool (‘all pointy like a sword’), he was afraid they would try to take it from him. Once she convinced him that they could NOT take it from him, he was happy. He also was the coolest boy in the group, because he was the only one with a cool penis. Those who beleive that different always equals bad are fooling themselves. Times change, and kids will pick on whoever they want to, for whatever reason they want to. Cool kids will be cool, and uncool kids will be uncool, no matter their penile status. This kid was fairly cool already, so his differences were treated as cool. I bet there were some parents who were rather taken aback at having to explain to their sons why they didn’t get to have cool penises. If the kids even brought it up with them (some of those kids might be still wondering why they are made differently…). You don’t get to pick how things will work out, and your assumptions are ONLY assumptions.

Oh, and some guys get infections for the same reasons girls do - washing too much (yeast infections in particular). Best advice I was given was ‘treat it as you would a girl’s parts, and you’ll be fine.’ Water or MILD soap, don’t sit in soapy baths, rinse well with clear water if you do use soap, and if it gets irritated/infected, determine if it is bacterial or fungal before you go treating it.

Anyway, I do think there are a few medical reasons to consider circumcision on a case-by-case basis, but many of those are solvable with minor plastic surgery, rather than full circumcision (e.g., phimosis and paraphimosis both respond as well to preputial plasty as to full circumcision). Routine procedure? No.

(and for the Jews here, anyone want to comment on the trend toward the older level of traditional circumcision, which leaves more of the foreskin intact? I know one couple whose mohel offered them the choice between the two, the latter more severe version having been introduced, IIRC, to end the trend of Jews pretending to be Gentiles when not in a safe place (esp. during times of persecution?). Needless to say, the parents I know chose the less severe form.)

25

It’s cultual, not medical. Most of the males around the world are not circumcised. And in those cultures it’s accepted. Not here (USA). The whole being different thing is what it comes down to. Men are so worried about locker room situations, it’s laughable. Hey gang, other men don’t care about your penis. And other than those kind of situations, how many times does a penis go on “public display” anyway. Get over it. Let the man make the decision for himself. Don’t it to a defenseless baby.

26

I am neutral on this issue, but I had to respond to kevla.

I remember many tiomes growing up when uncircumsized boys were tortured for ahving a different looking penis. If you don’t think having all of your classmates making fun of your genitals, you don’t remember childhood very well.

Kids are cruel about any difference. IF it involved genitals, all the more fun it is to ridicule.

27

[hijack]I SERIOUSLY suggest you do more reading in other mythologies before posting anything about them.[/hijack]

Sorry, I was just overcome by this statement, I couldn’t help myself.

I lean towards the “don’t circumcise the baby boy” stance (except for religious reasons), myself. I, personally, prefer the circumcised look, but I wouldn’t dream of asking an uncut guy to get cut, if I was getting involved with him, unless he asked my opinion about it. Even then, I wouldn’t urge it on him.

I don’t like the idea of parents getting their babies’ ears pierced, either. I don’t care HOW cute it looks.

28

Nobody ever made fun of my penis when I was a little kid, and I was born in a time (1972) when more than 90% of male infants were circumcised. I’m sure some kids were made fun of, but kids get made fun of for a number of reasons.

Things are changing. Circumcision is not as common among gentiles these days. If you live on the west coast and have a kid today, being circumcised will probably put him in the minority. Nationwide, about 60% of baby boys are being circumcised. Being uncircumcised is NOT going to make your kid stand out.

29

The problem is that not every elderly man in decline can count on having an advocate who will go to court and fight to get his penis adequately scoured. IMO there is some merit in avoiding the situation altogether.

My argument is not that circumcision is better than no circumcision, but that circumcision is not without benefits. It is neither all good nor all bad, and parents who circumcise their sons are not victimizing them. I’ve never met a circumcised male who shed tears over his lost foreskin (although one may now materialize on this MB).

There is also the difference between an unnecessary procedure and a detrimental procedure. Since the occasional benefits of circumcision have been described, what evils occur with greater frequency?

30

My junk is all natural, and I’ve never gotten complaints from anyone.

If I had a son I wouldn’t circumcise him for three reasons: first, what’s good for me is good for him; second, I disagree with permanently altering the body of someone who can’t say no, especially when there’s only a potential maybe-benefit to be earned; and finally, I don’t want him growing up frustrated and turning into a rapist, murderer, or evil dictator. ::ducking:: :smiley:

31

As far as elderly care goes, I say cut it off if and when it becomes necessary - just like your appendix, tonsils, etc. Don’t subject an infant to an unnecessary procedure just because he might have an incompetent caretaker 75 years later.

32

RailroadShorty

Detriments of circumcision:

  1. risk of injury during the procedure, including (fairly commonly) damage to the frenular artery, which is one of the causes of meatal stenosis (which can lead to damage the bladder and kidneys, and regularly requires further surgery in adulthood). Also, risk of damaging the glans if the foreskin is strongly attached; excessive bleeding; damage to the erectile tissue (causing permanent moderate to severe bend); and rarely, such serious damage that reconstructive surgery is required (full loss of use and/or sensation).

  2. infection, admittedly treatable with antibiotics, and usually not the biggest deal unless it goes systemic or they have immune system issues. (hence the reason they don’t generally circumcise preemies)

  3. measurable change in how the boy responds to pain (sensitized to pain, reacts more strongly) if insufficient pain meds (or no pain meds) are used. The AAP statement on circ notes this as an issue of concern.

  4. permanent loss of sensation. (degree of loss varies in adults, and probably varies in children, but you don’t know if the child will end up being one who would consider it similar to being blinded or if they would be a ‘what’s the diff?’ case)

  5. change in sexual behaviors. (more outside-the-norm activities in circumcised boys, though some might consider that a benefit… same is true for boys who are sexually molested though, so I won’t say that the method is worth the results)

  6. reaction to anesthesia, which is where most of the deaths, seizures, and brain damage occur. Also allergic reaction to topical anesthesia (may require hospitalization, which is an added risk on its own). Estimated deaths from complications of circumcision are more than the deaths from penile cancer. Low numbers in each case. It is assumed that there are more reactions along the lines of seizure/anaphylaxis/brain injury than death, and numbers are not reported to any central agency (but ask any anesthesiologist about risks to newborns from anesthesia).

  7. over-cutting/too tight a cut (taking too much of the foreskin), which causes painful erections, drawing up of scrotal skin onto the shaft at erection (may increase temp of 'nads, which is bad for fertility levels), and can cause erectile dysfunction. This may not appear until adolescence, and there is no effective way to tell in advance how much foreskin they will ‘need’ later.

  8. cosmetically, scarring can occur, both on the glans and at the incision/healing site.

Ethically speaking, the AAP considers it not necessary as a routine procedure. But they leave it open to individuals to decide, including basing it on cultural factors and preferences. However, the AMA also has a position (IIRC) that states that non-reconstructive cosmetic surgery on a non-consenting patient is unethical (and absolutely, doing it without anesthesia is unethical, which applies now that they have figured out that infants feel pain - DUH). And there are quite a few human rights statements that say pretty clearly that basic human rights include the right to an intact body. Even the US, which IMHO can be wimpy on human rights, has signed human rights statements that include that wording.

My advice has been to consider it case by case, using family history rather than anecdotal-evidence-induced anxiety (‘my sister’s husband had X happen and then had to Y, how horrible, don’t want that to happen to my son!’). Make it a medical decision, just as with any other surgery, especially prophylactic surgery. Horror stories from family or friends or co-workers about women who “considered removing their breasts prophylacticly but then didn’t and then got a horrible cancer later” should not make you run out and have your daughter’s breasts removed. Anecdotal evidence is NOT science, nor is it medicine. It may apply to the immediate family in which it happened, but that doesn’t make it an issue for anyone else.

There are real risks to the surgery, or the AAP would not have anything to balance against the individual benefits. And, BTW, one of the most significant benefits to circumcision (and the major reason why it is still recommended, our notes about eldercare notwithstanding) is dropping the risk of urinary tract infections (UTIs) in the first year … but UTI risk is almost completely erased by breastfeeding, so if you breastfeed, there goes most of the ‘pro’ argument, medically. AND, the circ status has zero effect on UTI rates after the first year, so you only buy one year of reduced risk with a change that lasts the rest of their lives. UTIs can be dangerous, and can be hard to diagnose. If first-year UTIs run in your family (later UTIs do not count), then that is certainly something to consider. Also, if even one UTI would be catastrophic (child was born with semi-functional kidneys, say), then again, it is a case to consider.

I don’t feel that people who make a considered, medical choice to circumcise are wrong. (and I’m not talking about religious practices, at all.) But IMHO, if you are really thinking instead of reacting, it has to be a choice based on current medical information, individual case, and family history, not an anecdote-driven, across-the-board, every-boy-gets-cut-automatically-regardless-of-case thing. I’m not technically anti-circumcision, I’m just anti-routine-circumcision.

33

I seem to be in agreement with most posters here (and what a wondrous experience it is to have a pleasant and rational discussion on this subject now that JDT’s no longer with us!) that routine infant circumcision is unnecessary (though probably not seriously damaging to most males), but I wouldn’t try to forbid it to the religious groups that require it.

But suppose the climate of opinion does change to the point that even sincere Jews and Muslims, say, tend to feel that infant circumcision is a medically pointless mutilation, albeit a minor one. Can the rules be changed? Just how necessary is this for compliance with halachic or shari’a rules? (I think the answer is “extremely”.) But how much of the prepuce is it mandatory to remove? Could mohels and their Muslim counterpart substitute a more token snipping for their current operation? Do you think it might happen?

I’d expect that the Reformed Jews would lead the way, as they generally do in movements for halachic noncompliance. As I understand it, Reformed synagogues currently accept as “Jewish members” non-Jews who have Jewish spouses (or have a Jewish father but not a Jewish mother as the stricter rules require) if they self-identify as Reformed Jews and follow their philosophical and ritual teachings. Now does an uncircumcised non-Jew who’s entered the congregation through marriage have to get circumcised, as males do who convert to Judaism in Conservative or Orthodox form? I’d be surprised to hear it. Would a Reformed shul reject a couple who wanted to live according to much of Jewish theology and precept but didn’t want to circumcise their son? I’d be surprised to hear that too. (Lemur, maybe this would be a solution for you and your wife?..) Come to think of it, would even a Conservative or Orthodox rabbi refuse to consider an otherwise-qualified male Jewish if for some medical reason he couldn’t be circumcised? Izzy, Chaim, sdimbert and other resident SDMB ;j, get in here and fight my ignorance, 'kay?

Could this over time become just another issue like strict milchig/fleishing separation and not using electricity on the Sabbath, that isn’t really crucial to anybody but the most observant Orthodox? Or maybe even a practice that’s mentioned in Torah but wholly outmoded socially, such as the rules for dealing with slaves? I have Conservative Jewish friends who keep kosher but aren’t otherwise particularly frum, and they seem as far as I can tell to be “Jews in good standing.” Could we end up dropping routine circumcision (or at least all but a more or less token ritual representing it) from the requirements of Judaism? How about Islam?

Maybe we have the nucleus of a religious reform movement here!.. :slight_smile:

34

Thanks, hedra, for the list, although I’m skeptical about point #5 (perhaps there’s a correlation, but who’s to say that circumcision is the cause?) It didn’t answer the question I was trying to ask, though, which is whether, in terms of frequency of occurance, complications from circumcision outnumber benefits.

Of course the big question is whether you should subject your child to potential complications in exchange for potential benefits. Many parents do this when they immunize their children, although the likelihood of a beneficial outcome is probably greater in the latter example than in the case of circumcision.

I’ve been on the fence on this issue, and, although my wife and I circumcised our first child, had our second been a boy we had decided against circumcision. But it’s is hard for me to get worked up with grief over having chosen the procedure for our son, because the practice seems to be benign or beneficial in most cases. If I had it to do over I might choose differently today, but, barring complications, it’s easy to see why so many people are neutral on the issue.

35

Correlation, indeed - but a strong one, IIRC. As is the correlation between circ status and UTI (not proven, as they don’t know the mechanism, but circ status is correlated strongly - but that could be because doctors are telling parents to wash it with a lot of soap, which can cause UTIs… correlation, not causality…)

Anyway, there is no current answer to your question (forgive the mis-read, I missed the frequency part of the question, my bad), because there is no reliable database on the topic. Most hospitals probably report surgical injury from circ as ‘surgical injury’ not as ‘complication of circumcision’ and even then, that info seldom passes outside their doors. Heck, it is hard enough to get info on the c-section rate at a hospital, simply because most states don’t require that those records be kept or submitted to any central agency (my state does require those numbers to be submitted, so you can check your hospital’s rate, including their ratio of high-risk patients…). And most doctors don’t want you to know how many times their patients have had problems. Just normal self-protection, as the numbers might not be an accurate representation (high-risk-specialist OBs have high c-section rates, of course, and so forth).

If I find a cite on the rate of any of the negatives, I’ll post it… probably in January, if the thread is still alive, since this week is going to be packed. I think I have a few cites, but most of the studies are mass retrospectives across hospitals with different reporting requirements, which makes them suspect (no matter which side they are on).

36

…according to Genesis 34, a very, very good reason not to get circumcized, especially if you’ve just raped someone’s sister, is the fact that when you’re in pain you can’t fight very well. A heathen man raped Dinah, Jacob’s daughter, and then had the audacity to ask for her hand in marriage. Jacob’s sons said, basically, “You can have her and we’ll even dwell with you if and only if every one of you gets circumcized.” So the heathens all circumcized themselves in order to get at Jacob’s family’s wealth, and then on the third day when they were “in pain,” some of Jacob’s sons went into the city and killed all the males.

The lesson here? If you’re going to get circumcized, for heaven’s sake don’t do it without modern anesthesia and pain-killers. You may have to fight off angry Israelites!

37

Nope. That’s a bar mitzvah you’re thinking of. The bris… circumcision, takes place on the 8th day after birth. It is considered by some to be the most important religious symbol as it is a sign of the convenant G-d made with Abraham.

Register me as a pro here, for religious and asthetic reasons.

38

In Conservative and Orthodox Judiasm, the answer would be no, the rules can’t be changed. As I mentioned in a post earlier down this thread, circumcision is perhaps the most important religious symbol for a Jewish male, a sign of the covenant with G-d.

Reformed Judiasm has abandoned most of the symbols (although some temples are tending to return to more traditional values) and yes, they would be likely to forgo the bris. Not so in Conservative and Orthodox movements. Even a person who was circumcised already, upon conversion, must go through a ritual “stick” (as well as a ritual dunk and a ritual “interview” by a beit din (court of three rabbis). It’s not just the physical act. It is the religious significance of the physical act.

Since circumcision means removing the entire foreskin surrounding the glans, I don’t see that a token stab or a partial removal would satisfy the mitzvah (law). Kind of like being “a little pregnant”. Either you are, or you aren’t.

IMHO. :slight_smile:

39

I don’t think I agree with the dichotomy set up in the title. Is it only either a good idea or unnecessary mutilation? I think it falls in between the two. I don’t think it’s a good idea universally, nor do I think it’s mutilation. There’s no room in that question for opinions like mine.

hedra, I really appreciated your post. You made all the relevent points without mocking parental choices. I could sure do without some of the eye-rolling and disdain and “give me a break” attitudes that some people combine with their (otherwise valid) anti-circumcision information.

We chose to circumcise, for reasons that clearly a few of you would find backwards, immature, or insecure. hedra, however, seemingly would understand that we weighed this decision carefully.

As a data point, we did have a mild complication, and my son has some scarring and may need to have an additional procedure done when he’s older. Not sure yet. It’s a risk we knew about, didn’t think would happen, and it’s unfortunate. I do not, however, offer it up as a cautionary tale to other parents, because we’re one data point. That’s all. Our doctor is however using our son’s case in some talks he gives to other doctors about circumcision outcomes. I’m very happy about that. Would I do it again? Maybe. Maybe not. But then that decision is my family’s to make.

40

Let me clarify–hedra, I thought your second post resonated. Your first post read (to this parent) as a little more belittling. To each his/her own tone, but the later post was the one that made me wanna cheer.