The Great Circumcision Rant (Rated R)
by: Ross
Today, Joe stumbled upon this blog post written by a man explaining why he chose to let his son be circumcised. The post, if you don’t care to read it, details how this man (who is in possession of an uncircumcised or “intact” penis) discovered that his wife really hates his extra-fleshy member and, caught in a whirlpool of embarrassment and self-doubt, allowed her to have their son circumcised. Reading this got me really thinking about infant circumcision and I decided to blog my thoughts.
I know that I’m not the first Objectivist to blog about circumcision, and I also know that I’m not the first man to think that his penis is worth a blog post. Bear with me.
My Penis
Warning: You are about to read a personal detail about my penis. I’m circumcised. I just thought that I should put that out there as context for the following discussion. More on that later.
The Controversy
So, for those of you who don’t know, there is a bit of controversy over the fact that many parents in the United States choose to have their infant sons circumcised (i.e., have the foreskin of the penis surgically removed).
People on the side of infant circumcision have various reasons. Some religions, most notably Judaism, ritualistically circumcise their baby boys. In the 20th century, circumcision was put forth as a solution for masturbation (I can tell you from personal experience that this is not a full-proof cure). A lot of parents just do it so their kid will fit in (see the aforementioned post). Finally, some say they’re doing it because of alleged health benefits (I say “say they’re doing it because of” because I think these are really just a convenient excuse to make up for the obvious inadequacy of the previously described reasons), most notably a reduced transmission of some sexually transmitted infections.
People against infant circumcision also have a lot of reasons. They say that the foreskin (a.k.a. prepuce) of the penis is normal part of male anatomy and has numerous physiologic functions of which the circumcised male is deprived. They also list a litany of research suggesting that the foreskin is important for sexual pleasure and, thus, circumcised men have less-awesome sex. Mostly, people against infant circumcision make the point that permanently removing a normal part of a child’s body isn’t right.
I could probably give a more complete summary but that’s not really my point here. Once again, I’m just putting it here for context. Google it if you want to know more. I really just want to post my thoughts on a number of issues commonly raised with respect to this issue.
For the Record
I’m against the circumcision of minors, with rare exception, for the above-italicized reason.
The Rare Exceptions
I am alright with the circumcision of minors when the continued presence of the foreskin presents a current and ongoing threat to the penis or life of the child. The most notable case of this is cancer of the foreskin, in which case I would hold a parent as negligent for not removing the foreskin should that be deemed the best treatment. Another possible exception would be a case of recurrent infection of the foreskin and head of the penis, which can cause scarring and damage to the penis. Once again, I would only support a circumcision in this case if it was really deemed the best treatment of the problem (it’s by no means the only possible treatment). In all of these cases, the fundamental principle involved is that that the foreskin is no longer a normal body part--it has, in fact, become a diseased body part.
In all of these cases, the physicians and parents should be coming up with treatment plans to preserve the foreskin as much as possible. You wouldn’t go willy-nilly chopping off your fingers due to an infection that could be treated with antibiotics. For the same reason, parents cannot validly circumcise their infant sons to prevent diseases that might not even happen. This is especially true when the diseases they aim to prevent are STI’s. If these parents have the welfare of their children in mind, they will parent them in such a way that they won’t be having sex until they’re older and will, thereby, be protected from these diseases until they’re old enough to make their own decisions about whether to get circumcised to prevent transmission of STI’s.
Circumcision to “Fit In”
This is a particularly bad reason to circumcise an infant boy. In what other way is it considered even remotely acceptable to surgically alter an infant so that he will “fit in.” Especially when the only reason circumcised boys “fit in” is because so many parents circumcise their kids. How do these parents expect to explain the circumcision to their son? First of all, the son is going to get made fun of about something. That usually goes something like this:
Boy: Mommy, the kids at school make fun of me. They say I have a weird face.
Mother: Ignore them, honey. You have a beautiful face.
In other words, parents usually respond to their kids being made fun of by assuring their child that their tormentors are wrong and irrational. On the other hand, the kid might eventually come to realize that his penis isn’t the same as some other penises. What do the circumcisers say then?
Boy: Mommy, why does Johnny’s penis look different than mine.
Mother: We didn't want you to have a weird penis like Johnny's so we got it fixed
The implication here is that, should a child be tormented about his foreskin, the tormentors are entirely justified. What happened to "wrong and irrational?"
Is the inconsistency as obvious to you as it is to me?
In my opinion, the wife of Mr. Gamble (writer of the afore-linked post) is a real jerk. Not only is she willing to surgically alter her son’s normal penis in order for him to “fit in” (N.B., Mr. Gamble is also a jerk in this respect), but she’s one of the a**holes that would actually make it difficult for her son to “fit in” with an intact foreskin! This doesn’t even touch on what a jerk she is to her own husband.
One last thing I have to discuss with respect to this issue is the locker room. Apparently, the locker room is a feared place for many parents considering whether to circumcise their sons. They think that the other boys in the locker room will make fun of their sons’ foreskin-laden penises. I think that this is ludicrous. That’s not to say that I think this type of thing has never happened. I just think that it’s pretty rare. In my experience, the kid with the “weird” penis gets made fun of far less than the boy who openly admits that he was checking out another dude’s penis.
Where Does All This Leave Me?
When I discuss this with people, they invariably like to bring it back to me. “How do you feel about your circumcision?” they ask. “Do you hate your parents for doing that to you?” “What are you going to do with your own sons?” For those of you who have stuck with me this long, here’s where I “reveal all” (National Enquirer-style, not exhibitionist-style).
Me and My Penis
I’m just gonna say it. I love my penis. According to this lady (a commenter on Mr. Gamble’s post), I’m probably in denial.
I would love to find a compatible intact partner (or at least one willing to restore, most are still in denial) to share my life and bed. It is not weird, it is your fully functioning penis, and it is a truly magnificent thing
In my view, I have an awesome penis and sex is awesome. I’m not interested undergoing a procedure to have my foreskin restored (though I might be once I’ve progressed through the anger and bargaining stages and finally arrived at acceptance of my penis as it is).
I do have a little bit of an issue with this whole “intact partner” thing. According to the anti-circumcision lingo, I am what is known as a “non-intact man.” So what’s my deal with this? It’s accurate after all, my penis isn’t fully intact. My problem is that this term is used as a slur rather than as an accurate statement. If it were used as simply an accurate descriptor, then everyone who has had his wisdom teeth removed would be considered “non-intact.” My impression is that the some anti-circ activists observed that some people think that uncircumcised penises are “weird” and decided to reverse the paradigm and come up with a less-than-flattering term for a circumcised man. Real mature guys.
My Parents
I don’t blame my parents for circumcising me, mainly because I think this was an error of knowledge and not a moral error. My parents were quite young when they had Joe and me (my dad was 23 and my mom was 18). I’ve asked my mom about it and she says that she thought it was the normal procedure at the time and that she didn’t know that anyone objected to it.
My (Future) Children
I’m always shocked when people ask me what I’m going to do with my kids (“So…are you going to get your kids circumcised then?”) after I tell them my views on circumcision. Just to be clear, I’m not only against other people circumcising their kids….I’m against everyone doing it.
August 20th, 2011 - 00:08
and what about religious circumsicion? as far as i know my people have been doing it since “jacob” (insert argument about the historical validity of the torah here, and ill agree with you, point being mohels go back for generations). no one i know has ever found this to be an issue. what do you propose is done in these cases?
August 20th, 2011 - 18:08
Hi Anonymous,
If you look in paragraph 5 of my post, you’ll see that I do obliquely refer to religion as an inadequate reason for circumcision of an infant. I regard the circumcision of an infant to be a violation of the infant’s rights. Forced genital mutilation, whether ritual circumcision of boys or of girls (as takes place in many religions and cultures), is an unacceptable crime. One cannot have the right to violate rights, and thus, religion cannot imbue someone with the right to mutilate their child in any manner.
As you suggest, Jews have been practicing ritualistic circumcision of infant boys for centuries (I think that Isaac was the first child circumcised in the bible). This is not an argument in favor of circumcision; it is, in fact, a strong argument against it. Ritualistic infant circumcision is an archaic and barbaric practice, and should properly be relegated to the past, where it belongs.
I’m actually surprised that no one you know has found it to be an issue. I know a lot of people that are against circumcision and I don’t think I’ve ever met even one that makes an exception for religious circumcision.
Bear in mind that I am not against religious circumcision as such. I am against circumcision of minors and all other forms of genital mutilation of minors. In the Torah, Abraham embraces his covenant with God through circumcision as an adult. If any adult person decides to be circumcised, I concede that they have the right to do this.
I would also point out that religious circumcision of a child is counter-intuitive anyway. For instance, a child might be circumcised as an infant because his parents are Jewish and then grow up to reject Judaism in favor of another religion. A person can’t properly accept a religion until they are fully capable of reason. It doesn’t make sense to permanently mutilate a person in the name of a religion which may not even be accepted by the mutilated.
As far as what I propose should be done in these cases, I think, at present, that parents should choose to not circumcise their infant boys. This should be a temporary solution because genital mutilation of infants should be ultimately outlawed in the United States in all cases other than the medical reasons to which I referred in the post. The choice to mutilate an infant should not be legally open to anyone.
August 20th, 2011 - 21:34
Hi Ross! I love your posts. Very interesting and well narrated! I enjoy them.
I just wanted to point out that, in fact, the Jewish tradition of removing the foreskin is not necessarily linked to religion. Some speculate that it arose in areas with sand (desserts) because sand used to get under the foreskin producing irritation and infection. Thus they opted for removing it. Arabs do it too.
It is just like them not eating pork. It became part of a religion, but it all arose due to people getting trichinosis.
August 20th, 2011 - 21:46
Hi Marta,
Thanks for the kind words and thanks for the heads up! I have actually heard the same thing about the origin of the Jewish tradition of circumcision. With many religions it is possible to see a logical rationale behind many of their choices, as can be seen in many of kosher rules in Judaism (e.g., hand-washing, avoidance of pork to avoid trichinosis, avoidance of shellfish to avoid a number of seafood related food-borne illnesses, etc.). I find these theories to be pretty interesting as well as plausible. I also wouldn’t necessarily pass strong moral judgment on Jews or Arabs who practiced this tradition 1000 years ago as they clearly possessed far less knowledge on the subject and far less recourse should the foreskin become infected (I probably need to think more on this though). However, it is notable that none of these rational explanations are present in the Jewish texts themselves and, thus, the tradition is certainly linked to religion now. With modern knowledge of hygiene and medicine, I don’t think that living in the desert can be regarded as a plausible reason to circumcise a child today.
March 8th, 2012 - 03:21
I am an intact American male, over 60 and amerird for more than 20 years. I can assure you of two things:1. Last century, about 100 million routine infant circumcisions were performed in the USA and Canada, always without anesthesia. Growing up intact in the USA 30-50 years ago, a time when:* parents were too embarrassed to say anything about circumcision to their kids;* sex ed was likewise silent about circ;* all penises on view in locker rooms were bald;* drawings in medical and sex ed texts did not depict the foreskin;* it was almost impossible to have a polite conversation about any aspect of the penis, was emotionally daunting and an ordeal of self-consciousness. Male nudes in fine art have natural penises, but nobody talked about that. But the problem was not the pointed penis but the prudish silence about its alteration. To this day, the only internet porn that highlights the natural penis is aimed at gay men. There are millions of American women who have seen intact only thanks to explicit internet images (e.g., Wikipedia). You people cannot imagine how what I describe in this paragraph strikes Europeans as utterly bizarre.2. Circumcision cuts off the most pleasurable parts of the penis, especially the parts that will be most lively after age 40 or 50. The foreskin and its motility do much to facilitate foreplay and lubrication. American women who have experienced both kinds of men without a condom (a practice that is as risky as it is morally questionable) and who blog their sex lives, have explained in detail how the foreskin makes penetrative sex more enjoyable for them. There are women who have written, black on white, that they are orgasmic only with intact partners. American medical and sexual research has yet to do an honest investigation of the consequences of infant circumcision for the adult penis and sexual performance. This fact alone is ample grounds for abandoning the practice forthwith. Many adverse effects of circumcision on older men and couples are shrugged off as natural consequences of aging alone.Continental Europe and Japan have never circumcised routinely. The United Kingdom and New Zealand have ceased doing routine circumcisions. Most Canadian and Australian hospitals will no longer circumcise, and most circumcisions in those countries are done in the offices of pediatricians who specialise in the surgery. The only system of socialised medicine that reimburses routine infant circumcision is Medicaid in about 30 American states. Routine circumcision will disappear in the USA when health insurance ceases to cover it.
March 8th, 2012 - 13:50
(Someone else can comment on your pcuitres. Words fail me.)How could they carry on the study after they had offered the control group circumcision? Those who accepted would not be a random sample of the original population. More cautious, perhaps, and hence at less risk? (All the men had volunteered to be circumcised sooner or later, meaning they were not a random sample of the general population, either. This is only one of many reasons to be skeptical of the original studies. Another is the fact that 10% were lost from study, their HIV status unknown, several times as many as were known to be infected.)And isn’t it getting a bit obvious that the same few researchers (Auvert, Bailey, Gray, Halperin) who are pushing circumcision as hard as they can, are the same ones who carried out all the studies claiming to show it is beneficial in every possible way? (Their study of sexual effects was so insensitive, it showed nearly 100% of the men enjoyed nearly 100% perfect sex! No wonder circumcision seemed to make no difference!) Something badly missing from all this is independent review, by people who weren’t avid circumcisionists before they ever started.And what a coincidence that just when circumcision was falling out of favour, after more than a century of chasing whatever disease was most feared at the time (even masturbation was seriously believed to cause serious illness in the late 19th century), it’s found to be good against AIDS?Something about circumcision (maybe just the fact that it’s very common, including among the people promoting it) seems to make people lose their critical faculties.
August 23rd, 2011 - 00:11
Keep up the good work guys.
August 25th, 2011 - 19:03
Thanks Scot. Will do.
August 26th, 2011 - 02:56
I agree with everything you wrote–100%!
August 26th, 2011 - 10:05
Ross,
Excellent post.
I’m curious about you disliking the term “intact” vis-a-vis your analogy to wisdom teeth. I don’t have a strong opinion about the term, but is it not the case that wisdom teeth are removed only when they pose a danger to health (in the way you described when removal of foreskin would be justified)? Mine were never removed, and although I don’t think of myself as particularly intact as a result, I don’t object to terms or phrases that indicate that I have a full set of teeth (as nature “intended”). And although it’s not on the level of having an arm or a leg amputated, being circumcized *is* to be lacking a fully functional (fully sensitized, fully protected, etc.) penis in the way that even having wisdom teeth removed doesn’t impede functionality.
Thoughts?
August 26th, 2011 - 11:02
Hi Arthur,
Thanks for the compliment.
Looking back on my post, I realize that I was a little brief and unclear on this issue, so thanks for calling me out on that. Let me try to break it down a little better.
In the context of the discussion of the penis itself, I don’t usually have any problem with the use of the word “intact” and I generally regard it as equally acceptable to refer to the penis as “intact/non-intact” or “circumcised/uncircumcised.” The reason is that, as you say, it is accurate and there’s little ambiguity (i.e., there aren’t many people out there with penises that are non-intact by reason of anything other than circumcision).
My main point of contention is with the use of the phrase “non-intact man/person/partner/etc.” as in referring to the entire person as “non-intact.” As I mentioned in the post, I regard this description as accurate insofar as it is applied to circumcised men. My problem has nothing to do with its accuracy, but with the way in which the term is used in the context. I am of the opinion that the term is used to disparage circumcised men by many of the anti-circ people (especially, in my experience, anti-circ women). I will here list some of my reasons for thinking this:
1) the term is not used equally for all forms of non-intactness. When you bring up my wisdom teeth analogy, you mention that “[you] don’t object to terms phrases that indicate that [you] have a full set of teeth (as nature “intended”).” My response to this is that it’s quite easy for you to not have any problems with terms like that. As applied to wisdom teeth extraction, there ARE no terms that indicate this. No one uses the term “intact person” or “non-intact person” with regards to someone who has had his wisdom teeth (or any other teeth, or body part) removed. I’ve never even once heard the phrase “non-intact person” applied to a person with a very serious body part deficiency (e.g., extremity amputation). I understand that many anti-circ people consider the foreskin to be of almost sacrosanct value as a body part, but I don’t honestly think that any of them regard it as even more valuable than an extremity.
2) I’ve heard numerous anti-circ people using this term quite flippantly with men they know are circumcised, including myself. I’m not exactly offended by it, but I’m aware of huge double-standard here. Anti-circ activists clearly think that something very monstrous was done to me, i.e., that I was/am the victim of a monstrous mutilation (I don’t deny the veracity of this claim). With almost anyone else who had an organ amputated through no fault of his own, people would generally show sensitivity to not be constantly throwing that in his face. For instance, if you knew a triple amputee, good manners would generally dictate that one not constantly refer to him as a “non-intact man”. I’m not questioning the manners of the anti-circ people (i.e., I don’t think they would use this terminology with anyone other than circumcised men); I think they use the terminology because they have a bone to grind with circumcised men (no pun intended).
3) Here’s where my views enter more into pure speculation. I think that many anti-circ activists have a real prejudice against circumcised men. While on one hand they regard us as victims (true). But on the other hand, they can’t help but notice a huge amount of prejudice from society against the uncircumcised men (e.g., girls saying that their penises look weird/unappealing like in the post to which I linked). In my experience, many anti-circ people have disparaging things to say about circumcised men; I believe these comments are motivated by a desire to reverse the prejudice that is unfairly placed on uncircumcised men. I think their line of thought goes something like this: “People think that uncircumcised men are inferior, but, if anything, they should think that circumcised men are inferior!” They then proceed to reverse the trend by routinely reminding “non-intact” men of their lack of intactness. Even though I’m the victim of a crime on one hand, I’m also the representative of a truly unfair prejudice against uncircumcised men. Such is the internal conflict (I believe) faced by many people who advocate against circumcision.
I will mention that I may be completely wrong about this. It may be that I ran into 3 or 4 such people early on in my experience of the whole anti-circumcision issue and that this colored my view of the expression. Nevertheless, the comment which I quoted really smacked of the same attitude, so it drove me to comment on the matter.
Finally, with respect to your last point, I just wanted to point out that the word “intact” is typically used to mean “whole” or “not missing its complement of parts” and doesn’t overtly refer to the functionality of a thing. A person missing his wisdom teeth is not an intact person, to the same level that a person missing his foreskin isn’t an intact person (I happen to be non-intact in both ways).
I kind of wrote off the cuff for this response so if I was unclear about anything, or you have more questions, please let me know.
Ross
August 26th, 2011 - 13:38
Ross,
Thank you for the thoughtful reply.
I think we’re on the same page–I think you are right about how the term is (mis)used. (Although, I will have to think more carefully about the relationship between intact-ness and functionality. I do agree that they are not as directly linked as my previous statement implied, but I tend to think that they are more related than you seem to imply in your last point.)
As an interesting side point–
I am “intact” both tooth-wise and penis-wise (and qua man!), and although I like my penis very much and have never been even remotely ashamed of it for being “different” (in the lockerroom or elsewhere), I have always thought that circumcised penises look better visually/aesthetically. So while I think that circumcision is generally monstrous and barbaric, is a terrible crime against children (with the exception of legitimate medical circumstances you mentioned), and therefore the illegitimate practice should really be referred to as male genital mutilation to prevent whitewashing it, I can relate to appreciating the bright side of having a better-looking penis (for those who also think so).
Ultimately, though, I think that to have been circumcised *is* to be lacking something valuable in a very real way, but certainly not in any way that reflects on man-ness, masculinity, or completeness qua human.
August 26th, 2011 - 14:38
Hey Arthur,
I ought to be thanking you for the thoughtful replies. I agree with pretty much everything you’ve said including, I think, your thoughts on the definition of “intact.”
As far as your thoughts on the aesthetic appeal of the circumcised penis vs. the uncircumcised penis, I’m unsure of my opinion as I find neither to be particularly aesthetically appealing. I also think that this issue is complicated because I think that circumcised penises look more uniform whereas the intact penis varies quite a bit. This variation is even more pronounced when you consider the difference between the erect and flaccid intact penis. Nevertheless, I appreciate your opinion.
March 8th, 2012 - 02:19
Most boys in the US are circumcised and as they move into juonir high and high school, they shower together. Some boys feel strongly about wanting to fit in and therefore like being circumcised. This may have been true for our generation, when circumcision was routine, but I’m sure if you fact checked you would find that it’s close to 50/50 now. So no, most’ boys are not circumcised now a days. As for the fitting in, if another boy is making fun of my son for being intact, I’m sure my boy (& the others) will wonder why he is looking at their penis’. Who won’t fit in then? Honestly, i don’t understand what the debate about circumcision is, we don’t cut off any other healthy body parts, even ones that may one day cause medical issues, why do we cut off foreskin?Where does it end? Some studies show that circumcision reduces the risk of urinary tract infections, perhaps meningitis and it lowers the risk of penile cancer. Studies show that having an appendectomy will lower the risk of appendicitis, let’s start doing that at birth too!And tonsils, what about that? They get infected, probably better to cut those out. I bet it will be easier at birth, going by your logic!Cutting of viable, healthy body parts to prevent medical issues that may’ arise sounds silly when you look at it that way. Why would foreskin be different?Did you know that 100% of botched circumcisions are preventable by not circumcising!!? I often leave the decision about circumcision of sons to the father. Many fathers have strong opinions and I feel that it is important to honor those decisions. Funny, i feel that we should leave important choices about someone’s body up to the person that owns the body, not someone else. Their body, THEIR choice.Little boys are born PERFECT, leave them that way!