I was watching Penn & Teller: Bullshit on Monday, and the topic under the knife (hyuck hyuck) was circumcision. Essentially it dealt with the medical, historical, ethical and religious reasons for circumcising baby boys. For anyone who is not entirely sure what circumcising entails, it means: cutting off the foreskin of the penis.

This began as a wholly religious symbol practiced by Jews, as a convenent with God that acts as a symbol for His chosen people, a symbol of purity. For Roman Catholics and the Anglican Church, Circumcision is actually a feast celebrating the circumcision of Jesus on January 1st. And since we all know JC was a Jew, and Jews are circumcised 8 days after their birth, then we now know why New Year's is so groovy, right?

But seriously, is circumcision genital mutilation? Today it is common practice now as a "sanitary measure" in modern surgery. But I think it is genital mutilation and here's why:

So circumcision began with the Jews as a symbol of purity. And as we all know, religion really likes to make sex an act of filthy animalistic desire. So I think it safe to assume that removing the foreskin of a penis is a way to remove the male's sexual desire. So there must be something to having a foreskin... now I am intrigued.

I researched foreskin, what it really is and its function in the male anatomy. I mean, I'm a married woman who's only ever had one sexual partner (my husband), and he's circumcised. I've never seen an "intact penis" until that episode of Penn & Teller: Bullshit!

So here's a list of the foreskin's function:

• Erogenuous Sensitivity: Apparently the foreskin is as sensitive as lips or fingertips, and it contains a richer variety and greater concentration of specialized nerve receptions than any part of the penis.
  
• Protection: According to NoHarmm.org, the foreskin maintains optimal warmth, pH balance, and cleanliness.
  
• Immunity: Eyelids are self-cleansing, right? Well, so is the foreskin. Glands in the foreskin produce an antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as lysozyme, as well as antibodies that defend against infection. However, this is not to suggest that males should not properly cleanse themselves in the shower. Heh.
  
• Sexual Function During Intercourse: pH balanced for a man, but made for a woman. One of the little known secrets about the foreskin is that it makes the shaft of the penis thicker and longer. So, when a boy is circumcised as a baby, as an adult he has lost a full 15 square inches of penile skin--which means the enjoyment of sex is significantly diminished when that amount of skin (with thousands of tiny nerve endings) is removed.
  

According to Penn & Teller circumcising became popular in the 1800s as a measure against masturbation and sexual activity. Now it's such a common practice that most Americans don't know what an intact penis looks like. So here's the most famous uncircumcised modern man that I could think of:


Click on the image to make it bigger. This is a picture of John Lennon & Yoko Ono on the album cover of Two Virgins. I don't think you can tell, but he is intact. There is an anecdote I read about this album cover, "'I am old enough to remember when Two Virgins hit record stores. I was surprised by the cover and exclaimed, "John Lennon is uncircumcused!' to which the female record employee replied, 'Oh, so that's what's wrong with it.'" I think that illustrates the popular asethetic opinion of the male penis. It's so common now to circumcise that most Americans don't even know what an uncircumcised penis with an intact foreskn looks like, and so it's "ugly" and so we keep cutting them off.

The most informative, and highly researched, website I found on the topic is called, "Antonin's Anti-Circumcision Page" written by a mother who opted not to cut her child. Here are the two most provocactive arguments against some the most common reasons for circumcision (all of which are found on the webpage):

1. God commands it in the Christian Bible:
If you read the Bible, you'll notice that circumcision is mentioned five times. The first four times are all in Genesis. They are all pro-circumcision. The last time it is mentioned is in the book of Galatians, chapter five verse two "Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." In the Christian religion, Jesus is considered the final sacrifice to erase all humankind's sin. Therefore, there is no reason why any Christian baby should be circumcised for religious reasons.

2. It's dirty:
Most people unfamiliar with the intact penis love to argue, "but circumcising makes it cleaner and easier to care for!" This fallacy doesn't hold water, and here's why. First, the foreskin itself is the primary barrier against dirt and bacteria entering into the penis. When a baby is circumcised not only does he lose his natural protection, he has a raw wound that is constantly in contact with the urine and feces in his diaper. Second, an intact infant needs no special care. Trust me, I've been changing Antonin's diapers since day one. You do not retract his foreskin. If you are told to do so then the person telling you is in error. Remember that the person who tells you to do so does not want to hurt your son. Chances are good they really care about your child and are just unaware that an infants' foreskin is not yet ready to slide back like an adult.

In addition to the arguments against removing the foreskin, here are 5 common myths about circumcision (also conveniently listed on the previous website--as a sidenote, she has links to all of the claims as footnotes from her sources which I did not include here):

1. Circumcision prevents penile cancer.
Twelve studies have shown this to be untrue. According to the American Cancer Society, circumcision is not a preventative for penile cancer. It is one of the rarest cancers, occurring in 1-2 out of every 100,000 men in the United States. A person has the same chance of dying from a snake bite or bee sting as he does of suffering from penile cancer. The chance of actually dying from penile cancer is even smaller. The ACS estimates that 270 American men will die from penile cancer in 2005. Men actually have a greater chance of being diagnosed with breast cancer than penile cancer. It was also once believed that smegma was the cause of penile cancer. Researchers now know this to be untrue; studies have clearly shown there is nothing carcinogenic about smegma.

2. Circumcising your son will prevent UTIs (Urinary tract infections).
This misinformation is based on a flawed 1986 study performed by a pro-circumcision Army doctor. Dr. Wiswell conducted research on 400,000 infants, including girls. His study found that uncircumcised babies have a 1% chance of acquiring a UTI compared to the under 1% of circumcised. However his study was flawed in that he instructed parents to retract their sons' foreskins, taking away its protection and letting potentially harmful bacteria enter the meatus. Another thing worth noting is that newborns are more likely to have a UTI from bacteria that are already present in the bloodstream if enough of those bacteria happens to filter through the kidneys.

3. Circumcision is painless.
This is another case of doctors turning a blind eye and deaf ear toward what is clearly suffering. Babies undergoing circumcision scream, their blood pressure and heart rates increase. Some go into severe shock, and lapse into a semi-comatose state. It is also becoming better known that not only do newborns feel pain, they feel it more intensely and quickly than adults. Even light touches can register as pain for the newborn, whose nervous system isn't fully developed.

4. Babies do not remember the surgery.
It has been documented that infants circumcised without anesthesia experience more pain when they later have their inoculations. There is no doubt circumcision is extremely painful; why shouldn't the infant learn to associate extreme pain with other medical procedures?

5. It is a risk free procedure.
Besides the loss of functioning tissue and lifelong scarring there are many other complications that can arise from circumcisions. Cases of newborns losing their entire penis and being forced to undergo intensive drug therapy to live as girls is one example. Boys have also died from related infections.


More facts I found:

American Academy of Pediatrics states, "There is no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period."

It popularly believed that removing the foreskin helps prevent STDs, HIV and AIDS. But that's not true. The World Health Organization published an article stating that unsafe sex is the primary mode of transmission of HIV.

So, I think circumcising is just another way to punish human sexuality, which should be a beautiful thing. (Nothing against Jewish folks because that's a religion and a culture where one of their main symbols as a people is circumcision, and that should be regarded as sacred.) However, blindly circumcising baby boys in today's society just does not make sense in the face of all the evidence. I mean, most people would not undergo cosmetic surgery themselves, and yet most males born in America during the last half of the century have had cosmetic surgery forced upon them by uninformed parents. What's worse: some of the parents didn't even have a choice, as circumcision used to be an automatic procedure in hospitals.

Most people are disgusted about female genital mutilation, but circumcision is so common now in the United States that it's not usually thought of as male genital mutilation. Luckily, we can say no and we can stop blindly following societal trends.


Resources I Consulted:

1. American Academy of Pediatrics statments on circumcision
   
2. Antonin's Anti-Circumcision Page
   
3. Foreskin by Wikipedia
   
4. Male Sexual Anatomy by Paul Russo
   
5. Prevalence of Urinary Tract Infection in Febrile Young Children in the Emergency Department
   
6. The Foreskin is Necessary by NoHarmm
   
7. World Health Organization: Expert group stresses that unsafe sex is primary mode of transmission of HIV in Africa
   

( 5comments )

at April 29, 2005 4:01 AM  Lady Calliah said...

Amen! My son was not, 1) because his dad isn't and 2) there was no WAY I was doing that to an unanesthetised baby! I can't believe people still do it (including my closest family members UGH), and I apppreciate you taking the time to edcate yourself and then others! Nice job!!

 

at April 29, 2005 10:51 PM  Ish said...

Excellent article, Sam.

Its too late for me, alas, but its definitely something I wanted to look into if I ever had a son.

 

at May 1, 2005 2:41 AM  Nicoli Ivanovich said...

As for the cleanliness issue. Uncircumsized boys have a tendancy not to clean their foreskin. Which results in that funky odor you most commonly smell on foreign exchange students.

As for it removing 15 square inches...I don't think foreskin is that large in square area. It also wouldn't have anything to do with length. But gurth it would affect.

I myself am circumsized. And raised in the Christian faith. I believe that it is not neccessary. But does improve ones hygene.

Sheman

 

at May 1, 2005 11:59 AM  Samantha said...

That's precisely it: if uncircumcised men have the tendancy to not properly clean themselves, then that's their own fault. Or perhaps their parents' fault since they never taught their sons proper hygiene.

 

at July 26, 2005 8:45 PM  Reneé said...

I saw you used my anti-circ website, http://www.huluhae.com/antonin&anticirc.html That's cool, I don't mind, just glad you gave me credit by linking to it.

I'm updating it with new information, and would appreciate your updating this as well when that's done. I don't want people reading misinformation if I can help it.

~Nay