Is circumcising baby boys a good or bad choice?

Bad

1 of 20

by Stephen Jerome

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

I oppose circumcision because it is a violation of the body. The foreskin serves a function. It protects the head of the penis, keeping it more sensitive. The circumcised penis tends to have more layers of skin to protect it since it is no longer protected by the foreskin, thereby reducing its sensitivity. More important, circumcisions usually result in the amputation of much or even all of the frenulum, as well as the ridged bands. The frenulum is nerve rich tissue. The ridged bands add stimulation. The amputation of these parts of the penis results in the loss of sensual pleasures.

The outer surface of the foreskin is skin; the inner surface is a sensitive mucosal membrane which contains sebaceous glands that lubricate and protect the glans from friction. Many circumcised men complain that their glans becomes too sensitive as it rubs against clothing. The foreskin is tethered by the frenulum, which stops it retracting too far and draws it forward again. The foreskin is filled with nerve endings called stretch receptors. These nerve endings fire when they are stretched, rolled, or massaged. When a parent allows his son to be circumcised, he is depriving the boy of pleasurable sensations which can never be recovered.

In the past, when sex was a taboo subject and there was little mass communication, there was almost no talk of men telling their experiences with adult circumcision. This has changed in this era of television and sexual openness. We are now learning of men who were circumcised as adults and who complain about diminished sexual sensations.

In all fairness, not all men who have had adult circumcisions complain about the results. Many of them are satisfied. However, a huge number of men who were circumcised as adults complain of sexual side effects and the loss of pleasurable sensations, so it can not be ignored. If this is what can happen, is it not each male's right to decide whether to risk losing these feelings? I strongly think so.

This is not to say that sex with a circumcised penis is not enjoyable. Of course it is. Circumcised men certainly enjoy sex. But how much better would it be if the man had an intact frenulum and ridged bands. How much stronger and more varied would the pleasurable sensations be if he were uncut? One man compared the difference between sex with and without a foreskin to a movie with Technicolor versus black & white.

Routine circumcision in English speaking countries came about during the Victorian era, when sex was seen as a bad thing which should be restricted to procreation. Circumcision was touted as a method of discouraging sex and masturbation. (Kellogg's Corn Flakes was also touted as a method of discouraging masturbation. It obviously did not work, but it did make Kellogg's a very wealthy cereal company.) The practice got a boost in World War I, when soldiers in the trenches, with little access to hygiene, were susceptible to penile infections. The practice began to decline in the United States in the 1930's, only to become almost universal with World War II.

While circumcision has fallen in disfavor in Great Britain after their health care systems stopped paying for them, it remained universal in the United States (90 to 95%) until the 1970's, when the American Medical Association came to realize that it was not necessary. Rates have declined ever since. Now with revelations of the sexual consequences, the rates have fallen to just over 50% here, while in Canada and Australia, rates are down to about 10% or less.

What about the so-called health claims, such as penile cancer and urinary tract infections? The fact is that in Sweden and Denmark, where circumcision is rare, the rates of these diseases is no higher than in the United States, where circumcision is widespread. What about phimosis (foreskins to tight to open)? In the past, circumcision was recommended. Today, most doctors (particularly in Europe) advise using conservative therapy and only recommend circumcision in the very few cases where nothing else works.

What about AIDS and circumcision? In southern Africa, where AIDS has become such a scourge, circumcision is now being considered as an effective preventative. However, while it may be appropriate in South Africa, it is not appropriate in places which do not have catastrophically high incidents of AIDS. In fact, even among those advocating circumcision in Africa, there is almost no call for it to be practiced in other parts of the world.

But what about the high rate of AIDS in the United States? The overwhelming majority of cases of AIDS in the United States are related to male homosexual sex or drug use. Studies show that circumcision is not a major factor in homosexual transmission, since it is almost exclusively related to anal sex. Therefore, even in the United States, AIDS does not justify routine circumcision of males.

Since I am Jewish, permit me to deal with some Jewish issues. Certainly, I am well aware of the long history of circumcision in Jewish tradition and practice. But being a Jewish mitzvah does not take an otherwise wrong practice and make it right. Likewise, tradition does not make a bad thing good.

But what about the fact that according to Torah, it is a commandment from God? If a person truly believes that the Torah is God's word, and believes that God actually commanded the Jews to circumcise their sons, there is nothing one can say. But realistically, outside of the Ultra Orthodox, very few Jews really believe that God made such an order, or that the Torah is really the direct word of God? Many do not even believe in God. It makes no sense to reject all of the other rituals and practices of Judaism, yet slavishly insist on cutting the genitals of one's sons and removing sensual tissue simply because it is a Jewish practice or ritual.

Ironically, even if one takes the Torah as true, the practice of circumcision in the days of the bible is very different from that which has been practiced in later years. Up until the Hellenistic period, circumcision meant cutting the end of the foreskin. When the Greeks ruled ancient Judea and introduced nude games, many Jewish men actually engaged in a primitive form of foreskin restoration so as to not stand out and be embarrassed. It apparently became so popular among young Jewish males that in order to prevent the practice, the religious leaders now demanded that circumcisions become much tighter, completely removing the entire foreskin.

In this day and age, is circumcision ever appropriate? Certainly it is. There will always be a very few men who develop medical conditions in which circumcision is unavoidable. (Likewise, there are rare cases when tonsils become badly infected and must be removed. Yet tonsils are no longer routinely removed.) Also, there are adult males who for whatever reason, choose to have themselves circumcised. But this is of their own free will. If a male Jewish or otherwise is healthy, let him make the circumcision decision on his own when he is old enough to make an informed choice. Let us not force irreversible surgery with sexual consequences on an infant.

Learn more about this author, Stephen Jerome.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.