by Dick Gilkeson
About a month ago my five-year-old son finally asked why his penis
is different from mine.
Fewer and fewer men are simply opting to have their
sons circumcised "because we are." It is no longer, if it ever truly
was, a strictly medical procedure. We now know that the practice does
not curtail masturbation, and that doctors have a large financial
stake in keeping this unnecessary surgery going.
Historically, these kinds of rationalizations and
peer pressure seemed to be what drove the practice in the U.S. "Hygiene"
has most often been the reason for this procedure; however, that excuse
presumes that we males are too ignorant to wash our genitals.
With so few documented medical reasons for this
practice, it is hard to imagine how we reached the point as a nation
where 85% of our boys were regularly circumcised at the peak of cutting
in 1980. It remains the second most frequently performed operation
in this country today, directly involving 58% of our boys. These statistics
are very confounding when one considers that in Great Britain, by
contrast, only one percent of the males currently undergo this ritual
cutting. The reality is that we are the last major nation on Earth
to engage in widespread nonreligious circumcision.
Circumcision is one of the oldest operations on
record. The Egyptians performed it more than 5000 years ago. The Hebraic
practice is believed to have originated with Abraham, who circumcised
himself at age 99 following a divine revelation. He then circumcised
his son Ishmael and all the males of his household, including his
slaves. When Isaac was born, he was circumcised on the eighth day
- creating the sacred ritual still followed today.
Those who take the Bible literally are unlikely
to be swayed by current thinking. I can understand their reluctance
to abandon the practice in light of the passage in Genesis 17:10 that
states:
"This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and
thy seed after thee: Every man child among you shall be circumcised."
It must be truly difficult for the very small minority
of Jewish people who are currently breaking with their tradition by
creating alternative bris support groups. Their circumcision ceremonies
are being conducted as tradition has dictated, but without cutting.
Moslems have a culturally defined use for circumcision
as well as a religious one. Moslem boys are routinely circumcised
at age 12 as a rite of puberty. This ritual cutting is also delayed
in several other cultures to test the males' ability to withstand
pain, and thus demonstrate their readiness to become adults. Body
mutilations of young males still abound around the world. Most lead
to further desensitizing of young males as part of creating brave
men.
I say it's time to rethink the purposes served by
the binding of feet, knocking out of teeth, piercing of noses, lips,
and ears, excising of clitorises, and mutilating of male foreskins.
Can it possibly be that we need violence to teach us not to do violence?
Surely that is not the case in the most criminally violent country
in the world.
Our tradition has not always existed. Actually,
among the non-Jewish population in this country, prior to 1920, the
circumcised male was the exception. This changed dramatically in the
20's and 30's. After World War II the practice became almost universal
for newborn males.
We are told on page 37 in Love's Body by Norman O. Brown,
that the piece of flesh that is cut is "the size of a quarter, containing
more than three million cells, twelve feet of nerves, one hundred
sweat glands, fifty nerve endings, three feet of blood vessels...
and [the] penis's own personal lubrication... An essentially internal
organ [has been] made permanently external with the drying out and
desensitization that accompanies any moist, sensitive skin adapting
itself to frequent contact with an often abrasive world."
Dr. Thomas Ritter, a writer on this subject, tells
us that the exposed glans becomes dry, less purple-red, less smooth,
less expansive, develops a layer of keratin, and is less sensitive.
This makes it easy for me to accept reports where men circumcised
as adults describe their sexual pleasure as having been dramatically
decreased. They felt that their penises began to toughen, not unlike
callouses on our hands, and they felt like they were "wearing a glove."
They described their sexual experience as shifting from color to black
and white. They felt their foreskins had protected their glans and
provided a great deal more sexual stimulation to that exposed area
during sex play and intercourse prior to their surgery.
Do we really want this for our sons? Let's look at the arguments:
The foreskin serves a definite purpose. It is nature's
way of protecting the sensitive glans from irritating urine or feces.
It also protects our urinary opening from becoming susceptible to
ulcers, inflammation, or narrowing.
The American Academy of Pediatrics has stated that
there is no medical reason to circumcise a baby. Arguments relating
to hygiene are unfounded in my experience, and in the vast majority
of the population. I can barely remember the couple of times in my
son Kyle's five years that I had to put cream on his penis because
he had a minor infection. Infections which may or may not have been
related to having a foreskin.
Actually, the problem of painful erections is far
more common among males who have had too much tissue removed in their
circumcisions, rather than among uncircumcised males.
This operation, like all such operations, could
cause death, infection or hemorrhage; too much skin could be removed,
or, not enough mucous membrane, or so forth depending on the skill
of the person with the knife. That it may cause psychic damage is
apparent in the emergence of foreskin restoration clinics where men
are able to regain their natural covering by stretching or grafting
to overcome their foreskin obsession and again become "completely
male."
We used to believe that circumcision did not hurt
male babies because they were so easily comforted when hugged or suckled
immediately following the cutting. Now it seems clear that this mutilation
is very painful. Just ask anyone who has heard their baby scream at
the moment of cutting. A baby can't be given general anesthesia, and
local anesthesia distorts the area too much for successful surgery.
One argument against circumcision is that, "He'll
look different than his father and many of his peers." With 42% of
newborns currently keeping their foreskins, it's not clear who will
look different than whom. As far as my son knowing he looks different
from me - he has blue eyes. I have green. He'll likely have little
body hair. I have plenty.
And so forth. It was certainly no big deal for my
son when we talked about our differences. I believe this one is way
overplayed.
Regarding cleanliness - circumcision is credited
with removing the need to regularly cleanse smegma, a normal accumulation
of penile secretions and naturally shedded skin cells, from the foreskin.
Unchecked buildup of smegma may cause irritation and even a painful
infection of the foreskin called balanitis.
This one too is overplayed. Very little extra effort
is needed to remove smegma in the case of uncircumcised males. During
baths the smegma should be simply wiped from the tip. This advice
also applies when white "pearls" or lumps of smegma appear under the
foreskin, indicating that normal separation of foreskin and glans
is occuring.
One other reason given for cutting has been that
it corrects phimosis, (from the Greek word meaning "muzzling"), a
condition where the foreskin cannot be retracted over the glans. This
condition, however, rarely causes problems except in very unusual
circumstances such as when urination is blocked or erections are painful.
Usually even when these dysfunctions occur they may be relieved with
remedies less painful than circumcision.
One other potential problem related to uncircumcised
males is called paraphimosis. Here a tight foreskin, if forcibly retracted,
may get stuck behind the glans, trapping blood and causing swelling.
Normally even this condition may be relieved well short of circumcision.
On balance, I believe, there is little to recommend
circumcision for the population in general. Given that belief and
my own and my wife's decision to leave Kyle uncut, here is some advice
for other fathers (and mothers) who have, or will have, uncut sons:
THE FORESKIN OF AN INTACT BOY SHOULD NEVER BE PULLED
BACK because it is attached to the glans and the opening is typically
only big enough for urination. It will work its way back naturally.
In most boys this occurs by age three or four, but it may gradually
occur all the way until a male is about eighteen years old. Even at
eighteen if the foreskin is not fully retractable but no discomfort
accompanies erections, nothing needs to be done. If this condition
is somewhat painful, gradual stretching or a small dorsal slit are
often all that are needed. A general regular washing of the penis
does not require retracting the foreskin since the natural penis is
well "packaged" like one's tongue and keeps itself clean.
Forcing the foreskin back may not only cause pain
and bleeding, but also scarring. This may result in a foreskin that
does not stretch normally, a condition called adhesions, which may
need to be treated medically.
Most problems now arise from over-fastidiousness.
The natural secretions are intended as aids in intercourse and other
functions; so, the best advice is to wash as needed and let nature
take its course.
Most of what we are given at birth serves a useful
function. Who among us really believes we can improve significantly
on the functionality nature has endowed us with? Do we really believe
we can fool mother nature?
As you can tell, I have become quite biased regarding
this issue after having reviewed a sampling of the available literature.
Apparently the major insurance companies agree with my position as
very few are now covering the costs of this "unnecessary surgery."
Their reluctance, and not articles such as mine, is currently the
primary reason that the incidence of this practice is declining.