On circumcision

For those who don’t know, circumcision is the removal of the foreskin from the shaft of the penis, at least as it relates to males. Female circumcision, otherwise known as clitorodotomy, is a wholly abhorrent practice, but well outside my current frame of knowledge, so I will not discuss it further. Male circumcision is something I am generally opposed to, though I will discuss some exceptions to my opposition.

The vast majority of men in the world are not circumcised. I am against the term “uncircumcised” for two reasons. First, it implies that circumcision is the norm, which is statistically wrong. Second, the prefix “un” in some applications implies the reversal of an action, such as “undo,” and no one should interpret someone who is uncircumcised as one who has had foreskin restoration surgery. This surgery, by the way, is an option for men with the inclination and financial resources, but its benefits are questionable, as well as its likeness to the original. Instead of “uncircumcised,” men who have not been circumcised should be referred to as “intact.”

The head of the penis is medically known as the glans. Strictly speaking, the glans does not have any skin on it, whether the penis is circumcised or not. What appears to be skin is really a mucous membrane, cellularly similar to the interior of a mouth (but obviously with some important differences). In men who are circumcised, this membrane dries out, giving it the appearance and tactile sensation of skin. In men who are intact, the membrane remains moist and tactilely sensitive. Try an experiment sometime: turn the inside of your cheek out so that it is exposed to air for a few minutes. Let it get nice and dry. Then touch it with your finger. Notice that you can’t feel your finger that well. When you put your cheek back and allow it to moisten, you can feel it much better. That is what happens to the glans in circumcised men.

The foreskin is the layer of skin that covers the shaft and the glans of the penis in intact men (and all men, before they are circumcised, if such a thing happens to them). New research is published all the time on this unique anatomical region, but the short of it is that the foreskin is full of highly specialized sensory cells called stretch receptors. They have been given this name because when the foreskin is stretched, pulled, and moved, they transmit very strong signals that the brain interprets as pleasure. The glans and shaft also have lots of sensitive nerves, or else circumcised men might not ever reach orgasm, but only intact men retain their stretch receptors.

In modern Christian-dominated nations, circumcision is a surgical procedure, usually done on a baby boy shortly after birth. It astounds me beyond reason that parents feel justified in having a part of their son’s body taken off. Most boys therefore grow up not knowing they once had foreskin, and probably not missing it. It should also be noted that anesthesia is rarely used, unless the parents insist on it (and pay for it). Surely, it must be an unpleasant experience, but since people don’t remember such early life moments, it is forgotten. I imagine snipping off the earlobes or some other “non-essential” body part must produce a similar sensation.

The reasons why circumcision has become so common are many. Religion has played a large role, with Christians, Muslims and Jews being the principle players. Hindus, Buddhists, and most other religions do not traditionally circumcise their boys. The religious motivation for this is simple: eliminate the source of pleasure and thereby reduce the likelihood of sin. Obviously, they can’t go for the whole penis or the population of Christians, Muslims, and Jews would dwindle dramatically. But removing the foreskin lets the functional organ remain while reducing the pleasure it can provide.

Another reason is perceived cleanliness. The glans of an intact man is a moist, warm, dark environment, unquestionably inviting to various bacteria. This is true, in the same way that vaginas are hosts to bacteria, both beneficial and detrimental. In the days before men took showers on a regular or semi-regular basis, the rates of penile infection were probably much higher than they are today. Yeast and fungal infections, and surely things far more serious, were likely not uncommon. But today, an intact man is expected to pull back his foreskin in the shower and rinse with soap and warm water. This keeps the glans pristine and pleasant, like any other body part. Some people are negligent with respect to personal hygiene, but this is no reason to expect your son to be.

Another reason is the now disproved threat of cancer. For many years, researchers reported lower rates of penile cancer in circumcised men than in intact men. The data supporting this have since been shown to be flawed and it is fairly well established that there is no difference in rates of cancer between these two groups.

Another reason is likeness to the father. Fathers often selfishly think: I want my son to look like me. Or they think that he will be teased in the locker room at school if he is not “like the other boys.” Well, he might be if other kids somehow see his penis. But raise your hand if you had a carefree adolescent experience; no one comes out of that period unscathed. Any intact man will be thanking his parents by the time he’s 25, or else he will have arranged to have the operation performed.

Another reason is the apparent reduction in the probably of contracting HIV. Statistical research in Africa has recently shown that circumcised men are less likely to get HIV. Like with cancer, this may in the future prove to be flawed, or it may be true. I have not read an explanation as to why this is, but perhaps it is because the foreskin retains fluids from a sexual partner by trapping them between the inner foreskin and the glans, where they can then enter the body via the urethra. But it also must be understood that practices in Africa, where sexual education is very poor and the rates of HIV in the populace are very large, do not suggest an ideal model for basing decisions about circumcising American infants.

Some reasons for circumcision are legitimate. For example, if a man does contract penile cancer, and this cancer is localized the foreskin, then it is far better to lose the foreskin than let the cancer metastasize and kill him. There are even legitimate cosmetic reasons. If a grown man of legal age to authorize physical changes to his body decides for whatever personal reason that he wishes to be circumcised, then fine. Perhaps it relates to his self-image, his sexual identity, his psychological well-being, or his modeling opportunities. The important factor is that the decision is made by him, as a mature, informed adult, not by his parents.

Parents have no right to make such a decision on behalf of their son, unless for solid medical reasons. Would any hospital agree to earlobe removal at birth? Perhaps the tip of the nose could be snipped off as well, just for good measure. The crux of this issue is that parents too often say yes to circumcision out of ignorance, imaginary evils, and selfishness. For parents who have already acted out of ignorance and imaginary evils, I can only hope that something valuable has been learned and that it has prevented further misfortunes. For those who acted out of selfishness, I feel sorry for you; you have much yet to understand.

What is done is done, and a great many intact men surely feel a pang of sadness for their brothers in the other camp. But many more boys are yet to be born, and it is of utmost importance that parents make the right the decision. As parents, when the time comes, you must allow your son’s body to remain intact. If he chooses to alter himself at some later date, the decision should be his and his alone. Do not choose for him; the issue is not cut and dry, so to speak.

Share this post on:

 •    •    •    •    •